So, in this respect, where do we disagree?
Maybe I’m missing it.
Hockeycowboy, I’m not really disputing with you and in any case I’m not sure what your belief is so I cannot say if or where your belief may differ from what I wrote…
Maybe if there is a controversy with what I said snd what you believe then it is you to say if and where you disagree… or simply say where you agree.
My point was that no one seems to define what they mean by ‘GOD’. And by this lacking, many disingenuous arguments are brought to the table.
I outlined some of the many things Trinitarians claim as ‘God’, but as you can see, when brought under test, they fail miserably and only sheer desperation causes them to persist in their belief of who they claim is ‘God’.
I’ve outlined that JW also falter in their definition (at the point of John 1:1) in that it is claimed that the word is ‘A God’. My point being that there is no evidence for a definite or indefinite article because there is no need for either if the correct DEFINITION of ‘God’ is used.
I outlined what ‘God’ means. It is a TITLE and as such ANY NUMBER OF ENTITIES can be ‘God’ in their respective CONTEXTS.
Trinity often cites that there is only one God (but weirdly that this God is three persons) and all other ‘gods’ are false. Of course, the ‘oneness’ refers to the belief of the Judaea / Christian theology. A Greek, a Philistine, an Egyptian, a Moabite, Hittite, etc., would claim that their ‘god(s)’ is/are the only gods.
So there is a stand-off on belief…
So how is it that all beliefs have ‘God’ or ‘Gods’ as their head Spiritual ruler, spiritual guide, lawmaker, Judge, etc.?
Answer: Look at the definition that I listed. And check the usage of the term, ‘God’ WITH CONTEXT.
Now, sticking with the Judeae / Christian belief, ‘GOD’ is the SOLE, the ONLY, ONE ONLY, majestic, ruling, lawmaking, monarchical, …spirit GOD. And for this reason we just say ‘God’ and not the full title of ‘
THE God of our belief’. In doing so Trinitarians then lose our God’s NAME (YHWH) and open the doorway to an undefined mindset of ideologies resulting in an incomprehensible Three-person spiritual ruler which cuts against the grain of truth in the scriptures.
For JW’s, aside from claiming that Jesus was an Angel before becoming man (which again, is false ideology given that scriptures says: ‘To which of the Angels did God ever say: ‘You are my Son, this day I have become your Father’), the eternal dispute with Trinitarians surrounding John 1:1 and that supposed ‘indefinite article’ for the word of God would be resolved if the correct DEFINITION (or rather, a definition) for God IN CONTEXT were to be employed.
Indeed, it SHOULD BE AGREED that ‘word of God’ is:
- ‘Those things our ruling monarch spoke’
And that ‘Those words’ were:
- ‘Ruling words, Majestic, monumental, Judgeworthy, MIGHTY, HEROIC, Sovereign…’
And that those words were indeed our GOD’s words to mankind FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME and forward:
- “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
- It is clear / it should be clear … that the underlined part of verse 2 has been added in or altered to fit a trinitarian ideology since trinity claims that the Son created everything but here the verse claims that it was ‘God’, our spiritual ‘God’ who created. And indeed, the definition of ‘Father’ is ‘He who creates; he who brings into being…’ But should verse to say that it was created FOR the Son! Sounds better to me because that is certainly the REWARD that Satan tempted Jesus with and what our God and Father granted Jesus when he ‘finished’ his mission.
And it certainly was the word of our God that created the world:
And with the first man, Adam, falling to sin, our God prophesied a redeemer, a Messiah, a Christ, would come from the ‘Seed of a woman’. The word of our God was an undeniable overarching word such that:
- ‘The word that comes forth from my mouth shall by no means return to me until it has fulfilled that which it was sent forth to accomplish’ (Isaiah 55:11)
How many ‘word of god’ are there…?
A person? No… but the word fulfilled through a medium of a person in terms of redemption of mankind.
And so, we are to read that:
- the word of [our] God was MAJESTIC, Powerful, Heroic, undeniable, cannot be defied, unchanging
- It was GOD’s word and it was with God from the beginning.
(I dropped the [our] as we all know WHICH God we are speaking of in respect of the personage).
But the definition stands IN CONTEXT in that of other entities. Jesus is ‘god’ of mankind… RULER over creation BECAUSE it is granted to him by the Father… So you can see that I am NOT SAYING that Jesus is Almighty God, but that he is:
- Mighty among men
- Majestic as Son
- Heroic to the commands of his Father God
- Unchanging in his loyalty to his Father, God
This in no way makes Jesus, ‘another God’ let alone a unity God with his Father. For, if so, then, as Jesus says himself:
- ‘If HE called them “Gods” (human judges, rulers, lawmakers, mighty men of God, Prophets, Priests, even holy angels, etc) how am I blaspheming when I only said that God is my Father?’
So how do you define the word and term ‘GOD’ in line with how Jesus defined it?
And then apply your definition to John 1:1 to see what it really says.
The word of God was the ruling word from the beginning of time and what word God spoke from time was manifested through the sinless, holy, and righteous man, Jesus the Christ (the Anointed one): the Chosen one God prophesied in his word of Isaiah 42:1:
- ‘Behold my servant in whom my heart delights: my chosen on ON WHOM I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT…and he will bring salvation to the nations’
This is ‘The Word of God’ and it is a MAJESTIC WORD (among the many words God spoke).
And now check with other places where the title ‘God’ is used, e.g. For Satan being :
- ‘God of this system of things’
Do you see that the contextual definition must be applied … we do agree that there is only one God so read incorrectly, Satan is yet ANOTHER GOD, if we are to take the trinity line. Of course, trinity races to deny that Satan is ‘THE ONE GOD…’ while DEMANDING that ‘God, your God,…’ means that Jesus is God and not seeing that the second ‘god’ used their is the definition of a ruler, a Father, a greater majesty… not that it is calling Jesus, or, David… Almighty God!
