Tradition Versus Scripture

[Johann]

I am not denying his pre-existence Johan, because the scriptures tell us plainly that he existed before all things....except his Father.

A Positive Outlook

Some biblical texts positively demonstrate Christ’s divinity. John 1:1-3, mentioned above, first comes to mind: “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”

Jesus (the Word before his Incarnation) is revealed to be “God” and the Creator of all things that were created. Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created . . .” The conclusion is inescapable: Jesus is God!

Jehovah’s Witnesses respond by claiming the Greek text actually says “. . . the Word was a god.” They maintain Jesus is here revealed to be a god, not the God because the definite article (Gk. Ho, the) is not used before god (Gk. theos), when referring to Jesus. This line of reasoning has three main problems:

The predicate nominative in Greek normally does not take the definite article. In this verse, then, the lack of the definite article is grammatically consistent. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we see another example of this convention in John 8:54, where the predicate nominative is “Father”—again without the definite article preceding (3:105).

The JW’s are inconsistent. They translate the word theos as “Jehovah,” or the God numerous times in their New World Translation of the Bible when it does not have the article preceding it (see NWT: Matt. 5:9, 6:24; Luke 1:35, 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; Rom. 1:7,17,18; and Titus 1:1, just to name a few).

Jesus is referred to as theos with the definite article multiple times elsewhere in Scripture.

For example: “But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God (ho theos, the definite article plus theos), is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’” (Heb. 1:8).

Jesus is not a god here. He is the God: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ” (Titus 2:13, emphasis added—definite article appears in apposition to “great God”). Not only do we see the definite article before theos, but we see the article plus the adjective great. Jesus is not only the God, he is the great God and our Savior.

The Bible is very clear that only Yahweh is both the great God and our Savior. (See Isaiah 41:4, 43:3,11, 44:6,8, 45:21; Hos. 13:4; and Luke 1:47.) Consider too: Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.

What Only God Can Do

“And the Lord God (Gk. ho kurios ho theos, the Lord the God) of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to show his servants the things which must be done shortly” (Rev. 22:6). Who is the Lord God who sent “his angel” in this verse? Some attempt to say this text is referring to the Father rather than Jesus. However, Revelation 22:16, just 10 verses later, reveals to us who “the Lord God” is who has “sent his angel:” ” I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches.” Jesus is clearly “the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets!”

In Luke 12:8-9, angels are called “angels of God”; in Matthew 13:41, angels are called “[Jesus’] angels.” Jesus and God are synonymous. Jesus does what only God can do. He forgives sins by his own authority (see Is. 43:25; Mark 2:5-9). He judges the world in Matthew 25:31-46. This is God’s prerogative according to Genesis 18:25 and Joel 3:12.

Jesus refers to himself with the divine name—I am —in several places. This “I am” formula is a reference back to the Divine Name revealed to Moses in Ex. 3:14. Not only does Jesus refer to himself as “I am” four times in John’s Gospel (see John 8:24; 58; 13:19 and 18:5-6), but when he does so in John 8:58, the Jews to whom he was speaking understood his meaning because they immediately wanted to stone him for blasphemy!

Jesus places his word on the same level as the word of God—the Old Testament. “You have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . .” (see Matt. 5:21-28). This is in sharp contrast to the prophets of old who always made clear the word they were speaking was not their own: “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . . ” (cf. Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3, etc.). Only God possesses this kind of authority.

Jesus is referred to as “equal” with God by both John and Paul. In John 5:18, the author comments on why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus: “Because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Paul refers to Jesus when he was “in the form (Gk. morphe; in Greek usage this word means the set of characteristics that makes a thing what it is) of God” thinking “his equality with God” not something to be grasped onto, but emptying himself and becoming man (cf. Phil. 2:6-10). Paul assumes his readers already knew Jesus to be equal with God, the Father.

Jesus is referred to in the New Testament with the title Lord as it is uniquely applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Jesus calls himself “the Lord of the Sabbath” in Mark 2:28. The Sabbath is referred to as the “Sabbath of Yahweh” in the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 20:10; see also Is. 8:13, referred to in 1 Peter 3:15; and Joel 2:31-32, quoted both in Acts 2:20-21 and in Rom. 10:13).

The First and Last Point
The final proof of Jesus’ divinity we will consider can be found in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: “And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’”

But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, we find Jesus revealing himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end”:

And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . . I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

Jesus is God.

You are dead wrong.
J.

 

[Johann]

- Was the man Jesus Christ also truly God?
NOT according to your Wolf in sheep’s clothing
“The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty.” (Letter 32, 1999, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, p.1129).

"Contradiction": Jesus Christ Not Truly God

Charge
Robert K. Sanders alleges that Ellen White contradicts the Bible more than 50 times. The following is #15 from the revision of his document dated June 2002.

Please excuse the problems with italics, punctuation, spacing, and the use of parentheses rather than brackets for editorial comments. These mistakes are in Sanders' document:

15. WAS THE MAN JESUS CHRIST ALSO TRULY GOD?

EGW: NO "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty" (Letter 32, 1899, quoted in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129).

BIBLE : YES "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6).

BIBLE: YES "Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty" (Revelation 1:7-8).

BIBLE: YES "Therefore God exalted him (Jesus) to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name" (Philippians2: 9).



—Davis Collection
Initial Observations
Actually, the quote Sanders gives does not come from Letter 32, 1899. Though two paragraphs later does comes from Letter 32, the half sentence Sanders quotes comes from Manuscript 140, 1903, and is clearly marked as such.

But that's not all that big a deal, since it matters little whether the date of authorship is 1899 or 1903. Typically, those who want to accuse Ellen White of teaching that Jesus isn't God quote from her earlier writings, not her later ones. By 1899 and 1903, Ellen White was so clearly stating that Jesus is God that it is fairly futile to try to prove that she believed otherwise at that point in time. Take for example the following statement from her 1898 book Desire of Ages:

In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. "He that hath the Son hath life." 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life.—Desire of Ages, p. 530.
Consider also these two statements that clearly affirm that Christ was a member of the godhead:

Look, O look to Jesus and live! You cannot but be charmed with the matchless attractions of the Son of God. Christ was God manifest in the flesh, the mystery hidden for ages, and in our acceptance or rejection of the Saviour of the world are involved eternal interests.—Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 179. (1891)

The world was made by Him, "and without him was not any thing made that was made" (John 1:3). If Christ made all things, He existed before all things. The words spoken in regard to this are so decisive that no one need be left in doubt. Christ was God essentially, and in the highest sense. He was with God from all eternity, God over all, blessed forevermore.—Selected Messages, book 1, p. 247. (1906)

Analysis
It is a bit puzzling why Sanders didn't quote the whole sentence. Take a look at what the context says:

Equal with the Father, honored and adored by the angels, in our behalf Christ humbled Himself, and came to this earth to live a life of lowliness and poverty—to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Yet the stamp of divinity was upon His humanity. . . .

There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty, yet Christ and the Father are one.—Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1129, bold added.

Is it not readily apparent that Ellen White was saying that Jesus is not God the Father? If Sanders had quoted the entire sentence, the remaining seven words, would not the intended meaning have been more apparent?

Most Christians agree that the Godhead is comprised of three beings: the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some, however, like the United Pentecostals, maintain that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three manifestations of one person or being. They would strongly object to Ellen White's statement since they believe that Jesus is God the Father and the Son and the Spirit all at the same time.

The very statement of Ellen White that Sanders quotes from makes it crystal clear that Jesus is truly God, while at the same time denying the idea that there are not three beings in the Godhead. We are therefore uncertain why Sanders has a problem with this particular statement.

J.

"Contradiction": Jesus Christ Not Truly God

 

[Johann]

Rev, 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,”.
As you know - this is obviously Jerusalem.

CHALLENGE

“The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.”

DEFENSE

The whore of Babylon is described in detail in Revelation 16:19–19:4.

Babylon was a city in ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), but scholars recognize the use of “Babylon” in Revelation as a symbolic designa- tion of another city (cf. 11:8; also cf. 1 Peter 5:13, where Peter, who is known to have been in Rome, refers to being in “Babylon”):

The whore is depicted persecuting Christians (cf. 17:6, 14).
She is seated on a beast with seven heads, which are identified as seven hills (17:9) and seven kings (17:10).
The beast also has ten horns, which hate the whore, attack her, and burn her with fire (17:16).
The whore is said to be “the great city which has dominion over the kings of the earth” (17:18).Most scholars see these as pointing to the ancient, pagan city of Rome, which persecuted Christians, which was built on seven hills, which had a line of emperors plausibly identified with the beast (see Day 203), and which was the capitol of the major empire of the day.

Some scholars have seen the clues as pointing to another city—Jerusalem—which also persecuted Christians in the first century, whose authorities were allied with and supported by the Roman empire (and thus “seated” on the beast), and which was attacked and burned by an alliance of Roman and other troops in A.D. 70, as Jesus predicted (Mark 13).

Further, Revelation 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,” the Old Testament speaks of Jerusalem as a whore (Isa. 1:21; Ezek. 16:1, 15–35), and the whore is the antithesis of the bride of Christ, the “New Jerusalem” (Rev. 21:2–22:5), suggesting the old Jerusalem.

Both identifications are possible, but neither fits the Catholic Church. Indeed, according to the standard anti-Catholic theory, the Catholic Church did not exist in the first century and thus could not persecute the apostles, as the whore did (Rev. 18:20).

More fundamentally, Revelation was meant to be understood by the original audience as describing what would happen soon (Rev. 1:1). The audience would have no way of understanding the whore as a fu- ture Church rather than one of the persecuting cities of their own day.

J.

Rev, 11:8 speaks of “the great city” where the “Lord was crucified,”.
As you know - this is obviously Jerusalem.

What does Revelation 11:8 mean?

According to this passage, the two witnesses have encountered great opposition. Those who tried to kill them, at first, were consumed by flames (Revelation 11:5). They administered plagues on the earth and caused droughts and other disasters (Revelation 11:6). All of this happens while they are prophesying on God's behalf, bringing a message which the world does not want to hear.

For all that, it's not surprising that when these men are finally killed, they do not receive a decent burial. Instead, their bodies are left in a street like animal carcasses. Like so many prophets before them, the two witnesses experience martyrdom.

Jesus indicted Jerusalem for killing the prophets and stoning those who were sent to it (Matthew 23:37). The street is in "the great city" that some expositors identify as Rome or Babylon. However, the context argues for its being Jerusalem.

Verses 1 and 2 refer to the temple, the altar, the outer court, and worshipers, all of which point to Jerusalem. Further, verse 8 indicates the great city is where our Lord was crucified. Jesus died on a cross outside Jerusalem, not Rome or Babylon.

John tells us that the great city symbolically is called Sodom and Egypt.

In the tribulation Jerusalem will be morally corrupt like Sodom and its residents will be in bondage to the beast that controls the economy and their lives (see Revelation 13:16–17).

J.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Some biblical texts positively demonstrate Christ’s divinity. John 1:1-3, mentioned above, first comes to mind: “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”

Johan, if you wish to believe that Jesus is the Almighty God Jehovah, then that is your prerogative and your choice but if this passage was correctly translated then it would read...
“In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with Jehovah, [ho theos] and the Word was divine [theos] . . . All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”

In the interlinear translations you can see clearly that the definite article is there identifying Jehovah but it is left untranslated.....that is translation bias at its very best.
Omission of "τον θεόν"


Being that God employed his "firstborn" son to fashion the raw materials of creation into what we know exist, then that does not make the pre-human Jesus "The Creator" but as Proverbs 8:30-31 says, God's "master workman". Creation came "through" the son, not from him.
Colossians 1:15-17.....describing God's son, Paul says....
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist".

He is the "image" of his God and Father. An image is a reflection of the real thing.

How can Jesus be God's "firstborn of all creation" when Adam was created as God's first human son long before Jesus came to complete his earthly mission? Adam is also called a "son of God" because of his being created, not born of a woman. (Luke 3:38) Angels are called "sons of God" because they are also created.....so please explain how Jesus can be God's "firstborn" if he has always existed? That idea defies logic and is not supported scripturally.

Jesus (the Word before his Incarnation) is revealed to be “God” and the Creator of all things that were created. Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created . . .” The conclusion is inescapable: Jesus is God!

Yes, "in the beginning God created".....by means of his son. They are the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26....unless you think God is talking to himself? What the Bible teaches and always has is what the Jews were taught. They did not worship a triune god.....monotheism would not allow anyone to make Jehovah into something he never was.

Deities in false worship that present in threesomes are ancient....but the Bible does not teach that God is three......he is ONE. (Deut 6:4)

The JW’s are inconsistent. They translate the word theos as “Jehovah,” or the God numerous times in their New World Translation of the Bible when it does not have the article preceding it (see NWT: Matt. 5:9, 6:24; Luke 1:35, 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; Rom. 1:7,17,18; and Titus 1:1, just to name a few)

Jesus is referred to as theos with the definite article multiple times elsewhere in Scripture.

When Father and son are mentioned together in a passage of scripture, the Father is always identified by the use of the definite article. This is very clear in John 10:31-36. When read in Greek, the definite article clearly identifies Jehovah. But it is again left out of the English translation. Why? To prop up a lie that infiltrated the Christian faith so long ago that no one knows that it even happened. It has been so ingrained in their teachings that no one seems to be able to see past it, except those to whom God has revealed his truth.

“But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God (ho theos, the definite article plus theos), is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’” (Heb. 1:8).

Read the very next verse...."You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
The one spoken of has a God who anointed him....so this is not saying what you think it is. The Greek phrasing is misleading.

Jesus is not a god here. He is the God: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ” (Titus 2:13, emphasis added—definite article appears in apposition to “great God”). Not only do we see the definite article before theos, but we see the article plus the adjective great. Jesus is not only the God, he is the great God and our Savior.

God is a savior who sent a savior....both are identified as saviors. Even in the Hebrew Bible, Othʹni·el and Eʹhud are called "saviors". It is not an exclusive term. (Judges 3:9, 15)

Consider too: Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.

Did Thomas believe differently to the other apostles? Did he contradict their clear statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6?

"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

Can you get a clearer statement than that? The apostles speaking collectively stated that their "ONE GOD" was "THE FATHER"....AND their ONE LORD was Jesus Christ. They did not say that their Lord was Jehovah. To call someone "a god" in Greek simply meant someone divine or divinely authorized. Jesus said he was "sent" by his Father. (John 17:3) There is not a single passage of scripture where Jesus said that he was God incarnate. He only ever claimed to be "the son of God"....nothing more.

You cannot copy and paste stuff that you read on the net as though it has some kind of authority over the Bible itself.
God's word is one story with one author so it does not contradict itself.

 

[Johann]

God is a savior who sent a savior....both are identified as saviors. Even in the Hebrew Bible, Othʹni·el and Eʹhud are called "saviors". It is not an exclusive term. (Judges 3:9, 15)

Question:
How can God beget a son? Does that mean Jesus is his creation?
Answer:
I think that perhaps C.S. Lewis described it best in Mere Christianity:

We don’t use the words begetting or begotten much in modern English, but everyone still knows what they mean. To beget is to become the father of: to create is to make. And the difference is this. When you beget, you beget something of the same kind as yourself. A man begets human babies, a beaver begets little beavers, and a bird begets eggs which turn into little birds. But when you make, you make something of a different kind from yourself. A bird makes a nest, a beaver builds a dam, a man makes a wireless set—or he may make something more like himself than a wireless set: say, a statue. If he is a clever enough carver he may make a statue which is very like a man indeed.

You cannot copy and paste stuff that you read on the net as though it has some kind of authority over the Bible itself.
God's word is one story with one author so it does not contradict itself.

The phrase “only begotten” has been ammunition for false teachers since at least the fourth century at the Council of Nicea. This expression appears in one of the most memorized verses in the Bible. Jesus says, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16 KJV).

Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cults, have taken this to mean that Jesus was literally begotten. If Jesus was begotten, then he is a created being. Therefore, he cannot be God. Many Christians are unequipped to address this challenge primarily because it trades on the definition of a Greek word. However, once you understand the definition of the Greek word in play, the challenge evaporates.

When a Jehovah’s Witnesses offers this challenge, I have a question. It’s the first Columbo question, what do you mean by that? More specifically, what does the original author mean by “only begotten?” Of course, the original author didn’t write in English; he wrote in Greek. The single Greek word translated “only begotten” is monogenes. Ancient writers often used this adjective to describe a child’s unique relationship with their parent. Moreover, the emphasis was on the specific relationship, not the physical begetting itself. In fact, monogenes is better understood to describe a relationship as “one-of-a-kind” or “unique.” This is exactly how the biblical writers would have understood the word.

Consider when God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac as an offering. God says to Abraham, “Take your son, your only [monogenes] son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you” (Gen. 22:2). Of course, before Abraham can carry out this command, God stops Abraham and says, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only [monogenes] son, from me” (Gen. 22:12).

The author of Hebrews picks up on this expression and writes, “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [monogenes] son...” (Heb. 11:17 KJV). We know that Isaac wasn’t literally Abraham’s only begotten son. Isaac was the second son. Ishmael was Abraham’s first-born son. If you understand monogenes as a literal begetting, then God clearly got His facts wrong. However, if you understand monogenes as a unique, one-of-a-kind relationship, then God can accurately describe Isaac his “only” or “only begotten” son. Isaac was the only son of the covenant.

Likewise, Jesus is God’s unique, one-of-a-kind Son. You can call him the “only begotten” Son if you like, but remember, this word isn’t about procreation. It’s about a unique relationship between the Father and Son.

When many modern ears hear that Jesus is the Father’s “only begotten” Son, they immediately think He must have been created at a point in time. However, this is not the literal begetting of a son from a father. This would grossly distort the author’s original intent, and is why many modern translators have chosen to use “only” (ESV), or “one and only” (NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET) instead of “only begotten” (KJV, NASB). They are trying to avoid unnecessary confusion.


Don't make the mistake that I copy and paste wherever-however.
This is just a warm up.

I am very familiar with your arguments.
J.

 

[Johann]

"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him."

The one and only Lord and Agent of creation

According to the Apostle Paul there is one God the Father and One Lord Jesus Christ:

“So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’), 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 (di’ hou ta panta) and through whom (di’ autou) we live.” 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

What makes this ironic is that this is one of the texts that anti-Trinitarians often use to prove that Jesus can’t be God!

However, these same individuals overlook the fact that this passage expressly says that Jesus is the one Lord and Agent of creation and redemption, e.g. all things were created through Christ and the redeemed live because of him. Thus, if the Father being the one God proves that Jesus cannot also be God then Jesus being the one Lord and Agent of creation and salvation proves that the Father is neither Lord nor the Agent of creation and redemption!

The blessed Apostle further wrote that all things were created by, through and FOR Christ!

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For BY HIM (en auto) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created THROUGH HIM (di’ autou) and FOR HIM (eis auton). He is before all things, and IN HIM (en auto) all things hold together. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.” Colossians 1:15-20

By stating that Jesus is the one Lord through whom all things were created and redeemed Paul has taken OT language concerning Yahweh and ascribed it to Christ , and in so doing the Apostle has basically identified Jesus as Yahweh (cf. Job 9:8; 38:4-7; Psalm 102:25-27; Isaiah 42:5; 43:6-7, 20-27; 44:24; 45:12, 18-25; 48:11-13). This means that the word “Lord” for Paul functions as a substitute (or synonym so to speak) for the Divine Name!

“But what does Paul mean in verses 5 and 6 when he uses the term ‘lord’? As discussed in chapter 1, this oft-used term has a wide range of meaning, but this did not prevent Paul from intentionally using Old Testament Yahweh texts in reference to Christ. But the question here is whether, in 1 Cor 8:4-6, Paul intends to use kyrios in this manner. The context here is very instructive.

Since the situation addresses the question of God and Christ in opposition to idols, it is clear that Paul’s use of the term ‘lord’ here goes far beyond the master/servant analogy. The question is a religious one and involves the status of spiritual beings as ‘gods.’ Paul holds up the one as the true God – Yahweh and Christ together – in opposition to the false gods of the world, which are nothing.

The oneness language here is all the more striking because Paul is contrasting Jesus and God with the ‘many’ gods of verse 5. Somehow the Jewish Paul understands God the Father and the ‘Lord’ Jesus Christ to be one.” (Suzanne Nicholson, Dynamic Oneness: The Significance and Flexibility of Paul's One-God Language [Pickwick Publications, Eugene, Oregon: January 2010], 2. The Function and Coherence of Paul’s Monotheistic Concepts – 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, p. 52; bold emphasis ours)

In fact, there is somewhat of a scholarly consensus that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8:6, has actually taken the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 (“Hear O Israel, Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one”) and expanded it to include Jesus within the identity of the one Lord God of Israel. In other words, Paul has Christianized the Shema in order to show that Jesus is the one Lord professed in this OT confession of faith!

J.

Refuting the Deity of Christ?

heck-almost forgot to give the link!

 

[Aunty Jane]

heck-almost forgot to give the link!

You are a very lazy poster.....I am not going to do all the work refuting these arguments when all you do is copy someone else's opinions...
Who are you quoting anyway? Do you even know?

You can believe whatever you wish...just know that believing something does not make it true. A deception is not obvious to the one who wants to believe it.
If you worship someone who is not Jehovah, you have broken the first and most important Commandment.

Jesus will let us all know soon enough....we can at least agree on that....

 

[Johann]

In the interlinear translations you can see clearly that the definite article is there identifying Jehovah but it is left untranslated.....that is translation bias at its very best.
Omission of "τον θεόν"

Jesus as “a god” alongside God: Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1
Sam Shamoun

{Muslims occasionally use the writings of the JWs to support their arguments against the Deity of Jesus. Therefore it is relevant to examine and answer their claims also in the context of discussions with Muslims.}

There has been much discussion regarding the translation of John 1:1 and the significance it has in our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ. Evangelicals insist that John 1:1, when properly exegeted, provides irrefutable proof that Jesus is fully and eternally God and yet distinct from another who is called God. Evangelicals take this to mean that the true God is a multi-personal Being, that Yahweh is more than one Person. The Evangelical understanding can be seen from the way Evangelical translations, and certain others, have traditionally rendered this verse:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (kai theos een ho Logos).” KJV, NKJV, NIV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, NCV, YLT, Wey NT, Holman NT, Darby, Douay-Rheims

Other translations that render this passage somewhat differently, yet still reflecting the traditional Evangelical understanding, include:

“In the beginning the Word already existed; the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Good News Translation

“From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.” BBE

“Before the world was created, the Word already existed; he was with God, and he was the same as God.” TEV

“In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.” CEV

JWs, on the other hand, believe that John 1:1 supports their position that Jesus is a distinct god from the true God. JWs claim that John 1:1 demonstrates that Jesus is a different kind of god from the God whom he was with. This understanding is reflected in their New World Translation (NWT) translation of the Holy Scriptures:

“In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

The obvious problem with the JW rendering is that it posits two distinct gods, which goes against the clear and explicit testimony of the Holy Scriptures that there is only one God. All citations taken from the NWT unless otherwise noted:

“How can YOU believe, when YOU are accepting glory from one another and YOU are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” John 5:44

“This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” John 17:3

John is simply reiterating the following OT passages:

“‘Then he went back to the man of the [true] God, he with all his camp, and came and stood before him and said: ‘Here, now, I certainly know that there is no God anywhere in the earth but in Israel. And now accept, please, a blessing gift from your servant.’ However, he said: ‘As Jehovah before whom I do stand is living, I will not accept it.’ And he began to urge him to accept it, but he kept refusing. Finally Na´a·man said: ‘If not, please, let there be given to your servant some ground, the load of a pair of mules; because your servant will no more render up a burnt offering or a sacrifice to any other gods but to Jehovah. In this thing may Jehovah forgive your servant: When my lord comes into the house of Rim´mon to bow down there, and he is supporting himself upon my hand, and I have to bow down at the house of Rim´mon, when I bow down at the house of Rim´mon may Jehovah, please, forgive your servant in this respect.’ At this he said to him: ‘Go in peace.’ Accordingly he went away from him for a good stretch of the land.” 2 Kings 5:15-19

“Then Hez·e·ki´ah took the letters out of the hand of the messengers and read them, after which Hez·e·ki´ah went up to the house of Jehovah and spread it out before Jehovah. And Hez·e·ki´ah began to pray to Jehovah, saying: ‘O Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, sitting upon the cherubs, you alone are the [true] God of all the kingdoms of the earth. You yourself have made the heavens and the earth. Incline your ear, O Jehovah, and hear. Open your eyes, O Jehovah, and see, and hear all the words of Sen·nach´er·ib that he has sent to taunt the living God. It is a fact, O Jehovah, that the kings of As·syr´i·a have devastated all the lands, and their own land. And there was a consigning of their gods to the fire, because they were no gods, but the workmanship of man’s hands, wood and stone, so that they destroyed them. And now, O Jehovah our God, save us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Jehovah, are [God] alone.’” Isaiah 37:14-20

“SEE now that I-I am he And there are no gods together with me.” Deuteronomy 32:39

The Septuagint renders this verse in the following manner:

“Behold, behold that I am [he], and there is no god beside me (kai ouk estin theos): I kill, and I will make to live: I will smite, and I will heal; and there is none who shall deliver out of my hands (kai ouk estin hos exeleitai ek ton cheiron mou).”

Amazingly, the Lord Jesus claims to be able to perform the same divine functions that Yahweh performs:

“And I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand (kai oukh aptasei tis auta ek tes cheiros mou). What my Father has given me is greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father (kai oudeis dunatai aptazein ek tes cheiros tou patros). I and the Father are one” John 10:28-30

Hence, this provides evidence that Jesus cannot be just “a god,” but is the true God who is distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.

“They have roused Me to jealousy with a no-god; they have provoked Me with their vanities; and I will rouse them to jealousy with a no-people; I will provoke them with a vile nation.” Deuteronomy 32:21 JPS 1917

The preceding citations show that Christ cannot be another god alongside the true God unless, of course, one opts for the view that John’s theology contradicts the OT teaching of monotheism. Since neither the JW nor the Evangelical believes that the Holy Scriptures contradict themselves, being the inspired and inerrant word of God, this view is not an option for either party.

Jesus as “a god” alongside God: Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1

Hmm-doesn't "sit right"

 

[Johann]

Who are you quoting anyway? Do you even know?

I know my team and the people I am quoting from-Sam Shamoun, one, among many.
This has nothing to do with laziness-but for the edification of other members-and, have THEIR permission to use the sources.

Also, I have my OWN sources-and have PERMISSION to use the sources.
This is only the beginning, and it is not going to fare thee well @Aunty Jane.

An aside-I am VERY selective when perusing the Internet FOR sources, know what I mean?
Shalom
J.

 

[Johann]

You are a very lazy poster.....I am not going to do all the work refuting these arguments

Not lazy-just doing the Lord's work-no need to refute these arguments-it is irrefutable

when all you do is copy someone else's opinions...

Thought you love opinions?-Uh-these are not opinions.

Who are you quoting anyway? Do you even know?

I know the people I am quoting from-

A deception is not obvious to the one who wants to believe it.

Sword cuts both ways.
Take note-I am very polite with you and have said this is only the beginning of rebuttals against cults.
Members need to be aware of wolves-yes?
Now, don't take it personally, I am not saying YOU are a woofie.

but to us there is one El, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Master YAHWEH, Yahshua Messiah, through whom are all things, and we by Him.

J.

 

[Johann]

If you worship someone who is not Jehovah

Jehovah is NOT His name.
J.

 

[Johann]

Hence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that passages such as Deut. 32:39 have on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well in respect to the person of Christ, we present the following syllogism:

A. There are no other Gods besides Yahweh.
B. Jesus is God.
C. Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh God.

John’s prologue doesn’t stop there but goes on to distinguish the Lord Jesus from another who is called God. Again:

A. The Person with Jesus is identified as God.
B. There is only one God.
C. God must subsist in at least 2 Persons.

How does the Watchtower respond to this? In the Watchtower, 1975, p. 63, this is what they write:

"Viewed in their proper setting, these texts in no way contradict each other. They are discussing entirely different matters. At Deuteronomy 32:39, the point being made is that the false gods of the nations have no share with Jehovah in his saving acts. They are unable to deliver their worshipers from disaster. This is evident from the preceding two verses 37, 38,which read: "Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge, who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices, to drink the wine of their drink offerings? Let them get up and help you. Let them become a concealment place for you." Other parts of this song likewise indicate that these false gods had no share in the expressing of Jehovah's saving power. With reference to the nation of Israel as represented in its forefather Jacob, De 32 verse 12 says: "Jehovah alone kept leading him, and there was no foreign god along with him." Apostasy, however, set in among the Israelites, as De 32 verses 16, 17 and 21 tell us: "They began inciting him to jealousy with strange gods; with detestable things they kept offending him. They went sacrificing to demons, not to God, gods whom they had not known, new ones who recently came in, with whom your forefathers were not acquainted. They, for their part, have incited me to jealousy with what is no god." Against this background, we can appreciate that none of such false gods were 'together with Jehovah' in anything that he did. He alone is the true God, whereas the false gods are an unreality, nonexistent and powerless to help their worshipers in time of calamity. As for the reference to the Word's "being a god," it does not disagree with the statement at Deuteronomy 32:39. Why not? Because the Word does not stand in opposition to Jehovah nor is he a rival, as was the case with the false gods. Then, too, in the phrase rendered "the Word was a god," the term "god" is a predicate noun that describes the Word. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: "It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for "god" in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: "The Word was divine." The New World Translation, however, retains the predicate noun and indicates the significance of the omission of the definite article by using the indefinite article. Being God's firstborn Son, "the Word" could rightly be described as a "god" or powerful one, even as are God s other angelic sons at Psalm 8:5. (Compare Hebrews 2:6-8.) But neither the firstborn Son nor the other faithful angelic sons of God stand in opposition to their Creator, or try to equal him or substitute for him, as do false gods. They all recognize that worship is properly directed to Jehovah God alone.- Phil. 2:5, 6; Rev. 19:10." (*; bold emphasis ours)

Commenting on the Isaianic denials of the existence of other gods, JW apologist Greg Stafford writes:

In view of the consistent condemnation of idol gods in Isaiah, it is certainly understandable for us to view Isaiah 43:10 in the same light. There is nothing in the context of Isaiah 43:10 that suggests, let alone conclusively proves, that Jehovah’s words are meant not only for the idols of man, but also for any heavenly beings who serve Jehovah, and who are elsewhere considered ‘gods.’ No living god has been ‘formed’ by the hands of the idol-worshiping nations. Which is why Jehovah goes on to condemn the idols and those who ‘form’ them in Isaiah 44:8-10.

The context of these texts shows that such denials are directed against the gods of the nations, not the angelic gods of Jehovah’s heavenly court. In fact, Isaiah 43:10 uses the same verb for ‘form’ that we see used in Isaiah 44:10. Using such scriptures in an effort to deny that the angels are gods, when in fact the Bible clearly refers to them as ‘gods,’ is to ignore the purpose for which these denials were written. As stated by Yehezkel Kaufmann: ‘We are constrained to offer the embarrassing reply that nowhere in the Bible is the existence of god denied, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Even the polemic of Second-Isaiah attacks the idols with no word at all for the gods.’” (Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, CA: second edition 2000], pp. 101-102)

Stafford’s footnote 92 on page 102 reads:

See also Isa 44:11-20. Compare Isa 42:8, 17; 45:18-20; 48:5 Regarding De 32:39, compare De 32:16, 21, 37, 38 (see note 105 below). (Ibid., bold emphasis ours)

Stafford informs us in footnote 105 that:

“The LXX of De 32:43 is more likely the source of Paul’s quotation as there are LXX manuscripts of this text that match Paul’s quotation word for word. That he primarily quotes from the Psalms is not a deterrent to accepting Heb 1:6 as a quotation from De 32:43, since he also quotes from 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5. The quotation in Heb 1:6 seems to have come from a Hebrew recension other than MT, which is reflected in 4QDeutq… Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 248-252, 422-425. On pages 426-429 Sanders discusses the relationship between Jehovah and the gods spoken of in verse 8 (see below) and verse 43 and the statements in verses 12 and 39, where it is said there are no gods ‘with’ Jehovah. He concludes: ‘Verse 12 and verse 39 say that there is no god “with” YHWH. These affirmations relate to his activity: YHWH is the only god who acts on behalf of Israel. In that respect there is no other god with him… Though the conceptual background of the passage [De 32:8-9] may be archaic the message of the passage is completely in line with the “monotheistic” affirmation in the song; other gods may exist-in fact they do- but for Israel the only significant god is YHWH. He is even the highest god… and the other gods… are subordinate to him’ (ibid., 427). See ibid. pages 237-238 for more on De 32:39.” (Ibid., p. 111)

Jesus as “a god” alongside God: Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1

To summarize the JW position:

The passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy where Yahweh is said to be the only God do not rule out the existence of angelic gods. The context deals with refuting the existence of the false gods and/or idols of the nations.
According to Sanders, which Stafford cites approvingly, Deuteronomy 32:39 is not denying that there are no other gods alongside Yahweh. The text is indicating that Yahweh is the only god who acts on behalf of Israel. Presumably, this implies that other gods do exist, but they simply do not act on Israel’s behalf.
In response to point 1, a careful reading of Deut. 32 will show that the gods mentioned in the text includes the angelic host:

“They roused Him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations did they provoke Him. They sacrificed unto DEMONS, NO-gods (lo Elo’ah), gods that they knew not, new gods that came up of late, which your fathers dreaded not.” Deuteronomy 32:16-17 JPS 1917

The Israelites worshiped demons, something reiterated elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures:

“They kept serving their idols, And these came to be a snare to them. And they would sacrifice their sons And their daughters TO DEMONS.” Psalm 106:36-37

Interestingly, the Watchtower magazine mentions that the gods spoken of here include demons, but fails to see the significance in this. Stafford makes reference to Deut. 32:16, but doesn’t mention verse 17. It seems that Stafford, unlike the Watchtower, realized that the mention of demons in v. 17 poses major problems for the claim that angels are gods.

For instance, the Bible implies that demons are fallen angels:

“Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on YOUR way from me, YOU whole have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.’” Matthew 25:41

“Do YOU not know that we shall judge angels?” 1 Corinthians 6:3

“just because of the excess of the revelations. Therefore, that I might not feel overly exalted, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, that I might not be overly exalted.” 2 Corinthians 12:7

“And war broke out in heaven; Mi’chael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled” Revelation 12:7

Regarding demons, the Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pp. 612-613, says:

 

[Marymog]

The placing of men in positions of service did not give them power over their brothers. No position in the Christian arrangement ever carried corrupting power over others. Shepherds were there to guide and direct the sheep, not to "lord it over" others.
The garments worn by the "clergy" were to distinguish them, like the Pharisees did, to appear to be superior to the flock.

Hi Jane,

Scripture seems to suggest that what your men have taught you is wrong: 17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

I don't like the garment thing either. I think the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Johann]

When speaking to King Herod Agrippa II, Festus said that the Jews had certain disputes with Paul concerning their “worship of the deity” [Gr., deisdaimoni’as; Latin Vulgate, ‘superstition’]. (Acts 25:19) It was noted by F. F. Bruce that this Greek word “might be less politely rendered ‘superstition’ (as in AV). The corresponding adjective appears with the same ambiguity in [Acts] 17:22.”- Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1971, p. 483. (Ibid., p. 613)

The NWT renders these specific terms as deities, lending further support that demons were mistakenly viewed and/or worshiped as gods. The following citation further demonstrates that demons are angels, and that there is an angelic or demonic presence behind every idol:

“All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.” Psalm 97:7 RSV

The LXX understood these gods to be angels:

Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. Brenton’s

We know of course that the angels which are connected to the idols are in fact demons since these gods seek to usurp the worship which belongs solely to Yahweh, something that a righteous angel would never seek to do.

More importantly, both the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the LXX retain a variant reading in Deut. 32:43 that is not found in the Masoretic text (MT). The variant reading provides additional evidence that the gods to whom Yahweh was referring to in Deut. 32:39 were the angels (specifically the fallen ones):

“Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him and will atone for the land of his people.” (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich [HarperCollins, paperback edition: October 22, 2002], p. 193; bold emphasis ours)

“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Brenton’s LXX

Stafford, interestingly, believes that Paul [sic] quoted Deut. 32:43 in Hebrews 1:6:

“It is also not out of the ordinary to find ‘angels’ as a translation for ’elohim. The LXX of both Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 97:7 use ‘angels’ for ’elohim. The author of Hebrews (whom Jehovah’s Witnesses believe to be the apostle Paul) even quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 in Hebrews 1:6, again showing his agreement with the LXX in using ‘angels’ for ‘gods.’ The same is true of Psalm 138:1, where ’elohim again is translated ‘angels.’” (Ibid., pp. 110-111)

And:

“The LXX of De 32:43 is more likely the source of Paul’s quotation as there are LXX manuscripts of this text that match Paul’s quotation word for word. That he primarily quotes from the Psalms is not a deterrent to accepting Heb 1:6 as a quotation from De 32:43, since he also quotes from 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5. The quotation in Heb 1:6 seems to have come from a Hebrew recension other than MT, which is reflected in 4QDeutq… (Ibid., p. 111, f. 105)

At times the DSS and the LXX preserve a more primitive–and thus more accurate–form of the Hebrew text. Stafford agrees. In commenting on why Hebrews 10:5 used the LXX’s rendering of Psalm 40:6 instead of the MT, Stafford writes:

“… As for why Hebrews 10:5 accepts the meaning of the LXX over the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6, it may be that at this point the LXX reflects a more ancient Hebrew text than the MT. This is clearly the case with Deuteronomy 32:43, which differs from MT but agrees with the more primitive text of 4QDeutq (see note 105 above).” (Ibid., p. 112; bold emphasis ours)

The most amazing part about all this is that Stafford fails to make the connection between the gods mentioned in Deut. 32:39 with the angelic gods of Deut. 32:43! Stafford actually thinks that the renderings found in DSS and LXX support his position that angels are gods, when in fact it proves the exact opposite! It proves that when Yahweh says that there are no gods with him he means exactly that, i.e. that neither angels nor idols are gods in nature. In this respect the Watchtower got it right since it is true that Deut. 32 is attacking beings which are falsely viewed as gods. Yet where the Watchtower got it wrong is in their claim that these beings do not include angels. The inspired Scriptures clearly teach that others may falsely consider angels as gods, but the truth is that Yahweh alone is God in essence and nature. As the Psalmist says:

“There is none like you among the gods, O Jehovah, Neither are there any works like yours. All the nations whom you have made will themselves come, And they will bow down before you, O Jehovah, And will give glory to your name. For you are great and are doing wondrous things. You are God, YOU ALONE.” Psalm 86:8-10

The inspired Psalmist states that Yahweh alone is God amongst the other so-called gods. The 1984 NWT of the Holy Scriptures with References has a footnote here, which reads:

8* “Among the gods.” H

Jesus as “a god” alongside God: Jehovah’s Witnesses and John 1:1eb., va’elohim’;

Gr., the-ois; Lat., di’is; T, “lofty angels.”

Evidently, the Jewish translators of the Targums understood these gods to be angels. There is nothing in the context of Psalm 86 linking these so-called gods with the false gods/idols of the nations. Furthermore, the Psalms themselves provide support that these are angels, as the NWT makes plain. The NWT cross-references the preceding text with Psalm 89:6. Verse 7 is included for context:

"For who in the skies can be compared to Jehovah? Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God? God is to be held in awe among the intimate group of holy ones; He is grand and fear-inspiring over all who are round about him.”

The reference to the sons of God demonstrates that these are angels, which provides additional support that Yahweh alone is God amongst the heavenly host.

Other passages affirming that Yahweh alone is God include:

“You-you have been shown that Jehovah is the [true] God (ha elohim); there is no other besides him… And you well know today, and you must call back to your heart that Jehovah is the [true] God (ha elohim) in the HEAVENS ABOVE and on the earth beneath. THERE IS NO OTHER.” Deuteronomy 4:35, 39

The LXX reads:

KURIOS hO QEOS SOU hOUTOS QEOS ESTI (“the Lord your God, He is God”)… KURIOS hO QEOS SOU hOUTOS QEOS.

Notice that we have a Colwell Construction (preverbal anarthrous QEOS [theos] before EIMI) in verse 35 and an implied one in verse 39. It may be that we have a qualitative use of QEOS here, which would entail that the text is actually saying, “The Lord your God, He is (by nature) God.”

Yahweh alone is elohim in heaven and on earth, showing once more that the angels who are in heaven are not real gods. It would be nonsense to say that this refers to idols and/or to the false gods of the nations, since neither the idols nor these false gods such as Baal dwell in heaven.

And:

“There is none holy as Jehovah; For there is none besides thee, Neither is there any rock like our God… Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive: He bringeth down to Sheol, and bringeth up.” 1 Samuel 2:2, 6 ASV

Finally:

“that all the peoples of the earth may know that Jehovah, he is God; there is none else.” 1 Kings 8:60 ASV

Again, there is nothing in the particular contexts of the preceding citations about the false gods or idols of the nations, which indicates that the claim that there is none besides Yahweh means exactly that. There are simply no other gods. Hence, all these citations conclusively demonstrate that whatever the word “gods” means in relation to Yahweh’s angelic host, one thing it does not mean is that these beings are actually gods in nature. In the words of the Apostle Paul:

“Nevertheless, when YOU did not know God, then it was that YOU slaved for those who by NATURE are NOT gods.” Galatians 4:8

To summarize the data thus far:

Deut. 32:39 states that there are no gods alongside Yahweh.
The context shows that these gods include demons.
Demons therefore are not gods.
According to the Holy Bible demons are actually angels.
Since demons are angels who are not gods, angels therefore are not gods.

 

[Marymog]

Are you sure you haven't fallen for lies yourself? John 20:23 is an account of Jesus appearing after his resurrection, and his words are directed to his apostles who were to carry on his work after his return to heaven.
In context it reads....
"Jesus said to them again: “May you have peace. Just as the Father has sent me, I also am sending you.” 22 After saying this he blew on them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you retain those of anyone, they are retained.”

Hello Jane,

You stated: (7)* Confession was to be made to God, and no human was given authority to forgive sins on earth.

John 20:23 and James 5:16 prove that what your men have taught you is wrong.

 

[Marymog]

BY THE start of the second century, false teachings had begun to muddy the clear waters of Christian truth. Just as inspired prophecy had foretold, after the death of the apostles, certain ones abandoned the truth and turned instead to “myths.” (2 Tim 4:3-4)
About 98 C.E., the last surviving apostle, John, warned of such erroneous teachings and of people who were "trying to mislead” faithful Christians. (1 John 2:26; 4:1, 6)

Certain currents of early “Christian” thought actually deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. For example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matt 26:26-27)

This writer also stated that if no body of water was available to perform baptism by immersion, pouring water on the head of the baptism candidate would suffice. (Mark 1:9-10: Acts 8:36, 38)
The same text encouraged Christians to observe such rituals as obligatory fasting twice a week and recitation of the Our Father exactly three times a day.

Hi Jane,


You stated: 8)*There was no liturgy or ritual in first century Christian gatherings. They met for prayer and worship, but imparting scriptural knowledge and peaching the message about God’s Kingdom was their primary mission.

Thank you for your opinion but the Didache (and other early Christian writings) clearly prove you wrong. According to your opinion the Didache has " false teachings" and it "deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles"? What evidence do you have of that? Who would know better the teachings of the Apostles? You and your men 1,600-2,000 years later OR the men that were alive when the Apostles were walking the earth?


Here is some very concise information about rituals in Scripture:

Worship and Ritual Practices in the New Testament | Religious Studies Center

The period from the first century AD to the middle of the second century AD has occasionally been called the dark period of Christian worship practices.[1] Details of Christian liturgy in this period, unlike later centuries, are not described in any systematic fashion.

rsc.byu.edu

Proving, once again, that your men have lied to you.

 

[Marymog]

Soon, men who came to be known as "the Apostolic Fathers" arrived on the scene. What stand did they take in the face of religious deception? Did they heed the apostle John’s divinely inspired warning? History tell us the answer to those questions.

Generally, these men lived from the close of the first century C.E. on into the middle of the second century. Among them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Writing during the same period were the unnamed authors of The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the second letter of Clement.

The aim of these men was undoubtedly to preserve or else promote a certain brand of Christianity. They condemned idolatry and loose morals. They held that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he was resurrected. However, they were unable to restrain the rising tide of apostasy. On the contrary, some of them added to its groundswell.

Hey Jane,

When you quote from The Watchtower website it reveals what men you are listening to (Jehovah's Witnesses). That religion was started in the 19th century. Why do you believe the writings of men that write in The Watchtower and not believe the writings of men that were students of Apostles (Apostolic Fathers) that wrote during the times of the Apostles? What "brand of Christianity" are they promoting?

 

[Johann]

Hi Jane,


You stated: 8)*There was no liturgy or ritual in first century Christian gatherings. They met for prayer and worship, but imparting scriptural knowledge and peaching the message about God’s Kingdom was their primary mission.

Thank you for your opinion but the Didache (and other early Christian writings) clearly prove you wrong. According to your opinion the Didache has " false teachings" and it "deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles"? What evidence do you have of that? Who would know better the teachings of the Apostles? You and your men 1,600-2,000 years later OR the men that were alive when the Apostles were walking the earth?


Here is some very concise information about rituals in Scripture:

Worship and Ritual Practices in the New Testament | Religious Studies Center

The period from the first century AD to the middle of the second century AD has occasionally been called the dark period of Christian worship practices.[1] Details of Christian liturgy in this period, unlike later centuries, are not described in any systematic fashion.

rsc.byu.edu

Proving, once again, that your men have lied to you.

You should be careful with this site-don't you think?

 

[Marymog]

No-she does not-and many others hold the same belief.

Well then, those "many others" would be wrong:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am”—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—“I Am” (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. “So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple” (John 8:59).

In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, “My Lord and my God!” (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, “The Lord of me and the God of me!”)

 

[Marymog]

You should be careful with this site-don't you think?

Did you read the article? If so, what in the article did they get wrong?

Would this be better? Why Ritual Is Important