wjhill@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.hill) (02/14/91)
Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God? Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals, but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. This is not a Bible teaching! The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father is Jehovah! They also inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name given to the Holy Spirit (Ghost). If Jehovah is a Trinity, as some in this newsgroup believe, How the do you explain the following scriptures? Acts 7:55, 56 reports Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the Holy Spirit. Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, `My Father, if it possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father's will.) John 8:17,18 "...I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate from the Father.) 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Repeatedly, even following Jesus' ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus' resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression, but never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the Holy Spirit as "my God.") Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma? A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God's Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subjects their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as "proof" of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. John 1:1,2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (King James). However in the New World Translation John 1:1,2 reads: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." Which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... we have beheld his glory." Also verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father's divine qualities (Hebrews 1:3). Is the rendering "a god" consistent with rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." But not all agree. Bible translator William Barclay states: "Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun....If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of and adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, `The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God' ...John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God." John 1:1 should be translated the word was with the God. W.J.Hill attbl!granjon!wjh Ref: Reasoning the Scriptures (1985), Watchtower Bible and Tract Socciety [It is not my purpose as moderator to convince you of the truth of the Trinity. However I would like to encourage the parties to the discussion to understand correctly what each other is saying. As a general comment, I do not like discussions that start with broadsides against some other group taken from some tract or other. The current example is far from the only such. It's common to see discussions start with similar attacks against Catholics, Mormons, etc. Rather than quoting tracts at each other, I'd much rather see people in this group start by trying to understand each other. While I do not expect Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JW's, etc, to accept each other's views as correct, it is obvious from our past discussions that *some* of the problems between these groups are based on misunderstanding of the other position, and thus that many of the arguments are simply irrelevant, because they attack positions that no one actually takes. The problem with this posting is that it is trying to examine the relationship between Jesus and God by using the Trinity. However in fact this relationship is the subject of the doctrine of the Incarnation. In order to apply the Trinity to this question, the author assume that traditional Christianity simply identifies Jesus with the second person of the Trinity, and then asks us how the Trinity can pray to itself. In fact traditional theology carefully maintains the distinction between Jesus, regarded as a human being, and God. The Incarnation says that God united a human being with himself. That union is close enough that we can say that Jesus' actions are God's. Thus we can say that God died for us. It is close enough that we can say that we see God through Jesus. But the two participants in the union retain their separate natures. Jesus is still a human being, subject to the limitations of human nature, and he is still dependent on God through prayer. Traditional Christianity certainly has a different view of Christ than the JW's. But the distinction may not be what this poster thinks it is. Traditional Christianity says that Christ reveals God himself (Jehovah, if you like). But he does so somewhat "indirectly". By indirectly I mean that Jesus retains a normal human nature, and is God only by the virtue of the fact that God took this human nature into a union with himself. The Arian position (which as far as I can tell is the same as the JW position -- I don't know the JW position firsthand) says that Jesus is "a god". That is, he is an entity that combines some of the attributes of humanity and divinity. The traditional position makes Jesus both closer and farther from being God. Closer, because Jesus is God, not a god. But farther, because Jesus is not God directly, but rather is united with God in the union of the Incarnation. (Those who understand technical theology will note that there are a number of related issues that I am not dealing with, in order to keep the comments as brief as possible. This is intended to be a presentation of the orthodox position, and you should not assume that because I've not mentioned something I am denying it.) --clh]
wlsuen@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Gordon Suen) (02/18/91)
Dear speaker (or well..you typed), Anyway, I'd like to present an alternative understand about the scripture....hopefully, based on the common part of OUR TWO Bibles. I am not a Bible expert, nor a Greek. But if one read, one will find evidences about Trinity and even indicating that Jesus is God. Praise the Lord for He had died for us. BTW, excuse my poor English. > > The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father is Jehovah! > They also inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures > is a personal name given to the Holy Spirit (Ghost). In Isiah 9:6-7, it says: - Almighty God, Eternal Father ...etc, these names, titles are also given to Jesus. Not only titles but all the power that God has is also belong to this baby. If one READS THE WHOLE CHAPTER 9, especially verse 2, this verse is again referred to Jesus in Matthew 4:15-16. > Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face > and prayed, `My Father, if it possible, let this cup pass from me; > nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son > were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. > Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity > have been the Father's will.) > > John 8:17,18 "...I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears > witness to me." (So Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an > individual separate from the Father.) Explaining is not difficult. To accept one's explanation is rather hard my friend. Of course, Jesus is God and a "real man". "Real man" means he feels pains, he has physical needs, he will too sorrow. In the scripture you've quoted....Jesus knows his mission, he also realized the great suffering but he was willing to submit his body to what THEY had planned for salvation. A simple anology is that Jesus is God's arm to reach the world and do what was planned. Can we say the arm is not God.... we cannot. > > 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" > (Repeatedly, even following Jesus' ascension to heaven, the Scriptures > refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following > Jesus' resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, > when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same > expression, but never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the > Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the Holy > Spirit as "my God.") This verse also says Jesus is our Lord....which Jewishs claim that their only Lord is the one who brought them out from Egypt. Many...many... many place in the Bible, apostles pronouce Jesus is their Lord too. In fact, Father and Son is Jewish's concept is that father and son have the same social status. That was why the Jewishs wanted to kill Jesus when he admitted, he is the Son of God. God and Jesus' are equal --- this concept is clearly spelled out in Phil 2:6-8. The catch is that some CANNOT accept the fact that Jesus which equals to God will humble himself to be man and to die for us, sinners. This is what God's love is about. > John 1:1,2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and > the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (King James). However > in the New World Translation John 1:1,2 reads: "In the beginning the Word > was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the > beginning with God." I think we should all find a greek bible to read. From my understand and what a greek christian told me that the verse should be "the Word was God.." The New World Translation is translated in this century to fit in someone's belief. > > Which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: > "No one has ever seen God." continue...."but God's only son has revealed HIM".... You are not quoting the whole verse!!! If Jesus is only "a god" how can he reveal the perfect Jehovah! This verse means Jesus is a live representation of God -- God and a visible man in one. > so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father's divine > qualities (Hebrews 1:3). Again a small god cannot reflect the Father perfectly.... I think I will discuss more when I have my English Bible with me... any I have a class RIGHT NOW!!!! BYE Jimmy Lee
chrise@hpsrcje.hp.com (02/18/91)
OFM writes some sentences that, I fear, will confuse more than enlighten
readers on the nature of Jesus Christ.
In fact traditional theology carefully
maintains the distinction between Jesus, regarded as a human being,
and God. The Incarnation says that God united a human being with
himself. That union is close enough that we can say that Jesus'
actions are God's. Thus we can say that God died for us. It is close
enough that we can say that we see God through Jesus. But the two
participants in the union retain their separate natures. Jesus is
still a human being, subject to the limitations of human nature, and
he is still dependent on God through prayer.
"Traditional" (must be Catholic, who else believes in tradition? :-)
theology states that Jesus is a divine person with dual natures. As the
second person of the Trinity, his divine nature (pure spirit) is
eternal. He took on a human nature (body and soul) in the womb of the
Virgin Mary.
Frank Sheed, in _Theology for Beginners_, explains how to understand the
difference between person and nature: "person" answers a "who?"
question, while "nature" answers a "what?" question. There is only one
"who" in Jesus (he wasn't a mere man "possessed" by God) but there are
two "what"s (divine nature, human nature).
But farther, because Jesus is not God directly, but rather is united
with God in the union of the Incarnation.
Sayings "Jesus is not God directly" just confuses the matter (I mean,
is he or isn't he?) by ignoring the person/nature distinction that is
basic to orthodox Christology (the "hypostatic" union refers to the
union of the two *natures* in the one *person*). Jesus is God.
I highly recommend Sheed's book for a clear discussion of many
"technical" theological points (which have enormous day-to-day
implications, technical though they be).
Chris
"And in my vision the heavenly chariot flies through history,
the dull heresies sprawling, the wild truth reeling yet erect." - GKC
[I'm inserting this reply here, since otherwise there's no way to make
sure that it arrives at other sites after the message it is replying
to. Messages within a group do not always arrive in the same order
sent. This is only a problem with replies that I generate myself,
since others will be in a later group of messages. --clh]
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hedrick@cs.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Is Jesus God!!
Chris objects to my statement that Jesus is God indirectly, asking is
he or isn't he? While I understand the desire to have a clear answer,
it was precisely the desire to have simple statements that led to so
much trouble in the 3rd and 4th Cents. The Arian view is much simpler
than the orthodox one. The problem is that it doesn't do justice to
the complexity of the Biblical witness.
Chris quotes Frank Sheed as saying that "person" answers a who?
question and "nature" answers a "what?" question, saying that there is
only one "who" in Christ. I think this is simplifying things a bit
too much.
The question is whether Christ has a complete human existence. There
has been a tendency in Western theology to imply that the eternal
Logos took on the parts of a human being, but that there wasn't really
a human life there. The most extreme version of this was that Jesus
was a human body with the Logos taking the place where a soul would
normally be. That was clearly rejected. Even Athanasius (about the
farthest in this direction who is regarded as orthodox) says clearly
that Christ has both a human body and human soul. However even if you
give Christ a human soul, there's still a question of how you see his
humanity.
I sometimes get the impression from reading Athanasius that Christ's
human body and soul are simply appendages to the divine Logos. I.e.
that the Logos has all the parts of a human being, but there isn't a
real human being there. But I think the final agreement at Chalcedon
says there is. (I'm not alone in this suspicion. Athanasius'
position is sometimes described technically as "anhypostasia" -- the
concept that there is no hypostatis associated with the human nature.
To use your language, that "whoness" is associated entirely with the
divine Logos.) In general theologians have rejected the idea that
Jesus was simply the divine Logos appearing to be a human. He was a
real human being, who lived a real human life. As such he had a human
will, a human personality, etc.
All of the things we think of as making up personal existence must be
present in their normal human versions in Jesus (the only exception
being that he is sinless). That's what Chalcedon means by talking
about two separate natures that are not mixed or confused. Jesus
prayed to God to heal people; he prayed for strength. Does he really
have all the powers of God, and pray for strength only to set an
example for us? This would make a mockery of his pain in Gethsemane:
it would turn it into a sham. I believe the conclusion is clear that
when we are considering Jesus' life as a human -- and that is clearly
what the original question I was answering was looking at -- he does
not *directly* have the attributes of God.
However there is another side to this. In the discussions leading up
to Chalcedon there is also a concern with Christ's unity. Nestorius,
who takes an extreme version of my position, is criticized as
believing in two Sons, one human and one divine. (It's not clear that
he actually meant that, by the way, but he was understood as saying
it.) The orthodox position is that there is one Son with two natures.
The word used to characterize the one Son is "person".
This is where things get messy. The problem is what we normally mean
by "person" are all attributes of one or the other of the natures. A
person, as we normally perceive it, is a combination of a visible
presence, a personality, a style of interacting with people, a set of
knowledge, etc. But these are all attributes of Christ's human
existence. (And if we think of God as a person, in some suitably
generalized sense, the divine Logos also has the attributes of a
divine persona.) Thus the only sense I can make of Chalcedon is that
they were using the term "person" in a somewhat more abstract sense.
Indeed they often used the Greek "hypostasis", which is a very
abstract word, equivalent possibly to something like "entity".
So what sense does it make to say that the divine Logos and a human
being constitute a single entity? Now we get to the question of the
union of the two natures. I don't think we can say exactly how the
union is done. The Incarnation is, after all, a mystery. I listed
some of the implications in the original posting, such as the fact
that the actions of the human being are also to be regarded as God's
actions, and that when we encounter the human being, we encounter
God. I believe the concept was that the divine Logos and the human
being "interpenetrated", as it were. That is, I do not have in mind
an arms-length relationship, where we interact with either the human
being or the Logos, and whichever one we interact with tells the
other about it. Rather, every action involves both natures. It must
be seen on two planes. On the human plane, it is the action of a
human being, being done as a result of his human will. On God's
plane, the same action is part of God's plan, and reveals God to us.
Thus when we encounter Christ, we encounter both a human being and
God. But the planes must be kept distinct, or we end up "confusing
the natures". (E.g. it is a heresy [the monothelite heresy] to say
that Christ has only one will. There is both a human and a divine
will involved in every decision. But they always act in concert.)
It is for this reason that I want to insert a qualification when we
say that Jesus is God. Note that I assume here that Jesus is being
used to refer to the human being. Of course sometimes Jesus Christ
is used to refer to the whole union, as it were. But the question
being asked was clearly about actions that were specific to the human
nature: praying to God, etc. At any rate, to say simply that Jesus
is God implies that Jesus is immortal, invisible, etc. That is
nonsense, and is not what Christians mean. (If I have to invoke
specific authority, it would be "confusing the natures", i.e. failing
to recognize the distinction between the two natures involved in the
union.) When people say that Jesus is God what they mean is that
Jesus is God's human existence, i.e. that he is united with God in
the union of the Incarnation.
There's the same indirectness in the statement that Jesus is God as
there is in the statement that God died on the cross. The latter
statement cannot be meant in an absolutely direct sense, or God would
have been dead for three days (and no one would have been left to
resurrect him). We *do* want to say that God died, but he
experienced death by virtue of the fact that he took a human life to
himself, not directly in his divine nature. There is something
called the "communication of attributes". This is a principle that
says because humanity and God are united in Christ, one can attribute
both human and divine properties to both. So we can say that Jesus
is God, and we can say that God died. But we need to know when we're
invoking the communication of attributes, or we'll appear either to
be speaking nonsense or "confusing the natures".
I claim that people become JW's to a large extent because orthodox
Christians are careless in the way they use language, and give the
impression that orthodox Christian doctrine says things that are
nonsense.oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (02/19/91)
Re: William Hill In article <Feb.14.08.43.28.1991.23803@athos.rutgers.edu>, wjhill@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.hill) writes: >Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is >God? Dear William, Our moderator commented a bit on this; it's basically a matter of interpretation as to whether or not the Bible supports the idea of the Blessed Trinity. Some religions say yes, some say no; the Bible gives support for both, depending on the translation of the Bible and on the interpretation of the given Bible. Despite this, I'd like to speak to a few other points that you've raised: > Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their >belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are >Jehovah. This is not a Bible teaching! Please remember that your above "or" connects two RADICALLY different views; the first is true, and the second is false. To say that Jesus Christ is God is one thing; to say that He is YHWH is something else, again. The basic formula for the Trinity is this: The Father (YHWH) /\ / \ / | \ / \ i t s i o s n | | n s o i GOD t / \ / is is \ / / \ \ / / \ \ The Son (Jesus) ---- is not ----- The Holy Spirit So the claim that "trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ *is* YHWH (in the sense that Jesus = Father)" is not true. >If Jehovah is a Trinity, as some in this newsgroup believe, How the do you >explain the following scriptures? >Acts 7:55, 56 reports Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw >"Jesus standing at God's right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the >Holy Spirit. Again, it's a matter of interpretation. Stephen didn't say that he saw Jesus standing at the Father's right hand and NOT standing by the Holy Spirit. The mere fact that the Holy Spirit was not mentioned is no grounds for assuming the Spirit's non-existence or non-Divinity. >Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face >and prayed, `My Father, if it possible, let this cup pass from me; >nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son >were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. >Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity >have been the Father's will.) Again, I refer you to the diagram (above); trinitarians do NOT believe that Jesus and YHWH are the same person. >Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their >belief provide a solid basis for that dogma? >A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to >search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what >he already believes. He wants to know what God's Word itself says. Again, please be careful. The doctrine of the Trinity was started because the early Church leaders *DID* think that it was true, Scripturally; the decision to accept the Trinity was not a whimsical or arbitrary one. In other words, the Catholics used the Bible to FORM the concept of a Trinity (which they then accepted)... not the other way around (i.e. justifying a preexisting belief with the Bible). >John 1:1,2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and >the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (King James). However >in the New World Translation John 1:1,2 reads: "In the beginning the Word >was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the >beginning with God." The New World Bible (i.e. the bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses) takes severe liberties with its translations, and is recognized by the vast majority of the Chriatian community (and by Jewish Biblical Scholars) as erroneous. For example, your quoted passage CANNOT have included the indefinite article "a"; Greek simply doesn't operate like that. The Greek "Theos" is read exactly like the Latin "Deus": as either "God" or "THE God" (definite article); in Greek and in Latin, indefinite articles (like "a", or "some") must be mentioned specifically (by use of another word). For example, in Latin, "Deus" means "the God"; one would need "ullus Deus" (any God) or some such thing to indicate indefinite status. >Which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: >"No one has ever seen God." True, but in the very next sentence, it says: "It is God the only Son, ever at the Father's side, who has revealed Him." (New American Bible, John 1:18) Catholics maintain that "God" in the first part of John 1:18 is in reference to the Father; otherwise, it would contradict itself (i.e. the Son is God, and has never seen Himself OR His Father, which is a rather odd concept). >Is the rendering "a god" consistent with rules of Greek grammar? Some >reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The >Word was God." But not all agree. Bible translator William Barclay states: >"Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the >definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos >the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. This does not reflect the modern understanding of Greek; in both Greek and Latin, it was actually rather uncommon to place a definite article before a word whose meaning was clear; it would be redundant. (Note: writers of Greek and Latin DID do this sometimes, to emphasize the definite article being described.) I suspect that, had William Barclay's opinions been in conformity with common understanding of Greek, classrooms the world over would have heard about it. Again, please don't take this posting as an attempt to convince you that your non-Trinitarian belief is wrong; it's not my place to do that. But I *do* wish to make sure that you have a correct understanding of the Trinitarian point of view. ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) (02/28/91)
In article <Feb.25.10.03.02.1991.2389@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Let's take the New World Translation (NWT) of John 1:1 and examine it >for content. The NWT renders John 1:1 as follows: > >"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the >Word was a god." > >First, who is the "God"? According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, God >is Jehovah of the Old Testament. No argument. > >Who is "a god"? That according to the Witnesses is Jesus. > >So what we have here are two gods. One Almighty God and one mighty god, >in other words, a big god and a little god. The big god created the >little god. So the proposition is that John 1:1 teaches two gods, based >upon the interpretation of the Society. It is a common mistake to conclude the Jehovah's witnesses are polytheists or henotheists. The problem lies in our two understandings of what god means. The Bible uses the word god to mean a powerful being, angels are refered to as gods, the judges of Israel were refered to as gods, AND EVEN SATAN.... >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? is refered to as a god (as you have stated). You accept Satan being a god. So Jesus being much more powerful than Satan should be able to be addressed as such. So, when the Bible refers to someone or a group as being a god or gods, that does not imply a diety deserving of worship, it merely is a word ascribed to a powerful being, good or bad. > >However, Isaiah 43:10, the verse that the Society uses as the basis for >the name "Jehovah's Witnesses," says in full: > >"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have >chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: >before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." From the context it would seem that when it refers to God, it is in the sense of a being deserving worship and servitude, since you yourself are in agreement of the KJV's transtlation of 2 Cor. 4:4. > >So Jehovah clearly states that there is no other God -- not even a >little one. So if you object to refering to Jesus as a god, since there is no other; then you must object to Satan being a god;thus, in your mind there is some contradiction as far as 2Cor.4:4 and Ish.43:10. Clearly, there is no contradiction or problem with refering to Jesus as a god, lest 2 Cor.4:4 and other scriptures are called into question as well. >"I, even I, am the LORD [YHWH]: and beside me there is no saviour." > >In other words, there is no one who can claim to be our Saviour but God. >Yet we know Jesus as our Saviour. This is a simple misunderstanding of the scriptures. Often times the Bible refers to both the servant and the master as doing the same thing. For instance, in Matt. 8:5,6 an army officer asked Jesus a favor, but in Luke representatives were sent to ask. Often times, Bible critics bring this out as a contradiction. But really it isn't, because the army officer did ask Jesus, but it was through his servants. If the army officer had said, "No one had asked Jesus a favor, except for me," we would not object and say, "Well, the servants asked." Both were in agreement, both were asking the same thing for the same person. Basically, you have to be careful not to quickly equate things as supporting the trinity, for no one would argue that the officer and his servants are the same entity. > >Jesus is God incarnate. Paul tells us that in Jesus dwelt the fullness >of the Godhead bodily. And quoting the NWT on this passage is not a >good thing to do, because even the Society's interlinear shows that the >NWT version of this Colossians passage is poorly rendered. I am not sure off hand, what scripture you are refering to. >The problem with the New World Translation is that it doesn't make sense >from several points. First is the issue of polytheism that I presented >above. Second is the reasoning behind the method of translating "ho >theos." > Again, we are not polytheists, nor does the NWT and other Bibles that render John 1:1 in the way in which you object support any type of polytheism or henotheism. Basically, neither you nor I are greek scholars. But let me just make this comment. In the NWT, the translators are not claiming some sacred law of translation. As in most cases, context comes into play. In the NWT, ho theos is not always translated "God" (meaning JHVH), and theos (w/o the definite article) does not necessitate translating the word "a god." Some scholars would say that there is a rule concerning the structure of the sentence (E.C. Colwell) that would show that John 1:1 should be redered "and God was the Word." This is obviously not the case for there are several scriptures that have similar stucturing (it has to do with the predicate noun following the verb, or not), that are unanimously agreed upon to read with an indefinite article. Ultimately, context has a lot to say in the renderings of translated verses, and neither you nor I are qualified to make such evaluations. We can only quote authorities: "The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." (Thayer) "Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine being.'" (John McKenzie, Jesuit, author of Dictionary of the Bible) >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. > >Using the Society's method, we arrive at a serious dilemma. If "ho >theos" is always a reference to Jehovah God, then it would appear that >they are saying that both Jesus and Satan are Jehovah. Again, context. >But here is something to consider. In the Aramaic, the word for Logos >is Memra. It is also the designation for YHWH God in the Targums, i.e., >the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. > >A. Plummer in his book "The Gospel According to St. John" (Cambridge: >University Press, 1892, p. 62) says, "The Logos existed from all >eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father...neither >confounding the Persons nore dividing the Substance." Thus, Christians >do not believe that Jesus and the Father are the same Person. We see >Jesus and the Father as two Persons, but the same God. We agree that Jesus is distinct from the Father, but not that he is equal. For Jesus was sent forth, anointed, given the kingdom, begotten, etc. all by the Father. >Jesus is God incarnate. He is God the Son. Jesus is Jesus incarnate. He is the Son of God. --Boris Chen (boris@ocf.berkeley.edu) [An accusastion of polytheism is not a common one. Technically speaking the classification of JW's from an orthodox position would be Arian, not polytheist. That is, they consider Christ to be supernatural, but not fully God. --clh]
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (03/05/91)
Mr. Hill writes:
# Is the rendering "a god" consistent with rules of Greek grammar? Some
# reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The
# Word was God." But not all agree. Bible translator William Barclay states:
# "Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the
# definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos
# the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a
# Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a
# description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective
# rather than of a noun....If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a
# definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have
# identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in
# front of theos it becomes a description, and more of and adjective than a
# noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, `The Word
# was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God'
# ...John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply,
# he does not say that Jesus was God." John 1:1 should be translated the
# word was with the God.
Let me start with Barclay's translation of John 1:1,2, which reads:
"When the world had its beginning, the word was already there; and the
word was with God; and the word was God. The word was in the beginning
with God."
Now, before I quote Barcaly any further, let me provide some background
that even Barclay uses in his book on the Gospel of John (Volume 1).
The men who translated the Hebrew texts into Aramaic, did not want to
ascribe human thoughts and feelings and actions to God. They tried to
avoid every anthropomorphism. So, when it came to a passage like Exodus
19:17, where we read "Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet
God," the Targums thought this too human a way to speak of God, so they
said that Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet the 'word of
God.'
In the Jonathan Targums the phrase "the word of God" occurs no fewer
than about three hundred and twenty times. While it is quite true that
it (the phrase) is simply a periphrasis for the name of God, the fact
remains that this phrase became one of the commonest forms of Jewish
expression. Every Jew was used to hearing this phrase and used to
speaking of "the Memra" (the word) of God.
John knew this when he wrote his Gospel. Being raised in the Jewish
faith, he was very well aware of the language used and used this
language in his own writings. His use of "Logos" matches clearly that
manner in which Memra was used. Keep this in mind for the rest of this
post.
I'd like to now quote Barclay on the translation of John 1:1 where John
writes "...and the Word was God."
"Finally John says that "the word was God." This is a difficult saying
for us to understand, and it is difficult because Greek, in which John
wrote, had a different way of saying things from the way in which
English speaks. When Greek uses a noun it almost always uses the
definite article with it. The Greek for God is 'theos' and the definite
article is 'ho.' When Greek speaks about God it does not simply say
'theos'; it says 'ho theos.' Now when Greek does not use the definite
article with a noun that noun becomes much more like an adjective. John
did not say that the word was 'ho theos'; that would have been to say
that the word was 'identical' with God. He said that the word was
'theos' -- without the definite article -- which means that the word
was, we might say, of the very same character and quality and essence
and being as God. When John said 'the word was God' he was not saying
that Jesus was identical with God; he was saying that Jesus was so
perfectly the same as God in mind, in heart, in being that in him we see
what God is like."
Notice that Barclay does not say that Jesus was identical to God, but
rather Jesus was the "same as God in mind, in heart, in being..."
Notice "in being" that is a key phrase here. Barclay is a Trinitarian.
To misconstrue what he says as support for some other view is invalid.
More imporatantly, when we look at the context of what John says, we are
left with no other conclusion but that the Word was God. This being the
case, then when we are told in vs. 14 of this same chapter of John that
the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, the inescapable conclusion is
that Jesus is the Word, and therefore, Jesus is God. Notice that I did
not say Father. There is a real distinction between Father and Son, as
there is between Father and Holy Spirit, and Son and Holy Spirit.
En Agape,
Genestevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (03/05/91)
In article <Feb.25.10.03.02.1991.2389@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: Gene begins his argument that Jesus is the Almighty God Jehovah by pointing out that the same desciptive titles are used for both Jesus and Jehovah. His conclusion is that that since two individuals in the Bible share the same *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE*, then you can identify one with the other. >"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have >chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: >before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." > >So Jehovah clearly states that there is no other God -- not even a >little one. But notice what else our God says in the 11th verse of this >chapter: > >"I, even I, am the LORD [YHWH]: and beside me there is no saviour." > >In other words, there is no one who can claim to be our Saviour but God. >Yet we know Jesus as our Saviour. By this reasoning, I would also point out that Othniel, a judge in Israel must be Jehovah also since he too is called a Saviour (Judges 3:9, see also Neh 9:27 where many are called Saviours). The truth is that Jehovah has provided salvation through men (i.e. both Jehovah and the men are called Saviours), as well Jesus Christ(i.e. both Jehovah and Jesus are called Saviours). As for the equating of the *DESCRIPIVE TITLE* "God", Gene answers his own question for me. Thanks Gene! >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? Exactly, you have pointed out that the term "God" is a desciptive title that is used for many different individuals and things: Literally it means 'mighty one'. This descriptive title is used in reference to the true God Jehovah, the false gods of the nations, it is used in reference to Satan(2Cor 4:4), even power men, judges were called gods(Psa 82:1-6).At Phillipians 3:19 we even see that a persons belly can be called their god. In light of the fact that the Bible uses the *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE* 'god' for even powerful men here on earth, it is not improper to use this title in reference to Jesus Christ, and thus the Bible does. POINT: ------ If a certain tile or descriptive phrase is found in more than one location in the Scriptures, it should never hastily be concluded that it must always refer to the same person. Such reasoning would lead to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was Jesus Christ, beacuse both were called "king of kings" (Dan 2:37; Rev 17:14); and that Jesus' disciples were actually Jesus Christ, because both were called "the light of the world." (Matt. 5:14; John 8:12) On the issue of Polytheism:` --------------------------- Gene states that the New World Translation is teaching polytheism: >The problem with the New World Translation is that it doesn't make sense >from several points. First is the issue of polytheism that I presented >above.... Once again Gene answers the question, by pointing out that the Bible uses the term "God" as a desciptive title: >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? Exactly, you have pointed out that the term "God" is a desciptive title that is used for many different individuals and things: Literally it means 'mighty one'. This descriptive title is used in reference to the true God Jehovah, the false gods of the nations, it is used in reference to Satan(2Cor 4:4), even power men, judges were called gods(Psa 82:1-6).At Phillipians 3:19 we even see that a persons belly can be called their god. Is this teaching polytheism? In light of the fact that the Bible uses the *DESCRIPTIVE TITLE* 'god' for even powerful men here on earth, it is not improper to use this title in reference to Jesus Christ, and thus the Bible does. >Jesus is God incarnate. He is God the Son. Gene concludes his presentation with the statement "Jesus....is God the Son" If Jesus is God the Son, is it your opinion that right now in heaven, Jesus as "God the Son" has a God that he serves and worships? Yes, or No? If Yes, then are you teaching polytheism anymore that JW's are? If No, then why do the following Scriptures say he does? After he had returned to his heavenly glory, *Jesus had a God* (Rev 3:12 "*My* God) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, Jesus was under the Headship of *God* 1Cor11:3 Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep [I think the orthodox answer to your last question is yes, although you should understand that because the Son has two natures, there's the possibility of two slightly different answers. The orthodox claim is that the Son has two different forms of existence, as the divine Logos, and as a human being. In both of his natures, the Son is dependent upon the Father, but this dependence is shown in different ways, as as appropriate to the two natures. I would say that in his humanity the Son serves and worships God, even after the Resurrection. I'd say this because Jesus is said a number of times in the NT to be the "firstfruits" of the same resurrection that all of us will experience. Jesus continues to be a model for us even after our death. In his divine nature, the Son is still dependent upon the Father and serves him. I think it would strike most Christians as odd to say that the Logos worships the Father, because the members of the Trinity presumably have a much tighter mode of communication than what we think of as worship. Yet I think we should view our worship as being in some way modelled after the relationship between Father and Son, even if because of the difference between us and God, the human experience of it is more indirect. Thus I'd say that worship is the human experience corresponding to the relationship between the Father and Son in eternity. I think this is suggested by John 14 and 15, etc. However for most of us the similarity may be fairly weak, simply because of the many roadblocks between us and God. For Christ's human existence this would of course not be true. As to whether this implies polytheism, the answer is no. The Trinitarian concept is that the relationship of Father to Son is intrinsic to God. It does not require a separate creature. To us this is the implication of saying that "God is love" (I John 4). Love is a relationship. God didn't have to create the world, or some other creature, before he could love. In Christ we see the human face of God's love, but it's the same love that has been in him all along. --clh]
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (03/08/91)
Boris, let me start off by apologizing to you and other Witnesses, like Steve P. I read your response to my post and then went back to my original posting. I can see that I did not make myself clear. I do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses polytheists. In fact, I know a great number of Witnesses and know them to be fiercely monotheistic. The polytheism comes in from my reading of the way in which the Society renders John 1:1. The analysis of the passage in the NWT yields this conclusion, especially in light of the answers that I've gotten before >From other Witnesses, which I gave in brief detail in my original post. Now on to your response. > In article <Feb.28.03.38.13.1991.9771@athos.rutgers.edu> c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) writes: > > >It is a common mistake to conclude the Jehovah's witnesses are polytheists > >or henotheists. The problem lies in our two understandings of what god > >means. The Bible uses the word god to mean a powerful being, angels are > >refered to as gods, the judges of Israel were refered to as gods, AND > >EVEN SATAN.... Well said, Boris, but you haven't gone far enough with this analysis. Even though literally speaking there is only one true God and the "gods" of the heathen are nothing but manmade idols (Psa. 115:1-8), the word "god" was at times used in a figurative manner or sense to describe someone or something which had a godlike function. Thus, Moses was to function as a godlike judge over Pharaoh (Ex. 4:16). Satan is figuratively called "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4). The judges over Israel were called Elohim, that is, "gods" in Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, etc., because like God, they held the power of life and death over men. While Moses, the judges, angels, and even Satan himself are, at times, called "god" in a figurative sense, are they ever said to be God by nature? Are we ever told to bow before them and give them divine worship? Are we told to pray to them? Are we ever told to place our ultimate faith, hope, trust, and love in them? Are the divine characteristics such as eternity or omnipresence ever atrributed to them? While they may have been called Elohim, were they ever called YHWH? We agree that there is only one true and living God. Since there is only one true God, will this God chare His glory and worship with anyone else? (Isa. 42:8) Can we worship any created being or thing; or does the Bible teach that we are to worship God alone? (Deut. 6:13) In Hebrew of Isa. 9:6, "Mighty God" appears without the definite article. But this is also true in such places as Isa. 10:21; 49:26. Since YHWH is called "Mighty God" without the definite article in Isa. 10:20-21, the absence of the article cannot be interpreted to show that YHWH is just "a god." But the comparison between Isa. 9:6 and Isa. 10:20-21 demonstrates that Jesus is the YHWH who is the "Mighty God." After all, there cannot be two "Mighty Gods," for there is only one God (Isa. 43:10). There is also an irrefutable Scriptural logic behind the proposition that Jesus is YHWH. In logic, the following syllogism is *always valid*: A > B a = b B > C or b = c ---------------- A > C a = c In the same way, the teaching of Scripture can be arranged in conformity to the above syllogism. Jesus is "Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6) "Mighty God" is YHWH (Isa. 10:20-21) ------------------------------------ Jesus is YHWH The logical sequence cannot be shown to be invalid. The conclusion is automatic and irrefutable. All throughout the various texts that we use as proof texts, there is this consistent fact, Jesus is ascribed with having the very nature of God. I have a rather complete list of these verses. The listing shows what is said about YHWH and then shows verses that ascribe the same nature to Jesus. Now, you and other Witnesses can choose to ignore these verses or try to reinterpret them, as you please. But the logic still stands. Another example: YHWH is the Rock of Israel (Deut. 32:1-4) The Rock of Israel is Jesus (1 Cor. 10:1-4) ------------------------------------------- Jesus is YHWH >>"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have >>chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: >>before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." > >From the context it would seem that when it refers to God, it is in >the sense of a being deserving worship and servitude, since you >yourself are in agreement of the KJV's transtlation of 2 Cor. 4:4. In context, YHWH is saying very clearly that there is no other god. This passage has nothing to do with worship. YHWH relates the history to which the Israelites can bear witness that YHWH alone is the one and true God. So we can clearly say that there is no separate god. But if Isa. 43:10 isn't sufficient, read Isa. 45:21. >>Jesus is God incarnate. Paul tells us that in Jesus dwelt the fullness >>of the Godhead bodily. And quoting the NWT on this passage is not a >>good thing to do, because even the Society's interlinear shows that the >>NWT version of this Colossians passage is poorly rendered. > >I am not sure off hand, what scripture you are refering to. Col. 2:9 > Basically, neither you nor I are greek scholars. But let me just >make this comment. In the NWT, the translators are not claiming some >sacred law of translation. As in most cases, context comes into play. 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. You keep saying that context is so important, but about the context of John 1:1 forces "a god"? The problem with the NWT is that it is attempting to force a doctrinal view on the text that the text itself simply will not support in context. >"The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." (Thayer) No argument with that. ;-) >"Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine ^^^^^^^^^^| | huh!? wanna try that word again, please. >>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? >>But here is something to consider. In the Aramaic, the word for Logos >>is Memra. It is also the designation for YHWH God in the Targums, i.e., >>the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. >> >>A. Plummer in his book "The Gospel According to St. John" (Cambridge: >>University Press, 1892, p. 62) says, "The Logos existed from all >>eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father...neither >>confounding the Persons nore dividing the Substance." Thus, Christians >>do not believe that Jesus and the Father are the same Person. We see >>Jesus and the Father as two Persons, but the same God. > >We agree that Jesus is distinct from the Father, Then we agree on this also. >but not that he is >equal. For Jesus was sent forth, anointed, given the kingdom, begotten, >etc. all by the Father. And this is the center of the storm of the debate. En Christo, Gene
boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.8.00.33.15.1991.24501@athos.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >> In article <Feb.28.03.38.13.1991.9771@athos.rutgers.edu> c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) writes: I think the problem lies in talking about the word, "god"/"God." There is the use of the word in a descriptive sense, and a use of the word to describe the Almighty. >We agree that there is only one true and living God. Since there is >only one true God, will this God chare His glory and worship with anyone >else? (Isa. 42:8) Can we worship any created being or thing; or does >the Bible teach that we are to worship God alone? (Deut. 6:13) Yes, I agree that we should worship God (Jehovah) alone, and not to created beings. I agree. If you mean to imply that Jesus is worshiped, perhaps there is another point of misunderstanding, since I don't worship Jesus; I worship the Father just as Jesus did. In Isa. 42:8, Jehovah is speaking about not sharing his glory with false gods (i.e. idols of the nations). Jesus is of course spoken of as having glory, but obviously he would since he is in the image of God, and reflects His qualities. > >There is also an irrefutable Scriptural logic behind the proposition >that Jesus is YHWH. In logic, the following syllogism is *always >valid*: > >A > B a = b >B > C or b = c >---------------- >A > C a = c This transitive property is of course a valid method of logic, but you have to be careful in its application. As I said before, the term theos can be used in a descriptive sense, and thus you cannot say: There exists an x such that p(x) is true There exists a y such that p(y) is true Therefore, x = y; the function p being a predicate. You can only say p(x) = p(y) for they are both true. For example, bird(Tweety) = true bird(Daffy) = true You can only conclude that they are both birds, but not that Daffy is Tweety. If you have a statement (theos(x) and almighty(x) ==> Jehovah(x)), that would be something different, since the aspect of almighty is put in, which by definition can only be one person. Thus, theos(Jesus) and almighty(Jesus) ==> T and F ==> F. If there is a scripture showing Jesus to be almighty, then my arguement is blown to pieces, but as it stands, the qualitative adjective, mighty, can apply to more than one person. Caution also must be displayed in titles stemming from duties and actions. Ultimately, it is God that bears the credit for what he commands his servants to do. It is similar to the part in Matt. 8:5,6 and Luke 7:2,3. Often times this is cited as a contradiction in the Bible, because of this same misunderstanding. In Matt., the account shows an army officer asking Jesus a favor, while in Luke, representatives asked Jesus a favor. It was the army officer who was ultimately responsible for the question, and the representatives were through whom it was given. Another example is, if Joe Workman is called the builder of the new road, it would not imply that Jane Mayor is the same as Joe Workman if she too, was called the builder of the new road, for she was the ultimate head. She is Joe's head, just as God is Christ's head. >So we can clearly say that there is no separate god. But if Isa. 43:10 >isn't sufficient, read Isa. 45:21. Again, I think the problem arises in the use of the word God/god. It reads that there is no God besides Jehovah, and I agree. And because I realize that the Bible also calls other beings god in a descriptive sense, I don't find any contradiction in Satan, Judges, Angels, and Jesus being called gods. >>>Jesus is God incarnate. Paul tells us that in Jesus dwelt the fullness >>>of the Godhead bodily. And quoting the NWT on this passage is not a >>>good thing to do, because even the Society's interlinear shows that the >>>NWT version of this Colossians passage is poorly rendered. >> >>I am not sure off hand, what scripture you are refering to. > >Col. 2:9 "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" "because in him is dwelling down all the fullness of the divinity bodily" Guess which on is in the NWT, and which is a literal word for word translation from the Greek. To me, they both seem equivalent. > >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. 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." The reason for the NWT translation of Jn.1:1 is as it is because of the context of the entire Bible. I also think that the second part is in set in contrast to the first because in the first instance of theos, a definite article was present, and in the second instance, it was not. This is a contrast that is absent from your example of Jn.1:6. >You keep saying that context is so important, but about the context of >John 1:1 forces "a god"? The problem with the NWT is that it is >attempting to force a doctrinal view on the text that the text itself >simply will not support in context. I don't know what do say, but that the feeling is mutual for those translations that render it "the Word was 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. >>>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. (I'll excuse you calling me Brian, if you excuse my typos) >>but not that he is >>equal. For Jesus was sent forth, anointed, given the kingdom, begotten, >>etc. all by the Father. > >And this is the center of the storm of the debate. Then we agree again. :) /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu | \----------------------------------------------------------/