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

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

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

Featured Understanding John 1:1

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by filthyrottendirty, Mar 16, 2021.

  1. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    No,it revealed what Father Adam went through. HIS Son, Adam is "the vine" (Divine) of the Mankind Race, we are the branches. Adam is the root of david, the Father of the Mankind Race, Jesus His Pre-Eminence is the GOD and Father of Adam.

    That is why it is only HIS Father, the GOD of Adam, that could stand in the shoes of Adam, because HE is greater than Adam. No Man is greater than Adam.

    Of all born of a woman, there is none greater than John the Baptist. Father Adam wasn't born of a woman. That is what proves HE is the Son of GOD.

    It is beyond Gainsay, that the Son of GOD is the Procreator of the human race; the Mankind Race and therefore should not have died being childless, without having matrimonial family and giving birth to children; both super bio and biological; and this is the Proof that Jesus His Pre-Eminence is not the Son of GOD, but the GOD in HIS incarnate Manifestation who came in the shoes of the Son of GOD to bail Mankind, Adam His Eminence.
     
    #61 Yahcubs777, Mar 17, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2021
  2. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,277
    Ratings:
    +345
    Religion:
    Disciple
    That's all word salad and in no way connects with the portrayal of events in the scriptures.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    The Son of GOD is who fathered the Mankind Race. It is only the Son of GOD who can father an entire race. Cherubim and Seraphim do not have elders, or fathers or a principal Ancestor neither do Angels; for none of these are the Son of GOD. It is only the Son of GOD, who inherited from HIS Father, that could Father an entire race, and represent that entire race in HIMSELF. Else, No man would have a physical body except him and Mother Eve.

    GOD is the creator, Adam is the Procreator. Father Adam could have chosen to remain in Eden, perfect and not fall which was needed to kick start procreation; but he didnt. He Willingly sacrificed His Celestial life of bliss for his children to have physical body, as he does.

    For Except (means no other way) a seed falls to the ground and dies, it abides alone, but if the seed dies it brings forth much fruit - This is what Father Adam did - He is the Seed that died, him and Mother Eve, to kick start procreation
     
    #63 Yahcubs777, Mar 17, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2021
  4. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,277
    Ratings:
    +345
    Religion:
    Disciple
    That's all made up and unrelated to the Bible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    Seems you don't know the bible.
     
  6. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    1,277
    Ratings:
    +345
    Religion:
    Disciple
    That's just it, I do know the Bible, and i can see where you cherry picked your custom doctrine from.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    Nothing is cherry picked, its all in the bible.
     
  8. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,349
    Ratings:
    +825
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    The NWT MUST be an incorrect translation in John 1:1 due to seemingly countless verses in both testaments that demonstrate/state/prophesy or make an apologetic for JESUS IS GOD. The issue isn't linguistics as much as whether you believe the Bible is God's Word, and whether you will follow the Bible, not JW teachings that are extra-biblical.
     
  9. filthyrottendirty

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2021
    Messages:
    80
    Ratings:
    +56
    Religion:
    Abrahamic
    You didnt answer my question, what denomination are you?
     
  10. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    None.
     
  11. filthyrottendirty

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2021
    Messages:
    80
    Ratings:
    +56
    Religion:
    Abrahamic
    I'm not even jw and most of my op doesn't even come from them, only one paragraph. You didn't read any of it and you just listen to the lies the corrupted church tells you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. filthyrottendirty

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2021
    Messages:
    80
    Ratings:
    +56
    Religion:
    Abrahamic
    Then where do you get your beliefs? Where is your doctrine from?
     
  13. Yahcubs777

    Yahcubs777 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2021
    Messages:
    777
    Ratings:
    +91
    Religion:
    None.
    From my Man of GOD. Yet, my church has no link with the mother harlot or any of her daughters.

    My church is the church of Father Adam.
     
    • Creative Creative x 2
  14. ideogenous_mover

    ideogenous_mover Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    2,972
    Ratings:
    +745
    Religion:
    Standard Animism
    the concept of the logos is a pagan concept, central to the pagan worldview of the philosophers before christianity came
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. capumetu

    capumetu Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2016
    Messages:
    680
    Ratings:
    +126
    Religion:
    Jehovah's witness

    Very good post sir, it is interesting to note that Acts 28:6 was written the same way and the versions that call the Word God all render an a there, indicating they deliberately altered Jn 1:1.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    10,349
    Ratings:
    +825
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    No I got my doctrine from Bible reading. My doctrine is accurate. I was happy to make a point about the NWT, which is a contrived and false translation in some aspects.
     
  17. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    275
    Ratings:
    +212
    Religion:
    JW
    BilliardsBall: “The issue isn't linguistics as much as whether you believe the Bible is God's Word, and whether you will follow the Bible, not JW teachings that are extra-biblical.”

    “My doctrine is accurate. I was happy to make a point about the NWT, which is a contrived and false translation in some aspects.”
    .…………………….

    Since we are discussing John 1:1c, I take it that the NT Greek texts of that clause are part of the Bible which you are recommending. Whether JW’s have made a “contrived and false translation” at this important clause should be based on the careful, honest translation of that NT Greek text.

    It wasn’t until the 1930’s when a trinitarian (E.C. Colwell) finally came up with an alleged grammatical proof that John 1:1c should read “God.” (Trinitarians had been translating it that way anyway simply because they wanted to.)

    Colwell said, in effect, that when a predicate noun (theos, in this case) without the definite article (“the”) came before the verb in a clause in NT Greek, that predicate noun should be understood to have the definite article with it anyway.

    Since theos with the definite article was understood to be “God,” not “a god” --- there was your proof. He listed some examples to ‘prove’ his point, but they were incorrect examples. You see, just as in English, there are often exceptions to the rule. Since Colwell picked only the exceptions to ‘prove’ his rule, it is not proven. In fact, if you actually examine all the uses of examples truly parallel to John 1:1c in John’s writings, you will find that all 19 are just the opposite: the predicate noun is indefinite (takes an indefinite article, a/an).

    So the actual literal reading is “a god.”

    Even some noted trinitarian scholars are forced to admit that grammatically John 1:1c in NT Greek may be literally translated as “the Word was a god”! These include:

    W. E. Vine (p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1983 printing.);

    Dr. C. H. Dodd (director of the New English Bible project, Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, vol. 28, Jan. 1977);

    Dr. Murray J. Harris (p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992);

    Dr. Robert Young (p. 54, ‘New Covenant’ section, Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, 1977 printing).

    Dr. William Barclay (p. 205, Ever yours, edited by C. L. Rawlins, Labarum Publ., 1985).

    J.W. Wentham, p. 35 (f.n.) The Elements of New Testament Greek, Cambridge University Press, 1965.

    Of course, being trinitarians, they often insist that the correct interpretation of such a literal translation must be, somehow, trinitarian in spite of the actual literal meaning.
     
    #77 tigger2, Mar 18, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. tigger2

    tigger2 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    275
    Ratings:
    +212
    Religion:
    JW
    Another new (20th century) ‘rule’ concerning the word order of John 1:1c has been proposed to make the Word of the same essence as God. These ‘Qualitative’ rules are like Colwell’s rule above except they don’t allow for an understood article (ho) before theos. They say that the word order makes theos ‘qualitative.’


    The same method of examining all truly proper examples that are parallel to John 1:1c in John proves both modern 'rules' to be wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  19. 74x12

    74x12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    4,444
    Ratings:
    +1,212
    Religion:
    Itiswhatitis
    You can't understand John 1:1 without reference to Genesis 1. That's the whole reason for the similar language between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.

    "In the beginning" is the hint.

    Jesus is the Light of Genesis 1:3 which is not created by the way. Just shone in the darkness. Because everything must be created in the light of 6 days.
     
  20. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    13,883
    Ratings:
    +7,742
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Would you like to be specific about that, since you have made some sweeping statements here. In what way is the NWT contrived or false? Lets see why you said that....?
     
Loading...