Featured Question about paul and stephen.And the afterlife.For the Jehovah's Witnesses

Exactly.

In the Greek Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the OT created by Greek-speaking Jews more than 2 centuries before the birth of Christ) that same word is used dozens of times with this same meaning. For example, when Abraham wanted to buy land from the Canaanites on which to bury Sarah, Scripture says that he bowed to them out of respect before asking them to accept the land price money. That same Greek word is used there (Gen. 23:7).

 

Eli G Good to meet you... You are mistaken Not ONE of the 63 bible translations Christians use has "obeisance" in any verse, the Majority of these scripture scholars; these EXPERTS use the word "WORSHIP"!
The word obeisance means WORSHIP and worship is the better word; All agree!!
*******
GOT QUESTIONS
The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ parent organization (the Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course, this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group’s doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Here are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions:

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.
*********

I add.... "Christians believe Jesus is God"! Arius WAS a Christian until he rejected Christian belief! Arius just as the JW rejected Jesus is God! Christians rejected Arius and removed Arius from AMONG them they branded Arius as a False Teacher!!

Christians use the Cross it is a Symbol of Love! Christians make the sign of the CROSS on themselves, they have a Cross on their Churches and inside of their churches! It was by the "Cross" that Jesus destroyed death and restored life!
The CROSS is a Christian symbol!
Eli G The Anti-Christ is "Anti-Christian" Satan hates Christians and he hates the CROSS! Satan would never allow his children to use the Cross, the Anti-Christ would never allow a cross on any of his churches! THINK: There is No Anti-Mahammad, No Anti-Buda, No Anti-Krishna, No Anti-Mormon, No Anti-Watch Tower, No Anti-Seventh Day Adventist etc WHY? It can only be these peoples are doing his work! NONE of Satan's warriors use the Cross! The Anti-Christ is Anti-Christian, Christians use the Cross, all believe "Jesus is God"!!

 

The Scriptures were not written in English. I was talking about the original Greek word that was used in these cases ... The same word was used in reference to Abraham bowing down in front of the Cananites. So NO; it is impossible that that word means to worship because Abraham would never worship any man.

The same is told about false Jews falling down in front of the real ones in Rev. 3:9.

Jesus used the same word talking about what a slave do in front of his master to suplicate in Matt. 18:26.

Matthew 18:26 (Byington) So the servant threw himself down and did him reverence, saying ‘Have patience with me and I will pay you everything.’

(Rotherham) 26The servant therefore falling down began to do homage unto him, saying—Have patience with me, And all will I pay thee.

 

Eli G Thank you for your reply....
First... Christians believe "Jesus is God"! 62 scripture Scholars tell you the Greek is to be translated as "WORSHIP Jesus"! NOT....

Eli G not one of these 62 Professional Scripture Scholars use the word "obeisance" in their interpretation! ONLY the NWT uses the word "obeisance" all know the NWT is a travesty of professionalism!
The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group’s doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ.

Eli G Christians believe "Jesus is God"!
Arius WAS a Christian until he rejected Christian Belief!
The JW also believes in MANY gods! Christians believe in ONE GOD!
..........................
New World Translation
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
..........................
Eli G ONLY the JW NWT has "a god" ALL others: EVERY Christian translation has "the word was God"! Christians believe in ONE GOD! The JW has a belief in "MANY gods'!

Christians believe Jesus is God! Always have believed Jesus is God!
Mormons like the JW also believe in MANY Gods. To be Christian you have to believe as Christians believe!
Christians believe in ONE GOD!

 

.
paarsurrey God does all things perfect, if God did not then he would not be God!
God created Adam.. The first perfect man! This perfect man introduced corruption into God' perfect creation! Creation was corrupted by the "Free Will" choice of the perfect man to sin!

"The wages of Sin is death"!

Death entered and from then on man died! All men are sinners! Man needed to be redeemed BUT we were stuck between a rock and a hard spot... We needed another "Perfect Man" but all are born corrupted! That is until God himself became part of his own creation! Jesus was born man so he could die as a perfect man! CAN'T.....

paarsurrey can't die if first you are not born! Jesus died "Sinless"! Death had no hold on Jesus because he was sinless....

"The wages of Sin is death"!

Jesus rose from death never ever to die again.. No one can die twice.. WHAT...

paarsurrey what we have to do is get our sorry ssa's immersed (Baptized) into the risen body of Jesus!

 

Worshipers of Christ interpret acts of homage to Jesus as an acknowledgment that he was equal to God. Analyze the case of the astrologers who went to pay tribute to the boy who would be king of the Jews. The Bible says that they rendered him proskynewo when they came to where the boy was, while offering him their gifts. Were they "worshiping" God? Obviously not. They were paying tribute to a king.

Matt. 2:11 And when they went into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and falling down, they did obeisance to him. They also opened their treasures and presented him with gifts—gold and frankincense and myrrh.

That is the same word that worshipers of Christ interpret as "worship" of Jesus by his followers. Obviously, they are not thinking clearly because of their preconceived idea of a Christ who is God. Jesus is the Son of God and deserves all tribute and praise that is due to a King, Son of God...but sacred worship belongs to Jehovah God, his Father.

Matt. 4:10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

 

.
Worship is ONLY for God!
Jesus NEVER EVER stops anyone from worshipping him! Jesus knows beyond all doubt.. "Worship is ONLY for God"! Can't say Jesus did not know.. He told Satan "Worship is ONLY for God"!

They worshiped Jesus when he was born, they worshipped Jesus just before he ascended back into heaven!
NOTE
God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....
Eli G .... God is Spirit!

The WORD became flesh! God "The Word" took on the DNA of Mary his mother.. He still had the Spirit of God.. Jesus became the "God-Man".
John 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

The same Greek word used for Worship when Jesus tells Satan "Worship only God" is used here...
Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.
Eli G Jesus knows beyond all doubt... He is being worshiped! He does NOT correct them as he did Satan he does NOT stop the worship!

Thomas... "My Lord and God"!
Jesus does NOT correct the Apostle Thomas fact is Jesus told Thomas.. Those coming after will be blessed because they will not have the advantage of seeing him!

FACT:>> Christians worship Jesus because "Jesus is God"!
Arius WAS a Christian he was "AMONG Christians" until he made false teaching! Christians removed Arius as a False Teacher!

This is PROPHESY
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Eli G All who believe as Arius (Jesus is not God) are not in the truth! Satan is the father of lies he hates you, he hates the truth! Arius was Satan's Child!
Christians worship Jesus because "Jesus IS God"!

 

Thank you for expressing your opinion with such passion. I worship the God of Jesus, who is also my Father. That's what Jesus taught true worshipers should do:

John 4:21 Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews. 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’”

There is a fake christ out there that people think has no God. I do not believe in that christ. I believe in the Son of God, the real Christ, the one who teaches his followers to worship his God.

Rev. 3:12 “‘The one who conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out from it anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the New Jerusalem that descends out of heaven from my God, and my own new name.

 

Eli G I must point out "True Worshipers" are Christians! Christians worship Jesus !
Christians believe Jesus is God!

Jesus is a God Man.. His God as a man, is his his Father!
Eli G Jesus attributes this lesser status to himself insofar as he is man, not God. If God is more than one person, then the Son can both acknowledge his Father as God while still being God himself.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains this way,
Thus when he says, the Father is greater than I, he does not mean I, as Son of God, but as Son of man, for in this way he is not only inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but even to the angels: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). Again, in some things he was subject to human beings, as his parents (Luke 2:51). Consequently, he is inferior to the Father because of his human nature, but equal because of his divine nature (Commentary on the Gospel of John 14.8).

Christians rejected Arius because Arius rejected Jesus is God!
Christians believe in ONE God!
Thomas tells you Jesus is God!
The scriptures tell you Jesus is God!
Non Christians believe in MANY gods! The JW believes in many gods!
The watch Tower has corrupted the scriptures to fit their teaching!
NOT ONE scripture passage has the letter "A" in John 1:1 over sixty CHRISTIAN scripture scholars ... In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

Eli G There are three Persons in the Trinity, so the Father is the only true God, the Son is the only true God, and the Holy Spirit is the only true God.
.
.. When the Greeks in Lystra mistook Paul and Barnabas for the gods Zeus and Hermes, the two men tore their garments. They reminded the crowd that they were humans too and implored them to worship the true God who made heaven and earth (Acts 14:14-15).
In Revelation 19:10 the apostle John falls to his feet to worship an angel but the angel briskly tells him, “Don’t do that!” In the Book of Acts King Agrippa accepted the crowds praise that he was God and for his failure to redirect that praise to God, “he was eaten by worms and died,” (Acts 12:23).
Jesus did not correct Thomas. Jesus accepts Thomas' proclamation "My Lord and my God" there was nothing that had to be corrected!

Eli G All Christians are Blessed because they believe the same as Thomas! "My Lord and My God"!
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

.

 

.
Addition to post 69 (above)

The Watch Tower teaches "Scarifying children to god" rejecting blood transfusion to save a child then teaching; it is god' command!!!! Killing children in god' name is an abomination to God! It is exactly what Satan wants, not what God wants! Offering child sacrifice to god! The very idea of children dyeing in this way; makes me sick!
Leviticus 18:21
“‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Malek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

2 Chronicles 33:6
He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger.

ETC

Eli G I also add... The watch Tower and the JW' were NOT around for 1900 years! Eli G your church was started by a man just as the LDS and all others! Jesus established ONE CHURCH his Church is built on ROCK not on sand...
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Your founder; Charles Taze Russell thought Jesus a FOOL! Satan the Anti-Christian wants people like Russell to attack Christians! Satan hates the Cross because it was the cross that defeated him.. Satan would never allow his Children to use the cross, he would never allow a cross on any of his churches!

 

#67 Dognox20

1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28
....................
#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6
......................
1. Worship

The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.”

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.”

“Obeisance,” of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence” - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]” - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …” - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’” And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.”

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before” at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship” there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships” [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.”

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.” - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.”

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships” ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship” is here translated “did obeisance” in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, “The Lord of me” (“My Lord”).

Angels, when acting as representatives of Jehovah and speaking his words, could properly receive proskuneo as representatives for a superior authority.

Gen. 18:2 uses shachah to describe what Abraham did to the angels (p. 37, New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.) who came to him, and what Lot did to two of those same angels (shachah) is described at Gen. 19:1 (Also see Unger and White, pp. 7 and 482.) Proskuneo is also used in these two scriptures in the Septuagint. Also see Numbers 22:31: Balaam “worshiped” (proskuneo - Sept. and shachah [”fell flat” - KJV] - Hebrew OT) the ANGEL and the angel accepted it! (Unlike Rev. 19:10 and 22:8, 9.)

“The angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah/Yahweh], sometimes ‘the angel of God’ or ‘my (or ‘his’) angel,’ is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal spokesman. In many passages he is virtually identified with God and speaks not merely in the name of God but as God in the first person singular.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 38.

So, like the word theos ("God"/"a god"), proskuneo and shachah had different levels of meaning. Only God was to receive worship in the highest sense of the word.

 

#67 Dognox20

1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28

#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6
............................................

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit..…
..........................................
The angels are also spirit persons.

As the trinitarian Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1982, Bethany House Publ., tells us:

“the name [‘angel’] does not denote their nature [just as the title ‘God’ or ‘god’ does not necessarily denote one’s nature], but their office as messengers” - p. 38. “As to their nature, they are spirits.” - p. 39.

Or, as the equally trinitarian New Bible Dictionary (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1982, tells us, angels are “uncorrupted spirit in original essence.” - p. 36.

Today’s Dictionary of the Bible also tells us that this nature (“spirit”) of angels is “the divine nature” - p. 593. And the New Bible Dictionary admits: “in his nature God is pure spirit.” - p. 427.

Therefore, God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit. This obviously does not make them all equally God! Man, mouse, and canary are certainly not all equally man simply because they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh!

 

#67 Dognox20
1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28

#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6
................................................
3. Jn 1:1

It is far from surprising that trinitarian scholars would prefer the 'God' translation at John 1:1c and ignore any other honest alternate. However, notice this:

Trinitarian Greek expert, W. E. Vine, (although, for obvious reasons, he chooses not to accept it as the proper interpretation) admits that the literal translation of John 1:1c is: “a god was the Word”. - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.

Professor C. H. Dodd, director of the New English Bible project, also admits this is a proper literal translation:

“A possible translation [for John 1:1c] ... would be, ‘The Word was a god.’ As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted.” - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977.

The reason Prof. Dodd rejected “a god” as the actual meaning intended by John is simply because it upset his trinitarian interpretation of John’s Gospel!

Rev. J. W. Wenham wrote in his The Elements of New Testament Greek: “Therefore as far as grammar alone is concerned, such a sentence could be printed: θεὸς ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, which would mean either, ‘The Word is a god’, or, ‘The Word is the god’.” - p. 35, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

(Of course, if you carefully, properly examine this study, you will find that the grammar really shows that ‘The Word was a god’ is what John intended in 1:1c.)

Trinitarian NT scholar Prof. Murray J. Harris also admits that grammatically John 1:1c may be properly translated, ‘the Word was a god,’ but his trinitarian bias makes him claim that “John’s monotheism” will not allow such an interpretation. - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992. However, his acknowledgment of the use of “god” for men at John 10:34-36 and the use of “god/gods” for angels, judges, and other men in the Hebrew OT Scriptures contradicts his above excuse for not accepting the literal translation. - p. 202, Jesus as God.

And Dr. J. D. BeDuhn in his Truth in Translation states about John 1:1c:

“‘And the Word was a god.’ The preponderance of evidence from Greek grammar… supports this translation.” - p. 132, University Press of America, Inc., 2003.

Trinitarian Dr. Robert Young admits that a more literal translation of John 1:1c is “and a God (i.e, a Divine Being) was the Word” - p. 54, (‘New Covenant’ section), Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing.

And popular Bible scholar, author, and Bible translator, trinitarian Dr. William Barclay wrote: “You could translate [John 1:1c], so far as the Greek goes: ‘the Word was a God’; but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong.” - p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985.

You see, in ancient times many of God’s servants had no qualms about using the word “god” or “gods” for godly men, kings, judges, and even angels.

New Testament Greek expert Joseph H. Thayer defines theos:

““θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, i.q. God’s representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.” - p. 288, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.

To see the proof of John’s intended meaning of “a god” at John 1:1c, see my personal studies:

Examining the Trinity or Examining the Trinity: John 1:1c Primer - For Grammatical Rules That Supposedly "Prove" the Trinity

 

#67 Dognox20
1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28

#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6

.....................................
4. Jn 20:28

The very fact that the words of Thomas are not a complete statement show that it is probably the abbreviated form of a common expression or doxology (#2 above) and not a statement of identification such as “you are my lord and my god.” Whereas doxologies and other common expressions are frequently abbreviated to the point of not being complete statements (cf. Dana and Mantey, p. 149), statements of identification appear to be complete statements (certainly in the writings of John, at least), e.g., Jn 1:49, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” - NASB. Cf. Jn. 6:14, 69; 7:40, 41; 9:17; 11:27; 21:7. Furthermore, when using the term “Lord” (at least) in address to another person, a different form of the NT Greek word is used than the form found at John 20:28 (ho kurios mou).

“The vocative is the case used in addressing a person .... kurie [kurie] (O Lord), Θee (O God) ... are almost the only forms found in the N.T.” - pp. 14, 15, The New Testament Greek Primer, Rev. Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1978 printing.

This is especially true of “Lord” and “my Lord” in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. Kurie, not kurios, is the form used when addressing someone as “Lord” or “My Lord.” (“God,” Θεε, however, is not so certain. In fact, it is very rare in the NT which normally uses the nominative Θεὸς in address).

We can see a good example of this vocative form, which is used in addressing a person as “Lord,” at 3 Kings 1:20, 21 (1 Kings 1:20, 21 in modern English Bibles) in the ancient Greek of the Septuagint: “And you, my Lord [kurie mou], O King ...” - 3 Kings 1:20, Septuagint. Then at 3 Kings 1:21 we see the same person (King David) being spoken about (but not addressed) in the same terms as Jn 20:28: “And it shall come to pass, when my Lord [ho kurios mou] the king shall sleep with his fathers .... - 3 Kings 1:21, Septuagint.

We also find Thomas himself, at Jn 14:5, addressing Jesus as “Lord” by using kurie. And, when addressing the angel at Rev. 7:14, John himself says kurie mou (“My Lord”)! There are 33 uses of kurie in the Gospel of John alone. Here are a few of them: John 9:38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39; 12:38 (from OT quote-'Jehovah' as kurie); 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37; 14:5. (Compare these with an actual identification of the lord: “it is the lord [kurios],” John 21:7 – Also, for Colwell’s Rule fans, note the use of the article and the word order of the clause in the two clauses identifying the Lord here.)

Therefore, it is probably safe to say that when John wrote down the incident with Thomas at Jn 20:28 and used the nominative form for “My Lord” [Kurios] he was not saying that Thomas was addressing Jesus as “My Lord and my God”, but it was a doxology (praise to God) like “my Lord and my God [is to be praised]”.

Again, some scholars have interpreted John 20:28 as merely “an exclamation of astonishment” by Thomas. And, although a few modern trinitarians would like us to believe that such exclamations as this are really only modern idioms and were not used in ancient times, that is simply untrue. For example, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428 A.D.) was “an early Christian theologian, the most eminent representative of the so-called school of Antioch. .... he was held in great respect, and took part in several synods, with a reputation for orthodoxy that was never questioned.”

This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early trinitarian and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Cyril of Alexandria. - Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol. 22, p. 58. This highly-respected, very early trinitarian wrote, 1700 years ago, that Thomas’ statement at John 20:28 was “an exclamation of astonishment directed to God.” - p. 535, Vol. 3, Meyer’s Critical Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospel of John, [corrected title] Funk & Wagnalls.

 

#67 Dognox20

1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28

#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6
.................................
5. Jn [1:]18

“John [1:]18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.”

….………………………………………………

We all should give proper references for our quotes. Which Bible is so far off base as this one you quote?

Here is the Greek text:

2316 Theon Θεὸν God N-AMS

3762 oudeis οὐδεὶς no one Adj-NMS

3708 heōraken ἑώρακεν has seen V-RIA-3S

4455 pōpote πώποτε ever yet Adv

3439 monogenēs μονογενὴς [the] only-begotten Adj-NMS

2316 Theos Θεὸς God N-NMS

3588 ho ὁ the [one] Art-NMS 1510 ōn ὢν being V-PPA-NMS

1519 eis εἰς in Prep

3588 ton τὸν the Art-AMS

2859 kolpon κόλπον bosom N-AMS

3588 tou τοῦ of the Art-GMS

3962 Patros Πατρὸς Father N-GMS

1565 ekeinos ἐκεῖνος he DPro-NMS

1834 exēgēsato ἐξηγήσατο has made [him] known V-AIM-3S

John 1 with Book Summary - Interlinear Study Bible - StudyLight.org


There are some manuscripts which have “son” in place of “god” but both words do not appear in any early manuscript.

….……………………………………………….

 

#67 Dognox20

1. Worship

2. God the Father is Spirit!
The Word is Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is Spirit.....

3. Jn 1:1

4. Jn 20:28

#69 Dognox20

5. Jn [1:]18

6. Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
.................................................
Phil. 2:6 (“grasp,” “held onto”?)

Harpagmos

Now notice how these two very trinitarian Bibles have rendered it:

“He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, ἁρπαγμὸς] equality with God” - NEB.

“He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God” - TEV (and GNB).

We believe that the translations by the trinitarian NEB and TEV Bibles of this part of Phil. 2:6 must be the intended meaning of the original writer of this scripture because (in part, at least) of the obvious meaning of the New Testament (NT) Greek word harpagmos (ἁρπαγμὸς).

There could be some doubt about the meaning of the word harpagmos if we looked only at the NT Greek Scriptures (since harpagmos occurs only at Phil. 2:6 in the entire New Testament). We would then only have the meaning of the source words for harpagmos to determine its intended meaning.

Even so, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance (by trinitarian writer and trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means “plunder” and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: “to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force).” - #725 & 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.

“725 harpagmós – to seize, especially by an open display of force. See 726 (harpazō).” - HELPS Word-studies, copyright © 1987, 2011 by Helps Ministries, Inc.

And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by trinitarians) tells us: “harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized.” And, “harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away.” Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725 & #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.

In fact, the trinitarian The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1967, pp. 436, 437, vol. III, tells us:

“We cannot find any passage where [harpazo] or any of its derivatives [which include harpagmos] has the sense of ‘holding in possession,’ ‘retaining’ [as preferred in many trinitarian translations of Phil. 2:6]. It seems invariably to mean ‘seize’, ‘snatch violently’. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense [‘snatch violently’] into one which is totally different, ‘hold fast.’ ”

Even the very trinitarian NT Greek expert, W. E. Vine, had to admit that harpagmos is “akin to harpazo, to seize, carry off by force.” - p. 887, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.

And the trinitarian The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology tells us that the majority of Bible scholars (mostly trinitarian, of course)

“have taken harpagmos to mean a thing plundered or seized..., and so spoil, booty or a prize of war.” - p. 604, vol. 3, Zondervan, 1986.

The key to both these words (harpagmos and its source word, harpazo) is: taking something away from someone by force and against his will. And if we should find a euphemism such as “prize” used in a trinitarian Bible for harpagmos, it has to be understood only in the same sense as a pirate ship forcibly seizing another ship as its “prize”!

We can easily see this “taken by force” meaning in all the uses of harpazo (the source word for harpagmos) in the New Testament. But since harpagmos itself is used only at Phil. 2:6 in the NT, Bible scholars must go to the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament (which is frequently quoted in the NT), the Septuagint.

In the Septuagint harpagmos (in its forms of harpagma[2,3] and harpagmata) is used 16 times according to trinitarian Zondervan’s A Concordance of the Septuagint, p. 32, 1979 printing. And in every case its meaning is the taking of something away from someone by force. Here they are in the Bagster Septuagint as published by Zondervan: Lev. 6:4 “plunder;” Job 29:17 “spoil” (a “prize” taken by force); Ps. 61:10 (Ps. 62:10 in most modern Bibles) “robberies;” Is. 42:22 “prey;” Is. 61:8 “robberies;” Ezek. 18:7 “plunder;” Ezek. 18:12 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:16 “robbery;” Ezek. 18:18 “plunder;” Ezek. 19:3 “prey;” Ezek. 19:6 “take prey;” Ezek. 22:25 “seizing prey;” Ezek. 22:27 “get dishonest gain” (through the use of “harpazo” or “force”); Ezek. 22:29 “robbery;” Ezek. 33:15 “has robbed;” and Malachi 1:13 “torn victims” (compare ASV).

So, in spite of some trinitarians’ reasonings and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).

 

Phil. 2:6, Morphe

Although it has been rejected by even many trinitarian Bible scholars, some others attempt to force an interpretation of morphe (μορφῇ) that includes the idea of “essence” or “nature.” They do this only at Phil. 2:6 (Jesus “was in the form [morphe] of God”) because the true meaning of morphe will not allow for the trinitarian interpretation that Jesus is God. But with their forced interpretation of morphe at Phil. 2:6 they can say that Jesus had the “absolute essence” and “full nature” of God!

As even many trinitarian Bible scholars admit:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Thayer agrees that morphe is “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance” - Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 418, Baker Book House. [Also see Young’s Analytical Concordance]

Liddell and Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, p. 519, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing, tells us that morphe can mean “form, fashion, appearance” but does not include a meaning for “nature” or “essence.” It also shows that if one truly intends the meaning of “being, essence, nature of a thing” it is defined by the Greek word ousia (p. 579) or phusis (p. 876) not morphe.

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), Eerdmans, 1985, says “In general morphe in all its nuances represents what may be seen by the senses and not what is mentally apprehended.” - p. 608. It also tells us that when “nature” is intended by Paul, he uses physis (phusis). E.g., Ro. 11:21, 24; Gal. 2:15;4:8. - p. 1286.

The highly-esteemed BAGD (and BDAG) also defines morphe as “form, outward appearance, shape.” - p. 530.

It’s easy to see why even many trinitarian scholars disagree with the forced “nature” interpretation of morphe when you look at all the scriptural uses of morphe (according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978 printing and A Concordance of the Septuagint, Zondervan Publishing House, 1979 printing): Mark 16:12; Phil. 2:6, 7 in the New Testament and in the Old Testament Greek Septuagint of Job 4:16 “there was no form [morphe] before my eyes;” Is. 44:13 “makes it [a piece of wood] as the form [morphe] of a man;” Dan. 4:33 “my natural form [morphe] returned to me;” 5:6, 9, 10 “the king’s countenance [morphe] changed;” 7:28 “[Daniel’s] countenance [morphe] was changed.” - The Septuagint Version, Greek and English, Zondervan, 1976 printing.

Morphe is found at Mark 16:12 which is part of the “Long Ending” for the Gospel of Mark. Many scholars do not consider this as inspired scripture, but, instead, a later addition by someone to Mark’s original inspired writing. However, even if this is the case, it is still an example of how morphe was used in those times since copies of the “Long Ending” were in existence at least as early as 165 A.D. (Justin Martyr).

So notice especially how the New American Bible (1970), the Living Bible, The New English Bible, the Douay version, the New Life Version, and the Easy-to-Read Version translate morphe at Mark 16:12:

“he was revealed to them completely changed in appearance [morphe]” - NAB.

“they didn’t recognize him at first because he had changed his appearance [morphe].” - LB.

“he appeared in a different guise [morphe]” - NEB.

“he appeared in another shape [morphe]” - Douay.

“he did not look like he had looked [morphe] before to these two people” - NLV.

“Jesus did not look the same” - ETRV.

Mark 16:12 - “He appeared in another form. Luke explains this by saying that their eyes were held. If their eyes were influenced, of course, optically speaking, Jesus would appear in another form.” - People’s New Testament Notes.

Later, Jesus showed himself to two of his followers while they were walking in the country, but he did not look the same as before. - NCV.

These trinitarian translations show the meaning of morphe to be that of “external appearance” not “essence” or “nature”!

The trinitarian Living Bible even renders morphe at Phil. 2:7 as “disguise”! And the 1969 French lectionary (see section on harpagmos above) rendered morphe at Phil. 2:6 as image!

The further uses of morphe (μορφῇ, the very same form as used at Phil 2:6) by those first Christian writers to write after the NT itself was written (the Apostolic Fathers - about 90 A.D. to 150 A.D.) make a trinitarian rendering at Philippians 2:6 even more incredible:

“There was no form [μορφῇ] before my eyes, but I heard a breeze and a voice.” 1 Clem. 39:3, The Apostolic Fathers, Sparks, 1978, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Publ.

“I want to show you what the holy Spirit, which spoke with you in the form [μορφῇ] of the Church, showed you” - Hermas, Sim. 9:1:1, Sparks.

Also notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

We can see, then, that, with the originally-intended meaning of morphe, Paul is saying that before Jesus came to earth he had a form or an external appearance resembling that of God (as do the other heavenly spirit persons, the angels, also).

So one in the morphe of a slave is one who has the appearance of a slave (but is not in actuality - thus, “taking the disguise [morphe] of a slave” - Phil. 2:7, Living Bible.).

This is the obvious meaning of “form” here and it is still used in this sense even today. As an example The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (TNIDONTT) says:

“According to Gen 18:1 ff., God appeared to Abraham in the form of three men.” - p. 706, vol. 1.

Although scripturally incorrect (see the IMAGE study: “Actual physical representations”) some trinitarians today say that God was in the form of three men (or angels). Obviously they mean only that he appeared that way to men, but really was not what his outward appearance seemed: he was not actually three men!!).

Isaiah 44:13, for example, says in the Septuagint: “The artificer having chosen a piece of wood, marks it out with a rule, and fits it with glue, and makes it as the form [morphe] of a man” - Zondervan, 1976 printing. Now a “Wooditarian” might well claim that the wood in this scripture ‘clearly has the full and complete essence, nature, etc. of Man,’ but no objective, reasonable person would accept his wishful interpretation! Instead an honest interpretation can only be that the artificer made the piece of wood to appear like a man.

The fact that it is in the form (morphe) of a man shows conclusively (as we should know anyway) that it is not a man! If the writer of this scripture had somehow intended to say that the artificer had indeed made the piece of wood into a real man, he would not have used morphe. He would have written that the artificer “makes it into a man.” And, of course, it is equally true that Paul would not have said Jesus was in the form (morphe) of God if he had meant that Jesus was God! The use of morphe there shows that Jesus was not God!

Yes, the fact that some trinitarians insist that morphe can mean the very essence or nature of a thing does not make it so. We know that ‘essence,’ ‘nature,’ ‘essential nature,’ etc. were not intended here by Paul simply because of the way this word is always used in scripture. We know it also by the fact that there were words available to Paul which really did mean ‘essence’ or ‘nature.’ If Paul, or any other Bible writer, had ever wished to use a word indicating the nature, substance, or essence of something, he could have used phusis or, possibly, even ousia.

 

Ison: “Equal” (Phil. 2:6)

(Please consider: Being “equal to someone or something” [like being “the image of someone”] is really a statement that you are not really that person or thing at all! When we intend to identify someone or something, we come right out and say it. We do not say, “David is equal to the king of Israel;” “Jesus is equal to the Christ;” “Jehovah is equal to God;” etc.! No, we clearly say, “David is King over Israel” - 2 Sam. 5:17; “Jesus is the Christ” - 1 Jn 5:1; “Jehovah is God” - 1 Ki. 18:39, Living Bible, ASV, Young’s, and The Interlinear Bible; Ps 100:3, ASV, Young’s, and The Interlinear Bible. - - - Remember, “LORD” in most Bibles is a mistranslation of YHWH [“Jehovah" or "Yahweh.”])

The acclaimed trinitarian authority The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology admits that ison (and its related forms) “indicates more strongly an external, objectively measurable and established likeness and correspondence” - p. 497, vol. 2.

A careful study of the NT uses of this word not only shows that it means an external likeness but that it may even be limited to a likeness of only one aspect of the original [MINOR 8 - “John 5:18 (‘Equal’: Ison)”].

Isos (isa, neut.) “ἴσος ... prob. from 1492 [eido] (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind)” - Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

So when one thing is described as isa [ison] with another thing, they are still two separate different things. One is merely like or similar to another in a certain aspect.

The very trinitarian The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, vol. 2, p. 968, discussing isos, reveals:

“In Mt 20:12, ‘made them equal’ means ‘put them upon the same footing,’ i.e. regarded their brief service as though it were the very same as our long hours of toil. In Lk 20:36 the context restricts the equality to a particular relation.” - Eerdmans Publ., 1984 reprint.

In other words, ison at Matt. 20:12 makes the workers measurably “equal” to one another in only one external aspect: the amount of money they were to receive. They were really very unequal otherwise. Also in Luke 20:36, as the trinitarian reference quoted above tells us, those resurrected humans and God’s angels are not necessarily considered equal in essence in this scripture but in only one particular relation: they will not die again. (See Living Bible.)

And we see the same thing in the OT Septuagint:

“so thy quarrel and enmity shall not depart but shall be to thee like [isos] death.” - Prov. 25:10, Septuagint Version, Zondervan Publ., 1970, p. 813.

“Quarrel” and “enmity” certainly are not absolutely equal to death (in spite of the fact that some could render this “shall be equal [isos] to death”)! The similarity of the single quality of permanence is the only thing being equated here. The “quarreling” and “enmity” are a never-ending condition, like death itself.

Furthermore, the fact that isa is neuter in this verse in Philippians means that Paul is not saying that Jesus is perfectly equal to God himself. You see, the word ‘God’ here is the masculine form of the word, and for the word ‘equal’ (whatever its intended meaning) to be applied wholly to the word ‘God’ itself it must be of the same gender (masculine in this case - isos). - see the similar use of the neuter ‘one’ used for the masculine ‘God’ in the ONE study.

Therefore, even if isa could mean absolute equality, only some thing (or things) about God are being considered - not God as a whole. Therefore, Jesus is refusing to seize some thing or things (authority, power, immortality, ...?) that are similar to God’s.

That is why 4th century trinitarians were forced to use a non-Biblical word instead of isos in an attempt to provide just such a meaning for their trinitarian creeds (see MINOR 8-9).

So, if we translated this passage with the actual, full meaning of the word ison, the literal NT Greek - (“not taking by force [harpagmos] considered [hegeomai] the to be ‘equal’ [isa] with god [theo]”) - would be rendered: “did not even consider forcefully trying to become like God (even in any single aspect).”

 

Dogknox20 post #69:
"Non Christians believe in MANY gods! The JW believes in many gods!"
..................................................................
Some of the trinitarian sources which admit that the Bible actually describes men who represent God (judges, Israelite kings, etc.) and God’s angels as gods include:

1. Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Bible, “Hints and Helps...,” Eerdmans, 1978 reprint;

2. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, #430, Hebrew and Chaldee Dict., Abingdon, 1974;

3. New Bible Dictionary, p. 1133, Tyndale House Publ., 1984;

4. Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, p. 208, Bethany House Publ., 1982;

5. Hastings’ A Dictionary of the Bible, p. 217, Vol. 2;

6. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon, p. 43, Hendrickson publ.,1979;

7. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, #2316 (4.), Thayer, Baker Book House, 1984 printing;

8. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, p. 132, Vol. 1; and p. 1265, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984;

9. The NIV Study Bible, footnotes for Ps. 45:6; Ps. 82:1, 6; and Jn 10:34; Zondervan, 1985;

10. New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., footnote for Ps. 45:7, 1970 ed.;

11. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. 5, pp. 188-189;

12. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 1, pp. 317, 324, Nelson Publ., 1980 printing;

13. Murray J. Harris, Jesus As God, p. 202, Baker Book House, 1992;

14. William Barclay, The Gospel of John, V. 2, Daily Study Bible Series, pp. 77, 78, Westminster Press, 1975;

15. The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible (John 10:34 and Ps. 82:6);

16. The Fourfold Gospel (Note for John 10:35);

17. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
(John 10:34-36);

18. Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (Deut. 10:17; Ps. 82:6-8 and John 10:35);

19. John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible (Ps. 82:1).

20. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament ('Little Kittel'), - p. 328, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985.

21. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, pp. 794-795, Vol. 1, Eerdmans Publishing Co.

22. The Amplified Bible, Ps. 82:1, 6 and John 10:34, 35, Zondervan Publ., 1965.

23. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament, John 10:34, 35.

24. B. W. Johnson's People's New Testament, John 10:34-36.

25. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Zondervan, 1986, Vol. 3, p. 187.

26. Fairbairn’s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 24, vol. III, Zondervan, 1957 reprint.

27. Theological Dictionary, Rahner and Vorgrimler, p. 20, Herder and Herder, 1965.

28. Pastor Jon Courson, The Gospel According to John.

29. Vincent’s New Testament Word Studies, John 10:36.

30. C. J. Ellicott, John 10:34, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers.



(Also John 10:34, 35 - CEV: TEV; GodsWord; The Message; NLT; NIRV; David Guzik)

And, of course the highly respected and highly popular Jewish writer, Philo, had the same understanding for “God”/“a god” about the same time the NT was written.

And the earliest Christians like the highly respected NT scholar Origen (see DEF note #1) and others - - including Tertullian; Justin Martyr; Hippolytus; Clement of Alexandria; Theophilus (p. 9, DEF); the writer of “The Epistle to Diognetus”; and even super-trinitarians Athanasius and St. Augustine - - also had this understanding for “a god.”

 

Unfortunately, DK20, you are again twisting the scriptures. Sad but true. Hope you get well. Bye for now again.