• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Heal me, O LORD

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The gifts of the Spirit do not cease until the time that they are no longer required. When is that? When the Lord returns.

The gifts were to cease because satan was going to be up to his old tricks. Miracles today are the devil’s trickery because God wasn’t going to allow his servants to be misled by them.

The “angel of light” trick wasn’t going to work on those who are fully informed. The ‘miracles’ of today are a sad imitation of the originals....again I have to ask...where are the resurrections of the dead? Sadly, you ignore what you can’t acknowledge.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You know, it’s what you fail to address that speaks volumes to me.
You did not respond to what I asked....you ignored it and took the conversation in a direction that simply justifies your beliefs.

Christians who are “chosen” for a role in God’s Kingdom as “kings and priests” (Revelation 20:6) will definitely need to be “born again”...to be transformed from flesh and blood to spirit form as Jesus was.....I have explained what that means scripturally, and why it is necessary.....but you have dodged the question completely.

There are two groups before God’s throne in Revelation 7...one group is specifically numbered.....whereas the second group is not. 144,000 will attain to rulership positions in heaven, chosen from among mankind as “firstfruits”. (Revelation 14:1-4)
The second group attribute their salvation to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 7:9-10; 13-14) These it says, “come out of the great tribulation” which Jesus said would occur as the final part of the “sign of his presence”.(Matthew 24:21) This second group are not part of the 144,000 who are seen in heaven.

You have not even acknowledged the existence of these two groups. Why?



Since Jesus is not God, he never solicited worship because he himself worshipped his own God and Father. He still worshipped his Father even in heaven. (Revelation 3:12) How can God worship part of himself? What nonsense!
As the son of God, he is worthy of our allegiance because he is our appointed King.....he is not and never will be Almighty God. He told us to worship Jehovah “only”.

In his temptation from the devil what did Jesus say?

Luke 4:5-8....
“And he led him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, To thee will I give all this authority, and the glory of them: for it hath been delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship before me, it shall all be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (ASV)

Jesus was quoting the Hebrew Scriptures where “the Lord thy God” was identified as Jehovah (Yahweh. Deuteronomy 6:13; Deuteronomy 10: 20) Jesus is never called Jehovah (Yahweh).



Oh dear...you really can’t relinquish your beliefs even to plain scripture, can you?

1 Timothy 2:5.....”For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

Jesus is the mediator “between God and men”.....he cannot be God if he is the mediator “between” God and men....how is that not obvious?

Can you not see that Jesus can be of divine origin without being God....he can be “a god” in the true definition of the Greek word “theos” which simply means a “mighty one” because even satan is called “theos” in the Greek scriptures. Do you understand the meaning of this designation?

The polytheistic Greeks had no word for the one nameless God of Israel, (the Jews had stopped using God’s name contrary to God’s instruction in Exodus 3:15....
“And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. ASV)......so, because all the Greek gods were identified by name, in order to identify Jehovah as distinct from other “gods”, they used the definite article “ho” (the). Jehovah became “the God” whereas Jesus was “a god”...or a divine personage....one who displayed divine power.



That is not what the Bible teaches.....Jesus was never called Jehovah....not once.....not ever.

Will you allow scripture to guide you......or orthodoxy? The Jews chose orthodoxy and missed out on God’s blessing. Those Jews who followed Jesus out of a corrupted religious system came to inherit the blessings that God had wanted to give Abraham’s descendants. They stuck to what they were told was the truth about the Messiah....but it was lies.
History repeats as Jesus and his apostles foretold. “Few” are found on the road to life as a result. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Deeje, your approach to discussion makes it very difficult to reach conclusions, or to get to the root of our differences. Each time you post you move on to a new topic. We now appear to dealing with every difference that exists between orthodox Christians and JWs!

Let's finish discussing whether Jesus Christ is God, then move to a new topic!

We both agree that there is only one God [Deuteronomy 6:4: Mark 12:29], and one Saviour [Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21]. It states this clearly in scripture.

Mary conceived without human sperm. She gave birth to a baby of flesh and blood. Jesus was, therefore, without question, a human. He was 100% human. He had a human body and soul, and spirit [Luke 1:80]

Are we in agreement so far?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Deeje, your approach to discussion makes it very difficult to reach conclusions, or to get to the root of our differences. Each time you post you move on to a new topic. We now appear to dealing with every difference that exists between orthodox Christians and

The difference for me is an unbridgeable divide actually. I was raised with orthodoxy so perhaps my own experience in fully investigating all aspects of these questions was an immediate “light bulb”, not a gradual shift in my case because I was never in love with the freakish god of orthodox Christianity anyway. I could not comprehend a god who punished sinners in a fiery hell forever, as a God of love.

I saw too much ignoring of the more ‘inconvenient’ aspects of Christ’s teachings and too much leaning towards being “friends with the world” in political matters. (James 4:4) God does not indulge those who ignore the teachings of his son in order to gain friendship with the corrupt rulers of this world. All that Christ taught, he said was from his Father. As “the Logos”, he continued to be his Father’s spokesman even on earth.

Let's finish discussing whether Jesus Christ is God, then move to a new topic!

We both agree that there is only one God [Deuteronomy 6:4: Mark 12:29], and one Saviour [Isaiah 43:11; Isaiah 45:21]. It states this clearly in scripture.

One Savior...yes, but the one who sends the Savior is also a Savior. The term “savior” is not exclusive to God or Christ.

Judges 3:9...
When the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites, Othʹni·el the son of Keʹnaz, the younger brother of Caʹleb.“

Jehovah provided a “savior” in this instance too.....this savior wasn’t God though, was he?

A savior is a rescuer. God sent his son to rescue the human race from sin and death. There is no point in dwelling on a word as if it can’t have other meanings. You have to use the rest of scripture to clarify the meaning of what is said.

Mary conceived without human sperm. She gave birth to a baby of flesh and blood. Jesus was, therefore, without question, a human. He was 100% human. He had a human body and soul, and spirit [Luke 1:80]

Are we in agreement so far?

No, not really. On the surface of it we could agree...but upon deeper reflection I see that the misapplication of scripture such as Luke 1:80 here gives a false impression when taken out of context. This verse pertains to John the Baptist, not Jesus. (if that was your intent)

The Bible gives us a clear picture of what a human being is.
First of all.....Adam was a body....but to bring him to life, he was not “given” a “soul” but “became” a soul when God started him breathing. A soul is not something that resides in a body but is the whole person whose life is supported by the process of breathing. All souls in the Bible are living, breathing creatures....both animal and human. A soul is never described as a disembodied spirit.

Secondly, the “spirit” in all living creatures is the same.....it is the “breath of life” that animated Adam and indeed all living things.

Original language words are an important aspect of Bible study. If we simply take the English translations at face value, we can be misled as to what scripture is saying.

“Spirit” can have a number of meanings and context determines what is intended to be understood.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 highlights this point by comparing humans and animals...
“for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.“

Solomon lamented that humans had no superiority over the animals in death....”all have but one spirit”. This is because the ancient Jews had no belief in an immortal soul or spirit that departed from the body at death. (That idea was adopted later under pagan influence)
Death, to a Jew back in Solomon’s time, was a cessation of all life and a suspension of all activity as he recorded in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. The Jews believed in resurrection...that was a physical return to life on earth when Messiah’s kingdom would rule the earth. The Christian scriptures reflect that teaching too, but they have been misinterpreted to incorporate that false teaching.....that you don’t really die but go on living invisibly, in another place.

The young John the Baptist growing “strong in spirit” gives us the impression that God’s spirit was guiding his spiritual progress, as he did with Jesus. As one whose birth was also miraculous, God had a role for John to play in the identification of his Messiah.....‘preparing the way’.

So when we speak of Jesus being “fully human”, we understand that his birth was the result of God transferring the life of his spirit son from heaven, to the womb of his chosen vessel for bringing him into the world. His conception was the result of holy spirit and the Jesus was raised in a poor but devout Jewish family, the oldest of at least six siblings.

So even a simple statement such as you posted...”He had a human body and soul, and spirit [Luke 1:80]”.....things are not as simple as they seem and digging in the scriptures requires tools that help us unlock the meaning of words that have been lost in time to poor translation.

So in discussions such as this, we have to lay ground rules and be prepared to dig deeper than what appears on the surface of things and is reinforced with poorly understood passages of scripture such as John 1:1 in claiming that Jesus was God. In no way does it do so if you understand what the Jews believed as opposed to what Christendom teaches.

People seem to forget that Jesus was Jewish. He used Jewish scripture to reinforce his teachings....we need to know what those scriptures taught in order to see how far Christendom (orthodox Christianity) has strayed in her doctrines from what he taught.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The difference for me is an unbridgeable divide actually. I was raised with orthodoxy so perhaps my own experience in fully investigating all aspects of these questions was an immediate “light bulb”, not a gradual shift in my case because I was never in love with the freakish god of orthodox Christianity anyway. I could not comprehend a god who punished sinners in a fiery hell forever, as a God of love.

I saw too much ignoring of the more ‘inconvenient’ aspects of Christ’s teachings and too much leaning towards being “friends with the world” in political matters. (James 4:4) God does not indulge those who ignore the teachings of his son in order to gain friendship with the corrupt rulers of this world. All that Christ taught, he said was from his Father. As “the Logos”, he continued to be his Father’s spokesman even on earth.



One Savior...yes, but the one who sends the Savior is also a Savior. The term “savior” is not exclusive to God or Christ.

Judges 3:9...
When the Israelites called to Jehovah for help, Jehovah raised up a savior to rescue the Israelites, Othʹni·el the son of Keʹnaz, the younger brother of Caʹleb.“

Jehovah provided a “savior” in this instance too.....this savior wasn’t God though, was he?

A savior is a rescuer. God sent his son to rescue the human race from sin and death. There is no point in dwelling on a word as if it can’t have other meanings. You have to use the rest of scripture to clarify the meaning of what is said.



No, not really. On the surface of it we could agree...but upon deeper reflection I see that the misapplication of scripture such as Luke 1:80 here gives a false impression when taken out of context. This verse pertains to John the Baptist, not Jesus. (if that was your intent)

The Bible gives us a clear picture of what a human being is.
First of all.....Adam was a body....but to bring him to life, he was not “given” a “soul” but “became” a soul when God started him breathing. A soul is not something that resides in a body but is the whole person whose life is supported by the process of breathing. All souls in the Bible are living, breathing creatures....both animal and human. A soul is never described as a disembodied spirit.

Secondly, the “spirit” in all living creatures is the same.....it is the “breath of life” that animated Adam and indeed all living things.

Original language words are an important aspect of Bible study. If we simply take the English translations at face value, we can be misled as to what scripture is saying.

“Spirit” can have a number of meanings and context determines what is intended to be understood.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 highlights this point by comparing humans and animals...
“for there is an outcome for humans and an outcome for animals; they all have the same outcome. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit. So man has no superiority over animals, for everything is futile. 20 All are going to the same place. They all come from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust.“

Solomon lamented that humans had no superiority over the animals in death....”all have but one spirit”. This is because the ancient Jews had no belief in an immortal soul or spirit that departed from the body at death. (That idea was adopted later under pagan influence)
Death, to a Jew back in Solomon’s time, was a cessation of all life and a suspension of all activity as he recorded in Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10. The Jews believed in resurrection...that was a physical return to life on earth when Messiah’s kingdom would rule the earth. The Christian scriptures reflect that teaching too, but they have been misinterpreted to incorporate that false teaching.....that you don’t really die but go on living invisibly, in another place.

The young John the Baptist growing “strong in spirit” gives us the impression that God’s spirit was guiding his spiritual progress, as he did with Jesus. As one whose birth was also miraculous, God had a role for John to play in the identification of his Messiah.....‘preparing the way’.

So when we speak of Jesus being “fully human”, we understand that his birth was the result of God transferring the life of his spirit son from heaven, to the womb of his chosen vessel for bringing him into the world. His conception was the result of holy spirit and the Jesus was raised in a poor but devout Jewish family, the oldest of at least six siblings.

So even a simple statement such as you posted...”He had a human body and soul, and spirit [Luke 1:80]”.....things are not as simple as they seem and digging in the scriptures requires tools that help us unlock the meaning of words that have been lost in time to poor translation.

So in discussions such as this, we have to lay ground rules and be prepared to dig deeper than what appears on the surface of things and is reinforced with poorly understood passages of scripture such as John 1:1 in claiming that Jesus was God. In no way does it do so if you understand what the Jews believed as opposed to what Christendom teaches.

People seem to forget that Jesus was Jewish. He used Jewish scripture to reinforce his teachings....we need to know what those scriptures taught in order to see how far Christendom (orthodox Christianity) has strayed in her doctrines from what he taught.

Sorry, I did misapply Luke 1:80. That was a mistake [see Luke 2:40 instead]. But the point I was making still applies. Jesus was fully human. A human has a body, soul and spirit [1 Thessalonians 5:23].

The question of 'saviours' is a question we have discussed before. Scripture clearly states that God is the only everlasting Saviour [Isaiah 43:11; 45:17]. Jesus Christ is also an everlasting Saviour.

I want to know what you believe happened when Jesus was baptised. What was the Spirit that Jesus received? Was it the Spirit of God 'without measure'?
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
So when we speak of Jesus being “fully human”, we understand that his birth was the result of God transferring the life of his spirit son from heaven, to the womb of his chosen vessel for bringing him into the world.

You might like to elaborate on this point. Where are the scriptures to support your belief?

The simple explanation, and the one that fits most closely fits with all the scriptures, is that Mary conceived miraculously. There is nothing to indicate a transference from God of 'his spirit son'.

Luke 1:35: 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Sorry, I did misapply Luke 1:80. That was a mistake [see Luke 2:40 instead].

Luke 2:40...
“And the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him”. (ASV)

What was your point?

But the point I was making still applies. Jesus was fully human. A human has a body, soul and spirit [1 Thessalonians 5:23].

Again we see a misapplication of scripture. Who is being addressed in this verse?.....

“And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ASV)

Starting in verse 12 Paul says.....

“But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
. . . And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
. . . .Brethren, pray for us. Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren.
(1 Thessalonians 5:12, 23, 25-27. ASV)

This is not saying what you think it is. It is addressing the entire body of Christ’s disciples....the whole congregation....not an individual. So the “spirit” of the congregation is what is being spoken about here. The “soul” of the congregation is also what keeps it spiritually alive.....when we speak of something as involving “body and soul” we are speaking of the person putting “whole souled” effort into something. It has nothing to do with an invisible part of us that lives on after death.

You see, there is reading scripture and there is digging deeper into the original language words and not taking verses out of context to prop up a belief.

The question of 'saviours' is a question we have discussed before. Scripture clearly states that God is the only everlasting Saviour [Isaiah 43:11; 45:17]. Jesus Christ is also an everlasting Saviour.

Well, that is not what Isaiah says though, is it?
Jehovah is the only Savior......he sent Jesus to save the human race with the offering of his own life.....when God sends a rescuer, these become “saviours” too. Salvation originates with God.
Like when an ambulance arrives at a house or accident scene and they save someone’s life....who sent them? Were the dispatchers not a vital part of the rescue......without whom no “saving of life” could take place?

Isaiah 45:17 says...
“But Israel shall be saved by Jehovah with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be put to shame nor confounded world without end.” (ASV)

An “everlasting salvation” is spoken about here...meaning that Jesus’ sacrifice has everlasting benefits for those who accept him.

It’s not the scripture that is at fault, but how you interpret it.

I want to know what you believe happened when Jesus was baptised.

Jesus ‘the man’, became Jesus “the Christ”....which means “anointed one”. He was anointed with God’s spirit in order to accomplish his role as Messiah and savior. The heavens were opened and observers saw the holy spirit descend on him and God’s voice was heard approving of him. What was the point of him “being God” for only three and a half years? If he was God, then he was always God according to trinitarian belief. How can you reconcile this?

What was the Spirit that Jesus received? Was it the Spirit of God 'without measure'?

Since God has always given his spirit in due measure, as for example when he took his spirit that was on Moses and apportioned it out among the 70 older men who were chosen to assist him, God knows how much of his spirit is required to accomplish his will. (Numbers 11:16-17) God’s spirit is the application of his power, which enables his will to be done. It can “fill” people and enable them to do supernatural things. But it is never spoken of as a person, despite the fact that personification is commonly seen in the scriptures.....with such descriptive language as “Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses”; “grief and sighing must flee away”; “true wisdom itself keeps crying aloud in the very street”; “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground”. “Holy spirit” can be a “teacher” and a “helper” in the same way.

How can you view holy spirit as a person but then chop it up and share it between a lot of people?

When Stephen was being stoned, it says that “the heavens were opened and he saw Jesus standing at God’s right hand” but there was no holy spirit standing at his left....there is never a single mention of this......because the Holy Spirit is not a third person in the trinity.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Deeje said:
So when we speak of Jesus being “fully human”, we understand that his birth was the result of God transferring the life of his spirit son from heaven, to the womb of his chosen vessel for bringing him into the world.
You might like to elaborate on this point. Where are the scriptures to support your belief?

Pertaining to his pre-human existence, please consider the scriptural evidence presented here...

"The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?q=jesus+the+word&p=par

Jesus plainly stated that he had come down from heaven to do the will of his Father. (John 6:38) And John 6:62 he says..."What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" So where was Jesus before he was born?

Jesus was "with" his Father "in the beginning"....since God had no beginning, this can only mean the beginning of creation. (Revelation 3:14) The pre-human Jesus was God's "firstborn". (Colossians 1:15-17)

The simple explanation, and the one that fits most closely fits with all the scriptures, is that Mary conceived miraculously. There is nothing to indicate a transference from God of 'his spirit son'."

There most certainly is. Jesus had to be born as Adam's equivalent in order to pay the ransom for mankind. He could not be a son of Adam, he had to be a perfect, sinless son of God.

Luke 1:35: 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.
First of all, there is no such thing as the holy ghost. There are no ghosts in the Bible, let alone a holy one.
The word "ghost" is not of Biblical origin. It is Germanic....(geist) meaning "spirit".
The terminology is trying to personify God's spirit. His spirit is an impersonal force.....the one responsible for creating the universe.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Luke 2:40...
“And the child grew, and waxed strong, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him”. (ASV)

What was your point?



Again we see a misapplication of scripture. Who is being addressed in this verse?.....

“And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ”. (ASV)

Starting in verse 12 Paul says.....

“But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
. . . And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
. . . .Brethren, pray for us. Salute all the brethren with a holy kiss. I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren.
(1 Thessalonians 5:12, 23, 25-27. ASV)

This is not saying what you think it is. It is addressing the entire body of Christ’s disciples....the whole congregation....not an individual. So the “spirit” of the congregation is what is being spoken about here. The “soul” of the congregation is also what keeps it spiritually alive.....when we speak of something as involving “body and soul” we are speaking of the person putting “whole souled” effort into something. It has nothing to do with an invisible part of us that lives on after death.

You see, there is reading scripture and there is digging deeper into the original language words and not taking verses out of context to prop up a belief.



Well, that is not what Isaiah says though, is it?
Jehovah is the only Savior......he sent Jesus to save the human race with the offering of his own life.....when God sends a rescuer, these become “saviours” too. Salvation originates with God.
Like when an ambulance arrives at a house or accident scene and they save someone’s life....who sent them? Were the dispatchers not a vital part of the rescue......without whom no “saving of life” could take place?

Isaiah 45:17 says...
“But Israel shall be saved by Jehovah with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be put to shame nor confounded world without end.” (ASV)

An “everlasting salvation” is spoken about here...meaning that Jesus’ sacrifice has everlasting benefits for those who accept him.

It’s not the scripture that is at fault, but how you interpret it.



Jesus ‘the man’, became Jesus “the Christ”....which means “anointed one”. He was anointed with God’s spirit in order to accomplish his role as Messiah and savior. The heavens were opened and observers saw the holy spirit descend on him and God’s voice was heard approving of him. What was the point of him “being God” for only three and a half years? If he was God, then he was always God according to trinitarian belief. How can you reconcile this?



Since God has always given his spirit in due measure, as for example when he took his spirit that was on Moses and apportioned it out among the 70 older men who were chosen to assist him, God knows how much of his spirit is required to accomplish his will. (Numbers 11:16-17) God’s spirit is the application of his power, which enables his will to be done. It can “fill” people and enable them to do supernatural things. But it is never spoken of as a person, despite the fact that personification is commonly seen in the scriptures.....with such descriptive language as “Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses”; “grief and sighing must flee away”; “true wisdom itself keeps crying aloud in the very street”; “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground”. “Holy spirit” can be a “teacher” and a “helper” in the same way.

How can you view holy spirit as a person but then chop it up and share it between a lot of people?

When Stephen was being stoned, it says that “the heavens were opened and he saw Jesus standing at God’s right hand” but there was no holy spirit standing at his left....there is never a single mention of this......because the Holy Spirit is not a third person in the trinity.

The KJV happens to be a good source of the Greek original because it is derived from the 'complete' Received Greek text which is itself based on the Greek Testament of the early Greek Christian Church. It seems to me that your acceptance of the nineteenth century scholarship of Westcott and Hort has led you dismiss a number of important passages of scripture!

This is the KJV of Luke 2:40: 'And the child [Jesus] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.'
This is similar to Luke 1:80, where it says John grew and 'waxed strong in spirit'.
'Pneuma' and 'psuche' are distinguished for a reason, as it says in Hebrews 4:12: 'For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul [psuche] and spirit [pneuma], and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart'.

You appear to be arguing that a human is just a body and soul, is that correct? So, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is a reference, in your opinion, to the body, soul and spirit of the whole congregation at Thessalonica? Am I to assume, therefore, that you understand the 'spirit' of the congregation to be a reference to the Holy Spirit?

So, what grounds do you have for rejecting the notion that Paul is referring to both the congregation and the individuals within it? This is how I read the passage. It makes perfect sense to think of the congregation as made up of individuals!

You also say, 'Jesus ‘the man’, became Jesus “the Christ”....which means “anointed one”. He was anointed with God’s spirit in order to accomplish his role as Messiah and savior. The heavens were opened and observers saw the holy spirit descend on him and God’s voice was heard approving of him. What was the point of him “being God” for only three and a half years? If he was God, then he was always God according to trinitarian belief. How can you reconcile this?'.

I agree with this summary. Jesus, the righteous man, received the Holy Spirit 'without measure' [John 3:34].

[IMO]The point of Jesus having the Holy Spirit 'without measure' was to fulfil the law in love and save mankind from sin and death. His thirty-three years spent on earth [under both law and grace] was enough to do what was necessary as 'the suffering servant'. He has yet to return as King of Kings to earth. When he does, mercy will be replaced by judgment.

I do not believe that Jesus, the 'body-soul-spirit' man born of Mary, was God. God, the Holy Spirit, came upon Jesus at baptism. God was never divided, so the Father was 'above' at the same time as he was 'amongst' [as Christ]. In time, God would also come as Holy Spirit to be 'within' [within the body of Christ, the Church].

My short answer to your question, 'How can you view holy spirit as a person but then chop it up and share it between a lot of people?' is that the Holy Spirit is given by measure according to the level of faith and talent that each person displays. It's not the Holy Spirit that is 'chopped up' but, instead, it's the faith of the believer, or congregation, that places limitations on the activity of the Holy Spirit.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Pertaining to his pre-human existence, please consider the scriptural evidence presented here...

"The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (John 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Loʹgos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god [“was divine,” AT; Mo; or “of divine being,” Böhmer; Stage (both German)]. This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Psalm 90:2; Revelation 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son."
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451?q=jesus+the+word&p=par

Jesus plainly stated that he had come down from heaven to do the will of his Father. (John 6:38) And John 6:62 he says..."What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?" So where was Jesus before he was born?

Jesus was "with" his Father "in the beginning"....since God had no beginning, this can only mean the beginning of creation. (Revelation 3:14) The pre-human Jesus was God's "firstborn". (Colossians 1:15-17)



There most certainly is. Jesus had to be born as Adam's equivalent in order to pay the ransom for mankind. He could not be a son of Adam, he had to be a perfect, sinless son of God.


First of all, there is no such thing as the holy ghost. There are no ghosts in the Bible, let alone a holy one.
The word "ghost" is not of Biblical origin. It is Germanic....(geist) meaning "spirit".
The terminology is trying to personify God's spirit. His spirit is an impersonal force.....the one responsible for creating the universe.
I'm aware that the KJV uses old English terms, but I don't see this as a problem.

I'd like to address the passage you printed in blue.
Was Jesus 'the Christ', the anointed One, from the moment of birth? We agree that he was not. So, in all the passages quoted from John's Gospel there is no reason to believe that we are talking about Jesus. Jesus is the man, the vessel of flesh [see John 3:6]. Instead, we are talking about the anointing Spirit which came upon Jesus at baptism. That's the Spirit that was in heaven before coming to earth. In 1 Corinthians 10:4 we read that 'they [the Israelites in the wilderness] drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ'. It does not say, 'and that Rock was Jesus'.

The first time that the name Jesus is applied to Mary's baby in scripture is Luke 1:31 [or Matthew 1:21] when the angel Gabriel commands Mary to use the name. Jesus is, therefore, the firstborn son of Mary. He is also the Word made flesh [John 1:14].

The Word of God is described in Ephesians as the sword of the Spirit (pneuma) [Ephesians 6:17]. The Word of God, coming from the one Almighty Spirit, is by its nature spiritual. The Word of God issues forth from God to bring about creation; the Word is not, in itself, a creation [Genesis 1:3].

1 John 5:7: 'For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one'.

How can the Word be one with the Father and, at the same time, a creation?
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The KJV happens to be a good source of the Greek original because it is derived from the 'complete' Received Greek text which is itself based on the Greek Testament of the early Greek Christian Church. It seems to me that your acceptance of the nineteenth century scholarship of Westcott and Hort has led you dismiss a number of important passages of scripture!

The KJV is a very poor translation IMO, simply because it lacks the scholarship of modern times in understanding the nuances of the original language texts.....its archaic English is very difficult for a modern English speaking person to understand. Imagine being a student who is just coming to know the Bible and having to struggle with an outdated language in an outdated translation.

Another reason to be suspicious of the KJV is because it is very pro-trinitarian in its renderings.

Let me give you a classic example....

John 1:1 probably the most quoted 'trinitarian' text used by Christendom to prove that Jesus is God.

Here it is in the Greek Interlinear....
" In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

If we just concentrate on the words "theos" and "ho" first...we see those two words are important to our understanding of the verse, because "theos" in Greek means "god"....(any deity) And the word "ho" as we can see in this verse, means "the". (the definite article. Strangely, there is no indefinite article in Greek. "a" or "an" but it is inserted where necessary to accommodate the flow of language in English translation.)

The Greeks had no way to distinguish the one God of Israel from other gods because the Jews had ceased using his name. Greek gods all had names. So to identify Jehovah in scripture, the Greeks used the definite article "ho" which means "the". IOW, Jehovah was identified as "THE God".
We do this even today...when we see that someone has the same name as a celebrity, like Brad Pitt, we often say not "THE Brad Pitt"? Same thing.
When no definite article was used, it usually meant someone with divine authority or "a god" or "god-like" one.

Please note that in English John 1:1 is almost universally translated in most Bibles as....
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God".

But if you look closely in the Greek, you will see that little word "ho" is used for the first mention of God, but not for the second.
That means that this verse should be translated.....
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God and the Word was a god."

Then if we turn to John 1:18 we see the pro-trinitarian alteration of scripture in the KJV.
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." But that is not what the scripture says in Greek.
It calls the Word (Jesus) "monogenes theos" which means "only begotten god", not the "only begotten son".

So if "theos" means "son" in John 1:18...it should also mean "son" in John 1:1. NO?
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Can you explain that for me please?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
This is the KJV of Luke 2:40: 'And the child [Jesus] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.'
This is similar to Luke 1:80, where it says John grew and 'waxed strong in spirit'.
This sounds like the young John and Jesus were polishing a car.
"Waxed strong"? Really? Who speaks like that these days?

Pneuma' and 'psuche' are distinguished for a reason, as it says in Hebrews 4:12: 'For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul [psuche] and spirit [pneuma], and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart'.

The word of God is "quick"? What does that even mean to a modern day reader?

The Interlinear renders that verse...
" For gar the ho word logos of ho God theos is living zaō and kai effective energēs, · kai sharper tomos than hyper any pas two-edged distomos sword machaira, · kai cutting through diikneomai so as to achri divide merismos soul psychē from kai spirit pneuma, joints harmos from kai marrow myelos. It is even kai able to discern kritikos the thoughts enthumēsis and kai deliberations ennoia of the heart kardia."

The word of God is "living" or "alive"....not "quick"....and it divides "soul" (psyche) from spirit (pneuma)
At Genesis 2:7 it says: “The man came to be a living soul.” Here the word “soul” appears, and it is translated from the Hebrew word neʹphesh. This Hebrew word comes from a root meaning “to breathe.” However, it signifies “a living being, an individual, a person.” It is never applied to a disembodied spirit.

Both the Hebrew word (ruʹach) and the Greek word (pneuʹma) basically mean “breath” or “wind.” And the English word “spirit” comes from the Latin spiritus, which means “breath.” These Hebrew, Greek, and English words for “spirit” are used in many different ways. But in all their uses they have⁠ something in common: They all refer to something that is invisible to humans and that gives the evidence of force in motion—just like breath or wind.


You appear to be arguing that a human is just a body and soul, is that correct? So, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is a reference, in your opinion, to the body, soul and spirit of the whole congregation at Thessalonica? Am I to assume, therefore, that you understand the 'spirit' of the congregation to be a reference to the Holy Spirit?

The body is animated by the "spirit" or "breath of life" as it says of Adam.....only with this breath did Adam "become" a "soul". So "body, soul and spirit" in the Bible have nothing to do with a conscious part of humans that leaves the body at death.

So, what grounds do you have for rejecting the notion that Paul is referring to both the congregation and the individuals within it? This is how I read the passage. It makes perfect sense to think of the congregation as made up of individuals!

That the Bible does not teach that we have an immortal soul or spirit. We are a soul and when we die, the soul dies too. (Ezekiel 18:4) There is no consciousness in death. WE go to "sheol" which is the grave,,,,there to "sleep" until Christ calls all the dead from their graves. (John 5:28-29) Just like he did with Lazarus. (John 11:11-14)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I agree with this summary. Jesus, the righteous man, received the Holy Spirit 'without measure' [John 3:34].

[IMO]The point of Jesus having the Holy Spirit 'without measure' was to fulfil the law in love and save mankind from sin and death. His thirty-three years spent on earth [under both law and grace] was enough to do what was necessary as 'the suffering servant'. He has yet to return as King of Kings to earth. When he does, mercy will be replaced by judgment.

Jesus was sent on his mission from heaven. To give his life as a ransom, or set price of redemption. The perfect sinless life that Adam lost for his children was paid in full by the perfect sinless life that God gave his firstborn son. He was "with" his Father as "the Word" "in the beginning".....so he was never God to begin with...he wasn't God from birth to baptism, and he wasn't God when he died and was resurrected. If Jesus was not God at any time in his life, where did this notion of three heads come from? Certainly not from scripture.

I do not believe that Jesus, the 'body-soul-spirit' man born of Mary, was God. God, the Holy Spirit, came upon Jesus at baptism. God was never divided, so the Father was 'above' at the same time as he was 'amongst' [as Christ]. In time, God would also come as Holy Spirit to be 'within' [within the body of Christ, the Church].

This is not what the trinity teaches. So which is it? Do you accept the orthodox teaching of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" or do you favor what seems to be your own version of that?
Can you find one single scripture where Jesus is ever called "God the Son"...or where it ever mentions "God the Holy Spirit"? We can find "God the father" and Jesus at his right hand......where is the holy spirit on his left.....one verse that says that will suffice.

My short answer to your question, 'How can you view holy spirit as a person but then chop it up and share it between a lot of people?' is that the Holy Spirit is given by measure according to the level of faith and talent that each person displays. It's not the Holy Spirit that is 'chopped up' but, instead, it's the faith of the believer, or congregation, that places limitations on the activity of the Holy Spirit.

That is not what the scriptures say though, is it? Moses' case said plainly that the "spirit" that was on Moses was taken and apportioned out among the 70 that shared his responsibilities. The abilities of all of God's servants was enhanced by the operation of his spirit.
We have just done a study in Exodus and the men whom God used to craft the interior decor of the tabernacle were given amazing abilities in their craftwork that they never had before. We can only image the perfection of their work, guided and aided by God's spirit.

You might like to elaborate on this point. Where are the scriptures to support your belief?

The simple explanation, and the one that fits most closely fits with all the scriptures, is that Mary conceived miraculously. There is nothing to indicate a transference from God of 'his spirit son'.

Luke 1:35: 'And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God'.

I have provided scripture already for this....God sent his son from heaven and holy spirit was the means by which his life was transferred to the womb of Mary, and when that body was offered in sacrifice, God's son was raised back to life in the spirit form that he had before with his Father from the beginning. Jesus spoke of his glory in heaven before his earthly sojourn. (1 John 4:9; John 17:5)

“Christ Jesus, . . . although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death.....” (Philippians 2:5-8)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
How can the Word be one with the Father and, at the same time, a creation?
When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal?
Turning to John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

Revelation 3:14 says that Jesus is the "beginning of God's creation". And Paul calls Jesus " the firstborn of all creation".....these are plain statements so why can't he be at unity with God and still be a created being?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The KJV is a very poor translation IMO, simply because it lacks the scholarship of modern times in understanding the nuances of the original language texts.....its archaic English is very difficult for a modern English speaking person to understand. Imagine being a student who is just coming to know the Bible and having to struggle with an outdated language in an outdated translation.

Another reason to be suspicious of the KJV is because it is very pro-trinitarian in its renderings.

Let me give you a classic example....

John 1:1 probably the most quoted 'trinitarian' text used by Christendom to prove that Jesus is God.

Here it is in the Greek Interlinear....
" In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos."

If we just concentrate on the words "theos" and "ho" first...we see those two words are important to our understanding of the verse, because "theos" in Greek means "god"....(any deity) And the word "ho" as we can see in this verse, means "the". (the definite article. Strangely, there is no indefinite article in Greek. "a" or "an" but it is inserted where necessary to accommodate the flow of language in English translation.)

The Greeks had no way to distinguish the one God of Israel from other gods because the Jews had ceased using his name. Greek gods all had names. So to identify Jehovah in scripture, the Greeks used the definite article "ho" which means "the". IOW, Jehovah was identified as "THE God".
We do this even today...when we see that someone has the same name as a celebrity, like Brad Pitt, we often say not "THE Brad Pitt"? Same thing.
When no definite article was used, it usually meant someone with divine authority or "a god" or "god-like" one.

Please note that in English John 1:1 is almost universally translated in most Bibles as....
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God".

But if you look closely in the Greek, you will see that little word "ho" is used for the first mention of God, but not for the second.
That means that this verse should be translated.....
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with THE God and the Word was a god."

Then if we turn to John 1:18 we see the pro-trinitarian alteration of scripture in the KJV.
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." But that is not what the scripture says in Greek.
It calls the Word (Jesus) "monogenes theos" which means "only begotten god", not the "only begotten son".

So if "theos" means "son" in John 1:18...it should also mean "son" in John 1:1. NO?
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was the son".

Can you explain that for me please?

The KJV may have some questionable translation, but it contains the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek. It has been studied carefully for over 400 years and every nuance has been analysed by scholars!

On my book shelf I have a copy of the Geneva Bible (1557-1560) and a reprint of Tyndale's New Testament (1534).

John 1:1 (Tyndale, 1534): 'In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God'.

John 1:1 (Geneva Bible, 1557-1560): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

John 1:1 (KJV, 1611): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

There's provenance to the words of John 1:1 which can be traced back through the English versions. KJV (1611); The Bishop's Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1557-1560); The Coverdale and Great Bible (1535-1541); The Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles (1382-1526).

Those who undertook the translating of the KJV, a task that began in 1604, were scholars representing the spectrum of belief in England, from Puritans to Anglo-Catholics. There were 48 full-time scholars involved in the translation, forming three distinct groups; the Westminster Group, the Oxford Group and the Cambridge Group. This was no small undertaking!

As regards John 1:1 and the translation from the Greek, here's what E.W Bullinger 'The Companion Bible' has to say about John's Gospel.
'The purpose of the Holy Spirit by John, in His presentation of the Messiah, is to say to us and to all, "Behold your God" [Isaiah 40:9]; and His deity is observed throughout this Gospel. See 1:3,14,33,34,49; 3:13,14; 5:23,26; 6:51,62; 8:58; 13:33, etc. This is emphasised by the first and last references (1:1 and 20:28,31).
The same purpose and design are seen in the presentation of the Lord as having the Divine attribute of omniscience. This is not entirely absent in the other Gospels; but it pervades the fourth Gospel, and is manifested by much more frequent reference.'
Bullinger goes on to say, 'in John the Lord is never represented as praying to the Father as in the other Gospels, but always as saying or or speaking to Him. This is a special characteristic of the fourth Gospel, wonderfully in harmony with its great design. On the other hand, prayer is specifically required on the part of a king (as in Matthew) in respect of his delegated authority (Matthew 14:23; 26:36,39,42,44); also on the part of the servant, in respect of His assumed subjugation (Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32,35,39); and of an ideal Man in respect of his dependence upon God at all times (Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18;28,29; 11:1; 22:41,44,46).
Thus, while in the first three Gospels the Lord is presented on the side of His humanity, as in prayer on eight occasions, not once is He so presented in John's Gospel. [nt.True, the English word 'pray' is used of the Lord in John 16:26; 17:9,15,20; but the Greek word is different. It is eratao= to ask, and implies familiarity if not equality. It is not proseuchomai, as in the other Gospels.] Moreover, he lays down His life: no one takes it from Him.'

Maybe, within this framework of John' Gospel, it is now possible to look again at the wording of John 1:1!

Bullinger's notes on 1:1 include these words, 'Creation is not mentioned until v.3. "The Word had no beginning". See v.3; Jn 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2. Cp. 8:58. Not the same 'was' as in v.14. the Word Gr. Logos. As the spoken word reveals the invisible thought, so the Living Word reveals the invisible God. Cp.v.18
[Note v.18] the only begotten Son. Lm. Tr. WH. Rm, with the Syr., read "God (i.e. Christ) only begotten".

Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken' [John 10:35] and it's true. The threads of scripture produce a beautiful tapestry, and any attempt to pull it apart is doomed to failure.

Take notice of Isaiah 40:9-11!
'O Zion, that brightest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.'
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
The body is animated by the "spirit" or "breath of life" as it says of Adam.....only with this breath did Adam "become" a "soul". So "body, soul and spirit" in the Bible have nothing to do with a conscious part of humans that leaves the body at death.

We're not talking about what leaves the body at death, but about what constitutes a human being....any human being.

It's clear that God's Holy Spirit will not dwell in a sinful temple. Adam's sin led to the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit. Communion between humans and God does not exist if the Holy Spirit is not involved [Genesis 3:8,9]. The whole story of redemption is tied up with the human need for atonement, and spiritual renewal.

This is why it is only God who can save. Only God can provide the Holy Spirit that has been lost.

How can a Messiah, who is not God, provide the Holy Spirit?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
When saying, “I and the Father are one,” did Jesus mean that they were equal?
Turning to John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: “That they may all be one,” and he added, “that they may be one even as we are one.” He used the same Greek word (hen) for “one” in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus’ disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites God and Christ.

Revelation 3:14 says that Jesus is the "beginning of God's creation". And Paul calls Jesus " the firstborn of all creation".....these are plain statements so why can't he be at unity with God and still be a created being?

Revelation 3:14 does not mention the name Jesus. Nor does Colossians 1:15. Here, it mentions the 'Son'.

Did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus at birth, or at baptism?
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The KJV may have some questionable translation, but it contains the Received Text in Hebrew and Greek. It has been studied carefully for over 400 years and every nuance has been analysed by scholars!

Yes....it was analyzed by scholars who were already indoctrinated with the trinity.
All the texts were translated to promote the trinitarian view, as John 1:18 in the KJV demonstrates. It’s a very poor translation and this is shown by people’s inability to comprehend its outdated language. The Bible was not written in archaic English, and it has been revised, but not so you would notice or comprehend better. What is the point of a translation if its language is not clearly understood? :shrug:

Bible study should compare translations and use a concordance like Strongs to to unlock the meaning of original language words.
I have gleaned so much by using these online resources.

On my book shelf I have a copy of the Geneva Bible (1557-1560) and a reprint of Tyndale's New Testament (1534).

John 1:1 (Tyndale, 1534): 'In the beginnynge was the worde, and the worde was with God: and the worde was God'.

John 1:1 (Geneva Bible, 1557-1560): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

John 1:1 (KJV, 1611): 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'.

There's provenance to the words of John 1:1 which can be traced back through the English versions. KJV (1611); The Bishop's Bible (1568); The Geneva Bible (1557-1560); The Coverdale and Great Bible (1535-1541); The Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles (1382-1526).

Those who undertook the translating of the KJV, a task that began in 1604, were scholars representing the spectrum of belief in England, from Puritans to Anglo-Catholics. There were 48 full-time scholars involved in the translation, forming three distinct groups; the Westminster Group, the Oxford Group and the Cambridge Group. This was no small undertaking!

But all those came from an already indoctrinated mindset. The undertaking was one of great responsibility and commitment, but if false doctrines were being promoted by dodgy translations, then it’s time to dig deeper with the tools we have at our disposal. What did the church introduce over time that has no basis in scripture....People would be shocked to find out that all of their primary doctrines all find their origins in Babylon, not the Bible! Hence God's command at Revelation 18:4-5.

Daniel foretold a situation that would occur in “the time of the end”. He said that a “cleansing, whitening and refining” of God's worshippers would take place at this time. If there was nothing to clean up, no stains to eliminate and no impurities to remove....things that have crept in over many centuries, what was the point of God including that as part of his prophesy? (Daniel 12:5, 9-10)

The other interesting aspect was that an “abundance of knowledge” would be available at this time, as at no other time in history. We now have no excuse not to know the truth. But those intent on promoting false doctrines will never have the truth revealed to them. It is 'wickedness' to deny the truth, so the wicked would continue to deny it, hanging onto the teachings of an apostasy that began not long after the apostolic period ended.

Jesus’ parable of the “wheat and the weeds” highlighted that a false “Christianity” would be sown by the devil....leading to a situation where both 'wheat-like' disciples of Christ and 'weedy' imitations would “grow together” until the “harvest time”. Only then would the division between them become complete. The “wheat” would not resemble the “weeds” in any way at this time.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
As regards John 1:1 and the translation from the Greek, here's what E.W Bullinger 'The Companion Bible' has to say about John's Gospel.
'The purpose of the Holy Spirit by John, in His presentation of the Messiah, is to say to us and to all, "Behold your God" [Isaiah 40:9]; and His deity is observed throughout this Gospel. See 1:3,14,33,34,49; 3:13,14; 5:23,26; 6:51,62; 8:58; 13:33, etc. This is emphasised by the first and last references (1:1 and 20:28,31).
The same purpose and design are seen in the presentation of the Lord as having the Divine attribute of omniscience. This is not entirely absent in the other Gospels; but it pervades the fourth Gospel, and is manifested by much more frequent reference.'
Bullinger goes on to say, 'in John the Lord is never represented as praying to the Father as in the other Gospels, but always as saying or or speaking to Him. This is a special characteristic of the fourth Gospel, wonderfully in harmony with its great design. On the other hand, prayer is specifically required on the part of a king (as in Matthew) in respect of his delegated authority (Matthew 14:23; 26:36,39,42,44); also on the part of the servant, in respect of His assumed subjugation (Mark 1:35; 6:46; 14:32,35,39); and of an ideal Man in respect of his dependence upon God at all times (Luke 3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18;28,29; 11:1; 22:41,44,46).
Thus, while in the first three Gospels the Lord is presented on the side of His humanity, as in prayer on eight occasions, not once is He so presented in John's Gospel. [nt.True, the English word 'pray' is used of the Lord in John 16:26; 17:9,15,20; but the Greek word is different. It is eratao= to ask, and implies familiarity if not equality. It is not proseuchomai, as in the other Gospels.] Moreover, he lays down His life: no one takes it from Him.'

What a twisted load of trinitarian nonsense. Jesus prayed to his Father on many occasions, none so pleadingly than on the night of his arrest.
Please read John 17 and see that the requests made by Jesus to his Father were prayers. What on earth do we think prayer is? The “familiarity” of Jesus and his God and Father is never one of “equality”, but submission of a son to his Father.

If Jesus calls his Father “my God” even in heaven, then where is the equality? (Revelation 3:12)

Maybe, within this framework of John' Gospel, it is now possible to look again at the wording of John 1:1!

Bullinger's notes on 1:1 include these words, 'Creation is not mentioned until v.3. "The Word had no beginning". See v.3; Jn 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2. Cp. 8:58. Not the same 'was' as in v.14. the Word Gr. Logos. As the spoken word reveals the invisible thought, so the Living Word reveals the invisible God. Cp.v.18
[Note v.18] the only begotten Son. Lm. Tr. WH. Rm, with the Syr., read "God (i.e. Christ) only begotten".

Oh dear......"The Word had no beginning"? This is also nonsense.
John 1:1 speaks of “the beginning” in connection with the Logos. If God had no beginning, then what can it be the “beginning” of?
If Paul speaks of Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation”, meaning that God used the agency of his son to produce everything in existence, how can it be denied? The trinity finds no support in scripture....not even your version of it.

Jehovah is the only Creator as he brought forth all the raw materials of creation to be fashioned by his precious son who became the personification of wisdom. (Proverbs 8:30-31)
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken' [John 10:35] and it's true. The threads of scripture produce a beautiful tapestry, and any attempt to pull it apart is doomed to failure.

Actually the tapestry was pulled apart very early in the history of the church. Since the apostles also warned of this coming apostasy, which was in evidence even whilst they were still alive, John, as the last apostle was the last restraint against that apostasy. Once the apostles were gone, the devil sowed his seeds of fake Christianity “while men were sleeping”......either because the apostles were "sleeping in death", or because the church itself was spiritually comatose. Either way, the rot set in pretty quickly, paving the way for Roman Catholicism to dominate in the world of that time, and mandate a state religion that was a fusion between pagan Roman sun worship and weakened Christianity. The evidence of this is very obvious once you know what to look for.

Take notice of Isaiah 40:9-11!
'O Zion, that brightest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, that bringest good tidings, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God!
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.'

I know how that scripture applies for me, but I’m not sure how you want it to apply?

The prophecy of Isaiah 40:9-11 emphasizes the tenderness with which Jehovah shepherds his people. During his earthly ministry, Jesus too showed tender concern for his disciples as their shepherd, often including the relationship of sheep and their shepherds in his teachings.

Both Jehovah and Jesus deplored the ruthlessness of the shepherds, or leaders, of Israel, who shamelessly neglected and exploited their flocks. Jehovah promised: “I will save my sheep, and they will no longer become something for plunder; and I will judge between a sheep and a sheep. And I will raise up over them one shepherd, and he must feed them, even my servant David. He himself will feed them, and he himself will become their shepherd.” (Ezekiel 34:22-23)

In this time of the end, Jesus Christ, who was pictured by David as a shepherd of his people, is the “one shepherd” whom Jehovah has appointed over all His servants on earth.

We're not talking about what leaves the body at death, but about what constitutes a human being....any human being.

Yes, body, soul and spirit....but your definition of those elements are not supported by scripture. Original language words clear up the mystery.

It's clear that God's Holy Spirit will not dwell in a sinful temple. Adam's sin led to the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit. Communion between humans and God does not exist if the Holy Spirit is not involved [Genesis 3:8,9]. The whole story of redemption is tied up with the human need for atonement, and spiritual renewal.

This is why it is only God who can save. Only God can provide the Holy Spirit that has been lost.

If you remember back in the first century, Jesus was given God’s holy spirit, which enabled him to perform miracles and gave him abilities that he did not have before.
Holy Spirit was given by God to Christ at his baptism.....then after his death and resurrection, holy spirit, which he said the Father would send in Jesus’ name, (John 14:26) would empower those disciples to also perform miracles. (Acts 1:3-8)

In turn, with “the laying on of hands”, the apostles were able to bestow the gifts of the spirit on others.

So you tell me.....”How can a Messiah, who is not God, provide the Holy Spirit?”

Easily....God gives holy spirit to his servants in due measure so that his will can be accomplished. God gave the holy spirit to Jesus and he in turn can give it to others as God has done all through history to provide evidence of his power. The apostles also had the power to bestow the spirit on others......did it make them God?


Revelation 3:14 does not mention the name Jesus. Nor does Colossians 1:15. Here, it mentions the 'Son'.

Wait....what?

Revelation 3 is the judgment of the seven congregations by the one appointed as judge....Jesus. He is speaking about himself here. Regarding the designations made about himself in Revelation 3:14, other scripture confirms......
2 Corinthians 1:20 identifies Jesus and says that “through him is the “Amen” said to God, which brings him glory through us.”
1 Timothy 3:16 says “Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate”.
Colossians 1:12-15 identifies Jesus as “He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.....is there a reason why you must dismiss these clear verses? Isn’t the trinity standing in the way in each instance?

Did the Holy Spirit descend on Jesus at birth, or at baptism?

The Bible clearly states that it was at his baptism. So before Jesus became “the Christ” he was just Jesus, the carpenter’s son.
His own siblings did not believe in him until after his death and resurrection....why? Because he was just their older brother.....someone they grew up with, who demonstrated no supernatural abilities at all.

The trinity teaches that Jesus was always God but we know from the scriptures that he never was.....not even after his baptism.....nor did he need to be. Jesus was a “servant” of his God and Father (Acts 3:13)......at no time did he claim equality with the one he worships and serves, even in heaven. God cannot be a servant to himself.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Yes....it was analyzed by scholars who were already indoctrinated with the trinity.
All the texts were translated to promote the trinitarian view, as John 1:18 in the KJV demonstrates. It’s a very poor translation and this is shown by people’s inability to comprehend its outdated language. The Bible was not written in archaic English, and it has been revised, but not so you would notice or comprehend better. What is the point of a translation if its language is not clearly understood? :shrug:

Bible study should compare translations and use a concordance like Strongs to to unlock the meaning of original language words.
I have gleaned so much by using these online resources.

Producing a perfect literal reading of the Hebrew and Greek is no easy task, but it's far more important to attempt a literal translation than to give a modern reading that fails to capture the intended depth of meaning.

One of the great advantages of the archaic English is that one is forced to read it carefully and slowly. One is also forced to check the meaning by resort to lexicons, dictionaries and concordances.

The irony of your argument against the indoctrinated trinitarian scholars is that the very people you turn to for clarification, such as James Strong and Robert Young, were trinitarians!

Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (1862) has the same translation as the KJV for John 1:1, and the same meaning for 1:18.

John 1:1: 'IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;'

John 1:18: 'God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father - he did declare'.
 
Last edited:
Top