Do other bible versions read this verse differently then?
Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus
by snowbird 328 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Essan
Yes, they don't include the first 'God' (because it's not in the original greek) they just say "The one" or "He".
The only place "God" actually appears in the greek in those verses is at the end, in the phrase "that God may be the all in all". Which is rather interesting in itself, don't you think?
-
godrulz
Positional, functional subordination is not a denial of essential equality of nature. The same word is used for Jesus being subject to his parents (without being inferior to them). Jesus was positionally lower than angels/Father for a time, but He was still superior to angels and equal to the Father during the incarnation (Heb. 1-2; Phil. 2; Jn. 1). Likewise, the headship of man over women is still equality of common human nature, not essential inferiority (just functional, positional roles).
-
tec
I found a couple versions that word it a bit differently, but the passage seems pretty clear that God is ekcluded from being put under Christ.
It is curious to me also, that while God the Father is a title used often, I don't recall God the Son ever being used in what we have written. Perhaps I have missed those passages?
Peace,
Tammy
-
Essan
It may be "pretty clear" to you but the Bible doesn't say what you suggested it said. That is your interpretation. Look at the Greek. But again, the notion of God being excluded from being put under Christ (a hypothetical which isn't literally said in this Scripture anyway) wouldn't be opposed by trinitarians either, I don't believe.
-
godrulz
Son of God=God the Son. When God is used, it may refer to the triune God, God the Father (this passage), Jesus as God, Satan as god, Holy Spirit as God, etc. It is not uncommon when God and Son are in the same passage, that the Father is the intended meaning of God (here, for e.g.). This does not preclude the Son being God based on many other passages (the most you can argue is that modalism is not true since the Father and Son are seen to be personally distinct).
-
tec
It may be "pretty clear to you" but the Bible doesn't say what you suggested it said.
Tell me how it reads to you then, if you don't mind.
Son of God=God the Son
You interpret it to mean that, yes. But it doesn't mean that.
(I asked you about something on that other thread, by the way... don't know if you missed it or not?)
Peace,
Tammy
-
tec
Had to look up modalism, since I don't deal in labels, and had no idea what that meant. No, I don't believe in that either. Who would Christ have been praying to, if that were true?
Peace,
Tammy
-
godrulz
JWs actually confuse modalism and trinitarianism. They ask us who Jesus was praying to if the Father is God and Jesus is God. Is Jesus praying to Himself? No, that would be modalism, a different heresy than JW Arianism. Jesus prayed to the Father, duh.
Modalism, Oneness, Jesus Only, Modal Monarchianism, Sabellianism: There is one God, one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is in the office/mode of Father in OT, office/mode of Son on earth, office/mode of Holy Spirit during church age. They say Jesus is the person of the Father. The triune view says that Jesus is not the Father, but they are both called the one God. Arianism says that Jesus is not God.
Lord, Son of God=God. To be Son of God is to share the nature of the Father in full equality. It is not a created son nor like physical, human relations. see Jn. 1:1; Jn. 5:18; Jn. 10:30-33; Heb. 1 (but about the Son...applies OT verses about God to Jesus/Son). The word trinity or theocracy is not in Scripture, but the concept is. For Jesus to be called Lord is to call Him Jehovah, not sir (Phil. 2; Heb. 1; Rom. 10 verses about OT YHWH are applied to Jesus). God the Son is not explicit in a verse, but the principle is there if we understand what the inspired writers meant by Son of God (the Jews understood it correctly and went to stone Jesus for claiming to be God; Thomas got is right and Jesus did not rebuke him Jn. 20:28).
-
Essan
What I mean is that the notion of "God" not being subjected to Jesus doesn't come up in that Scripture for me because 'God' doesn't appear in the Greek at that point, rather the words "He" or "The One" appear, and seeing as the previous verses referred to "God the Father", then I take these verses referring to "He" and "The One" to be referring to "God the Father" (which you claimed it did not based on a particular version rather than the original words of the Bible).
Some versions do choose to insert "God" in place of "The One" and "He" which is what actually appears in the Greek and they do so with the understanding that this poses no particular problem for the trinitarian viewpoint. Which can come as a surprise to many JW's and former JW's because they don't understand what trinitarians actually believe, because the Society has misrepresented the Trinity doctrine.