Coptic John 1:1 makes it into the Watchtower.
Solomon Landers' page is already linked in this discussion. I joined your yahoo group years ago but haven't looked in for a while. Have you read Leolaia's response to Solomon above?
I am unaware of any direct dialogue between Solomon and Leolaia.
In my opinion, without such, any exchanges (if any) have limited value.
I would encourage Leolaia to post any asessment of Solomon's views directly to him on my Yahoo discussion group, of which he, and apparently you, are members:
I also extend a welcome to any others here who might also wish to join.
hi slim leolaia and john this was an informative thread I enjoyed reading.
I think the argument on using ' a god' is fully supported by the bible because of scriptures like this...
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (New International Version)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
the argument on the bible's clear acceptance of having beings called gods other than The Almighty God is an old one but I think it shows the bible has a history of allowing the lesser title of a god or the qualitive term of divine/godlike in reference to lesser beings other than God himself.
thx again leolaia and slim.
Old old battle. Which idea of Jesus makes you a better person and willing to serve in your community and to get involved in helping address social ills and the enviromental concerns we all face.
Didn't the followers of a bunch of old gaseous Bishops in the 4th century lead to humanities current crisisses.....
John1one....Greetings, and welcome to the board! I should clarify that I wasn't seeking a direct debate in this thread; my intent was to find out more information about the Society's view, then give my comments about it, and then respond to Solomon's inaccurate characterization of my comments. I thank you for the invitation and I will take it under consideration, but generally I limit myself to this forum. I have seen much discussion over at Topix as well, with some additional points made that I could respond to, but I haven't joined up that board either. I just don't have the time to keep track of discussions on multiple boards (I don't post on the many other ex-JW boards on the web), but Solomon is always welcome to join and post here as well.
reniaa....I disagree with your reading of 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, as it refers qualifiedly to legomenoi theoi "so-called gods" and contrasts the conditional eiper eisin bearing on their existence with what the author regards as reality (i.e. what really exists "for us"). In other words, v. 6 is "for us" (reality) and v. 5 is "for them" (i.e. the irreality of pagan Greeks and Romans, who mistakenly believe that idols are "so-called gods"). The preceding verse explicitly states that an idol is nothing (ouden) and that no being is theos except for one (v. 4), the God worshipped by the Jews and Christians. This is anti-idolatry polemic and altogether different in purpose than the theological characterization of the relationship of Son and the Father in the Prologue of John. The former is talking about "gods" in a qualified sense as what the pagans worship in contrast to the being who uniquely is theos, whereas the latter is talking unreservedly about how the Son and Father are both theos in some ontological sense.
BTW, there is a new book coming out that will be a good read on the subject of early Christian christology in the context of Second Temple Judaism:
There is a chapter on the gospel of John. I see that it has a lengthy discussion of the "two powers" heresy, so it looks like the book will discuss the relationship between Christian monotheism and hypostatizing theologies in early Judaism.
hehe, so, if you defend the WT translation of john 1:1, you are automatically a "watchtower apologist" ??? I fucking hate the watchtower, but logically, what seems right, seems right... to label anyone is many times a sure sign of insecurity.
Seems like the choices of interpretation have not changed much over the centuries-
Unitarian Homoousianism Homoiousianism Modalist Arius. DSS 11Q13 is interesting.
Which followers, of these different systems, produced the kinder magnanimous humans Jesus would be proud to call his Own.
leolaia: because I am lazy I pulled this from a former posting of mine and yes It is a bit off thread but have you read this and does it simplify Jesus' divinity as they put it being an "emanation" of God himself?
Isn't clarifying the trinity doctrine an oxymoron. I would love to have someone read the 1956 watchtower September 1st paragraph 18 and see if you get the thought that the society here says that Jesus and actually all the spirit creatures were as God in nature, being children of God. They say that these were creations emanating from himself. What was the thought conveyed there?
I agree the main theme is that of false idols in 1 cor but the acceptance that things can be called God's and lords is there it's an arguable point. but I would argue your joining christ and God under theos because while he separates christ and God he applies God only to the father completely and then separates Christ as Lord again, there is no idication that any of the God applies to the christ at all. All that is indicated is Christ and God's separation from the 'so-called God's and lords.
I am not arguing these are only Lords and Gods in name but that the bible allows for things to be CALLED gods like JHWH called moses a God to pharoah and Pauls words shows and acceptance of beings called Gods in name, there is also the interesting line...."if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords")", this seems to qualify the first expression to allow for there to be these gods and lords not just to be talking about false idols.