jewhovas witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

[NWL]

Well I must correct myself and say every bible I have read, obviously I haven't read every translation but if I read one that said A God, well to me that implys polytheism, which I do not accept.

Neither do I accept such a view. But one does not have to accept polytheism to accept other persons "a god". For example Humans are called 'gods', Satan is even called a 'god'. The Greek word for God has more than one definition and can refer to Almighty God and also persons who are mighty and powerful namely 'gods'.

(John 10:34) "...Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "...among whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers..."

(Exo 7:1) "...And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh..."

Jesus by context and grammar can be referred to as "a god" or "divine" without the need for polytheism as it does not change the fact of there being only one God (capital G) in the fullest sense.

So as you can see accepting John 10:34, Cor 4:4 and Exo 7:1 obliviously doesn't make a need to believe in more than one God (almighty). So viewing Jesus as "a god" in John 1:1 should can be viewed in the same light, that's if one accepted such a rendering.

 

[breno785au]

Neither do I accept such a view. But one does not have to accept polytheism to accept other persons "a god". For example Humans are called 'gods', Satan is even called a 'god'. The Greek word for God has more than one definition and can refer to Almighty God and also persons who are mighty and powerful namely 'gods'.

(John 10:34) "...Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?

(2 Corinthians 4:4) "...among whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers..."

(Exo 7:1) "...And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh..."

Jesus by context and grammar can be referred to as "a god" or "divine" without the need for polytheism as it does not change the fact of there being only one God (capital G) in the fullest sense.

So as you can see accepting John 10:34, Cor 4:4 and Exo 7:1 obliviously doesn't make a need to believe in more than one God (almighty). So viewing Jesus as "a god" in John 1:1 should can be viewed in the same light, that's if one accepted such a rendering.

Yes but in this context John 1 is referring to the One, true God. In my little mind, speaking of the One God as a God is grammatically incorrect, which I said before, in its reading can be interpreted as and can be implying that there is more than one God.
Not to mention the JW used that scripture to deny Jesus' divinity.

 

[WebersHome]

-

I remember a couple of years ago, I had a discussion with a JW. I asked if
they believe Jesus is God. They denied this and they themselves went to
John 1 and in their book it was the word was A god.

The Watch Tower Society's doctrine is based upon an imaginary grammatical
technicality.

The common Greek word for "god" is theós. When it's preceded by the little
Greek article "ho" the Society translates theós with an upper case G. But
when the article is missing, they translate theós with a lower case g. In
other words: in their theology; ho theós pertains to the one true God, while
theós by itself pertains to nondescript gods.

However, according to Dr. Archibald T. Robertson's Grammar Of The Greek
New Testament, page 767: in regards to nouns in the predicate; the article
is not essential to speech.

In other words: when theόs is in the predicate, "ho" can be either used, or
not used, without making any real difference. Bottom line? A translator's
choice whether to capitalize either theόs in John1:1 or not to capitalize
them, is entirely arbitrary. So an alternate translation of John 1:1 could look
like this:

"In the beginning, the Word was, and the Word was with god, and god was
the Word."

But no matter whether the Word is an upper case god or a lower case god,
he is still a god; which presents a bit of a problem for the Watch Tower
Society.

There are only two classifications of gods in the Bible: the true and the false.
There is no middle ground. Now according to John 17:3 and 1Cor 8:5-6,
there is only one true god; which means all other gods have to be false
gods. So then, if the Word of John 1:1 is not the one true god, then he is, by
default, a false god.

The Society tries to squirm out of this dilemma by claiming that when theós
is unaccompanied by the article "ho" it refers not to deities; but to mighty
ones. Well; were that so then why didn't they translate John 1:1 like this:

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was a mighty one."

They didn't translate it that way because in order to do so they would have
to adulterate the Greek.

========================================

 

[WebersHome]

-
The crucified body of the Watch Tower Society's Christ is still dead and its
remains are squirreled away somewhere on the earth in a location, and in a
condition, known only to God.

In order to show his friends that their savior was back from death, the
Watch Tower Society alleges that Michael the arch angel materialized
a human body that was in all respects just as physical, and just as
functional, as a real human body; which we know from modern movie
technology as an avatar. Michael never once let on to his friends that he was
an angel in disguise. He led them to believe that the Jesus Christ they all
knew prior to his crucifixion was back.

In most people's book that is nothing less than impersonation; which can be
defined as assuming a fake identity. In other words: pretending to be
someone you're not; viz: the crime of fraud, which in some jurisdictions is a
felony punishable by serving time in a state prison.

However; seeing as how 1Cor 15:50 clearly testifies that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God, how then are we to explain Jesus Christ's
resurrection? Well; this is actually very easy to explain.

First off: it was essential that the Lord's corpse be returned to life or
otherwise his prediction as per John 2:19-22 would've been easily proven
false. However, in its normal condition, the Lord's body was unsuitable for
heaven. So then, what are we do about that?

Well; when the Lord departed something very amazing happened; which I
think is best described by 1Cor 15:51-53 and 1Thes 4:13-17. Long story
short, when the Lord went up into the air and disappeared into a cloud as
per Acts 1:9, at that time his normal body was transformed into a glorious
body as per the vision described below.

†. Matt 16:28-17:2 . . Truly I say to you that there are some of those
standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom. Six days later Jesus took Peter and James and
John his brother along and brought them up into a lofty mountain by
themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone as the
sun, and his outer garments became brilliant as the light.

Though Jesus Christ's glorious body isn't composed of ordinary flesh and
blood as we know it; his glorious body is still capable of dining upon ordinary
foods.

†. Luke 22:15-16 . . And he said to them: I have greatly desired to eat this
Passover with you before I suffer; for I tell you, I will not eat it again until it
becomes fulfilled in the kingdom of God.

And also capable of imbibing ordinary beverages.

†. Matt 26:29 . . I tell you, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this
product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in the
kingdom of my Father.

Q: If Jesus Christ's corpse really did return to life; then how did he get it into
a room without opening the door? (John 20:19)

A: Jesus Christ was virgin-conceived, virgin-born, walked on water, calmed
storms, restored withered limbs, put the lame up on their feet, healed
blindness and leprosy, multiplied loaves and fishes, converted water into
wine, raised the dead, read people's thoughts, observed a man from a
distance without being anywhere near where the man was, and withered a
fig tree, etc. Come on now; what's one more miracle more or less for a man
like that?

==================================

 

[NWL]

Yes but in this context John 1 is referring to the One, true God.

The context!? You must be joking. The context of John 1 especially that of John 1:1 is hardly proof that Jesus was the true God. I much prefer "the Word was like God" or "the word was divine". If I was to ask the typical trinitarian "who is God?", they would explain God=Father/Son/Holy Spirit. This though contradicts the fact that "Jesus was God" according to John 1:1, the scripture make a very significant statement, "the Word was God", not part of God/trinity but was God. This create problems. When asking a typical trinitarian who was the God was that the Word was with in the beginning, the normal reply it 'the Father'. This again causes problems, since if it was the beginning, like the verse says, then why isn't Jesus with the Father and Holy Spirit? If someone tries to explain that Jesus was with God in the sense of trinity this again causes problems as it would imply Jesus was with himself (Jesus was with God/trinity= Father/Son/HS).

So the context hardly supports your view.

In my little mind, speaking of the One God as a God is grammatically incorrect, which I said before, in its reading can be interpreted as and can be implying that there is more than one God.
Not to mention the JW used that scripture to deny Jesus' divinity.

As I said before the Greek grammar allows individuals to be called gods, but not in the fullest sense, without taking any sovereignty away from Almighty God, or becoming a rival god. The Greek in John 1:1 can be translated both ways, that "the Word was God" or that "the Word was like God or Divine". So it is to be debated whether or not the Word was 'a god' in John 1:1 or 'God', the only way to do this is by overall context and context of John 1:1 certainly does not support the 'God' view.

 

[Bowman]

Hi nnrukshan15.

I'm really confused why you posted this particular comment, I fully explained to you why JW's don't accept Jesus died on a cross, the reason is simple, because the Bible doesn't say he did, it says he died on a stake/pole/tree. The Greek words used that described the instrument that Jesus was hung on was Stauros and xy'lon which mean “an upright pale or stake”, with xy'lon meaning "timber a stick, club, or tree".

There is simply nothing in the Bible grammatically that might infer that Jesus died on a cross. Thus it is hardly a false teaching for Jehovah's Witnesses to say Jesus died on a stake. Also the instrument of Jesus death is meaningless, its his DEATH that is important. Jesus could've been impaled on a house and it wouldn't change a thing.

Just remember, everywhere you read the word cross in a bible it has been falsely inserted in by the translator as his assumption of the instrument of Jesus death, the word 'cross' has no place in any Bible.

Early JW propaganda photos show Christ being crucified upon a cross.

You are showing your ignorance of your ever-evolving cult beginnings.

 

[WebersHome]

-
I'm going to be asking some strange question, and making some strange
comments; but please bear with me because this all pertains to the Watch
Tower Society's proprietary theology.

============

In quantity: how much divine life force does God have in Himself compared
to the life force in an angel and/or a human being, and/or a Saguaro cactus?
Let's say we added up all the life force within every angel, every human
being, and every Saguaro cactus? Would all that life force combined equal
the amount of divine life force within God? I don't think so seeing as how
according to Ps 36:9, God is the source of all life.

How much of God's divine life force would He have to transfer to a woman's
ovum in order for God to become a human being? All of His divine life force;
or maybe just some of His divine life force? In other words: would God have
to transfer the entire amount of His divine life force to a woman's ovum in
order to become a human being; thus risking death in the process?

The reason I'm asking these rather unusual questions is because when God
transferred Adam's life force into Eve, Adam didn't die; thus demonstrating
that a transfer of life force from one being to another does not eo ipso result
in the death of the donor being. If that were not true, then no parent would
survive the conception of their children because all children derive their life
force from their parents just as Eve derived her life force from Adam.

If what I'm saying here is true and reliable; then the Watch Tower Society,
and all of its loyal-to-the-bone missionaries, are in very serious trouble in
regards to normal Christianity's claim that Christ was born of God rather
than born of Michael the arch angel. In other words: Christ was born with
the life force of God in himself rather than with the life force of an angel in
himself.

†. John 5:26 . . For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted
also to the Son to have life in himself.

Now then . . .

†. Col 2:9 . . It is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells
bodily.

The Kingdom Interlinear translates divine quality as "godship" which
Dictionary dot com defines as the rank, character, or condition of a god.

But godship is modified by the definite Greek article "ho" which means "the".
So the question becomes: which of all godships is the godship?

Well; in my armchair estimation; Col 2:9 is saying that in him, that is in
Christ, is not dwelling down all the rank, character, and condition of an angel
bodily, rather; all the fullness of the rank, character, and condition of God
bodily; which of course would be the natural rank, character, and condition
of a human being born with the divine life force of God in it as per John
5:26.

==================================

 

[williamjordan]

This is untrue, there have been a many number of both Bibles and scholars that have rendered John 1:1 "the word was a god" or something along the lines. To name a few, TEV, GNB, JB, MLB, and the NT translations by Charles B. Williams, W. E. Vine , C. H. Dodd, Murray J. Harris. There are many more. I think what you were meant to say was that most bible which are popular today don't render John 1:1 the way the NWT does, the NWT certainly isn't alone it its rendering.

This is quite untrue, and the thing is... you know better. The expression, "what God was, the Word was also" (TEV) helps capture the qualitative nuance/force of John 1.1 that is not overly apparent when reading English versions such as the NASB, or ESV. The same is true with the GNB ("the Word was the very same as God"), Barclay ("the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"), Harner ("the Word has the same nature as God"), Goodspeed ("the Word was divine"), et al. As I have discussed with you on other threads these translations each express a commonality in being/essence. Recollect what wrote to you previously,

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, 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), 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."


​

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 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


​

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, Eve 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

How in the world could you ever mistaken Murray J. Harris as one who is supportive of an indefinite reading of John 1.1? This man has written an entire book on the references of Jesus as God, where he clearly states (Jesus as God, pg 70),

 

[williamjordan]

The context!? You must be joking. The context of John 1 especially that of John 1:1 is hardly proof that Jesus was the true God. I much prefer "the Word was like God" or "the word was divine". If I was to ask the typical trinitarian "who is God?", they would explain God=Father/Son/Holy Spirit. This though contradicts the fact that "Jesus was God" according to John 1:1, the scripture make a very significant statement, "the Word was God", not part of God/trinity but was God. This create problems. When asking a typical trinitarian who was the God was that the Word was with in the beginning, the normal reply it 'the Father'. This again causes problems, since if it was the beginning, like the verse says, then why isn't Jesus with the Father and Holy Spirit? If someone tries to explain that Jesus was with God in the sense of trinity this again causes problems as it would imply Jesus was with himself (Jesus was with God/trinity= Father/Son/HS).

So the context hardly supports your view.



As I said before the Greek grammar allows individuals to be called gods, but not in the fullest sense, without taking any sovereignty away from Almighty God, or becoming a rival god. The Greek in John 1:1 can be translated both ways, that "the Word was God" or that "the Word was like God or Divine". So it is to be debated whether or not the Word was 'a god' in John 1:1 or 'God', the only way to do this is by overall context and context of John 1:1 certainly does not support the 'God' view.

What precisely in the context demands this to be understood indefinitely? A qualitative rendering of the text (see my previous post) is entirely appropriate, and seems to fit best. The qualitative view allows for a distinction between the Father, and Christ without diminishing Christ's deity that is also elsewhere apparent throughout John's gospel (1.18, 14.14, 20.28).

Also, v. 1 stands in antithetical parallelism to v. 14 (I briefly touch on this in my previous post on this thread when referencing Alford). Murray J. Harris explains (Jesus as God, p. 71),

"The Logos 'who existed in the beginning' (v. 1a), 'came on the human scene (ἐγένετο)' in time (v. 14a). The one who was eternally 'in communion with God' (v. 1b), temporarily 'sojourned among us' (v. 14b). 'The Word had the same nature as God' (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting thought that 'the Word assumed the same nature as humans (σὰρξ ἐγένετο)' (v. 14a)."
​

 

[Bowman]

The context of John 1 especially that of John 1:1 is hardly proof that Jesus was the true God.

You really should cease utilizing the terms 'context' and 'grammar' in your replies, as you most assuredly do not demonstrate either. Perhaps you think making such statements makes you look brighter than you really are...yes...?

That John 1 is referring to the One God, as Triune, is proven to be true by reading the chapter context, as it then lists-out Father, Son & Holy Spirit.



Father: John 1.14, 18
Son: John 1.18, 34, 49
Spirit: John 1.32 - 33

 

[Bowman]

Also, v. 1 stands in antithetical parallelism to v. 14 (I briefly touch on this in my previous post on this thread when referencing Alford). Murray J. Harris explains (Jesus as God, p. 71),

"The Logos 'who existed in the beginning' (v. 1a), 'came on the human scene (ἐγένετο)' in time (v. 14a). The one who was eternally 'in communion with God' (v. 1b), temporarily 'sojourned among us' (v. 14b). 'The Word had the same nature as God' (v. 1c) is paralleled by the contrasting thought that 'the Word assumed the same nature as humans (σὰρξ ἐγένετο)' (v. 14a)."
​

I would argue that The Son was with humanity before verse 14.

We know that the second person of the Trinity was in the world from the beginning - and He came to His own, but the majority did not know Him, as thus…

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to the ones believing into His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth. John witnesses concerning Him, and has cried out, saying, This One was He of whom I said, He coming after me has been before me, for He was preceding me. And out of His fullness we all received, and grace on top of grace. For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has seen God at any time; but the unique One, Himself God, who is in the bosom of the Father, that One declares Him. (John 1.10 – 18)


Scripture clearly informs the reader that the Word occupied flesh when He was in the world and that He was beheld as The Glory of God.


That the second person of the Trinity occupied flesh before being born of a woman and being referred to as God The Son, is made crystal clear by John’s proclamation that ‘He coming after me has been before me, for He was preceding me’.This is a full admission that The Son was manifest both before John’s time and after John’s time.


These early manifestations of The Son, The God-man, consisted of Malek Yahweh, El Shaddai, etc, etc…

 

[NWL]

Early JW propaganda photos show Christ being crucified upon a cross.

You are showing your ignorance of your ever-evolving cult beginnings.

Point?? OP post was regarding JW's present teaching, not past.

JW literature throughout the years have always stated that we use to understand that Jesus died on a cross, I've known this since I was a child as do most JW's. Its highly assumptive of you to think I didn't know this, not that I'm not surprised.

What are your views on the subject Bowman, since your a genius in linguistics (apparent) what can we derive Jesus died on based on Greek and Hebrew, does it state he died on a cross?

 

[NWL]

You really should cease utilizing the terms 'context' and 'grammar' in your replies, as you most assuredly do not demonstrate either. Perhaps you think making such statements makes you look brighter than you really are...yes...?

Well done Bowman you've cracked the case, that's exactly why I use the words context and grammar, you're so smart.

I'm assuming that's what you wanted to hear?

That John 1 is referring to the One God, as Triune, is proven to be true by reading the chapter context, as it then lists-out Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

What exactly is your definition of "referring to the One God, as Triune" really entail, as what your claim is, seems very far from what John said in John 1. I see nowhere in the verses you gave John referring to God as being three separate persons, I see mention of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned, but I see nowhere in these verse as John referring to them as truine. Maybe you could show me where John referred to the One God as being truine in John 1.

 

[NWL]

This is quite untrue, and the thing is... you know better. The expression, "what God was, the Word was also" (TEV) helps capture the qualitative nuance/force of John 1.1 that is not overly apparent when reading English versions such as the NASB, or ESV. The same is true with the GNB ("the Word was the very same as God"), Barclay ("the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God"), Harner ("the Word has the same nature as God"), Goodspeed ("the Word was divine"), et al. As I have discussed with you on other threads these translations each express a commonality in being/essence. Recollect what wrote to you previously

I have no problem with most of the above renderings, neither should any JW. But you are wrong. The above verses do not express the same meaning as "the word was God". If the word was God then it would display conclusively that Jesus was God (if we ignored the contradictory context), there would be no doubt about that.

However the renderings, "what God was, the Word was also", "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God", "the Word has the same nature as God" both instantly separate the persons God and the word/Jesus as distinct persons, in other words the word was not God but had the same nature as God. This is in complete harmony that Jesus is the charaktér/copy of God as Heb 1:3 demonstrates.

(Heb 1:3) "...He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."

Jesus is a copy, imprint, image of God, Jesus being a charaktér of God denotes that he is not the person that he is the charaktér of. Even in English the definition of copy, imprint, image, expression all denote the same thing just like the Greek, that the thing which images something else is not that source.

Thus translations which render that the Word had the same nature of God agree with Heb 1:3. It should not be forgotten though that having the same nature of God does not make you God as Jesus submissiveness clearly demonstrated.

The GNB rendering "the Word was the very same as God" still agrees with the context of Heb 1:3 as long as it is understood that isn't speaking about deity but nature/quality.

 

[williamjordan]

I have no problem with most of the above renderings, neither should any JW. But you are wrong. The above verses do not express the same meaning as "the word was God". If the word was God then it would display conclusively that Jesus was God (if we ignored the contradictory context), there would be no doubt about that.

However the renderings, "what God was, the Word was also", "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God", "the Word has the same nature as God" both instantly separate the persons God and the word/Jesus as distinct persons, in other words the word was not God but had the same nature as God. This is in complete harmony that Jesus is the charaktér/copy of God as Heb 1:3 demonstrates.

(Heb 1:3) "...He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."

Jesus is a copy, imprint, image of God, Jesus being a charaktér of God denotes that he is not the person that he is the charaktér of. Even in English the definition of copy, imprint, image, expression all denote the same thing just like the Greek, that the thing which images something else is not that source.

Thus translations which render that the Word had the same nature of God agree with Heb 1:3. It should not be forgotten though that having the same nature of God does not make you God as Jesus submissiveness clearly demonstrated.

The GNB rendering "the Word was the very same as God" still agrees with the context of Heb 1:3 as long as it is understood that isn't speaking about deity but nature/quality.

As I have pointed out, there is a link between Hebrews 1.3 and John 1.1 in that both express the equality (and that being one of nature) between the Father, and the Son (also see Philippians 2.6),

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).

​

Your objections could not possibly be from someone who read anything I wrote. If I were a betting man, you probably made it through the first paragraph and didn't even read the remainder, and the above is just a prime example of why I think that is the case.

In order to be "equal" to God then there obviously has to be a distinction of persons. The distinction in John 1.1 is not what is being debated (though you may think it is), because we as Trinitarians concede the point... it would counteract our theological perspective if the Word were not distinct from He who is mentioned in John 1.1b. Do you know the difference between Trinitarianism and Modalism (which is a form of Unitarianism)?

Murray J. Harris (whom you cite as favoring your position) compacts everything I have explained to you in just one paragraph,

"From this brief summary of proposed renderings of John 1:1c, I conclude that the most common translation ("the Word was God") remains the most adequate, although it requires "God" to be carefully defined or qualified. Harner's paraphrastic translation "the Word had the same nature as God" (87), or the paraphrase "the Word was identical with God the Father in nature," most accurately represents the evangelist's intended meaning." (Jesus as God, p. 70)
​

Re-read what I wrote to you, and I explain why "the Word was God" (not, "the Word was the God") is to be taken as a qualitative expression and can be paraphrased as Harner does so above.

You clearly don't even have the slightest clue.

 

[WebersHome]

-
Col 1:15 . . He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all
creation

The Watch Tower Society has appropriated that verse as evidence that God's
beloved son was the first thing that God ever created. However, the New
Testament Greek word for "firstborn" in that verse is prototokos which the
Watchtower Society has construed to mean "created first" but prototokos
never means created first: it always means born first; viz: the position of
eldest son. The correct Greek word for created first is protoktistos. The average
door-to-door Watch Tower Society missionary doesn't know this.

Below are some passages taken word-for-word from a version of the
Watch Tower Society's proprietary Bible. Watch for the word in brackets: it's
very important.

Col 1:16a . . By means of him all [other] things were created.

Col 1:16b . . All [other] things have been created through him and for
him.

Col 1:17 . . Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all
[other] things were made to exist.

The word "other" is in brackets to indicate that it's not in the New
Testament's Greek manuscripts. The Society's editors took the liberty to
pencil it into the English text; thus forcing Paul to substantiate their
proprietary doctrine that the Word of John 1:1 is a creature rather than the
creator. If perchance some of the Society's missionaries don't know that
then all I can say is they have a lot of catching up to do.

Here's those same passages with the penciled word removed.

"By means of him all things were created"

"All things have been created through him and for him"

"Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made to
exist"

If the passages without the penciled word are valid; viz: if God's beloved son
created all things rather than all other things; then no question about it; the
Word of John 1:1 is the God of Genesis 1:1. But it would likely be futile to
point this out to a Watch Tower Society missionary because they are
typically far more loyal to the Society than they are Paul.

Now; as to forcing Paul's teachings to mean things they don't say in writing;
this is what Peter has to say about that.

†. 2Pet 3:15-16 . . Furthermore, consider the patience of our Lord as
salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul according to the wisdom given
him also wrote you, speaking about these things as he does also in all his
letters. In them, however, are some things hard to understand, which the
untaught and unsteady are twisting, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Untaught people are oftentimes self-taught; and were modern Witnesses to
check into ol' Charles T. Russell's rather ignoble past; they'd find that "self
taught" pretty much describes the origin of the Society's theology.

=============================================

 

[Bowman]

Point?? OP post was regarding JW's present teaching, not past.

The OP does not make this distinction....only you do.

JW literature throughout the years have always stated that we use to understand that Jesus died on a cross, I've known this since I was a child as do most JW's. Its highly assumptive of you to think I didn't know this, not that I'm not surprised.

It shows the obvious....that JW rice-paper theology is ever-changing and they cannot even decide upon the shape of the cross upon which the flesh of The Son died.

If you fail in this simple quest, you most assuredly will fail in properly identifying Jesus' deity.

What are your views on the subject Bowman, since your a genius in linguistics (apparent) what can we derive Jesus died on based on Greek and Hebrew, does it state he died on a cross?

We would ask you to properly define your terms, but then you would simply regurgitate some internet JW propaganda....and no one really wants that.

Here is where your JW polemic fails...in the very definition of the term(s) in question...


σταυρος = ‘stauros’

‘stauros’ definition:


Strong’s #G4716. In Biblical Greek, stauros only in the NT and refers to a Roman cross consisting of a straight piece of wood erected in the earth, often with a transverse beam fastened across its top and another piece nearer the bottom on which the crucified person’s feet were nailed, as was the cross on which the Lord Jesus suffered (Matt 27.32, 40, 42; Mark 15.21, 30, 32; Luke 23.26; John 19.17, 25, 31; Phil 2.8; Col 1.20, 2.14).An upright stake, especially a pointed one. A cross. An instrument of torture for serious offences.In shape we find three basic forms.The cross was a vertical, pointed stake, or it consisted of an upright with a cross beam above it, or it consisted of two intersecting beams of equal length.Crucifixion took place as follows.The condemned person carried the patibulum (cross-beam)to the place of execution – the stake was already erected.Then on the ground he was bound with outstretched arms to the beam by ropes, or else fixed to it by nails.The beam was then raised with the body and fastened to the upright post.The cross which the Romans set up to execute Jesus was like any other, consisting of an upright post with cross beam.


References:

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Joseph H. Thayer, p. 586
The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary of the New Testament, Warren Baker, based on the lexicons of Edward Robinson & John Parkhurst, pp. 1308 - 1309
The New Strong’s expanded exhaustive concordance of the Bible (red-letter edition), James Strong, LL.D., S.T.D., p. 233
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), Gerhard Kittel, Gerhard Friedrich, & Geoffrey W. Bromiley, volume seven, pp. 572 - 580
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian Literature, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] edition (BDAG), Frederick William Danker, p. 941



Even in Koranic Arabic, the Cross in which Jesus was crucified upon had a cross-beam...





يخرج من بين الصلب والترائب

Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi

86.7 He emerges from amidst the Cross and the grave.



صلب= ‘sulbi’

‘sulbi’ definition:

Genitive case, singular masculine noun. Hard, firm, rigid, stiff, tough, strong, robust, sturdy, or hardy. A rugged, stony place: a rugged, extending place of earth or ground; a hard part of the earth or ground: a tract of rugged depressed land stretching alone between two hills: or acclivities of hills.

The backbone; i.e. the bone extending from the base of the neck to the rump bone; the bone upon which the neck is set, extending to the root of the tail (in a beast), and in a man to the coccygis: or a portion of the back: and any portion of the back containing vertebrae: and particular the lumbar portion; the loins: and the back (absolutely).Loins; spine. The middle of a page.Rank or quality, and power or strength.

In prayer means the placing the hands upon the flanks, in standing, and separating the arms from the body; a posture forbidden by the prophet because resembling that of a man when he is crucified, the arms of the man in this case being extended upon the timber.

A hard stone, the hardest of stones, and whetstones.A spear-head sharpened; or a thing polished and sharpened with whetstones: or a spear-head sharpened upon the whetstone.

To cause to be crucified. Signifies also ichor, or watery humor, mixed with blood, that flows from the dead. A cross; a certain thing pertaining to Christians, which they take as an object to which to direct the face in prayer. The figure of a cross upon a garment.A banner or standard; properly, in the form of a cross.



الصلب= ‘al’ + ‘sulbi’ =‘alssulbi’ = The Cross



It comes from the root “salaba” (sad-lam-ba), which means he crucified him; to put to death by crucification; to put to death in a certain well known manner; extract marrow from bones. To crucify. Said of a thing, (and of a man), it (and he) was, or became, hard, firm, rigid, stiff, tough, strong, robust, sturdy, or hardy.

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume four, pp. 1711 - 1713
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 318
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 85
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 109

 

[Bowman]

Start studying...

Well done Bowman you've cracked the case, that's exactly why I use the words context and grammar, you're so smart.

I'm assuming that's what you wanted to hear?

Instead of trying to sound cognizant.....show us...

Simple.

What exactly is your definition of "referring to the One God, as Triune" really entail, as what your claim is, seems very far from what John said in John 1. I see nowhere in the verses you gave John referring to God as being three separate persons, I see mention of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit mentioned, but I see nowhere in these verse as John referring to them as truine. Maybe you could show me where John referred to the One God as being truine in John 1.

Three Persons; One Being.

This is clearly shown in John 1.

 

[Bowman]

More of your tripe...

However the renderings, "what God was, the Word was also", "the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God", "the Word has the same nature as God" both instantly separate the persons God and the word/Jesus as distinct persons, in other words the word was not God but had the same nature as God. This is in complete harmony that Jesus is the charaktér/copy of God as Heb 1:3 demonstrates.

Who, besides you, ever thought that The Son was The Father in the first place?

You still don't even know what The Trinity is.

You are still fighting that straw-man of your JW creation.

(Heb 1:3) "...He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature..."

Jesus is a copy, imprint, image of God, Jesus being a charaktér of God denotes that he is not the person that he is the charaktér of. Even in English the definition of copy, imprint, image, expression all denote the same thing just like the Greek, that the thing which images something else is not that source.

Again...

What would you even know about Greek...?

Nothing.

ος ων απαυγασμα της δοξης και χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου φερων τε τα παντα τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου καθαρισμον των αμαρτιων ποιησαμενος εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις

Who being radiance of Glory, and the express image of His essence, upholding all things bythe Wordof power, having made purification of our sins through Himself,He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high, (Heb 1.3)


What you deceitfully attempted to do was to reverse-translate Heb 1.3 and use the term 'image' as imparting the same meaning as used in any ordinary English dictionary!.

What you failed to realize, because you don't know how to exegete, is that Heb 1.3 uses a completely different word than used ANYWHERE else in the entire NT.

Thus...if you were cognizant, then you would have known that this Greek word does NOT impart the same meaning as 'image' anywhere else in scripture....nor in a modern English dictionary.

Show some respect and not laughable ignorance...

 

[NWL]

Re: Jehovah's Witness deny the important doctrines of christianty and jesus

As I have pointed out, there is a link between Hebrews 1.3 and John 1.1 in that both express the equality (and that being one of nature) between the Father, and the Son (also see Philippians 2.6)

So I take it that you believe the God mentioned in Heb 1:1-3 and John 1:1, when not referring to the word, is in regards to the Father by your above statement? Clarify.

(Heb 1:3) "...[Jesus] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..."

Again you miss the point, where in either verse does it "express equality"? This is plainly your assumption. In Hebrews 1:3 it states Jesus is a copy of God, how can a copy of something be that thing, your reasoning goes against the very definition of charaktér. Why would the writer deem it necessary to state that Jesus, who apparently in his mind thought Jesus to be God, claim that Jesus was a charaktér/copy of God, it makes no sense. What is being expressed at Heb 1:3 certainly does talk about any equality between the Son and Father and certainly does not show them as of one nature.

Phil 2:6 again does not denote that Jesus is God, it simply states he has the same body/form as God, namely a spirit body. The only way someone can conclude that Jesus is God by what was said is to read it into scripture. I will not go on too much about Phil 2:6 as I don't as yet know who you view the 'God' as in the verse, whether it is God the Father or God as in the trinity.

​

Re-read what I wrote to you, and I explain why "the Word was God" (not, "the Word was the God") is to be taken as a qualitative expression and can be paraphrased as Harner does so above.

You clearly don't even have the slightest clue.

I understood what you initially wrote, hence the reason I spent most my time writing that two person sharing the same nature does not denote they share any type of truine oneness. M.Harris understands the text to be referring to Jesus nature and not the Words identity as God/deity since, as I pointed out, it would imply modalism.

However, like most trinitarians -if you are one- I'm sure you believe that Jesus having the same nature of God in your mind would lead you to assume that Jesus must be God, correct me if I'm wrong. However in my mind and when comparing verses like Heb 1:3 Jesus having the same nature of God doesn't imply a oneness anymore than a Human son sharing the same nature as his Father.