Posts by aqwsed12345

42

What is the Trinity?

by pirata in

from this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/204837/2/if-you-could-ask-one-question-to-an-active-jw-to-get-them-to-open-their-mind-about-their-beliefs-what-would-it-be.

dontplaceliterature re: if you could ask one question to an active jw to get them to open their mind about their beliefs, what would it be?posted ~ 14 hours ago (1/18/2011) .

post 63 of 65. since 12/28/2010.

Jesus is called the "first-born of all creation. For in Him were all things created . . . He is before all and by Him all things were created." JWs think this means Jesus is the first created being. "First-born" here does not refer to time, but to preeminence. It is a title given by a father to his son. Isaac, Jacob and Ephraim received the blessing of the "first-born," though they were not biologically the first sons born to their parents. The text doesn't say Jesus was created. If so, St. Paul would have said Jesus created all other things, but he did not. Jesus is the Creator of all things. He is God. He is given the title "first-born" as the title of His preeminence and because He is eternally begotten by the Father. Ask the JWs if they agree that Colossians 1:15-17 means that Christ created everything. They'll say yes. Then show them Isaiah 44:24: "This is what the Lord says, your Redeemer who formed you in the womb: 'I am the Lord, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.'" Ask them why, if Christ created "all things," it says that the Lord God - the Hebrew word used here is Yahweh (Jehovah) - did it by Himself.

In the NWT it says, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” The Witnesses interpret this statement to mean that Jesus was the first thing that God created. This is a good example of how easy it is to misunderstand the key words that are used in the Bible, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are doing just that. The key word in this case is “firstborn.” The Witnesses are assuming that the word “firstborn” is equal to “first created.” The word “firstborn” DOES NOT mean “first created”; they are two different words. There is a Greek word for “firstborn” and there is a Greek word for “first created.” The Apostle Paul, who was writing under inspiration, could have used the word for “first created” if he had wished to do so, but he chose to use the word “firstborn.”.

So what does the expression “firstborn” really mean? In Scripture it refers to the first child to be born in the family (see Luke 2:7). There is also another meaning for “firstborn,” namely “primacy,” or “pre-eminence.” The word “primacy” comes from the word “prime,” which means “first.” Please note it doesn’t mean first in time; it means, rather, first in position. For example, in Britain today there is a Prime Minister. Britain’s Prime Minister is not that country’s “First”-ever Minister, but its chief Minister, the one who has the position of primacy over all other ministers in the British Government. That is the sense in which “firstborn” is being used in Colossians 1:15. A good cross reference to use for this is Psalm 89:20, 27. Verse 27 is talking about King David. God says, “I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth.” Notice that God is going to place David as firstborn. Anybody who knows the background of King David knows that he was the eighth son of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:9–13). Yet God says that He is going to make David, the eighth-born, His firstborn. How does He do it? Verse 27 says, “I will make him the most high of the kings of the earth.” David will have the primacy as one over all the kings of the earth. This same use of the word “firstborn” can be applied to Jesus in Colossians 1:15, thus Jesus is not the first created, but the chief over all. He has the position of primacy, or leadership, over all creation.

I think it is worthwhile to include an additional point of information on this passage at Colossians 1:15–16. Please compare it with the NWT given below:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.”

The New World Translation introduced an extra word into the text, the word “other,” which completely alters the force and meaning of that verse. It allows the Witnesses to claim that Jesus could be created and then He Himself proceed to create “other” things.

Is the word “other” in the Greek text? The answer is emphatically NO! Other translations, however, read, “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities, all things have been created by Him and for Him.” (NASB) When you look at that verse you will see that Christ is being referred to as the creator of everything; nothing is left out. He created all things, regardless of whether they were things in the heavens or the things on the earth, whether they were visible things or invisible things. If Jesus created each and every one of them, then we have proved that Christ could not have had a beginning. He Himself is not a created thing, but He is author of all creation.

The special Watchtower New Testament known as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures contains a copy of the Greek text. It’s a good idea to get the Witnesses to show you that translation and then ask them to turn to Colossians 1:16 and look at the Greek text, with the literal English words underneath. Let them see for themselves that the New World Translation committee has added the word “other” to their translation. It is also a good idea to cross reference this verse with John 1:3. So if the Witnesses insist that the word “other” must appear in Colossians 1:16, then that verse contradicts what it says in their own Bible at John 1:3!

The Greek for "firstborn" is prototokos (Strong's word #4416), which means "preeminence" and "eternal preexistence," according to Greek lexicons. It does not mean "first-created." Apart from being untrue linguistically, this heretical interpretation is contradicted in the next two verses, which inform us that Christ "created all things," and that He "is before all things." JWs try to escape that clear indication by adding the qualifying word, "other" -- but (unfortunately for them) "other" is not in the Greek text. The Hebrew usage of "firstborn" is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as "preeminent." David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:

"David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preminent position in God's chosen nation." (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)

Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, whereas Manasseh was the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called "my firstborn" by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn of all creation," that is, the Creator. This is precisely how St. Paul uses the "firstborn" phraseology in Col 1:15. The Greek word for "first-created" is protoktistos. But Paul uses prototokos, which Vine defines as follows:

". . . expressing his priority to, and preeminence over, creation . . . He himself produced creation." (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940; under "Firstborn")

And A.T. Robertson states: The use of this word does not show what Arius argued, that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like "all creation" . . . Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikon (Image) and to the universe as prototokos (First-born). (Word Pictures in the NT, Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1932, vol. 4 of 6, 477-478)

Greek scholar Marvin Vincent also concurs: "First-born" points to eternal preexistence . . . We must carefully avoid any suggestion that Christ was the first of created things, which is contradicted by the following words: "in Him were all things created." (Word Studies in the NT, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946; orig. 1887; vol. 3 of 4, 468)

If JWs attempt to argue that image (Greek, eikon, Strong's word #1504), "proves" that Jesus is lesser than God, they will again find themselves at odds with all Greek lexicons and dictionaries. For example, W.E. Vine:

Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead . . . "he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father," John 14:9. (An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1940; under "Image")

The unbiblical JW doctrine of Jesus as "Chief Agent" of all creation (rather than co-creator with the Father and Spirit), is rendered null and void by three verses:

ISAIAH 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I {am} the Lord that maketh all {things}; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; (NWT: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?")
MALACHI 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . . (NWT: "is it not one God that has created us?")
JOB 9:2,8 . . . how should man be just with God? . . . Which alone spreadeth out the heavens . . . (NWT: "stretching out the heavens by himself")

What is "the Kingdom"?

by Darth Eowyn in

i have been lurking for a couple of months and decided to join because i wanted to get further information.. i am not a jw, ex jw, or even considering becoming a jw.

i am a fairly devout, practicing catholic.

two weeks ago, a couple of jw publishers stopped by to discuss their schtick.

aqwsed12345

@Butterflyleia85:

Dave Armstrong Catholic apologist says:

"The Bible teaches that those who die and are saved are fully alive, that they are aware of earthly affairs, and that they love us; therefore it makes perfect sense to ask for their intercession.

Protestants often ask Catholics a question that goes something like this: “Why would anyone seek the aid of a mere manager or underling, when he can go directly to the CEO himself?” The comparison is, of course to asking saints to pray for us when we can go “straight to God.” In this vein, they cite 1 Timothy 2:5 (“one mediator”). And the proper Catholic (and biblical) answer is, “Because we are informed in the Bible that the prayers of certain people are more effective than those of others”:

James 5:16–18: “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.”

This brings to mind other powerful intercessors, such as Abraham and Moses, whose pleas were so strong that they convinced God not to destroy entire cities or people. If then, the Blessed Virgin Mary were indeed sinless, it would follow (right from Scripture) that her prayers would have the greatest power, and not only because of her sinlessness but because of her status as Mother of God. So we ask for her prayers and also ask other saints, because they have more power than we do, having been made perfectly righteous (according to James 5:16–18).

Most Protestants are quite comfortable asking for prayers from other Christians on earth; why do they not ask those saved saints who have departed from the earth and are close to God in heaven? After all, they may have passed from this world, but they’re certainly alive––more than we are! Jesus alludes to this fact when He speaks of “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” stating that “He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” (Mt.22:32) And those in heaven no longer have any sin (Rev.21:27; 22:14).

If it is objected that the dead saints cannot hear us, we reply that God is fully able to give them that power––with plenty of supporting biblical evidence: 1) the “cloud of witnesses” that Hebrews 12:1 describes; 2) in Revelation 6:9–10, prayers are given for us in heaven from “saints”; 3) elsewhere in Revelation an angel possesses “prayers of the saints” and in turns presents them to God (8:3–4; cf.5:8; Tob.12:12,15); 4) Jeremiah is described as one who “prayers much for the people” after his death in 2 Maccabees 15:13–14. (cf. Jer.15:1) The saints in heaven are clearly aware of earthly happenings. If they have such awareness, it isn’t that much of a leap to deduce that they can hear our requests for prayer, especially since the Bible itself shows that they are indeed praying.

We must be careful to avoid silly cultural stereotypes of what heaven is supposedly like. Sometimes we picture clouds, wings, and harps rather than the intensely spiritual place (or state) that it is, which souls longing and burning in their desire for human beings to be saved. The saints who have died devote themselves to prayer for us, because they are perfected in love. They no longer play all the games that we play in order to ignore the spiritual dimension of reality.

A Protestant Might Further Object :

It is not clear how these Catholic practices are any different from the séances, magic, witchcraft, and necromancy forbidden by the Bible. When you come down to it, Catholics are still messing around with dead spirits.

The One-Minute Apologist Says :

Catholics fully agree that these things are prohibited, but deny that the Communion of Saints is a practice included at all in those condemnations.

The difference is in the source of the supernatural power and the intention. When a Christian on earth asks a saint to pray for him (directly supported by the biblical indications above), God is the one whose power makes the relationship between departed and living members of the Body of Christ possible. The medium in a séance, on the other hand, is trying to use her own occultic powers to “conjure up” the dead––opening up the very real possibility of demonic counterfeit. Catholics aren’t “conjuring” anyone; we’re simply asking great departed saints to pray for us. If they are aware of the earth, then God can also make it possible for them to “hear’ and heed our prayer requests. If this weren’t the case, then saints and angels in heaven wouldn’t be portrayed as they are in Scripture: intensely active and still involved in earthly affairs.

***

“The consoling thing is that while Christendom is divided about the rationality and even the lawfulness, of praying to the saints, we are all agreed about praying with them…You may say that the distinction…is not, after all, very great. All the better if so. I sometimes have a bright dream of reunion engulfing us unawares, like a great wave from behind our backs.” (C. S. Lewis)

37

What is "the Kingdom"?

by Darth Eowyn in

i have been lurking for a couple of months and decided to join because i wanted to get further information.. i am not a jw, ex jw, or even considering becoming a jw.

i am a fairly devout, practicing catholic.

two weeks ago, a couple of jw publishers stopped by to discuss their schtick.

aqwsed12345

Kingdom of God

9

Please send me some e-books

by aqwsed12345 in

jw
friends

please send me some e-books, about jws and the wbts practice and doctrines: critical literature, analysis etc.

pdfs, docs, and other ebook format.

for example franz's second book, the "captives of a concept" book and others.

aqwsed12345

Hi!

Please send me some e-books, about JWs and the WBTS practice and doctrines: critical literature, analysis etc. PDFs, DOCs, and other ebook format. For example Franz's second book, the "Captives of a Concept" book and others. May YOU have many of this in this subject.

Please send these to THIS email address.

Thanks.

14

1John 5:20

by PSacramento in

this was brought up in the phillipians thread by johnathan dough (sp?

), he mentions how in 1john 5:20 jesus is caled god.. .

now, in the niv it goes like this:.

aqwsed12345

I John 5:20

I John 5:20 in the Greek and two editions of the NWT.

Westcott & Hort's Greek

ο?δαμεν δ? ?τι ? υ??ς το? θεο? ?κει κα? δ?δωκεν ?μ?ν δι?νοιαν ?να γιν?σκομεν τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν, κα? ?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν? ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ?. ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος.

NWT 1950 Edition

But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

The NWT accepts the Westcott and Hort text without comment, and the 1950 rendering of I John 5:20 remains un-revised.

1. Analysis of the Greek Text

I John 5:20 occurs within the epilogue to John's first epistle, verses 13-21 (Hiebert 1990:309). Verse 13 explicitly states the purpose of the epistle; to foster assurance of eternal life through faith in Christ. Verses 14-17 describe believers' confidence in prayer and responsibility as intercessors on behalf of other believers in need of prayer on account of sin. Verses 18-20 summarize John’s message in three statements beginning with ο?δαμεν.

In verse 18, “we know” that believers, “born of God,” do not continue in sin, as they are safeguarded by the “the one born of God (Christ)” and are safe from the “Evil one.”
In verse 19, “we know” that as God's children, although safe in Him, we are in enemy territory; the world “under the control of the evil one.”
In verse 20, “we know” that we have been given the knowledge of God and eternal life through inclusion in Jesus Christ (Lieu 1991:22).

Verse 21, abruptly ends the epistle with an admonition against idolatry, in counterpoint to the references to the true God in v. 20.

I John 5:20 is complex, formed by two sentences. In the second sentence, θε?ς is arguably used in reference to Jesus Christ. Ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος prompts the relevant question for this research: to whom or what does ο?τ?ς refer? It is impossible to answer this question without analysing each part of the verse and the interrelatedness of the parts.

The verse can be naturally broken down into the following parts:

20a ο?δαμεν δ? ?τι ? υ??ς το? θεο? ?κει
20b κα? δ?δωκεν ?μ?ν δι?νοιαν
20c ?να γιν?σκομεν τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν,
20d κα? ?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν?
20e ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ?.
20f ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος.

Verse 20a opens with the particle δ?, unlike the first two ο?δαμεν ?τι clauses, which stood alone. The δ? has the effect of connecting what is known in verse 20 with what is known in verse 19 (Griffith 2002:94). The force of the particle is “weak adversative” (2002:94) introducing the contrast to the two things known; “We know we are God’s children in the Evil one’s territory (v.19)” but, we need not be alarmed, because “we [furthermore] know that the son of God has come and . . . .” Because the Son of God has come, with all the implied consequences of His coming, it is not a crisis for the children of God to be present in the Evil one’s territory. The effect of the historic coming of the Son of God is durative (Olsson 1999:147), as seen by ?κει in the perfective present tense (Wallace 1996:533).

What is the first practical result of the coming of the Son of God? Verse 20b answers, “and he has given us understanding.” The perfect tense δ?δωκεν, conjoined to ?κει by κα?, pointing to the perfective force of ?κει; “The Son of God has come and has given us understanding.”

What is the result of this understanding which the Son has given? “. . . so that we know the True One” (v. 20:c). The Wescott and Hort text has γιν?σκομεν (indicative mood) rather than the expected γιν?σκωμεν20 (subjunctive mood).

If γιν?σκωμεν (subjunctive mood) is accepted as the favored reading, the ?να introduces a purpose clause (Griffith 2002:95), clarifying the purpose of the understanding which has been given in v. 20b; specifically “so that we might know . . .”

The UBS 4, NA 27, and Robinson-Pierpont GNT show no variant reading of γιν?σκωμεν, and Westcott and Hort offer no textual support. However, I shall follow the Wescott and Hort reading, as the NWT gives no explicit indication in footnotes that it has not done so. The NWT translation reads like the subjunctive γιν?σκωμεν. This will be addressed in the next section.

The use of the indicative mood forces the ?να clause to indicate result and not purpose (Hiebert 1990:325). The result of having been given understanding by the Son of God is that we know the true one. The object of this knowing is the masculine substantival adjective, τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν.

And who is this “true one?” Two options are available: namely, that the Son of God gave understanding so that (1) he himself, Jesus, is known, or (2) that God the Father, is known. Harris (1992:243) notes that “The Son’s mission is the revelation of the Father, not of himself.” Particularly, in the Johannine context, the Son came into the world (John 1:14) to make the true God (John 17:3) known to those who had not seen Him (John 1:18; John 14:6-9). It is almost certain that τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν here refers to God the Father, and not to Jesus Christ.

I John 5:20d begins with κα?, describing a further result of the understanding given by the Son of God; that along with “knowing the True One” (v. 20c), “we are in the True One” (?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν?). In the absence of an explicit signal that τ? ?ληθιν? is referring to someone other than τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν of verse 20c, one must assume the same referent, God the Father. Had John employed δ? rather than κα?, a change in referent might be inferred, allowing an interpretation of τ? ?ληθιν? as referring to Christ. However, verse 20e strengthens the case for τ? ?ληθιν? to refer to God the Father.

In what respect are we “in the True One?” We are in the True One as we are in the Son of the True One (?ν τ? υ?? α?το?), and that Son is ?ησο? Χριστ? (in epexegetical apposition to τ? υ?? α?το?).

The KJV takes the entire phrase ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ? as appositional to the preceding phrase κα? ?σμεν ?ν τ? ?ληθιν?, rendered “and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ.” This interpretation is problematic, as it essentially requires τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν of v. 20c to refer to Christ. In this view, Christ the Son of God, gave us understanding, so we know Christ the True One, who is His (The Father's) Son. This renders τ? υ?? α?το? otiose, as he was already identified as the Son of God in v. 20a.

If, however, τ?ν ?ληθιν?ν and τ? ?ληθιν? refer to the Father, then the phrase ?ν τ? υ?? α?το? ?ησο? Χριστ? makes perfect sense as a description of the means by or manner in which we know and are in the True One: by virtue of our inclusion by faith (1 John 5:11-12) in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is reflective of the verse19; we are safe in enemy territory because as children of God, we are in the Son of God, and greater is the one who is in us, than the one who is in the world (I John 4:4). Our union with Christ preserves us in the world as we await eternal life.

Before addressing the final sentence in I John 5:20, I note Olsson's (1999:152) observation:

“Interpreted in its context 5.20 calls to mind the dualistic nature of the Johannine presentation of God. The true God is contrasted with idols in 5.20-21, the Son of God is contrasted with the evil one in 5.18, and existence in the evil one [or his realm] is contrasted in him who is true in 5.19-20 (brackets added).”

The last sentence of I John 5:20 makes an emphatic assertion; ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος. That ζω? is anarthrous indicates it is to be taken together with ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς. Whoever is the true God, is also eternal life. The question must be answered, does ο?τ?ς refer to God the Father, or to Jesus Christ?

Bultmann (1973:90) offers the grammatical argument, “ο?τ?ς (‘this one’), in its position after the phrase ‘in his Son Jesus Christ,’ cannot refer to God, but only to Jesus Christ, although the preceding ?ν τ? ?ληθιν? (‘in the true one’) can refer only to God.” His rather decisive statement assumes that grammatically, ο?τ?ς must refer to its most immediate antecedent, Jesus Christ. Robertson (1947:702) advocates the general rule of interpreting ο?τ?ς as referring to its nearest antecedent, yet in the case of this verse, believes ο?τ?ς refers to God the Father (Harris 1992:247). Mounce (2003:117) acknowledges that context is sometimes the determining factor for understanding the antecedent of a relative pronoun.

Other arguments for taking Jesus Christ as the referent of ο?τ?ς are that (1) whereas Jesus is identified as “the life” (Jn. 11:25; 14:6) and the source of life (Jn. 1:4) and eternal life (I Jn. 5:11) in Johannine documents, the Father is nowhere else given the predicate ζω?; and (2) ?ληθιν?ς is applied attributively to Jesus five times in Johannine documents, and this attributive construction may signal a shift in subject from the Father to Christ (Harris 1992:248); and (3) John has called Jesus “God” in John 1:1; 1:18: and (quoting Thomas) in 20:28, and therefore, this usage should not seem strange.

The arguments for God the Father as the referent of ο?τ?ς are that (1) the relative pronoun is referring to the dominant logical subject of the verse (God the Father) rather than to the immediate antecedent, or to the grammatical subject (? υ??ς); (2) repetition (of ?ληθιν?ς in this case) is a “characteristic of John” (Hiebert 1990:326); (3) The Father as source of the life one finds in the Son is attested to in John 5:26, and more immediately in I John 5:11; (4) Jesus calls the Father τ?ν μ?νον ?ληθιν?ν θε?ν in John 17:3. Ferreira points out that “the one true God” in John 17:3 has been taken as more Pauline, than Johannine language, and that John 17:3 may be a later emendation to the text. There is no textual evidence for this theory. Furthermore, knowing this “One True God” is eternal life (α?τη δ? ?στιν ? α??νιος ζω? ?να γιν?σκωσιν σε τ?ν μ?νον ?ληθιν?ν θε?ν . . .), as in I John 5:20; and (5) perhaps most importantly, the reference to the “true God” in verse 20 establishes the context for its antithesis in verse 21, Τεκν?α, φυλ?ξατε ?αυτ? ?π? τ?ν ε?δ?λων. If John is contrasting idols with Jesus Christ, it is without parallel.

Smalley (1984:308) believes the lack of crystallizing evidence may betray a deliberate ambivalence on John’s part. While this may be possible, and while John certainly communicates the interconnected involvement of Father and Son in the eternal life of the believer (Strecker 1996:211), this position ignores the singularity of ο?τ?ς, ?στιν, ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς, and ζω? α??νιος, and seems to take an “easy way out” of a difficult decision.

Bennett (1910:319) sees a possible broader Trinitarian implication, taking the anointing of I John 2:27 as a Holy Spirit reference that might be connected with the “understanding” given by Christ. The result of Bennett's theory is that the references to ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς are to be seen as references to the Godhead. This seems unlikely, as John had the word ? θε?της available to him had he wished to state, “This is the true Godhead and eternal life.”

I concur with Harris (1992:253) that God the Father is the probable referent of ο?τ?ς. I base this conclusion on the argument in the immediate context of the verse. Specifically, that (1) the Son of God has come, and (2) has given us understanding, (3) so consequently (a) we know the true God (whose Son gave us understanding), and (b) we are in the true God, (4) by virtue of being in the Son of the true God. (5) This one is the true God and eternal life, and we are in the true God and have eternal life by virtue of being in His son (vv. 11-12), who has given us understanding of the true God. In light of this, O children of the true God, keep yourselves from idols (v. 21).

As Brooke (1912:153) states, “The God who completely fulfils the highest conception of Godhead is the God who has been revealed in Christ Jesus, as contrasted with all false conceptions of God, against which the readers are warned in the next verse.”

I acknowledge the merits of Wallace’s position (1996:327), that (1) grammar cannot decisively decide this issue, and (2) there are no grammatical reasons to preclude Jesus Christ as the referent of ο?τ?ς. The strength of argument for each of the two available positions seems weighty enough to make dogmatism in either case unwise if not unwarranted. It is certainly possible that θε?ς is used in reference to Jesus Christ in I John 5:20. However, I believe it is more likely that θε?ς refers to God the Father in I John 5:20.

2. Critique of the NWT’s Exegesis

The NWT’s treatment of I John 5:20 is generally consistent with the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis. The rendering of the verse indicates that the NWT translators believe ο?τ?ς ?στιν ? ?ληθιν?ς θε?ς κα? ζω? α??νιος refers to God the Father and not to Jesus Christ.

3. Critique of the NWT's Consistency with the Translators’ Stated Philosophy and Values of Translation

There are no noteworthy inconsistencies with the translators’ stated philosophy and values of translation.

4. Conclusions

There is sufficient evidence to support the positions of both those who believe θε?ς in I John 5:20f refers to God the Father and those who believe the referent is Jesus Christ. Also, there is a lack of decisive evidence to disqualify either position.

As such, while I John 5:20 may be considered as evidence of the NT calling Jesus Christ God, it should not be considered as definitive evidence. More clear texts are available for settling this issue.

The NWT’s treatment of the verse is generally within the rules of Greek grammar and exegesis.

35

Why do we call Jehovah by his first name and not our parents?

by life is to short in

i owe this question entirely to hadit but i cannot get this thought out of my head.

all i heard growing up was that we have to call god jehovah because they are many god's, this way jehovah knows we are trying to speak to him.

that is just one of many reasons the fds and wt say to why we much call him jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Becasuse of the JW 'two-class salvation doctrine'. The members of the so-called 'earthly class' are not adopted as the children of God, so the cannot call God their Father properly. So only calling him 'Jehovah' remained.

True christians are all born-again as children of God, so they call God as Father.

Shame on Rutherford's damned heretic idea invented in 1935!

16

Undeserved Kindness - Actually Deserved

by sabastious in

my younger brother recently moved in with me.

for the past 5 years he has done really nothing but abuse substance.

cocaine, alcohol cigarettes etc.

aqwsed12345

What's wrong withe word 'grace' ? Why don't the NWT use this word? Do they want to creat a new language to control the minds, like the Orwells' Newspeak?

12

Watchtower and Communist propaganda

by aqwsed12345 in

have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?

think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.

on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.

aqwsed12345

Watchtowerist and Communist paradise

12

Watchtower and Communist propaganda

by aqwsed12345 in

have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?

think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.

on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.

aqwsed12345

12

Watchtower and Communist propaganda

by aqwsed12345 in

have you ever wondered about the similarity of the watchtower-style and communist propaganda?

think about the "years' text" on kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies.

on communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "long live the socialism" etc.

aqwsed12345

Have you ever wondered about the similarity of the Watchtower-style and Communist propaganda? Think about the "Years' text" on Kingdom halls'walls or catchwords on circuit assemblies. On communist party assemblies there were a same-type text like "Long live the socialism" etc. Here are sem pictures. Look at the idealised smiling characters, for they are happy to be faithful JWs/communists. In communism there were buzzwords for the enemy like Kulak, imperialist etc. Just like in the WT regime: apostates, opposers, unbelievers...