God is Jesus

by evangelist 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AlanF

  To Kenneson:

  : And yes, God was manifest in the flesh. John 14:8-11 "Philip said to him, 'Master, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us." Jesus said to him, 'Have I been with you for so long a time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. ..."

  Ah, so according to this scripture, Jesus is the Father! But wait! That's not what the Trinity doctrine says. What's wrong, Kenneson?

  : Jesus is the perfect revelation of the Father.

  That's what the NT says.

  : He reveals God in the flesh.

  The NT nowhere says that.

  : How can you know the Father except through Jesus?

  The NT says you can't. But that has nothing to do with the identity of Jesus. If I tell you that you can't know my father except for what I tell you about him, does that mean I'm telling you that my father and I are a binity?

  : John 6:46 says: "Not that any man has seen the Father, except he who is from God; this one has seen the Father." And again at John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father's side, has reveled him."

  John 1:18 is a highly disputed passage, and volumes have been written about it. Let it suffice to say that plenty of scholars say that the rendering "God, who is..." is wrong. If you really want to get into that, be prepared to do a great deal of library research.

  : Who is Jesus if not God manifested in the flesh?

  He is the Word manifested in the flesh.

  AlanF
• 

  Kenneson

  Alan F.,
  Your questions "Are you a true human or a false human? Why
  do you answer so?" don't make sense to me. Since they do to
  you, you answer them. Please distinguish between what constitutes a
  true human as opposed to a false human.

  Col. 1:15: "the firstborn of all creation" doesn't mean Jesus
  was the first thing created by the Father. It means he was the
  heir of all creation. He is before all things. All things were
  created by him and for him. Why were they created for him, if he is
  not the heir?

  Rev. 3:14: "the beginning of the creation by God" doesn't mean
  that he was the first thing created by God but that Jesus is the
  source or origin of creation. As John 1:3 puts it: "All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be."

  John 14:9 "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." From the context
  Jesus is not claiming to be the Father, but that he is making the Father known by word and deed. If you can't recognize the Father through Jesus,
  how are you going to recognize him? No one can come to the Father
  except through Jesus (vs. 6). And John 6:44, 45: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day. It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me."

  Proverbs 8:22-31 Wisdom is here personified as in Proverbs 1:20-23, to confirm the words of the preacher of wisdom. Interestingly, in both passages here wisdom is referred to as she. Is it
  really referring to Jesus?

  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."
  This doesn't say anything about the Word having a beginning. Only
  that He was already there in the beginning to be the creator of all things. See vs. 3. Gen. 1:1 says "In the beginning God ..."
  Certainly no one would suggest the Father had a beginning. If
  the Father and the Son are co-creator of all things, than this
  includes man and why Gen.1:26 could have the Father address the Word:
  "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness."

  More thoughts later.
• 

  Earnest

  Alan,

  Many thanks for the clarity with which you present the conclusions of your research. I would just add some additional thoughts on two of the scriptures you have discussed:

  Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14, which refers to Immanuel, meaning With Us is God. I have always considered that the difficulty in interpreting this scripture to mean that Jesus is God is the sense in which it is used in Isaiah. There it says :

  Listen, please, O house of David....Jehovah himself will give you men a sign: Look! The maiden herself will actually become pregnant, and she is giving birth to a son, and she will certainly call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey he will eat by the time that he knows how to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground of whose two kings you are feeling a sickening dread will be left entirely.

  Quite clearly this had an earlier fulfillment although it is not certain whether it refers to a son of Ahaz (Hezekiah) or even of Isaiah himself (Mahershalalhashbaz [8:3]). So, if this name indicates that the individual is God himself then that must also be true of the typical Immanuel. But there is no indication in Isaiah chapters 7 or 8 that he is thought of or treated as deity. The meaning is clear that the child is a sign that God is with them. As that is true in the time of Isaiah then it is equally true in the greater fulfillment.

  I also have a bit more information about 1 Timothy 3:16 which may be of interest. As far as textual veracity is concerned, the reading OS is supported by the earliest and best uncials including the original scribes of the Sinaitic, Alexandrine and Ephraemi codices. There is no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century which supports theos; all ancient versions presuppose os or the neuter relative pronoun o; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading theos.(A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,UBS,1971,p.641)

  But for those interested in the minutiae of textual criticism there are some interesting theories on the cause of this "correction". The difference between the reading of the abbreviated term for theos (GOD) and OS (HE WHO) consisted only in the presence or absence of two horizontal strokes, one above the word and the other as a diameter running through the O. In the Alexandrine codex several students (including Dr Samuel Tregelles [1813-1875]) noted that on the reverse side of the page there was an E behind the O of OS which intersected it.

  Bishop C.J.Ellicott wrote of his investigation in an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy in his edition of The Pastoral Epistles(1883,p.1856): He said that when the page was held up to the light one of the Librarians of the British Museum brought the point of an instrument "so near to the extremity of the sagitta [tongue] of the E as to make a point of shade visible to the observer on the other side:" so that "when the point of the instrument was drawn over the sagitta of the E, the point of shade was seen to exactly trace out the suspected diameter of the O."

  Keep in mind that this is only an hypothesis, but when the manuscript was new and the ink less faded it may have been corrected by a zealous scribe who thought it was simply a faint diameter. Once the correction had been made all copies of that manuscript would carry it and it would not be long before the thought police (I mean scribal correctors) of that day brought all manuscripts into harmony with this new light.

  Earnest
• 

  Kenneson

  Alan F,
  It's interesting how others view the clarity of your conclusions.
  I, for one, don't. You maintain that Satan is a true god because he exists and a false god because he is worshipped. By the same token,
  the same can be said of the Father. He exists and He is worshipped.
  How, then are they different?

  Now as to your question about whether I am a true human or
  false human...Am I a true human because I exist and not a false
  human because I am not worshipped?

  It's all clear as mud.
• 

  evangelist

  hey AlanF
  I think you don`t understand what I am saying, or maybe I don`t explain myself correctly, but I agree with you about Almighty God Jehovah God is Jesus, and their is no other jehovah God Almight, and I know that all thing are possible with God almighty praise God.
  once again thank for your information you really got it going on, in you biblical studies, I am glad somebody else is rightly dividing the Word of God.
  I made a type err in saying fest platte , because that means hard disk in english, and in German it`s fest platte, sorry.
  keep on doing what your doing and let that spirit and gift of teaching flow out of you AlanF.

  God Bless you
  Evangelist

  Proverb:4:7: Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
• 

  SixofNine

  http://www.terrigal.net.au/~sudeen/page4.htm
• 

  AlanF

  To Kenneson:

  : Your questions "Are you a true human or a false human? Why do you answer so?" don't make sense to me.

  I think they do make sense to you, which is why you've been avoiding making the obvious answers. Either that, or you have so little reading comprehension that you might as well quit trying to understand anything. To illustrate, in your latest post you said:

  : You maintain that Satan is a true god because he exists and a false god because he is worshipped.

  I said nothing of the kind. Go back and re-read my posts. From this ridiculous conclusion, you proceeded to make other false conclusions.

  But finally you managed an approximation of an answer:

  : Now as to your question about whether I am a true human or false human...Am I a true human because I exist and not a false human because I am not worshipped?

  I am not grading you on this, so there's no sense in answering my question with another question, as if I'm going to grade you on a `right' answer. I'm trying to lead you to reason on a matter; that's why I'm asking you to explain your reasoning. Nevertheless, your question contains a germ of an answer. Hint: the first part is heading in the right direction; the second part is irrelevant. Now try and give an actual answer, and damn it! Explain your answer!

  It's obvious that you don't want to commit yourself to an answer because you can sort of see where the reasoning process is leading. I feel like I'm trying to discuss the blood issue with a JW who knows he cannot give reasonable answers for his position. This is particularly evident because you consistently fail to deal with any points I make. You simply ignore them and make a few simple comments on something else.

  As for the scriptures you quoted, your comments in no way deal with the material I presented from a number of different Bible translations. What you're doing is not discussing -- you're presenting unsupported assertions. You need to discuss why you make these assertions, and back them up with references to scholarly material. Why can't you manage this?

  To evangelist:

  : I agree with you about Almighty God Jehovah God is Jesus.

  I'm afraid you've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I said quite the opposite.

  To Earnest:

  Interesting points about the dating of the disputed words in the various codices, and about how the extra stroke in the OS in the Alexandrine Codex got there! I'm sure that over the centuries, large numbers of copies of all texts, good ones and ones with these errors, were made, so that the actual route by which these got into modern scholars' hands is rather complicated.

  AlanF
• 

  LucidSky

  Are you a true human or a false human? Why do you answer so?

  [Raises hand] Ooo! I know!! Let me answer, AlanF! I am a true human. I am a true human 'cause by nature I am an animal of the Homo sapiens class. That particular animal happens to be a human. Am I close???

  AlanF, you mentioned the "God of gods" in Hebrew as being a superlative expression. That does ring a bell with me. Would this expression say anything about the existance of other "gods" then or simply just indicate greatness? Thanks.
• 

  Kenneson

  Or could it be I am a true human because there is no such thing as
  a false human?
• 

  AlanF

  To LucidSky:

  : I am a true human. I am a true human 'cause by nature I am an animal of the Homo sapiens class. That particular animal happens to be a human. Am I close???

  Dead nuts on.

  : AlanF, you mentioned the "God of gods" in Hebrew as being a superlative expression. That does ring a bell with me. Would this expression say anything about the existance of other "gods" then or simply just indicate greatness? Thanks.

  I would say the latter. Concerning the "Superlative Degree" An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Bruce Waltke (Eisenbrauns, 1990, section 14.5, p. 267) states:

  "There are two kinds of superlatives, the comparative superlative and the absolute superlative. In the former some person or object is judged to surpass all others in its class with respect to some quality; in the latter some person or thing is judged to excel in some quality, state, or condition. We will analyze these two kinds of superlative and note the expressions employed for each.

  The absolute superlative can be expressed with the anarthrous cognate genitive: a singular cognate noun stands before the same noun in the plural, without an article. (A determined construct chain expresses a comparative superlative..."

  Waltke gives several examples, among which are those using repeated words:

  Literal Translation Waltke's Translation Scripture
  meaninglessness-of meaninglessnesses futility of futilities, utter futility Eccl. 1:2
  slave-of slaves a slave of slaves, an abject slave Gen 9:25
  for-ever-of evers forever and ever Isa 34:10 Here is where it gets interesting. Waltke explains that by tacking on various divine "names", a phrase can be a superlative:

  "Various divine names can be similarly used: `A kind of superlative sense,' as A. B. Davidson noted, `is given to a word by connecting it with the divine name. Probably the idea was that God originated the thing . . . or that it belonged to Him, and was therefore extraordinary. Sometimes the meaning appears to be " `in God's estimation." ' "

  Waltke gives several examples of this usage:

  Literal Translation Waltke's Translation Scripture
  prince-of elohim a mighty prince Gen 23:6
  as-panic-of elohim a very great trembling 1 Sam 14:15
  like-mountains-of el mighty mountains Ps 36:7
  like-garden-of YHWH a splendid garden Isa 51:3
  city important to-elohim an exceedingly great city Jonah 3:3 So the expression "God of gods" (lit. 'eloheh ha'elohim, God-of the-gods) could be called a double superlative, in that it fits the bill for both of Waltke's senses shown above.

  In any case, given the above, the meaning, "God is literally the God of all other gods because they worship him" is not derivable from the Hebrew expression "God of gods".

  To Kenneson:

  : Or could it be I am a true human because there is no such thing as a false human?

  Good! See LucidSky's comments for a more precise statement. An entity is either a human or it is not. The notion "false human" is nonsensical. It's like saying, "Is that a false cow over there?"

  Now apply what you've learned to the question:

  Is Jesus a true god or a false god?

  What does this mean?

  Make further application to the question:

  Is Jesus a true God or a false god?

  What does this mean? Does it make any sense at all? Can you figure out why it falls in the category of false argument called the "false dilemma"?

  AlanF