by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
I think someone wrote that Jesus is Michael the Arc Angel!!!!!!!!! What a joke!!!!!
Look here now.....
In Jude 1:9 Michael argues with Satan about Moses body, he dared not rebuke him, he said "the Lord rebuke you."
But Jesus rebuked demons several times! I think the JW's are grossly wrong on this one!
The JW's are a cult. Mondo1 get out while you still can!!!!
Little Toe,
To someone who disagrees with the notion of the Son and the Father being co-equal, the word-association is necessary. It need not be the work of the WTS. Why? To force oneself to disregard that association feels almost like a new form of "programming", which being former JWs is very undesirable.
However, what need not be inevitable is the Trinity debate. I'm happy to have someone refer to Jesus as God. A little voice might say "bloody Trinitarian!" . But it doesn't have to translate into an argument over Christ's nature. The problem with this thread is it allowed (possibly even encouraged) a Trinity debate from the start, for the reasons I stated in my previous post.
Regards,
INQ
BelieverInJesus,
You write:
-------------------------------------
If you deny the holy trinity..................you will lose your soul.
-------------------------------------
If this is the case, why can't I find any Bible writer that teaches the doctrine? Nobody does! It is an interpretation that no Bible writer ever writes about!
----------------------------------
The NWT is translated in error. Take a look at this regarding John 1:1 You will see that the article is translated incorrectly.
-----------------------------------
Yes, let us look at it, shall we?
----------------------------------
HO LOGOS EH HO THEOS.....would mean that LOGOS and THEOS were equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no HO THEOS which is not HO LOGOS. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of John 1:1.
----------------------------------------------
That is correct. Looks like you've read Harner. Though, it is HN, not EH. Eta Nu.
------------------------------------
HO LOGOS EN THEOS........would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind.....
-----------------------------
Yes it would... just like QEOS HN hO LOGOS.
--------------------------------------
HO LOGOS EN THEIOS.......would mean that the LOGOS was 'divine' without specifying further in what or to what extent...it could also imply that the LOGOS being only THEIOS was subordinate to THEOS....
--------------------------------
Well now you're jumping and bringing in an adjective.
---------------------------------------
HO LOGOS THEOS EN........means that the LOGOS (rather than something else) has the nature of THEOS.......
-------------------------------------
No, it means nothing different than QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The only difference is a change in word order.
----------------------------------------
THEOS EN HO LOGOS........means that the LOGOS has the nature of THEOS (rather than something else). In this clause, the form John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis.
------------------------------------- Actually, you are quite wrong. First, the word order is because of poetic structure. John had to use this word order. Note for yourself:
EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS
hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
QEOS HN hO LOGOS
If John used any other word order, the poetic structure of the passage would have fallen apart. The same structure continues on within the prologue too. It would be pretty bad to mess it up in the very first verse! John 1:1c is not some special "nature" predicate nominative. It is a predicate nominative just like any other verse. I specifically mentioned Acts 28:4, which I notice you completely avoided. Notice the parallel in structure between it and John 1:1c.
QEOS hN hO LOGOS
FONEUS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS
Predicate Noun
John 1:1c - QEOS
Acts 28:4 - FONEUS
Verb:
John 1:1c - HN - Imperfect of EIMI
Acts 28:4 - ESTIN - 3rd person of EIMI
Subject:
John 1:1c - hO LOGOS
Acts 28:4 - hO ANQRWPOS
How is Acts 28:4 universally translation? A murderer! Key letter is "a" there.
------------------------------------
If John had wanted us to understand that Jesus was only 'a god' he would have written HO LOGOS EN THEOS instead of THEOS EN HO LOGOS
-------------------------
The burden of proof rests upon you to prove that, and as there are so many preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives that I can reference that prove such a hypothesis to be false, you will not be able to.
-----------------------------------
Furthermore, In John 20:21 Thomas says regarding Jesus....."My Lord and my God!"
----------------------
And what of it? I would make a similar confession, for Jesus is a god to me! So I could also say as Thomas did, hO QEOS MOU. That does not make God a Trinity or Jesus the Almighty.
--------------------------------
In Titus 2:13 Jesus is refered to in the same manner "God and Savior".
-----------------------------
Actually, no. That text, when rendered literally, reads: "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ." Jesus is called "our Savior," but that is it.
------------------------------------
There is only 1 God, no other's. Look in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalm. ONE GOD ONLY. All other God's are idols, worthless. Some people make their corvette a god! Some people make a hollywood movie star a god. And he is a "god" in hollywood. But as far as a real, true, everlasting God, there is only one.---------------------- Well let us see. Psalm 8:5 refers to the angels as "gods." Psa. 82:6 refers to the judges of Israel as "gods". Psa. 136:2 refers to God as the God of the gods. False idol gods??? I think not! Even the early Church recognized that others could be called gods. Ones such as Justin Martyr understood Psa. 82:6 to refer to Christians in the resurrection. Also, I almost forget, the LXX of Exodus 7:1 calls Moses "a god to Pharaoh. One of my favorites though comes from an early church writing, the Letter to Diognetus. In there it states: “He who, whatever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [them].”
The fact that there is "one God" is no different than the fact that there is "one Lord," Jesus, and yet the Father is called our Lord and the apostle John called one of the 24 elders his Lord in Revelation 7:14. Or no different than one in John 8:41 the Jews confess: "We have ONE Father, God," when only 2 verses prior in verse 29 they stated: "Abraham is our Father." By your reasoning Abraham must be God and the elder must be Jesus!
-----------------------------
If you go to the original greek, you can see that the NWT is wrong. Whoever changed it doesn't follow the rules of translation, they are inconsistant in the "rules" such as in Luke 20:38 also. The so called translators are like John Kerry, they flip flop on issues, in this case to take away Jesus's Deity.
------------------------------
Let us look at Luke 20:38. QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN PANTES GAR AUTWi ZWSIN. What on earth does this have to do with anything? Nothing to do with John 1:1, that is for sure. Though the text is wonderful when we compare it back to Psa. 136:2, for it shows that the "gods" that Jehovah is the God of are real "living" gods, for he is the God of the living after all, not of ones without life!
Mondo
Lilly,
why are you being so condescending to me when I asked an honest question? You use terms like "here you go again putting your own spin on things" and "whay can't you understand" and accusing me of twisting scripture. Haven't you ever had a calm discussion about biblical texts before? I am not getting upset at you for disagreeing, I am simply asking questions. Do you feel I am trying to disprove you for that is not my intention at all. I am trying to learn about certain texts.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across as condescending, but you are starting to make me question your sincerity. You keep saying the same things over and over despite my pointing out to you that you are going beyond what is written. That's what I meant by "there you go again putting your own spin on things." How many ways do you expect me or anyone to show you that you just plain find it hard to accept clear, easy-to-understand statements?
Hebrews 1 says God spoke by the prophets in times past, yet you keep insisting he spoke by his Son. That is evidence of living in denial. What more can I say?
For instance by giving me that text in Matthew you shed light on the issue so thank you for that. I see what you mean about the Angels appearance but in Matthew it clearly identifies this person as "an angel of the Lord" so this text does not help with my question. I will try again to state my question.
Again, what more can I say? You keep trying to prove that Hebrews 1 is all wrong, that you know better. I showed you that Daniel 10 is describing an angel. I showed you right there in the context. But you don't seem satisfied. Now you want the context to come right out and say precisely that the man in linen is an "angel of the Lord." You want to believe that in OT times Jesus existed as a person less powerful than Michael the archangel.
There are many times when the OT people said an "angel of the LORD" appeared to them. I was simply asking when they specifically say "I saw GOD" and the bible says "no one has seen God at any time" who did they see? Could it be reasonable that they had actually seen Jesus - the image of God? The only one who actually answered my question is Mondo.
And how about what I told you about Jacob wrestling with a man who was actually an angel and who Jacob thought was God? How could he or anyone have seen Jesus if Hebrews 1 clearly, plainly, specifically says that God spoke by his prophets and Hebrews 2 says he spoke by his angels? I certainly hope you don't go through the rest of the Bible and question the actual wording of every verse just as you have been doing with these few verses in Hebrews. You seem to have your mind made up that God spoke to men by means of Jesus, and that's all there is to it despite what the Scriptures teach.
It is interesting that the words spoken to Daniel by the man is very similar (not saying exactly the same) as the words spoken to John by Jesus and recorded in Revelation. And both said they saw a man - not Angel. Why do you think this is so?
The words are most certainly not "very similar." They are not identical. You seem to want to believe that they ARE identical. Isn't that a case of believing only what you WANT to believe? Honestly, Lilly, if I sound condescending, I'm not. I just can't get over how easily you keep saying in so many words that your view is better than the one given in the Bible.
At any rate, I'm an old man, and it's past my bedtime, and I've got to get up early in the morning for work.
Frank
Wow - now some are condeming people to loose their souls over the trintiy doctrine? This doctrine is NOT important to our salvation - faith in Christ is. If you think we will loose our souls, what is the basis for this statement? Have you made yourself judge and jury? Lilly
Frank,
Perhaps it is best understood that at times God made use of the son as his agent, to relay his message to the prophets who then delivered it to the prophets. This would not contradict Hebrews 1:1-2, for if the Son served as God's agent, it would be counted as not the Son doing it, but the Father himself doing it.
Mondo
Mondo,
Your explanation, as I see it, takes away from the glory and meaningfulness of Jesus' earthly ministry. Either God spoke through his Son "in times past" or he didn't. Hebrews 1 shows there is a vast difference in the way God spoke to mankind before and after Jesus arrived.
Perhaps you are one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps not. I don't know. They believe Jesus was the archangel Michael and God's spokeperson to mankind. But Hebrews 1:5 denies that with the question "For to which of the angels did He ever say, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you.'"? Jesus was not the archangel.
Additionally, what would be the point of Hebrews 2:2, 3, where we're told that the OT messages were spoken through angels and the Christian gospel was presented to us by God's Son and those who knew him personally? If God's Son spoke "in times past," why is there no mention of this? The writer asks, "For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard."
Again, "How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God?" (Hebrews 10:29)
Frank
Frank,
One thing to keep in mind is that the basic meaning of "angels" is messengers, so to say that God spoke by various messengers would not exclude the son. I do not think it was always the son, but one case that does come to mind for me is when the angel of Jehovah lead Israel away from Egypt. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 seems to indicate that the one that lead them was Jesus. I think you are mixing up God speaking by the prophets with the means that God used to speak by the prophets. The means he used was that of various messengers, and I do not see a problem with Jesus being one of those.
Mondo
o.k. frank I give up with you.
After I clearly said the words in Daniel and Revelation are not exactly the same, which is the same as saying not identical - you accuse me of saying they are identical?
Also - you said I am trying to prove that my view of the scriptures is better than the bibles view? where did I say this?
It is such a simple question I asked and so far only Mondo has given me any answer. You keep pointing out other things that have no bearing on my question in any way.
You are not reading my post about Hebrews correctly. It says that in past times God has spoken to forefathers of the Jews by means of the prophets. Then says in the last days he has spoken to "us" by means of his son. Again this "us" is NOT the prophets of old nor the forefathers of old but the Christian believers. God is now speaking to the Christian believers and his way of doing this is thru his son. Hebrews is contrasting the prophets who spoke to the Jewish forefathers in the past to the Son who now speaks to the Christian believers in the present. It is showing that now the way of God "speaking" to us (believers) is more superior than in the past when he used the prophets.
Where in this scripture does it say that because God is now speakingthru his son to Christian believers that Christ could not have ever uttered a word to anyone else prior to coming to earth? Where was he forbidden to speak to the prophets? That verse in Hebrews is just saying that in the last days God speaks by means of his son which is true. It does not confine Christ to only being able to speak from that time onward.
If God's word was given to the prophets by the pre-existing Christ and then the prophets gave it to the forefathers, this would not be contrary to what Hebrew states. That God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets. We know for a fact that God did not appear before the prophets himself because "no man has ever seen the father". And yes God did use Angels but some OT writers did not say an Angel appeared they said God appeared unto them. You mentioned Jacob who did say God wrestled with him. Could this have been Jesus, the image of God? For it does not say he wrestled with God's representative, messenger or angel. But "God" himself. It says he wrestled with God and lived? Why would Daniel say "with God" as opposed to "an angel of God?"
The reason I am asking these questions is not argue with people but rather to figure something out for myself. Some people say Jesus IS God and some say he is not God but the Son of God. Lets go by the premise that he is the Son of God but now God himself. We know he existed with the father prior to coming to earth right?
Then if so and he is not God - where is he in the OT? I am not talking about prophecies or types and symbols of Christ but Christ himself. Why are there no conversations between him and God or Christ and anyone else? This is what got me searching the OT. I find it very odd that the person of Christ, the logos is absent from the OT. What was he doing and why was he silent?
IF you are saying Christ never spoke in the OT, I would find that hard to believe. Why can't the texts that say OT people saw God be Christ the image of God?
This is the topic I am currently researching and that is why I am asking questions. I have no pre-concieved ideas and am not trying to make the scriptures say anything they are not. I am looking for answers for my own personal research.
No one here seems to be able to answer my q's here except Mondo so I will start a new thread Lilly
Mondo,
One thing to keep in mind is that the basic meaning of "angels" is messengers, so to say that God spoke by various messengers would not exclude the son.
Shouldn't we also keep in mind that Hebrews 1 does "exclude the son"? The Son did not speak "in past times." He spoke "in these last days."
First Peter 1:20 says: "He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." Christ was not "manifest" to men before "these last times" but during "these last times." Why is there this seeming insistence that the Bible writers may have been wrong about this?
1 Corinthians 10:1-4 seems to indicate that the one that lead them was Jesus.
Verse 4 states: "And all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ." The Israelites drank from a literal rock, so the language of this verse is obviously symbolic or allegorical. There are many passages that show that the Israelites were looking forward to the Messiah. They ate manna, literal food provided from God in heaven, and Jesus said that this anticipated him as "the true bread from heaven." He said concerning himself, "This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever." (John 6:58)
Just as the manna was a sign pointing to Christ, so was the rock that supplied water. The rock and manna were symbolic of supernatural sustenance through Christ, who is the bread of life and the water of life. (John 4:14; 6:30-35) That true manna and true water were not yet present in the days of Moses, and the proof is in the fact that all those partakers eventually died, in addition to the fact that the water and bread in their case were literal.
I think you are mixing up God speaking by the prophets with the means that God used to speak by the prophets.
Then I suppose the writer of Hebrews was also mixing things up. When he said God began speaking in these last days by means of his Son, he should have written more clearly. That is what you seem to be saying. The means in times past were angels, but you and Lilly feel the means was also God's Son. There isn't a verse in the Bible that says that, but that is what it seems you want to believe. By contrast with what you believe, the Scripture plainly says that the means became God's own Son "in these last days," not before.
Frank
