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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Linus said:As you might gather from the rest of this post, I disagree. But I don't want you to misinterpret my intentions, I just think you have some misconceptions. I think you need to get your definitions and meanings straight. "Protokos" signifies preeminince over something, not "first to be born". And in referrence to the Genesis passage, I don't know what translation you are using (i'm guessing by the souind of it, the King James Version), but none of the modern translations that I've seen use the language you mention here. the New American Standard version even uses the word "preeminent" in speaking of Reuben's position in the family. The first-born (although Reuben was the literal first-born of his family, that is not the point of the passage) always received the greatest inheritance, and was always the most important of all the children.
But if you go back up to verse 14, you will see that "Him" refers to Jesus, not God. Meaning that Jesus created all things as well as God. Jesus IS God.
This passage only states that Jesus was there at the time of creation. That cannot be used as exclusive proof or even evidence that that means He was created. Being present at creation doesn't mean exclusively that Jesus had been created (although it doesn't necessarily mean he wasn't created either).
Once again, your translation is off. Look at the other translations of this passage. You will see that the word was not a god, it was GOD. Look at some translations of the passage, there are mor accurate ones out there. You can see most of them here at www.biblegateway.com
I recommend the NIV the NASB, and the NKJV. they come more accurately from the greek text.
What I'm trying to say is the actual translation of a word means nothing without an explenation of the meaning. There are Greek words that have various meanings that need to be explained in order to fully understand their translation. You have to look past the word usage and consider the meaning. Yes the literal translation of protokos is "first-born" but the meaning impied from that is preeminence and importance.WitnessofJah said:Actually, the word Protokos, and its meaning, come from the Septuagint translation of the Bible which was no less the first translation of the Bible ever. Deuteronomy 21:17 of the Septuagint translation word for word says: Ruben, thou art my first-born, thou my strength, and the first of my children. And in actual fact, the words protótokos páses ktíseos perfect translation is "the firstborn of all creation". Since the Septuagint is the first translation and one of the closest, its slightly more closer to the original version, than lets say, the NAS. Also, since the idea of Jesus being the firstborn of creation and therefore not a God, it conflicts with your idea of the Trinity, which is in your interests to defend. Preeminent was not in the original Septuagint, and in actual fact, changes the meaning altogether.
WitnessofJah said:Him does refer to Jesus, but you have taken it out of context to convert the meaning to make Jesus God which he was not! The idea of a Trinity is a HUGE debate to be had which I will definitely start in a new thread. In the meantime, explain to me
Starting in verse 14, the pronoun Him refers to Jesus. You can see this all the way down to verse 18 when it says that He (Jesus) is the head of the church. Would you agree that Jesus is the head of the Church? Why would "Him" all of the sudden change context, referring to God, when in verse 14 the pronoun "His" is used referring to Christ?WitnessofJah said:John 14:28 -which shows clearly that Jesus and God are unequal therefore, rendering Trinitarianism obsolete.
Because the Bible is inspired of God. "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness." - 2 Timothy 3:16.carrdero said:Why do Jehovah Witnesses follow THE BIBLE? Is GOD not available to everyone who desires TRUE UNDERSTANDING? Can GOD inspire and teach us today as the authors of THE BIBLE did back in the early centuries? In addition to THE BIBLE how do Jehovah Witnesses encourage their REALationship with GOD today?
HelpMe said:john 1:1 should read "In the beginning the word was, and the word was with the god, and the word was [a] god".the [a] would be properly placed as the indefinate article (lo/the) IS in the remaining greek texts.check any interleniar against this, they will show it(lo/the) in the greek text but i have found none that place it in the english translation.
HelpMe said:
i believe that firstborn denotes preeminence, but i also believe rev3:14('...the beginning of the creation of god...') is the strongest indicator that yeshua(jesus) was the first thing made.also a passage such as john5:26(...the Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in himself...) denotes the father being responsible for yeshua(jesus)'s existance.
as pertaining to john1:1-3 and col1:16, i believe the word 'all' must be taken into context(as it does not always pertain to the absolute sense of the word all) while considering the scriptures(bible) as a whole and looking at other uses of the word 'all'(Jer26:8[certainly jeremiah didn't also seize himself],1john2:20[nobody here thinks christians literally know all things],gen4:21[of course this doesn't mean jubal replaced yahuweh as the father of all who play the harp and pipe]).
love
and witness, when i have time i will respond to your response to my post, thanks.btw acts1:8 is calling believers witnesses of yeshua(jesus), not of his father yahuweh.read the surrounding text, it refers to the son.
this is an argument and verse commonly taken out of context and exagerrated in meaning.if these verses equate the son with the father, then these verses equate us believers with both of them, this is truly absurdLinus said:Reasons Why Jesus IS God
John 10:30- I and the Father are one.
and John 17:21says that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him.
The greek phrase here translated as I am occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as I am he or some equivalent (I am heMark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. It is IMatt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. I am the one I claim to beJohn 8:24 and 28.).The point is this: I am was a common way of designating oneself, and it did not mean you were claiming to be God. In order for the Trinitarian argument that Jesus I am statement in John 8:58 makes him God, his statement must be equivalent with Gods I am statement in Exodus 3:14. However, the two statements are very different. While the Greek phrase in John does mean I am, the Hebrew phrase in Exodus actually means to be or to become. In other words God is saying, I will be what I will be. Thus the I am in Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew text, so the fact that Jesus said I am did not make him God.Linus said:Also consider these 2 passages: Exodus 3:14 says "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
This usage of the name "I AM" is used by Jesus Himself to indicate the He is God.
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
How can you deny the deity of Jesus with regards to these passages?
Linus said:What I'm trying to say is the actual translation of a word means nothing without an explenation of the meaning. There are Greek words that have various meanings that need to be explained in order to fully understand their translation. You have to look past the word usage and consider the meaning. Yes the literal translation of protokos is "first-born" but the meaning impied from that is preeminence and importance..
From http://www.data-boy.net/reference/vines/index.asp
1prototokos
"firstborn" (from protos, "first," and tikto, "to beget"), is used of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary, Lu. 2:7; further, in His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the "first" to be born. It is used occasionally of superiority of position in the OT; see Ex. 4:22; De. 21:16,17, the prohibition being against the evil of assigning the privileged position of the "firstborn" to one born subsequently to the "first" child. The five passages in the NT relating to Christ may be set forth chronologically thus: (a) Col. 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the "Firstborn" before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as ver. 16 makes clear); (b) Col. 1:18; Re. 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (c) Ro. 8:29, His position in relationship to the church; (d) Heb. 1:6, RV, His Second Advent (the RV "when He again bringeth in," puts "again" in the right place, the contrast to His First Advent, at His birth, being implied); cp. Ps. . 89:27: The word is used in the plural, in Heb. 11:28, of the firstborn sons in the families of the Egyptians.
Starting in verse 14, the pronoun Him refers to Jesus. You can see this all the way down to verse 18 when it says that He (Jesus) is the head of the church. Would you agree that Jesus is the head of the Church? Why would "Him" all of the sudden change context, referring to God, when in verse 14 the pronoun "His" is used referring to Christ?
Anyway, John 14:28- Jesus lowered Himself down to earth, in a human form, to sacrifice Himself for our sins. But this lowering of Himself, this coming to earth in a human form was not permanent.
Hebrews2:9 - But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone
Reasons Why Jesus IS God
John 10:30- I and the Father are one.
and John 17:21says that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Him.
Also consider these 2 passages: Exodus 3:14 says "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
This usage of the name "I AM" is used by Jesus Himself to indicate the He is God.
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."
I only have one problem with this......... it's untrue.By the end of the third century C.E., Christianity and the new Platonic philosophies became inseparably united.
arianism dates back further than the trinity(as it is part of the jewish culture that spawned christianity).SOGFPP said:...when you look at it trying to justify a 20th century teaching, it's easy to "miss" such clear evidence.
One problem with your theory.... you are under the mistaken assumption that Biblical "proof" is the litmus test for doctrine.WitnessofJah said:The true trinitarian origin of the belief in the "triad" actually goes back to the Babylonian era, which is considerably further back than 2000 years ago.
SOGFPP, the lack of Biblical proof to support Trinitarianism cannot be denied, and after all, this a HUGE doctrine that hangs only on a few verses that are not very decisive. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as proof of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity.
Yes... to your faith... not mine.If the Trinity were to be proved true, there would be canyon-like contradictions that would render the Bible obsolete.