Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Bree said:

Peter is here quoting Joel 2:32 from the hebrew scriptures. That verse uses the tetragrammaton (YHWH) So it stands to good logic that when he was quoting that text he would have recognised Gods name and spoken it just as Jesus would have.

Click to expand...

Joel and Jesus, being fluent in Hebrew, probably did as such unless Jesus used Aramaic. In Aramaic, which we know he spoke, God's name would have come out as "Allah" [possible different spelling though], unless he went and used one or more of the different names for God in Hebrew, which can be found here: Names of God in Judaism - Wikipedia

Bree said:

And more importantly, if a bible translator comes across passages of the hebrew scriptures with the name of God in the form of the Tetragrammaton, they would do the right thing and use Gods name in that place rather then replace the name with an obscure title.

Click to expand...

But you have used "God" in your sentences that I quoted, thus you are showing your hypocrisy on this again. You can't say don't use it but then use it yourself!

Hi @Brian2 ; I am still travelling but have internet where I am.

Brian2 said : “Quite a number of translators have used translations which show God in John 1:1c has a qualitative aspect. I have a 1962 JW booklet "The Word according to John" in which this qualitative aspect is used as part of the WT reasoning for translating John 1:1c as "a god". (p 54,55)” (post #717)

Brian2, You’ve mentioned “qualitative” aspect several times. Can you explain what you actually mean by a “qualitative aspect” of John 1:1c and how that is relevant to it’s translation?



Brian2 said : “I would have to say that "a god" is probably not even possible as a translation.”

This simply means you don’t know Greek. Of course "A God" is a correct translation of “θεος”. With additional context, it can mean either "a God" or "the God" or "God".


I am interested in why you bring up “qualitative aspect” and why you think it is relevant to a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c.


Good journey Brian2

Clear
ειεισισισιω

Muffled said:

I believe that is not a sense but an attribution.

Click to expand...

I can acknowledge your belief.
We have differing beliefs.

Clear said:

Hi @Brian2 ; I am still travelling but have internet where I am.

Brian2 said : “Quite a number of translators have used translations which show God in John 1:1c has a qualitative aspect. I have a 1962 JW booklet "The Word according to John" in which this qualitative aspect is used as part of the WT reasoning for translating John 1:1c as "a god". (p 54,55)” (post #717)

Brian2, You’ve mentioned “qualitative” aspect several times. Can you explain what you actually mean by a “qualitative aspect” of John 1:1c and how that is relevant to it’s translation?

Click to expand...

It means that the Word possessed the qualities of the God the Word was with. (since there were no other gods around in the beginning) And even if there had been other gods around (angels or whatever) it was the Word who created them all along with everything else that has come into being. (John 1:3) The Word has not even been created, so the Word is even like the God in this respect along with all other respects, the Word has always been.

Clear said:

Brian2 said : “I would have to say that "a god" is probably not even possible as a translation.”

Click to expand...

Clear said:

This simply means you don’t know Greek. Of course "A God" is a correct translation of “θεος”. With additional context, it can mean either "a God" or "the God" or "God".

I am interested in why you bring up “qualitative aspect” and why you think it is relevant to a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c.

Click to expand...

It may not be relevant to a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c except that the word order emphasises this aspect of "God" in John 1:1c and with that qualitative meaning being emphasised the translation relies on the context. However the context surely is part of the considerations grammatically. A translation of "a god" completely ignores the context and forces the WT to deny the meaning of "In the beginning" and to add "other" before "things" in John 1:3 to nullify what John 1:3 indicates. (I realise that the NWT does not add "other" but that is the way all JWs think of the verse because of the teachings of the WT which need to deny the Bible to make it say what they want it to say.

Clear said:

Hi @Brian2

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CHARACTER" OR GREEK "ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ"

Brian2 said : “Even the New World Translation has "exact representation of his very being" even though they have "reflection" instead of "radiance".

Yes, the New World Translation incorporated this same error into their text. I presume that the main creator of the New World Translation, Frederick Franz did not know enough about historical Koine Greek (He had no formal training in Koine) that he did not notice the detail. Also, another error with the NWT is that “radiance” (απαυγασμα) is more correct than “reflection”.

Click to expand...

The NWT does get changed from time to time when newer editions come out. The NWT study edition on line has "exact representation of his very being". They might yet change it but imo even if they said "the imprint" or "the impress" or some other thing that represented the meaning, the same thing emerges. The impress or inprint does mean an exact representation.

Clear said:

Brian2 said : “I think the word "exact representation" does show what the impress of a seal would produce. It is not an imperfect painting for example. Jesus, the Son is exactly like His Father and the 2 have a Father/Son relationship.

Click to expand...

Clear said:

The word “Character” (or Greek “χαρακτηρ’) or “Characteristic” does imply a representation of something.

It is the addition of the word “exact” that is the problem.

When a translator renders “Character” as an “exact representation” rather than as a “representation”, we are seeing an adding of a translators bias rather than what the ancient text actually said.

Click to expand...

If it represented a bias then the NWT would have changed it a long time ago. It is more of a dynamic equivalence translation which gives the true meaning of "impress" or "inprint". True it is adding words to the text which are not there, but the meaning is there anyway.

Clear said:

I like @tigger2 example where he points out : Clement of Rome (ca. 90 - 100 A.D.) used this term: “[God] formed man in the impress (charakter) of His own image” - 1 Clem. 33:4, The Apostolic Fathers, Lightfoot & Harmer.

The actual quote from 1 Clement is was "Επι πασι το εξοχωτατον και παμμεγεθε κατα διανοιαν ανθρωπον ταις ιεραις κα αμωμοις χερσιν επλασεν της εαυτου εικονος χαρακτηρα".

Above all, man, the most excellent, and from his intellect the greatest of his creatures did he form in the likeness of his own image by his sacred and faultless hands.”

I like the point that the translations do not say "exact impress" or "exact image", but renders the word as merely impress (impression) or image.

Click to expand...

It no doubt would have been OK if "exact impress" was used however. We are exactly like God in the way we were made but we are not "exact impress" of His nature.

Clear said:

THE WORD CHARACTER OR CHARACTERISTIC OR GREEK ΧΑΡΑΚΤΗΡ AS A REPRESENTATION OF SOMETHING

Click to expand...

Clear said:

Χαρακτηρ. (eng : Character / Characteristic) anciently was some sort of identifying sign or mark. It did not imply “exactness” in it’s base meaning.

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 priest is to look as a spot on the skin, and “If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce them clean; it is only a scar from the burn. Lev 13:28 (LXX) Και καθαριει αυτον ο ιερευς ο γαρ χαρακτηρ του κατακαυματος εστι.

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.

Click to expand...

The use of the word is not always the same and no doubt it has changed over time but Jesus was not just a representative of God, Jesus is the Son of God who is the radiance of God's glory and as such has to be exactly like God in character and in His perfect nature which has not and does not change.
I have to presume that the stamp used to imprint the nature of God into the man Jesus was actually the nature of the God of whom Jesus is the Son. So the nature of Jesus is exactly like this.

Clear said:

2) REGARDING HEBREWS 1:3 AND THE ADDITION OF THE WORD "EQUAL" TO THE WORD "CHARACTER" (Or impress / Representation / Likeness, etc.)
Brian2 said : “The unity of Christians is not in what they know, the unimportant doctrines, which is knowledge. It is in being part of the one body of Christ and in loving God and each other.”

This is an insightful philosophy you have Brian2 and I certainly agree with you that certain bits and types of knowledge are more important than others. If eternal life is “that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.”, then this knowledge is more important than to know Greek grammar. To know how to love is more important than to know latin. I like your insight.

Click to expand...

I may have answered a post of yours twice. Never mind, it's done now.
To know Jesus is to know God,(John 14:9) hence He is exactly like God His Father in character and nature.
But yes, adding "exact" is an addition and even if it tells us the meaning, it is not a literal translation.
The seal is the nature of God, the imprint is the nature of the man Jesus. Exactly the same.
The seal is not just a stamp saying this person represents me, it is the actual nature of God, which Jesus the man has.

Clear said:

B) MOST TRANSLATIONS DID NOT INCLUDE THE ERROR OF ADDING “EXACT” TO THEIR TRANSLATIONS / EXAMPLES

Click to expand...

Clear said:

If readers search google for comparisons of Hebrews 1:3, they will see multiple versions (more than 1500 versions exist)

If readers will google various translations for Hebrews 1:3 it will show that most early translations from greek did NOT follow the error of translating χαρακτηρ as “exact representation”.

Early bibles versus later bibles : Early bibles all tend to be actual translations where authors are not copying other english texts. The later, modern bibles tend to have more standard text where translators often copy prior english text that seem "good", rather than retranslate text that seems acceptable to them. I've underlined those with the word "exact" and one can see that they are in the minority. I did not data mine for specific versions.

Click to expand...

Most of the examples you give mean exact inprint even if they use different words.

Clear said:

POST TWO OF TWO
C) CONSULT A SECULAR GREEK DICTIONARY FOR MEANING OF WORDS AND A LEXICON FOR EXISTENCE OF WORDS
I noticed that you referred to a lexicon as evidence that "exact" representation was one of the meanings of the word "Character" (gk χαρακτηρ), however a lexicon is not what you want to refer to for the meaning of a word.

For example, a religious LEXICON will tell you what words are IN a language, and how they are used, but it does not tell you what the word actually meant historically. Perhaps you are mixing up a lexicon with a dictionary?

Early Christianity did not create it’s own special language that it spoke, but it spoke the common language of the people. Just as modern Greek has no definition of Χαρακτηρ that means “exact representation” or “exact” anything, ancient Koine Greek had no definition of “exact representation” for the word Χαρακτηρ. You can certainly try to find it.

If you insist that the word “Character” must mean “Exact Character” then I think you will need some sort of data to support this theory. Other than the erroneous translation errors, can you offer us just five or so examples from historical literature where it meant “exact” impression or “exact” representation?

Click to expand...

I would not consult a modern dictionary of Greek for the meanings of the Koine Greek words.

Clear said:

E) THEOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF INSISTING A “REPRESENTATION” OF GOD BY JESUS MUST MEAN “EXACT REPRESENTATION” OF GOD.

Click to expand...

Clear said:

If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”. IF Jesus is “exactly like God” in their nature (character) then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.

God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.

God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.

God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.

God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep,

God must eat,

God must be ignorant of certain facts,

God must have power which is given him by another,

God must have a Father,

God must have a body and hair and perhaps brown eyes.

God must have a body which can die.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equally, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.

Click to expand...

The answer no doubt lies in the Biblical fact that Jesus the man had and has 2 natures. That of God and that of a servant, when He became a man. When He became a man Jesus kept His God nature, and that seems to be what the present participle of Phil 2:6 "being in the form of God" (the inner form, having the same nature)
The present participle it seems means that He had God's form and kept it when He became a man.
IOWs He did not change, He was still God by nature and then became a servant by nature also.
While a man on earth He lived as a man, a servant of God on earth. He will return in the Glory of God but He emptied Himself while on earth, meaning He humbled Himself to be a man amongst men.

"QUALITATIVE" ASPECT AND GRAMMAR AND CONTEXT IN TRANSLATION

Clear asked : “Brian2, You’ve mentioned “qualitative” aspect several times. Can you explain what you actually mean by a “qualitative aspect” of John 1:1c and how that is relevant to it’s translation?”
Brian explained : “It means that the Word possessed the qualities of the God the Word was with. (post #724)

Thank you so much for your explanation.
How does this “qualitative” concept change or affect a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c (“και Θεος ην ο λογος” – “and the word was a God”)?

For example, the transfer of qualities is inherent and assumed in language.
If I say “My Wife is an angel.” then I am inferring or transferring some sort of qualities of an angel to my wife. This is grammar.
However, a person cannot know if I mean that my wife is "kind and patient" or if "she died last year" and I think she is now an angel in heaven without more information. This is context.


This is the issue at hand with Greek John 1:1c. The sentence reads grammatically “and the Word was a God.”.
It is only with CONTEXT that one can determine if it means the Word is “a” God, or ‘the” God, or just “God”. This was always my point.
Grammatically, the Jehovahs Witnesses are perfectly correct in their translation and it is only context that can determine if the grammar is transferring the quality of “a” God or “the” God to the word.


QUALITATIVE ASPECT DOES NOT CHANGE BASE GRAMMAR NOR BASE MEANING
Clear said "I am interested in why you bring up “qualitative aspect” and why you think it is relevant to a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c."
Brian explained : "It may not be relevant to a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c except that the word order emphasises this aspect of "God" in John 1:1c and with that qualitative meaning being emphasised the translation relies on the context." (post #724)

I agree that word order may emphasize meaning in CERTAIN sentences but I do not agree that it CHANGES meaning. “God” still means “God”, and the “Word” still means the “Word”, thus it is irrelevant to MEANING in a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c.



PURELY GRAMMATICAL TRANSLATION VS CONTEXTUAL TRANSLATION - A PERSON CANNOT ESCAPE PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE CONTEXT IN TRANSLATING
Brian2 said : “However the context surely is part of the considerations grammatically.”

1) A purely grammatical translation is not contextual.
For example, an object is either indirect (“A” Dog) or direct (“THE Dog”) in English. The Word of John 1:1c is either “A” God or the Word is “The” God. A computer translation of “and the Word was THE God” into Greek is different than the Greek of John 1:1c while “and the Word was A God” is the same as John 1:1c. You can confirm this with Google translator. This is why the Jehovahs Witness translation is grammatically correct. It is the contextual translation which is debatable.


2) A human translation is contextual.
The translator cannot help but bring their own theological bias to the process of personal translation. This is because all translators have their own bias and way of seeing the theology underlying the text. A Catholic translator will see a different theology in the text than a Baptist Translator and this will affect their translations. This is the problem underlying the translation of the word “Character” (Gk Χαρακτηρ) as an “exact Character” or “exact representation” or “exact impress” rather than translating “Character” as “Character”. The addition of “exact” is not implied in the original word “Character”. Similarly, if I say I saw a “dinosaur print” (“imprint”), I am not saying it was an “Exact print” or “exact imprint”, but instead, it was a “print”.


Brian2 Said : “The impress or inprint does mean an exact representation.”.
If the single word "impress" or "imprint" does not mean "exact impress" or "exact imprint", why would you assume the single word "imprint" means "exact imprint"?

As per my example, if I say I saw a “dinosaur print” (“imprint”), why would that mean that it is an “Exact print of a dinosaur foot” or “exact imprint of a dinosaur foot”, but instead, i simply said it was a dinosaur “print”. It may have been blurred (most are) and vague and difficult to see instead of representing an exact outline and print of a dinosaur foot.

I have given you approximately 20 examples where Character (Gk Χαρακτηρ) is used in ancient Greek literature and all demonstrated Character did not mean “exact” Character. You could ask yourself why it is important for you to believe that the single word “Character” means “Exact Character”. I think you will discover the motive to believe this lies in the desire to support a specific belief or position you have adopted rather than any objective reason.

While you have examples where the word Character has been incorrectly translated as "Exact Character", do you have any example at all from any early Koine literature where “Character” or “impression” actually means “exact Character” or “exact impression”? So far, you have not been able to offer any.

The multiple examples I have given from early literature showing “Character” did not mean “exact Character” while you have no data showing koine ever used the single word to mean “exact” should cause you to consider why you want the word to mean something it doesn’t.


Brian2, I do like many of your very insightful and wonderful points. However, the objective data undermines your claim that the lone word “Character” means “exact Character” and instead, points to the original base Greek where “Character” meant “Character”.

brian2 said : "I would not consult a modern dictionary of Greek for the meanings of the Koine Greek words.”
This is a good historical principle you are suggesting.

Find an ancient Koine dictionary and see if “Character” meant “exact Character” instead of “Character”. Or, you could consult a large sampling of early literature and see what "Character" meant in normal usage as I have given you many examples of in posts #688 and #689.


In any case Brian2 Please do not read into my criticisms a disrespect. I like your posts and have found much good in them and I agree with some of your theological points. However, your theology doesn’t change basic Koine meaning nor does your theology change basic Koine grammar.




Clear
ειτωτζδρσιω

Clear said:

"QUALITATIVE" ASPECT AND GRAMMAR AND CONTEXT IN TRANSLATION

Clear asked : “Brian2, You’ve mentioned “qualitative” aspect several times. Can you explain what you actually mean by a “qualitative aspect” of John 1:1c and how that is relevant to it’s translation?”
Brian explained : “It means that the Word possessed the qualities of the God the Word was with. (post #724)

Thank you so much for your explanation.
How does this “qualitative” concept change or affect a purely grammatical translation of John 1:1c (“και Θεος ην ο λογος” – “and the word was a God”)?

For example, the transfer of qualities is inherent and assumed in language.
If I say “My Wife is an angel.” then I am inferring or transferring some sort of qualities of an angel to my wife. This is grammar.
However, a person cannot know if I mean that my wife is "kind and patient" or if "she died last year" and I think she is now an angel in heaven without more information. This is context.

This is the issue at hand with Greek John 1:1c. The sentence reads grammatically “and the Word was a God.”.
It is only with CONTEXT that one can determine if it means the Word is “a” God, or ‘the” God, or just “God”. This was always my point.
Grammatically, the Jehovahs Witnesses are perfectly correct in their translation and it is only context that can determine if the grammar is transferring the quality of “a” God or “the” God to the word.

Click to expand...

I'm not a Greek scholar and I don't even know Greek and I admit that I find it hard to divorce context from my views on the meaning of a passage. This of course is fine since I am told that translation is more than just what the grammar could possibly mean. In that respect I make no apologies for using context.
The grammar part of John 1:1c would be that the position of theos stresses the quality of the Word. This is said to be the nature of the Word. The Word has the nature of something. If "a god" is used that is not a translation expressing the Word's nature since an angel can be called a god and a man can be called a god. Jesus pointed to the Jewish judges as being called gods and that psalm also says they are only men who die. So "a god" seems to be a grammatically wrong translation in this case even if in other cases of the same structure a translation of "a prophet" for example would be fine since that translation shows that someone has the nature of a prophet.
So I think I did all that without bringing context in......................and I even brought the thread back to the OP sort of.

Jesus was certainly saying more about His nature when He said He was the Son of God than the accusation of calling Himself "a god" would have suggested. But of course Jesus distracted His accusers and got them thinking long enough to say that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. (John 10:38)
So not only was He saying that He had the nature of His Father (as the Son) but was also showing that He and His Father could be considered One, which is what brought matters to the boil in the first place along with calling God His Father (John 10:30). So Jesus was claiming to be God and was accused of that and all He did was to confirm what He was saying.

So anyway, getting back to John 1:1c, it is not being grammatically correct to use "a god" because "a god" does not reflect a quality even if it might reflect a role that someone might have.

Hi @Brian2

1) GREEK, GRAMMAR AND CONTEXT (REDUX)

Brian2 said : “I'm not a Greek scholar and I don't even know Greek and I admit that I find it hard to divorce context from my views on the meaning of a passage.” (post #729)

It has always BEEN quite apparent from the beginning of the discussion that you did not know Greek. This is not a fault.
Trying to explain why a grammatically correct Greek sentence is incorrect when one doesn’t know any Greek IS a fault.

The sentence as the Jehovahs Witness render it, is, grammatically, correct.

You can argue that the sentence is, CONTEXTUALLY, incorrect if you want.
But it is clear to any basic Greek reader that the sentence “και θεος ην ο λογος” (john 1:1c) IS, grammatically, “and the word was a God.”
CONTEXTUALLY, the sentence can be "a God" or "the God" or "God". Context (i.e. original meaning) determines which is actually what the author meant.

The basic rule is, “FIRST learn Greek grammar. THEN argue Greek grammar.”


2) SEPARATING PERSONAL CONTEXT WHEN FACED WITH NEW DATA
You mention that you find it hard to divorce personal context from views. ALL of us tend to do this and I do not think it is completely preventable. I NOT fault you for this at all. I do this as well.

Below is another example of where it is difficult for you to divorce personal context from your conclusions.


Brian2 claimed : “So anyway, getting back to John 1:1c, it is not being grammatically correct to use "a god" because "a god" does not reflect a quality even if it might reflect a role that someone might have.”

This is non-sensical Brian2. You claim a purely grammatical error based on your personal context. You are again, conflating grammar and context.

One must be able to admit the Grammar is correct but then admit the context EITHER supports or overrides the grammar.
CONTEXT is not the same as Grammar and CONTEXT overrides grammar in determining what the original writer meant to say.

Perhaps you could learn a bit of Greek and then return to the discussion on Greek?

Anyway, good luck. Keep posting. I get some good insights from your posts.


Clear
ειτωδρτωνεω

Oeste said:

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

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​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”

- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

Click to expand...

Actually Jesus gives credit to his Father in verse 32--I and the father are one= In purpose--The living to do the Fathers will( Matt 7:21-John 5:30--In the Lords prayer--Thy will be done-The Fathers will. Jesus teaches all the truth--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--You wont believe him over mens dogmas. Paul did-1Cor 8:6

kjw47 said:

Actually Jesus gives credit to his Father in verse 32--I and the father are one= In purpose--The living to do the Fathers will( Matt 7:21-John 5:30--In the Lords prayer--Thy will be done-The Fathers will. Jesus teaches all the truth--John 20:17, Rev 3:12--You wont believe him over mens dogmas. Paul did-1Cor 8:6

Click to expand...

If you check the Commentaries on John 10:30 and the word studies of the word "one" as used in John 10:30 you will see that it means more than one-in purpose.
The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking knew the language and knew that He was claiming equality with God, the Father. Why do you think they wanted to stone Him when He said that?

Brian2 said:

If you check the Commentaries on John 10:30 and the word studies of the word "one" as used in John 10:30 you will see that it means more than one-in purpose.
The Jews to whom Jesus was speaking knew the language and knew that He was claiming equality with God, the Father. Why do you think they wanted to stone Him when He said that?

Click to expand...

Hi @Brian2

Whether your argument is correct or not, this is a good example where you are not arguing GRAMMAR, but instead you are arguing for meaning based on CONTEXT.

Good journey brian2

Clear

Clear said:

Hi @Brian2

1) GREEK, GRAMMAR AND CONTEXT (REDUX)

Brian2 said : “I'm not a Greek scholar and I don't even know Greek and I admit that I find it hard to divorce context from my views on the meaning of a passage.” (post #729)

It has always BEEN quite apparent from the beginning of the discussion that you did not know Greek. This is not a fault.
Trying to explain why a grammatically correct Greek sentence is incorrect when one doesn’t know any Greek IS a fault.

The sentence as the Jehovahs Witness render it, is, grammatically, correct.

You can argue that the sentence is, CONTEXTUALLY, incorrect if you want.
But it is clear to any basic Greek reader that the sentence “και θεος ην ο λογος” (john 1:1c) IS, grammatically, “and the word was a God.”
CONTEXTUALLY, the sentence can be "a God" or "the God" or "God". Context (i.e. original meaning) determines which is actually what the author meant.

The basic rule is, “FIRST learn Greek grammar. THEN argue Greek grammar.”

Click to expand...

Yes I would prefer not to have to talk about the meaning of words at all, but it does come up, especially because the WT has a habit of changing the Bible and disagreeing with the meaning of words therein. I usually go to the word study books to find the correct meaning. When the meaning has to do with the grammar it is more difficult of course and I don't see myself being able to learn the languages at my time in life. But I do get caught up in the debates, like this one and try to come up with an answer that I can live with.

Clear said:

2) SEPARATING PERSONAL CONTEXT WHEN FACED WITH NEW DATA

Click to expand...

Clear said:

You mention that you find it hard to divorce personal context from views. ALL of us tend to do this and I do not think it is completely preventable. I NOT fault you for this at all. I do this as well.

Below is another example of where it is difficult for you to divorce personal context from your conclusions.


Brian2 claimed : “So anyway, getting back to John 1:1c, it is not being grammatically correct to use "a god" because "a god" does not reflect a quality even if it might reflect a role that someone might have.”

This is non-sensical Brian2. You claim a purely grammatical error based on your personal context. You are again, conflating grammar and context.

One must be able to admit the Grammar is correct but then admit the context EITHER supports or overrides the grammar.
CONTEXT is not the same as Grammar and CONTEXT overrides grammar in determining what the original writer meant to say.

Perhaps you could learn a bit of Greek and then return to the discussion on Greek?

Click to expand...

Clear said:

Anyway, good luck. Keep posting. I get some good insights from your posts.
Clear
ειτωδρτωνεω

Click to expand...

Yes no doubt you are right. I am basing it on the assumption that the Bible is telling the truth about there being only one God and that at the beginning there were no other gods or Gods around.
Thanks for the language lessons.

Clear said:

Hi @Brian2

Whether your argument is correct or not, this is a good example where you are not arguing GRAMMAR, but instead you are arguing for meaning based on CONTEXT.

Good journey brian2

Clear

Click to expand...

The word studies do seem to come up with the meaning of "one" at John 10:30 based on the context and that "one" is in the neuter. If kjw47 does check the word studies and commentaries this is what he/she will find. I'm really just pointing to a source of information.
I try to do what I can, but as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water..............

Brian2 said:

The word studies do seem to come up with the meaning of "one" at John 10:30 based on the context and that "one" is in the neuter. If kjw47 does check the word studies and commentaries this is what he/she will find. I'm really just pointing to a source of information.
I try to do what I can, but as the saying goes, you can take a horse to water..............

Click to expand...

Hi @Brian2

I think you are correct to discuss context in such cases. Good job.

“I and my Father are one”


Trinitarians want to believe that Jesus was implying that he and his Father together make up one God. But there isn’t even the slightest suggestion that he intended the word “God” to be understood as being included in this statement. Instead, context and NT Greek grammar show just the opposite. (Famed trinitarian John Calvin rejected this scripture as trinitarian evidence for just that reason in his book Commentary on the Gospel According to John, vol.1, p. 416, The Edinburgh Printing Company.)

If we insist on taking the statement literally, it would be much more likely (although still clearly impossible when the rest of John’s writings are examined) that he was saying, “I and my Father are the same person.”

There are numerous scriptures clearly showing that the Son is not the same person as the Father (although a very few figurative statements - such as “He who has seen me has seen the Father” - when taken literally could be wrongly interpreted in such a way). There are, in like manner, numerous scriptures clearly showing that the Son is not equally God with the Father.

For example: “My Father is greater than I” - John 14:28 (see the MINOR study, “Meizon vs. Kreitton”). And Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” (“who alone art truly God”! - NEB) - John 17:3. And Jesus’ Father is the God of Jesus - John 20:17 and Rev. 3:12. 1 Cor. 11:3 tells us that Jesus is head over the men of the Christian congregation (they are certainly not equal to him), and in a like manner, God is head over Jesus. Obviously they are not “one” in the same sense of being “equally God” as trinitarians insist.

In fact, when Bible writers write that a number of persons (two or more) are “one,” they consistently mean it in a figurative sense.

For example, Paul includes himself and Apollos in a “oneness”: “He that plants [Paul] and he that waters [Apollos] are one [hen, neuter]” - 1 Cor. 3:6, 8. Obviously Paul does not consider himself literally one person (or any other literal “one”) with other persons. However, he, as many other Bible writers do, considers himself as “one” with others in a figurative sense.

Yes, Bible writers consistently described groups of individuals as “one” figuratively in the sense of their being “united in will and purpose.” Here’s how one trinitarian reference book states it:

“‘One’ also expresses the unity between Christ and the Father (Jn 10:30), the union between believers and the Godhead, and the unity which exists among Christians (Jn 17:21; Gal. 3:28). ‘One’ further expresses singleness of purpose” - p. 844, New Bible Dictionary, (2nd ed.), 1982, Tyndale House Publ.

However, since we are concerned with a scripture written by John, we need to be assured that John (and even more specifically that Jesus as quoted by John) uses this figurative sense of “one” for groups of individuals.

Therefore, let’s examine John 17:22. “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them; that they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen].” - NASB. (Compare John 17:11. - A footnote for John 17:11 in the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 says: “the unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son.”)

Not only is it obvious that these Christians are not equally Christ with Jesus, nor equally God with the Father, nor are they all one person, but that they are all figuratively united in “will” and “purpose” with God. That is, they agree with and carry out the Father's will.

Notice that Jesus clearly defines his being “one” with his Father as being in the very same sense that he wants certain Christians to be “one”: “just as we are one” (NASB). There can be no doubt, then, that John 10:30 does not mean Jesus and the Father are equally God, but that, just as certain Christians were “one” in will and purpose so “the Father and I are one [in will and purpose].”

Although they have the same will and purpose as God, it is because they willingly and totally accept and conform to God’s will and purpose and take them as their own. God does not conform to their wills but they to his! This is exactly the same way that Christ is one in will with the Father (who alone is God) - Analyze John 6:38 (compare Luke 22:42 and Mark 14:36.)

Bible Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer tells us “one” can mean

“to be united most closely (in will, spirit), Jn x.30 [John 10:30]; xvii.11, 21-23 [John 17:11, 21-23]” - p. 186, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House, tenth printing, August, 1984.

Commenting on John 10:30, J. H. Bernard, D.D. says in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John:

“A unity of fellowship, of will, and of purpose between the Father and the Son is a frequent theme in the Fourth Gospel..., and it is tersely and powerfully expressed here; but to press the words so as to make them indicate identity of ousia [Greek for ‘substance,’ ‘essence’], is to introduce thoughts that were not present to the theologians of the first century."

Even the trinitarian New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.

We need to be aware that the word “one” at John 10:30 and 17:22 is the neuter form hen (or ἕν). The two other forms for “one” are mia (μία), which is the feminine form, and heis (εἷς), the masculine form. Those who insist that John 10:30 means “the Father and I are one God” are clearly wrong as shown by New Testament Greek grammar alone. “God” in New Testament Greek is always masculine and must take masculine forms of adjectives, pronouns, etc. in agreement (see Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4-6 in interlinear Bibles).


as Dr. Marshall puts it in one of his basic NT Greek grammar rules:

“Adjectives must agree with the nouns they modify in number, gender,...and case”. - p. 25, Rule 7, New Testament Greek Primer, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan Publishing, 1978 printing. (Compare 1 Cor. 3:8 in interlinear Bible [esp. note footnote in The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English] with NIV; NAB; LB; and CBW.)


Therefore, the use of the neuter “one” (hen) at John 10:30 shows “one God” could not have been intended by Jesus but instead shows “metaphorically, union and concord”! As we have seen in the study on “Wisdom” (BWF), we may have gender irregularities when someone is described figuratively (“metaphorically”) such as “he is a Rock” or “Jesus is the Lamb,” but when he is being literally described we must have gender agreement.


If we insist on supplying an “understood” ‘God,’ it must be at a place which uses the masculine form of “one” (heis) in gender agreement (cf. Mark 10:18; Ro. 3:30). Trinitarian scholar Robert Young commented on this knowledge of the word “one” at John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary:

“The particle ἕν [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977.

Truly, then, there is absolutely no evidence for a “trinitarian” interpretation at John 10:30. In fact, the real meaning shows Jesus is not God!

Brian2 said:

I hadn't thought of Jesus authority in the resurrection and temptations this way.
Thanks.

Click to expand...

Thank you @Brian2! I would have responded sooner but I had a recent illness and death in my family. I’m several weeks behind in my work but I’ll try to catch up and respond to posts here.

The temptation of Jesus has never been adequately explained by any of the "created Jesus" fans. It's a good one to toss in whenever things get noisy and you want to hear the crickets chirp.

Brian2 said:

We get into the habit of reading verses with out views in mind and that tends to stop us seeing other possibilities.

Click to expand...

Agreed… sometimes “words get in the way”. In fact we can get so myopic in our pursuit of the meaning of a word that we lose sight of our overall hermeneutic. We no longer see the forest for the trees.

The most important thing to keep in mind is not what a particular word means, but what the author's intent was. For example, it's fairly easy to realize that you did not mean "..with out views in mind..." but "...with our views in mind..." in the sentence above. Since we recognize your intent there is no need to look up a definition of the word "out".

Brian2 said:

It also implies that the dead Jesus was alive in spirit (as 1Peter 3:18 says) and so was conscious and able to make the choice to be resurrected again as an immortal man, to take His human life back.

…John 10:17 The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.

Click to expand...

Correct, and taking up your life is very tough to do when you “cease to exist” as any authority you have is useless if you don’t exist. It’s almost as difficult as wielding authority when you’re “unconscious”. Lastly, we know if you “cease to exist” you can’t possibly be “unconscious”, and if you’re “unconscious” you can’t possibly have “ceased to exist”. Each state is mutually exclusive of the other yet the WT incredulously claims both states when we die.



I see similar problems with @Clear’s rather wooden and surprisingly literal interpretation of χαρακτηρ at Hebrews 1:3. He appears to interpret it as if Jesus was somehow engineered from a man-made die or press.

As I see it, Christ is the effulgence (radiance) of the Father’s glory and the exact imprint of his character or intrinsic nature. His glory is generally veiled as the Son of Man but when you see Christ you see the Father. Anything less means the effulgence (radiation/brilliance/splendor) is less than perfect.

In fact, it was this verse (and not some “command” from an Arian leaning Emperor named Constantine) which helped prevail the Trinitarian argument upon the Arians at Nicea. Obviously there was no time when God’s glory did not shine or radiate forth, so there was no time when Jesus was not. Thus Jesus is not created but eternal.

They couldn't argue with the logic then and I see no different now.

But let's get back to χαρακτὴρ (charakter, )of which there is 1 occurrence in the New Testament.

As Clear’s own research shows, this is vastly different from any imprint we can make. When you see a bust or statue you may be able to see an outer likeness of the person it is said to represent, but even the most skilled of human craftsmen will not be able to capture the full character of the person modelled. In fact, when you look at the statue you may not see the original model at all. We are notorious for hiding disfigurements, blemishes, or disabilities to the point that the statue bears little resemblance to the person it’s said to represent. The hunched back is now straightened and the suggestion of vigor belies a sickly person. The figure on the coin looks regal whereas the actuality is plebian. The withered arm is now whole, and the obese person is suddenly lean and muscular.

Not so with Christ. The Son of Man who is the Son of God eternally radiates the glory and character of the Father. He does not radiate something “similar” or “like” that of the Father as by definition this would mean he radiates something dissimilar or unlike the Father as well. There is nothing missing and there is no deviation.

Also it’s good to keep in mind that χαρακτηρ is not being used literally but metaphorically at Hebrews 1:3 and remains part of a much broader hermeneutic. We run the danger of becoming myopic when we view χαρακτηρ solely in isolation and/or carry a metaphor too far (that is, viewing a metaphor literally).

But let’s say we ignore all this (as I am sure our Arian/Henotheistic friends will do) and adopt the WT’s or Clear’s theory. So Jesus is no longer God but “a God” and we no longer treat χαρακτηρ as a metaphor but as a simile, so that the imprint is “like” an impress made by a die on a coin or “as” the sculptor’s tool on clay. Our representation, whom Paul declares upholds the universe by the word of his power, is no longer “exact” (as it must be if God) but merely “similar” in the manner of a bust or statue. How then has the author who is speaking to the Hebrews, not declared Jesus an idol (see Isaiah 40:28) and not made Jesus a living, breathing graven image of the Almighty? (Exodus 20:4)???

Perhaps they can explain, as I do not see one without the other.

In any event, it's very early morning, I'm fading fast, and I tend to make errors when I'm tired. I'll try to get a few more posts in but no guarantees.

Clear said:

Oeste claimed : “It’s not just John 1:1c @Clear…word order makes a HUGE difference in all of Koine Greek.” (post #693).

And he explained that “, the more to the left an item occurs, the more prominence it has" (post #693)

Click to expand...

Correct!

Clear said:

This “prominence” doesn’t change meaning of words nor does it make a “HUGE” difference in Koine in this Phrase in John 1:1c.

Click to expand...

Of course it does.

John 1:1c exists as a phrase; not as a complete sentence. As I stated previously let’s not forget about John 1:1a and 1:1b. Your continued assertion of “no difference” only leads the reader into subject confusion between 1:1b & 1:1c.

Clear said:

I don’t know why you thought it was important to make this claim.

Click to expand...

As stated in post #676, Arianism is not Sabellianism, Sabellianism is not Trinitarianism, and Trinitarianism is not Arianism. This may not seem to be a big issue to you, but it’s been a huge issue to the historic church for the past 900 years.

Clear said:

The word “Theos” still means “God”. “Logos” still means “Logos”. No change in meaning occurs.

Click to expand...

I couldn’t agree with you more, however…

In Koine Greek, stress can be added to a word simply by moving it forward in a sentence. Adding stress doesn’t change the meaning of the stressed word but it can certainly change the meaning of a sentence.

Let’s look at the following sentence - She isn't flying to Hawaii tomorrow:




Let’s take another:

Clear said:

Word order doesn’t even change the meaning of “God” into “REALLY, REALLY, God.” It makes no difference to meaning.

Click to expand...

See above. We were discussing prominence or stress. Stressing "She" doesn't make the word She "REALLY, REALLY She". As to word order, changing it at John 1:1c makes a HUGE difference. There is a world of difference between "the Word was God" and "God was the Word".

Clear said:

If you still think word order in John 1:1c changes the meaning of any word in this sentence, ask someone you know who can read Greek to help you with the concept of “meaning” versus “emphasis”.

Click to expand...

Word order helps us determine emphasis in Greek and emphasis helps us determine the speaker's meaning @Clear. In fact, emphasis affects meaning in every language ever spoken. If you still think emphasis does not change meaning, ask someone you know who understands linguistics to help you with the concept of “emphasis” and “meaning”.

Clear said:

My point has been that the word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 does not mean “exact representation”, but instead, my point is that "Character" means “Character” (or “representation” or “impress” or “likeness” if you like).

Click to expand...

I can find areas where I agree and disagree with your assessment.

Hebrews 1:3 does mean “exact representation” as used by the author (most like Paul). It can’t possibly mean anything but “impress” or “representation”, but that representation (χαρακτὴρ) as used (metaphorically) by Paul most certainly means “exact”. The idea that this impress or representation is merely similar, that God “misses the mark” in the same manner as an impress made by sinful man runs counter not only to the Johannine and Pauline epistles but to scripture as a whole.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against representation or impress, but this goes back to something @Brian2 alluded to earlier. The goal of the translator is not to convey a literal, word for word translation but to communicate the actual intent of the author into the target language. If they do this their mission is accomplished. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

In this instance the target language is modern 21st century English, and the reason why translators use "exact representation" is because it more definitively translates the author's intent, which is the primary mission and final goal of any translator.

Clear said:

IF the writer had meant to write “exact representation”, he could have written “exact representation” (Χαρακτηρα Ακριβης) in koine, instead, he simply wrote “representation”.

Click to expand...

Likewise, if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is to go through a few of your comments and examples. It's way early in the morning and I'm glad it's now a holiday, so hopefully after some rest I'll have time to post again later tomorrow which is actually later today.

Excellent and enjoyable discussion btw, and that goes for @Brian2, @metis, @kjw47, and @tigger2 as well.