-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
Hello feedm3,
Thank you for your response.
You're so anxious to bring this back to John 17:3, that passage must really bother you. Slow down.
Here's the thing. If there is indeed another completely proper usage of the title 'god', one that is 'figurative' or relative, then consider the implications. Jehovah God calls Moses a god at Exodus 7:1. Jehovah God also calls certain Israelite judges gods at Psalm 82. Jesus compares himself to the judges of Psalm 82.
Now, in a later post you attempt to explain that comparison with a very, very free paraphrase that again introduces much of your theology into the text that simply isn't there, but this is the important part:
Think about this, the human judges are called 'gods' because they were appointed agents of God. You are finally coming around to what I've been arguing from my very first post! A representative of God can take on a similar title as God and even at times be referred to as God himself!
Your paraphrase falls apart after this because the comparison makes no sense. Why would Jesus compare himself to corrupt people that are 'gods' in a relative sense only to say, 'but I'm actually God'? The comparison is only useful if they share a common string, which they most certainly do. Notice how Jesus makes this point about himself:
"...do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
Jesus too is an 'appointed agent of God'! Over and over he says this plainly. "Jesus said to them...'I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.'" (John 8:28) "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.'" (John 5:19)
Jesus' argument at John 10 is not some useless reference to men that are called 'gods' in a completely different way than he's claiming the title for himself, but solid proof that an agent of God can rightfully be called God's Son and even a 'god'. His argument is so effective because he references even corrupt men being given these titles by scripture, which his enemies cannot deny, and the scripture itself condemns them for their works. Thus, Jesus makes this point:
"I have shown you many good works from the Father...If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works."
So while the judges did bad works and were still called 'sons of God' and 'gods' because of their appointed positions, Jesus is saying 'I've not only been appointed, but I'm actually doing good works that my Father has entrusted me with.' Therefore, he's actually more deserving of the titles than even those given it by scripture. Do you really not see the natural reason of this simple and beautiful argument? It's very effective when understood properly.
Thank you, I agree entirely with that common sense. Now let's apply some of it to Colossians 1.
"For by [Jesus, the firstborn of creation] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)
So you'd agree that it's possible that Jesus could still be a part of creation and yet exempted from the "all things" referenced in the passages above?
Here's your questions:
1. Do you believe that according to Exo Moses was a true God/god?
As I've demonstrated, the true/false dichotomy is a false choice here. He's made a 'god' in that he's an appointed agent/representative of the only true God.
2. Do you death is a consequence of sin?
Absolutely.
3. do you believe it was possible for Jesus to die before his incarnation?
Yes. He's "the beginning of the creation by God" and as such the first creature. (Rev. 3:14) Though he existed in the spirit realm, he could have defected along with Satan.
4. Do you believe God is Lord, even though scripture says their is ONE Lord?
He certainly carries the title in a different sense than is being emphasized by Paul. "Lord" simply means master, and even Sarah referred to Abraham as such. When Paul says we have one Lord, he's saying we have one master appointed by the one God.
5. Do you believe that Jesus is Lord even though scripture says their is ONE Lord?
Yes. Peter says that God "made" Jesus Lord. (Acts 2:36) Thus, God appointed Jesus as our master.
6. Do you believe that Jesus is savior even though Jehovah said their is no savior besides me?
Yes. Again, he's been appointed by God as such, just as in previous times he appointed Ehud and Othniel to be saviors to Israel. (Judges 3)
Are you starting to realize that divinely appointed representatives rightly carry titles like 'god' and 'savior'?
7. Does the "firstborn" of the dead refer to time or rank?
Both.
8. If the answer to 7 is both, or "time", what in the passage shows this?
I've shown you several. Paul explicitly gives the chronological order of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. There, he references the imagery of the harvest season by calling Jesus 'the firstfruits from the dead'. The firstfruits of the harvest were literally the first ones harvested.
9. If Moses is/was a god, in the same sense Jesus is/was a god, are they equal?
No. Moses was a type foreshadowing the Messiah. Both were prophets, both were mediators of covenants with God, both were divinely-appointed agents of God. While Moses is called a 'god', Jesus is called a "mighty god'. Jehovah is the only one called "the Most High God'.
Thank you for your response.
You're so anxious to bring this back to John 17:3, that passage must really bother you. Slow down.
Here's the thing. If there is indeed another completely proper usage of the title 'god', one that is 'figurative' or relative, then consider the implications. Jehovah God calls Moses a god at Exodus 7:1. Jehovah God also calls certain Israelite judges gods at Psalm 82. Jesus compares himself to the judges of Psalm 82.
Now, in a later post you attempt to explain that comparison with a very, very free paraphrase that again introduces much of your theology into the text that simply isn't there, but this is the important part:
Think about this, the human judges are called 'gods' because they were appointed agents of God. You are finally coming around to what I've been arguing from my very first post! A representative of God can take on a similar title as God and even at times be referred to as God himself!
Your paraphrase falls apart after this because the comparison makes no sense. Why would Jesus compare himself to corrupt people that are 'gods' in a relative sense only to say, 'but I'm actually God'? The comparison is only useful if they share a common string, which they most certainly do. Notice how Jesus makes this point about himself:
"...do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?"
Jesus too is an 'appointed agent of God'! Over and over he says this plainly. "Jesus said to them...'I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.'" (John 8:28) "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.'" (John 5:19)
Jesus' argument at John 10 is not some useless reference to men that are called 'gods' in a completely different way than he's claiming the title for himself, but solid proof that an agent of God can rightfully be called God's Son and even a 'god'. His argument is so effective because he references even corrupt men being given these titles by scripture, which his enemies cannot deny, and the scripture itself condemns them for their works. Thus, Jesus makes this point:
"I have shown you many good works from the Father...If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works."
So while the judges did bad works and were still called 'sons of God' and 'gods' because of their appointed positions, Jesus is saying 'I've not only been appointed, but I'm actually doing good works that my Father has entrusted me with.' Therefore, he's actually more deserving of the titles than even those given it by scripture. Do you really not see the natural reason of this simple and beautiful argument? It's very effective when understood properly.
Thank you, I agree entirely with that common sense. Now let's apply some of it to Colossians 1.
"For by [Jesus, the firstborn of creation] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:16-17)
So you'd agree that it's possible that Jesus could still be a part of creation and yet exempted from the "all things" referenced in the passages above?
Here's your questions:
1. Do you believe that according to Exo Moses was a true God/god?
As I've demonstrated, the true/false dichotomy is a false choice here. He's made a 'god' in that he's an appointed agent/representative of the only true God.
2. Do you death is a consequence of sin?
Absolutely.
3. do you believe it was possible for Jesus to die before his incarnation?
Yes. He's "the beginning of the creation by God" and as such the first creature. (Rev. 3:14) Though he existed in the spirit realm, he could have defected along with Satan.
4. Do you believe God is Lord, even though scripture says their is ONE Lord?
He certainly carries the title in a different sense than is being emphasized by Paul. "Lord" simply means master, and even Sarah referred to Abraham as such. When Paul says we have one Lord, he's saying we have one master appointed by the one God.
5. Do you believe that Jesus is Lord even though scripture says their is ONE Lord?
Yes. Peter says that God "made" Jesus Lord. (Acts 2:36) Thus, God appointed Jesus as our master.
6. Do you believe that Jesus is savior even though Jehovah said their is no savior besides me?
Yes. Again, he's been appointed by God as such, just as in previous times he appointed Ehud and Othniel to be saviors to Israel. (Judges 3)
Are you starting to realize that divinely appointed representatives rightly carry titles like 'god' and 'savior'?
7. Does the "firstborn" of the dead refer to time or rank?
Both.
8. If the answer to 7 is both, or "time", what in the passage shows this?
I've shown you several. Paul explicitly gives the chronological order of the resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15. There, he references the imagery of the harvest season by calling Jesus 'the firstfruits from the dead'. The firstfruits of the harvest were literally the first ones harvested.
9. If Moses is/was a god, in the same sense Jesus is/was a god, are they equal?
No. Moses was a type foreshadowing the Messiah. Both were prophets, both were mediators of covenants with God, both were divinely-appointed agents of God. While Moses is called a 'god', Jesus is called a "mighty god'. Jehovah is the only one called "the Most High God'.
F
More questions for JW's:
Many JW websites, tracts, and articles, say that JW's believe ONLY the Bible to be the authority for the church:
"They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs" Wiki
So based on that statement:
1. Where is the authority for an earthly headquarters to be over all the congregations? There is no command, example, or necessary inference in scripture.
2. Where is the authority for the watchtower having any authority within the church, seeing ONLY the bible is authority, and this is outside of the Bible?
3. Where is the authority for the majority of JW's not to take the Lord's supper, when in the Bible we see that the early church did partake?
Questions concerning the watchtower:
1. Can the honest person understand the Bible sufficiently to be saved without studying the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?
2. Is the Bible the highest authority Jehovah's Witnesses follow or are they required to accept the teachings of the Watchtower Society without question?
3. Has the Watchtower Society taught error in the past in its official publications?
4. If the Society did teach error, should Jehovah's Witnesses accept those teachings as true, or should they accept what the Bible teaches instead?
Many JW websites, tracts, and articles, say that JW's believe ONLY the Bible to be the authority for the church:
"They consider the Bible to be the final authority for all their beliefs" Wiki
So based on that statement:
1. Where is the authority for an earthly headquarters to be over all the congregations? There is no command, example, or necessary inference in scripture.
2. Where is the authority for the watchtower having any authority within the church, seeing ONLY the bible is authority, and this is outside of the Bible?
3. Where is the authority for the majority of JW's not to take the Lord's supper, when in the Bible we see that the early church did partake?
Questions concerning the watchtower:
1. Can the honest person understand the Bible sufficiently to be saved without studying the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society?
2. Is the Bible the highest authority Jehovah's Witnesses follow or are they required to accept the teachings of the Watchtower Society without question?
3. Has the Watchtower Society taught error in the past in its official publications?
4. If the Society did teach error, should Jehovah's Witnesses accept those teachings as true, or should they accept what the Bible teaches instead?
T
Hi feedm3,
Thanks again for your response.
You seem to think that if you write this off as 'figurative' language, which is entirely subjective, it in some way 'doesn't count'. That misses the point. Moses is called a 'god' because he is given divine power to act as Jehovah God's representative. This is the common definition of anyone called 'god' in some lesser sense than Jehovah. They are not the true God and they are not false gods, but they are 'gods' in some relative sense. Moses' 'godship' is no different than the judges of Psalm 82 or the angels. They are all given divine authority to act in the Almighty's behalf. It's relatively simple to show that Jesus too was given such divine authority.
Again, just to emphasize, the definition of a relative-type of 'god' is a divinely-appointed representative of Jehovah God that has real authority and power. This encompasses Moses, the judges, the angels, and Jesus.
Well I'm certainly happy to see you recognize this, and I commend you for the honesty. But this is precisely the flaw that runs throughout many of your posts here and is found in your opening post where you asked: "How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?"
The context of such a passage shows that appointed representatives of Jehovah are not being considered here at all; the focus is on Jehovah God versus the gods of the nations. Moses isn't being considered. The Israelite judges aren't being considered. The angels aren't being considered. And I'd argue that Jesus isn't being considered. It's the false gods that are in opposition to the true God, Jehovah, that are being spoken of as not existing!
When Jesus compared his situation with that of David's, the common thread was that the Pharisees were making a wrong application of God's Law. In their overly-legalistic view, a non-priest eating the showbread was wrong. Yet, the purpose of the consecrated showbread was to serve as food to holy ones specifically performing God's work, which David and his men were actually doing in this instance. Thus, Jesus showed how his enemies were actually missing the basis of the Law, just as they were doing by condemning his disciples from gleaning just a small amount of food to eat on the sabbath while doing God's work. But that common thread had to be there for the comparison to make any sense. The argument would be disposable if he was saying David did something wrong in scripture (which he really didn't), but here we're doing something that is right. If that were the case, why even bring it up to begin with? Just argue that plucking a few grains on the sabbath is alright.
You make Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 completely moot when you say that Jesus is arguing to be God himself. Why, then, even bring up the judges? What do they have to do with anything if it's an apples-to-oranges comparison? You've taken away the common thread. But, if the judges are divine representatives...and Jesus is a divine representative...then certainly Jesus can carry the same titles that those men carried! The simple logic of this is undeniable and powerful.
With regard to Colossians 1, you said:
Consider the implications now. You're effectively saying that Paul references 'Jesus the man' in verse 15, then completely changes gears and switches to referencing 'Jesus the God' in verses 16 and 17, giving not one iota of a hint that he's talking about two very different types of Jesus. And you expect me to accept this type of interpretation?
This is the flow of Paul's teaching: Jesus was the firstborn of creation, he was so because by means of him all things were then created. Imagine a wealthy investor starting a business. He begins this by hiring a competent manager to get it up and running. The manager is the first (and foremost) employee, and by him all the employees are hired and begin working. Get the point?
On to your questions:
And that interpretation is demonstrably wrong. At Exodus 4:16, Jehovah tells Moses explicitly that he'll serve as 'god' to Aaron his brother as well. This is also the implication at 7:1, where Aaron is said to be Moses' prophet.
Satan is dead, in that he is a 'dead man walking' from God's standpoint. Similarly, though literally dead until their resurrection, Jesus explained that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are 'alive' in God's sight, because, as he put it about his Father, "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27)
This is actually a common logical fallacy. You're equating 'if A, then B' to 'if B, then A'. That doesn't follow. All creatures were created mortal. Death necessarily follows sin, but sin obviously isn't a necessary condition for death, since Jesus was sinless and yet died a sacrificial death. If Jesus sinned, be it in heaven or on earth, he would be condemned to death with no possibility for resurrection. Because he died with no sin, he was resurrected.
"And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—" (Jude 6)
These angels, like Satan, have been condemned in God's eyes from the time that they joined the rebellion that began in Eden. They weren't destroyed immediately because this wouldn't answer the challenge made against God's sovereignty. Time is needed to prove whose rule is best.
Well yes, unfortunately context plays a role in how we should understand what is meant, just like in everyday life. But don't blind yourself to the fact that you do this as well. Both you and I know well that a passage like the following would be a primary proof text for your Trinity: "Jesus appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was Jesus Christ. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'"
I'd be accused with all sorts of mischief for saying it doesn't literally mean Jesus is God himself; we both know this! But instead, you're left to argue 'another meaning' because it actually says: "The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'" (Judges 13:20-21)
And just imagine how I'd be forced 'explain away passages' if these verses were available to you: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Jesus...'the LORD [Jehovah God] has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him.'"
Thankfully for me, I guess, such a 'proof' text is left in obscurity, because it really says: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron...'the LORD [Jehovah God] has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him." (Exodus 16:2, 8)
I could go on and on with these double-standards. When it's Jesus, you interpret everything with the presumptive mindset that he must be God, because you were probably taught this before you even began to read the Bible. But when the very same words are written of others, your mind automatically interprets them differently, probably without you even realizing it! And if anyone dare point out this presumption on your part, they get accused of 'twisting things', which is really quite ironic.
With regards to the title 'savior', you wrote:
Context. Let me say that again, context.
When God says there's no other savior but him, he's going on and on about how the gods of the nations are not real and have no power of salvation. Read the account. Yet when Israel needed saving from outside forces, God appointed men to save them, and they were called 'saviors'. The gods of the nations would not and could not have done such a thing, because they have no power of salvation. Only Jehovah God does. So the men appointed by God to save were saviors, and God was the true savior, since he was the source of that salvation.
This is more irony, because I'm actually interpreting the words in the same exact way that you do for every other representative sent by God. Jesus too was sent by God. (John 3:17)
Well I'm being consistent. I don't think you even realize just how inconsistent you are in your interpretation, so I won't call it dishonesty. But I've been a lot of these discussions, and your frustration is normal, because I'm using scripture against your faulty interpretation. Sounds almost like the method Jesus used, no?
Seeing as how I'm quoting directly from the Bible, it seems that it's scripture that's moving too fast here. I realize that your eyes have just been opened to the fact that God's representatives can be called 'gods', so let's try another word that's easier: king. Some kings are greater or more powerful than other kings, right? Same idea.
Can you show me an instance where Jesus is unambiguously called "the Almighty"?
Thanks again for your response.
You seem to think that if you write this off as 'figurative' language, which is entirely subjective, it in some way 'doesn't count'. That misses the point. Moses is called a 'god' because he is given divine power to act as Jehovah God's representative. This is the common definition of anyone called 'god' in some lesser sense than Jehovah. They are not the true God and they are not false gods, but they are 'gods' in some relative sense. Moses' 'godship' is no different than the judges of Psalm 82 or the angels. They are all given divine authority to act in the Almighty's behalf. It's relatively simple to show that Jesus too was given such divine authority.
Again, just to emphasize, the definition of a relative-type of 'god' is a divinely-appointed representative of Jehovah God that has real authority and power. This encompasses Moses, the judges, the angels, and Jesus.
Well I'm certainly happy to see you recognize this, and I commend you for the honesty. But this is precisely the flaw that runs throughout many of your posts here and is found in your opening post where you asked: "How can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now that I-I am he, and there are NO gods together WITH me ..."?"
The context of such a passage shows that appointed representatives of Jehovah are not being considered here at all; the focus is on Jehovah God versus the gods of the nations. Moses isn't being considered. The Israelite judges aren't being considered. The angels aren't being considered. And I'd argue that Jesus isn't being considered. It's the false gods that are in opposition to the true God, Jehovah, that are being spoken of as not existing!
When Jesus compared his situation with that of David's, the common thread was that the Pharisees were making a wrong application of God's Law. In their overly-legalistic view, a non-priest eating the showbread was wrong. Yet, the purpose of the consecrated showbread was to serve as food to holy ones specifically performing God's work, which David and his men were actually doing in this instance. Thus, Jesus showed how his enemies were actually missing the basis of the Law, just as they were doing by condemning his disciples from gleaning just a small amount of food to eat on the sabbath while doing God's work. But that common thread had to be there for the comparison to make any sense. The argument would be disposable if he was saying David did something wrong in scripture (which he really didn't), but here we're doing something that is right. If that were the case, why even bring it up to begin with? Just argue that plucking a few grains on the sabbath is alright.
You make Jesus' appeal to Psalm 82 completely moot when you say that Jesus is arguing to be God himself. Why, then, even bring up the judges? What do they have to do with anything if it's an apples-to-oranges comparison? You've taken away the common thread. But, if the judges are divine representatives...and Jesus is a divine representative...then certainly Jesus can carry the same titles that those men carried! The simple logic of this is undeniable and powerful.
With regard to Colossians 1, you said:
Consider the implications now. You're effectively saying that Paul references 'Jesus the man' in verse 15, then completely changes gears and switches to referencing 'Jesus the God' in verses 16 and 17, giving not one iota of a hint that he's talking about two very different types of Jesus. And you expect me to accept this type of interpretation?
This is the flow of Paul's teaching: Jesus was the firstborn of creation, he was so because by means of him all things were then created. Imagine a wealthy investor starting a business. He begins this by hiring a competent manager to get it up and running. The manager is the first (and foremost) employee, and by him all the employees are hired and begin working. Get the point?
On to your questions:
And that interpretation is demonstrably wrong. At Exodus 4:16, Jehovah tells Moses explicitly that he'll serve as 'god' to Aaron his brother as well. This is also the implication at 7:1, where Aaron is said to be Moses' prophet.
Satan is dead, in that he is a 'dead man walking' from God's standpoint. Similarly, though literally dead until their resurrection, Jesus explained that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are 'alive' in God's sight, because, as he put it about his Father, "He is not God of the dead, but of the living." (Mark 12:27)
This is actually a common logical fallacy. You're equating 'if A, then B' to 'if B, then A'. That doesn't follow. All creatures were created mortal. Death necessarily follows sin, but sin obviously isn't a necessary condition for death, since Jesus was sinless and yet died a sacrificial death. If Jesus sinned, be it in heaven or on earth, he would be condemned to death with no possibility for resurrection. Because he died with no sin, he was resurrected.
"And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—" (Jude 6)
These angels, like Satan, have been condemned in God's eyes from the time that they joined the rebellion that began in Eden. They weren't destroyed immediately because this wouldn't answer the challenge made against God's sovereignty. Time is needed to prove whose rule is best.
Well yes, unfortunately context plays a role in how we should understand what is meant, just like in everyday life. But don't blind yourself to the fact that you do this as well. Both you and I know well that a passage like the following would be a primary proof text for your Trinity: "Jesus appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was Jesus Christ. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'"
I'd be accused with all sorts of mischief for saying it doesn't literally mean Jesus is God himself; we both know this! But instead, you're left to argue 'another meaning' because it actually says: "The angel of the LORD appeared no more to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, 'We shall surely die, for we have seen God.'" (Judges 13:20-21)
And just imagine how I'd be forced 'explain away passages' if these verses were available to you: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Jesus...'the LORD [Jehovah God] has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him.'"
Thankfully for me, I guess, such a 'proof' text is left in obscurity, because it really says: "And the whole congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron...'the LORD [Jehovah God] has heard your grumbling that you grumble against him." (Exodus 16:2, 8)
I could go on and on with these double-standards. When it's Jesus, you interpret everything with the presumptive mindset that he must be God, because you were probably taught this before you even began to read the Bible. But when the very same words are written of others, your mind automatically interprets them differently, probably without you even realizing it! And if anyone dare point out this presumption on your part, they get accused of 'twisting things', which is really quite ironic.
With regards to the title 'savior', you wrote:
Context. Let me say that again, context.
When God says there's no other savior but him, he's going on and on about how the gods of the nations are not real and have no power of salvation. Read the account. Yet when Israel needed saving from outside forces, God appointed men to save them, and they were called 'saviors'. The gods of the nations would not and could not have done such a thing, because they have no power of salvation. Only Jehovah God does. So the men appointed by God to save were saviors, and God was the true savior, since he was the source of that salvation.
This is more irony, because I'm actually interpreting the words in the same exact way that you do for every other representative sent by God. Jesus too was sent by God. (John 3:17)
Well I'm being consistent. I don't think you even realize just how inconsistent you are in your interpretation, so I won't call it dishonesty. But I've been a lot of these discussions, and your frustration is normal, because I'm using scripture against your faulty interpretation. Sounds almost like the method Jesus used, no?
Seeing as how I'm quoting directly from the Bible, it seems that it's scripture that's moving too fast here. I realize that your eyes have just been opened to the fact that God's representatives can be called 'gods', so let's try another word that's easier: king. Some kings are greater or more powerful than other kings, right? Same idea.
Can you show me an instance where Jesus is unambiguously called "the Almighty"?
T
Hello cfultz3,
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He is "the beginning of the creation by God" through whom God created all things. (Rev. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6) Because he has such a close relationship with Jehovah God and a love for mankind, from the moment Adam sinned, the plan was put forth for him to come to the earth and get 'bruised in the heel' by Satan (his sacrificial death to redeem fallen mankind), with the eventual 'bruising of the head' of Satan (leading the angelic forces to complete victory against him). (Genesis 3:15)
To do this, he had to lower himself, losing his glorious spirit body and coming to the earth as a man, a perfect human, with no human father infected by sin. In this, he became the equal of Adam, "the last Adam." (1 Cor. 15:45) As a man, Jesus carried out his Father's commands perfectly. He spoke only his Father's words, and did only his Father's will, so that he could say that anyone who had seen/heard him had seen/heard his Father in the heavens. (John 5:19, 30; 14:9, 24) He set up the congregation as its head. (Colossians 1:18) He fulfilled God's Law by keeping it perfectly, thereby earning the right to everlasting human life. (Matthew 5:17) Once he had earned this, he gave it up in our behalf so that God's justice and purpose for mankind might be preserved.
After this he was resurrected back to the spirit realm and sat at his Father's right hand awaiting his reign as king of God's Kingdom. (Hebrews 1:3) During this time he has kept watch over his people. As king, he leads God's angels against Satan and his angels, and against all the wicked on the earth during the 'day of Jehovah.' From that point he rules, along with the anointed Christians that serve as king-priests alongside him, over a millenium of blessings, that includes the resurrection of the dead and the fulfillment of all the miracles that were just, in a small way, foreshadowed during his earthly ministry. After the millenium, Satan is loosed for a little while for a final test, and then is destroyed completely with all that join him.
"Then comes the end, when [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:24-26, 28)
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah. He is "the beginning of the creation by God" through whom God created all things. (Rev. 3:14; 1 Cor. 8:6) Because he has such a close relationship with Jehovah God and a love for mankind, from the moment Adam sinned, the plan was put forth for him to come to the earth and get 'bruised in the heel' by Satan (his sacrificial death to redeem fallen mankind), with the eventual 'bruising of the head' of Satan (leading the angelic forces to complete victory against him). (Genesis 3:15)
To do this, he had to lower himself, losing his glorious spirit body and coming to the earth as a man, a perfect human, with no human father infected by sin. In this, he became the equal of Adam, "the last Adam." (1 Cor. 15:45) As a man, Jesus carried out his Father's commands perfectly. He spoke only his Father's words, and did only his Father's will, so that he could say that anyone who had seen/heard him had seen/heard his Father in the heavens. (John 5:19, 30; 14:9, 24) He set up the congregation as its head. (Colossians 1:18) He fulfilled God's Law by keeping it perfectly, thereby earning the right to everlasting human life. (Matthew 5:17) Once he had earned this, he gave it up in our behalf so that God's justice and purpose for mankind might be preserved.
After this he was resurrected back to the spirit realm and sat at his Father's right hand awaiting his reign as king of God's Kingdom. (Hebrews 1:3) During this time he has kept watch over his people. As king, he leads God's angels against Satan and his angels, and against all the wicked on the earth during the 'day of Jehovah.' From that point he rules, along with the anointed Christians that serve as king-priests alongside him, over a millenium of blessings, that includes the resurrection of the dead and the fulfillment of all the miracles that were just, in a small way, foreshadowed during his earthly ministry. After the millenium, Satan is loosed for a little while for a final test, and then is destroyed completely with all that join him.
"Then comes the end, when [Jesus] delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:24-26, 28)
T
Hello feedm3,
You're ignoring that Moses was appointed as 'god' to Aaron as well at Exodus 4:16. But this is just getting lost in the details, by which you're apparently hoping to get me to admit that Moses is only a 'god' to a certain extent. This is what I've been arguing all along! This is what I mean when I say that such uses of the term 'god' are relative, that is, not absolute.
I'm saying just recognize why they can be called 'gods'. It's because they're appointed as such by Jehovah, they are acting as his representatives. These are the very same conditions that Jesus proclaims for himself. This is why he compares himself to them in the first place!
Actually, there is one big difference in just that verse itself. The instance of 'theos' that is attributed to Jesus is anarthrous, or without the article. The Translator's New Testament put out by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which is a book intended to help Bible translators, says this of the missing article:
"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'."
These are not merely Jehovah's Witnesses recognizing this, these are people you'd consider orthodox. Again, as I've brought out previously, being divine is not exclusive to God alone. Peter writes to fellow Christians, "he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)
With regards to Colossians 1, you write:
I've asked you no such thing. I've simply asked you to be consistent and understand "all" just as you had no problem understanding it (to the point that you were annoyed with me) at Ephesians 1. You stated plainly that Jesus can be above "all" of something and still be a part of it.
Of course Paul can say that. I'm just pointing out the awkwardness it forces upon your interpretation. In your view, Paul essentially says, 'Jesus is the highest man, because he made everything.' Well, no, Jesus the man did not make everything in your view. It was Jesus in his divine nature that did. It's awkward. My view causes no abrupt change like this, it's the same as the employee analogy I pointed to last time: The manager was the first employee, because he hired all the employees.
I agree about the length, which is why I've tried keeping them shorter, but I also don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your points. I disagree that nothing is being gained, since you've already adopted a wider view of the term 'god'.
Sure you do, I've given you the test. Show me one place in scripture where Jesus is clearly called the Almighty.
You're ignoring that Moses was appointed as 'god' to Aaron as well at Exodus 4:16. But this is just getting lost in the details, by which you're apparently hoping to get me to admit that Moses is only a 'god' to a certain extent. This is what I've been arguing all along! This is what I mean when I say that such uses of the term 'god' are relative, that is, not absolute.
I'm saying just recognize why they can be called 'gods'. It's because they're appointed as such by Jehovah, they are acting as his representatives. These are the very same conditions that Jesus proclaims for himself. This is why he compares himself to them in the first place!
Actually, there is one big difference in just that verse itself. The instance of 'theos' that is attributed to Jesus is anarthrous, or without the article. The Translator's New Testament put out by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which is a book intended to help Bible translators, says this of the missing article:
"There is a distinction in the Greek here between 'with God' and 'God'. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means 'The Word was divine'."
These are not merely Jehovah's Witnesses recognizing this, these are people you'd consider orthodox. Again, as I've brought out previously, being divine is not exclusive to God alone. Peter writes to fellow Christians, "he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4)
With regards to Colossians 1, you write:
I've asked you no such thing. I've simply asked you to be consistent and understand "all" just as you had no problem understanding it (to the point that you were annoyed with me) at Ephesians 1. You stated plainly that Jesus can be above "all" of something and still be a part of it.
Of course Paul can say that. I'm just pointing out the awkwardness it forces upon your interpretation. In your view, Paul essentially says, 'Jesus is the highest man, because he made everything.' Well, no, Jesus the man did not make everything in your view. It was Jesus in his divine nature that did. It's awkward. My view causes no abrupt change like this, it's the same as the employee analogy I pointed to last time: The manager was the first employee, because he hired all the employees.
I agree about the length, which is why I've tried keeping them shorter, but I also don't want you to feel like I'm ignoring your points. I disagree that nothing is being gained, since you've already adopted a wider view of the term 'god'.
Sure you do, I've given you the test. Show me one place in scripture where Jesus is clearly called the Almighty.
G
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
What’s significant here is to recognize that by saying the Word is “divine,” this comes nowhere close to saying that the Word is “a god.” As I’ve pointed out in the past, [/FONT]this passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here (as it is used in 2 Peter 1.4, a verse you cited), but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities. Take for example, John 3.6,
The idea here has absolutely nothing to do with identification of any sort (“the spirit,” “a spirit”
, but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit” here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all”, where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”, 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love”, Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans”, 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I”,et al.
With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς, but stresses the nature of the Word. Call attention to what Henry Alford, a 19th c. Anglican theologian wrote in his commentary on this passage,
The point Alford is driving at here in his comparison of vv. 1 (θεὸς ἦν, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word” as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. This text then, is teaching the equality of nature between the Father, and the Son (c.f. Hebrews 1.3).
Further illustrations can be found in the following statements: (1) "Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man,” and (2) “Helen Reddy sang, ‘I am Woman.'" In both of these statement Eve is not to be equated with the one whom she is “with,” nor is Helen equated with “Woman,” rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to Eve (thus, Even is fully human), and all the qualities of “Woman” are fully predicated to Helen. In this same sense, the qualities of God are fully predicated to the Word in John 1.1c.
What I think should be pointed out is that though Jehovah’s Witnesses often cite Moffatt’s translation of the New Testament (which does translate John 1.1 adjectively, “the Word was divine” in support of the NWT’s rendition of the text (“the Word was a god”, but what they often fail to understand (as do you) is that these translations underscore the Trinitarian understanding of the text. In Moffatt’s own words: “ 'The Word was God... And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine... And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." (Jesus Christ the Same [Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945], p. 61
What’s significant here is to recognize that by saying the Word is “divine,” this comes nowhere close to saying that the Word is “a god.” As I’ve pointed out in the past, [/FONT]this passage is not simply implying that the Logos is “divine” or “god-like” as you would espouse, because John does not use the adjectival (θεῖος [“divine”]) here (as it is used in 2 Peter 1.4, a verse you cited), but rather uses the noun form (θεὸς [“God”]); however, that is not to say that nouns cannot, within their semantic domain, convey qualities. Take for example, John 3.6,
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
, but everything to do with that of predication. More specifically, the nouns (“flesh,” “spirit” here function in a purely qualitative sense, without a definite or indefinite semantic force. The context of the passage in view is about the inherent nature of sinful flesh (John 3.6a) in contrast to the new nature of man in the process of regeneration (John 3.6b). Likewise, a similar idea being portrayed is found in 1 John 1.5 (“God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all”, where it is God's essence and nature that is being described in contrast to “darkness.” That is, God has all the qualities, and attributes of light – He is just, holy, and good -- therefore, light is an attribute/characteristic inhering within God. Further examples include, but are not limited to, John 6.63 (“The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life”, 1 John 4.8 (“…because God is love”, Acts 16:21 (“…are not lawful for us as Romans”, 2 Corinthians 11:22 (“Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I”,et al.With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς
, but stresses the nature of the Word. Call attention to what Henry Alford, a 19th c. Anglican theologian wrote in his commentary on this passage, “The omission of the article before θεὸς is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the word might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεὸς would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεὸς must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence, -not ὁ θεὸς, ‘the Father,’ in Person. . . . as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1.14], σὰρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν [John 1.1c], θεὸς expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ [“In the beginning”]: -that He was very God.”—Henry Alford
, and 14 (σὰρξ ἐγένετο, is not only are the two parallel passages conveying similar thought, but John’s placement of the noun before the verb in each passage is significant in that it stresses the qualities or nature of the subject. The positioning of θεὸς before the verb ἦν is what is known as a preverbal predicate nominative. Since John has identified ὁ λόγος (“the Word” as the subject of the verse, this means that θεὸς in John 1.1b is a subject complement which further identifies the subject. In other words, θεὸς serves to describe the nature and essence of the Word, and this is precisely what we as Trinitarians believe. Not that the Word’s identity is being stressed, rather, it is the intrinsic nature of the Logos that is being portrayed here. All the qualities, attributes, and nature of God – everything that makes God, God – the Word also possesses. This text then, is teaching the equality of nature between the Father, and the Son (c.f. Hebrews 1.3). Further illustrations can be found in the following statements: (1) "Eve was with Man, and Eve was Man,” and (2) “Helen Reddy sang, ‘I am Woman.'" In both of these statement Eve is not to be equated with the one whom she is “with,” nor is Helen equated with “Woman,” rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to Eve (thus, Even is fully human), and all the qualities of “Woman” are fully predicated to Helen. In this same sense, the qualities of God are fully predicated to the Word in John 1.1c.
What I think should be pointed out is that though Jehovah’s Witnesses often cite Moffatt’s translation of the New Testament (which does translate John 1.1 adjectively, “the Word was divine”
in support of the NWT’s rendition of the text (“the Word was a god”, but what they often fail to understand (as do you) is that these translations underscore the Trinitarian understanding of the text. In Moffatt’s own words: “ 'The Word was God... And the Word became flesh,' simply means the Word was divine... And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." (Jesus Christ the Same [Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945], p. 61
Last edited:
G
I noticed John 17.3 being used throughout this discussion, so I wanted to chime in. There are several key terms here that play an essential role in the interpretation of John 17.3 (“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”. The prime focus of this post is to demonstrate how these key terms are applied, and what their significance is.
Two of the terms that’d I’d like to bring the audience’s attention to are alethinos (“true”, and ginoskosin (“know”. As does virtually all terminology, alethinos (“true” can, and does carry with it different connotations/nuances, which is bore out by their context, as well as the standard lexical works (i.e., BDAG, Thayer, Moulton & Milligan, and Louw & Nida). While alethinos may be used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of its original, it is often used in Scripture to describe that which is true as opposed to false,
(If image does not display, please refer to http://clintjordan.zymichost.com/John17_3_TrueGod.html )
The item in question, however, is which connotation does John 17.3 carry? If John 17.3 carries with it the archetype connotation, then this could be interpreted as Jehovah’s Witnesses do, thus potentially (though, not ultimately) excluding Christ from the realm of being God by comparing the Father as “the only true God” as compared to Christ. In Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24, the writer is clearly referring to the "true Tabernacle" in heaven where Jesus is the High Priest, in contrast to the earthly (and less "real") Tabernacle. However, in context, John 17.3 does not imply a contrast between Jesus, and God. Instead, the context is Jesus' concern that the disciples know the Father in an intimate way, that they may thus obtain eternal life. For who gives eternal life, but the true God (as contrasted with false gods)? Thus, context argues for the connotation of “true God" who gives eternal life, as opposed to "false gods," who cannot, and it is on this point that the standard lexical sources agree,
What is also worth mentioning is that when alethinos is used in reference to God as “true God” (John 17.3), it always makes a contrast with false gods, and to this Scripture bares no exception (see 1 Thess. 1.9, 1 John 5.20-21, Jeremiah 10.10-11, 2 Chronicles 15.3-4 in chart above). This, definition of course, presents serious problems for Watchtower theology, for by saying "the only true God," Jesus states quite clearly that any other who is termed "a god," must thereby be a false god, and the Watchtower cannot have a false god in Christ.
(To be continued...)
. The prime focus of this post is to demonstrate how these key terms are applied, and what their significance is. Two of the terms that’d I’d like to bring the audience’s attention to are alethinos (“true”
, and ginoskosin (“know”. As does virtually all terminology, alethinos (“true” can, and does carry with it different connotations/nuances, which is bore out by their context, as well as the standard lexical works (i.e., BDAG, Thayer, Moulton & Milligan, and Louw & Nida). While alethinos may be used to describe that which is the archetype as opposed to that which is a copy of its original, it is often used in Scripture to describe that which is true as opposed to false,
(If image does not display, please refer to http://clintjordan.zymichost.com/John17_3_TrueGod.html )
The item in question, however, is which connotation does John 17.3 carry? If John 17.3 carries with it the archetype connotation, then this could be interpreted as Jehovah’s Witnesses do, thus potentially (though, not ultimately) excluding Christ from the realm of being God by comparing the Father as “the only true God” as compared to Christ. In Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24, the writer is clearly referring to the "true Tabernacle" in heaven where Jesus is the High Priest, in contrast to the earthly (and less "real") Tabernacle. However, in context, John 17.3 does not imply a contrast between Jesus, and God. Instead, the context is Jesus' concern that the disciples know the Father in an intimate way, that they may thus obtain eternal life. For who gives eternal life, but the true God (as contrasted with false gods)? Thus, context argues for the connotation of “true God" who gives eternal life, as opposed to "false gods," who cannot, and it is on this point that the standard lexical sources agree,
(1) BAGD defines the usage of alethinos in John 17.3 as, "of God in contrast to other gods, who are not real."
(2) Grimm-Thayer defines alethinos as "contrasts realities with their semblances" for Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24, but "opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended" for John 17.3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alethinos in John 17.3 as "true contrasted with false."
(3) Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary defines alethinos in John 17.3 as: "'very God,' in distinction from all other gods, false gods" (p. 645), compared to the connotation given at Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24 as requiring the meaning: "the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle”
(4) Louw-Nida recognizes several connotations for alethinos, including those discussed; however, defines alethinos in John 17.3 as: "pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the only one who is really God'" (p. 667).
(5) Moulton-Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of alethinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning 'real'; 'genuine'; 'true, as opposed to false' (p. 22).
(2) Grimm-Thayer defines alethinos as "contrasts realities with their semblances" for Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24, but "opposite to what is fictitious, counterfeit, imaginary, simulated, pretended" for John 17.3 (p. 27). So, Grimm/Thayer, too, recognizes the correct connotation of alethinos in John 17.3 as "true contrasted with false."
(3) Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary defines alethinos in John 17.3 as: "'very God,' in distinction from all other gods, false gods" (p. 645), compared to the connotation given at Hebrews 8.2 and 9.24 as requiring the meaning: "the spiritual, archetypal tabernacle”
(4) Louw-Nida recognizes several connotations for alethinos, including those discussed; however, defines alethinos in John 17.3 as: "pertaining to being real and not imaginary ... 'that they may know you, the only one who is really God'" (p. 667).
(5) Moulton-Milligan list a number of contemporary extra-biblical examples of alethinos, including several by Christians in reference to God, and all carry the meaning 'real'; 'genuine'; 'true, as opposed to false' (p. 22).
(To be continued...)
Last edited:
T
Hi feedm3,
Thanks for the response.
Well, Moses was made a god in the eyes of Pharaoh, this is completely in line with everything I've said. But the text also says Moses was made a god to Aaron, who would serve as his prophet. Regardless, Moses is a god in some sense, define it however you wish.
I'm not trying to evade anything, I've simply have had this same discussion over and over, so it's rare that anything new comes up.
With regards to the absence of the article in John 1:1c, you said:
The Greek article is basically our definite article, "the". An interlinear translation of John 1:1 would be something like: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word." It's still the Greek word 'theos', but the first is 'ho theos', meaning 'the god', and the second is simply 'theos', meaning 'god/a god/divine'.
So the point is, in Greek there is a distinction between the two that is glossed over in most English translations.
Yes, I've seen many of your quotes before. Still, the point that 'divine' or 'a god' is a good translation can be demonstrated, even from your own Bible! It is, after all, the literal translation of the Greek. First, to show that it's not really just Jehovah's Witnesses arguing this, here's what 'reputable scholars' have said:
C.H. Dodd, the primary translator of the New English Bible, wrote: "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted...The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.
Even though Dodd ultimately disagrees with the "a god" rendering, I very much appreciate what he has to say because it is so revealing. The translation "a god" isn't really rejected by most scholars on any principle of translation or grammatical issues as they usually claim, Dodd frankly admits that as a straight translation of the text it cannot be faulted. It is because of theology, and indeed really the interpretation of the Bible's theology (or bias), that causes the Trinitarian scholars to dismiss it so fiercely. This becomes circular reasoning because they use their theology to decide which rendering is acceptable, and then turn around and use that rendering as proof in support of their theology, as has been done here.
Robert Young, translator of Young's Literal Translation, writes in his Concise Critical Comments of the New Testament in the comment for John 1:1c: "AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit[erally] 'and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.'" Are these accomplished scholars "intellectually dishonest"?
Dr. Jason BeDuhn wrote extensively on this topic in his book Truth in Translation, where he stated: "The translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text of John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word, certain creedal simplifications of John's characterization of the Word, and made sure that the translation came out in accordance with their beliefs. Their bias was strengthened by the cultural dominance of the familiar KJV translation which, ringing in their ears, caused the to see 'God' where John was speaking more subtly of 'a god' or 'a divine being.' Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with 'doctrinal bias' for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the most obvious sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."
Second, allow me to demonstrate, from your own preferred translation of the Bible, why this is a very literal and proper translation (if one merely takes the Trinitarian theology out of the equation). Throughout the book of John we find nouns in the very same grammatical construct as 'theos' is found in John 1:1c. This means the grammar is all the same, only the words are different. One example is at John 4:19 and the noun "prophet". How does your Bible translate that word?
Here's how the ESV has it: "The woman said to him, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.'" Is this 'dishonest'?
Another one is found at John 10:1; the word is "thief". The NIV has, "Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber." Again, an indefinite article is used with this noun.
These are translated this way because the theological implications that Dodd spoke of above have been removed, and the translators are translating literally. If they did the same at John 1:1 as they've done here, they'd have, as Young admitted, "a god".
I've already shown you from your first post how the question posed shows that you were viewing the term "God" in only a true/false sense. If you recognized that a divine representative of God can rightly be called 'god' in a relative sense, then your question was pointless.
I understand that you're frustrated, and I'm not trying to do this purposefully. But I have to be persistent in insisting that the biblical definition of the term 'god' is being recognized, and so this shows the major weaknesses in the foundation of most of your arguments. As BeDuhn put it:
"To many modern Christians, living in their safe, homogenous world of like-minded believers, the issue seems straightforward. There is the one God, and on the other side of a great gulf are all of the creatures. But in John's world, the god-category was not as sharply distinguished as it is for modern Christians, and there were all kinds of beings occupying the gray area between God and mortals. There were various angels and demi-gods to consider."
John 1:1 literally says just that.
Perhaps we'll get into this later.
Thanks for the response.
Well, Moses was made a god in the eyes of Pharaoh, this is completely in line with everything I've said. But the text also says Moses was made a god to Aaron, who would serve as his prophet. Regardless, Moses is a god in some sense, define it however you wish.
I'm not trying to evade anything, I've simply have had this same discussion over and over, so it's rare that anything new comes up.
With regards to the absence of the article in John 1:1c, you said:
The Greek article is basically our definite article, "the". An interlinear translation of John 1:1 would be something like: "In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word." It's still the Greek word 'theos', but the first is 'ho theos', meaning 'the god', and the second is simply 'theos', meaning 'god/a god/divine'.
So the point is, in Greek there is a distinction between the two that is glossed over in most English translations.
Yes, I've seen many of your quotes before. Still, the point that 'divine' or 'a god' is a good translation can be demonstrated, even from your own Bible! It is, after all, the literal translation of the Greek. First, to show that it's not really just Jehovah's Witnesses arguing this, here's what 'reputable scholars' have said:
C.H. Dodd, the primary translator of the New English Bible, wrote: "If a translation were a matter of substituting words, a possible translation of [theos en ho logos]; would be "The Word was a god". As a word-for-word translation it cannot be faulted...The reason why it is unacceptable is that it runs counter to the current of Johannine thought, and indeed of Christian thought as a whole."-Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol 28, No.1, January 1977.
Even though Dodd ultimately disagrees with the "a god" rendering, I very much appreciate what he has to say because it is so revealing. The translation "a god" isn't really rejected by most scholars on any principle of translation or grammatical issues as they usually claim, Dodd frankly admits that as a straight translation of the text it cannot be faulted. It is because of theology, and indeed really the interpretation of the Bible's theology (or bias), that causes the Trinitarian scholars to dismiss it so fiercely. This becomes circular reasoning because they use their theology to decide which rendering is acceptable, and then turn around and use that rendering as proof in support of their theology, as has been done here.
Robert Young, translator of Young's Literal Translation, writes in his Concise Critical Comments of the New Testament in the comment for John 1:1c: "AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit[erally] 'and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.'" Are these accomplished scholars "intellectually dishonest"?
Dr. Jason BeDuhn wrote extensively on this topic in his book Truth in Translation, where he stated: "The translators of the KJV, NRSV, NIV, NAB, NASB, AB, TEV and LB all approached the text of John 1:1 already believing certain things about the Word, certain creedal simplifications of John's characterization of the Word, and made sure that the translation came out in accordance with their beliefs. Their bias was strengthened by the cultural dominance of the familiar KJV translation which, ringing in their ears, caused the to see 'God' where John was speaking more subtly of 'a god' or 'a divine being.' Ironically, some of these same scholars are quick to charge the NW translation with 'doctrinal bias' for translating the verse literally, free of KJV influence, following the most obvious sense of the Greek. It may very well be that the NW translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."
Second, allow me to demonstrate, from your own preferred translation of the Bible, why this is a very literal and proper translation (if one merely takes the Trinitarian theology out of the equation). Throughout the book of John we find nouns in the very same grammatical construct as 'theos' is found in John 1:1c. This means the grammar is all the same, only the words are different. One example is at John 4:19 and the noun "prophet". How does your Bible translate that word?
Here's how the ESV has it: "The woman said to him, 'Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet.'" Is this 'dishonest'?
Another one is found at John 10:1; the word is "thief". The NIV has, "Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber." Again, an indefinite article is used with this noun.
These are translated this way because the theological implications that Dodd spoke of above have been removed, and the translators are translating literally. If they did the same at John 1:1 as they've done here, they'd have, as Young admitted, "a god".
I've already shown you from your first post how the question posed shows that you were viewing the term "God" in only a true/false sense. If you recognized that a divine representative of God can rightly be called 'god' in a relative sense, then your question was pointless.
I understand that you're frustrated, and I'm not trying to do this purposefully. But I have to be persistent in insisting that the biblical definition of the term 'god' is being recognized, and so this shows the major weaknesses in the foundation of most of your arguments. As BeDuhn put it:
"To many modern Christians, living in their safe, homogenous world of like-minded believers, the issue seems straightforward. There is the one God, and on the other side of a great gulf are all of the creatures. But in John's world, the god-category was not as sharply distinguished as it is for modern Christians, and there were all kinds of beings occupying the gray area between God and mortals. There were various angels and demi-gods to consider."
John 1:1 literally says just that.
Perhaps we'll get into this later.
F
Okay man, well, Im tired of going round and round with you. If you want to take that as a win or however you veiw that, then congrats.
I know for sure NOTHING i say will change your view here, and certainly nothing you have said will cause me to understand the volumes of passages that prove Jesus' deity, by showing me how every word has an exception somewhere and can mean somthign else.
I dont think that is how the Bible is meant to be translated, ill stick with what it says explicitly.
I know for sure NOTHING i say will change your view here, and certainly nothing you have said will cause me to understand the volumes of passages that prove Jesus' deity, by showing me how every word has an exception somewhere and can mean somthign else.
I dont think that is how the Bible is meant to be translated, ill stick with what it says explicitly.
T
Hello GraceBeUntoYou,
Thank you for your contribution. Please don't take me the wrong way through this, but I'm going to challenge you.
Just to be perfectly clear, it wasn't me arguing that 'theos' is best translated "divine", though I'm also not opposed to it, as it changes nothing. The literal translation of 'theos', as I've argued above, is "a god."
Precisely, though you and I both know that identification is what most people take away from the traditional rendering, "the Word was God." To explain using the analogy you used below:
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was the human." -- This is the definite rendering and it sure conveys identification.
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was human." -- This is the qualitative rendering, makes no identification, and makes sense.
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was a human." -- This is the indefinite rendering, makes no identification, makes good sense, and really doesn't say anything different from the qualitative. These last two are the "divine" and "a god" of John 1:1.
This is where you're beginning to say one thing, while doing the opposite. You are saying, 'No, of course it doesn't express the identity of "the Word", but only the qualities or nature of it.' But then you flip the argument and define the nature of the term 'God' as a class of consisting of only one. I reject this. By doing this, you are in effect attempting to express identity by means of the nature. Thus, nothing has changed; you borrowed $5 to pay back $5, you are still emphasizing identity, just more covertly through the proxy of an 'exclusive' quality/nature . You're leaving out that full, biblical definition of the term 'G/god', which encompasses even human judges.
And there's the flip. Because you've defined "human/Man" as a class of one, Eve really is the human she was with!?
Here's a question for you to consider seriously. The Koine Greek language, as you know, only had the equivalent of a definite article available for use, with no indefinite article. If these ancient Greek-speaking Christians had both a definite and indefinite article available for use, how do you think they'd write John 1:1?
Thank you for your contribution. Please don't take me the wrong way through this, but I'm going to challenge you.
Just to be perfectly clear, it wasn't me arguing that 'theos' is best translated "divine", though I'm also not opposed to it, as it changes nothing. The literal translation of 'theos', as I've argued above, is "a god."
Precisely, though you and I both know that identification is what most people take away from the traditional rendering, "the Word was God." To explain using the analogy you used below:
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was the human." -- This is the definite rendering and it sure conveys identification.
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was human." -- This is the qualitative rendering, makes no identification, and makes sense.
"Eve was with the human, and Eve was a human." -- This is the indefinite rendering, makes no identification, makes good sense, and really doesn't say anything different from the qualitative. These last two are the "divine" and "a god" of John 1:1.
With that being said, the Trinitarian approach to John 1.1 does not emphasize the identity of the Word (thus, the reason for the anarthrous θεὸς, but stresses the nature of the Word.
, but stresses the nature of the Word.
And there's the flip. Because you've defined "human/Man" as a class of one, Eve really is the human she was with!?
Here's a question for you to consider seriously. The Koine Greek language, as you know, only had the equivalent of a definite article available for use, with no indefinite article. If these ancient Greek-speaking Christians had both a definite and indefinite article available for use, how do you think they'd write John 1:1?
T
I'm sorry to hear that. I was interested in hearing your comments on some of the points I brought out.
This has never been about winning, and it has never been personal. I'm simply trying, as politely as possible, to show you that there are real reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses believe as we do. Questions like those that you posed at the outset reveal a blindness towards your own bias when reading the Bible. Again, I'm sure you read Judges 13:20-22 without blinking, but if it was Jesus being called God there rather than the angel, that'd be right in among your questions 'demanding' an answer from us.
It shouldn't be about what you say or I say, but what the Bible says, which is why I've tried to stick closly to it. That is what should have the power to change minds and hearts, the honesty of seeking the truth of what it says, whether we like it or not. We should conform our beliefs to the Bible, not conform the Bible to our beliefs.
This has never been about winning, and it has never been personal. I'm simply trying, as politely as possible, to show you that there are real reasons that Jehovah's Witnesses believe as we do. Questions like those that you posed at the outset reveal a blindness towards your own bias when reading the Bible. Again, I'm sure you read Judges 13:20-22 without blinking, but if it was Jesus being called God there rather than the angel, that'd be right in among your questions 'demanding' an answer from us.
It shouldn't be about what you say or I say, but what the Bible says, which is why I've tried to stick closly to it. That is what should have the power to change minds and hearts, the honesty of seeking the truth of what it says, whether we like it or not. We should conform our beliefs to the Bible, not conform the Bible to our beliefs.
T
Hi again GraceBeUntoYou,
I'll write a few comments on your discussion of John 17:3.
It doesn't? Please tell me what exactly Jesus could say, in your view, to make himself separate from God? Do the words exist?
I guess I don't see the problem. Your mutually-exclusive categories are artificially constructed. A simple example can be shown from your use of John 1:9, "The true light that gives light". Does this mean that false light doesn't exist? For "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor. 11:14) Your conclusion above would make Moses and the angels out to be false gods, do you really believe that?
Think about it. The true/false dichotomy is only in effect if the two are in opposition to each other. Take a Van Gogh painting. For any of his individual paintings, there's only one true one. Posters of it are made and sold legitimately, with the understanding that these are copies. But now and then you might get a fake, imitation painting out on the market pretending to be the original. That's a false one. This does not make all the posters illegal fakes, does it?
I'll write a few comments on your discussion of John 17:3.
It doesn't? Please tell me what exactly Jesus could say, in your view, to make himself separate from God? Do the words exist?
I guess I don't see the problem. Your mutually-exclusive categories are artificially constructed. A simple example can be shown from your use of John 1:9, "The true light that gives light". Does this mean that false light doesn't exist? For "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor. 11:14) Your conclusion above would make Moses and the angels out to be false gods, do you really believe that?
Think about it. The true/false dichotomy is only in effect if the two are in opposition to each other. Take a Van Gogh painting. For any of his individual paintings, there's only one true one. Posters of it are made and sold legitimately, with the understanding that these are copies. But now and then you might get a fake, imitation painting out on the market pretending to be the original. That's a false one. This does not make all the posters illegal fakes, does it?
