Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[kjw47]

John 20:17, ( Back in heaven-Revelation 3:12)
John 17:3--Jesus clearly tells all--The one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) 26= YHVH(Jehovah)
The Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name=YHVH(Jehovah) the Father.) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
It all originates with The Father. One must go through Jesus to get to the Father To accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24
Collosians 1:15-- The FIRSTBORN of all creation)= created direct first and last) All other things creaed through the being whocame to be called Jesus on earth= Gods master worker. He speaks at Proverbs 8. It is not God speaking.

Yes God was speaking to the one by his side, his Masterworker. The one whom he created allother things through.

John 20:17, ( Back in heaven-Revelation 3:12)
John 17:3--Jesus clearly tells all--The one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) 26= YHVH(Jehovah)
The Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name=YHVH(Jehovah) the Father.) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
It all originates with The Father. One must go through Jesus to get to the Father To accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24
Collosians 1:15-- The FIRSTBORN of all creation)= created direct first and last) All other things creaed through the being whocame to be called Jesus on earth= Gods master worker. He speaks at Proverbs 8. It is not God speaking.

Hi JW Minister, and welcome to the forum! I appreciate your answer to thread theme.




No, he couldn’t possibly be referring to the Father at all.

Remember, in the OP I asked Trinitarians to accept, for the sake of argument, that the WT’s “a god” translation was correct. If I go along with what you posted here then the Jews are about to stone Jesus for mistakenly believing Jesus was claiming he and the Father were one God and not one “god”.

Let’s go back to our now “correct” New World Translation:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT

As you can see, we immediately run into our first problem: Blasphemy.

The NWT uses a small "g" but the Jews believe the Father is “God”, not “a god”. If Jesus is saying he’s “a god” then he doesn’t get stoned…he’s “a god” just like the emperor, lots of angels, the corrupt Judges of Israel, and many other “powerful people”. Making yourself "a god" is not a blasphemy.

This is born out at JW.ORG:

View attachment 45688​

Blasphemy only occurs when you abuse Jehovah's name, and Jehovah is not "a god" but God.

So if the Jews are mistakenly stoning Jesus for abuse of Jehovah’s name, they are stoning him for making himself God, not “a god” because only the Father is God, at least that’s what the WT tells us. Yet that cannot be possible, for the NWT states, very clearly, that they are stoning Jesus for making himself “a god” rather than “God”.

So, as a Trinitarian sitting in on a free bible study, what we need are bible verses that support rather than assail our new, WT approved, truthful “a god” translation.

Can you help us out and retire this first problem for us?

Jesus isnt the Father--He spoke-- Our Father, who art in heaven. Its who he prayed to-His God-John 20:17, Rev 3:12-- Most refuse to believe Jesus over the errors taught for centuries.

 

[Clear]

1) THE THEORY THAT THE WORD "CHARACTER" IN LEVITICUS 13:28 MEANS "EXACT CHARACTER" OR "EXACT REPRESENTATION"

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste replied ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”


Clear then pointed out that Oeste was unable to even use the “exactness” of “leviticus 13” to tell the difference between simple eczema and leprosy. Instead, Oeste turned, NOT to leviticus, but to modern medical literature.

Leviticus’ description of a “Character” (Greek χαρακτηρ) does not tell the priest “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”.

Oeste, do you want to try again? I can describe another Χαρακτηρ I saw on someone elses' skin last Friday and you can try again to use Leviticus 13s ‘exact” description to differentiate the skin lesion from leprosy for readers?



Oeste said : "...in post #763 you mention, on multiple occasions, the “single greek word "Χαρακτηρ” as if to imply this necessitates a single word counterpart in English:

This is incorrect.
A single word “Character” means “Character”.
It does not mean “good character” or “bad Character” or “stubborn character” or “exact character” until you add the adjectives "goog", "bad" or "stubborn" or "exact".
It is the same in Koine greek. The single word “Character” simply means “Character.”

We have no example in all the vast amount of early Greek literature where “Character” means “stubborn character” or “bad character” or “exact character” without the addition of an adjective.

This is why your theory that “Character” should be translated as “exact Character” fails.
The use of language is against your theory.
The many examples from early Greek literature where "character" means "character" is against your theory.
You have no data from any early literature supporting your theory of translation.
Thus your theory fails.


2) IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF LIKING OR DISLIKING WORDS

1) Oeste asked : "Why not come out and explain why you don't like "exact"?

This is a strange question. It's like asking why one doesn't like the word "green".
I neither "like" nor dislike the word "exact".
Similarly, I do not "like" nor "dislike" the adjectives "ragged" or "quick" or "shaking". They are merely words.
However none of them are in Hebrews 1:3.
If you claimed the word "Character" in Hebrews 1:3 actually meant "the ragged character of his person" or "the quick character of his person" or the shaking character of his person" I would have had the same disagreement.
None of these words or meanings are found in Hebrews 1:3.
But that doesn't mean I either "like" or "dislike" these words.

I can however explain why I think such errors in the biblical text can create theological problems as per the example below.


3) GODS NATURE AND CHARACTER CANNOT BE EXACTLY LIKE JESUS PHYSICAL NATURE AND PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

Clear pointed out problems with Oestes theory that the single word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 means God has the exact same Nature and Characteristics as Jesus.
If God has EXACTLY the same nature and Characteristics as Jesus, then :
If Jesus gets tired doing physical work, then God can become tired doing physical work.
If Jesus is ignorant of certain facts, then God is ignorant of certain facts.
If Jesus needs to sleep to function, then God needs sleep to function.
If Jesus must eat to stay alive, then God must eat to stay alive.
If Jesus is sent to do work by a greater being, then God must be sent to do work by a greater being.

I don't agree that God gets physically tired, or that God must sleep, or that God is ignorant of certain facts, or that God must eat, or that God is sent by a greater being to accomplish that beings will, etc.

I don't agree that God has EXACTLY the same characteristics and physical nature as the man Jesus (such as ignorance or physical limitations).

Clear
ειφυδρσισεω

 

[Melissa Fuentes]

John 1:1, The word (WAS) GOD. Jesus tells us that He will return to His Father (master). Being "one" with GOD is being in obedience. Accepting Jesus as the "son" of GOD, heart, soul, and mind, allows us to experience GOD personally. He doesn't need our names, our doctrine, or our alliances with earthly sect's. These things tear us away from GOD'S love and perfect gift, "through" Jesus, that allows us to have that relationship.

 

[Brian2]

John 20:17, ( Back in heaven-Revelation 3:12)
John 17:3--Jesus clearly tells all--The one who sent him( Father-John 5:30) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD. Verse 6=YHVH(Jehovah) 26= YHVH(Jehovah)

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
When we look at this we should not see it by itself as a sole indicator of what the Bible tells us about God.
I think I have showed places where it can be seen that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father being YHWH.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Adding words like "other" to the text does not change what the text actually tells us, it is just dishonest.
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
This passage also does not mean what at first glance it may appear to be saying.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 — As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So how many Lords are there? One. YHWH. That is why the OT tells us that YHWH is our Lord in many places.
Psalm 8:9 O Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!
Jesus is also called God in many places.
Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
Changing the text here to read that God is the throne of Jesus does not do anything but make God less than Jesus since the one sitting on the throne is greater than the throne. But of course it hides what the passage actually says.
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
And this from a monotheistic Jew.
And I could go on about other places where Jesus is called God by monotheistic Jews.
And we know that John 20:31 says,
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
But really all that tells us when combined with John 20:28 is the Jesus, the Son of God is the God of Thomas. That is what being the Son of God means.
The Son of course is the one sent by His Father and the Son is the one who submits to His Father but for the Son to be the Son of His Father, they both have the same nature.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
The Son and the Father are exactly alike, mirror images of each other and the Son shines with the same glory as the Father. This is when the OT tells us that nobody is like God and God will not give His glory to another. (Isa 42:8,Isa 46:9)
So after all this we may be able to see John 17:3 in a different light, a light that tells us that Jesus is part of the one God, the Father. This is why there is one King over Israel forever, YHWH, and Jesus is that King. This is why the OT tells us that YHWH is coming to judge the earth and John 5:23 tells us that the Father judges no one and other places in the NT tell us that Jesus is coming to judge the earth.

The Lords prayer--Hallowed be thy name=YHVH(Jehovah) the Father.) Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
It all originates with The Father. One must go through Jesus to get to the Father To accomplish this daily-John 4:22-24
Collosians 1:15-- The FIRSTBORN of all creation)= created direct first and last) All other things creaed through the being whocame to be called Jesus on earth= Gods master worker. He speaks at Proverbs 8. It is not God speaking.

Jesus as a man in all ways had a God and that God was and still is His Father (because Jesus is still a man).
But of course Psalm 22 tells us when Jesus Father became His God.
Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Jesus took the nature of a servant and learned obedience when He became a man. He stepped into the creation and that may be why Col 1:15 tells us that He is "of creation".
"Firstborn" does not mean "first one created" at Col 1:15 even if the Watch Tower wants you to believe that. "Firstborn" means heir and preeminent one. This can be seen in the OT, eg. Psalm 89, speaking of Jesus the man God found to anoint and sit on David's throne forever.
Ps 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn,
the highest of the kings of the earth.
Jesus has been appointed to be the human firstborn of creation. He is not created first, He is appointed. Through Jesus created all things and without Him nothing was created. (John 1:3) The New Testament tells us this in a number of places and all the Watch Tower can do about it is add to the Bible to change the meaning (adding "other" as they also do in the place where Jesus is said to have the name above all names)
That is says that things were created "through" Jesus does not change the fact that it says ALL things were created through Jesus. Did you know that the New Testament in a couple of places tells us that everything is "through the Father, God.
Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
There is no hint of lowly subcontractor there is there, but when it comes to Jesus, through means a helper.
In Proverbs 8 we see wisdom personified. This wisdom is a female who calls in the streets and lives with someone named Prudence etc so many do not see this as a personification of Wisdom. When it comes to those who see this as a personification of the Word, Jesus, and still are trinitarians, the translation may have something to do with it.
A more appropriate translation of Prov 8:22 is that the LORD possessed or got me instead of created me. Possessed or got is the meaning in other parts of Proverbs for the same word.
And in the next verse instead of "ages ago" or something like that the translation is "from everlasting I was set up". This makes sense because the Hebrew emphasises the long ages, thus causing it the be from everlasting. (similar to Micah 5:2 which has an emphasis on the time in the past thus making it likely it means from everlasting)
When was God without Wisdom.
But anyway with Prov 8 it would depend if it is about Jesus anyway.
What I have noticed is that there are places where YAHWEH says He was alone by Himself at the creation, eg
Isa 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
Psalm 102:25,26 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
This Psalm is speaking of God. Then in the New Testament that passage is applied to Jesus as if it was spoken by God about Jesus.
Heb 1:10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

Jesus is Jehovah and that passage is about Jehovah in the Psalm but the New World Translation does not translate "Lord" in verse 10 as "Jehovah". This is why any translation that uses the name of God, Yahweh or Jehovah in the New Testament leaves itself open to the charge of bias and dishonesty in translation. The choice of which place to use it or not has to be subjective in many places and therefore biased.

 

[Brian2]

God was speaking to someone when he said;

KJV Genesis 1:26-28
And God said, Let us make man in our image

[us] is an objective case of we,so se was speaking to his son as a helper of creation .

But really it all comes down to why is it important whether Jesus is god or the son of god? For one reason and one reason only salvation in having Jesus apply his ransom
to the bible believer.

The Churches of Christendom teaching Jesus is GOD and Jesus himself said:


New Living Translation
For no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them to me, and at the last day I will raise them up.

So here Jesus gives the plan for salvation ,no one can be saved by coming to Jesus
UNLESS the father draws that person to Jesus.

Now the reason its important as to the deity of Jesus is IF Jesus is the father then its Jesus who does the drawing out of a person to himself for salvation .

But on the other hand if Jehovah is the father and Jesus is his son then salvation can only come from Jehovah not Jesus, this is why this teaching that Jesus is himself GOD has been invented by devilish scribes.

Look at the verse again as to where salvation comes from at the beginning :

GOD'S WORD® Translation
People cannot come to me unless the Father who sent me brings them to me. I will bring these people back to life on the last day.

Jesus never would have mentioned the word father as being involved if he alone was the one saving a believer,Jehovahs Witnesses believe the father is Jehovah Jesus is the son that makes more sense when you read


Berean Study Bible
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

No one in the Churches of the world of Christendom has found Jesus why? because of the teaching that Jesus himself is the father,the only way a person can be saved is GOD himself chooses that person and he will draw him out of the world to Jesus there is no other way to be saved.

The Trinity teaching is teachings of Demons ,yes Demons teach doctrines

The Trinity does not teach that Jesus is the Father. It might teach that Jesus is in the Father (Just as Jesus said) and that the Father and Son are one and that if you see Jesus you see the father, but all this is teachings of Jesus. It might teach that the Father has the same nature as His Son, and that is a Bible teaching and why wouldn't a Father and Son have the same nature?

 

[metis]

Jesus isnt the Father--He spoke-- Our Father, who art in heaven. Its who he prayed to-His God-John 20:17, Rev 3:12

Why do you continue to repeat that lie after it has been explained to you over and over again that the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being God the Father? Common sense should even have taught you that since we have three names for them they cannot be exactly one and the same. Oh, I forgot that your Governing Body told you as such and then you swallowed it hook, line, & sinker.

I took Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, plus I've taught Catholic theology for 15 years now, and I can categorically say that you have been lied to by the GB if they taught you what you're been repeatedly posting on this. But this is what they do.

 

[Oeste]

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

I'm still not sure why you think "exactness" needs to be implied. It's implied at Hebrews 1:3, not in Leviticus. If you look at Strong's or any of the Lexicons and dictionaries I posted, you'll see χαρακτηρ has more than a single one word definition.

However I do see Leviticus 13 as helping a priest determine what lesions mark leprosy and what does not.

Clear then pointed out that Oeste was unable to even use the “exactness” of “leviticus 13” to tell the difference between simple eczema and leprosy. Instead, Oeste turned, NOT to leviticus, but to modern medical literature.

Well let's go back to what you actually asked:

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?​

​

First, it should be rather obvious that you never asked me to differentiate between eczema and leprosy. You asked me about leprosy, but never eczema.

Second, you are now a medical clinician who wants to use Leviticus to make a medical diagnosis of leprosy.

Third, you are asking me if I can help you do this.

However, as I have repeated several times, you cannot use Leviticus to make a medical diagnosis. You can make a spiritual one, but not a medical one. As a medical clinician, if you suspect leprosy then the only way you can make a definitive diagnosis is with a skin biopsy as per the Center of Disease Control guidelines and not with the book of Leviticus.

But I went further than that and gave you the CDC guidelines. I even explained that using Leviticus in your practice may increase your malpractice premiums.

So I helped you out on using Leviticus, but I went further than that when you suddenly injected eczema into the mix.

I explained that if you suspect leprosy, you are NOT going to make a diagnosis of eczema. Likewise, if you suspect eczema, you will NOT make a diagnosis of leprosy. Instead, if you're not sure you will diagnose your patient with a skin disorder, unspecified. I even gave you the ICD 10 number!:

Read the guidelines for leprosy above. As a "medical clinician" you should know them. Unless you have your own lab in house, you're going to have to wait for lab results to confirm your professional suspicion of leprosy. One thing you will NOT do is diagnose her with eczema while you're waiting. If you're not sure what it is, but you do suspect leprosy, you'll give your patient, at worse, a diagnosis of skin disorder, unspecified, or L98.9

I even went the extra mile and advised that if you're weighing one or the other diagnosis for your patient it's bound to raise a few eyebrows:

Diagnosing eczema when the patient has leprosy is not good for you or your firm's malpractice premiums. Likewise, neither is diagnosing leprosy when the patient has eczema. Even if you're a first year resident such an either or clinical decision is sure to raise a few eyebrows.

If that's not helping out, I don't know what is. But did I stop there? Nope, I went on, explaining that when you are a Levitical priest you are tasked with making a SPIRITUAL diagnosis of leprosy. With this SPIRITUAL diagnosis, you can tell exactly who is clean and unclean.

As a Levitical priest you will NOT make a MEDICAL diagnosis of eczema or a MEDICAL diagnosis of leprosy. Practicing medicine without a license is bound to raise your liability premiums once again.

Instead you consult a different set of guideline as found in the book of Leviticus.

Instead, Oeste turned, NOT to leviticus, but to modern medical literature.

Of course I did. If you’re a medical clinician could you give us any valid reason why you wouldn’t turn to medical literature?

 

[Oeste]

Oeste, do you want to try again? I can describe another Χαρακτηρ I saw on someone elses' skin last Friday and you can try again to use Leviticus 13s ‘exact” description to differentiate the skin lesion from leprosy for readers?

Ah no.

There are several reasons for this:

First, we would not be “trying again” to differentiate skin lesions from leprosy as there was no prior request for a differential diagnosis. You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. My reply is that they would not use Leviticus. That strawman is dead and buried. The only reason to bring it up again is to perform an autopsy.

Second, I strongly suspect you’re about to introduce new facts or criteria as if they were already there. This will allow you to build new strawmen into an imaginary scenario where you define and establish all the rules.

Admittedly this is just my unfounded suspicion. It’s possible you were not planning to do this but after two strawmen I think you’ll understand my reluctance to engage in that kind of story building. So I much rather stick to your original scenario: You’re a medical clinician looking to use Leviticus to diagnose leprosy (nothing else) in a young girl.

Third, χαρακτήρ is used as a mark from an engraver’s tool in Leviticus. It wasn’t until later that it came to mean an image, exact representation, or reproduction. Also it’s not being used as a metaphor in Leviticus so I’m not seeing it as corollary to Hebrews 1:3. So while χαρακτήρ is found in both verses it’s simply not being used the same way.


LEPROSY

“Leprosy” encompasses a wide variety of skin ailments in Leviticus. A Levitical priest makes a SPIRITUAL not a MEDICAL diagnosis. Using Leviticus, a priest will let you know if you meet the SPIRITUAL guidelines found there for leprosy.

A priest can do this with EXACTNESS because he’s looking to determine if you are spiritually CLEAN or UNCLEAN. Levitical priests do NOT determine if you have eczema nor do they differentiate between eczema and leprosy. Eczema is a medical and not a spiritual diagnosis.

Conversely, medical clinicians do not make SPIRITUAL but MEDICAL determinations. The criterion for leprosy is DIFFERENT for a medical clinician than it is for a Levitical priest. Biblically, leprosy is marked by a swelling of the skin, with crust and whitish patch, and the severity determined by the depth of the affected skin. In modern medicine, leprosy is Hanson's disease, and is confirmed with a skin biopsy.

If a Levitical priest determines you have spiritual leprosy, then you still have spiritual leprosy, regardless of what the medical clinician has to say. You are spiritually "unclean" before the Lord. As stated many times before:

A medical clinician has different guidelines and criteria than a priest...they will follow those published by the CDC, AMA or any of the various accredited and Board certified professional societies peculiar to their profession and practice...

The Levitical priest will follow the guidelines and criteria as spelled out under the Law. Two different authorities, two different professions, two sets of guidelines, two different diagnoses , two different time periods that are operating under two different domains.

​

I hope this makes things clear.

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : "...in post #763 you mention, on multiple occasions, the “single greek word "Χαρακτηρ” as if to imply this necessitates a single word counterpart in English:

This is incorrect.

No, it's correct. A single word in Greek doe NOT necessitate a single word in English.

A single word “Character” means “Character”.

We were discussing the Greek word "Χαρακτηρ” (charaktḗr) which can mean multiple things besides “character”. Also, "Χαρακτηρ” is not used as “character” in Leviticus but as a mark made by an engraver’s tool.

It does not mean “good character” or “bad Character” or “stubborn character” or “exact character” until you add the adjectives "goog", "bad" or "stubborn" or "exact".

It is the same in Koine greek. The single word “Character” simply means “Character.”

Right away we see the problem with your literal single word translations. "Χαρακτηρ” also means “the instrument used for engraving or carving” which you will notice is a lot more than the single word “character”.

We have no example in all the vast amount of early Greek literature where “Character” means “stubborn character” or “bad character” or “exact character” without the addition of an adjective.

Then that explains why no reputable translation uses either of those terms.

This is why your theory that “Character” should be translated as “exact Character” fails.

1. I’m not aware of anyone claiming “exact Character” as a translation. This is simply your mistaken restatement of Hebrews 1:3

2. It’s not just my “theory”. “Very image” or “exact reproduction” is the evidence based conclusion of the vast majority of Christian scholars.

3. Jesus says the same thing himself: He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, “Show us the Father”? In effect, you’re claiming we don’t "see" the Father when we see Jesus, which is nonsense. He is the exact representation, the image of the invisible God.

The use of language is against your theory.

Actually it's quite consistent with scripture, various bible translations, lexicons and dictionaries.

You have no data from any early literature supporting your theory of translation.

Actually I have provided all the data. You have simply provided all the objections.

Thus your theory fails.

As for my “theory” it is sound doctrine working for some 2 billion people plus…not exactly what I would call “failure”.

 

[Oeste]

1) Oeste asked : "Why not come out and explain why you don't like "exact"?

This is a strange question. It's like asking why one doesn't like the word "green".

Absolutely @Clear, but it was brought about by a strange response to a metaphor.

I neither "like" nor dislike the word "exact".
Similarly, I do not "like" nor "dislike" the adjectives "ragged" or "quick" or "shaking". They are merely words.

Perhaps it’s the combination of “exact” with “representation” ?

However none of them are in Hebrews 1:3.

Well this is where your argument fails.

I previously showed you where the Hebrew translators dropped words like “rock” and substituted other words like “Lord” in the Septuagint and you remained silent. Not a peep.

I also showed you a verse from Hosea 17:6 which literally reads: “return not height”.

Let’s take an example from a bible we all use…the authorized King James Bible.

Now let’s turn to Hosea 17:6 and read the first few words:

עָ֗ל לֹ֣א יָשׁ֣וּבוּ׀
return not height
Literally, that’s all the opening to Hosea 17:6 says, yet, if we are to believe @Clear, all bibles, including his own are in “error”:


KJV They return, but not to the most High:

NWT They changed course, but not to anything loftier;

ESV They return, but not upward;

AV They return, but not to the most High:

NASB They turn, but not upward,

LEB They turn, not to the Most High,

CSB They turn, but not to what is above;

NIV They do not turn to the Most High;

NRSV They turn to that which does not profit;

Look at all the “added” words, yet your reaction was all but muted.


I also showed where they replaced kidney with heart, and even where “Christ” had been added to “Jesus”. Not much in the way of comment there.

But when you see “exact representation” its post after post and page after page of objections!

From my standpoint what you accept or object to as translation seems rather arbitrary and inconsistent. If we can’t use or trust our dictionaries and lexicons what should our scholars and translation committees do? Run it through you first?

If you claimed the word "Character" in Hebrews 1:3 actually meant "the ragged character of his person" or "the quick character of his person" or the shaking character of his person" I would have had the same disagreement.

So would I! I’m glad when we can reach agreement.

The idea that Christ is radiating God’s glory in a shaky, quick or ragged manner certainly doesn’t fit the immediate context, let alone anything else in scripture. However this doesn’t explain why “heart” can be substituted for “kidney” at Psalm 7:9 without objection, but “exact” must never appear with “representation” at Hebrews 1:3.

But that doesn't mean I either "like" or "dislike" these words.

Well, you seem to tolerate “Lord” for “rock” and “Most High” for “height” much more than “exact” with “representation”. I was simply curious as to why. If you don’t know that’s fine but I was simply pointing out the inherent inconsistency of your argument.


Unless you have some new evidence that will turn both scripture and the scholastic community on its head, I think we should consider this part of the discussion closed and move on. I don’t mind discussion but I’m not here to convince you of anything you don’t wish to believe.

 

[Oeste]

3) GODS NATURE AND CHARACTER CANNOT BE EXACTLY LIKE JESUS PHYSICAL NATURE AND PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CHARACTERISTICS

Clear pointed out problems with Oestes theory that the single word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 means God has the exact same Nature and Characteristics as Jesus.

Fair enough! Let's take a look at these problems.

If God has EXACTLY the same nature and Characteristics as Jesus, then :
If Jesus gets tired doing physical work, then God can become tired doing physical work.

Why, when Jesus has a dual nature?

If Jesus is ignorant of certain facts, then God is ignorant of certain facts.

Why, when Jesus has a dual nature?

If Jesus needs to sleep to function, then God needs sleep to function.

Why, when Jesus has a dual nature?

If Jesus must eat to stay alive, then God must eat to stay alive.

Why, when Jesus has a dual nature?

If Jesus is sent to do work by a greater being, then God must be sent to do work by a greater being.

Why, when Jesus has a dual nature?

I don't agree that God gets physically tired, or that God must sleep, or that God is ignorant of certain facts, or that God must eat, or that God is sent by a greater being to accomplish that beings will, etc.

I agree with you totally. Glad we got that one out of the way (for the second or third time).

But its always good to end with an agreement.

 

[kjw47]

John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
When we look at this we should not see it by itself as a sole indicator of what the Bible tells us about God.
I think I have showed places where it can be seen that Jesus is YHWH as well as the Father being YHWH.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
Adding words like "other" to the text does not change what the text actually tells us, it is just dishonest.
Deut 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
This passage also does not mean what at first glance it may appear to be saying.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 — As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So how many Lords are there? One. YHWH. That is why the OT tells us that YHWH is our Lord in many places.
Psalm 8:9 O Yahweh, our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!
Jesus is also called God in many places.
Heb 1:8 But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy.”
Changing the text here to read that God is the throne of Jesus does not do anything but make God less than Jesus since the one sitting on the throne is greater than the throne. But of course it hides what the passage actually says.
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
And this from a monotheistic Jew.
And I could go on about other places where Jesus is called God by monotheistic Jews.
And we know that John 20:31 says,
John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
But really all that tells us when combined with John 20:28 is the Jesus, the Son of God is the God of Thomas. That is what being the Son of God means.
The Son of course is the one sent by His Father and the Son is the one who submits to His Father but for the Son to be the Son of His Father, they both have the same nature.
Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
The Son and the Father are exactly alike, mirror images of each other and the Son shines with the same glory as the Father. This is when the OT tells us that nobody is like God and God will not give His glory to another. (Isa 42:8,Isa 46:9)
So after all this we may be able to see John 17:3 in a different light, a light that tells us that Jesus is part of the one God, the Father. This is why there is one King over Israel forever, YHWH, and Jesus is that King. This is why the OT tells us that YHWH is coming to judge the earth and John 5:23 tells us that the Father judges no one and other places in the NT tell us that Jesus is coming to judge the earth.



Jesus as a man in all ways had a God and that God was and still is His Father (because Jesus is still a man).
But of course Psalm 22 tells us when Jesus Father became His God.
Psalm 22:10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
Jesus took the nature of a servant and learned obedience when He became a man. He stepped into the creation and that may be why Col 1:15 tells us that He is "of creation".
"Firstborn" does not mean "first one created" at Col 1:15 even if the Watch Tower wants you to believe that. "Firstborn" means heir and preeminent one. This can be seen in the OT, eg. Psalm 89, speaking of Jesus the man God found to anoint and sit on David's throne forever.
Ps 89:27 And I will make him the firstborn,
the highest of the kings of the earth.
Jesus has been appointed to be the human firstborn of creation. He is not created first, He is appointed. Through Jesus created all things and without Him nothing was created. (John 1:3) The New Testament tells us this in a number of places and all the Watch Tower can do about it is add to the Bible to change the meaning (adding "other" as they also do in the place where Jesus is said to have the name above all names)
That is says that things were created "through" Jesus does not change the fact that it says ALL things were created through Jesus. Did you know that the New Testament in a couple of places tells us that everything is "through the Father, God.
Heb 2:10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered.
Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments,
and his paths beyond tracing out!
34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Who has ever given to God,
that God should repay them?”
36 For from him and through him and for him are all things.
To him be the glory forever! Amen.
There is no hint of lowly subcontractor there is there, but when it comes to Jesus, through means a helper.
In Proverbs 8 we see wisdom personified. This wisdom is a female who calls in the streets and lives with someone named Prudence etc so many do not see this as a personification of Wisdom. When it comes to those who see this as a personification of the Word, Jesus, and still are trinitarians, the translation may have something to do with it.
A more appropriate translation of Prov 8:22 is that the LORD possessed or got me instead of created me. Possessed or got is the meaning in other parts of Proverbs for the same word.
And in the next verse instead of "ages ago" or something like that the translation is "from everlasting I was set up". This makes sense because the Hebrew emphasises the long ages, thus causing it the be from everlasting. (similar to Micah 5:2 which has an emphasis on the time in the past thus making it likely it means from everlasting)
When was God without Wisdom.
But anyway with Prov 8 it would depend if it is about Jesus anyway.
What I have noticed is that there are places where YAHWEH says He was alone by Himself at the creation, eg
Isa 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,
Psalm 102:25,26 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
This Psalm is speaking of God. Then in the New Testament that passage is applied to Jesus as if it was spoken by God about Jesus.
Heb 1:10 He also says,
“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.”

Jesus is Jehovah and that passage is about Jehovah in the Psalm but the New World Translation does not translate "Lord" in verse 10 as "Jehovah". This is why any translation that uses the name of God, Yahweh or Jehovah in the New Testament leaves itself open to the charge of bias and dishonesty in translation. The choice of which place to use it or not has to be subjective in many places and therefore biased.

Collosians1:15--The firstborn( created) of all creation. Created direct-first and last, then all other things created through that being=Gods masterworker, but in the same sense it was YHVH who did it all by himself, just through Jesus his master worker. Only YHVH, the Father has the power according to the lords prayer. It goes through Jesus( Acts 2:22) the same as it went through Moses. It wasnt Moses who parted the red sea it was YHVH. The reason why Jesus must hand back the kingdom to his God and Father and subject himself forever like all other created beings. 1Cor 15:24-28)

 

[Brian2]

Collosians1:15--The firstborn( created) of all creation. Created direct-first and last, then all other things created through that being=Gods masterworker, but in the same sense it was YHVH who did it all by himself, just through Jesus his master worker. Only YHVH, the Father has the power according to the lords prayer. It goes through Jesus( Acts 2:22) the same as it went through Moses. It wasnt Moses who parted the red sea it was YHVH. The reason why Jesus must hand back the kingdom to his God and Father and subject himself forever like all other created beings. 1Cor 15:24-28)

"Firstborn" is not "first created". That is another Greek word. Firstborn can mean "first one born of a group" but Jesus was not part of creation until He took the nature of a servant when He became a man. He was not created, He stepped into the creation. Before becoming a man Jesus was not a servant of His Father.
ALL THINGS were created by Jesus. Making it say "all other things" is adding to and changing the meaning of the Bible. It is a lie that you believe however.
Even when Jehovah says that He spread out the heavens by Himself you twist it around to mean that He was not by Himself.
Jesus hands back the Kingdom to His Father and subjects Himself. That means that Jesus is in control now and is not subject. In the end after the work of salvation is finished the relationship goes back to what it has always been, a Father/Son relationship with Jesus subject to His Father.
Going back to "firstborn", is "firstborn" means only "first one born" then a firstborn cannot be appointed. The way one becomes the firstborn is to be born first. In Ps 89 we see that Jesus has been appointed to be God's firstborn. This is how Jesus the man became the firstborn of creation, He was appointed and Col 1 tells us why He was appointed firstborn.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF TWO

A) CLEARS CLAIM REGARDING THE USE OF “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS

Clear said Regarding Leviticus 13:28 : “The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. NO EXACTNESS is implied. (bold is mine)



B) OESTES ORIGINAL CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 HAD EXACTNESS IN DIFFERENTIATING LEPROSY FROM NON LEPROSY

Oeste claimed :

#1) “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)”

#2) This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819)



C) OESTES CLAIMS FAILED A SIMPLE TEST

Oeste could not use Leviticus 13:28 TO EVEN DIFFERENTIATE LEPROSY FROM SIMPLE ECZEMA

Oeste now claims : “You simply asked how a medical clinician might diagnose leprosy in a young girl using Leviticus. “

No, I did not ask how to diagnose leprosy.

I asked you to put your claims to the test by using the “exact” information in Leviticus to differentiate leprosy from a skin lesion I saw.

You could not use Leviticus to tell the difference between leprosy and one of the simplest of skin lesions…eczema. You could not use Leviticus and instead, you were forced to turn to modern medical literature.

Your claims about “exactness” in Leviticus failed this simple test.

If you still think it was a difficult test, I can give you another very, very, very simple example and you can try to use your claimed “exactness” in Leviticus to EITHER differentiate leprosy OR differentiate between spiritual cleanliness from uncleanliness.

Do you want to try to see if your theory will fail a second time?

I have another very, very, very simple example for you.

Since you could not use Leviticus to even differentiate simple eczema from leprosy, this claim fails.

The rest of your discussion on leprosy from modern literature was irrelevant.




D) OESTES NEW CLAIM THAT MEDICAL LITERATURE IS NEEDED IN SIMPLE CASES

Oeste said : “If you’re a medical clinician could you give us any valid reason why you wouldn’t turn to medical literature?”

This silly assumption is quite naïve and ignorant. Certain things are simple.

For example :

If you are a teenager with a simple pimple on your forehead, your dermatologist will NOT need to “turn to medical literature” to diagnose a pimple.

It is simple pattern recognition.

If your doctor needs to turn to “medical literature” to identify a pimple, go to a different doctor.

Similarly, eczema is extremely common and its pattern usually quite obvious. Thus, your intimation that medical literature is needed in such cases is silly and naïve. This claim fails as well.



E) SHIFTING CLAIMS - BACKING AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL CLAIM OF “EXACTNESS”

Oeste originally claimed regarding Lev 13:28 :
““I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not.
This EXACTNESS helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (bold and underline are Clears)

After the failure of this claim we can see the backing away from this original claim regarding Lev 13:28.

Oeste now says : “I'm still not sure why you think "exactness" needs to be implied.”

I NEVER thought the word “character” meant “exact character”.
I was simply responding to YOUR original claim that it implied exactness. Read your posts.

However, If you are now admitting “character” is NOT “exact Character” then I have always agreed and this has been my point all along.



F) OFFERING NEW THEORIES WHEN PRIOR ONES DON’T WORK (Backing away from “exactness” )

Oestes original claim was #1 : “I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline is mine)

Oestes original claim was #2 : “This EXACTNESS helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.” (Oeste, post #819) (capital and underline are mine)

Lets look at your new claim.
Oeste now claims : “However I do see Leviticus 13 as helping a priest determine what lesions mark leprosy and what does not. (Post #827)

Your new claim is different.

If you are now admitting that “Character” does NOT tell the priest “EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not”, then I agree with this new admission. It may “help” but it is not “exactness”.

Your original theory of “exactness” was never correct.

This is why your suggestion that “Character” in Leviticus was so “exact” as to allow a priest to differentiate between common skin lesions and leprosy failed.

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO



G) REGARDING YET ANOTHER NEW CLAIM OF DETERMINING “SPIRITUAL LEPROSY”

Oeste, “If a Levitical priest determines you have spiritual leprosy, then you still have spiritual leprosy, “ (#828)

This New Theory is different than your original claim concerning “EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” or I see the verse as telling the priest EXACTLY what marks leprosy and what does not. (Oeste, post #819)” (capitals and underline are mine - Clear)

If you are now offering a new theory that says the text can tell the priest “exactly” when a person has “spiritual leprosy” based on a skin lesion, you are free to describe this new theory in detail to support your claim that “Character” implies “exactness”.

However, IF you have abandoned the idea of “Character” meaning “Exact Character” in Leviticus 13:28, then this is a step in the right direction.




F) YET ANOTHER NEW CLAIM THAT LEVITICUS 13:28 IS DESCRIBING A SKIN LESION CAUSED BY AN ENGRAVING TOOL???

Oeste now claims : “…, "Χαρακτηρ” is not used as “character” in Leviticus but as a mark made by an engraver’s tool.” (Post #829)

This new theory seems a bit bizarre.

I highly doubt Leviticus was discussing the “exactness” of differentiating leprosy from lesions made by “an engraver’s tool”.

Can you explain WHY you think the skin lesions in Leviticus 13:28 is speaking of a mark made by an engraver’s tool? (as opposed to differentiating leprosy from non-leprosy)



G) TRANSLATION BY MIND READING

Oeste Claims : “It's implied at Hebrews 1:3, not in Leviticus.

We now seem to agree that in Leviticus 13:28, the word “Character” does NOT mean nor imply
“exactness’ in Character.
Your theory that a translator can know the mind of the writer of Hebrews and what they were trying to imply better than the writer themselves is yet another naïve claim. Trying to read the mind of the writer is not a good way to do translation.

For example : The writer of Hebrews may have been trying to imply several principles.
Still, this does not justify adding or subtracting words or meaning to the text.
For example :

Perhaps the author of Hebrews 1:3 wanted to imply a “kind Character” "ευγενικός χαρακτήρας"
or an “intelligent Character” (έξυπνος χαρακτήρας)
or a “righteous Character” (δίκαιος χαρακτήρας)
or a “merciful Character” (φιλανθρωπικός χαρακτήρας)

However, the actual text, simply says “character” (Χαρακτηρ) and, unless your theory of “translation of authors intent by mind reading” works in an objective manner, we are not allowed to add to, or subtract from, or change the meaning of the text in an authentic translation.



H) WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATIONS ARE NOT NECESSARY BUT “MIND READING” DOES NOT WORK

Oeste said : "...in post #763 you mention, on multiple occasions, the “single greek word "Χαρακτηρ” as if to imply this necessitates a single word counterpart in English:

You are confused and your assumption is still incorrect.

You and I agree that “word for word” translation is not possible in all cases. In the case of “exact Character” there are Greek words for “exact” and for “character” so it is possible in this case. It is not possible in other cases.

My point is that a correct translation should not add or subtract meaning to the original text.

For example :

If a writer writes “When the sun came up we rested.” In another language.

The translator should not translate this as “When the hot, bright sun came up, we rested.”.

This is not what the writer wrote.


TRANSLATION BY “MIND READING” DOESN’T WORK.

While this writer might have felt the sun was “hot”, or “bright”, the actual adjectives “hot” and “bright” are not in the original text.
Perhaps the sentence referred to people who worked or traveled all night and day was their normal time of rest.
The context is ambiguous and any implications are not obvious.

The bare, single word, “sun” does not, itself mean “hot” or “bright” and so the sentence should be translated as it is without adding additional adjectives.

It is in the same context that the word “Character” means “Character”.
It does not mean “good character” or “bad Character” or “stubborn character” or “exact character” until you add the adjectives "good", "bad" or "stubborn" or "exact".
It is the same in Koine greek. The single word “Character” simply means “Character.”


We have no example in all the vast amount of early Greek literature where “Character” means “good Character” or “stubborn character” or “bad character” or “exact character” without the addition of an adjective.

This is the way language works.

Your theory of assuming you know what the writer meant better than the writer and changing their text to mean what you think it should mean doesn’t work.


This is why your theory that “Character” should be translated as “exact Character” fails.
The use of language is against your theory.
The many examples from early Greek literature where "character" means "character" is against your theory.
You have, so far, given us no data from any early literature supporting your theory of translation.
Thus your theory fails.

“Character” still means “Character”.

Clear
ειφυσιφινεω

 

[Brian2]

REGARDING THE USE OF “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS

I think part of the problem you and Oeste are having is to do with the translation "Leprosy". It seems that this is only a traditional translation but the real translation if that word is something like "defiling skin disease".
The Levitical diagnoses in Leviticus 13 is for how a priest would determine a defiling skin disease and they seem fairly precise so that a priest would be able to follow the instructions and be able to determine a "defiling skin disease" from one that is not defiling or that is just a scar.
It is not the spot or scar itself which is the exact representation of the defiling skin disease or one that is undefiling, it is how this spot changes over time.
The word 'charakter' in this instance just means spot and does not have to be exactly anything.

 

[Clear]

I think part of the problem you and Oeste are having is to do with the translation "Leprosy". It seems that this is only a traditional translation but the real translation if that word is something like "defiling skin disease".
The Levitical diagnoses in Leviticus 13 is for how a priest would determine a defiling skin disease and they seem fairly precise so that a priest would be able to follow the instructions and be able to determine a "defiling skin disease" from one that is not defiling or that is just a scar.
It is not the spot or scar itself which is the exact representation of the defiling skin disease or one that is undefiling, it is how this spot changes over time.
The word 'charakter' in this instance just means spot and does not have to be exactly anything.

Hi @Brian2

I like your point a lot. It is not the word "Character" (χαρακτηρ) in Leviticus 13:28 which provides any exactness (if one claims "exactness" is to be found at all in Lev 13:28).

IF anyone wants to argue that "exactness" comes from some other principle in Leviticus 13:28 (such as "change"), they are welcome to claim and demonstrate this for readers.

The Jews themselves, found no exactness and instead, they found much, much room for debate and elaboration as to what this text could possibly mean in the Jewish talmud. So, although the Jews found no "exactness" in the text, I am not sure why some christians feel like they did find "exactness" where the jews themselves did not..

However, I do agree, that the word "Character" itself, never implied "exactness".


Clear
ειφυσιακφιω

 

[kjw47]

"Firstborn" is not "first created". That is another Greek word. Firstborn can mean "first one born of a group" but Jesus was not part of creation until He took the nature of a servant when He became a man. He was not created, He stepped into the creation. Before becoming a man Jesus was not a servant of His Father.
ALL THINGS were created by Jesus. Making it say "all other things" is adding to and changing the meaning of the Bible. It is a lie that you believe however.
Even when Jehovah says that He spread out the heavens by Himself you twist it around to mean that He was not by Himself.
Jesus hands back the Kingdom to His Father and subjects Himself. That means that Jesus is in control now and is not subject. In the end after the work of salvation is finished the relationship goes back to what it has always been, a Father/Son relationship with Jesus subject to His Father.
Going back to "firstborn", is "firstborn" means only "first one born" then a firstborn cannot be appointed. The way one becomes the firstborn is to be born first. In Ps 89 we see that Jesus has been appointed to be God's firstborn. This is how Jesus the man became the firstborn of creation, He was appointed and Col 1 tells us why He was appointed firstborn.
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The term--all creation, proves 100% it is before anything else was created.
Yes the IMAGE of God. An image is NEVER the real thing. Jesus lives 24/7 to do his Fathers will, as do his followers( Matthew 7:21)-- one in purpose.

 

[kjw47]

Why do you continue to repeat that lie after it has been explained to you over and over again that the Trinitarian concept does not posit Jesus and the Holy Spirit as being God the Father? Common sense should even have taught you that since we have three names for them they cannot be exactly one and the same. Oh, I forgot that your Governing Body told you as such and then you swallowed it hook, line, & sinker.

I took Catholic theology classes during my undergrad years, plus I've taught Catholic theology for 15 years now, and I can categorically say that you have been lied to by the GB if they taught you what you're been repeatedly posting on this. But this is what they do.

The teachings of Jesus prove my teachers correct. My teachers dont teach Jesus or the HS are the Father.
One must go through Jesus to get to the Father. The Father is the destination for all. The real Jesus sends his followers to his Father to accomplish this daily without fail-John 4:22-24.
Even the greek lexicon, which catholicism( religion that came out of Rome) translated proves 100% no capitol G God belongs in the last line at John 1:1.

 

[metis]

My teachers dont teach Jesus or the HS are the Father.

Again, you are misrepresenting what both the Trinitarian concept actually is and also what the Trinitarian-oriented churches tend to believe. As the saying goes, "You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts".

Thus, what you post above tells me that the Governing Body has so thoroughly brainwashed you so as to believe a falsehood that has been corrected here numerous times.