"The word was a god"?

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Christ was a "firstborn of all creation" meaning that he was not "born" at all...he was created

more RUBBISH! to promote FALSE teachings!

 

[Aunty Jane]

Totally agree. But let's not allow confirmation bias to creep in to our interpretations of ambiguous verses. That is always a huge danger.

Too late I fear.....that happened so long ago that no one noticed that falsehoods had replaced the truth in all the churches of Christendom.

The core of beliefs they all share are not of biblical origin......I refer to the trinity, immortality of the soul and hellfire. None of these originated from the scriptures. All are extra biblical teachings.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I understand. I’m not trying to change your mind but I truly find it stunning that you believe the Protestant Reformation was a massive “disrespect Jesus” movement.

Mmmm... that's weird - I can't remember saying that, but the my memory is not what it used to be I guess...

 

[Matthias]

Mmmm... that's weird - I can't remember saying that, but the my memory is not what it used to be I guess...

I used the Geneva Bible and you called it disrespectful. The Geneva Bible is the Bible of the Protestant Reformation.

I’m pretty confident that you aren’t saying that the Geneva Bible is disrespectful when some people use it but not disrespectful when other people use it. Please let me know if my confidence in you is misplaced.

*

The Geneva Bible is disrespectful. - Your comment to me.

The Protestant Reformation was a massive movement. - Historical fact.

The Geneva Bible is the Bible of the Protestant Reformation. - Historical fact.

The Protestant Reformation was a massive “disrespect Jesus” movement. - The logical conclusion of your attitude toward the Geneva Bible and those who use / used it.

 

[DavidB]

You really don't know much about JW's do you? The fact that you have to go so far back to pick faults makes me smile....as does your description of your encounter with the "WT missionaries". I hope you realize that our missionaries are mostly sent overseas.....and that all of Jehovah's Witnesses are preachers in their local areas. We all train for the ministry at our Kingdom Halls....even our children.
Jesus set the pattern by teaching his disciples, and then he sent them out to preach in nearby towns and villages. (Matthew 10:11-15)
As his final instructions, Jesus said...."Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
I don't know of any churches that go out to the people to preach the good news of the Kingdom to them, in every nation on earth as Jesus instructed......do you? Jesus said that he would back this work.....so why are the churches missing in action? This was not a recommendation to do this important work only if you felt like it...it was a command.

We are progressive in our understanding of scripture, not stagnant like Christendom.
We have revised our NWT several times and each time it improves as we get a clearer understanding of the original word meanings and how they fit in with the rest of scripture. Most people have no idea how inaccurate their English translations really are.

We spent literally decades examining the doctrines of Christendom and comparing various popular translations so as to dig deeper into God's word and refine our understanding about many things. It was Daniel who mentioned that a "cleansing, purifying and refining" would take place among God's worshippers in "the time of the end" (Daniel 12:4, 9-10) These would be granted insight and understanding but the wicked would understand nothing and carry on in their sullied condition.

Quoting 40 -50 year old publications is like quoting old textbooks that have since been updated and revised.....so I have no idea how these things you post are supposed to be "gotcha" moments. They are all water under the bridge to us. We are always learning and adding to our knowledge base. 'The light on our path keeps getting brighter'....(Proverbs 4:18)

Concerning the word "other", I again have no idea how that is a big issue. If Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) then logically all "other" things must have been created after he was. It was "through" him that all "other" things came into existence.....it belongs, and even if you leave it out, it does not alter the scripture.
Revelation 3:14 backs up what Paul said.....where Jesus himself says he is "the beginning of God's creation".
If he is "the beginning"...then all "other" things must come after him....or "all things" must come after him.....you see, it alters nothing.

Weber would probably boast over a victory over one of our children. But I am sure even our youngest could teach him a thing or two about God’s name.

 

[Nancy]

You mean God with a capital G, Jesus is the son of God, not God himself, only the one in the highest that created the Heavens and the Earth has that title.

Zero caps in Hebrew.

 

[JohnPaul]

Zero caps in Hebrew.

I was taught how to spell in a American school, so I wouldn’t know squat about Hebrew spelling, plus spelling God with a minuscule G is an act of disrespect when referring to the one true God Jehovah.

 

[PinSeeker]

But of course, you understand that this works both ways...

Well... sure, but in this post, Aunty Jane, you say this, and then you deny that it does work both ways, really.

...Christendom’s divided “church” system?

Ah yeah, "Christendom." <chuckle> :) This is just propaganda, Aunty Jane. Do you not see "Jehovah's-Witness-dom" (see what I did there?) as a further division (to speak in the same terms you are using)? Well, of course you don't... "No, we're all perfectly together!", right? :) Okay, well, maybe, but so are, generally speaking specific Baptist denominations, specific Methodist denominations, specific Presbyterian denominations, etc.

Regarding this "division," among Christians of all kinds, there really is no disagreement on the essential truths of the Gospel. Different denominations may have different beliefs about modes of baptism, or how people are saved, but all preach Jesus and Him crucified, and if not, are not Gospel-preaching churches, regardless of denomination. If there is disagreement on the essentials, then this disqualified them as Christians, who confess, as Peter did to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," and they understand, as Peter did, what it truly means for Jesus to be the Son of God. And, of course, I know what the response to this will be, but Jesus, as He Himself said, is also the Son of Man, you know. You fully acknowledge that Jesus was fully man, so why do you continue to deny that He was also fully God? Again, I know your answer, because I've heard it literally hundreds of times: "Oh, because the Father was Jesus's God!" Okay, yes, in Jesus's having humbled Himself even while in the form of God and being in the form of man and only regarding Himself as such (Philippians 2), the Father was His God, but now He has reassumed His position at the right hand of the Father. But, the back-and-forth continues, unfortunately...

What if Christendom is the mirror image of first century Judaism? God’s “people” were in a deplorable spiritual condition when Jesus arrived on the scene in the first century to present himself to them as their messiah.

Ah yeah, again with the "Christendom" thing. <chuckle> :) Okay, I'll go with that, and in the same sense, we are in a deplorable spiritual condition today. Like Paul, we say:

"...when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7)​

The truth is, JW’s do not worship Christendom’s god because we do not recognize him as the God of Jesus Christ.

Okay, sure, I understand. See above.

They would also be in full agreement with no divisions among them.

What good does it do to be in full agreement with those who are wrong about... well, anything? :) Again, there is no disagreement or division among Christians of any kind on the essentials of the Gospel. And one great Day, there will be no more division on anything, as there will be no more sin.

PinSeeker: God makes His covenant with Abram (who God renamed Abraham in Genesis 17). You know the story ~ Abram gathered a heifer, a female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon, and halved them, all except for the birds, all according to how a covenant was made. And then, instead of the two parties to the covenant (God and Abram) walking between the halves, each saying, in effect, "If I don't fulfill my end of the covenant, what has been done to these animals will happen to me," God caused a deep sleep to fall on Abram, and He walked alone between the animal halves, and in effect was saying, "If I don't fulfill my end of the covenant, this will be My fate, and also, if you don't fulfill your end of the covenant, this is what will happen to Me. Well, we know what happens eventually: Israel didn't keep her end of the covenant perfectly (or anywhere close), and God, as promised, paid the price ~ in the Person of Jesus, Who laid down His life for us, even became cursed for us by hung on a tree. This is incontrovertible proof that Jesus is God. But there are so many things:

• Jesus says that He Himself is Israel's light, protection, and sustenance in John 8 in the same terms as YHVH was Israel's light (pillar of fire), protection (pillar of cloud), and sustenance during the exodus...
• Jesus assigns Himself the name of God from Exodus 3:14 in John 8:58...
• YHVH is the Shepard of Psalm 23, and Jesus proclaims Himself the Good Shephard in John 10...

Well, I see no such “incontrovertible proof” at all in that.

Well of course not, but that does mean there's not... As Stuart Smalley (Al Franken), said, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt!" :) Yes, I'm fully aware of your position.

God “sent his only begotten son”, not Himself to pay the price to redeem Adam’s children. (John 3:16)

There is a sense in which that's true, and an equally valid sense in which that's not true. Jesus is a wholly separate Person from the Father (but also one with Him, which also has a dual meaning). The only One Who could redeem anyone to God is God Himself. If Jesus is not God, then none of us are redeemed to God. But, thanks be to God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Perhaps you would like to address the points raised in post #294 because the most vocal poster here proved that he was unable to answer them.

I glanced back at your post there, and I think I've spoken to everything there over and over again, and even in this post. If you don't think so, then perhaps you can boil it down (because it is kind of long and rambling... :)) and ask it of me again. But I reserve the right to repeat myself... :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

...undergoing a medical crisis.

Very sorry to hear that, Tigger. Prayers on your behalf, my friend.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yep..."firstborn of ALL creation" which means that he existed before the rest of creation. Logically then, he is part of that creation...the "first" of it.

Nope. Preeminent over all creation; this was Paul's context, and in the same context as David centuries before being elevated to the firstborn over all his older brothers and even over all of Israel as king. Jesus is the Greater David. As John tells us, Jesus was not created, but rather, "(a)ll things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Keiw]

firstly, the greater MAJORITY of English translations read WORSHIP in Hebrews 1:6.

secondly, the 1950 edition of the New World Translation, which I have, published by the Jehovah's Witnesses, reads, “And let all God's angels worship him”. WHY was this changed in later editions?

thirdly, The Emphatic Diaglott New Testament, which is also published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, reads, “worship” (1864 and 1942, ed)

fourthly, the early Jews understood Psalm 45:7 as an address to Yahweh, as in the Jewish Aramaic Targum on the Psalm, the words are used as a direct address to Jehovah, “The throne of Thy majesty, O Jehovah, abideth for ever and ever.” (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges). The Hebrew scholar, Aquila, who published a Greek Version of the Old Testament, in the middle of the 2nd century A.D., translates the Hebrew, by the Greek, “ο θρονος σου θεε”, which is undoubtedly the vocative, “Your throne, O God”. (Fredrick Field, Origen Hexapla, vol. II, pp. 162-163). It is clear, that as early as the 2nd century, the Hebrew was understood as the vocative, and not the nominative.The New Testament by the Unitarian, Dr George Noyes, reads: “but of the Son: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever”. Another Unitarian, Dr George Winer, also admits that in Hebrews 1:8, the vocative is to be understood.“The nominative (with the article) is sometimes used in an address, particularly in calling or commanding, thus taking the place of the vocative…H. i.8” (A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek, p.227). The Jehovah’s Witnesses, in both their Kingdom Interlinear New Testaments, 1969 and 1985, read in the English in the right-hand column, “God is your throne forever”. However, in the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “the throne of you the God”. In the other Greek Interlinear that the JW’s publish, The Emphatic Diaglott, it is even more interesting. In verse 8, the literal English translation under the Greek text, it reads: “concerning but the Son; the throne of thee the God for the age [of the age]”. And in the English version in the right-hand column, “But to the Son, Thy Throne, O God is for the age”. And, for verse 9, “therefore thy God anointed thee, O God” (right-hand column). Both verses this translation has the vocative.

Fifthly, in John 1:1, When John writes, “καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος”, he does not mean that “ὁ λόγος”, is a “secondary god”, as suggested by Origen, and the Jehovah's Witnesses do. We have seen that the use and non use of the Greek article, does not denote a different meaning for “θεος”. What we have is a simple sentence structure. “Every sentence must contain two parts, a subject and a predicate. The subject is that of which something is stated. The predicate is that which is stated of the subject…A predicate noun or adjective seldom has the article” (William Goodwin, Greek Grammar, sec. 890, 956, pp.196, 208) “General rule, The subject has the article, while the predicate is without it” (William Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, sec. 460, p.120). In John 1:1, the “subject” is no doubt, “The Word”, as it is about Him. The “predicate” in this last sentence, is “θεος”, which is a statement about the “subject”. John is here stating, that “The Word”, is “God”, as much as “The God”, besides (πρὸς) Whom He is. In John 8:54, Jesus says to the Jews, “εστιν ο πατηρ μου ο δοξαζων με ον υμεις λεγετε οτι θεος υμων εστιν”, which is literally, “it is My Father Who Glorifies Me, Who you say that God your He is”. Here, “ο πατηρ μου (My Father)” is the subject, and “θεος”, is the predicate. It is never translated as “god”, or “a god”. So why different in John 1:1, where the grammatical construction is the same?

The only remaining translating left was catholicism translating when anyone else translated. In their own Greek lexicon translation at John 1:1-Ho Theos is in the second line to the true God( And the Logos was with Ho Theos( The God)-plain Theos is in the last line showing a difference of a capitol G or a small g. Thats why other translations in history had a god small g in the last line. Rejected by the religions that would be exposed as false religion using error filled translations. What else could they do but reject those translations. But when Greek and English from the Greek Lexicon is shown side by side as the NT translation did in 1822- a god is proved to be correct.

 

[Webers_Home]

.
The core of the Watchtower Society-- the Governing Body --sincerely
believes itself the faithful and discreet slave spoken of in Matt 24:45-47, i.e.
believes that God chose the leaders of the Watchtower Society as His sole
distributor of truth.

"That faithful slave is the channel through which Jesus is feeding his true
followers in this time of the end. It is vital that we recognize the faithful
slave. Our spiritual health and our relationship with God depend on this
channel." (Watchtower, 2013 Jul 15, p.20)

"We need to obey the faithful and discreet slave to have Jehovah’s
approval." (Watchtower, 2011 Jul 15, p.24, Simplified English Edition)

"[A mature christian] does not advocate or insist on personal opinions or
harbor private ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has
complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah God through
his Son, Jesus Christ, and "the faithful and discreet slave." (Watchtower,
2001 Aug 01, p.14)

According to the above: rank and file JWs are being taught that it's essential
to comply with the Governing Body's teachings. However; at the same time
they are warned that the Body's teachings cannot be assured to be either
inspired or infallible.

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in
doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. In fact, the Watch Tower
Publications Index includes the heading “Beliefs Clarified,” which lists
adjustments in our Scriptural understanding since 1870. Of course, Jesus did
not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food."
(paragraph 12, under the heading; "Who is leading God's People today?" of
the Feb 2017 Watchtower--Study Edition)

Just imagine the degree of confusion and insecurity that would pervade the
minds of regular Christians had the authors of the New Testament scriptures
attached a caveat to their writings similar to the above.
_

 

[Keiw]

more RUBBISH! to promote FALSE teachings!

In 1822 a Greek scholar translated from trinity Greek Lexicon, Greek and English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct in the last line at John 1:1--rejected by every trinity clergy because truth exposes them as false religion and they would no longer exist.
In EVERY bible on earth, at John 17:3--Jesus teaches-The one who sent him( Father) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD--thus by teaching God is a trinity is calling Jesus a liar. Paul believed him-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all-The Father--not Father, son and holy spirit.
Jesus( John 4:22-24) warned all of their false gods and then taught-The true followers would worship the FATHER in spirit and truth--not Father, son and holy spirit. Try believing Jesus-I havent found a trinitarian yet that will. Why? Because your translations are altered and filled with errors.

 

[Carl Emerson]

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;”

(Romans 8:16, KJV)

Do you see this as yet another example of disrespect expressed in a trinitarian translation of the Bible which comes down to us from the Protestant Reformation?

Edit: to add a link to the KJV rendering of Romans 8:16. Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:16 - King James Version

NIV

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

1599 Geneva Bible...

John 16:13
Howbeit, when he is come which is the spirit of truth, he will lead you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, shall he speak, and he will show you the things to come.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The only remaining translating left was catholicism translating when anyone else translated. In their own Greek lexicon translation at John 1:1-Ho Theos is in the second line to the true God( And the Logos was with Ho Theos( The God)-plain Theos is in the last line showing a difference of a capitol G or a small g. Thats why other translations in history had a god small g in the last line. Rejected by the religions that would be exposed as false religion using error filled translations. What else could they do but reject those translations. But when Greek and English from the Greek Lexicon is shown side by side as the NT translation did in 1822- a god is proved to be correct.

you know ZERO about Greek grammar! Your view represents the LIES of the JW's!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

In 1822 a Greek scholar translated from trinity Greek Lexicon, Greek and English side by side to prove to the world a god is correct in the last line at John 1:1--rejected by every trinity clergy because truth exposes them as false religion and they would no longer exist.
In EVERY bible on earth, at John 17:3--Jesus teaches-The one who sent him( Father) is THE ONLY TRUE GOD--thus by teaching God is a trinity is calling Jesus a liar. Paul believed him-1Cor 8:6--There is one God to all-The Father--not Father, son and holy spirit.
Jesus( John 4:22-24) warned all of their false gods and then taught-The true followers would worship the FATHER in spirit and truth--not Father, son and holy spirit. Try believing Jesus-I havent found a trinitarian yet that will. Why? Because your translations are altered and filled with errors.

name this "Greek scholar" here

The New Testament by the UNITARIAN George Noyes, reads, "and the Word was God". The New Testament : Noyes, George R. (George Rapall), 1798-1868 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The only remaining translating left was catholicism translating when anyone else translated. In their own Greek lexicon translation at John 1:1-Ho Theos is in the second line to the true God( And the Logos was with Ho Theos( The God)-plain Theos is in the last line showing a difference of a capitol G or a small g. Thats why other translations in history had a god small g in the last line. Rejected by the religions that would be exposed as false religion using error filled translations. What else could they do but reject those translations. But when Greek and English from the Greek Lexicon is shown side by side as the NT translation did in 1822- a god is proved to be correct.

try to disprove this, God...The Unique God

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

you know ZERO about Greek grammar! Your view represents the LIES of the JW's!

The Incomparable Jesus Christ In The Prologue of John

 

[Carl Emerson]

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God;”

(Romans 8:16, KJV)

Do you see this as yet another example of disrespect expressed in a trinitarian translation of the Bible which comes down to us from the Protestant Reformation?

Edit: to add a link to the KJV rendering of Romans 8:16. Bible Gateway passage: Romans 8:16 - King James Version

Frankly - Yes...

Referring to part of the Godhead as impersonal is in-accurate and disrespectful.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Ah yeah, "Christendom." <chuckle> :) This is just propaganda, Aunty Jane. Do you not see "Jehovah's-Witness-dom" (see what I did there?) as a further division (to speak in the same terms you are using)? Well, of course you don't... "No, we're all perfectly together!", right? :) Okay, well, maybe, but so are, generally speaking specific Baptist denominations, specific Methodist denominations, specific Presbyterian denominations, etc.

And it’s those core teachings shared by the disunited churches of “Christendom” that we would argue are not biblical in origin. We cannot find a trinity, immortality of the soul, or hellfire in any teaching that God gave his people, past or present.

The term “Christendom” was not invented by us....it’s actually in the dictionary. Look it up.
We proudly claim to be no part of Christendom.

Regarding this "division," among Christians of all kinds, there really is no disagreement on the essential truths of the Gospel.

And as I said...that is the problem...from our perspective, they all share the same falsehoods. I was raised with those beliefs and I always wondered why none of them ever sat well with me. No one I asked could give me the clear biblical explanation for any of them. I was always a questioner, so only a rational and logical explanation that was squarely Bible based would suffice. I found people who had what I was looking for....solidly based scriptural answers that were in line with what the whole Bible taught, from Genesis to Revelation.

If there is disagreement on the essentials, then this disqualified them as Christians, who confess, as Peter did to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," and they understand, as Peter did, what it truly means for Jesus to be the Son of God.

See, this is what I mean....what did Peter “truly mean” when he identified Jesus as “the son of the living God”? What does someone mean when they call you the son of your father?

Did Peter disagree with the other apostles whom Paul clearly identified as a collective in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6....
“For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (ESV)
Does this sound like the first century “saints”, (speaking on behalf of their fellow believers) recognised Jesus as their “one God”? Seems very clear to me that their “one God” was “the Father”, not their Lord (a title of respect) Jesus.

If they were not to be understood as a “father and son” relationship that humans recognised, why call themselves by those designations? In his pre-human existence, the spirit being who became Jesus Christ was always God’s “firstborn son”. He is the “firstborn of ALL creation”...which makes him part of that creation. He is the unique “son of God” being the first and only direct creation of his Father, and thereafter used as the agency “through” whom all other things were made to exist. (Colossians 1:15-17)
Not once did Jesus ever claim to be God. If he did, this debate would have been settled long ago...yet still it rages. I have been on both sides and I find the side I have taken to be the most clearly in line with what the entirety of scripture teaches.