[quote]cueball wrote:
Honest, I’d like to continue this conversation, but I’m not going to be at my desk for a few days.[/quote]
Very convenient, because I am going out of town leaving today for the weekend. Just waiting for my chinese learning software to come from ups, then i can leave. Hurry up UPS! shakes fist
[quote]mse2us wrote:
I’m sorry for you as well Irish. There’s no point in going back and forth trying to explain the inferences you are using that you think prove God is Jesus.
[/quote]
And there you go, back to your talking points . . . I thought we were going to actually discuss the points I raised, but I see you have to resort back to your standard post of just pasting your talking points.
I’m not sure what you want to discuss, mse2us. I gave you five points - you’ve not disproven any of them, and you agreed to the substance of one which I built into two additional proofs for you and all you respond with is some random standardized copy/paste material not connected at all to the points I raised.
The points are made from a plain reading of scripture; no twisting, no inference.
You walked right by the plain passages regarding salvation by no other name describing both Jehovah and Jesus, you ignored the plain passages regarding there being only one saviour describing both Jehovah and Jesus. You didn’t even go near the passage of Isaiah 43:10 - a plain statement from God himself that “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Do you plan on answering my points, or are you just going to keep jumping to making new points? I could take the time to explain every new passage you can think of for you, and will galdly do so if you like. But I would like to have some sort of discussion about the points I have made for you.
oh, and mse2us, you do realize the passages you used in your last post actually disprove your conclusions, don’t you?
[quote]mse2us wrote:
<<< Did you know >>>
<<< Before I show you >>>
<<< Trinitarians admit no amount of reasoning from the Bible can change their mind. >>>[/quote]
This is just a blast ain’t it. As if you were a Bible proof brain dead infant before our friend here showed up to let you in on these plain truths lost to all the world before Russel and Rutherford arrived.
I took comprehensive review notes from the tapes on both my meetings with the guy from Minneapolis mentioned earlier in this thread. The thing that really stuck with me was the fact that in 200 combined minutes and some change he said to me 34 times “Now Greg what’s confusing you is_________________” to which I politely answered that I wasn’t confused.
I’m jist watchin, but I couldn’t resist.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us - please don’t take this the wrong way. The point of exploring/explaining the history of the JW’s is to highlight several important facts - The JW’s started as an system of beliefs opposed to historical Christian teaching as demonstrated by the opposition to the Deity of Christ which causes the opposition to the trinity, to salvation by grace, and and host of other doctrines. This divorce from plain, historical Christian doctrine resulted in the “trail of errors” of the JW church.
This trail of errors has been repeatedly corrected and updated over the last 100 years, but it is precisely this constant calibration of beliefs that highlights for those of us on the outside just how twisted the belief structure of the JW has been and continues to be.
please understand, none of us doubt the sincerity and honesty of the average JW. I admire the intensity and study you have obviously put into understanding your faith. We are merely outside observers looking in at your experience and making observations.
But you also have to understand that we see JW as a corruption of the Christian faith, not a correction or improvement. The lineage of Doctrine we hold in our Christian faith goes back to Christ himself. We take the revealed truth literally and do not rely on a “updated” translation, but on the actual primary historical documents themselves - the plain teaching that we can discover for ourselves, not the “calibrated” teachings of men.
I hope that this does not sound harsh or judgemental - if so, I humbly apologize - I merely mean to express my thoughts in kindness. [/quote]
I appreciate your opinion Irish. Your are right our beliefs are different than mainstream Christianity and no we don’t deny the deity of Jesus because Jesus is a mighty god but the Bible shows that he is not God Almighty. Both you and Dmaddox say that the most popular teachings of Christianity have been around for centuries and because of that this makes them true. Unfortunately Irish that is the exact opposite of what the Bible says.
I gave the example of the wheat and the weeds illustration a couple of post ago. This illustration applies to the dominant Christian teachings that have been around for centuries.
Jesus said he would let the wheat grow with the weed until the conclusion of the system of things. Weeds alway overtake what every it grows with and dominants the other crop.
After the apostles died false teaching started to infiltrate Christian teachings and as I mentioned in one post Justin Marty as well as Origen Adamantius (185Ã??Ã?¢??254) were two Christians who were Greek philosophers in the second century A.D. and thought that Christianity would be more appealing if it was blended with Greek philosophy and mythology into. For example, the immortality of the soul is one such teaching. Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the “immortal soul” separate at death. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: “Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen’s acceptance of Plato’s doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind (nous) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul (psyche) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward” (1992, “Soul,” p. 1037).
Truly a weed like teaching that began in the second century A.D. and is the dominant belief of Christians.
God’s being worshiped in three or triads of god’s as I’m sure you know, began centures before the trinity teaching became official doctrine of the catholic church. It’s a historical fact that both Babylon and Egypt worshipped triad of god’s. Such as Osiris, Isis, and Horus for the Egyptians and of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar for the Babylonians.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that that trinity teaching did not develop until the fourth century.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304)states:
It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God." It also admits (on page 299): “The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
“In Scripture there is yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ‘Trias’ (of which the Latin ‘Trinitas’ is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD… Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of ‘Trinitas’ in Tertullian” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 47).
Another weed like teaching that began in ancient Babylon and Egypt, was not part of the christian congregation during the time of the apostles and infiltrated the Christian congregation after the death of the apostes and is now the dominant belief among Christians.
Irish, these are just some of the weeds that were planted and grew for centuries and eventually overtook the wheat and became the teachings that most of Christianity now believe.
The illustration at Matthew states that at the conclusion of the system of things the weeds will be separated from the wheat. Once they are separated they would be distinguishable by their teachings.
Irish notice what the book of Daniel states about knowledge and the time of the end.
Daniel 8:17(NIV):
"17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”
Daniel 12:4(NIV):
“4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”
Daniel 12:9:
"9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.”
Can you see what the above passages and the wheat and the weeds illustration have in common? Both talk about the time of the end. The wheat and the weeds won’t become distinguishable until the time of the end and the understanding of the book of Daniel which is key to understanding that Jesus was made king in heaven in 1914 will be kept secret until the time of the end.
My point is don’t be so sure based on the fact that this form of Christianity has been around for centuries and is the most popular form of Christianity. You really need to open your heart and mind to see that the main and most popular christian doctrines like the two I mentioned above were not taught in the original christian congregation when the apostles were alive and were planted as weeds once the apostles fell asleep in death.
[/quote]
And here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually says about the Trinity and it’s proofs in and out of scripture.
Now I think it suffices to say for every extrapolated passage you provide, I can provide another that supports Father, Son and Holy Spirit manifestations of God.
Point is we can toss scripture back and forth all day long and never make head way.
Now, what I see is a bit of revisionist history. The Counsel of Nicaea in 325 AD was not as a result of perversion of doctrine but was designed to combat it. It was one of many such counsels as an early church struggles to get it’s legs under itself. Churches, often off the beaten path would often come up with there own theologies and scriptures. These counsel gathered to combat heresy.
Now history also states that the official doctrine of the Trinity existed before the canon of the Bible was established in the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Further, the New Covenant scriptures were written in conjunction with the growth of the early church.
The official Protestant versions of the Bible were not firmly established until 1820, when, sadly, the Apocrypha was removed.
The NWT translation appeared in 1961.
Historical Fact: the Holy Trinity was officially recognized before the two cannons of what makes up the modern Catholic Bible were assembled. The Protestant interpretations started with Martin Luther and officially excluded the Apocrypha in 1820. 1870 would be the birth of the JW interpretation of the Bible, which, the NWT I would argue takes great liberty with scripture, Jn 1:1 being a stark example.
[/quote]
Know that the Protestant and Catholic Bibles are the same except for the Apocraphy. 6 books in the Old Testament. The New Testaments of both groups are exactly the same. The Apocrapha really does not change the meaning/interpretation of the Bible, but it adds more history to the Bible. The NWT on the other hand changes the interpretation and meaning of the Bible.[/quote]
7 but more or less yes…It’s a shame too because Sirach and Wisdom are pretty awesome books, especially Sirach.
The problem I see here is a historical and a scriptural rewrite to fit what somebody believes. I feel this is backwards. You should adjust to facts and scripture not the other way around. We can toss passages back and forth 'til we puke, but this fact I find highly problematic. I do not understand it’s purpose. Scripture isn’t to serve man’s wishes.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us - please don’t take this the wrong way. The point of exploring/explaining the history of the JW’s is to highlight several important facts - The JW’s started as an system of beliefs opposed to historical Christian teaching as demonstrated by the opposition to the Deity of Christ which causes the opposition to the trinity, to salvation by grace, and and host of other doctrines. This divorce from plain, historical Christian doctrine resulted in the “trail of errors” of the JW church.
This trail of errors has been repeatedly corrected and updated over the last 100 years, but it is precisely this constant calibration of beliefs that highlights for those of us on the outside just how twisted the belief structure of the JW has been and continues to be.
please understand, none of us doubt the sincerity and honesty of the average JW. I admire the intensity and study you have obviously put into understanding your faith. We are merely outside observers looking in at your experience and making observations.
But you also have to understand that we see JW as a corruption of the Christian faith, not a correction or improvement. The lineage of Doctrine we hold in our Christian faith goes back to Christ himself. We take the revealed truth literally and do not rely on a “updated” translation, but on the actual primary historical documents themselves - the plain teaching that we can discover for ourselves, not the “calibrated” teachings of men.
I hope that this does not sound harsh or judgemental - if so, I humbly apologize - I merely mean to express my thoughts in kindness. [/quote]
I appreciate your opinion Irish. Your are right our beliefs are different than mainstream Christianity and no we don’t deny the deity of Jesus because Jesus is a mighty god but the Bible shows that he is not God Almighty. Both you and Dmaddox say that the most popular teachings of Christianity have been around for centuries and because of that this makes them true. Unfortunately Irish that is the exact opposite of what the Bible says.
I gave the example of the wheat and the weeds illustration a couple of post ago. This illustration applies to the dominant Christian teachings that have been around for centuries.
Jesus said he would let the wheat grow with the weed until the conclusion of the system of things. Weeds alway overtake what every it grows with and dominants the other crop.
After the apostles died false teaching started to infiltrate Christian teachings and as I mentioned in one post Justin Marty as well as Origen Adamantius (185Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??254) were two Christians who were Greek philosophers in the second century A.D. and thought that Christianity would be more appealing if it was blended with Greek philosophy and mythology into. For example, the immortality of the soul is one such teaching. Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the “immortal soul” separate at death. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: “Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen’s acceptance of Plato’s doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind (nous) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul (psyche) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward” (1992, “Soul,” p. 1037).
Truly a weed like teaching that began in the second century A.D. and is the dominant belief of Christians.
God’s being worshiped in three or triads of god’s as I’m sure you know, began centures before the trinity teaching became official doctrine of the catholic church. It’s a historical fact that both Babylon and Egypt worshipped triad of god’s. Such as Osiris, Isis, and Horus for the Egyptians and of Sin, Shamash, and Ishtar for the Babylonians.
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that that trinity teaching did not develop until the fourth century.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Vol. XIV, pp. 306, 304)states:
It is not, as already seen, directly and immediately the word of God." It also admits (on page 299): “The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”
“In Scripture there is yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word ‘Trias’ (of which the Latin ‘Trinitas’ is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about 180 AD… Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of ‘Trinitas’ in Tertullian” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p. 47).
Another weed like teaching that began in ancient Babylon and Egypt, was not part of the christian congregation during the time of the apostles and infiltrated the Christian congregation after the death of the apostes and is now the dominant belief among Christians.
Irish, these are just some of the weeds that were planted and grew for centuries and eventually overtook the wheat and became the teachings that most of Christianity now believe.
The illustration at Matthew states that at the conclusion of the system of things the weeds will be separated from the wheat. Once they are separated they would be distinguishable by their teachings.
Irish notice what the book of Daniel states about knowledge and the time of the end.
Daniel 8:17(NIV):
"17 As he came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. “Son of man,” he said to me, “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.”
Daniel 12:4(NIV):
“4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”
Daniel 12:9:
"9 And he went on to say: “Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of the end. 10 Many will cleanse themselves and whiten themselves and will be refined. And the wicked ones will certainly act wickedly, and no wicked ones at all will understand; but the ones having insight will understand.”
Can you see what the above passages and the wheat and the weeds illustration have in common? Both talk about the time of the end. The wheat and the weeds won’t become distinguishable until the time of the end and the understanding of the book of Daniel which is key to understanding that Jesus was made king in heaven in 1914 will be kept secret until the time of the end.
My point is don’t be so sure based on the fact that this form of Christianity has been around for centuries and is the most popular form of Christianity. You really need to open your heart and mind to see that the main and most popular christian doctrines like the two I mentioned above were not taught in the original christian congregation when the apostles were alive and were planted as weeds once the apostles fell asleep in death.
[/quote]
And here’s what the Catholic Encyclopedia actually says about the Trinity and it’s proofs in and out of scripture.
Now I think it suffices to say for every extrapolated passage you provide, I can provide another that supports Father, Son and Holy Spirit manifestations of God.
Point is we can toss scripture back and forth all day long and never make head way.
Now, what I see is a bit of revisionist history. The Counsel of Nicaea in 325 AD was not as a result of perversion of doctrine but was designed to combat it. It was one of many such counsels as an early church struggles to get it’s legs under itself. Churches, often off the beaten path would often come up with there own theologies and scriptures. These counsel gathered to combat heresy.
Now history also states that the official doctrine of the Trinity existed before the canon of the Bible was established in the Synod of Carthage in 397 AD. Further, the New Covenant scriptures were written in conjunction with the growth of the early church.
The official Protestant versions of the Bible were not firmly established until 1820, when, sadly, the Apocrypha was removed.
The NWT translation appeared in 1961.
Historical Fact: the Holy Trinity was officially recognized before the two cannons of what makes up the modern Catholic Bible were assembled. The Protestant interpretations started with Martin Luther and officially excluded the Apocrypha in 1820. 1870 would be the birth of the JW interpretation of the Bible, which, the NWT I would argue takes great liberty with scripture, Jn 1:1 being a stark example.
[/quote]
Know that the Protestant and Catholic Bibles are the same except for the Apocraphy. 6 books in the Old Testament. The New Testaments of both groups are exactly the same. The Apocrapha really does not change the meaning/interpretation of the Bible, but it adds more history to the Bible. The NWT on the other hand changes the interpretation and meaning of the Bible.[/quote]
7 but more or less yes…It’s a shame too because Sirach and Wisdom are pretty awesome books, especially Sirach.
The problem I see here is a historical and a scriptural rewrite to fit what somebody believes. I feel this is backwards. You should adjust to facts and scripture not the other way around. We can toss passages back and forth 'til we puke, but this fact I find highly problematic. I do not understand it’s purpose. Scripture isn’t to serve man’s wishes.[/quote]
I agree completely with you Pat. My boss is Catholic, and I mentioned I was looking for a copy of the Catholic Bible. He abliged, and I plan on reading the Apocrapha in the near future. I beleive I will find some good information and wisdom.
I am done with the JWs. They argue in circles, really never get to a point, and really do not say anything. When I have answered their quesitons in the past, the just say I am confused, or do not have a clue, but when I ask them a question they avoid it completely. I have been told by the JWs that I have been blinded by Satan, which is my favorite, but Jehovah’s active force is another favorite I must say. I chuckle when I think about that name. They never answer our questions which shows they really have nothing to say except what the WatchTower tells them. With out the WT they would be lost, but I would say they would be found through the light of the Bible which is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path, but they can not read the Bible by itself.
On the WT I asked Honest in another thread how it was paid for. He said some people just dontate, but mse2us in this thread says that he has to make a donation for all the WTs that he hands out. So do other people pay or do you have to pay for all the WTs you pick up. I wonder what the true answer is? They are not forced to donate money, but they are forced to hand out WTs. This is really puzzling to me.
Since I am blinded by Satan and the JWs will not talk to me anymore, boo hoo, I guess I will just continue my posts of what Jesus has to say uninterrupted by them. I am sad they do not like me.
Jesus says, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no one comes unto the Father except through me.” Didn’t he also say, “if you have seen me, then you have seen the father.” I guess he is still not the same being. I was talking with Jesus/Jehovah the other night and he told me I have the Heavenly Hope. Can you believe that JWs? I am going to Heaven.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
<<< On the WT I asked Honest in another thread how it was paid for. He said some people just dontate, but mse2us in this thread says that he has to make a donation for all the WTs that he hands out. So do other people pay or do you have to pay for all the WTs you pick up. I wonder what the true answer is? They are not forced to donate money, but they are forced to hand out WTs. This is really puzzling to me. >>>[/quote]
This is how it used to work at least if I remember right. I haven’t done any fresh research in quite a while so if I’m wrong I apologize.
I used to get stuff from them all the time and they would do the same thing everybody else does. This or that item is available for this or that donation. So it’s kinda like “were giving this to you, but if you want it it’s a donation of this much”. If they find you particularly receptive they may just give it you. Their call. Everybody does that so to be fair they’re not doing anything any better or worse than every other religious outfit in the world. Also, everything I ever got from them was VERY inexpensive and from every indication was whatever it cost them which leads me to my next point.
The JW’s themselves are not in any way in this for the money because there is none and if there were they still wouldn’t be. Make no mistake, the people you’re talking to here absolutely believe everything they’re telling you. They can be charged with quite a bit, but self conscious deliberate fraud or charlatanism is not on the list.(not to imply that anybody was saying that) “Forced” is not really the right way to characterize their evangelistic enthusiasm or willingness to lay out their own money sometimes. It helps accomplish their final salvation so to them salvation is given on a similar basis as they hand out their publications on. It’s “free”, but God wants his donations if you plan to end up with it.
The society is another matter altogether, but these guys, and the ones who show up at your door, are about as honest and sincere as anybody you’ll ever meet. I’ve known 2 ex JW’s who did actually repent and believe the Gospel. Both men and if you ever met them you’d think you were talking to Peter or Paul. No more fired up Jesus people were ever born. They were also a goldmine of information and study materials =]. Especially the older one which was where I got a lot of my old magazines from.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I’m not sure what you want to discuss, mse2us. I gave you five points - you’ve not disproven any of them, and you agreed to the substance of one which I built into two additional proofs for you and all you respond with is some random standardized copy/paste material not connected at all to the points I raised.
The points are made from a plain reading of scripture; no twisting, no inference.
You walked right by the plain passages regarding salvation by no other name describing both Jehovah and Jesus, you ignored the plain passages regarding there being only one saviour describing both Jehovah and Jesus. You didn’t even go near the passage of Isaiah 43:10 - a plain statement from God himself that “before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
Do you plan on answering my points, or are you just going to keep jumping to making new points? I could take the time to explain every new passage you can think of for you, and will galdly do so if you like. But I would like to have some sort of discussion about the points I have made for you.[/quote]
Irish the points that I answered I answered in detail using scriptures to show that Jesus being called shepherd does not mean he is God Almighty because other people in the Bible are called shepherds. I also explained in detail that Jehovah wanted the Israelite to thoroughly understand that the promised Messiah was going to come from him so that’s why the prophecies concerning the promised Messiah has the name “Immanuel” and “Jehovah is our righteousness.” This way the Israelites would have understood that Jehovah was providing salvation to them by way of the Messiah.
I could not have answered every point because the post would have been too long. But I could answer every point. For example, Jesus is never called the “Alpha and Omega.” He is called the “First and Last” at Revelation but if you look at when this term is applied to Jesus as definate limitations. The definate limitations are relative to just the matter of Jesus’ death and resurrections.
Revelation 1:17 states:
“Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, 18 and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.”
Revelation 2:8 states:
8 “And to the angel of the congregation in Smyrna write: These are the things that he says, ‘the First and the Last,’ who became dead and came to life again.”
Jesus is the First to be resurrected to heaven so he is called the First. 1 Corinthians 15:20 explains this further:
“20 However, now Christ has been raised up from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death”
He is the last in that he is the last to be resurrected to heaven by God directly because God has given this task to Jesus.
1 Corinthians 6:40 explains that God will do the resurrecting through Jesus.
“14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.”
John 6:40 also shows that Jesus has been given the task to raise the dead.
“For this is the will of my Father, that everyone that beholds the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him at the last day.”
So Jesus is the First to be resurrected to heaven and the Last to be resurrected by God directly. Because after Jesus was resurrected God assigned that task to him.
Everytime the title of Alpha and Omega, the first and last and beginning and end is applied to God there are no limitations set on the meaning like there are when Jesus is referred to First and Last. Jesus being referred to as First and Last is limited to his unique death and resurrection.
I read your explanation for 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 and do you really believe that Jesus willingly submitting himself to himself is a reasonable logical explanation and means something other than Jesus is in a lesser position than God.
Also, how does my last post disprove my conclusions?
mse2us - you’re still avoiding my points and throwing more copy/paste at me . . . and jumping to new passages . . . and raising new objections.
You’re starting from your preconceptions, and that’s understandable, but you have to be willing to just start with plain scripture which is what I have provided you.
There’s no point to a discussion, if you will not discuss the points I gave you.
If you cannot understand the plain text of scripture, I cannot do any more than point you back to it. It’s right there for you to see. Our discussion on the trinity has to start with the Divinity of Jesus.
You say Jesus is a lesser God created by God, but God very clearly stated that no other God was formed before Him or after Him . . . you cannot avoid the plain reading of scripture.
Soooo,back to the five points please, so far you have only talked about answering 2 of them. Let’s actually discuss, please!
Easy task- Just disprove my points with actual scripture - not random unconnected talking points.
Here they are again - with additional details for you:
The OT prophesied a DIVINE Messiah: Psalm 2, Psalm 110
Jesus/Jehovah are both the: Only Name by Which we Must Be Saved, and Only One Savior (see earlier post) - they either have to be the same person or Scripture is false.
Jesus possess all of the incommunicable traits of God: (Isaiah 45:21 - God said “there is no one like me”)
Eternal - Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6 his (the Messiah) name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace - THE SON is called THE MIGHTY GOD and THE EVERLASTING FATHER - the very same names as GOD! HE is the very same as the Father.
omnipresent - matthew 18:20 and matthew 28:20
omniscient - john 16:30, john 21:17, Revelation 2:23
omnipotent - Philippians 3:21, hebrews 1:3
immutable - hebrews 1:20-12, Hebrews 13:8
and finally Colossians 2:9 - for in Him all the Fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
Created all things - John 1:3, Colossianss 1:16 and 17 - and “all” leaves no room for something or someone else to have been created - it leaves no room for God to have created Jesus. Jesus created everything that was created. He would have had to have created himself . . . .
Acts as divine providence - John 17:2, Ephesians 1:22
Forgives sins - Matthew 9:2-7. Mark 2:5-10
Raises the dead and conducts final judgment - John 5:22, Acts 10:42, Acts 17:31 and 2 Timothy 4:1
OK - there they are: plain as day - easy to read and understand, no tortured logic, no Egyptian or Babylonian connection (except your polytheism) . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
can i ask which parts of these chapters suggest the divinity of the messiah? One talks of a son, the anointed, who is begotten and therefore not coeternal with his father. The other talks of the lord being appointed by YHWH.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
2. Jesus/Jehovah are both the: Only Name by Which we Must Be Saved, and Only One Savior (see earlier post) - they either have to be the same person or Scripture is false.
[/quote]
There is an interesting curveball, if no one else can catch it i’ll explain it when i next check this forum.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
3. Jesus possess all of the incommunicable traits of God: (Isaiah 45:21 - God said “there is no one like me”)
[/quote]
Even men are created in the image of God. The word like is also translated from Hebrew. One key ways Ps110 and Ps2 differentiate YHWH from the lord, are that they both talk about a hierarchy, one is father, one is son, one places at his right hand, one is placed. Additionally one begets and one is begotten.
I’m not saying that this proves Jesus isn’t divine, but if he is, according to these trinity proof scriptures, he is neither co equal nor co eternal with his father.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Eternal - Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6 his (the Messiah) name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace - THE SON is called THE MIGHTY GOD and THE EVERLASTING FATHER - the very same names as GOD! HE is the very same as the Father.
[/quote]
Lets start with everlasting father. Firstly, if something is everlasting, that does not mean it doesn’t have a begging. Many theists expect to live eternally after they die, but thee belief that they have in their everlasting souls would not me they have one of the incommunicable properties of their creator.
Notably the usage of the word father seems again contrary to trinitarian doctrine. It is common to believe that the father and son are one god, not that the father is the son. Calling the son father if anything is contrary to both the Nicean and Athenasian creeds as it blurrs a line between the two they are careful to include. By contrast, my dad is someone I call father despite the fact he is not “of the same essence” of god.
Calling someone either everlasting or father does not suggest that they are part of a trinity.
Again “mighty god” is a little ambiguous as Samuel, Moses, and a vast host of other OT characters are described in hebrew with the word here translated god and they have yet to be included in any formulation of the trinity. In a similar vein the word mighty is not used exclusively in the context of YHWH.
Notably though it does contrast the messiah with the almighty. It seems unlikely that if the messiah were almighty the word mighty would be used to describe him, especially since it is used so freely do describe YHWH
…
unfortunately i don’t have the time to finish this explanation of the scriptures but i’ll try to post again within the week.
And another one appears . . . hmmm . . . coincidence?
No proof, just disagreement . . . hmmm . . . not sure what to make of you But let’s deal with what you have posted so far.
I was going to wait to see where mse2us was going to go with his response, but let me just add one more reference: Jeremiah 23:5-6
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Even Rabbinical authorities recognized that “He is Jehovah; of Him cannot be said, He is created, formed or made; but He is the Emanation from God. This agrees exactly with what is written, Jeremiah 23:5-6, David’s Branch, that though He shall be a perfect man, yet He is â??The Lord our Righteousness.”
In case you are wondering the actual Hebrew for Lord our Righteousness is YHWH Tsidgenu. Plain as day.
You seem incapable of understanding that when God assigns a name to anyone or to himself - it is a revelation of the character and identity of that person not just a generic appellation. Let’s use the example of “Prince of Peace” - is the Messiah not the one who brings Peace?
Thus, his name of “Prince of Peace” reveals something vital to his actual character. How about Wonderful - is the Savior not Wonderful? Now, if the first name in that list reveals something of his actual character, and the last name in that series reveals something of his character; Well then why don’t the others?
it would be a logical incongruity for the author to change the purpose of providing revealing names of the Messiah’s character into just generic meaningless titles and then to switch back?
You have to torture and twist the plain scripture to fit your doctrine, rather just accepting the plain meaning of the text.
You skipped it, so I guess I will wait to see what response you come up with.
you totally missed it - God says no one is like Him, Yet Jesus has the exact same power and character as God himself- so how can no one be like God and yet here is someone who exactly like God? The only explanation is that Jesus and God are the same being. It is the harmonious interpretation of of the plain reading of Scripture.
You skipped it . . .
You skipped it . . .
well, anyway, you guys are still batting 0, but I’ll be here when you’re ready . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
mse2us - you’re still avoiding my points and throwing more copy/paste at me . . . and jumping to new passages . . . and raising new objections.
You’re starting from your preconceptions, and that’s understandable, but you have to be willing to just start with plain scripture which is what I have provided you.
There’s no point to a discussion, if you will not discuss the points I gave you.
If you cannot understand the plain text of scripture, I cannot do any more than point you back to it. It’s right there for you to see. Our discussion on the trinity has to start with the Divinity of Jesus.
You say Jesus is a lesser God created by God, but God very clearly stated that no other God was formed before Him or after Him . . . you cannot avoid the plain reading of scripture.
Soooo,back to the five points please, so far you have only talked about answering 2 of them. Let’s actually discuss, please!
Easy task- Just disprove my points with actual scripture - not random unconnected talking points.
Here they are again - with additional details for you:
The OT prophesied a DIVINE Messiah: Psalm 2, Psalm 110
Jesus/Jehovah are both the: Only Name by Which we Must Be Saved, and Only One Savior (see earlier post) - they either have to be the same person or Scripture is false.
Jesus possess all of the incommunicable traits of God: (Isaiah 45:21 - God said “there is no one like me”)
Eternal - Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6 his (the Messiah) name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace - THE SON is called THE MIGHTY GOD and THE EVERLASTING FATHER - the very same names as GOD! HE is the very same as the Father.
omnipresent - matthew 18:20 and matthew 28:20
omniscient - john 16:30, john 21:17, Revelation 2:23
omnipotent - Philippians 3:21, hebrews 1:3
immutable - hebrews 1:20-12, Hebrews 13:8
and finally Colossians 2:9 - for in Him all the Fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
Created all things - John 1:3, Colossianss 1:16 and 17 - and “all” leaves no room for something or someone else to have been created - it leaves no room for God to have created Jesus. Jesus created everything that was created. He would have had to have created himself . . . .
Acts as divine providence - John 17:2, Ephesians 1:22
Forgives sins - Matthew 9:2-7. Mark 2:5-10
Raises the dead and conducts final judgment - John 5:22, Acts 10:42, Acts 17:31 and 2 Timothy 4:1
OK - there they are: plain as day - easy to read and understand, no tortured logic, no Egyptian or Babylonian connection (except your polytheism) . . .
[/quote]
Irish I explained most of the points that you made. I showed you from the Bible that Jesus being called a shepherd doesn’t mean he’s Jehovah God Almighty because there are other scriptures that show other people in the Bible such as Cyrus the Persian is called a shepherd.
I explained why the prophecied Messiah had the name “Immanuel” which means Jehovah is with us" which would help the Israelites understand long before the Messiah appeared that the Messiah was from Jehovah. Similiarly, the name “Jehovah is Our Righteousness” applied to the prophecied Messiah would help the Israelites know and understand that the Messiah was from Jehovah and that Jehovah was with them. Jeremiah 33:14-16 shows that Jerusalem is called “Jehovah is Our Righteousness” which is the exact same expression used for for the prophecied Messiah.
I also showed from the Bible the difference between when “First and the Last” is applied to Jesus and when “First and the Last” is applied to God. The two instances in Revelation when the term “First and the Last” are applied to Jesus is regards to his unique death and resurrection because they are both specifically mentioned in the two verses. On the other hand when “First and the Last” are appied to God Almighty the term is not used in connection with death and resurrection and titles “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and the End” are added. The full expressiong for Jehovah God is: I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last and Beginning and the End. The expression is never applied to Jesus.
Like I said before Isaiah 9:6,7 is the perfect scripture to use to show that Jesus is NOT God Almighty and that he is lesser than G0d. Before I explain how again I’ll answer why Jesus is given the titles that you thing prove he is God Almighty.
Adam was our first father and due to his sin we are in our present state of being help captive to sin and thus death. With Jesus sacrifice which enabled all of Adams descendant to have the opportunity for everlasting life Jesus in effect became our father and replaced our first father Adam. That’s why at 1 Corinthians 15:45 Jesus is called the “Last Adam” and thus the titoe “Everlasting Father can be applied to Jesus.” So Jesus is called Everlasting Father because he will forever be the Last Adam to those exercising faith in him.
At Isaiah 9:6,7 Jesus is given the title of “Prince” which is a position that is second in command and subject to someone. It also states that he will sit on David’s throne. As a descendant of King David he has the legal right to the throne. King David and the kings that followed ruled over Jehovah’s people on earth.
Yes the prophecied Jesus is called a “Mighty God” but that doesn’t mean he is God Almighty. There’s a difference. The term God in the Bible is applied to anyone with power. Judges are called gods at Psalm 82, 1 Corinthinas 8:5 states “there are those who are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth just as there are many gods and many lords” which again shows that the term “god” is applied to more than just God Almighty. Finally, Satan is called a god at 2 Corinthians 4:4 which states that “the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of unbelievers.”
So just because Satan is called a God does that mean that Satan is part of the Trinity or equal to Jehovah God? Of course not.
All of the powers that you mentioned such as omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable Jesus does have but again that does not mean he is Jehovah God Almighty. As a spirit being, yes Jesus is powerful, especially as Hebrews 1:3 points out that he is the exact representation of his Father but there are other spirit beings that are powerful such as angels, Satan as and his demons. Read Psalms 103:20 and you will see that this verse says angels are “mighty in power.”
So just because Jesus because Jesus has the powers that you listed does not mean or state that Jesus is Jehovah God Almighty.
Jesus being called deity does not mean he is God Almighty. Deity can mean divine character or nature and some translators translate the word “deity” in that verse as “divine quality.” If you can get your hands on an interlinear Greek-to-English Bible you will see that divine quality is used instead of deity.
You can try to explain that Jesus creating all things means that he was not created but that is not what the Bible cleary states. Colossians 1:15 states Jesus is “the Beginning of Creation by God” and Proverbs 8:22-30 shows Jesus in his prehuman existince being the first thing God created as well as being with God when he prepared the heavens and earth and being called the Craftsman or Master Worker. Hebrews 1:1-3 explains how it was God who used Jesus to create the universe or system of things and that Jesus went to heaven to be at God’s right hand. That passage shows that they are clearly separate, God used his son to create things and that he is in a subordinat position.
Jesus has been given the assignment to raise the dead and do the judging but the Bible clearly shows that God gave him this assignment. Acts 17:31 states:
“31 Because he has set a day in which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and he has furnished a guarantee to all men in that he has resurrected him from the dead.”
John 5:22 as you stated shows that God committed the judging to Jesus.
“For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son.”
Again, God gave Jesus this assignment which shows that Jesus is not the same being as God.
Jesus does not receive worship in a way that God receives worship. Once Jesus went back to heaven Act 2:33 shows that he was exalted to the right hand of God and Hebrews 1 shows that he is now at a higher position than the angels. Because of this Phillipians 2:9-11 states: "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Because of Jesus being exalted all the angels do obeisance to him which is a gesture to show deep respect when one is in the presence of someone greater like someone bowing when he greets a king or queen. So the examples of the men on the boat at Matthew 14:33 is an example of the men doing obeisance because at the verse points out they realized he was God’s son.It is clear who Jesus said one should worship and serve only at Matthew 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.”
Even Jesus said that only Jehovah God should be worshipped.
Irish you keep saying that the scriptures you used are clear and easy to understand but none of them specifically mention both God and Jesus and then say who has greater authority. That would be a clear and plain scripture. One that mentions both Jehovah and Jesus and clearly states who has greater authority. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is one of dozens that do that which states:
"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Now that is a clear and simple verse to understand. This is written about 22 years after Jesus went to heaven so it is clear that when Paul wrote this letter he understood that Jesus was under God in authority in heaven like man is under Jesus and women are under men. This again harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 which states:
“Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
None of the inferences you make to prove Jesus is God is as strong and as directly stated as to who has greater authority than the two passages directly above or all of the over 10 scriptures that show Jesus is at God’s right hand in heaven.
So Irish, explain how God could be the head of Jesus if they are the same, and how could Jesus be at God’s right hand in heaven. Also, explain how my last post disproves that Jesus is God as you stated.
Why is it that you guys think that a volume of words that don’t address my points is actually discussion?
Let me break it down for you even simpler: I made my points and provided some of my scriptures
Point 1 - The OT prophesied a Divine Messiah - you have to prove from scripture that the OT did not prophesy a divine messiah - ie, show a passage that proves that the Messiah was not Divine and only a man.
Point 2A - Jehovah/Jesus is only name by which we must be save - you have to prove from scripture that either Jesus’ name or Jehovah’s name is not the name by which we must be save - ie, show a passage that states that calling on either Jesus’ name or Jehovah’s name will not save you.
Point 2B - Jehovah/Jesus is the only Savior - you have to prove from scripture that either Jesus or Jehovah is not the Savior - ie, show a passage that states that either Jesus or Jehovah is not the savior.
Point 3 - Jesus possesses the incommunicable traits of God - you have to prove that Jesus does not possess any of the traits of God - if he possess any of the traits of God then he is like God in character/essence that is in clear violation of scripture. - ie, show passages that state He does not possess any of the 5 traits I listed - just one won’t do (HINT - none of the angels or “mighty powers” possess any of the incommunicable traits of God)
Point 4 - Jesus does the work of God - this ties to the previous one, but moves from character traits to actions - you have to prove from Scripture that Jesus does not do the actions assigned to God alone - ie show passages that state that Jesus cannot do any of the things I listed - which are all actions the Bible clearly states only God can do. (HINT - none of the angels or “mighty powers” can do any of the works of God)
Point 5 - Jesus received worship - an act of reverence given only to God - you have to prove from Scripture that Jesus does not receive worship (since we are only to worship God himself), ie, show a passage that states that Jesus is not to be worshiped.
I’ll take it all the way back to the Hebrew and Greek for you if you need me to, and I have lots more scriptures for each point. But just giving me your interpretation spin won’t do - you have to prove that ALL of my points are wrong, because if just one of them is true, that one in and of itself proves the divinity of Jesus, because all you’ve given has just been “yes, that’s true, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means”. So, unfortunately for your position, you have already agreed with almost all of the statements, but merely opposed the conclusion - that’s not good enough. PROVE THEM FALSE.
And no, we haven’t even gotten to the actual statements of divinity yet.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Let me break it down for you even simpler: I made my points and provided some of my scriptures
Point 1 - The OT prophesied a Divine Messiah - you have to prove from scripture that the OT did not prophesy a divine messiah - ie, show a passage that proves that the Messiah was not Divine and only a man.
[/quote]
Lets only deal with your point 1 until we either agree it is true or false.
The scriptures you support this argument with (ps2,ps110) don’t mention his divinity in any way shape or form. If you can’t find a single scripture mentioning his divinity then we should assume he was not.
To use an illustration, the bible doesn’t say that Pontious Pilot was divine, so we both he agree he isn’t. No one needs to prove he was not.
The burden of proof is on you
step 1) Find a scripture that tells us the messiah is divine.
step 2) Post it
As I except Christ as the messiah, I would logically have to except the divinity of christ, then we can move on to your next four points…
Lets also do it one scripture at a time so no one gets side tracked or runs out of time to answer, and lets all read each others posts thoroughly, objectively and prayerfully, so we can turn this argument into the kind of discussion the Christ would want us to have.
I’ve managed to read through about 2/3rds of this thread…wow, what a deep subject!
Before I begin, I’ll let you know straight off that I’m a Jehovah’s Witness…hope you don’t mind me chipping in so late LOL.
I try to be as objective as I can, and (surprise surprise), I still agree with H_L and mse2us. It’s not just because their of the same faith, it’s the simple reasoning.
Believe it or not, the truth is simple. And so it should be. Why would it take a theologian to explain something so important (like God is 3 persons in one) when Jesus taught the lowly “peasants” of his time in a plain and simple manner?
Why read into something that Jesus never taught?
The book of Hebrews has been quoted a lot in here…let me just say that if you think any author was trying to preach to the Jews that Jesus is God (or that some of them believed this) - you clearly don’t understand how this is considered to the Jews (extreme blasphemy). You would not be able to convince even a fraction of a monotheist nation that Jesus was God. Out of all the people in the world, a Jewish Christian convert would be the last to believe this (at that time).
As regards the scripture:
Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
This isn’t saying that God never said that to an angel per ce, but rather, which of the angels. This is like saying, “which of mankind was made president”?..It’s Obama. Simple. It’s simply saying that none of the others were chosen, it was Jesus.
Hebrews is simply stating how important Jesus is, that he was made more prominent (because of his obedience etc) - like a “promotion” in heaven. The book is trying to stress the importance of Jesus’ role of the Messiah and High priest.
There are 3 primary areas that deal with how people today access the data contained in the pages of the Bible.
1> Transmission. The actual practice of physically copying the text through the ages.
2> Translation. The practice of rendering the original languages into the various others in common use at the time.
3> Interpretation. Once it’s determined what the original languages actually STATE, the the practice of determining what those statements MEAN.
What qualifies anybody who has ever been in a leadership position in the WB&TS to so much as have an opinion concerning number 2? Where would they have learned OT Hebrew (and a smattering of Aramaic) and Koine Greek if not from somebody who learned the languages before them? What we have here is practically the entire world of Biblical scholarship acknowledging that the Bible we have today states that Jesus is God. Even liberals who agree with the watchtower that the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God Almighty, if there even is one, is idiotic, will tell you that the test of the Bible we have today states that.
In the first chapter of John we have “The Word” described as being in the beginning, with God and GOD. We also have this “Word” who was God and was with God becoming flesh and dwelling among men.
So again, there is a lllloooonnnng history of scholarship, including many who don’t themselves believe that Jesus is God, telling us that regardless of what anybody thinks, John 1 states that he was.
On what authority does the WB&TS alone translate the end of that first verse as “a god”. If they learned the languages from existing sources they would know better. If not then where? As of my last serious study Fredrick Franz was the only human being whose name we could get in association with the new world “translation” and his scholarship along with the “translation” itself have been universally and laughingly dismissed as a sophomoric deliberate misrepresentation.
I am very glad there will be no sorrow and no tears for the redeemed in the resurrection because it would be more than I could take watching millions of JW’s, a watchtower magazine in one hand and a blasphemous butchered bible in the other attempting to explain to the exalted Christ that He isn’t God and this lake of fire he is throwing them into doesn’t exist. Of course I speak in human terms as there will be no debate at the Judgment Seat.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
I’ve managed to read through about 2/3rds of this thread…wow, what a deep subject!
Before I begin, I’ll let you know straight off that I’m a Jehovah’s Witness…hope you don’t mind me chipping in so late LOL.
I try to be as objective as I can, and (surprise surprise), I still agree with H_L and mse2us. It’s not just because their of the same faith, it’s the simple reasoning.
Believe it or not, the truth is simple. And so it should be. Why would it take a theologian to explain something so important (like God is 3 persons in one) when Jesus taught the lowly “peasants” of his time in a plain and simple manner?
Why read into something that Jesus never taught?
The book of Hebrews has been quoted a lot in here…let me just say that if you think any author was trying to preach to the Jews that Jesus is God (or that some of them believed this) - you clearly don’t understand how this is considered to the Jews (extreme blasphemy). You would not be able to convince even a fraction of a monotheist nation that Jesus was God. Out of all the people in the world, a Jewish Christian convert would be the last to believe this (at that time).
As regards the scripture:
Hebrews 1:5 - For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?
This isn’t saying that God never said that to an angel per ce, but rather, which of the angels. This is like saying, “which of mankind was made president”?..It’s Obama. Simple. It’s simply saying that none of the others were chosen, it was Jesus.
Hebrews is simply stating how important Jesus is, that he was made more prominent (because of his obedience etc) - like a “promotion” in heaven. The book is trying to stress the importance of Jesus’ role of the Messiah and High priest.[/quote]
Sorry, but Jesus did not speak to the “lowly” Peasants of his time in a plain and simple manner. Parables are not intended to be easy. Jesus even had to pull his own Disciples aside to explain what the parables meant. The disiples also did not understand the meaning of several of his stories until he had been raised from the dead. It was only the theologians of the time that understood what he said, and that is why they plotted to kill him.
Lets look at John 8:48-59 I will say that the “lowly” peasants only understood what Jesus called himself, vs. 58 “I AM”. They wanted to stone Jesus for this. Jesus called himself God, and even the “lowly” Peasants understood this one immediately. If he would have called himself “a god” they would have called him a crazy nut job and put him out of their town. No the Jews only stoned instantly for blasphemy and that is calling yourself GOD. The “lowly” Peasants of Jesus’ time understood this but you JWs don’t. You only see the human side of Jesus and not his fully Divine God side.
I also find it funny in these verses, vs 54 to be exact, claims that Jesus does not glorify himself, but only God glorifies Jesus. Is God lifting up Jesus before the resurrection and definitely before 1914. I think God is showing that even Jesus claims to be God and God accepts that statement. Go figure.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There are 3 primary areas that deal with how people today access the data contained in the pages of the Bible.
1> Transmission. The actual practice of physically copying the text through the ages.
2> Translation. The practice of rendering the original languages into the various others in common use at the time.
3> Interpretation. Once it’s determined what the original languages actually STATE, the the practice of determining what those statements MEAN.
What qualifies anybody who has ever been in a leadership position in the WB&TS to so much as have an opinion concerning number 2? Where would they have learned OT Hebrew (and a smattering of Aramaic) and Koine Greek if not from somebody who learned the languages before them? What we have here is practically the entire world of Biblical scholarship acknowledging that the Bible we have today states that Jesus is God. Even liberals who agree with the watchtower that the idea of Jesus of Nazareth being God Almighty, if there even is one, is idiotic, will tell you that the test of the Bible we have today states that.
In the first chapter of John we have “The Word” described as being in the beginning, with God and GOD. We also have this “Word” who was God and was with God becoming flesh and dwelling among men.
So again, there is a lllloooonnnng history of scholarship, including many who don’t themselves believe that Jesus is God, telling us that regardless of what anybody thinks, John 1 states that he was.
On what authority does the WB&TS alone translate the end of that first verse as “a god”. If they learned the languages from existing sources they would know better. If not then where? As of my last serious study Fredrick Franz was the only human being whose name we could get in association with the new world “translation” and his scholarship along with the “translation” itself have been universally and laughingly dismissed as a sophomoric deliberate misrepresentation.
I am very glad there will be no sorrow and no tears for the redeemed in the resurrection because it would be more than I could take watching millions of JW’s, a watchtower magazine in one hand and a blasphemous butchered bible in the other attempting to explain to the exalted Christ that He isn’t God and this lake of fire he is throwing them into doesn’t exist. Of course I speak in human terms as there will be no debate at the Judgment Seat.[/quote]
1.Tell me exactly what John 1:1 says.
2.Then tell me the rules regarding definite and indefinite articles in Greek.
3.Then tell me what Acts 28:6 says.
If you are going to attack our translation, you are going to need to bring more than accusations. I will wait for your reply.