The Jehovah's witnesses and the rest. What's the stumper?

Deeje said:

The truth is the truth Sojourner.....and neither you or I can alter it

Click to expand...

“The truth” is relative, and HIGHLY influenced by our perceptions and perspectives. What works for me doesn’t work for you, yet both of us experience a great sense of “Yes!” when we speak our truth. My problem isn’t with what you believe as truth, it’s with your black-and-white, absolutist approach that insists that you’re “right,” and everyone else is “wrong.” IMO, that approach does not honor a God who is more grossly expansive than any of us are capable of comprehending. It does not honor the perspectives, learning, or experiences of others. Worse, it creates division by usurping an authority for your belief through dismissing everyone else as “evil.” And it’s that entitlement, masquerading as some “universal truth” that I have a problem with. You and I could debate theology all day, so long as this absolutist nonsense didn’t poison the waters.

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

sojourner said:

“Satan’s world.” How very sad that you can’t see God’s marvelous hand in God’s work.

Click to expand...

That is indeed a key in understand the Messages given by God.

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."

Regards Tony

firedragon said:

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

Click to expand...

I copied what I wrote in post #182. Should explain things nicely for you. To wit:

No, this is mistaken. Here's why. You have to know how Greek actually works. In Greek if the definite article is missing, it does not logically follow that an indefinite article should be inserted (there is no indefinite article in Greek). In John 1 there is no definite article in front of the word 'God' in the phrase, 'and the Word was God.' However, in this case, we can't just assume that the word 'God' is meant to be 'indefinite,' and therefore just insert an indefinite article in the English translation. Even though the Greek language does not have an indefinite article like we would think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun "tis." Because the first use of the word 'God' in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, John would more than likely have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase to refer to some ‘lesser’ god, and didn't want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this 'indefinite pronoun' ('tis') as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was 'a certain god,' but not the one he was just referring to. Therefore, according to the Greek grammatical structure here, it seems clear that john is indicating that the Word is of the same essence and nature as the true God he first mentioned.

Additionally, the syntax reveals John's meaning, as well. The phrase in John 1:1 is an example of a predicate nominative preceding the subject in the sentence. (Sentences like this one that use a linking verb require the noun in the predicate part of the sentence to be in the nominative case. The subject of this clause is 'the Word' and the predicate is 'God.' In Greek, the word 'God' comes before 'Word.' According to normal Greek usage, the word 'God' should not have a definite article. Very often, emphasis is shown in Greek by placing a word out of its normal, expected word order. Special emphasis can be illustrated when the predicate comes first in the sentence. In other words, contrary to the thought that 'since there is no definite article used here it could mean some other god,' the fact that the word 'God' is used first in the sentence actually shows some emphasis that this Logos (Word) was in fact God in its nature. However, since it doesn't have the definite article, it indicates that the Word was not the same 'person' as the Father God, but has the same essence and nature.

Anti-Trinitarian bias means that the translators of the NWT have added the little word “a” to the translation in order to make it look like John was not equating Jesus with God.

sojourner said:

...could debate theology all day, so long as this absolutist nonsense didn’t poison the waters.

Click to expand...

Yep, and the irony is that we cannot even substantiate beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, and yet there are these fundamentalist groups that believe and claim that they have some lock on even how God operates.

metis said:

Yep, and the irony is that we cannot even substantiate beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, and yet there are these fundamentalist groups that believe and claim that they have some lock on even how God operates.

Click to expand...

It’s kind of a pathology, I think, that demands such concreteness in a very fluid world.

sojourner said:

It’s kind of a pathology, I think, that demands such concreteness in a very fluid world.

Click to expand...

I hear ya, especially as so many simply cannot mouth the simple words "I don't know" or even goes as far as saying "I tend to think...". Instead, it's "I know, and if you don't agree you're an infidel!!!".

Hockeycowboy said:

You know, I wasn’t really talking about individuals, per se.

Click to expand...

I knew you weren't; I just figured talking about "real people" would change the dynamics of the exchange. It does, doesn't it? Talking about real people forces a change in the script or puts an end to it, IMO: real people take the wind out of sails and/or call for a change in direction.

Hockeycowboy said:

Rather, it has more to do with the religious institutions that they are in!

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

We just ask (and pray) that people will examine the religious organizations that they are a part of...how well these entities strive in upholding Christ’s directives.

Click to expand...

Just asking folks to examine the religious institutions/organizations that they're in is one thing; taking them by the nose and dragging them through your version of the post-resurrection-of-Jesus historical development of those religious institutions/organizations is more than "just asking something".

Terry Sampson said:

I knew you weren't; I just figured talking about "real people" would change the dynamics of the exchange. It does, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes it does, sometimes. You were adept at using that ability.

Sounds like you have had some very loving people in your life!
Me, too.

I wish you all the best, my cousin.

Hockeycowboy said:

Sounds like you have had some very loving people in your life!

Click to expand...

Would that everyone had people even half as loving as I had.

sojourner said:

“Satan’s world.” How very sad that you can’t see God’s marvelous hand in God’s work.

Click to expand...

Your perspective is definitely different to mine. I came out of Christendom, so I have been on both sides of this fence. This shapes my perspective.

IMV, God's marvellous work is obviously still there, but his enemy has thrown all manner of disgusting pollutants all over it.....in case you hadn't noticed, godless humans are bent on destroying his handiwork....materialistic greed continues to pour chemical poisons into our oceans, food, air and water.....but God won't let them go beyond his limit. (Revelation 11:18)

The military spending of the nations has poured billions of dollars into the development of the most heinous weaponry to indiscriminately destroy innocent life along with perceived enemies. The churches of Christendom have supported these efforts, providing chaplains for military personnel, no doubt to salve troubled consciences, lest they question God's command..."Thou shalt not kill"...or Jesus teaching his disciples to "love their enemies".
Churches were used as recruiting stations in world conflicts. How was that possible? (James 4:4)

Satan has influenced disobedient ones to corrupt human worship by dividing it up between multitudes of false gods....but they are all invented by him....including Christendom's freakish god with three heads.

How can you believe this mess is God's doing?

1 John 5:19....
"9 We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

What part of "the whole world" is out of bounds for the operation of the wicked one?

Who is the god of this world?
2 Corinthians 4:3-4....
"If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."

We demonstrate whom it is that we worship by the way we conduct that worship and by the beliefs we hold as truth and the practices associated with it. Where did our "truth" come from?

sojourner said:

“The truth” is relative, and HIGHLY influenced by our perceptions and perspectives. What works for me doesn’t work for you, yet both of us experience a great sense of “Yes!” when we speak our truth.

Click to expand...

Sojourner, the truth is the truth regardless of what anyone believes. "Believing" doesn't make anything "true". No one can change the truth, but they can misrepresent it.

I believe that the Bible provides the reason for that....

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12....
"9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness."

What is this "unrighteous deception" invading the consciousness of those who are "deluded" by satan's influence....they will not be corrected by God because they love the deception rather than the truth. This is a deluded version of truth......not God's.

Why are these classified as "lawless"? Whose laws are they breaking?
Jesus tells us at Matthew 7:21-23....
"Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. 22 Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’"

Why are these ones appealing to Christ as if he should accept them as his own? Didn't they do all those things 'in his name'?....they are shocked to hear that their "powerful works" were not from God. It is God's laws that they are breaking....and the list is long.

That's how he can say he "NEVER" knew them? "Never" means "not ever". Christ has never set foot in Christendom.

My problem isn’t with what you believe as truth, it’s with your black-and-white, absolutist approach that insists that you’re “right,” and everyone else is “wrong.” IMO, that approach does not honor a God who is more grossly expansive than any of us are capable of comprehending. It does not honor the perspectives, learning, or experiences of others.

Click to expand...

For us, the truth has no 'maybe's'. The truth is very much about black and white...right and wrong.....the Bible presents the God of Abraham as a God who has one truth and one set of rules for all his worshippers....none of them are negotiable. Jesus served that God and so do we. Truth does not allow for many interpretations.....it never did.

The identifying mark of true Christians is unity, not confined to a local church or even a national denomination....but an internationally recognisable brotherhood of Christ's disciples who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ without compromise. (1 Corinthians 1:10; Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20)

The fact that we do not adhere to Christendom's theology means that we do not recognize any of its teachings as "truth". We are no part of what we see as the 'weeds' of Jesus parable. That is a condemnation of the religious system, NOT the people who have been taught untruths all their lives. This is why Jesus sent his disciples out to search for the "worthy" ones (Matthew 10:11-14)......to find those who aren't convinced that the divided church system is genuine Christianity.

Worse, it creates division by usurping an authority for your belief through dismissing everyone else as “evil.” And it’s that entitlement, masquerading as some “universal truth” that I have a problem with. You and I could debate theology all day, so long as this absolutist nonsense didn’t poison the waters.

Click to expand...

Again, that is how you view it.....but we do not view people as "evil" at all. If we did, we would not have been out preaching to them all this time, as Jesus directed......you are free to believe as you wish, but as it has been demonstrated, Jesus said he came to "cause division"...it was expected, as was the corruption of Christianity......so that, I'm afraid, is your problem to confront.
Jesus will not entertain excuses to break God's laws. His God does not change his rules or standards to suit selfish humans.

That's it.....

Deeje said:

It was the blood of the Passover Lamb on the doorposts that saved the Jews in Egypt, not just the eating of the Passover meal.

The celebration of the Passover was for Jews only. (John 6:4) They alone prepared and ate the Passover meal to remind them of their deliverance from Egypt. (Exodus 12:26-27)

Christ symbolized the Passover Lamb but he did not promote the Passover for Christians. All he did in instituting the new covenant was to use the bread and the wine to symbolize his body and his shed blood.
There was never a hint that his disciples were to partake of such things in a physical sense because eating human flesh is cannibalism, and drinking blood was against God's law. It would have been a completely repugnant idea to Jews....as it should be completely repugnant to Christians.

When issues arose in the first Christian congregations, especially when Gentiles began to be added, circumcision came up as a point of dispute because the Jews were trying to force the Gentiles to become circumcised. What did the elders in Jerusalem do to settle the dispute? They went to the scriptures and prayed for the direction of God's spirit....the result?

Acts 15:28-29....
"The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

The "necessary things" did not include circumcision, Sabbath observance, or celebrating the Passover....

Click to expand...

Deeje I hope all is well... I reply.... In John 6 the disciples just like you reject the teaching of Jesus, they leave Jesus in their unbelief!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
&
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Jesus does NOT call them back! Jesus does NOT say.. "Come back I did not mean what I just said please don't go"! FACT IS.....
Deeje fact is to make it even more clear Jesus then turned to the Apostles and asked them 67 "Are you also going to leave me"! Jesus meant every word of his teaching!
LOOK... from verse 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
TO verse # 59 is God TEACHING
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
All verses in-between verse 45 to 59 is GOD TEACHING except this one verse ......... 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Deeje The Jews in verse 52 are NOT Christians. Did you see it “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus is GOD so he can give his living forever flesh!
Christians have always eaten the "Flesh of Jesus and drank his blood"! Christians are NOT Jews, Christians believe the words of Jesus!

Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. Irenaeus is a Christian; John the apostle taught him in person!
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus also said this...
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

firedragon said:

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

Click to expand...

If Jesus was Almighty God or even his equal, there would be a direct statement of this important aspect of God's nature. There is not one. Not once did Jesus ever claim to be God. Not once did he call the holy spirit "God". The trinity is not a Bible teaching. It is blasphemous...in breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)

It all boils down to how the word "theos" is understood in the original language. This is a word that applied to anyone who was considered a "mighty one"....including all the Greek gods as well as those who possessed divine authority. Jesus said that human judges were called "gods" by Jehovah himself. (John 10:31-36)

Moses was said to be a "god" to Pharaoh....so saying that Jesus was "theos" without the definite article in no way puts him on equal footing with his own God and Father. (John 17:3)

The Greeks had no word for a god with no name. All their gods had names. Because the Jews had stopped uttering God's name, the only way to identify the one God of Israel, was to call him "THE God"....the definite article "THE" identifies Jehovah in John 1:1 but is missing in the second part identifying the Word simply as a mighty one......"a god"....not "THE God".

I believe that John 1:18 puts John 1:1 into perspective.....it says that "no one has ever seen God" so how can Jesus be God?

Deeje said:

It was the blood of the Passover Lamb on the doorposts that saved the Jews in Egypt, not just the eating of the Passover meal.

The celebration of the Passover was for Jews only. (John 6:4) They alone prepared and ate the Passover meal to remind them of their deliverance from Egypt. (Exodus 12:26-27)

Christ symbolized the Passover Lamb but he did not promote the Passover for Christians. All he did in instituting the new covenant was to use the bread and the wine to symbolize his body and his shed blood.
There was never a hint that his disciples were to partake of such things in a physical sense because eating human flesh is cannibalism, and drinking blood was against God's law. It would have been a completely repugnant idea to Jews....as it should be completely repugnant to Christians.

When issues arose in the first Christian congregations, especially when Gentiles began to be added, circumcision came up as a point of dispute because the Jews were trying to force the Gentiles to become circumcised. What did the elders in Jerusalem do to settle the dispute? They went to the scriptures and prayed for the direction of God's spirit....the result?

Acts 15:28-29....
"The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

The "necessary things" did not include circumcision, Sabbath observance, or celebrating the Passover....

Click to expand...

Deeje It's me again... (second part of my reply above) In Egypt the people of Moses HAD TO EAT the Passover meal!
Christians ate Jesus our Passover Lamb it is NOT just for Jews!
1 Cor 5:7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
Did you see it? Jesus did promote eating his flesh!
Your words... "Christ symbolized the Passover Lamb but he did not promote the Passover for Christians".
I reply: Question.. Where do you read "SYMBOLIZE the Passover" in the bible!? John 6 Jesus tells you.. "My flesh is REAL FOOD!"
"My blood is REAL DRINK"! & "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you"!
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
Christians drank the blood of Jesus Paul is a Christian he is an Apostle..
1 Cor 11:27 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
Deeje You cannot sin against a SYMBOL!

1 Cor 11:28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup.
Deeje Paul ate and drank the flesh and blood!

1 Cor 11:29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.
Deeje Paul tells you that all who eat & drink without believing condemn themselves!

Your words...(above) "eating human flesh is cannibalism, and drinking blood was against God's law".
52 Then the Jews (Jehovah Witness) began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jews are NOT Christians Jehovah Witness are NOT Christian! Christians eat the flesh of God. Because God is spirit his flesh is spirit, our Christian God can do all things even give us his living forever flesh to nourish us to give us eternal life!
LOOK.....
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.
Did you see it... "The words I have spoken" this is Past Tense, the words Jesus spoke is the TEACHING just above this verse John 6:63.

You say "it is against God' law to eat the flesh of Jesus it's against God' law to drink the blood of Jesus".... Jesus' flesh is NOT dead you can't kill and eat because Jesus cannot die a second time. Jesus' flesh is spirit his blood is spirit because God is SPIRIT!

firedragon said:

John 1:1

JW's (NWT) - “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.*”

TNIV - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

JW's explanation - Christians intentionally mistranslates it in order to establish their theology of the trinity.
Christian Explanation - JW's intentionally mistranslate it to establish their anti-trinitarian theology.

Well, as any theology and division of course both of them accuse each other. But lets get to the text.

Well, there is no definitive article in the sentence "Theos en o logos" so its a justifiable objection in the part of the JW's. Yet, without any article how did they translate it as "a God"?

How did the Christians translate it as "the word was God" with out a definitive article and just saying theos is only an attribution as Edgar Goodspeed says?

Whats the justification?

Click to expand...

I reply.. The Justification is.. NOT One other scriptural translator writes "a god"! All without exception write "was God"! Also God is very clear "there is NO OTHER god"! The Jews have it right "ONE GOD" to say as the JW's do "little god" is to reject monotheism. It is teaching more then one god!

THINK: "God is love"! Perfect love means giving of self for another! God is perfect! God cannot love self or he would not be perfect he would not be God! To love perfectly he needed another to love! This second love had to always be present if even for a millisecond the second who God loves, was not there then God would not be perfect love! God is love; God is perfect!
Love of self is selfishness it's opposite to perfect love! Again>>> God is love!
Jesus loves God he is the Alpha & Omega always was! Without Jesus the word God would not be God!

1 John 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Dogknox20 said:

Deeje I hope all is well... I reply.... In John 6 the disciples just like you reject the teaching of Jesus, they leave Jesus in their unbelief!
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
&
66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Jesus does NOT call them back! Jesus does NOT say.. "Come back I did not mean what I just said please don't go"! FACT IS.....
Deeje fact is to make it even more clear Jesus then turned to the Apostles and asked them 67 "Are you also going to leave me"! Jesus meant every word of his teaching!
LOOK... from verse 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.
TO verse # 59 is God TEACHING
59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
All verses in-between verse 45 to 59 is GOD TEACHING except this one verse ......... 52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Deeje The Jews in verse 52 are NOT Christians. Did you see it “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus is GOD so he can give his living forever flesh!
Christians have always eaten the "Flesh of Jesus and drank his blood"! Christians are NOT Jews, Christians believe the words of Jesus!

Click to expand...

Dogknox20 I do so admire your faithful adherence to your church's teachings, but I cannot see how they hold up under scrutiny.....Jesus describes his flesh as "bread" not meat.

John 6:47-48...
"Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. It is not as when your forefathers ate and yet died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

If you read on in John 6:61-63 Jesus goes on to explain....
"But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were murmuring about this, said to them: “Does this stumble you? 62 What, therefore, if you should see the Son of man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that is life-giving; the flesh is of no use at all. The sayings that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."

Jesus said that his words were "spirit and life". It was their spiritual application that they needed to discern because taken literally, it was a breach of God's law, which is why the others were "stumbled". In no way would Christ require his disciples to break God's law. This is why they waited for the explanation.....

"So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” 68 Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. 69 We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.” (John 6:67-69)

Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord’s body and blood. Irenaeus is a Christian; John the apostle taught him in person!
“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ . . . and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).
Irenaeus also said this...
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

Click to expand...

Being taught by even the greatest teacher on earth did not mean that someone always sticks with the truth.....look at Judas. Jesus and his apostles warned that an apostasy was coming, and it was already snapping at the heels of the apostles in the latter part of the first century.

In Paul's letter to Timothy he said...
"However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statement and teachings of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. 3 They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

I remember a time when eating meat on a Friday was a mortal sin for Catholic people.....what happened to that? Are all those who broke that law still in hell?

I also see that the church forbids marriage to its priests when it is God's arrangement and many of your early Popes were married and had children. The Apostle Peter was married. This means that those chosen to go to heaven are not "virgins" in the fleshly sense, but clean and pure in the spiritual sense.

Even though Paul recommended singleness for those who wanted to serve the Lord 'without distraction', he did not ever forbid marriage.....and many Christian couples in the first century served alongside Paul as disciples of Jesus, together. Much of the pedophilia in Catholic institutions was a product of the church's ruling that they could not marry. A convicted Catholic priest admitted that it was understood among them that sex with women was prohibited, but sex with children (boys in particular) somehow allowed them to give vent their sexual repression. Priests often practiced homosexual acts with one another for the same reason.

All the first Christians were "ministers" of the Kingdom.....men and women served to spread the good news of the Kingdom. There was no "clergy" class....meaning no earthly priesthood. The chosen ones would be priests in heaven, not on earth. (Revelation 20:6)

Jesus said they were to "call no man your Father on earth" because there is only one Father....Jehovah. He said they were not to have leaders because all were equal "brothers". (Matthew 23:1-12) So you can see how the simple and humble Christianity of the first century was corrupted away from that humble simplicity and on into a power hungry juggernaut that eventually came to control even the Kings of the earth. (Revelation 17:18) With all the sanctioned bloodshed, Christ was never even in the building.

So again, I am sorry but the scriptures are again proving your church's errors.

sojourner said:

Word is of the same essence and nature as the true God he first mentioned.

Click to expand...

This does not have to be seen as a Trinity to understand this passage.

I see the Word and the Giver of the Word, the Messenger, are all we can know of God. The Essence of God we can never know.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

This does not have to be seen as a Trinity to understand this passage.

I see the Word and the Giver of the Word, the Messenger, are all we can know of God. The Essence of God we can never know.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

It doesn’t have to, but we think that was the understanding of the Biblical writers.

Deeje said:

If Jesus was Almighty God or even his equal, there would be a direct statement of this important aspect of God's nature. There is not one. Not once did Jesus ever claim to be God. Not once did he call the holy spirit "God". The trinity is not a Bible teaching. It is blasphemous...in breach of the first Commandment. (Exodus 20:3)

It all boils down to how the word "theos" is understood in the original language. This is a word that applied to anyone who was considered a "mighty one"....including all the Greek gods as well as those who possessed divine authority. Jesus said that human judges were called "gods" by Jehovah himself. (John 10:31-36)

Moses was said to be a "god" to Pharaoh....so saying that Jesus was "theos" without the definite article in no way puts him on equal footing with his own God and Father. (John 17:3)

The Greeks had no word for a god with no name. All their gods had names. Because the Jews had stopped uttering God's name, the only way to identify the one God of Israel, was to call him "THE God"....the definite article "THE" identifies Jehovah in John 1:1 but is missing in the second part identifying the Word simply as a mighty one......"a god"....not "THE God".

I believe that John 1:18 puts John 1:1 into perspective.....it says that "no one has ever seen God" so how can Jesus be God?

Click to expand...

It was a linguistic question Deeje.

Dogknox20 said:

I reply.. The Justification is.. NOT One other scriptural translator writes "a god"! All without exception write "was God"! Also God is very clear "there is NO OTHER god"! The Jews have it right "ONE GOD" to say as the JW's do "little god" is to reject monotheism. It is teaching more then one god!

Click to expand...

Sorry but you have completely misunderstood "little God". I dont know who told you but whoever told you this is either absolutely mistaken or is simply making this answer up.

These languages are full of little Gods and little lords. A little person is a representative of the big person. Little God, little lord, little master, little Christ (Christian), all mean just that. It is not rejecting monotheism.