6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

feedm3 · Nov 8, 2012

TJ12 said:

I'm typing this from my phone sorry for any typos. I just wanted to say I'm not scofing . I'm sorry if I seemed that way or if I offended you. I asked questions and you answered them very thouroly and I apprieate you for that. I will look at some of the things you hav brought up closer please do the same with me. If I have further qeustions ill post them. Hanks for your reply and patient e take care

TJ12 · Nov 8, 2012

Hello feedm3,

Thank you for your very kind response.

feedm3 said:

It's not that I'm offended (I've heard way worse), it just seems as though you've characterized our answers as merely clever, plausible excuses to 'get around' what to you is the obvious. On the contrary, I believe that the Bible means what it says when it describes Jesus, not as God himself, but as the Son of God and as "the beginning of the creation by God." Jesus everywhere attributes the things he does, he says, and he has to his God and Father because he only claims to be the representative of him, sent forth by him. This, to me, is the obvious.

If the Bible writers or Jesus himself wanted to say that God is a Trinity consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, do you really think they weren't capable of saying so clearly and directly so that no one could argue it? Did they really need the theologians hundreds of years later to figure out a way to say it in the creeds? If the Bible taught that Jesus actually is God Almighty, trust me I'd be the foremost one in favor of it. Instead, Jesus teaches me that his Father is "the only true God." Really, how could he have said that only his Father is truly God any clearer?

So I assure you that I'm not looking to make words just 'mean anything', but rather to make them mean what they were meant to mean originally, free of the interpretation of later centuries. I've tried to study these issues carefully and honestly for years, searching for the real truth of the scriptures wherever that takes me. I believe I've found it because it's solid enough that it isn't easily overturned even when put on the defensive under close scrutiny.

That being said, I do appreciate your words above and I hope you will post further on this topic so that we can discuss these important issues further.

know1 · Nov 8, 2012

TJ12 said:

Hello, sir. Did you scare everyone off with your wealth of knowledge of the scriptures? I have found this topic interesting and would like to express some of my thoughts on it, if you don’t mind. I will tell you up front though that I don’t believe the way you do but at the same time, I am not here to offend. I have always wanted to know the truth of God’s word and have sought God concerning this subject with a sincere and honest heart, by placing my own belief or theology on trial, so to speak. Whether Jesus is God or something else and if God is just one being or three. I have read some of your replies and would like to respond myself, only it will take me time to gather some information and write it down. I’m talking days, so I hope you will still be around to reply. I have some serious time constraints but would still like to put my two cents in.
　

TJ12 · Nov 8, 2012

Hello know1,

know1 said:

Please do! I'm actually a nice guy and I greatly appreciate any heartfelt expression of faith. Your thoughts on these matters are welcomed.

feedm3 · Nov 8, 2012

TJ12 said:

TJ12 · Nov 8, 2012

Hello feedm3,

feedm3 said:

Well then let's continue.

feedm3 said:

feedm3, this is where you really have to take a step back and recognize that you have very strong pre-conceived beliefs. All of us have some bias. But if you refuse to recognize it in your reading of scripture, then you're really doing yourself a disservice because you're not allowing scripture to mold your beliefs. You're just reading your beliefs into scripture regardless of what it's actually saying. That's not meant to be offensive to you, just honest. There's times when you really seem to 'get it'.

feedm3 said:

So because I've demonstrated that "divine" or "a god" is the literal translation of John 1:1, you're accusing me of 'twisting' scripture? This is what I'm talking about. You get way too emotional about at times so that all you're doing is just scoffing at reasonable counter-evidence rather than giving any kind of response that even begins to explain it. There is a place for zeal and emotion in faith to be sure, but it has to be grounded in knowledge and reason.

I never stated that at all. I know all too well the various Trinitarian explanations of 'three hypostases in one ousia', to the point that I know where even the various Trinitarians disagree about it among themselves. I'm very careful with my words.

feedm3 said:

Jehovah's Witnesses do believe they are the restored congregation of God's people, yes.

Correct. Witnesses have consciously modeled themselves especially after the congregation as described in the book of Acts.

feedm3 said:

Well you can say that it doesn't mean anything, but there is a clear difference in the Greek text that isn't reflected in your English paraphrase above. You are glossing over an important nuance and then accusing me of twisting things if I point out the nuance you're trying to conceal.

feedm3 said:

You're doing the very thing that 'GraceBeUntoYou' said is wrong; you are making an identification here between the Word and God. This is what the Greek text doesn't do!

Let's be real about what's going on here. If you really meant that second "God" as a classification, you at least wouldn't capitalize it. Just as you wouldn't normally write 'Eve is Man' as was suggested earlier. So you tell me, why does it always have to be capitalized here when you mean it merely as a common noun?

feedm3 said:

I agree with this; it's the same as what Paul is saying at Colossians 1:16-17.

You do realize you just posted a clear counterexample to your own argument, don't you? Or are you really arguing now that the blind man is claiming to be God like Jesus?

So let's get this on the record, feedm3. If God's people worship both God and their king, that's undeniable proof that Jesus is God himself? Yes or no?

You keep asking this, and I've kept referring you to Acts 2:36. What does it say there?

feedm3 said:

I've explained in an earlier post to another questioner that our basis for salvation lies in the fact that Jesus was Adam's equal, a perfect man. As such, he could uphold God's Law, earn the right to everlasting life and then give it back by fulfilling God's eye-for-eye principle of justice in our behalf.

Thanks again for the discussion.

feedm3 · Nov 9, 2012

GraceBeUntoYou · Nov 9, 2012

TJ12 said:

I’ve always believed that if one is going to insist upon a translation, they must also provide a legitimate way that the author could have expressed the alternate translation. And so I am obliged to take you up on that challenge.

If John wanted to portray the Logos as "a god," or "a divine one," he certainly had several methods of unambiguously doing so. Though, this is not comprehensive, one of the methods John could have used to clearly portray the Logos as “a god” would have been through placement of the verb ἦν before the anarthrous predicate(ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς [“the Word was a god”]), compare with Acts 28.6 and John 1.6, and there placement of the verbs in each passage,

(a) αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν (Acts 28.6, “he was a god”)

(b) Ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος (John 1.6, “There was a man”)

(c) ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς (“the Word was a god”)

Alternatively, while Koine Greek does not possess an indefinite article, John could have even used εἷς, which can, and does at times function as an indefinite article, (see Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature states, “εἷς can mean exactly the same thing as the indefinite article” [pg. 231]) in order to indicate that “the Word was a god,” or “the Word was one of the gods,” see Matthew 8.19, Matthew 26.69 (μία, nominative singular feminine of εἷ&#962

, Revelation 8.13 (ἑνὸς, genitive singular masculine of εἷ&#962

, et al. That, or John could have made use of the indefinite pronoun τις to indicate that the Word was “a certain” god, but not the one he was referring to in John 1.1b (c.f. Mark 14.51, Luke 8.27, Luke 1.5, and Luke 11.1).

So, while there are other methods (and this is by no means a comprehensive list) John could have used to portray indefiniteness, the same cannot be said, however, should John had wanted to portray the Logos as One who is distinct from God the Father (John 1.1b), while maintaining that the Logos shares, or possesses all the qualities which make God (“the God” of John 1.1b included), God, so that there is no ontological shift between the Father, and the Word. Certainly, if John would have identified the Logos as ὁ θεὸς, the passage would indicate to us that τὸν θεόν (1.1b) and ὁ θεὸς (1.1c) were convertible terms, thus, identifying the Logos as the Father, teaching some form of Modalism, just as Martin Luther observed, “The lack of an article is against Sabellianism, the word order is against Arianism.”

Many commentators, such as Henry Alford (whom I cited previously), have drawn a parallel between John 1.1 and John 1.14. Since John 1.1, and John 1.14 both have the same grammatical structure (anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb), and they occur so closely together, John intends us to take them as parallel in meaning, being semantically identical to one another,

(a) θεὸς ἦν (John 1.1, anarthrous predicate noun θεὸς preceding the verb ἦ&#957

(b) σὰρξ ἐγένετο (John 1.14, anarthrous noun σὰρξ preceding the verb ἐγένετ&#959

While John1.14 describes the incarnate nature of Christ, in that He possesses all the fleshly attributes, and qualities of Man; John 1.1 describes Christ’s pre-incarnate nature, insomuch that He possesses all the attributes, and qualities of God. The Word became human, not simply “a man.” The result of Christ being human is that He is a man, but that is not what the phrase is stating. It is not referring to His membership in a class but rather His characteristics that He attained in the incarnation. With that being said, should John had wished to indicate to us that the Word “became a man,” he could have done so as he did eight verses earlier of John the Baptist,

John 1.6, EGENETO ANTHROPOS (“There came a man”)

Also, notice the verb placement as compared to the verb placement of John 1.14, SARX ENGENETO (“became flesh”). John's point is to emphasize the qualities of humanity that were added to the nature of the Word. The semantic connection of SARX (Q-d) to the semantic notion of THEOS (Q) is unmistakable in the discourse.

GraceBeUntoYou · Nov 9, 2012

Correction: Second paragraph, last sentence, "Compare with Acts 28.6 and John 1.6, and the placement of the verbs in each passage,"

TJ12 · Nov 9, 2012

Hello feedm3,

I appreciate your response.

feedm3 said:

Couple of things here. First, your quote was not from my messages, but from another person entirely. Second, the quote still doesn't say the Father is Jesus like you originally claimed, it says they are the same God. In Trinitarian theology, they are indeed both two 'hypostases' of the same God.

After I mentioned that Jehovah's Witnesses have modeled themselves after the first-century congregation found in the book of Acts, you asked:

"As [Paul and Timothy] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them [the local Christians] for observance the decisions that had been reached by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem." (Acts 16:4)

Jerusalem was headquarters of the worldwide church.

Speaking again of John 1:1, you asked:

feedm3 said:

Except it's wrong. You've made both instances of 'theos' qualitative, so again you're glossing over the difference between the two in Greek. The first instance in the Greek is specific because it has the article, it points to an individual, the second instance is not specific, and it points to a class. So if you want to be accurate, it should be something like:

"in the beginning was the word and the word was with the deity, and the word was deity"

feedm3 said:

Well seeing as how "Adam" literally means something like "earthling man", that would still be accurate. But you know well that's not what I actually said (what's going on with the misquotes?):

"Eve was with the human, and Eve was a human.'

The first human reference is specific, the second is not. This is the sense of the Greek at John 1:1.

feedm3 said:

And I'm sure when you read this argument on whatever website you went looking for dirt on Jehovah's Witnesses you were very impressed. Now let me tell you what they don't tell you there. There indeed is something in John 8:58 that is not present in the rest of your examples that affects the meaning of the Greek verb. 'Eimi' is what is called a 'be-verb', that means it's a statement of existence like 'to be', 'I am', 'I exist', etc. The contextual factors, specifically the time frame being referred to, has to be considered in order to determine how best to render the verb.

Again I'm going to ask you to take out your very favorite Bible, the one you know isn't biased, and look up John 14:9 with me. There, in the Greek text, is the very same 'eimi' that appears in John 8:58. Now since I don't know what your favorite Bible is, I'll simply quote John 14:9 from the NIV:

"Jesus answered: 'Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?'"

BIAS!? Why, feedm3, do all these Bibles translate 'eimi' as "have been" here rather than "am"? It's because of the context. Remember 'eimi' is merely a statement of existence, but the context here makes this present statement of existence extend back into the past because of the words, "after...such a long time". From then until now is the time frame during which existence is taking place. Jesus has existed among his disciples, and continues to do so, since a long time ago. Now let's go back to John 8:58.

What's the context there? Jesus makes his statement of existence, 'eimi', and this is too extends back into the past to some point (not specified) "before Abraham was born." The time frame during which he is claiming to exist is from then until now. Does that make sense? What is being said is that Jesus has existed, and continues to do so, since before Abraham was born. The "I have been" rendering then is not only logical, but also justified by your own Bible.

Thus, it is actually the much-maligned NWT that is consistent in rendering the 'eimi' verb when it appears in the context of a time frame that extends from the past to the present. It is your preferred rendering that is inconsistent here, for the purpose of making a highly-dubious proof text, which I'll discuss next.

feedm3 said:

First, the Hebrew says there 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' which literally means "I will be what I will be". The Greek translation of this, which you are arguing is being quoted here, is 'ego eimi ho on', which means something like "I am the being", and the passage continues with 'say unto the children of Israel, "the being" hath sent me unto you.' See why Jesus just quoting 'I am' really makes no sense?

There's more. Let's presume for a moment that "I AM" is a proper name like you say, despite the half-quoted Greek phrase (and the wrong half at that!). Ok, so let's substitute in another proper name, let's say 'Joe', to see clearly what it is you're really arguing for: "Before Abraham was born, Joe." Doesn't make a lot of sense when you really think about it, does it? In fact, that's because if one does take 'ego eimi' as a proper name here, it makes John 8:58 an incomplete sentence.

The reasonable answer here flows from the context. Jesus says something authoritative about Abraham's hopes. His enemies snidely counter that Jesus is yet 50, how can he dare claim to know anything about what Abraham thought? Jesus then says, 'I've existed since before Abraham was born.' That's what sets them off.

feedm3 said:

Then in order to be consistent, you must admit that David is God as well:

"And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king." (1 Chronicles 29:20; KJV)

The Greek translation of this uses 'proskyneo'. If you refuse to see the flexibility inherent in this word, then you will find things you'd consider to be blasphemous in scripture itself. This is not me 'changing' the definitions of words, merely pointing out to you their full, scriptural meaning.

feedm3 said:

Jesus can be our 'only' Lord if God delegates the authority for him to be such. Take another business analogy. Imagine that the owner of a company addresses all of his employees and announces that he's appointed a new CEO. He's giving the new CEO all authority to handle the day-to-day matters of running the business, and he's not going to go all Jerry Jones on him and undermine his authority in any way. Guess who's the 'only' boss to the employees? It's the CEO that the owner appointed.

This is what God has done by exalting Jesus, and Jesus frankly admits it: "Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.'" (Matthew 28:18) And once Jesus completes his job, Paul tells us: "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 Corinthians 15:28) In other words, think of Jesus as our CEO until then.

I think this is enough for now.

TJ12 · Nov 9, 2012

Hello GraceBeUntoYou,

Thanks for the response. Here's another question for you to consider: How do you think an ancient translator, who could speak Koine Greek, would translate John 1:1 into a language with both a definite and indefinite article like English?

GraceBeUntoYou said:

Well we can both agree that their are ways to express indefiniteness in Greek, but that the language itself doesn't contain a true indefinite article like the English "a/an". I've already submitted that John used a perfectly acceptable method of expressing indefiniteness, and this is proved by your own preferred translation's rendering of verses like John 4:19 and 10:1, where nouns in the exact same grammatical construct are supplied with the indefinite article in English.

GraceBeUntoYou said:

I'm not necessarily opposed to this, except I know that you're really trying to establish an identity here because you don't count the angels as 'gods' in the sense of 'sharing or possessing all the qualities which make God, God.' Let's take a look at another passage in John to see what's really going on here. John 6:70 appears in various translations as the following:

"Then Jesus replied, 'Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!'" (NIV)
"Jesus answered them, 'Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.'" (ESV)
"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (KJV)
"Then Jesus answered, 'I chose all twelve of you, but one of you is a devil.'" (NCV)

Pretty unanimous, no? The word 'devil' there is in the same grammatical construct as 'god' of John 1:1c and all are indefinite. But wait, here comes the New English Translation with this:

"Jesus replied, 'Didn’t I choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is the devil?'"

Where'd our "a devil" go? What secrets of grammar and translation is the NET clued in on that escaped all of our other translations above? Here's the reasoning of the NET: "Although most translations render this last phrase as 'one of you is a devil,' such a translation presupposes that there is more than one devil." Thus, it is no element of grammar, but rather the theology of the translators, the belief that there can only be one proper devil, that causes them to dismiss the otherwise straightforward indefinite rendering. Sound at all familiar?

Just a refresher on C.H. Dodd's explanation: "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." Again, the literal translation of 'god' at John 1:1c, just as the literal translation of 'devil' at John 6:70, should be as an indefinite. Both have been overturned by those whose theology disagrees that there can be more than one properly termed 'god' or 'devil'.

GraceBeUntoYou said:

There's one important difference between the two nouns in these places that you're overlooking. The word 'god' is (in normal situations) a count noun, the word 'flesh' is not. In English, we typically don't use indefinite articles with non-count nouns, which include nouns of substance. So unless of you're thinking of a unit of bottled water (which can be counted), you wouldn't see water and say 'there's a water over there,' you'd say, 'there's water over there.' But by the same token, count nouns sound funny without the article: 'I see bus over there;' 'I see a bus over there.' The nouns I've pointed to at John 4:19 ('prophet'); 6:70 ('devil'); and 10:1 ('thief') are all count nouns just like 'god', and all almost universally receive the indefinite article.

Now I realize you're trying to define the word "God" as a thing, a substance, a non-count noun. But this is precisely what makes your definition and reading of the verse so awkward to those trying to read it in that way. "God" is not a natural noun of substance, and again it's my belief that you are only trying to squeeze such an unnatural meaning into it so that you can preserve the traditional translation with a more 'grammatically accurate' meaning...that doesn't fit too well. If you were serious about rendering 'theos' in John 1:1c as a qualitative-type of noun, you'd go for something like "divine", "godly", etc. But then again, those words seem to lose some of that exclusiveness you're looking for in order to preserve that identity indirectly.

I doubt I'll see you arguing that John 4:19 should be rendered, "Sir, I perceive that you are Prophet," with the lengthy explanation that "Prophet" is a really a category, meaning that the woman is saying Jesus 'shares, or possesses all the qualities which make Prophet, Prophet'. It's silly. You'd just translate it as "you are a prophet." Theology isn't an issue here. And so it's shown that theology is the motivation behind translating John 1:1 in such a special way.

cfultz3 · Nov 9, 2012

FREEM3,

understand that the Son, the man we call Jesus, the one who was born, was exalted. The Word is God, God did not exalt Himself as the Word. It was Jesus Christ, who was the incarnated Word, who was exalted. It is no longer God the Word in His pre-existence form who sets on His eternal throne, it is the gloried Son, who happens to be the Word, in His resurrectional post-existence who received back His glory which He had before coming in the flesh.

This is why it is very important to know and to distinguish titles given to the Word and those given to the Son. Then you can see that calling Jesus an angel named Michael cannot stand, understanding that it was the Word who created all things by and for Himself. Is it not said that God is the Creator? Can an angel create or is he a creature? My point to you and everyone else, until you make that distinction, that Jesus the man has a beginning, but the Word was there at the creation and was along side (yes, look up that word) 'the God', and that it was 'the Word' who created all things (v2), then when it comes to things like 'The Word was God' (the absence of the definite article attached to 'God'), then great misunderstand is undertaken by both sides. The Word indeed was of the Godhead, seeing that it was 'the God' who went through (channel of an act) 'the Word' to create all things.

John 1:1 is simple a verse which makes a distinction between at least two who was there at creation. And from Genesis 1, we also see that God's Spirit was there in the process of creation. And we see that when it says, 'Let us make man in our image', then the Word created man in their image. And when it comes to, 'unless they reach Heaven, let us go down and divide them', so the Word came and divided their speech.

feedm3 · Nov 10, 2012

cfultz3 said:

FREEM3,

understand that the Son, the man we call Jesus, the one who was born, was exalted. The Word is God, God did not exalt Himself as the Word. It was Jesus Christ, who was the incarnated Word, who was exalted. It is no longer God the Word in His pre-existence form who sets on His eternal throne, it is the gloried Son, who happens to be the Word, in His resurrectional post-existence who received back His glory which He had before coming in the flesh.

This is why it is very important to know and to distinguish titles given to the Word and those given to the Son. Then you can see that calling Jesus an angel named Michael cannot stand, understanding that it was the Word who created all things by and for Himself. Is it not said that God is the Creator? Can an angel create or is he a creature? My point to you and everyone else, until you make that distinction, that Jesus the man has a beginning, but the Word was there at the creation and was along side (yes, look up that word) 'the God', and that it was 'the Word' who created all things (v2), then when it comes to things like 'The Word was God' (the absence of the definite article attached to 'God'), then great misunderstand is undertaken by both sides. The Word indeed was of the Godhead, seeing that it was 'the God' who went through (channel of an act) 'the Word' to create all things.

John 1:1 is simple a verse which makes a distinction between at least two who was there at creation. And from Genesis 1, we also see that God's Spirit was there in the process of creation. And we see that when it says, 'Let us make man in our image', then the Word created man in their image. And when it comes to, 'unless they reach Heaven, let us go down and divide them', so the Word came and divided their speech.

I agree. I told TJ12 that if Jesus did exalt God, by revealing him truly, then I have no problem with that. Yet I believe Jesus the man was born, therefore He was created, seeing he had a mother. But before this, I believe he was not created, but eternal, like the Father. Yet I know He Himself was exalted, and given a name above all, that is the name Jesus, in which salvation is only found, this is said to be done by God - Eph 1:22

But I agree with everything you said here.

feedm3 · Nov 10, 2012

TJ12 said:

I am just responding to this for now, I will respond to the rest when you have answered the rest of my post, because their are some things in their I really need to know how you view.

Now concerning this passage, this is what I have been trying to say here. You again find an exception to the rule, and think I must use that exception in every instance I find the word in reference to Christ. Why? Because your bias.

Think about it. How many passages are their that use God in another sense, and worship in another sense? You can count them BOTH on one hand.

Yet again, your translations translates the word "worship" in every place, except in reference to Christ. Your reason is because you have A passage where it is used in a different way?

If we were arguing if words ever have another meaning, and there is no exception to that rule, then you would be right, but were not, we never were.

I am asking you, so you have one passage, why would that demand me to use that in every time the word is found with Christ, even though I can find over 100 times the word is used to mean worship?

SO should I go with the ONE or the 100+? If the ONE then give me a valid reason to use this exception.

So with that being said, why in the world would have to admit David is a god? You mean, admit David is a god, or I must use the sense here with every time I read "worship" with Christ?

TJ12 · Nov 10, 2012

Hello feedm3,

feedm3 said:

What would you like me to answer that I missed?

feedm3 said:

That's wrong, feedm3, and this shows you haven't really bothered to study how the word is used, nor the decisions Bible translators face when translating it. You just found an argument and ran with it making all your usual accusations along the way. David gave 'proskyneo' to King Saul at 1 Samuel 24:8. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David at 1 Samuel 25:23. Abigail gave 'proskyneo' to David's messengers at 1 Samuel 25:41. An Israelite gave 'proskyneo' to David at 2 Samuel 1:2. The 'sons of the prophets' gave 'proskyneo' to Elisha at 2 Kings 2:15. Joseph's brothers gave 'proskyneo' to him at Genesis 42:6. Abraham gave 'proskyneo' to the Canaanite sons of Heth at Genesis 23:7. And I could go on.

This is the proof that you're offering that Jesus must be God? You don't know what the word means. What does your translation say at such places?

feedm3 · Nov 10, 2012

TJ12 said:

and again, what in these passages, or in any other passages DEMANDS that I should use this meaning with Christ?

You still will not give me ONE valid reason as to why, except that you have found a couple of other places the word is found with David, etc.

I guess if the Bible said David created all things, and that all of God's angles were to worship David, and is the everlasting Father, and if it said "in the beginning their was David, and David was with God, and David was God, then Maybe I would think David was God. But it does not say anything like this of David, Abraham, Moses, ONLY Christ.

SO with the remote context concerning Christ, and with the Apostles calling Him "Lord AND God", which is never used with David, then I would think "worship" in it's normal sense applies.

You think no, because "God" really means god, and worhsip, really means reverence, and thomas was just saying OMG.

Yet your watchtower even says Jesus was worshiped in it's normal meaning. Why? Do you not agree with the watchtower because of these few passages you found? Or is the watchtower changed in it's Spirit guided view?

feedm3 · Nov 10, 2012

No not impressed at all, I also read the counter argument to this, as you just repeated, and the counter to that, showing again, how foolish it is, and why I am glad JW's did not translate all translations, we would all be lied to as you are.

"Jesus answered: 'Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been (v-PRESENT)among you such a long time?'" More below:

They do because "for a long time I am with you all" (Present Tense)does not translate very well into the English prefect tense.

Some translations do attempt to keep the Greek in it's present tense.

(ABP+) [2saysG3004 3to himG1473 G3588 1Jesus],G* So greatG5118 a timeG5550 [2withG3326 3youG1473 1I am],G1510.2.1 andG2532 you do notG3756 knowG1097 me,G1473 Philip?G* The oneG3588 seeingG3708 meG1473 has seenG3708 theG3588 father;G3962 andG2532 howG4459 do youG1473 say,G3004 ShowG1166 usG1473 theG3588 father?G3962

The Greek:
(GNT-TR+) ëåãåéG3004 V-PAI-3S áõôùG846 P-DSM ïG3588 T-NSM éçóïõòG2424 N-NSM ôïóïõôïíG5118 D-ASM ÷ñïíïíG5550 N-ASM ìåèG3326 PREP õìùíG4771 P-2GP åéìéG1510 V-PAI-1S êáéG2532 CONJ ïõêG3756 PRT-N

V-PAI-1S
Part of Speech: Verb
Tense: Present - I AM
Voice: Active
Mood: Indicative
Person: first
Number: Singular

You dont even need to use a website for this, you can learn on the free programs on E-Sword.

So because you fan through scripture and found an exception of an English interpretation, here you go again demanding ti must be applied to everywhere the word is found, it associated with Christ - BIAS

So all of these should have been rendered from Greek Present to English perfect, because you found one that was, ONLY for understanding purposes?

"I am the light of the world" (8:12)

"I am He who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of me" (8:18).

"Unless you believe that I am, you shall die in your sins" (8:24).<----It is a sin do believe what you do

"Before Abraham was, I am" (8:58).

There are many more "I Am" statements, these are JUST in chapter 8 alone. That's alot of passages your exception must be FORCED into, dont you think?

They Jews wanted to kill him for saying He is older than them, or because he was claiming to be God?

So now, GOd does not mean God, Worship does not mean worship, I am does not mean I am, when they are concerning Christ?

TJ12 · Nov 10, 2012

Hello feedm3,

And thanks for your response(s). With regard to the numerous counterexamples I provided against your narrow definition of 'proskyneo', you said:

feedm3 said:

Are you being serious? This is your argument, not mine! You said that because Jesus received 'proskyneo', this in itself is definite proof that he's God. I've shown that that evidence is ambiguous at best, and now somehow the burden of proof gets shifted to me to prove one of the ambiguous meanings over another?! No. Give me proof that isn't completely ambiguous and subjective.

Think about this feedm3, you now know that someone other than God receiving 'proskyneo' is somewhat common in the scriptures. Still, you 'just know' that Jesus is God, so when 'proskyneo' is given to him, you interpret that in line with your presupposed belief. I'm fine with that, but...then you turn around and insist that your interpretation is also proof that he's God. So you're essentially here arguing the following:

'I know the type of 'proskyneo' Jesus gets is meant in its absolute sense because Jesus is God and I know Jesus is God because he's given 'proskyneo' in its absolute sense.'

Do you not see how this is circular? You might as well go on and on:

'I know the type of 'proskyneo' Jesus gets is meant in its absolute sense because Jesus is God and I know Jesus is God because he's given 'proskyneo' in its absolute sense and I know the type of 'proskyneo' Jesus gets is meant in its absolute sense because Jesus is God and I know Jesus is God because he's given 'proskyneo' in its absolute sense and I know the type of 'proskyneo' Jesus gets is meant in its absolute sense because Jesus is God and I know Jesus is God because he's given 'proskyneo' in its absolute sense and I know the type of 'proskyneo' Jesus gets is meant in its absolute sense because Jesus is God and I know Jesus is God because he's given 'proskyneo' in its absolute sense '...etc, etc, etc.

With regards to my answer on John 8:58, you said:

Why didn't you address my real argument? I explained in detail exactly what it is that makes John 8:58 and 14:9 similar to each other and yet different from other uses of 'eimi': the context gives a time frame that starts in the past and continues to the present. In such a context, "I have been" is the natural rendering over "I am". This time frame is not found in your other examples. But because you have no way of answering this, you simply ignored it and just repeated your accusation of bias. Can you not admit the connection between John 8:58 and 14:9?

Now how about we discuss a little about how John calls Jesus "the beginning of the creation by God"? (Revelation 3:14)

feedm3 · Nov 10, 2012

TJ12 said:

.
If this was my only argument for why Jesus is God, then maybe you would have something. But the fact is, I believe Jesus was worshiped because of the many other passages affirming his deity, giving me the correct understanding of the word.

Yet you comb through scripture trying to find one passage that would make that word have an exception, and then demand that this exception should the interpretation when it's connected with Christ, and again you have no valid reason as to why I should make an exception the rule, when concerning Christ.

You still have no reason as to why it should be forced other than JW doctrine is bias toward Christ.

If not, then what demands this interpretation?

BTW when are you ever going to deal with why He is referred to as "everlasting father"?

And what about the watchtower? Do you agree with quote above, that Jesus received worship because he was the son of God and was allowed?

I have asked this forever now, and you will not answer, but you want to move on to Rev?

I addressed it, you know I did, you chose not to deal with it, and pretend I did what your doing.

The real argument is Greek PRESENT TENSE not PERFECT TENSE - shows I AM is the LITERAL translation, with the exception of John 14: rendering it in English perect tense.

You did not deal with any of that. Because you have no answer because YOU know it is the literal translation of the word, and accurately rendered in John 8.

So Jesus said you will die in YOUR sins if you do not believe that "I AM". PRESENT TENSE

"I have been with you" makes more sense than "for a long time I AM with you" IN ENGLISH.

So..there is the reason for the rendering from present to perfect, for understanding in English.

Sense this is not the case in John 8:58, their is no need to go from present to perfect, because it makes sense the way it is written.

So "if you do not believe that I am" is correct, "I have been" is an INSERTION and change of the text for NO REASON.

Your reason is, because Christ is not God, so it must mean "I have been", though the tense is wrong. That is not a valid reason, it again is biast.

So you dont answer any of my questions, instead just ask me more, now you want shift to another passage when you clearly havent dealt with anything I have said.

As for that verse, surely you could have looked at the word in the Greek and realized where this argument is going - right?

Same as the Col argument, it can mean time or rank. The remote context would have to determine which -
G746
ἀρχή
archē
ar-khay'
From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

TJ12 · Nov 10, 2012

Hello again feedm3,

I do appreciate that you keep responding. That isn't always the case in these types of discussions.

feedm3 said:

Exactly! It is only your interpretation that Jesus was worshipped as God based upon your prior belief. Do you agree then that you should no longer use this interpretation of 'proskyneo' as definite proof that Jesus is God?

Please point me to just one of the 'many other passages affirming his deity' in an absolute and unambiguous sense.

feedm3 said:

You keep harping on this, but the fact is, these words are far more flexible than what you claim in your Jesus arguments. So if there is even one exception, don't you think you should at least try to have some explanation for why it's used differently in that one instance? Instead, you keep bringing up the numeric number of so-called exceptions as if this is some kind of proof in your favor. Please tell me exactly what number of 'exceptions' I must find in order for it to be accepted as valid to you. 5? 6? 10?

The 'proskyneo' issue is just a great example of this because you were sure that this was definite proof that Jesus is God, except we find that it's commonly accepted in the Bible, especially for kings, to receive 'proskyneo', which literally means to bow down before someone. Even if there was just the one counterexample that I brought up initially, 1 Chronicles 29:20, where all Israel 'worshipped' God and King David, that's certainly enough to severely undermine your conclusions with regard to King Jesus.

feedm3 said:

Actually, I've brought out the common threads all throughout our discussion. It is divinely-appointed representatives of Jehovah God that receive the title 'god' in a relative sense. I've shown you where Jesus has been sent by God to act as his representative. You've given no counter to this.

In the case of 'proskyneo' or 'worship/obeisance', I specifically chose the verse with David receiving it, in his role as the divinely-appointed king, along with God because I certainly believe that Jesus receives it as well also in his role as the divinely-appointed king. Ignore the stark similarities if you wish, but I've certainly given you reasons from the Bible to understand these words in this way.

feedm3 said:

Neither you nor I equate Jesus with the Father. But as I've touched on before, Jesus came to the earth as the equal of our first human father Adam. Jesus was a perfect, sinless human being, and thus he is called "the last Adam". Because his sacrifice covered over the sin of our first father and we receive back the opportunity for everlasting life through Jesus, he has become the 'everlasting father' of the human family in that sense.

feedm3 said:

Yes, because that article is using the word "worship" in the same flexible manner that you find in the King James Version (from which the magazine commonly quoted). This isn't new information. Here's what Dr. BeDuhn wrote on the subject, with which I agree fully:

"The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was 'worship.' At that time, the English word 'worship' had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form 'your worship.' So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.

"But modern English is not King James English, and the range of meaning for the word 'worship' has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses of the Greek verb proskuneo, or of the English word in the days of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word 'worship' without acknowledging its shift in meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god."

With regards to John 8:58 and the time frame, you said:

feedm3 said:

What you are arguing for is an interlinear translation, one that gives a simple gloss definition of each Greek word with little or no consideration of the context. Yes, the Greek verb is present tense, but you're ignoring the context. Here's what the very comprehensive Smyth's Greek Grammar has to say on this very subject:

"The present, when accompanied by a definite or indefinite expression of past time, is used to express an action begun in the past and continued in the present. The 'progressive perfect' is often used in translation. Thus,...I have been long (and am still) wondering."

In John 8:58, the present Greek verb 'eimi' is indeed accompanied by an expression of past time, "before Abraham was born."

In regards to Revelation 3:14, you said:

feedm3 said:

Were you aware that in every place John uses this word, it's with the meaning 'beginning', as in first in terms of time? Look them up for yourself: John 1:1, 2; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2 John 1:5, 6; Revelation 21:6; 22:13.

Were you aware that when this word is used in terms of rank, it's always accompanied by other terms relating to power or authority, terms which are absent from Revelation 3:14? Look them up for yourself: Luke 12:11; 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15; Titus 3:1.

Were you aware that the standard Greek lexicon for New Testament Greek, usually referred to as the BDAG, says of Revelation 3:14 that "the [meaning] beginning=first created is linguistically probable"?

Were you aware that the standard Greek New Testament, the UBS4, references Proverbs 8:22 for this designation of Jesus? There it says, "Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning [Greek: 'arche'] of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago."

Just some points to think about.

6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

feedm3

Guest

TJ12

Guest

know1

Senior Member

TJ12

Guest

feedm3

Guest

TJ12

Guest

feedm3

Guest

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest

TJ12

Guest

TJ12

Guest

cfultz3

Guest

feedm3

Guest

feedm3

Guest

TJ12

Guest

feedm3

Guest

feedm3

Guest

TJ12

Guest

feedm3

Guest

TJ12

Guest