gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (03/14/91)
Please note the change in subject line. This is in response to Boris Chen's response to me on "Is Jesus God?" I wrote: >While I'm just learning Greek, I have done considerable homework on the >way in which some of the key verses are translated. A verse that >matches the stucture of the Greek grammar of John 1:1 is John 1:6. If >you'll look in the NWT, you'll find it reads: > >"There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God." > >Now based upon the rule that the Witnesses have been propounding as the >way in which to come up with "... and the Word was a god" should cause >this passage to read: > >"There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." > >Doesn't make much sense, does it? The verse is talking about *the* God. Boris responds, in part: #Please, Gene, I would appreciate it if you didn't spread untruths about #Witnesses. I do not ever remeber any special Rule, that JWs "propound." Boris, my friend, I'm not spreading untruths. If you have a copy of _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures_ (1969, pages 1158, 1159), you can verify what I say. The definite article is ommitted in the Greek of John 1:6. Thus, according to what is said in the explanation of the KIT, we should render this passage as "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." The KIT gives us a rule that essentially says that since there is no indefinite article "a" in Greek, and where there is no definite article "the," then the article "a" is to be inferred. Thus, we get some really interesting constructions following this rule. ;-) So, maybe the context is really important. So what about the context of John 1:1 shows that it should be rendered "a god"? >>"Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine > ^^^^^^^^^^| > | huh!? wanna try that word again, please. > #Sorry for the typos, I didn't mean to offend. No offense taken. I merely forgot the smiley. I was just curious which word you meant. And I didn't want to assume a word that you might not have meant. 8-) >Essentially, the Society says that because the Greek noun theos has the >definite article preceding it (ho theos) it is clearly speaking of >Jehovah God. However, in John 20:28 we have the same construction of ho >theos in Thomas' words, which literally rendered are: "The Lord of me >and the God [ho theos] of me!" Does this mean Jesus is Jehovah!? #Again, context. >I think that the context is quite clear, Brian. Thomas falls to his >knees in worship and calls Jesus Christ his Lord (kyrios) and God >(theos). Yet Jesus never rebukes Thomas for this. How come? #All I can say is that I have said "Oh my God!" in reaction to others #and have not meant it to mean that I think that person is God. Jesus #never rebukes Thomas because Thomas didn't say anything wrong, he was #simply astonished. Boris, please look at the context of this verse with those surrounding it. I seriously doubt that Thomas would come even this close to taking God's name in vain. This is essentially what your tentative interpretation would imply. Had Thomas come that close, I doubt that Jesus would have responded as He did. Check this passage out in the KIT. I clearly reveals that what Thomas said was "The Lord of me and the God of me!" He was not making a near blasphemous exclamation. He was acknowledging who Jesus is. Now, I'd like to take you to several other passages that I believe help establish not only the deity of Jesus as God the Son, but also help to establish the Trinity. First, turn to Genesis 18:1-2. I will be using the KJV simply because I left my NIV at home today (the problems of having several Bible studies during the week -- I take it out of my pack for a Bible study and sometimes forget to put it back later. 8-( ). In this passage, we see the LORD (YHWH) coming to visit Abraham. Even in the NWT God appears to Abraham as three men. Abraham addresses all three as YHWH. When the three respond, the episode is described interchangeably as "they" speaking and "Jehovah" speaking. When two of the three men depart to visit with Lot, Abraham continues to address the remaining man as "Jehovah," but Lot addresses the other two as "Jehovah." (Gen. 18:22, 30; 19:1, 18) By itself, this account does not prove the Trinity doctrine. Still, at the very least, it clearly demonstrates that it is possible for God to manifest Himself as three-in-one. The mere fact that this concept is beyond the *full* grasp of human intellect should not cause Jehovah's Witnesses to rule it out. Remember what Paul says, we see through a dark glass right now, but someday, when Christ has returned, we will see with perfect clarity. As you and several other Witnesses have so clearly stated, Jehovah's Witnesses are fervently monotheistic. And in this we are in agreement. However, I think that sometimes the way in which you interpret certain passages causes serious problems. Let's look at Isa. 9:6. As a Witness, you believe that this passage is talking about Jesus Christ. Notice that one of the descriptions of Jesus is "Mighty God." And Witnesses admit that this "Mighty God" is Jesus. But is He the True God? And you and others have answered a resounding "NO!" And this means that He is not "Almighty." Now, refer to Hebrews 1:3. Here we read that Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power." How could anyone be more almighty than that? Next, turn to Matt. 28:18. Here we find out that Jesus Christ has *all* authority (KJV -- "all power") in heaven and in earth. By definition, this is what the word "almighty" means. I submit, therefore, that Jesus is Almighty. Back to Isa. 9:6 for a moment longer. Since Isaiah was a Jew and therefore fiercely monotheistic, believing in one God -- YHWH, who did Isaiah understand the Mighty God to be? Check Isa. 10:20-21. Note that Isaiah calls Jehovah "Mighty God." Isaiah isn't the only one who understood this. Turn to Jeremiah 32:18. Now remember that the Society teaches that the Mighty God and the Almighty God are different -- Jesus being the Mighty one and Jehovah being the Almighty one. In both the NWT and the KJV, Jeremiah calls Jehovah the "mighty" God. So, since Jesus is the Mighty God and Jehovah is the Mighty God, who must Jesus be? (I'll excuse you calling me Brian, if you excuse my typos) Boris, I am sorry for using the wrong name. Trying to type while also trying to do other things can lead to some embarrassing moments -- not to mentions typos. I didn't realize that I had typed the wrong name until you pointed it out. And I wasn't hitting you about typos -- I just didn't understand what you meant. And it is bad form to assume what the other person meant sometimes. ;-) En Agape, Gene
drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au (Drew Corrigan) (03/19/91)
Gene Gross writes: >Now, I'd like to take you to several other passages that I believe help >establish not only the deity of Jesus as God the Son, but also help to >establish the Trinity. > >First, turn to Genesis 18:1-2. [.. account deleted ..] >By itself, this account does not prove the Trinity doctrine. Still, at >the very least, it clearly demonstrates that it is possible for God to >manifest Himself as three-in-one. Whoa! John 1:18 (KJV) "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son ["only-born God" in revised translations], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." I think we would do well to understand the way names were used and applied in the world of the ancient Hebrews. In our culture we are accustomed to a separate names for separate entities. In Hebrew culture a person who represented someone else took on that person's name. This was just as true with God's name (YHVH) as for the name of a king, leader, ruler, etc. For example, when a person appeared before a Hebrew court, they addressed the judge(s) as "Yes God, no God", because the judge(s) represented God. A modern parallel is to address judges as "Your Worship" or "Your Honour". The Most High God (God the Father) never interacted directly (that is, in first person) with humans in the OT. He always dealt with humanity through an intermediary (or intermediaries, plural). The chief intermediary was the manifested Logos who became the Jesus Christ of the NT. As the Father's representative, the Logos took on and was known by the name YHVH. The Logos was also known as the "Angel of YHVH", the "Angel of Redemption", the "Angel of the Presence (of God)", the "Face of God", among other things. To see, hear the Logos was to see and hear the Most High God (cf Jesus' statement, "he who has seen me has seen the Father"). There are numerous passages in the OT dealing with this arrangement: Gen 16:7-13 Hagar deals with the Angel of YHVH, and calls him the YHVH who spoke to her. Gen 31:11-13 Jacob experiences a dream where the Angel of God says that he is the God of Bethel. Gen 32:24-30; 48:15-16; Hos 12:2-4 Jacob wrestles with "God" whom he identifies as the "Angel of Redemption" Ex 3:2-7,16 The Angel of YHVH speaks to Moses and is then quoted in first person as YHVH. Moses is told to tell Israel that YHVH Elohim appeared to him even though he saw the Angel of YHVH. Ex 13:21;14:19,24; Is 63:8-12 YHVH leads Israel and is in pillar of cloud, yet the Angel of YHVH is in the pillar of cloud and saves them. Note that Angel of YHVH seems to be equated to the Arm of God, a title also given to Jesus in the NT. Ex 23:20-23;32:34;33:14-15; Deut 1:30-33 YHVH's Angel is equated with YHVH's presence and is to lead Israel into Canaan; YHVH's name (which in Hebrew terminology was equivalent to power, authority, and person) is in the Angel; YHVH led Israel and will them into Promised Land. Judges 2:1-4 The Angel of YHVH appears to Israel and tells them that he made a covenant with them. Note the parallel to Malachi 3:1 where the Messenger (Angel) of the Covenant is prophesied to come to his Temple. Judges 6:11-23 Gideon sees the Angel of YHVH who is equated with YHVH. Your cite from Genesis 18-19 is simply a further example. Note that in 19:1 the two men are called "angels" (or messengers). With due respect, the concept that Abraham saw the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that two of them then went off to see Lot, is erroneous. A clear chain of authority is evident within the Godhead. The Logos (Son) is under the Father's rulership. Zechariah contains some interesting passages where both the Most High and the Logos are spoken of as YHVH. The Most High is YHVH of Hosts, and the Logos, YHVH: Zech 2:5-11 YHVH says he is coming to dwell in Jerusalem, and when this happens people shall know that YHVH of Hosts has sent him. Zech 13:7 YHVH of Hosts refers to the "Man who is my Companion" as the shepherd to be smited. Zech 14 This chapter speaks of the return of YHVH and his kingship over the earth which is also same as YHVH of Host's kingship over the earth. Parallels are seen in Psalm 2. Israel understood that the God who dealt with them directly (Logos) was under the authority of the Most High God: Ps 110; 45:6-7 David, here refering to YHVH (of Hosts) acknowledges as being over David's Adonai (Lord). Ps 45:7 Cited of Christ in the New Testament. "Therefore God, your God has annointed you ..." I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea. Perhaps I should add that the term most often translated "angel" in the OT simply means "messenger", and therefore when the Logos was called the "Angel of YHVH" we could say he was the "Messenger of YHVH (Most High)". Lastly, you noted in another post that the Jews used Memra for YHVH God in the OT. They also used it for the Angel of YHVH. When one understands the connections, it becomes clear why. Drew Corrigan. (drew@anucsd.anu.edu.au)