Is Jesus God?

[Hockeycowboy]

No problem. Post a link to it here after you've done it, okay?

Dear Katzpur,

I'm still working on it, I haven't forgotten! Take care.

 

[Yoshua]

1. Why not? There are many instances where indefinite articles are inserted for clarity. No one complains about those because they are supported by the immediate and broader context of scripture. No different with Joh 1:1.

Hi James,

So, it comes out that you added a word for it. I don't see any translation that support your rendering "a God." Do you know any?

4. Let see if we can mirror your reasoning: It says He (Christ) created all things and yet you are forced to change the meaning to become one that states He could not be the Creator of all things because it would mean He created Himself and that doesn't make sense. Where did you get the notion that Christ created Himself while the bible states in Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Isa 43:10-11 that God created Jesus?

James2ko said: God created Jesus and He (Christ) created all things (based on what you understand with the Scriptures)

If Christ created all things, could He be the Creator?

7. The word creation and firstborn does fit the appointment and anointing of David. Read and consider the text carefully. David "will be" God's appointed, first created what? Based on the context and meaning of the term firstborn as the beginning of an existence, God created the first of its kind [prototokos) covenant relationship with King David and his descendants, which also gave David preeminence.

So you see the primary definition of prototokos as the first created is always present in the term and can include or exclude preeminence. Same with Jesus being the first created spirit being and after His incarnation and sacrifice, inheriting preeminence over all things. Just as Paul indicates in Col 1:15-18!

I don’t know where did you get that God created the first of its kind covenant relationship with King David. It seems this is coming from your own word. The word here is “anointing” and “appointment.” Now, if you are referring to Ps. 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, that would not support that the covenant was a created, since the word “created” was not used. It seems that you’re trying to insert the word “creation” to support the word “firstborn” for Jesus and David. I don’t think that there is a commentary to support that the covenant was a created. Still, Ps. 89:27 emphasized greater power and dominion that shows superiority than the other kings.

27"I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

Thanks

 

[Hockeycowboy]

So, it comes out that you added a word for it. I don't see any translation that support your rendering "a God." Do you know any?

Hello, Yoshua.

Did you not read my earlier reply to you? I gave you several, in addition to the NWT.

PLUS, I guarantee, at John 1:1, the translation you use added a word, too. Look at "in" and "beginning"; you see a word that was added, that wasn't originally there? Why did yours (all English translations) add it?

If Christ created all things, could He be the Creator?

In Matthew 19:4-6, did not Jesus say, "He who created them..."? Why didn't Jesus say, "I", or, "we"?

Yes, Jesus was used by God in creating everything, but Jesus wasn't the Creator. In the same way an architect draws up plans to have something built. He hires a builder to do it, and the builder follows through, but who is really the creator?

It's not for no reason that Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus as "a Master Worker."

 

[james2ko]

So, it comes out that you added a word for it. I don't see any translation that support your rendering "a God." Do you know any?

1. Hockeycowboy gave you several translations supporting the reading "a" God on Tuesday and you are telling me you don't see any translation supporting my rendering of "a" God on Thursday???. I hope it is because you haven't read his reply. Nevertheless, in John 1:1, the definite article "the" is not in the original text between "in" and "beginning". Yet your preferred translations "added a word" to the same verse.

If Christ created all things, could He be the Creator?

2. I answered this question in the same post you are replying to?? It seems you repeatedly ask the same questions. Here it is again:

He was an agent utilized by the Father to create "all things". But what you don't realize is that the term "all" is a qualified statement often excluding others, as Paul Himself stated:

1 Corinthians 15:27 For the Scriptures say, "God has put all things under his authority." (Of course, when it says "all things are under his authority," that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) ( NLT)​

When Paul said Christ created "all things" in Col 1:16, that obviously did not include Himself or The Father. Placing "other" between all and things merely qualifies the statement "all things" to include all things except Christ and the Father.

It's almost as if you forget you asked the question almost immediately. It's been a consistent pattern throughout our discussions. Seriously, are you ok? Please don't take this disparagingly, but do you suffer from ADD (attention deficit disorder) or some other similar ailment?

I don’t know where did you get that God created the first of its kind covenant relationship with King David. It seems this is coming from your own word. The word here is “anointing” and “appointment.” Now, if you are referring to Ps. 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn to David my servant, that would not support that the covenant was a created, since the word “created” was not used. It seems that you’re trying to insert the word “creation” to support the word “firstborn” for Jesus and David. I don’t think that there is a commentary to support that the covenant was a created. Still, Ps. 89:27 emphasized greater power and dominion that shows superiority than the other kings.

3. You are reading the text in isolation. You have to define the terms in context to get the full sense of the meaning of prototokos. In Ps 89:3, the Hebrew term translated "made/appoint" or "cut" is "karath". Notice how the Hebrew term for create (bara) is translated as "made" in the same chapter in verse 47 of the KJV:

Psa 89:47 Remember how short my time is: wherefore hast thou [bara] made all men in vain?​

Thus, the Hebrew term for "create" [bara] is also translated "made". Now Notice how the same term (karath) is used with the covenant made with Abraham:

Gen 15:18 On the same day the LORD made [karath] a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—​

Was this particular covenant the first of its kind made [karath] with a human being? Of course it was. So we can essentially say God also "created" a covenant with Abraham. Thus karath (made) and bara (create), can be synonymous. David's covenant was also the first of its kind (prototokos) karath (made) with a king. Once again proving the term prototokos never loses its first created, first made, or first of its kind connotation.

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, there are others.

But really, does it matter what some scholars believe? Jesus didn't use the educated men of His day, to lead His sheep; rather it was fishermen.....those who were humble, and had a love for others as Jesus had. His Father (not Jesus) puts His Spirit on, and 'reveals' His truth to, obedient and humble ones whether they're learned or not. (Luke 10:21) Obedience and humility are way more important!

But as you asked, here are some renderings in other translations:


1808
““and the word was a god””
The New Testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1864
““and a god was the Word””
The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London.

1935
““and the Word was divine””
The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago.

1975
““and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany.

1978
““and godlike sort was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin.

1979
““and a god was the Logos””
Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Jürgen Becker, Würzburg, Germany.

If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of some particular verses, but not the whole, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and those of other imperfect humans.

John 1:1-2 in the Revised Standard reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Douay, JB, NAB, etc., use similar wording.)
But as shown, the Emphatic Diaglott, the NTIV, etc., say "a god."
Which translations of John 1:1-2 agree with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” John 1:14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, vss.1 &2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Hebrews 1:3.

Hi Hockey,

I think you just stopped here without finding what’s inside. I just want to post this first for Benjamin Wilson and Newcome’s.

We may first note that Mr. Wilson was not formally trained in Greek. He appears to have been a follower of John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian movement.

The views of a 19th Century Unitarian are interesting from an historical perspective, but not convincing in demonstrating the proper translation of John 1:1c. Wilson did not have the benefit of the advances in the understanding of Koine Greek that emerged over the past 100 years; he did not have Colwell or Harner's studies available to him, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the subject.

Wilson is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars.

Interestingly, the actual text of the Diaglott reads:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God"

This obviously supports the traditional rendering. However,as the Watchtower notes, in the interlinear we find:

"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Now by using the Diaglott as a support for 'a god,' Witnesses argue that the interlinear translation is to be preferred over the text.

However, Witnesses do not follow this same approach with the KIT.
The interlinear translation in the KIT reads:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." (The use of the small "g" is, of course, not based on the Greek, as the older manuscripts did not distinguish between capital and lower case letters).

Witnesses may choose to resolve this apparent inconsistency by arguing that the translation principles practiced by Wilson and the NWTTC are not the same; however, this claim would need to be substantiated - on the surface, it would appear that in general terms, both texts seek to provide a 'literal' translation in the interlinear and a clear, idiomatic translation in the text.

When one considers that Wilson denied that the Word was the pre-existent Son of God, it becomes clear how he could view the "literal" Greek as being "a god," (indicative of the noun being anarthrous), and "God" being the proper translation - for if the Word is the Foreknowledge, Wisdom, and Power of God (as opposed to the Person of the Son), Wilson - like other Unitarians (such as Andrews Norton) - could view these attributes as pertaining to the Supreme Being Himself.

In any event, using Wilson to support the NWT is problematic in the extreme, given that Wilson translated John 1:1c as "The Logos was God."forananswer.org

For Newcomes,

This citation is actually not from Newcome's translation. Instead, it appears in a version that was "corrected" by Thomas Belsham and an unnamed Unitarian Committee using unknown translation principles. Newcome's New Testament was published in 1796 (click here to see the title page and Newcome's original translation of John 1:1); the "corrected" version appeared in 1808.

It is misleading, to say the least, to imply that Newcome himself (a bona fide Greek scholar) is responsible for the rendering of a Unitarian Committee whose credentials we are not able to verify. forananswer.org

 

[james2ko]

Hi Hockey,

I think you just stopped here without finding what’s inside. I just want to post this first for Benjamin Wilson and Newcome’s.

We may first note that Mr. Wilson was not formally trained in Greek. He appears to have been a follower of John Thomas, the founder of the Christadelphian movement.

The views of a 19th Century Unitarian are interesting from an historical perspective, but not convincing in demonstrating the proper translation of John 1:1c. Wilson did not have the benefit of the advances in the understanding of Koine Greek that emerged over the past 100 years; he did not have Colwell or Harner's studies available to him, nor the subsequent scholarship that bears on the subject.

Wilson is not regarded as authoritative by modern Biblical scholars.

Interestingly, the actual text of the Diaglott reads:
"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God"

This obviously supports the traditional rendering. However,as the Watchtower notes, in the interlinear we find:

"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the Word."

Now by using the Diaglott as a support for 'a god,' Witnesses argue that the interlinear translation is to be preferred over the text.

However, Witnesses do not follow this same approach with the KIT.
The interlinear translation in the KIT reads:

"In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and god was the Word." (The use of the small "g" is, of course, not based on the Greek, as the older manuscripts did not distinguish between capital and lower case letters).

Witnesses may choose to resolve this apparent inconsistency by arguing that the translation principles practiced by Wilson and the NWTTC are not the same; however, this claim would need to be substantiated - on the surface, it would appear that in general terms, both texts seek to provide a 'literal' translation in the interlinear and a clear, idiomatic translation in the text.

When one considers that Wilson denied that the Word was the pre-existent Son of God, it becomes clear how he could view the "literal" Greek as being "a god," (indicative of the noun being anarthrous), and "God" being the proper translation - for if the Word is the Foreknowledge, Wisdom, and Power of God (as opposed to the Person of the Son), Wilson - like other Unitarians (such as Andrews Norton) - could view these attributes as pertaining to the Supreme Being Himself.

In any event, using Wilson to support the NWT is problematic in the extreme, given that Wilson translated John 1:1c as "The Logos was God."forananswer.org

For Newcomes,

This citation is actually not from Newcome's translation. Instead, it appears in a version that was "corrected" by Thomas Belsham and an unnamed Unitarian Committee using unknown translation principles. Newcome's New Testament was published in 1796 (click here to see the title page and Newcome's original translation of John 1:1); the "corrected" version appeared in 1808.

It is misleading, to say the least, to imply that Newcome himself (a bona fide Greek scholar) is responsible for the rendering of a Unitarian Committee whose credentials we are not able to verify. forananswer.org

If you cannot refute the actual evidence, you attack the source..The perfect fallacious Ad Hominem...

 

[Oeste]

I disagree. Jesus was a man. Yes, God was his father. But all through scripture we see that God was working or manifesting Himself in his son. Since Jesus is not God or incarnate (as some say....) he had to have had help in what he did. The son of God had to be a man and born of a woman to inherit Adam's nature. Jesus had to "overcome" sin in the flesh. He had to conquer it himself. That is why he had to die on the cross. He made God right. He made God right by showing us that sin nature had to be put to death. Jesus is also showing us that way too. But God doesnt want us to be nailed to the tree like his son, so it is symbolized in baptism. When we go down into the waters of baptism, we die with Christ, when we come up, we are raised with him. We are a new man. The old man is dead (symbolically). We now lead a new life "in Christ."

I don’t see it Moorea. I understand some churches, like the United Pentecostal Church, teach God “manifests” Himself at different times as the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However if God was manifesting Himself as the son then who did Jesus pray to? Also, how would Jesus go to be with the Father? Wouldn’t he just manifest himself as the Father?

 

[Oeste]

So now we have two “created firstborns”, Jesus is the "firstborn of creation", the other is David, the "firstborn of covenant relationships" of which Jesus is a descendant.

Yes sir. The preincarnate Christ was a firstborn spirit being, while King David had a first of its kind (first created) relationship with God. This all proves that even when the term (firstborn) is used figuratively, it never loses its first of its kind and/or first created connotation. I think it's finally starting to sink in for you

About the only thing that "sinks in" is the realization that some folks will find their way into the net every time you let them off the hook, so let’s start here and see if we can get this detangled once again.

If God’s firstborn of relationships was with David how do you explain Adam, Abraham or Noah? Did God have relationships or covenants with them?

Secondly, by your definition, if a Father has a son, he has a first of its kind (first created) relationship with his son, and can call his son “firstborn”. If later he has a daughter, he has a first of its kind (first created) relationship with the daughter, and can call his daughter “firstborn” , when he establishes his first of a kind relationship with his jeweler, he can call him "firstborn" , ditto for his first of a kind relationship with a slave, first of a kind relationship with the area grocer, so on and so forth, until the term “firstborn” loses all meaning.

This all proves that even when the term (firstborn) is used figuratively, it never loses its first of its kind and/or first created connotation. I think it's finally starting to sink in for you

I'll agree the Arian arguments are sinking in water quite nicely, thank you, just like they did 1700 years before. It’s interesting to see you rowing away from your agreement with NWT’s (post 2087) that “firstborn” simply meant to be a member of/in a group.

I don’t think so James. You need sheep to have sheep. So the “firstborn of the sheep” would by necessity have to be born after sheep came in existence. The “firstborn of the animals” would have to born after animals came into existence, the “firstborn of every creature” would mean to be born after creatures came into existence, and the “firstborn of creation” means Jesus would have been born after creation came into existence, which is nonsensical.

2. You also need God (The Father) to have created other gods (angels) and one of them was created first -- The Word, Angel of His Presence, etc--who then created those sheep, apparently in pairs . That first pair was the firstborn (created before any of their kind), who in turn bore a firstborn sheep and so on .The preincarnate Christ was created before any other God-kind creature (angels) . Since angels were created before humans and animals, that makes him the firstborn of any creature ever created (Isa 43:10-11;Col 1:15; Rev 3:14).

Other gods??? And what were the names of these “other gods”?

Odin? Isis perhaps or maybe Set ?? Do you also concur with our JW friends that polytheism is what the bible really teaches, and first century Jews and Christians just had it wrong?

 

[moorea944]

I don’t see it Moorea. I understand some churches, like the United Pentecostal Church, teach God “manifests” Himself at different times as the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit. However if God was manifesting Himself as the son then who did Jesus pray to? Also, how would Jesus go to be with the Father? Wouldn’t he just manifest himself as the Father?

I don’t see it Moorea. I understand some churches, like the United Pentecostal Church, teach God “manifests” Himself at different times as the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Ok, let me explain what God manifestation is. I think we are not clear on that. I think your thinking it's something else....
Manifestation - making one's self clear in someone else. I can manifest my love into my son, so when people see and look at my son, they can see me in him, but I"m not my son. That is how God works in people or angels. Plus, God didnt manifest Himself in "different" times with the son, He was always there. And God didnt manifest in himself, that doesnt make sense. And the Holy Spirit is not a separate person, it is the power of God. The Holy Spirit or God's Spirit, is God, His power, breath, speech, etc, etc. Plus,, if the HS was a separate person, he would be Jesus's father, not Yahweh Himself.

We fail God in two ways. We sin and we fail to manifest God's character in us. We do want to be like God or God-like. But with our nature, we fail.

However if God was manifesting Himself as the son then who did Jesus pray to?

God never manifested Himself as anyone. God works through people, revealing Himself in others. That is God manifestation. All through scripture it teaches us that God worked with and through His son.

Also, how would Jesus go to be with the Father? Wouldn’t he just manifest himself as the Father?

Jesus never portrayed himself as his father or Creator. Ever. Jesus gave glory to his father in everything. He knew that he was the son of God. Not God himself.

 

[Oeste]

It was James2ko who inserted the words “unacceptable” and “incorrect” into the mouth of Ellicott. The fact is, Ellicott said NOTHING about one response being “unacceptable” or the other “incorrect”, Here’s what Ellicott said, once again, for the umpteenth time: "Either interpretation yields good sense and sound doctrine; neither does violence to the general context."

And here is what he also said for the tenthteen time:"But the latter is to be preferred". Meaning your interpretation, which is the former, is not preferred.

"Not preferred"? It means no such thing. It was more preferred by the early church, and simply less preferred by Ellicott.

Still, that’s a long way from “incorrect” or “unacceptable” as you were claiming back on post 2055. Glad to see you rowing yourself away from that debacle as well.

Sure it does. Especially when unacceptable and incorrect are also synonyms of the term Mr. Ellicot indicates as "not preferred". Not sure I see the diversionary red herring you are talking about.

First, Ellicott doesn’t use the term “not preferred”. They're simply words that you stuck in his mouth, and that’s the "red herring" I’m referring to. Giving synonyms to words he never uttered does nothing for your assertion.

Secondly, you're thinking linearly... one's and zeroes, pro vs. con, "yes" and "no's",... which detracts from your argument. Ellicott states one is preferred but that does NOT mean the other is "not preferred" or unacceptable. It simply means one is less preferred than the other.

I may prefer my blue hat but that does not make my red hat unacceptable. It simply means the red is less preferred.

Oh no, it's going somewhere . I'm systematically demonstrating the folly of this Father and son co-eternal existence fallacy that's no where* found in scripture and I'm just getting warmed up . I wrote a 32 pg paper on the doctrine so I have a lot more to say.

That ship has sunk James. It relied on vacillating definitions of “firstborn”, a pantheon of new created Gods, and sticking words never uttered into the mouths of others. It was bound to run aground.

Daddy was not really a ghost (spirit) at that moment in time, so he wasn't lying to his daughter. His statement does not preclude Him from also transforming to spirit at another time. Hence, Jesus was not being deceptive .

If Jesus was a “spirit creature” that told his disciples' spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bones, when at that moment in time he actually was a spirit creature with flesh and bones, then he was lying to his disciples. Since Jesus doesn’t lie, your exegesis is incorrect.

If Jesus rose as a spirit creature his body would still be in the tomb, would it not? Why wouldn't the body be right where he left it?

We don't know what state His body was in immediately after it was resurrected. And it really doesn't matter. All scripture indicates is that His new body can transition back and forth between the two states (flesh and spirit).

Of course it matters James! If Jesus rose as a “spirit creature” then his corpse is still in the tomb (or Jesus is dragging it around), he is haunting the disciples as a ghost, and he lied to the disciples when he insisted he wasn’t a ghost.

All this nonsense simply disappears with a bodily resurrection.

You didn't answer the question. You merely rephrased your assertion. Here is the rephrased question again: So if their pneumatic bodies were not transformed to flesh and bone, how were they able to grab the flesh and bones of human beings???

I did answer the question. They had pneumatic bodies which were not composed of flesh and bones. Beyond that is conjecture because the bible doesn’t specifically tell us. Your assertion that spirit creatures materialize and vaporize flesh and bone bodies when Jesus specifically tells us spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bone bodies flies in the face of sound exegesis.

Look, here’s an easy way we can settle this question, once and for all. Did Jesus tell his disciples' spirit creatures do not have flesh and bones, or did he say spirit creatures might have flesh and bones, depending on what "state" they're in? Check your scriptures and report back.

Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead.

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."

Simply repeating yourself will not make it right. There are very explicit, direct verses contradicting this statement

Bible verses do not contradict Jesus's statement or any other scriptural verse.

It's clear that God (Jesus, Spirit, Father) raised Jesus.

The only thing clear is your interpretation ignores the grammar and injects unscriptural trinitarian dogma. God the Father and Jesus are being presented as two separate individuals in those passages, Evidenced by the use of the singular (not plural) pronouns identifying each individual.

Since Trinitarians see the Father and Jesus as two separate individuals, and since you’ve verified this through study, can you elaborate more on what you see as unscriptural?

You couldn't rightly divide who raised Jesus from the dead

It's much more logical and rightly divided than your contradictory, grammar ignoring, dogma filled, explanation indicating Jesus raised Himself, when scripture explicitly states He did not.

I see you’re still having problems with this. Let’s repeat it again:

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."

so I think our discussion needs to continue

So much for your, "I am only hear [it's spelled 'here'] to learn".

Ditto for your “…*no where [it’s spelled ‘nowhere’, one word not two] found in scripture”.

Not that I’m counting mind you…I’m hair to learn not to teach.

Not necessarily. No human has ever performed a more complex calculation in their head than the late Shakuntala Devi. Did that make her more than just an extraordinary human? Similarly, just because no human has existed in a sinless state does not make the incarnate Jesus any more than just an extraordinary human being with the most intimate relationship with The Father any human has ever had. He regained His spirit status with much greater God-like authority, after His resurrection.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Devi was born in a sinful state…Adam, Eve, and Jesus are the only humans who were not, and Jesus was an incarnation…the only being of the three who did not sin.

 

[Yoshua]

2. I answered this question in the same post you are replying to?? It seems you repeatedly ask the same questions. Here it is again:

He was an agent utilized by the Father to create "all things". But what you don't realize is that the term "all" is a qualified statement often excluding others, as Paul Himself stated:

1 Corinthians 15:27 For the Scriptures say, "God has put all things under his authority." (Of course, when it says "all things are under his authority," that does not include God himself, who gave Christ his authority.) ( NLT)
When Paul said Christ created "all things" in Col 1:16, that obviously did not include Himself or The Father. Placing "other" between all and things merely qualifies the statement "all things" to include all things except Christ and the Father.

It's almost as if you forget you asked the question almost immediately. It's been a consistent pattern throughout our discussions. Seriously, are you ok? Please don't take this disparagingly, but do you suffer from ADD (attention deficit disorder) or some other similar ailment?

Hi James,

Ok. Thanks for that. I cannot consistently reply back immediately so bare with me. Maybe, I simply forgot to review what we had discussed. Not an ailment but forgetful. lol

 

[Hockeycowboy]

No problem. Post a link to it here after you've done it, okay?

Dear Katzpur, my cousin:

Here you are.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ngdom-of-the-cults-regarding-jws-pt-1.188930/

(Whew, that took me awhile! I had a lot more, but found out you're only allowed 12,000 words!) Oh, well. I may not complete the rest....I'll see. Take care.

 

[Yoshua]

Hi James,

Ok. Thanks for that. I cannot consistently reply back immediately so bare with me. Maybe, I simply forgot to review what we had discussed. Not an ailment but forgetful. lol

Just to correct my spelling here, it is bear and not bare. Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Dear Katzpur, my cousin:

Here you are.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...ngdom-of-the-cults-regarding-jws-pt-1.188930/

(Whew, that took me awhile! I had a lot more, but found out you're only allowed 12,000 words!) Oh, well. I may not complete the rest....I'll see. Take care.

Hi Hockey,

That is an informative details for JW's to check and to find out. Another thing is that we may look at is what the majority of scholars will say or commented about the NWT, esp. Wescott and Hort who was connected in the NWT bible.

Thanks

 

[life.period]

I'm interested in hearing thoughts about (1) Where this idea comes from and (2) If you agree with it and why/why not. I have heard it described like this: Because of the Trinity, Jesus is God, and all the things done in the Old Testament were therefore done by Jesus prior to his human incarnation. Thoughts?

Jesus is not god.


Jesus In Holly Qur'an : "

I am a servant of Allah. He gave me the Book and made me a prophet." [Sûrah Maryam: 30].

Jesus in Bible :

☆Jesus is not god but servent :

Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you may now dismiss your servant in peace.Luke 2:29

☆ JESUS is prophet not god :

Jesus said : "I shall press today and tomorrow , prophet shall not die " Luke 13


☆ god is not human

Numbers 23:19 ►
Parallel Verses
New International Version
God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being,


Jesus is human so he is not god.



christian claim jesus is son of god to prove he is god.

word " son of god " doesn't mean begotten son.

Adam was mentioned in bible he is son of god like Jesus .

"Seth son of Adam son of god " luke

Jesus is equal to Adam .

but Jesus is not equal to god :

Jesus said in bible : " father is greater than I"

Word of god when it refered to human being then it doesn't mean deserved to be worshipped or creator .

Jesus ordered his follower to worship god only not him :

Jesus said : " it is written to worship your god and serve him only " bible

Jesus predicted his follower will mislead .

" you worship me in vain , merely human teaching " Matthew 15

So christian are not following Jesus teaching but human teaching.

That mean that they are following false prophet who jesus predict in bible he will mislead him.

This prophet is Paul.

Bible mention that false prophets are known from their fruits . There sign is "expelling evils in jesus name" because Jesus will deny who expel evil in his name.

Paul said in his letters he expelled evils from women in jesus name .

So Paul is false prophet


there is no direct sentence in bible where Jesus says " I am god "


Note : direct sentence .

Christian take indirect sentence to prove Jesus is god or Words from Paul.

Jesus says jews are gods .

Jesus said to jews in bible : " it is written .. you are gods "


There are christian who believed jesus is not god but prophet like muslims. They are called Gnostic.

John king of Cyprus also was Gnostic.


In Roman pagan emporer Constantine time he held nicaea council to solve fight between Athanious who claim Jesus is god " they were minority " and Arious who believe jesus is not god but prophet and they were majority.

What happen is that pagan roman Constantine ended council by declaring Jesus as god and execution who ever stand against his declaration
That fit his paganism .

Roman pagan used to worship human .

They have several gods like Mars : god of war and many others .

for more look in Google search

Most important god is sol invictus
Sun god

They celebrated in sol invictus birthday on 25 Dec and they replaced jesus in sol invictus place and kept celebrating in jesus birthday in 25 Dec.

Adam Clark said Jesus was not born in 25 Dec because there was no sheep's in farm .... etc

Catholic source said confirm pagan celebration was reason for celebrating in jesus birthday in 25 .


Roman also inserted sun symbols in Christianity and you can see that jesus picture associated with Sun symbol.

In church alter :

Nicaea council also known in Christianity.

Walter nigg talked about nicaea council .

The messianic legacy book mention Christianity we know today is not derived from jesus time but from Constantine.

 

[james2ko]

About the only thing that "sinks in" is the realization that some folks will find their way into the net every time you let them off the hook, so let’s start here and see if we can get this detangled once again.

1. Once again? When did you detangle anything the first time? You have to first learn how to detangle your own thinking (logic) before you can even think about detangling someone else's.

If God’s firstborn of relationships was with David how do you explain Adam, Abraham or Noah? Did God have relationships or covenants with them?

2. David was a king. The covenant God made with David was made with no other king before him. Therefore it was a first of its kind or first produced (prototokos) covenantal relationship with a king. Abraham, Noah, Adam were obviously not kings.

Secondly, by your definition, if a Father has a son, he has a first of its kind (first created) relationship with his son, and can call his son “firstborn”. If later he has a daughter, he has a first of its kind (first created) relationship with the daughter, and can call his daughter “firstborn” , when he establishes his first of a kind relationship with his jeweler, he can call him "firstborn" , ditto for his first of a kind relationship with a slave, first of a kind relationship with the area grocer, so on and so forth, until the term “firstborn” loses all meaning.

3. You are on the right track. If there is some special covenantal relationship made with a daughter (she doesn't even have to be his oldest daughter) that is not made with the firstborn son , they are both considered prototokos--one literal, the other figurative. What most do not realize is that in its original language, even its figurative interpretation never loses its primary meaning of the "first of its kind". Giving us one of many bible terms who's original meaning has been lost in translation.

Other gods???

And what were the names of these “other gods”?

4. Scripture clearly indicates angels are gods:

Psa 8:5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels (elohim), And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

Odin? Isis perhaps or maybe Set ?? Do you also concur with our JW friends that polytheism is what the bible really teaches, and first century Jews and Christians just had it wrong?

5. The bible clearly teaches there is a Divine Council (Ps 82:1-ESV) and family in heaven and earth (Eph 3:14-15) with only one Supreme God (YHVH--The Father), with many subordinate (Sons) Gods (YHVH's/elohim/angels) who serve him. Call it what you want but Polytheism is a term first coined by Philo while arguing against the Greeks. Neither of which I would place my bets on having a complete, accurate truth of the God family.

Secondly, you're thinking linearly... one's and zeroes, pro vs. con, "yes" and "no's",... which detracts from your argument. Ellicott states one is preferred but that does NOT mean the other is "not preferred" or unacceptable. It simply means one is less preferred than the other.

6. No it doesn't. For your assertion to have merit, Ellicott would have had to include a comparative quantifier "more".

I may prefer my blue hat but that does not make my red hat unacceptable. It simply means the red is less preferred.

7. You're right. It doesn't make your red hat unacceptable. It would make your red hat "less" acceptable. Unacceptable is a universal quantifier (either/or) which you are illogically commingling with one part of a comparative quantifier (less/ more).

"Not preferred"? It means no such thing. It was more preferred by the early church, and simply less preferred by Ellicott.

8. An unsubstantiated assumption based on dogma, not scripture.

Still, that’s a long way from “incorrect” or “unacceptable” as you were claiming back on post 2055. Glad to see you rowing yourself away from that debacle as well. First, Ellicott doesn’t use the term “not preferred”. They're simply words that you stuck in his mouth, and that’s the "red herring" I’m referring to. Giving synonyms to words he never uttered does nothing for your assertion

8a. He specifically states "the latter [my interpretation] is to be preferred". This is implies the former [your interpretation] is not preferred. Whether he specifically states it or not is moot. Logic and the lack of a comparative quantifier indicates to me that is exactly what he meant.

And even if we accept your interpretation of Ellicott's statement, his Trinitarian opinion is at odds with Daniel Wallace, a Trinitrian much more learned in Koine Greek than Mr. Ellicott, who called your and Mr. Ellicott's presumed "less" preferred interpretation, "not satisfactory".

Mr. Wallace used a universal qualifier (not), rendering yours and Mr. Ellicott's "less preferred" interpretation as unsatisfactory or its synonym--not preferred or unacceptable. Another Trinitiarian scholar, Dr. Ralph Martin, who based his doctorate dissertation on the book of Phillipians, agrees with Mr. Wallace. I think I'll place my bets on their more informed, educated view and render yours and Mr. Ellicott's politically correct interpretation as unacceptable.

That ship has sunk James. It relied on vacillating definitions of “firstborn”, a pantheon of new created Gods, and sticking words never uttered into the mouths of others. It was bound to run aground.

9. Nope. My destroyer is unscathed shooting down logical fallacies as they rear their ugly head.

If Jesus was a “spirit creature” that told his disciples' spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bones, when at that moment in time he actually was a spirit creature with flesh and bones, then he was lying to his disciples. Since Jesus doesn’t lie, your exegesis is incorrect.

10. He was not lying if his transformational body was in its fleshly state at the precise moment in time He told his disciples that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. If a child thought their parent was a ghost (spirit), to calm their child's fear, the parent could say something like, "No, look its me, daddy. Touch my hand. A ghost (spirit) wouldn't have skin and bones like you see I have, right?" Is the Father making an identity statement? No. He is making one of assurance, as was Jesus.

 

[james2ko]

Of course it matters James! If Jesus rose as a “spirit creature” then his corpse is still in the tomb (or Jesus is dragging it around), he is haunting the disciples as a ghost, and he lied to the disciples when he insisted he wasn’t a ghost. All this nonsense simply disappears with a bodily resurrection.

11. You are making the mistake of comparing His old, untransformational body, unable to transition between flesh and spirit, with His "new" transformational body, which apparently can. Jesus may have risen as flesh and bone to prove His resurrection, but scripture indicates that was not His permanent state of existence--but you do. I'm sure we can agree what is most important is that He was risen.

I did answer the question. They had pneumatic bodies which were not composed of flesh and bones.

11a That is not an answer to the question--- if angels had pneumatic bodies, how were they able to grab the flesh and bones of human beings? You merely rephrased your assertion that they were not composed of flesh and bones. You did so because you have been caught in your own net of misinterpretation and your pride will not let you off the hook to admit you are wrong (quite common defense mechanism). You sure were correct when you said, "About the only thing that "sinks in" is the realization that some folks will find their way into the net every time you let them off the hook"

Your assertion that spirit creatures materialize and vaporize flesh and bone bodies when Jesus specifically tells us spirit creatures don’t have flesh and bone bodies flies in the face of sound exegesis.

12. Oh but it does strongly suggest angels have the same body as Christ's current resurrected body to transition between flesh and spirit (Gen 19:16; Luk 20:34-36 ). When Christians are resurrected, they will have the same body as Christ (1 Jn 3:2) and by extension the angels. That is the most logical explanation of how angels were able to grab the hands of Lot and his family.

Look, here’s an easy way we can settle this question, once and for all. Did Jesus tell his disciples' spirit creatures do not have flesh and bones, or did he say spirit creatures might have flesh and bones, depending on what "state" they're in?

13. You don't settle an interpretive issue with a false dichotomy, promulgated by bad exegesis. Christ demonstrated His ability to instantaneously transition between the two states by appearing to them from thin air , which is why they thought (theoreo-G2334-Luk 24:37) He was a ghost, prompting Christ's statement of assurance they did not see a ghost (spirit). Why should Jesus have to emphasize what they already knew--that He could instantaneously transition between the two states?

Additionally, in an attempt to calm the fears of His disciples, who saw Christ walking on water, we find a similar statement of assurance by Christ in Mat 14:26-27.

Check your scriptures and report back.

14. I did and they clearly report Christ is also a spirit. Since you agree scripture does not contradict, logic would dictate His statement was one of assurance to calm the fears of His disciples, who thought they saw a ghost and not one of asserting His absolute identity.

Bible verses do not contradict Jesus's statement or any other scriptural verse.

15.Yet you manage to interpret Jesus's statement in such a manner as to assert its contradiction.

Since Trinitarians see the Father and Jesus as two separate individuals, and since you’ve verified this through study, can you elaborate more on what you see as unscriptural?

16.The trinity doctrine is not the focus of this thread.

I see you’re still having problems with this. Let’s repeat it again: Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and [the Father] [the Spirit] I will raise it again in three days."

17. The real problem here is those term's are excluded from the text. Hence my reply is worth repeating: It's much more logical and rightly divided than your contradictory, grammar ignoring, dogma filled, explanation indicating Jesus raised Himself, when scripture explicitly states He did not.

I’m not sure what you mean here. Devi was born in a sinful state…Adam, Eve, and Jesus are the only humans who were not, and Jesus was an incarnation…the only being of the three who did not sin.

18. Yet you interpret His appearance to the disciples as though He did sin (was being deceptive).

Ditto for your “…*no where [it’s spelled ‘nowhere’, one word not two] found in scripture”. Not that I’m counting mind you…I’m hair to learn not to teach.

19. That isn't a misspelling that was an inadvertent tap on the space bar. Here's proof I've spelled "nowhere" correctly in post 43 (here). Nice try though. Like I said, while you are "hair", stick to learning.

I'll agree the Arian arguments are sinking in water quite nicely, thank you, just like they did 1700 years before. It’s interesting to see you rowing away from your agreement with NWT’s (post 2087) that “firstborn” simply meant to be a member of/in a group.

20. I'm ex-military, born and raised in the NYC area. I do not run, walk, or row away from much. NWL's explanation is still in line with my definition. He was referring to the noun (firstborn) in Col 1:15 as a partitive genitive. He was emphasizing its grammar usage in the passage, not its definition. .Being that I have poked so many holes in your Trinitarian "ship", you may want to abandon it.....A confirmation you should definitely stick to learning..

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hi Hockey,

That is an informative details for JW's to check and to find out. Another thing is that we may look at is what the majority of scholars will say or commented about the NWT, esp. Wescott and Hort who was connected in the NWT bible.

Thanks

Excuse me, Yoshua, but what "informative details" are you referring to, my cousin?

And I noticed in your previous response to my posting regarding John 1:1, you commented on Benjamin Wilson, but you didn't say anything about Harner's or McKenzie's understanding of the passage.

John McKenzie was a trinitarian. Who do you think would be more honest: a trinitarian scholar discussing a Scripture that he says supports his view, or another trinitarian scholar discussing that same Scripture, and admits it doesn't? I would like to have met him; someday I hope I will.

Just wondering.....do you believe in hellfire? Most trinitarians do.

 

[Yoshua]

Excuse me, Yoshua, but what "informative details" are you referring to, my cousin?

And I noticed in your previous response to my posting regarding John 1:1, you commented on Benjamin Wilson, but you didn't say anything about Harner's or McKenzie's understanding of the passage.

I believed Philip Harne's position is that the Son's nature is that of God , and not a god which also accepted by Daniel Wallace, a known Greek Scholar.

Harner continues:
As John has just spoken in terms of relationship and differentiation between ho logos and ho theos, he would imply in B or C that they share the same nature as belonging to the reality theos. Clauses B and C are identical in meaning but differ slightly in emphasis. C would mean that the logos (rather than something else) had the nature of theos. B means that the logos had the nature of theos (rather than something else). In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis (IBID, p. 85).


Thus, Harner says that not only is John attributing the nature of THEOS to the LOGOS, but emphasizes that nature by placing THEOS at the head of the clause. The emphasis of THEOS would seem unaccountable if John intended an indefinite nuance, but is perfectly understandable if THEOS is qualitative, signifying that the Son's nature is that of God. www.forananswer.org

Daniel B. Wallace
In his intermediate Greek grammar, Wallace accepts Harner's definition of the qualitative semantic force, and provides a number of examples outside of John 1:1. Wallace, like Harner, advocates qualitativeness as a separate semantic category, either coexisting alongside definite or indefinite semantic forces or existing by itself. Citing Harner and Dixon, Wallace concludes that THEOS in John 1:1 is qualitative, and finds the indefinite semantic force the least likely for preverbal predicate nominatives. Though Wallace says that "the Word was divine" may be an acceptable translation, this is only acceptable if we define "divine" in such a way that it is only applied to true Deity. The import of the qualitative force goes well beyond what we commonly would refer to as "divine" in contemporary usage:


The idea of qualitative qeoV here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that "the God" (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father (Wallace, p. 269, emphasis in original). www.forananswer.org

Just wondering.....do you believe in hellfire? Most trinitarians do.

I believed that there is a hell.

Thanks

 

[Yoshua]

Excuse me, Yoshua, but what "informative details" are you referring to, my cousin?

Hi Hockey,

Anything that was posted exposing issues about Christianity, sects, beliefs etc...were informative in genera--for people who read it may check in light of the Scriptures.

Thanks