6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[GraceBeUntoYou]

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?

...

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.

(2) In my first post on this very thread (#72), I was very careful to point out, that nouns, regardless if they are mass or count, can convey qualities. I then cited John 3.6, a passage which uses “spirit” (which, according to your method, is a count noun), and “flesh” (a mass noun) in a qualitative, yet parallel fashion, and then I go on to discuss why they carry that qualitative nuance without any hint of indefiniteness or definiteness (c.f. John 6.63, a text which was also cited),

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, 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."
​

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).​

The reason for citing this example was not unintentional on my behalf, but because I knew exactly where this discussion would go. I doubt we will see you argue, as you did previously (in regards to John 1.1, and John 1.14), that the two nouns used in John 6.3 are semantically different on the basis of one being a mass noun (“flesh”), and the other being, what you would identify as a count noun (“spirit”).

Linguists who have written detailed studies on the mass/count distinction differ widely on how any given noun can be more formally categorized. While some suggest that the distinction is grammatical, not semantic (Bloomfield, Language; Palmer, Grammar), others argue that nouns themselves cannot be classified as either mass or count, but only noun phrases (Pelletier, Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems; Bunt, Mass Terms and Model-Theoretic Semantics; Gathercole, "He Has Too Much Hard Questions: The Acquisition of the Linguistic Mass-Count Distinction in Much and Many," Journal of Child Language, 12, 395-415). And yet, others argue that the distinction is between real-world entities, the objects to which the nouns in question actually refer (Quine., Word and Object; Ter Meulen, "An Intensional Logic for Mass Terms," Philosophical Studies, 40, 105-125), whereas others argue that the distinction is between the meanings of the nouns themselves, not the objects they name (McCawley, "Lexicography and the Count-Mass Distinction," Adverbs, Vowels, and Other Objects of Wonder; Wierzbicka Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis and The Semantics of Grammar). Finally, some of the most recent studies suggest that the mass/count distinction is a multi-level phenomenon that cannot easily be explained by any one approach (Allan, "Nouns and Countability," Language, 56, 541-567). Thus, before you make claims regarding the semantics of a "count noun" such as theos in John 1.1c, you must first outline your preferred definition of a "count noun" and defend why this particular view should pertain, in light of the relevant scholarship. You must then offer arguments demonstrating that, based on this view, theos is indeed a count noun in John 1.1c, as you assert.

While some linguists would argue that contextual factors determine how to categorize a given noun, many would dispute such a claim. In the sentence, "Jesus is Lord," it is not clear whether Jesus is "the" Lord (count term, signifying that Jesus is a "Lord" one can count) or Jesus is "Lord" in a qualitative sense (non-count term, in which nature or character of "Lordship" is attributed to Jesus). When you say, " 'god' is a count noun," you are assuming a fact not yet in evidence. On what basis do you make this claim? If it is context, then what in the context mandates that theos is a count noun with only a definite or indefinite sense?

To prove that theos is a count noun in John 1.1c, you must establish that theos means either "the God" or "a god" in this verse (that is, that it can be "counted"). But these are the very meanings you claim theos must convey because it is a count noun, thus, your argument regarding theos as a count noun is circular, proving nothing.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

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?

I know precisely what you’re inferring from this, but perhaps the question should not be, as you put it, “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?” But rather, “How do you think a Coptic scribe, who could speak Koine Greek, would translate John 1.1?”

And my answer is precisely this: There’s no doubt as to the importance of the Sahidic in Biblical studies; however, we are again left with the same cunundrum offered to us by Arians with the Koine Greek text. That being the level of honesty only goes so far on the reality of a grammatical principle, and dishonesty picks up where the honesty stops. The grammar of the Sahidic alone cannot be used to prove that the Word was "a god," any more than it can be used to prove that the Word "possessed the nature of God." Coptic grammatically requires an indefinite article in constructions like this, even in instances where the noun clearly carries with it a qualitative (John 6.63) semantic force,

That which was begotten out of the flesh is [a] flesh, and that which was begotten out of the spirit is [a] spirit (John 6.63, Horner’s translation of the Sahidic)
​

The Sahidic translators were faced with having to use either the definite article, which would have been conducive to some form of Modalism, or the indefinite article, which can predicate either class membership or nature/essence (see Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar, p. 43).

While it is important to know how the Copts understood John 1.1, it is equally as important to know how they understood John 1.18. Traditionally, John 1.18 has been understood to call Christ, “the only-begotten Son.” However, here, the Coptic (which reads, “God, [who is] the only Son”) does three things:

(1) It affirms (as does p66, p75, B, א), the textual reading MONOGENHS QEOS rather than MONOGENHS hUIOS (NRSV, ESV, NIV, NET, et al.)

(2) It agrees with modern scholarship in its affirmation that MONOGENHS, can be, and was understood to refer to uniqueness (“only Son,” “only,” “only One,” et al.) rather than begettal, or birth (BDAG, Louw-Nida, Moulton-Milligan, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NET, et al.)

(3) It agrees with modern scholarship that MONOGENHS QEOS functions as two nouns in apposition: "The only Son (or ‘only One’), [who is] God" (NRSV, “God the only Son”; NIV, “but the one and only Son, who is himself God”; NET, “the only one, himself God”)
​

Additionally, if one were to consider the pre-Nicean theology of the Early Church, I think it's overly clear what these Copts, such as Origen thought about the Word.[FONT=&quot] Origen taught that the "begetting" of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting (First Principles 1.2.4), that the Son and Father share the same nature (Commentary on John 2.2.16), and that there was never a time when the Son did not exist (Commentary on Romans 1.5; First Principles 1.2.9; 4.4.1). The begetting of the Son is a part of the Divine Being and is from all eternity (First Principles, 1.2.9; 4.41) and is also continual (Homily on Jeremiah 9.4); the Father is the "source" of divinity, and the Son "attracts" that same nature, that same divinity to Himself through his eternal contemplation of the Father (Commentary on John 2.2.18).[/FONT]

 

[TJ12]

Hello again GraceBeUntoYou,

I very much appreciate your thoroughness, but I think there's a place for old-fashioned common sense in translation. Allow me to explain below.

I then cited John 3.6, a passage which uses “spirit” (which, according to your method, is a count noun), and “flesh” (a mass noun) in a qualitative, yet parallel fashion

Why do you think I'd take "spirit" in John 3:6 as a count noun? In fact, because it's put in parallel with "flesh", a substance noun, and "spirit" can refer to something like "breath, wind", I'd say it isn't a count noun here. I did not lay out any method for determining what a count noun is, nor did I say that a term like "god" is necessarily a count noun. Here's the quote: "The word 'god' is (in normal situations) a count noun" and later in reference to your trying to make 'theos' a non-count noun, I didn't say it's impossible, 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."

Common sense has to play a role, for nothing explicit in the grammar itself is going to tell you if a word is a count noun or not. Some words are more apt to be count nouns, some are more apt to be mass nouns, and there's a whole spectrum of words in betweenthat could be either. You'll never come up with some fool-proof method that proves a word is one or the other. That's why you almost have to use the sound test that I referenced in my previous post, it just sounds funny to hear "there's bus over there," doesn't it? That's obvious. But what if you ask someone for a drink and they point to a bottle of water and say, "there's water over there." They could also say, "there's a water over there," and that sounds fine too.

There's something to be said for what's 'feels' natural in a living, organic language. In modern English, I don't believe most people would read, "the Word was God" and understand it as a mass noun.

I doubt we will see you argue, as you did previously (in regards to John 1.1, and John 1.14), that the two nouns used in John 6.3 are semantically different on the basis of one being a mass noun (“flesh”), and the other being, what you would identify as a count noun (“spirit”).

I believe in this context, they're both best understood as mass nouns.

You must then offer arguments demonstrating that, based on this view, theos is indeed a count noun in John 1.1c, as you assert.

Well, it goes to the natural meaning of the word. Where else are you arguing for 'theos' to be understood as a mass noun? Probably not many places. And it's only because you're trying to emphasize this as a monadic noun that you reject the indefinite. There's no difference in meaning between the qualitative and indefinite in terms of the quality/nature it connotes for the referent, it's simply the number aspect implied by the indefinite rendering (as well as some qualitatitve renderings) that you find obnoxious.

When you say, "'god' is a count noun," you are assuming a fact not yet in evidence.

You actually altered my quote there (please don't do that without indication that you've done so). I said, " 'god' is (in normal situations) a count noun." That is absolutely true. So if you're going to all this trouble to make it a mass noun, and specifically a very awkward mass noun that looks exactly like the definite rendering(!), I think you should at least explain your real reasons for rejecting the indefinite in favor of this measure. Doesn't it have to do with your beliefs about God?

On what basis do you make this claim? If it is context, then what in the context mandates that theos is a count noun with only a definite or indefinite sense?

I've never said such a thing, that it must be a count noun. What started this discussion is my quote of the Translator's New Testament, which argued for the mass noun "divine" here. I indicated that this was not my preferred rendering but that I was fine with it because it doesn't trick the reader (which saying "God" is a mass noun almost certainly does) and it means the same thing as "a god". I believe that you reject the "divine" rendering because it doesn't connote the exclusivity that you're looking for in order to get the reader to make an identification, in an indirect way, between the Word and God himself.

 

[TJ12]

Hi again GraceBeUntoYou,

And thanks for your response. I'm glad to see you're aware of this. For those unaware, Sahidic Coptic is a mix of the Egyptian language and Greek, and was spoken in Hellenized Eqypt when Christianity first spread there. A translation of the New Testament was made into this language while Koine Greek was yet a living language, and prior to the Roman State Church councils of the fourth century. Interestingly, Coptic has both indefinite and definite articles that are used very much like in English.

The grammar of the Sahidic alone cannot be used to prove that the Word was "a god," any more than it can be used to prove that the Word "possessed the nature of God." Coptic grammatically requires an indefinite article in constructions like this, even in instances where the noun clearly carries with it a qualitative (John 6.63) semantic force,

That which was begotten out of the flesh is [a] flesh, and that which was begotten out of the spirit is [a] spirit (John 6.63, Horner’s translation of the Sahidic) ​

This is a red herring. The Coptic indefinite article, compared to the English indefinite article, is indeed used more freely with substance and abstract nouns. These are what you quote above. What is undeniable though is that the Coptic indefinite article expresses indefiniteness (this is not mutually exclusive to a qualitative noun). All of these are indefinite. And yes, it is used at John 1:1c so that it literally says, "the word was with the god, and a god was the word."

So men who actually would have spoken Koine Greek and had the same tools available as we do in English, chose to render John 1:1 exactly as the NWT has it. And this was some 1700-1800 years ago!

The Sahidic translators were faced with having to use either the definite article, which would have been conducive to some form of Modalism, or the indefinite article, which can predicate either class membership or nature/essence (see Layton, Bentley, A Coptic Grammar, p. 43).

That's not the only two choices (and Layton's work doesn't support such a conclusion; you referenced the page where he simply descibes the indefinite article). The Sahidic translators could have just left the 'god' of John 1:1c ('noute' in Sahidic Coptic) without any article, which is just what they did at John 10:33, where it literallys says "you are making yourself god." Instead, they wrote it with the indefinite.

While it is important to know how the Copts understood John 1.1, it is equally as important to know how they understood John 1.18. Traditionally, John 1.18 has been understood to call Christ, “the only-begotten Son.” However, here, the Coptic (which reads, “God, [who is] the only Son&#8221 does three things:

The Coptic version of John 1:18 is actually a fuse of the two variant readings "only-begotten son" and "only-begotten god", which in Greek are separated by one letter. But because the Coptic word 'ouwt' (which means "only") is less nuanced than the Greek 'monogenes' ("only-begotten") it has been dropped in relation to the word "god" because only the Father, in the Coptic text, is called the "only God" ('ouwt noute'). The loss of the nuance between 'only-begotten' and 'only' would have caused confusion in Coptic and made Jesus out to be 'the only God', so, significantly, the translators did not carry that over.

Additionally, if one were to consider the pre-Nicean theology of the Early Church, I think it's overly clear what these Copts, such as Origen thought about the Word.[FONT="] Origen taught that the "begetting" of the Son by the Father cannot be compared to human begetting[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
We can get into that discussion if you'd like, but the early church fathers were, by and large, subordinationalists. Clement of Alexandria, for example, who was the teacher of Origen, uses the word 'protoktistos' ("first-created") for Jesus as a synonym to 'prototokos' ("firstborn") as used in Colossians 1:15.[/FONT]

 

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,

Thank you for your participation.


And sometimes Jehovah is referred to merely as "God" ('elohim'), yet that doesn't equate him to the judges of Israel, correct? Why not, specifically? Take a look at the passage:

"I said, 'You are gods ('elohim'), sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.' Arise, O God ('elohim'), judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations!" (Psalm 82:6-8; ESV)

Both Jehovah and the judges are referred to by 'elohim' alone. But it is the superlative title 'the Most High' that shows the superiority of Jehovah. "Mighty" is not a superlative. Titles like "Most High God" and "God Almighty" are. No one else receives these except the Father alone. Commenting upon Isaiah 9:6 and "Mighty God," The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself."

I'm sorry....but I don't feel that you have answered my question The context surrounding Ps. 82 is entirely different the context surrounding Isa. 9, and if you would like to discuss Ps. 82 next, then perhaps we can do that. I get what you are saying, in that "Mighty" is not a superlative - but that really doesn't change anything, does it? The title "Mighty God" is only ever used in speaking about the One and Only God - the Most High. That title is not applied to any man, any angel, any one else, except God. Yet - in spite of it only being a title applied to God, Isaiah applies this exact title to Jesus. Don't you think that requires consideration?

And again, do you know why even the NWT give this title for Jesus a capital "G" instead of a little "g", if the "god" that Jesus is, is different then the "God" that God is?

Now, I am asking this because I am not entirely sure...doesn't giving "God" the capital "G" mean that you give it a definite meaning (the God, not a god)? I could be wrong...but then again, I don't profess to be a linguistic scholar.

For interests sake, here is what Matthew Henry said about Isa. 9:6: "The same that is the mighty God is a child born; the ancient of days becomes an infant of a span long; the everlasting Father is a Son given. Such was his condescension in taking our nature upon him; thus did he humble and empty himself, to exalt and fill us." Let the battle of commentaries BEGIN!

 

[cfultz3]

I'm sorry....but I don't feel that you have answered my question The context surrounding Ps. 82 is entirely different the context surrounding Isa. 9, and if you would like to discuss Ps. 82 next, then perhaps we can do that. I get what you are saying, in that "Mighty" is not a superlative - but that really doesn't change anything, does it? The title "Mighty God" is only ever used in speaking about the One and Only God - the Most High. That title is not applied to any man, any angel, any one else, except God. Yet - in spite of it only being a title applied to God, Isaiah applies this exact title to Jesus. Don't you think that requires consideration?

And again, do you know why even the NWT give this title for Jesus a capital "G" instead of a little "g", if the "god" that Jesus is, is different then the "God" that God is?

Now, I am asking this because I am not entirely sure...doesn't giving "God" the capital "G" mean that you give it a definite meaning (the God, not a god)? I could be wrong...but then again, I don't profess to be a linguistic scholar.

For interests sake, here is what Matthew Henry said about Isa. 9:6: "The same that is the mighty God is a child born; the ancient of days becomes an infant of a span long; the everlasting Father is a Son given. Such was his condescension in taking our nature upon him; thus did he humble and empty himself, to exalt and fill us." Let the battle of commentaries BEGIN!

You go Girl !!!!!!!

 

[TJ12]

Hi hopesprings,

Thanks for your response.

I'm sorry....but I don't feel that you have answered my question The context surrounding Ps. 82 is entirely different the context surrounding Isa. 9, and if you would like to discuss Ps. 82 next, then perhaps we can do that.

The reason I brought that up is because Jehovah is called simply 'elohim' there, just as the judges are, all within the same context. But that obviously does not make the equal. The judges derive their power from God.

I get what you are saying, in that "Mighty" is not a superlative - but that really doesn't change anything, does it?

But why wouldn't it? I honestly believe that it does. One type of title is exclusive and superior to all others, the other type is not.

The title "Mighty God" is only ever used in speaking about the One and Only God - the Most High.

It's also used for the Messiah. I don't equate them, and the adjective 'gibbor' ("mighty") gives me no reason to. Seeing as how Jehovah gave Jesus all authority in heaven and earth, elevated above the 'gods', I'd certainly expect him to be a mighty god. But there is only one 'el shaddai' ('God Almighty').

Isaiah applies this exact title to Jesus. Don't you think that requires consideration?

Well it certainly distinguishes the Messiah and the authority he's given, but it in no way makes him the Almighty. Do you truly believe that "the Most High God" would have to be exalted and given authority?

And again, do you know why even the NWT give this title for Jesus a capital "G" instead of a little "g", if the "god" that Jesus is, is different then the "God" that God is?

Now, I am asking this because I am not entirely sure...doesn't giving "God" the capital "G" mean that you give it a definite meaning (the God, not a god)? I could be wrong...but then again, I don't profess to be a linguistic scholar.

I can only speculate, but all four titles in Isaiah are probably capitalized because they're names. In the context Isaiah is giving names to children born. Usually Hebrew names have descriptive meanings like this but are left in their Hebrew form, but it seems to be common in English translations to translate these names at Isaiah 9:6. There's no definite article here and there are places in the NWT where "the god" appears, definite and lowercase.

 

[hopesprings]

Hi hopesprings,

Thanks for your response.


The reason I brought that up is because Jehovah is called simply 'elohim' there, just as the judges are, all within the same context. But that obviously does not make the equal. The judges derive their power from God.


But why wouldn't it? I honestly believe that it does. One type of title is exclusive and superior to all others, the other type is not.


It's also used for the Messiah. I don't equate them, and the adjective 'gibbor' ("mighty") gives me no reason to. Seeing as how Jehovah gave Jesus all authority in heaven and earth, elevated above the 'gods', I'd certainly expect him to be a mighty god. But there is only one 'el shaddai' ('God Almighty').


Well it certainly distinguishes the Messiah and the authority he's given, but it in no way makes him the Almighty. Do you truly believe that "the Most High God" would have to be exalted and given authority?


I can only speculate, but all four titles in Isaiah are probably capitalized because they're names. In the context Isaiah is giving names to children born. Usually Hebrew names have descriptive meanings like this but are left in their Hebrew form, but it seems to be common in English translations to translate these names at Isaiah 9:6. There's no definite article here and there are places in the NWT where "the god" appears, definite and lowercase.

I understand why you brought up Ps. 82, but the context of Ps. 82 and the context of Isaiah 9 are completely different, so you cannot use one to explain the other. I understand that superlative means exclusive and superior to all others, but again, does it really matter? You said it does - but this title “Mighty God” used in the OT is only used when talking about God Almighty. I would consider the “superlative argument” if there were at least one other instance where the words “mighty” and “god” were smucked up against each other to describe someone.

By Jesus having this title, God has given His title to someone else. The fact that God gives Jesus a title that is only used regarding himself does not give the impression that this was on the basis of authority, unless you already presumed to think that. He still has a title that wouldn’t belong to him, regardless of the “authority” behind it. That’s like saying if I sent my child to the store in my place, but gave him all the authority to purchase what was needed, then his name could be called “hopesprings”. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense.

I asked if giving God the big “G” in Isa. 9:6, also gives it a definite meaning – and I don’t feel that you’ve answered that question. If you can, I would like to know if giving god the big “G” gives it a definite meaning? Also, you said that there are times when God has the definite article, but is given an indefinite meaning in the NWT; I was wondering if you could provide those references please?


You said: Seeing as how Jehovah gave Jesus all authority in heaven and earth, elevated above the 'gods', I'd certainly expect him to be a mighty god. But there is only one 'el shaddai' ('God Almighty').
I found this statement that you made very interesting because the passage doesn’t say mighty god, it says Mighty God. If Jesus is not God then wouldn’t one logically conclude that he would be receiving some of the glory that belongs to the only one who is ever called Mighty God?

Now, you asked me if I truly believe that the Most High would have to be exalted and given authority – and because you asked, I will answer. The Most High God (the Only God) chose to limit himself (Phil. 2:7) and come to earth as a man (John 1:14), to die for our sins (yours included - 1 Cor. 15:1-4) in order to reconcile us to himself (2 Cor. 5:19). So…yes…as a man, he would have to be exalted and given authority because of what He chose to do for us – that does not take away from his divine nature (Col. 2:9). There…that one was for free…

 

[TJ12]

Hi hopesprings,

Thanks again for your response.

I understand why you brought up Ps. 82, but the context of Ps. 82 and the context of Isaiah 9 are completely different, so you cannot use one to explain the other. I understand that superlative means exclusive and superior to all others, but again, does it really matter? You said it does - but this title “Mighty God” used in the OT is only used when talking about God Almighty.

The thing is, we have such a small pool to look at that it doesn't tell us much. The exact phrase 'el gibbor' ('mighty god') that appears in Isaiah 9:6 only appears at Isaiah 10:21. The two words are used in close association also at Deuteronomy 7:21 and Jeremiah 32:18, though not in that same phrase. Still, you quoted the following verses, evidently only looking at an English translation, as places where you found "mighty God": "(Gen. 49:24; Dt. 7:21; Ps. 50:1; Ps. 132:2; Ps. 132:5; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18; Hab. 1:12)" The other verses contain different Hebrew words.

But take a look at Psalm 50:1 from your list. There, the title is not 'el gibbor' but 'el elohim'. From the search I was able to do, I've found this title "is only used when talking about God Almighty"...except in one place...at Psalm 82, where the KJV has, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [el...elohim]." The next sentence elucidates this further, saying, "he judgeth among the gods." Now, assuming that my search for this phrase found all instances of it, does this mean that these 'gods' too, like the "Mighty God" messiah, are God Almighty himself because they're called by a title only used towards Jehovah elsewhere?

I would consider the “superlative argument” if there were at least one other instance where the words “mighty” and “god” were smucked up against each other to describe someone.

But see, that doesn't really make sense. That's like saying that because the United States has only two persons elected to high executive office, making them both powerful executive officers, they must be equal in their power. They are not. One is the President and one is the Vice President. Both powerful, yes, but one is more powerful and has the most high office. The fact that there are no others in this equation doesn't change any of that.

By Jesus having this title, God has given His title to someone else.

Because it's not a superlative title, that means that it's not exclusive. Think about it from the other side of the coin. If Jesus had been given a superlative title in scripture, like 'God Almighty', wouldn't that be the first and only proof you'd show me here? That's because it would be conclusive, "Mighty God" is not.

The fact that God gives Jesus a title that is only used regarding himself does not give the impression that this was on the basis of authority, unless you already presumed to think that.

I bolded your words above because it is revealing. If "Mighty God" really means "Almighty" like you're trying to argue, then why doesn't Isaiah 9:6 say that he is "Mighty God"? The simple fact that he will be called by that name and you say that God gives this to him all implies that at the time Isaiah wrote this, the pre-existent Jesus was not "Mighty God" in the sense that he would be called that in the future. The future aspect makes little sense if he's truly the Almighty and doesn't change.

Another aspect of this verse that you haven't addressed is the name "Eternal Father". If Jesus' being called "Mighty God" must be taken in the same sense as when applied to Jehovah, as you contend, then are you consistent in saying that this must be taken in the same sense as when applied to Jehovah? Does this mean then that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father?

I asked if giving God the big “G” in Isa. 9:6, also gives it a definite meaning – and I don’t feel that you’ve answered that question.

I answered it, hopesprings. There's no definite article before the phrase at Isaiah 9:6, so I don't believe it's meant definitely. Likewise it can be shown that the simple rule 'definite=capitalized' doesn't hold true in the NWT because there are instances where it renders "the god" (definite and lower-case) instead of "God" or "the God" (see, for example, John 1:18; Acts 7:43; 2 Cor. 4:4). So again, the capitalization doesn't necessarily give it a definite meaning. My guess is that it's capitalized because in the context of Isaiah, these titles are given 'names' of the child.

You said: Seeing as how Jehovah gave Jesus all authority in heaven and earth, elevated above the 'gods', I'd certainly expect him to be a mighty god. But there is only one 'el shaddai' ('God Almighty').

I found this statement that you made very interesting because the passage doesn’t say mighty god, it says Mighty God.

This is the same thing. Modern readers tend to read too much into capitalized words. In Hebrew and Greek, there was no upper and lower cases.

Now, you asked me if I truly believe that the Most High would have to be exalted and given authority – and because you asked, I will answer. The Most High God (the Only God) chose to limit himself (Phil. 2:7)

I'm going to ask you to take a closer look at that passage in Philippians and please explain the logic to me. Look at the lead up to the passage about Christ; Paul is talking about Christians, and gives this advice: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Verse 3) Isn't Paul contrasting the two opposing paths here? Selfish ambition and humility are before them, and Paul says to choose humility. Now he's going to lay out a model for them to follow:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Verse 5-7; ESV).

Isn't it interesting that in speaking about the pursuits of "selfish ambition" versus "humility", Paul uses the example of the pre-existent Jesus? Now if Jesus really was God himself, in what way would it be "selfish ambition" to 'grasp' at something that already belongs to him? Wouldn't it only be pursuing "selfish ambition" to 'grasp' at equality with God if he didn't have it? Instead, he chose to go the opposite way and humble himself.

It seems to me that Paul utilized this comparison on the very basis that Jesus was beneath God when he made his choice to reject selfish ambition (making himself equal with God) and pursue humility (making himself a servant, a man). Thoughts?

 

[hopesprings]

Hi hopesprings,

Thanks again for your response.

The thing is, we have such a small pool to look at that it doesn't tell us much. The exact phrase 'el gibbor' ('mighty god') that appears in Isaiah 9:6 only appears at Isaiah 10:21. The two words are used in close association also at Deuteronomy 7:21 and Jeremiah 32:18, though not in that same phrase. Still, you quoted the following verses, evidently only looking at an English translation, as places where you found "mighty God": "(Gen. 49:24; Dt. 7:21; Ps. 50:1; Ps. 132:2; Ps. 132:5; Isa. 10:21; Jer. 32:18; Hab. 1:12)" The other verses contain different Hebrew words.

But take a look at Psalm 50:1 from your list. There, the title is not 'el gibbor' but 'el elohim'. From the search I was able to do, I've found this title "is only used when talking about God Almighty"...except in one place...at Psalm 82, where the KJV has, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty [el...elohim]." The next sentence elucidates this further, saying, "he judgeth among the gods." Now, assuming that my search for this phrase found all instances of it, does this mean that these 'gods' too, like the "Mighty God" messiah, are God Almighty himself because they're called by a title only used towards Jehovah elsewhere?


But see, that doesn't really make sense. That's like saying that because the United States has only two persons elected to high executive office, making them both powerful executive officers, they must be equal in their power. They are not. One is the President and one is the Vice President. Both powerful, yes, but one is more powerful and has the most high office. The fact that there are no others in this equation doesn't change any of that.


Because it's not a superlative title, that means that it's not exclusive. Think about it from the other side of the coin. If Jesus had been given a superlative title in scripture, like 'God Almighty', wouldn't that be the first and only proof you'd show me here? That's because it would be conclusive, "Mighty God" is not.


I bolded your words above because it is revealing. If "Mighty God" really means "Almighty" like you're trying to argue, then why doesn't Isaiah 9:6 say that he is "Mighty God"? The simple fact that he will be called by that name and you say that God gives this to him all implies that at the time Isaiah wrote this, the pre-existent Jesus was not "Mighty God" in the sense that he would be called that in the future. The future aspect makes little sense if he's truly the Almighty and doesn't change.

Another aspect of this verse that you haven't addressed is the name "Eternal Father". If Jesus' being called "Mighty God" must be taken in the same sense as when applied to Jehovah, as you contend, then are you consistent in saying that this must be taken in the same sense as when applied to Jehovah? Does this mean then that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father?


I answered it, hopesprings. There's no definite article before the phrase at Isaiah 9:6, so I don't believe it's meant definitely. Likewise it can be shown that the simple rule 'definite=capitalized' doesn't hold true in the NWT because there are instances where it renders "the god" (definite and lower-case) instead of "God" or "the God" (see, for example, John 1:18; Acts 7:43; 2 Cor. 4:4). So again, the capitalization doesn't necessarily give it a definite meaning. My guess is that it's capitalized because in the context of Isaiah, these titles are given 'names' of the child.


This is the same thing. Modern readers tend to read too much into capitalized words. In Hebrew and Greek, there was no upper and lower cases.


I'm going to ask you to take a closer look at that passage in Philippians and please explain the logic to me. Look at the lead up to the passage about Christ; Paul is talking about Christians, and gives this advice: "Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves." (Verse 3) Isn't Paul contrasting the two opposing paths here? Selfish ambition and humility are before them, and Paul says to choose humility. Now he's going to lay out a model for them to follow:

"Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." (Verse 5-7; ESV).

Isn't it interesting that in speaking about the pursuits of "selfish ambition" versus "humility", Paul uses the example of the pre-existent Jesus? Now if Jesus really was God himself, in what way would it be "selfish ambition" to 'grasp' at something that already belongs to him? Wouldn't it only be pursuing "selfish ambition" to 'grasp' at equality with God if he didn't have it? Instead, he chose to go the opposite way and humble himself.

It seems to me that Paul utilized this comparison on the very basis that Jesus was beneath God when he made his choice to reject selfish ambition (making himself equal with God) and pursue humility (making himself a servant, a man). Thoughts?

Hi TJ,

Okay…correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you REALLY want to talk about Ps. 82? You pulled out Ps. 50:1 (which calls God – Mighty God) and brought us back to the Hebrew words (el elohim), then tied that in with Ps. 82 to show that others can be called ‘el elohim’, and consequently, Mighty God. Does that sound accurate to you? The problem that I see here, is that these “gods” were not called “Mighty God”; they were called ‘mighty’ AND they were called ‘gods’ – those are two different meanings. God wasn’t sharing his title (Mighty God) with those men in Ps. 82. Read the context…read the verse, for that matter. Read it in Hebrew if you have to. Not only is the context entirely different between Ps. 82 and Isa. 9 – but the title is entirely different – so you cannot rely on one to describe the other. You are correct that when I brought up those references to “mighty God”, I was only looking at an English Translation (I admit it). Seeing as I speak, read, and write English; and since I do not speak, read, or write Hebrew – I will not put on false pretenses and profess to be smarter then I actually am. I did look into those references though, using a Hebrew Concordance, and I found that quite interesting.

As you pointed out: this exact phrase (el gibbor = mighty God) is only used one other place, Isa. 10:21. So, who is Isaiah talking about, in chapter 10, verse 21? So…a title (el gibbor = mighty God) that is ONLY associated with God Almighty (Isa. 10:21) is still being applied to Jesus (Isa. 9:6). Even in Hebrew (who knew I’d learn Hebrew from an online forum). This title “Mighty God” is only used of the Most High God (Isa. 10:21) – just like the term “President” is only used of the President. There is such a thing as a Vice President (as you pointed out) but the Vice President’s title isn’t “President” or "a President", it is Vice President – which tells us that the two are different. How does this relate to both the Most High God and the Messiah being called the same name, again? For the record, it does matter that no one else is called “mighty God”, because the absence of this also diminishes the possibility that Jesus is anything other then the “Mighty God”.

Now...you can say all you want that the title Mighty God is not a superlative title – but that does not negate the fact that this title is ONLY used of God. So…it is exclusive to God…He’s the only one called Mighty God in scripture. You said that if I had such a superlative title applied to Jesus, then that would be the only proof I’ve shown that Jesus is God. I haven’t tried to prove to you that Jesus is God yet…perhaps we can begin that discussion when this one is done. Your skirting around the issue hasn’t changed the fact that you haven’t logically explained this title being applied to Jesus if he is NOT God.

Doesn’t take much for these responses to turn out really long, eh? (Sorry…that’s a Canadianism there…hehe). Just because these names are referred to in a future sense (‘will be called’) does not imply that, at that time, he was not already God. The future aspect actually assures us that the Savior to come would be completely God – that he would be the Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Thank you for clarifying what you previously explained, regarding the definite meaning and capitalized words. But, again, I don’t think it matters much. If the capitalization of a word does not necessarily indicate that there is a definite meaning, then it doesn’t necessarily indicate that it has an indefinite meaning either. I found your statement about Modern Readers, quite amusing. You, my friend, are a modern reader. I have read through many of your other posts and I can see that you fancy yourself quite well versed in Hebrew and Greek linguistics; so I must ask…do you have a degree in Biblical Hebrew and Greek? Just wondering….

Since you centered out Phil. 2:7, let’s address that for a minute. Your summary of the context fits nicely; verse 3 and 4 are wonderfully simple in their explanation of this humility. You have used verses 5-7 to show that Jesus is NOT God because, if he was, it would not be “selfish ambition” to grasp something that would already belong to him. (YIKES!) If Jesus’ humility is him humbling himself, then why is his selfish ambition exalting himself on the same level as the Most High? He would have already been in a comfortable position of power and authority (whether you believe that he is God, or not), so…wouldn’t selfish ambition be staying where he was and not humbling himself? I don’t understand your jump there. In order to understand the second half of verse 6, you need to go back and start reading from the beginning of the chapter, than just keep going, don’t even stop…just finish reading the entire NT. I’m half joking, half serious, but I understand your point; but that is not what the context or verse is saying; I suppose one could conclude that if they disregarded the first half of the verse, and if they only read an ESV. He was already existent in the form of God. He had God’s form – who has God’s form except for God? This is further clarified when it says he “took on the form of a servant”. He became a man. So…if taking on the form of a servant means that he became a man, then having the form of God means exactly what it says. I am not going to single out half of a verse to answer your question as to why Jesus would have to grasp something that is already his. The argument lacks common sense because you have not considered the entire context…or the entire verse.

And, you are right, I have not addressed Isaiah calling Jesus Everlasting Father. I suppose we can move on to that one too eventually. I will answer your question tho…I do not believe that the Father IS the Son, or the Son IS the Father – in the sense of being the same person. Oh...and thank you for the references where the NWT gives lower case letters to definite articles. I will have to look those up.

hopesprings

 

[TJ12]

Hello hopesprings,

Thanks for your response.

Okay…correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like you REALLY want to talk about Ps. 82? You pulled out Ps. 50:1 (which calls God – Mighty God) and brought us back to the Hebrew words (el elohim), then tied that in with Ps. 82 to show that others can be called ‘el elohim’, and consequently, Mighty God. Does that sound accurate to you? The problem that I see here, is that these “gods” were not called “Mighty God”; they were called ‘mighty’ AND they were called ‘gods’ – those are two different meanings.

Well, it was actually your verse that brought me back to Psalm 82. It's the same words in Hebrew, 'el elohim'. The KJV renders it as "the mighty God" at Psalm 50:1 and "the mighty" at Psalm 82:1. These are used only of God elsewhere, that I can find.

God wasn’t sharing his title (Mighty God) with those men in Ps. 82. Read the context…read the verse, for that matter.

I have read the context. Your argument based on Isaiah 9:6 is not some grand evaluation of context, it's simply more title matching. What if Psalm 82 was referring, not to judges, but to the Messiah? Would the title-matching then apply?

As you pointed out: this exact phrase (el gibbor = mighty God) is only used one other place, Isa. 10:21. So, who is Isaiah talking about, in chapter 10, verse 21? So…a title (el gibbor = mighty God) that is ONLY associated with God Almighty (Isa. 10:21) is still being applied to Jesus (Isa. 9:6).

This is my point. You're trying to make "Mighty God" the same as a superlative title by making it exclusive based off of how it's used just a very few times. But then why shouldn't we take 'el elohim' as an exclusive title of God, based upon the same rationale?

This title “Mighty God” is only used of the Most High God (Isa. 10:21) – just like the term “President” is only used of the President. There is such a thing as a Vice President (as you pointed out) but the Vice President’s title isn’t “President” or "a President", it is Vice President – which tells us that the two are different.How does this relate to both the Most High God and the Messiah being called the same name, again?

Both could be said to occupy high elected office (one office is the most high) and both are extremely powerful members of the executive branch of government (one is more powerful). Both can share common descriptive titles like this because these are not superlative titles! This is the fact thatyou're trying to dismiss.

The argument you're making is no different than if you read an article that uses a common term like this, like 'the Vice President was elected to high office' and later, 'the President was elected to high office.' If nowhere else in the article does it speak of anyone else occupying 'high office', would you conclude that the VP must be the President? It's of course wrong because there's more than one high office! The fact that you only read it being used of the President (and of the VP) in no way equates it with 'the most high office'. You'd never read that the VP was in 'the most high office.' This is straightforward.

Now...you can say all you want that the title Mighty God is not a superlative title – but that does not negate the fact that this title is ONLY used of God. So…it is exclusive to God…

That's simply a bad conclusion to make, and I honestly believe that you're only making it because of what you already believe. You've already shown that you reject another title that's used 'exclusively' of God when in one place it's used towards others; what if 'el gibbor' was used of Moses and not mentioned in Isaiah 9:6? Somehow I think you'd be more receptive of the fact that it's not a superlative title, and thus not exclusive.

I found your statement about Modern Readers, quite amusing. You, my friend, are a modern reader.

Did I say that I wasn't? That wasn't a put down if that's how you read it.

Since you centered out Phil. 2:7, let’s address that for a minute. Your summary of the context fits nicely; verse 3 and 4 are wonderfully simple in their explanation of this humility. You have used verses 5-7 to show that Jesus is NOT God because, if he was, it would not be “selfish ambition” to grasp something that would already belong to him. (YIKES!) If Jesus’ humility is him humbling himself, then why is his selfish ambition exalting himself on the same level as the Most High?

Because he'd be 'grasping at equality with God'! In what way would that not be selfish ambition?

He would have already been in a comfortable position of power and authority (whether you believe that he is God, or not), so…wouldn’t selfish ambition be staying where he was and not humbling himself?

Are you saying then that the Father displayed selfish ambition 'by staying where he was and not humbling himself'?

that is not what the context or verse is saying; I suppose one could conclude that if they disregarded the first half of the verse, and if they only read an ESV. He was already existent in the form of God. He had God’s form – who has God’s form except for God?

All angels do. God's form is a spirit. (John 4:24) Paul explains this all elsewhere, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (1 Cor. 15:40; KJV)

 

[TJ12]

Is anyone here willing to discuss Revelation 3:14 and related passages with me? Here's what I wrote to feedm3 earlier regarding it:

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."

 

[feedm3]

Sense you mentioned my name, I want to say I did answer it shortly, and you said what you did, and I replied to that as well. Here is some more that I did not write.

I believe your logic in saying John used it this many times, and this always has this when it's used, and so and so says this, really does not prove anything at all.

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 in every place John uses proskyneos in his writing he uses the word "worship" (with the exception of the JW change when concerning Christ.) The NWT renders the word as "worship" every time John uses it, except when in connection to Christ.

NWT: "worship/worshiped"; *Blue font passages are passages referring to Christ that NWT rendered "obeisance" in John's writings. Red font "worship/worshiped" in John's writings.
John 4:20-24; 9:38; 12:20; Rev 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19: 4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8-9:

Interestingly the NWT also sticks the Name Jehovah in verse in Rev 14:11, even though it is the word kurios (Lord), and other places.

So every time John wrote this word in John and Rev, the NWT renders "worship/worshipping", and yet in ONE passage, the only one explicitly referring to Christ, it is "obeisance".

Second, what in John 9:38 gives a reason to render proskyneos as obeisance, yet not in the other 22+ passages written by John and rendered with its normal meaning - worship?

How come Lord in John 9:38 is not "Jehovah" as in Rev 14:11 and others?

As for the word in Rev 3:14:

1. You are trying to bring up how many times and ways John uses the word, but you need to show it from Jesus (sense John is quoting Him), and then prove Jesus never used the word in the the way you oppose. But he does.

2. If this logic proved your point, then would it not at the same time prove you wrong about proskyneos, looking at how it was used by John?

3. He is the author and head of all creation, in that sense He is the beginning of the creation of God.

God's creation - US and everything else - made FOR Jesus and BY Jesus


Does not mean he is the first to be created, but that he is the beginning (rank) of God's creation - us. He is above us all (Jn 17:2), and spoke with that authority to the Laodiceans.

 

[hopesprings]

Hello hopesprings,

Thanks for your response.

Well, it was actually your verse that brought me back to Psalm 82. It's the same words in Hebrew, 'el elohim'. The KJV renders it as "the mighty God" at Psalm 50:1 and "the mighty" at Psalm 82:1. These are used only of God elsewhere, that I can find.


I have read the context. Your argument based on Isaiah 9:6 is not some grand evaluation of context, it's simply more title matching. What if Psalm 82 was referring, not to judges, but to the Messiah? Would the title-matching then apply?


This is my point. You're trying to make "Mighty God" the same as a superlative title by making it exclusive based off of how it's used just a very few times. But then why shouldn't we take 'el elohim' as an exclusive title of God, based upon the same rationale?


Both could be said to occupy high elected office (one office is the most high) and both are extremely powerful members of the executive branch of government (one is more powerful). Both can share common descriptive titles like this because these are not superlative titles! This is the fact thatyou're trying to dismiss.

The argument you're making is no different than if you read an article that uses a common term like this, like 'the Vice President was elected to high office' and later, 'the President was elected to high office.' If nowhere else in the article does it speak of anyone else occupying 'high office', would you conclude that the VP must be the President? It's of course wrong because there's more than one high office! The fact that you only read it being used of the President (and of the VP) in no way equates it with 'the most high office'. You'd never read that the VP was in 'the most high office.' This is straightforward.


That's simply a bad conclusion to make, and I honestly believe that you're only making it because of what you already believe. You've already shown that you reject another title that's used 'exclusively' of God when in one place it's used towards others; what if 'el gibbor' was used of Moses and not mentioned in Isaiah 9:6? Somehow I think you'd be more receptive of the fact that it's not a superlative title, and thus not exclusive.


Did I say that I wasn't? That wasn't a put down if that's how you read it.


Because he'd be 'grasping at equality with God'! In what way would that not be selfish ambition?


Are you saying then that the Father displayed selfish ambition 'by staying where he was and not humbling himself'?


All angels do. God's form is a spirit. (John 4:24) Paul explains this all elsewhere, "There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (1 Cor. 15:40; KJV)

Hi TJ,

Please accept my apology if any thing I said offended you…much of what was written in the last post was my attempt at trying to be humorous, sorry if it did not come across as such. I don’t really feel like we are getting anywhere, I am spending a lot of my time repeating myself. Ps. 82:1 does have the words “mighty” and “god”, but again, these words are not together therefore they do not indicate a title. When I said that you “pulled out” Ps. 50:1 – I meant that you pulled it out of the references that I provided. ‘El gibbor’ – together – is a title applied only to God, regardless if it is many times, or few times. It is still His title even if you say that it is not exclusive, or that it is not a superlative. I am sorry to say that the context of Isa. 9 goes far deeper then “title matching” – I wasn’t trying to belittle your understand of the context, sorry if it came across that way. I will not offer answers to questions that are based on a what if…what if Ps. 82 was talking about Jesus instead of judges; what if Moses was called Mighty God…those questions are illogical, since it doesn’t happen. Mighty God is not an office held by God, it is a title that applies to God…even if you insist on saying it is not exclusive. I referenced Phil. 2:7 because I was trying to explain to you why God would have to be exalted and given authority. Grasping at equality with God (Phil. 2:7), if you are not God, is indeed selfish ambition. I did not mean to imply that it wasn’t – that wasn’t my point. *sigh* And, I am not saying that the Father displayed selfish ambition by staying where he was and not humbling himself. In fact, I wasn’t talking about the Father at all. The only way you get your “grabbing at something that didn’t belong to him” argument, is if you only read the second half of verse 6 in an ESV – but I already made that point clear. John 4:24 is not saying that God is a spirit, like he has a spirit body – it is saying he is spirit. It is not talking about a body – terrestrial or otherwise. God is never said to be confined to a body. Jesus has the same form as God; angels do not have the same form as God and scripture never says that they do. That verse you quoted out of 1 Cor. 15, was taken out of context; it isn’t even talking about angels.

For your information, the conclusions that I make are not based off of something I already suppose to be true. You don’t know the beliefs that I was indoctrinated with before I started studying God’s Word on my own. My conclusion that Jesus is God is based off of hours of independent study, not ten minutes of responding to someone online. I will no longer believe something just because someone told me to; that is indoctrination – it is bondage. So please do not assume that those of us who do believe that Jesus is God, believe out of ignorance. There is always a danger in believing something that someone else tells us, without studying it independently on our own – just like there is always a danger in using a single source for information. I am not sure if I answered all the questions that you had for me, regarding this post…We can argue the same point 9000 times, in 5000 different ways, but that really gets us no where if we are not open to considering the other persons point of view. So far, this seems like an argument just for the sake of an argument….and to be honest…I do not have time to sit at a computer and repeatedly argue about the same thing 5000 different ways. So…if you have further information regarding the term “Mighty God” being applied to Jesus, and how it can be applied to him if he is not God, feel free to post it – but I don’t have time to read your explanation on 10 other verses in order to explain one verse.

hopesprings

 

[TJ12]

Hello feedm3,

Were you aware that in every place John uses proskyneos in his writing he uses the word "worship" (with the exception of the JW change when concerning Christ.) The NWT renders the word as "worship" every time John uses it, except when in connection to Christ.

NWT: "worship/worshiped"; *Blue font passages are passages referring to Christ that NWT rendered "obeisance" in John's writings. Red font "worship/worshiped" in John's writings.
John 4:20-24; 9:38; 12:20; Rev 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19: 4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8-9:

This proves yet again that you don't really read what I write to you, feedm3. The following is from this post: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-7.html#post828967

Instead of actually answering my points on Revelation 3:14, you responded with this:
Quote:
Were you aware that every time John uses porskyneos other than referring to Christ, it always means worship in it's normal sense - Look it up, see if you can find John using this word in any other sense.

"Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down [proskyneo] before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you." (Revelation 3:9; ESV)

In your response, you seemed to have ignored this point completely. The following is from my next post to you, found at: http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...uestions-jehovahs-witnesses-7.html#post829301

Quote:
You didn't even make a point in this post, you just keep repeating things that defeat your argument. You wont cant explain why He is called the "everlasting Father", Jn 17:14 is a valid sentence structure to compare, you just cant explain it.

Well I certainly answered your challenge to name one instance where John uses proskyneo in a lesser sense of the term, quoting Revelation 3:9. You ignored this and repeated that I'm defeating my own argument. Ok...

I pointed this out to you twice now, and you still act completely oblivious to it. I'll leave my response limited to this one point, until you're able to recognize it.

 

[TJ12]

Hey hopesprings,

Thanks, as always, for the kind response.

Please accept my apology if any thing I said offended you…much of what was written in the last post was my attempt at trying to be humorous, sorry if it did not come across as such.

Don't worry! I wasn't at all offended. But that's extremely kind of you to be concerned about my feelings. I'm usually the one joking around too much, lol. If you read my post in the sense that I was being defensive, that's not how that was meant. I just don't use enough smilies, I suppose...

‘El gibbor’ – together – is a title applied only to God, regardless if it is many times, or few times.

That exact title is used once of the Messiah and once of God, both by Isaiah. I'm just telling you that when you try to establish an identity by matching titles like this, you're bound for problems in your reading of the Bible.

It is still His title even if you say that it is not exclusive, or that it is not a superlative.

Well yes, I certainly believe that Jehovah is a "Mighty God." The root issue we have is that you're trying to turn this into a title that can rightly apply to only one individual, something that the context doesn't suggest and the title itself doesn't support. Again, I'd submit that if Moses was called "Mighty God", you'd be 100% in my camp that that's not something that could be said of God alone and you'd probably champion my argument that though he's a "Mighty God", the text doesn't say that Moses is God Almighty. That's just common sense.

And I don't mean any of that to say that you're dishonest or stupid, I just don't think you realize how much your presuppositions of what you think the Bible teaches influences how you interpret the Bible. A strong man isn't necessarily the strongest man, but if you demand that the two are equal, there's little I can do about it. Just don't expect me to accept that conclusion.

I will not offer answers to questions that are based on a what if…what if Ps. 82 was talking about Jesus instead of judges; what if Moses was called Mighty God…those questions are illogical, since it doesn’t happen.

They're simple hypotheticals and I think they're valid questions.

I referenced Phil. 2:7 because I was trying to explain to you why God would have to be exalted and given authority. Grasping at equality with God (Phil. 2:7), if you are not God, is indeed selfish ambition. I did not mean to imply that it wasn’t – that wasn’t my point. *sigh* And, I am not saying that the Father displayed selfish ambition by staying where he was and not humbling himself. In fact, I wasn’t talking about the Father at all. The only way you get your “grabbing at something that didn’t belong to him” argument, is if you only read the second half of verse 6 in an ESV – but I already made that point clear. John 4:24 is not saying that God is a spirit, like he has a spirit body – it is saying he is spirit. It is not talking about a body – terrestrial or otherwise. God is never said to be confined to a body. Jesus has the same form as God; angels do not have the same form as God and scripture never says that they do. That verse you quoted out of 1 Cor. 15, was taken out of context; it isn’t even talking about angels.

I apologize if I misunderstood what you're saying, but to be honest, I still don't quite understand. Let's assume all of what you say above. Can you please explain your interpretation of Philippians 2:6 more clearly for me?

If the text is saying that Jesus has God's form, and this makes him God, why does Paul bother to say anything about 'grasping at equality with God'? Where is Paul's parallel comparison of rejecting selfish ambition in favor of humility in your interpretation? What is the selfish ambition that the pre-existent Jesus rejected?

For your information, the conclusions that I make are not based off of something I already suppose to be true. You don’t know the beliefs that I was indoctrinated with before I started studying God’s Word on my own.

No, that's true I don't. But when I see you arguing strenuously that "strong man" must mean "strongest man", that's a pretty good clue that there are strong assumptions on your part.

My conclusion that Jesus is God is based off of hours of independent study, not ten minutes of responding to someone online. I will no longer believe something just because someone told me to; that is indoctrination – it is bondage. So please do not assume that those of us who do believe that Jesus is God, believe out of ignorance.

Likewise, I'd ask the same of you for those of us that believe Jesus is not God himself.

I really do appreciate your willingness to step up and discuss these important matters with me, and please don't mistake my directness for anger or the like. I respect the strength of your conviction.

 

[feedm3]

I pointed this out to you twice now, and you still act completely oblivious to it. I'll leave my response limited to this one point, until you're able to recognize it.

Tryingggg, tryingggg, Almost.....think I got...no I lost it. Still dont get it.

 

[TJ12]

Hi feedm3,

Tryingggg, tryingggg, Almost.....think I got...no I lost it. Still dont get it.

This is what you do when you have no answer, you ignore or deflect.


Have a great day feedm3.

 

[feedm3]

Hi feedm3,


This is what you do when you have no answer, you ignore or deflect.


Have a great day feedm3.

That is what I do when others ignore and deflect by attempting to make it appear I am ignoring and deflecting so it's no so obvious they are doing what they are accusing.

And you have great night

 

[hopesprings]

Hey hopesprings,

Thanks, as always, for the kind response.


Don't worry! I wasn't at all offended. But that's extremely kind of you to be concerned about my feelings. I'm usually the one joking around too much, lol. If you read my post in the sense that I was being defensive, that's not how that was meant. I just don't use enough smilies, I suppose...


That exact title is used once of the Messiah and once of God, both by Isaiah. I'm just telling you that when you try to establish an identity by matching titles like this, you're bound for problems in your reading of the Bible.


Well yes, I certainly believe that Jehovah is a "Mighty God." The root issue we have is that you're trying to turn this into a title that can rightly apply to only one individual, something that the context doesn't suggest and the title itself doesn't support. Again, I'd submit that if Moses was called "Mighty God", you'd be 100% in my camp that that's not something that could be said of God alone and you'd probably champion my argument that though he's a "Mighty God", the text doesn't say that Moses is God Almighty. That's just common sense.

And I don't mean any of that to say that you're dishonest or stupid, I just don't think you realize how much your presuppositions of what you think the Bible teaches influences how you interpret the Bible. A strong man isn't necessarily the strongest man, but if you demand that the two are equal, there's little I can do about it. Just don't expect me to accept that conclusion.


They're simple hypotheticals and I think they're valid questions.


I apologize if I misunderstood what you're saying, but to be honest, I still don't quite understand. Let's assume all of what you say above. Can you please explain your interpretation of Philippians 2:6 more clearly for me?

If the text is saying that Jesus has God's form, and this makes him God, why does Paul bother to say anything about 'grasping at equality with God'? Where is Paul's parallel comparison of rejecting selfish ambition in favor of humility in your interpretation? What is the selfish ambition that the pre-existent Jesus rejected?


No, that's true I don't. But when I see you arguing strenuously that "strong man" must mean "strongest man", that's a pretty good clue that there are strong assumptions on your part.


Likewise, I'd ask the same of you for those of us that believe Jesus is not God himself.

I really do appreciate your willingness to step up and discuss these important matters with me, and please don't mistake my directness for anger or the like. I respect the strength of your conviction.

Hi TJ,

I’m glad that you were not offended by anything that I wrote. Can you please explain to me what sort of “problems” one could run into by matching titles? You say that the title, Mighty God, is used once of God and once of the Messiah; both by Isaiah (9:6 and 10:21), right? What about Jeremiah 32:18? The context of the bible does suggest that this title is exclusive to God – please show me somewhere that it is not used of God (or Jesus)? Is there any other title that is used of God, and applied to another person, besides Jesus? Perhaps you have found one that I have overlooked, and if you have, can you please share it with me. Your hypothetical questions are not valid questions; they are never ending questions that lead to nonsensical answers. What if the bible said we can be gods….what if the bible said cats were evil….what if the bible said women were smarter then men (jk) lol...

I don’t expect you to agree with any of the conclusions that I have made…that’s for you to figure out. And you are right: a strong man isn’t necessarily the strongest man. But, the strong man is the strongest man if there is only ONE strong man.

In Phil. 2:7, the word “grasped” does not mean grabbing onto something that doesn’t belong to you. That is why the context should be considered. I did not say that Paul was showing how Jesus could be selfish or humble. Paul gives us the example of Christ’s humility, not the example of his choice between right and wrong. You said to me that Jesus can have God’s form because angels have the same form as God (where you incorrectly referenced John 4:24 and 1 Cor. 15:40). So…I need to ask…are you saying that Jesus is/was an angel? And…you still have not answered why Jesus can be called “Mighty God” if he is not God.

TJ, I have not said that you base your beliefs off of a pre-supposed theory – yet you have accused myself and others of this. I do not assume that men who have come to the conclusion that Jesus is NOT God are naturally ignorant. I am interested to see where they get their information from; who their sources were that led them to that conclusion.

Take care
hopesprings