6 Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses

[TJ12]

Hi again GraceBeUntoYou,

I missed this post regarding the Coptic.

[FONT=&quot]Of course, if the Coptic scribes did fuse the two variant readings together, it would only make sense that there would also be copies of a conflated Greek text; however, no existing MSS from this geographic locale show any evidence of John 1.18 being conflated, nor does the Boharic Coptic follow any such tradition. Your argument seems to ignore the very fact that just four verses earlier in John 1.14 (also see Luke 9.38, Hebrews 11.17), where there is no possibility of a conflated text, these very same Sahidic scribes translated MONOGENHS just as they did in John 1.18, referring to Christ as the “only Son/Child” (“nouShre nouwt”).[/FONT]

That's exactly my point!!

Coptic is a hybrid language between Egyptian and Greek, thus we find many Greek 'loanwords' throughout the Coptic translation. This makes it a relatively easy translation to learn Coptic if one already knows Greek, and Coptic shares certain similarities with modern English that Greek doesn't (one of them being the definite and indefinite article).

The Greek word 'monogenes' was not, however,one of the Greek loanwords used in the Sahidic Coptic text. It was translated with the word 'ouwt' (pronounced wōt) which was more limited in meaning than 'monogenes'. The Coptic word 'ouwt' means 'one' or 'only'. Thus it is used with the term 'son' with reference to Jesus, but, significantly, it is not used with the term 'god' with reference to Jesus, where we'd expect to find it at John 1:18, since it would mean, in Coptic, 'only God'. That term is reserved for the Father alone in the Coptic text. Thus, because a nuance is lost between the Greek and Coptic that would change the meaning to something they didn't believe the Greek text was saying, the ancient Coptic translators left that word out in that one instance.

Hundreds of years later, when the Bohairic Coptic (a different Egyptian dialect) translation was made, the Greek word 'monogenes' had evidently gained acceptance among Coptic speakers. In that Coptic translation we find the word called 'a god' in John 1:1 and then 'the only-begotten god' in John 1:18, since it uses the Greek loanword 'monogenes' instead of the Coptic 'ouwt'.

 

[TJ12]

Hi BarlyGurl,

Of course the "word" trinty wasn't established until after the end of the 4th century because the "bible" was held to be only the old testement and the Apocrypha until then... and only available for inspection by the council. Why is it hard to understand that took some time for a word to be formulated to sumerize the principal of the trinity?

Read the quote again, it's not speaking simply of the word, but the entire concept:

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia)

Interestingly, if you read the history of the time that it was instituted in the Roman State Church, it was opposed by the common, grassroots Christians. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the 'Great Cappadocians' that established what you believe about God, complained of these common folks' objections to his developing theology:

"Clothes dealers, money changers, and grocers are all theologians. If you inquire about the value of your money, some philosopher explains wherein the Son differs from the Father. If you ask the price of bread, your answer is the Father is greater than the Son. If you should want to know whether the bath is ready, you get the pronouncement that the Son was created out of nothing."

These men were changing what the common Christians had believed previously. And they were using the enforcement of the State to do it. I wonder how you'd react to your government legislating what constitutes Christianity for you today?

 

[TJ12]

Hello TheMachine,

This is a fundamental issue we have right off the hop. Your bible says “a god”, every other bible says “was God”…on that basis our discussion is going to be a bit hard to go into.

This is incorrect, there were several translations long before the NWT that translated "a god" at John 1:1, as well as after. Many others translate something different, such as "divine." The first translation of the Greek into a language with an indefinite article, which took place some 1700-1800 years ago, translated it as "a god".

This is a good step , but the connection of casting Christ above God in this manner is ,of course, the raising of an idol.

That's simply not the case, unless you believe that the Israelites' worshipping God and King David together was idol worship. (1 Chronicles 29:20) In the Bible, how you treat one's appointed representative really reflects how you are treating the one being represented. That's why Matthew could leave out the centurion's representatives entirely and just say that Jesus was speaking to the centurion himself. (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-10)

I’ve been looking to see where Aaron performed miracles in the name of Moses…..I can’t find it?

It's where he performed miracles before Pharaoh, e.g. Exodus 7:8-10. That was in his stated role as Moses' prophet, which is why God told Moses to command Aaron to do it.

So in John 20:28-29 when he didn’t rebuke Thomas and in John 10: 30-33 when he states that He and the Father are One….I mean that is tough to comprehend but I’m pretty sure that I have never said that me and my Dad are one person….although I am my Fathers son, and I also am a father to my son….I guess that would make me both Father and Son at the same time, in the same place in the same person….If I can be that why can’t God?

I've already explained these earlier. Did you know that even John Calvin disagrees with how you're interpreting John 10:30? I'd say he was a pretty solid Trinitarian, too.

I will re-read your conversation with hopesprings and would be glad to answer for you…..thanks again.

I look forward to it. Thank you.

 

[know1]

ummmmm... i was cheering for you...

Well, thank you. Did you read all that I wrote and that is why you were cheering me on? It was a bit long and I figured that only 2 or 3 at best would read it.

 

[TJ12]

Hello know1,

Thanks again for your response. I was pleasantly surprised to find 'NWL' answered it already, and I agree with his answer. I'll just put to you the same question I've raised a couple times here:

If Jesus is God himself, why does he refuse a title a man tried to give him on the grounds that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)


Thank you.

 

[Mediate]

It is a total language barrier.

'gods' denote even humans. Made in His image. Reflected. Refracted. Imperfect copies. For who else can be as perfect as God? None of us. Not even Jesus. Jesus was and will be and is subservient to God.

It is good to 'respect', even 'admire' a good man such as David. To actively make him the sole focus of faith however, is a completely different idea.

But do we admire our human fathers? take on their traits? Learn from them?

It is the same idea. Jesus came form the line of David.

 

[NWL]

Any person considering answering TJ question should first think of the context of the scripture applied with who they believe Jesus Christ is.

For instance if you believe Jesus Christ to be of God Almighty, part of a Trinity, then you should be reading the scripture with it like this in mind (words in red are mine, with the applied Trinitarian viewpoint.)

(Mark 10:17, 18) "...And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”*Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me [, who is God] good? Nobody is good, except one, God..."

Once you understand what Jesus is saying with the applied Trinitarian view, then you should go about trying to answer the question.

TJ12 Question again for everyone; If Jesus is God himself, why does he refuse a title a man tried to give him on the grounds that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)

 

[Strong1]

Any person considering answering TJ question should first think of the context of the scripture applied with who they believe Jesus Christ is.

For instance if you believe Jesus Christ to be of God Almighty, part of a Trinity, then you should be reading the scripture with it like this in mind (words in red are mine, with the applied Trinitarian viewpoint.)

(Mark 10:17, 18) "...And as he was going out on his way, a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”*Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me [, who is God] good? Nobody is good, except one, God..."

Once you understand what Jesus is saying with the applied Trinitarian view, then you should go about trying to answer the question.

TJ12 Question again for everyone; If Jesus is God himself, why does he refuse a title a man tried to give him on the grounds that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)

Interstingly enough, what I recieve from that scripture in mark 10, is Jesus asked the question to Nicodemus "testing" him. Did he understand whom he was actually speaking to? Did he actually see him as a "good teacher" or did He understand that he was indeed God? Like the question, Whom do men say that I am? (Pretty sure he knew why he was asking the question)

 

[TJ12]

Hello Strong1,

I appreciate the response.

Interstingly enough, what I recieve from that scripture in mark 10, is Jesus asked the question to Nicodemus "testing" him. Did he understand whom he was actually speaking to? Did he actually see him as a "good teacher" or did He understand that he was indeed God? Like the question, Whom do men say that I am? (Pretty sure he knew why he was asking the question)

If one reads it that way, as Jesus just testing the man, then the account comes off almost comical to me:

The man says, "Good Teacher..."

Jesus says (according to your interpretation): "You know only God alone deserves that title of 'Good', don't you?"

The man continues, "Teacher..."

Heh. But this is juxtaposed with the obvious sincere faith that the man has, so it'd seem very odd that he wouldn't recognize something that Jesus is teaching as true, and that Jesus wouldn't correct him on his denial of it when he's specifically asking how he can live forever. Wouldn't that be the most opportune time to let this man know that he must believe that he [Jesus] is God?

 

[know1]

Thanks again for your response. I was pleasantly surprised to find 'NWL' answered it already, and I agree with his answer. I'll just put to you the same question I've raised a couple times here:

If Jesus is God himself, why does he refuse a title a man tried to give him on the grounds that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)

Sorry, I had something I had to do. At the same time, I'm not very fast at giving answers to some questions that I have no short answer for. And I'm also slow at typing. I will however try to keep my answers brief, as it will take me a long time if I don't.

 

[NWL]

Hi Strong1,

Interstingly enough, what I recieve from that scripture in mark 10, is Jesus asked the question to Nicodemus "testing" him. Did he understand whom he was actually speaking to? Did he actually see him as a "good teacher" or did He understand that he was indeed God? Like the question, Whom do men say that I am? (Pretty sure he knew why he was asking the question)

I've seen TJ12 has already correctly answered but I'd just like to add.

If Jesus, who is the greatest teacher who ever lived, which I'm sure we can all agree on, was asking Nicodemus to test him then why would he ask him in a rhetorical manner.

Jesus clearly said all at once:"...“Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God..."

If Jesus was truly asking Nicodemus in a sense to test him, then he would of simply said "..Why do you call me good?.." and then waited for a response, but he didn't.

As TJ12 said, Jesus would of been saying a pointless statement if he had simply been testing the man, its like me coming upto you Strong1 and asking "what must I do to get saved" and in answer you say "Jesus is God" it would be a pointless statement, something I can bet the greatest teacher on earth wouldn't make.

Regards

 

[know1]

If Jesus is God himself, why does he refuse a title a man tried to give him on the grounds that it should belong to God alone? (Mark 10:17-18)

My, you are a busy fellow. And thank you sir for being so polite.
I feel the need to correct you concerning my view of who Jesus is.
He is not God the Father, but of, or a part of, God the Father. He is a separate being, yet one with the Father, even as I said earlier. Jesus is not the Father, nor is the Father, Jesus.
I have a bit of a problem with a questionable scripture to cast doubt in the minds of people, even though I wrote 6 or 7 pages on this subject of why I believe what I do with many scriptures. Point being, that if you have 100 verses of scripture pointing one way and only one or two allegedly pointing contrary, one should reasonably steer toward the former.
So, what about mk 10:18? Why are the Children of God righteous? The bible say that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
Rom_3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Rom_10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
2Co_5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Php_1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.
1Jn_2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
As I said earlier, you are whatever the spirit is in you. I am righteous because the righteous spirit of Jesus is in me. And Jesus, I believe was saying the same thing, in that, it is the Spirit of God the Father in Him that is good and therefore pointed to the Father. Jesus continually called God His Father as well as God.
Now I have a question for you. Why did Jesus tell Saul, known as Paul, that he was persecuting Him, that is Jesus, when it was the church he was persecuting?

 

[cfultz3]

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

What does it mean to accurse Jesus?

 

[TJ12]

Hello know1,

Thanks for your reply.

I feel the need to correct you concerning my view of who Jesus is.
He is not God the Father, but of, or a part of, God the Father. He is a separate being, yet one with the Father, even as I said earlier. Jesus is not the Father, nor is the Father, Jesus.

I've been 'corrected' on this several times here, but I'm always careful not to characterize the Trinitarian position in that way. I fully realize that you view the Father and Son each as a 'person' of God (as spelled out in the creeds of the Roman State Church, but not the Bible itself).

I have a bit of a problem with a questionable scripture to cast doubt in the minds of people, even though I wrote 6 or 7 pages on this subject of why I believe what I do with many scriptures. Point being, that if you have 100 verses of scripture pointing one way and only one or two allegedly pointing contrary, one should reasonably steer toward the former.

Well I too could post dozens and dozens of verses all at once, but it doesn't do much to advance our discussion here. I'm not disregarding what you've posted, but I'm asking for your view on a distinct counterexample to what you say the Bible teaches.

So, what about mk 10:18? Why are the Children of God righteous?

That wasn't my question. My question was: why does Jesus reject the title "Good Teacher" on the basis that such a title should belong to God alone?

Why did Jesus tell Saul, known as Paul, that he was persecuting Him, that is Jesus, when it was the church he was persecuting?

The answer is completely in line with everything I've been saying up until this point. As the head of the congregation, each individual member represents Jesus. Thus, within the scriptural concept of agency, what one does to one of Jesus' representatives he does to Jesus himself, who sent them forth. Jesus, in turn, was the representative of God, who sent him forth.

 

[know1]

Don’t take my word for it Know1, search and provide me with one, just one single scripture that says that God is three.[/B]

I am going to refer you to the long posts I made on the 11th segment of this thread as to the scriptures I provided to backup what I believe concerning the trinity of God.
As for why you don't see anything in scripture that clearly points to the trinity, I will ask you one question. Why didn't Jesus tell the Jews who He was?

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Luk 22:67 Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:
Joh 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

He didn't even tell it to John plainly.

Mat 11:2 Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
Mat 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
Mat 11:4 Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see:
Mat 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
Mat 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

 

[cfultz3]

1Co 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

What does it mean to accurse Jesus?

How many Lords are there?

 

[TJ12]

Hi know1,

I am going to refer you to the long posts I made on the 11th segment of this thread as to the scriptures I provided to backup what I believe concerning the trinity of God.
As for why you don't see anything in scripture that clearly points to the trinity, I will ask you one question. Why didn't Jesus tell the Jews who He was?

But there's a distinct difference. The Jews already believed that a Messiah was going to show up, the question was just was it this Jesus character or not? But there's no change in teaching here or some new revelation.

The doctrine that God is three would have been a major new revelation and it is nowhere mentioned! It'd be just as important as the fact that Jesus is the Christ, which scripture does explicitly say and which Jesus himself revealed at times. Nowhere, however, does any Bible writer say that God is three.

Well, there is one place that says something close in the KJV: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7) The problem of course with this is that it is a spurious (non-authentic) addition to the Bible made centuries later. Why doesn't the Bible say anywhere what some scribe tried to make it say? It does say that Jesus is the Christ, but nowhere does it say that God is three.

You may think that you're going solely on the Bible alone, but if you grew up on an isolated island with only a Bible and no church to explain it to you, there's no way you'd come to the conclusion on your own that it teaches God is three. I honestly believe that 100%.

 

[TJ12]

Hello cfultz3,

I'm guessing that this may be directed towards me.

How many Lords are there?

This is ground already covered here. "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6)

Peter says, "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah." (Acts 2:36)

We, Christians, have one divinely-appointed Lord, Jesus Christ. This is to the glory of God the Father, who made him such. (Philippians 2:11)

 

[cfultz3]

Hello cfultz3,

I'm guessing that this may be directed towards me.


This is ground already covered here. "...yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6)

Peter says, "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah." (Acts 2:36)

We, Christians, have one divinely-appointed Lord, Jesus Christ. This is to the glory of God the Father, who made him such. (Philippians 2:11)

Who is Lord of the Old Testament?

 

[TJ12]

Hello cfultz3,

Who is Lord of the Old Testament?

That's a matter of context. Obviously, Jehovah God often is called such, but this doesn't mean that Sarah was equating Abraham with Jehovah by "calling him 'lord,'" and neither was Peter implying that Christian wives should have rival "lords" to Jesus Christ by featuring Sarah as an example for them to follow. (1 Peter 3:5-6)

Jehovah God installed Jesus as the "Lord", or Master, for all Christians. This unique assignment is for a purpose however, "For [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death...When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:25-26, 28)