Question for any Jehovah's Witness

[twohumble]

For any JW that can answer, please tell me:

1. In what name in the NT are we baptised under?

2. In what name in the NT are we to witness?

3. In what name in the NT are blessings bestowed?

Please site your scripture source text in response, and use any translation except the NWT.

[Ric]

For any JW that can answer, please tell me:

1. In what name in the NT are we baptised under?

2. In what name in the NT are we to witness?

3. In what name in the NT are blessings bestowed?

Please site your scripture source text in response, and use any translation except the NWT.
How do you expect them to answer without their corrupted NWT "bible"? :huh:

[twohumble]

How do you expect them to answer without their corrupted NWT "bible"? :huh:
Good point Ric, unfortunately, if they use that translation, we will just digress to a "NWT is horrible/not" debate again. I am curious to see if a JW will agree to consider the questions outside of their NWT...odds are slim, as you point out.

[Ric]

Good point Ric, unfortunately, if they use that translation, we will just digress to a "NWT is horrible/not" debate again. I am curious to see if a JW will agree to consider the questions outside of their NWT...odds are slim, as you point out.
So true/me too

[NonTrinitarian]

For any JW that can answer, please tell me:

1. In what name in the NT are we baptised under?

2. In what name in the NT are we to witness?

3. In what name in the NT are blessings bestowed?

Please site your scripture source text in response, and use any translation except the NWT.
1. In what name in the NT are we baptised under? “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” – Matthew 28:19

2. In what name in the NT are we to witness?
First two quotes from Jehovah’s Witnesses publications showing who we are witnesses of.

“Note that Peter was testifying to what Jehovah God had done. At the same time he was also a witness for Jesus, presenting testimony that this one was indeed the Messiah or Christ. Peter was thus acting in harmony with what the Son of God told the disciples prior to his ascension to heaven: “You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me.” (Acts 1:8) As witnesses of Jesus, believers in time came to be called “Christians.” According to Acts 11:26, this was “by divine providence.””- 7/1/77 WT

“Just before Jesus ascended to heaven, his 11 faithful apostles asked: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” Instead of answering that question, Jesus gave further instructions about their preaching commission, saying: “You will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” Until then, they had been witnesses solely of Jehovah, but now they would also be witnesses of Christ.” -5/15/95 WT

And now the scriptural basis in the NT:

Christians are witnesses to God or the Father:

1 Corinthians 15:15

Moreover, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we have borne witness against God that he raised up the Christ, but whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up

1 John 4:14

In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world.

Revelation 1:2

who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave,

John was obviously a witness to both God and Jesus. And we note that this verse says Jesus was also a witness as is testified further.



Revelation 1:5

and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “The firstborn from the dead,” and “The Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
1 Timothy 6:13

In the sight of God, who preserves all things alive, and of Christ Jesus, who as a witness made the fine public declaration before Pontius Pilate



Thus, we are witnesses to both God and Jesus. And I’m sure I don’t have to provide 7,000 verses showing that God’s name is Jehovah.



3. In what name in the NT are blessings bestowed? In the name of Jesus. But note that the blessings come from the Father.

You did not choose me, but I chose you, and I appointed you to go on and keep bearing fruit and that your fruit should remain; in order that no matter what you ask the Father in my name he might give it to you.- John 15:16

And in that day you will ask me no question at all. Most truly I say to you, If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name. 24 Until this present time you have not asked a single thing in my name. Ask and you will receive, that your joy may be made full.-John 16:23,24

Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved-Acts 4:12

BTW, all of these verses are from the NWT. What issue do you have with them?

[twohumble]

“Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” – Matthew 28:19



Lets deal with question one for a second. The verse, as you have provided says "...baptizing them in the name of..." correct? Ok, now, is it 'baptizing them in the name, or name's? I think you will note that the usage is singular. Hence the name is "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"....we are not baptized under the name of Jehovah, nor only the Father. Instead, now that the Son is manifest, and the Spirit will be sent, we are given a new name to bless and baptize under. That name is the One name of the Triune God, and its "the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit".

[NonTrinitarian]

Lets deal with question one for a second. The verse, as you have provided says "...baptizing them in the name of..." correct? Ok, now, is it 'baptizing them in the name, or name's? I think you will note that the usage is singular. Hence the name is "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"....we are not baptized under the name of Jehovah, nor only the Father. Instead, now that the Son is manifest, and the Spirit will be sent, we are given a new name to bless and baptize under. That name is the One name of the Triune God, and its "the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit".
Jehovah's Witnesses do baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now, let's test your theory about the singular use of "name".

Genesis 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."-King James Version

Note, it does not say "names", it says "name", singular. It's the same Hebrew word used seven words earlier for Jacob, according to the King James rendition. Does this mean Abraham and Isaac are a binity? According to your logic it does.

[twohumble]

Jehovah's Witnesses do baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Now, let's test your theory about the singular use of "name".

Genesis 48:16 "The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."-King James Version

Note, it does not say "names", it says "name", singular. It's the same Hebrew word used seven words earlier for Jacob, according to the King James rendition. Does this mean Abraham and Isaac are a binity? According to your logic it does.
Faulty logic, and improper use of the grammer. Let me quote your passage..."and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;

I have added the bold to the word 'fathers' above, which you must have overlooked in your analogy.

[NonTrinitarian]

Faulty logic, and improper use of the grammer. Let me quote your passage..."and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;

I have added the bold to the word 'fathers' above, which you must have overlooked in your analogy.
You’ve got to be kidding. Can anyone be this desperate to come up with an excuse like that? "In the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." How does "fathers" washout the singular name? Are not the name of his "Fathers" two names, Abraham and Isaac, as is clearly stated in the verse? Here are some more you can chew on. Let’s see how creative you can get for excuses on these.




Genesis 5:2 - He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.



Genesis 48:6 - Your issue, who you become the father of after them, will be yours. They will be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance



Deuteronomy 7:24 - He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name to perish from under the sky: there shall no man be able to stand before you, until you have destroyed them. See also Deuteronomy 9:14; 12:3



Deuteronomy 18:20 - But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.



Ruth 1:2 - The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. They came into the country of Moab, and continued there

Rev 3:1- I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. (And please note he is speaking to the whole church. I suppose you’ll come back and tell me there was only one person in that church.)
Note in each one of these instance the singular term "name" is used for multiple people. So much for the ridiculous argument that a singular "name" at Matthew 28:19 means one!



BTW, what is the "name" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

[twohumble]

You’ve got to be kidding. Can anyone be this desperate to come up with an excuse like that? "In the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac." How does "fathers" washout the singular name? Are not the name of his "Fathers" two names, Abraham and Isaac, as is clearly stated in the verse? Here are some more you can chew on. Let’s see how creative you can get for excuses on these.




Genesis 5:2 - He created them male and female, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.



Genesis 48:6 - Your issue, who you become the father of after them, will be yours. They will be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance



Deuteronomy 7:24 - He will deliver their kings into your hand, and you shall make their name to perish from under the sky: there shall no man be able to stand before you, until you have destroyed them. See also Deuteronomy 9:14; 12:3



Deuteronomy 18:20 - But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.



Ruth 1:2 - The name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehem-judah. They came into the country of Moab, and continued there

Rev 3:1- I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. (And please note he is speaking to the whole church. I suppose you’ll come back and tell me there was only one person in that church.)
Note in each one of these instance the singular term "name" is used for multiple people. So much for the ridiculous argument that a singular "name" at Matthew 28:19 means one!



BTW, what is the "name" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?



Will comment further later..but notice all but your last quote is in Hebrew, Hebrew contextual grammer is significantly different than NT aramaic. I will refer you to commentaries by BB Warfield and others on the singular nature of the "name" in matthew.

[twohumble]

BTW, what is the "name" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?.

Well ...it IS the name, the only name we are given to bless or baptise under. It is how we are told to address God when we baptise. Read the verse again. It says "in the name ....." the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit" IS the name.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well ...it IS the name, the only name we are given to bless or baptise under. It is how we are told to address God when we baptise. Read the verse again. It says "in the name ....." the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit" IS the name.
Acts 2:38-"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

[twohumble]

Acts 2:38-"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

In regard to question 2. Acts 1:8 Jesus tells His apostles and disciples to whom they shall bear witness....Jehovah...nope...Jesus Himself. We should be called Christ Witness's hu?

[NonTrinitarian]

In regard to question 2. Acts 1:8 Jesus tells His apostles and disciples to whom they shall bear witness....Jehovah...nope...Jesus Himself. We should be called Christ Witness's hu?
In regards to question two, I already demonstrated that we are witnesses to both God and Christ, as were the 1st century Christians. I assume you have given up one your first question regarding baptism?

[twohumble]

In regards to question two, I already demonstrated that we are witnesses to both God and Christ, as were the 1st century Christians. I assume you have given up one your first question regarding baptism?
no, not giving up on Baptism,and the 'name'...giving up on your ability or willingness to understand it. You must be willing to look at the commentaries on that section and the aramaic lingustics. That passage clearly defines the "name" as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"....That IS the name by which we are baptized. Your analogous posts are far far from good analogies, and don't use any of the same linguistic properties intrinsic in the Matthew passage.

Now, the name we are given in the OT is interesting too...consider this (I am sure you have, but would love to hear your rationalization):

And His name will be called Wonderful Councelor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. Isaiah 9:6

No garbage about "Mighty vs. Almighty" either, since in the same passage this child is called "Eternal Father" as well.

[NonTrinitarian]

no, not giving up on Baptism,and the 'name'...giving up on your ability or willingness to understand it. You must be willing to look at the commentaries on that section and the aramaic lingustics. That passage clearly defines the "name" as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"....That IS the name by which we are baptized. Your analogous posts are far far from good analogies, and don't use any of the same linguistic properties intrinsic in the Matthew passage.FYI-Matthew is in Greek, not Aramaic. I asked if you gave up on this subject because you made the erroneous statement about the only name we are baptised in is Father, Son and HS. Acts 2:38 clearly shows you were wrong. You didn't address it so I assumed you moved on.


Now, the name we are given in the OT is interesting too...consider this (I am sure you have, but would love to hear your rationalization)

No garbage about "Mighty vs. Almighty" either, since in the same passage this child is called "Eternal Father" as well.Garbage? Does your dictionary not clearly distinguish between "mighty" and "almighty"? If you're not going to pay attention to what the Bible says, why bother reading it? Also, I'm confused on what you believe. Do you think Jesus is the Father? And do you think I have a problem refering to Jesus as God? Jesus didn't have a problem refering to humans as Gods so why do you think I would not refer to Jesus as a God? And in comparison to others who are called Gods BY GOD, why would we not refer to Jesus as a Mighty God, mightier than the others who are designated as Gods?

[twohumble]

Garbage? Does your dictionary not clearly distinguish between "mighty" and "almighty"? If you're not going to pay attention to what the Bible says, why bother reading it? Also, I'm confused on what you believe. Do you think Jesus is the Father? And do you think I have a problem refering to Jesus as God? Jesus didn't have a problem refering to humans as Gods so why do you think I would not refer to Jesus as a God? And in comparison to others who are called Gods BY GOD, why would we not refer to Jesus as a Mighty God, mightier than the others who are designated as Gods?

So, how many 'true' gods are there?

[NonTrinitarian]

So, how many 'true' gods are there?
Good question. Let's let Jesus answer that.

"This means everlasting life, their knowing you (the Father, not me or anyone else), the ONLY TRUE GOD, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Note here that Jesus said his Father was the only true God and then proceeds to separate himself from the only true God.

Does this mean Jesus was a false God? That Solomon was a false God? That Moses was a false God? That the Israelite judges to whom Jesus said were called Gods by GOD were false Gods? That the angels are false Gods? No. They are called Gods in a representative way, designating the authority implaced in their hands by the only true God, Jehovah. Since all authority has been "given" to Jesus, he could then rightly be called a "mighty God", greater than any other representative of Jehovah. Jesus, Moses, Solomon and other Israelite Kings were called "Gods", not due to their nature but due to their God-given authority or role. They are not the True God Jehovah who is really the only true God because of His Nature and great power.

[twohumble]

Good question. Let's let Jesus answer that.

"This means everlasting life, their knowing you (the Father, not me or anyone else), the ONLY TRUE GOD, and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."

Note here that Jesus said his Father was the only true God and then proceeds to separate himself from the only true God.

Does this mean Jesus was a false God? That Solomon was a false God? That Moses was a false God? That the Israelite judges to whom Jesus said were called Gods by GOD were false Gods? That the angels are false Gods? No. They are called Gods in a representative way, designating the authority implaced in their hands by the only true God, Jehovah. Since all authority has been "given" to Jesus, he could then rightly be called a "mighty God", greater than any other representative of Jehovah. Jesus, Moses, Solomon and other Israelite Kings were called "Gods", not due to their nature but due to their God-given authority or role. They are not the True God Jehovah who is really the only true God because of His Nature and great power.
From this disertation, it seems you agree that there is only "one true God", hence, logically, all other gods are false gods, or not really god at all.

You have totally ignored my question. How do you rationalize that Jesus is called Mighty God, and Eternal Father, all in the same "name"? These are, in the Isaiah passage, clearly representing the same "child". You seem to ignore the fact he is called "Eternal Father", and that this is equated with "Mighty God"

[NonTrinitarian]

From this disertation, it seems you agree that there is only "one true God", hence, logically, all other gods are false gods, or not really god at all.
How dare you call Moses, whom God called "God", a false God! Same with Solomon. And you totally belie Jesus' argument at John 10:34-36 where he uses the fact that God called Israelite Kings "Gods" to defend his own claims. If these men were false Gods then how could they have supported Jesus' argument! You are totally wrong, straight from Jesus' mouth, that these are false Gods. They are Gods in the sense of God's representatives.

You have totally ignored my question. How do you rationalize that Jesus is called Mighty God, and Eternal Father, all in the same "name"? These are, in the Isaiah passage, clearly representing the same "child". You seem to ignore the fact he is called "Eternal Father", and that this is equated with "Mighty God"
Good grief! I didn't ignore it. I asked you a question for clarification and you ignored my question. I was waiting for you to answer it so I can answer you. AGAIN: Do you think Jesus is the Father?

[twohumble]

How dare you call Moses, whom God called "God", a false God! Same with Solomon. And you totally belie Jesus' argument at John 10:34-36 where he uses the fact that God called Israelite Kings "Gods" to defend his own claims. If these men were false Gods then how could they have supported Jesus' argument! You are totally wrong, straight from Jesus' mouth, that these are false Gods. They are Gods in the sense of God's representatives.
I don't have the patience to explain the difference to you, but you are way off here dude


Good grief! I didn't ignore it. I asked you a question for clarification and you ignored my question. I was waiting for you to answer it so I can answer you. AGAIN: Do you think Jesus is the Father?
oh...so you need this answered to answer my question? ok...well the answer is a multi-dimensional answer, and its 'yes', and 'no', Jesus and the father are seperate persons in one God, so yes, He is the Father in one sense, and yet at the same time, He is seperate as well. This definition is not possible to explain in the 4 dimensions of existence we experience, but the bible clearly speaks of the unity of the Godhead. Its a concept beyond 4 dimensional comprehension....if I had to distill it down, its 'yes, and no'. Proceed with your explanation.

[NonTrinitarian]

I don't have the patience to explain the difference to you, but you are way off here dudeAnd with such powerful arguments as this I will surrender and become a Trinitarian ! Ha.

oh...so you need this answered to answer my question? ok...well the answer is a multi-dimensional answer, and its 'yes', and 'no', Jesus and the father are seperate persons in one God, so yes, He is the Father in one sense, and yet at the same time, He is seperate as well. This definition is not possible to explain in the 4 dimensions of existence we experience, but the bible clearly speaks of the unity of the Godhead. Its a concept beyond 4 dimensional comprehension....if I had to distill it down, its 'yes, and no'. Proceed with your explanation.
Wow. You are a master at not answering the question! Yes and no. Please. The Church is united too, just as the Father and Son are, but we don't need some malarchy like this to explain it.

Anyway, Jesus is called God in a similar manner as other Israelite Kings. In fact, please turn to John 10:34-36 and notice that he uses the fact that they are called Gods by GOD to defend his own position. As he tells the Jews, the scripture that calls these men Gods cannot be nullified. And as Jesus said, if God can call these men God, why can't Jesus be called God's Son? In fact, that's what the other part of Ps 82 calles these men. It first calls them Gods and then calls them "sons of the Most High." Which is what Jesus was claiming. So no matter HOW you want to refer to these human Gods as, Jesus makes the same application to himself. Now granted, he is mightier than the other kings and so he is called a mighty God. He is also called the eternal father because he is the "last Adam." Adam was supposed to be the Father of mankind but he blew it when he sinned. (See Romans 5). As in Adam all are dying, so in Christ will all be made alive. As the "second Adam", Jesus does what Adam failed to do. Thus, Jesus is our eternal Father.

But Jesus is NOT the Father as he clearly called his Father the only true God and separated himself from the "Only true God", a verse you thus far have ignored. So if Jesus can be called the eternal Father and yet he is not the Father, then you shouldn't have too much of an issue calling him "mighty God" and recognizing he is not the "almighty God."

[twohumble]

And with such powerful arguments as this I will surrender and become a Trinitarian ! Ha.


Wow. You are a master at not answering the question! Yes and no. Please. The Church is united too, just as the Father and Son are, but we don't need some malarchy like this to explain it.

Anyway, Jesus is called God in a similar manner as other Israelite Kings. In fact, please turn to John 10:34-36 and notice that he uses the fact that they are called Gods by GOD to defend his own position. As he tells the Jews, the scripture that calls these men Gods cannot be nullified. And as Jesus said, if God can call these men God, why can't Jesus be called God's Son? In fact, that's what the other part of Ps 82 calles these men. It first calls them Gods and then calls them "sons of the Most High." Which is what Jesus was claiming. So no matter HOW you want to refer to these human Gods as, Jesus makes the same application to himself. Now granted, he is mightier than the other kings and so he is called a mighty God. He is also called the eternal father because he is the "last Adam." Adam was supposed to be the Father of mankind but he blew it when he sinned. (See Romans 5). As in Adam all are dying, so in Christ will all be made alive. As the "second Adam", Jesus does what Adam failed to do. Thus, Jesus is our eternal Father.

But Jesus is NOT the Father as he clearly called his Father the only true God and separated himself from the "Only true God", a verse you thus far have ignored. So if Jesus can be called the eternal Father and yet he is not the Father, then you shouldn't have too much of an issue calling him "mighty God" and recognizing he is not the "almighty God."

Sure, we have a paradox...I gave you a verse in Isaiah, that calls the child the "Prince, Councelor, God, and Father...all in one verse....you gave me a verse where Jesus makes a distinction. Thats why my earlier answer was "yes and no" He is both one with the Father in essence, and separate, all at the same time....this is a paradox beyond human conception, but you ignore the fact of Isaiah where He is called BOTH. As you yet, you have not explained this, except so show a verse which shows the opposite.

The bible is full of paradoxes, or seemingly contradictory statements, that are resolved by various methods. I know how I resolve them, but...how do you??? You have yet to answer but to ask another question.

[NonTrinitarian]

Sure, we have a paradox...I gave you a verse in Isaiah, that calls the child the "Prince, Councelor, God, and Father...all in one verse....you gave me a verse where Jesus makes a distinction. Thats why my earlier answer was "yes and no" He is both one with the Father in essence, and separate, all at the same time....this is a paradox beyond human conception, but you ignore the fact of Isaiah where He is called BOTH. As you yet, you have not explained this, except so show a verse which shows the opposite.

The bible is full of paradoxes, or seemingly contradictory statements, that are resolved by various methods. I know how I resolve them, but...how do you??? You have yet to answer but to ask another question.
I didn't answer? Are you reading the same posts? I'll repeat my answer word for word:

"Anyway, Jesus is called God in a similar manner as other Israelite Kings. In fact, please turn to John 10:34-36 and notice that he uses the fact that they are called Gods by GOD to defend his own position. As he tells the Jews, the scripture that calls these men Gods cannot be nullified. And as Jesus said, if God can call these men God, why can't Jesus be called God's Son? In fact, that's what the other part of Ps 82 calles these men. It first calls them Gods and then calls them "sons of the Most High." Which is what Jesus was claiming. So no matter HOW you want to refer to these human Gods as, Jesus makes the same application to himself. Now granted, he is mightier than the other kings and so he is called a mighty God. He is also called the eternal father because he is the "last Adam." Adam was supposed to be the Father of mankind but he blew it when he sinned. (See Romans 5). As in Adam all are dying, so in Christ will all be made alive. As the "second Adam", Jesus does what Adam failed to do. Thus, Jesus is our eternal Father."

[NonTrinitarian]

Sure, we have a paradox...I gave you a verse in Isaiah, that calls the child the "Prince, Councelor, God, and Father...all in one verse....you gave me a verse where Jesus makes a distinction. Thats why my earlier answer was "yes and no" He is both one with the Father in essence, and separate, all at the same time....this is a paradox beyond human conception, but you ignore the fact of Isaiah where He is called BOTH. As you yet, you have not explained this, except so show a verse which shows the opposite.

The bible is full of paradoxes, or seemingly contradictory statements, that are resolved by various methods. I know how I resolve them, but...how do you??? You have yet to answer but to ask another question.
Two Humble,
I just did some more research and discovered that the same title given Jesus at Isaiah 9:6 (Mighty God) is given to other humans. If I can demonstrate that the EXACT SAME title is given to humans, would it cause you to back off on your claim that Is 9:6 proves Jesus is God?

[twohumble]

He is also called the eternal father because he is the "last Adam." Adam was supposed to be the Father of mankind but he blew it when he sinned. (See Romans 5). As in Adam all are dying, so in Christ will all be made alive. As the "second Adam", Jesus does what Adam failed to do. Thus, Jesus is our eternal Father."

Weak answer indeed. You say he was called "Eternal Father" as it relates to Him being the second Adam? WOW! That is a huge stretch, but if that is what it requires for rationalization, I guess it figures.

Two Humble,
I just did some more research and discovered that the same title given Jesus at Isaiah 9:6 (Mighty God) is given to other humans. If I can demonstrate that the EXACT SAME title is given to humans, would it cause you to back off on your claim that Is 9:6 proves Jesus is God?

No, it would not, since the title is not limited to that phrase, and includes "Eternal Father" which is reserved for the Father, and context of the Isaiah passage far exceeds the "mighty God" title. However, I would love you to post the passages you are refering to, just for my education.

[NonTrinitarian]

Weak answer indeed. You say he was called "Eternal Father" as it relates to Him being the second Adam? WOW! That is a huge stretch, but if that is what it requires for rationalization, I guess it figures.



No, it would not, since the title is not limited to that phrase, and includes "Eternal Father" which is reserved for the Father, and context of the Isaiah passage far exceeds the "mighty God" title. However, I would love you to post the passages you are refering to, just for my education.
Whatever. BTW, Jesus is NOT the Father. You appear to be a modalist.

I see there is no point in discussing this with you anymore. Here's how it's gone so far.

TH: Jesus is called "mighty God" so he is God.
NT: But Jesus is also called eternal Father. Does this mean he IS the Father?
TH: Yes and No
NT: Brilliant answer there. Moving on. If I show you that others are called with the same title of "mighty God", would that demonstrate that being called a "mighty God" doesn't prove he IS God?
TH: No. Because Jesus is called the eternal Father and that title is reserved for THE Father.
NT: So you think Jesus is the Father and thus are as big a heretic as I am.

[NonTrinitarian]

Weak answer indeed. You say he was called "Eternal Father" as it relates to Him being the second Adam? WOW! That is a huge stretch, but if that is what it requires for rationalization, I guess it figures.
Eternal Father: What does it mean?Eve was called "the mother of everyone living". Logically Adam would be called "the Father of everyone living." However, Adam sinned and instead of passing life on to his offspring, he passed on death.


"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (refering to Jesus)

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." –Romans 5
Thus, the parallel between Adam and Jesus is huge. In fact, note how else Jesus is described:

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=541605#footnote_572359874_5)] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit – 1 Cor 15:45

A father is one who gives life: The Jews said, "Our Father is Abraham", demonstrating that he (Abraham) was the beginning of Israelite nation. He is the one that gave life to Isaac and subsequently Jacob. He is the beginning of what would become the covenant nation of Israel. That's what is meant by "father." We are all dying but Jesus can give us life, thus he is our Father. Since he gives us everlasting life, he is our eternal Father.

"As in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Adam was supposed to be the Father of the human race but failed. Instead of passing on life, Romans 5 says he passed on death. Jesus is the "last Adam" who passes on eternal life, completing what Adam was supposed to do. Thus Jesus is the Eternal Father of the human race. No rationalizing, just plan truth. Rationalizing is saying that being a "mighty God" makes him GOD but being the "eternal Father" doesn’t make him the Father. Though from what you’ve written it appears you are a modalist heretic but true Trinitarians would not say Jesus is the eternal Father.

[twohumble]

Eternal Father: What does it mean?Eve was called "the mother of everyone living". Logically Adam would be called "the Father of everyone living." However, Adam sinned and instead of passing life on to his offspring, he passed on death.


"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. (refering to Jesus)

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." –Romans 5
Thus, the parallel between Adam and Jesus is huge. In fact, note how else Jesus is described:

So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[5 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=541605#footnote_572359874_5)] ; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit – 1 Cor 15:45

A father is one who gives life: The Jews said, "Our Father is Abraham", demonstrating that he (Abraham) was the beginning of Israelite nation. He is the one that gave life to Isaac and subsequently Jacob. He is the beginning of what would become the covenant nation of Israel. That's what is meant by "father." We are all dying but Jesus can give us life, thus he is our Father. Since he gives us everlasting life, he is our eternal Father.

"As in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Adam was supposed to be the Father of the human race but failed. Instead of passing on life, Romans 5 says he passed on death. Jesus is the "last Adam" who passes on eternal life, completing what Adam was supposed to do. Thus Jesus is the Eternal Father of the human race. No rationalizing, just plan truth. Rationalizing is saying that being a "mighty God" makes him GOD but being the "eternal Father" doesn’t make him the Father. Though from what you’ve written it appears you are a modalist heretic but true Trinitarians would not say Jesus is the eternal Father.

Nontrinitarian, you are circling the topic, but not hitting on it. The parallel of Adam to Jesus is strong, but Adam cannot be compared to Jesus in ALL ways, only in the analogous ways. You did a nice job of pointing a few of those out. You JUMP to some conclusion about the "Eternal Father" using WEAK support if any. There is NO corrolation between being the earthly mother or father of all living things, and being the "Eternal Father", that, simply put, is grasping at straws my friend.

You simply try to place God in a box. You think that you can explain all the mysteries by the mind of man. God is multi-dimensional, and beyond our ability to totally grasp. Hence the Trinity is beyond human understanding. We know it to be true, since the bible tells us that the name is "the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", along with TONS of other support. So, I understand that God is Triune, but I don't understand how. You, on the other hand, reject his triune nature since it does not fit in your 3 dimensional world view.

I promise you, God is bigger than your brain or mine, and if He fit in it, He wouldn't be very big at all. Trinity, free will/election and other paradoxes, are only explained by a God that is beyond our dimensions, period. If you restrict him to your box, you have limited Him.

[stevy]

Garbage? Does your dictionary not clearly distinguish between "mighty" and "almighty"? If you're not going to pay attention to what the Bible says, why bother reading it? Your right we "should pay attention to what the bible says." In the next chapter of Isaiah YHWH refers to Himself as "Mighty" aswell (Isaiah 10:21) This is because Jesus has the same attributes as YHWH, just as Jesus said, "he who has seen Me has seen the Father."

Lets take a closer look at that statement Jesus said, "he who has seen Me has seen the Father."

JESUS JEHOVAH

is the "shepherd" (john 10:11) - is a "shepherd" (psalm 23:1)
is the "I AM" (Jn 8:24, 58; 13:19 - is the "I AM" (ex 3:14, isa 43:10)
is the "creator" (jn 1:3, col 1:15-17) - is the "creator" (gen 1:1; isa 43:10)
is the "first and the last" (rev 1:17) - is the "first and the last"(gen 1:1; isa 40)
is "God" (john 1:1, 20:28; tit 2:13; heb 1:8 - Is "God" (isa43:10, 45:22)
Is the "savior" (acts 4:12; Rom 10:9) - is the "savior (isa 45:21; 43:3,11)
Is the "forgiver" of sins (mk 2:7,10) - Is the "forgiver" of sins (jer 31:34)
is"addressed in prayer" (acts 7:59) - is "adressed in prayer" (dan 6)
is "confessed as Lord" (phil 2:10) - Is "confessed as Lord" (isa 45:23)
is "worshipped by angels (heb 1:6) - Is worshipped by angels (ps 148:2)
is "worhsipped" by men (mt 14:31-33) - is "worshipped" by men (ex 34:14)
is "unchaging (heb 13:8) - Is "unchageing" (mal 3:6)
is "eternal " (jn 8:58, heb 13:8) - is eternal (deut 33:27)
is omniscient" (john 2:24-25) - is omniscient" (1 john 3:20)
is omnipresent (mat 18:20) - is omnipresent (ps 139)
is "all powerful" (col 2:10, mat 28:18) - Is " all powerful" (psalm 139)
Therefore Jesus is God. I am not saying Jesus is the Father but i am saying Jesus is God - by reading the scripture openly and honestly that is the conclusion you come too. To deny that truth is to deny the plain reading of scripture.

By the way, in isaiah 9:6 Jesus being reffered to as the "everlasting father" does not mean Jesus is the Father. The words “everlasting Father” is literally translated from the hebrew as "father of eternity." It is not saying Christ is the Father but the phrase is a great metaphor to show the Father of the ages , that Jesus owns the ages - it is the strongest Hebrew idiom for someone’s preeminence over time - if you are the Father of something you possess it

[NonTrinitarian]

JESUS JEHOVAH?

Much of your premise is that same titles equal same individuals, which is faulty.


is the "shepherd" (john 10:11) - is a "shepherd" (psalm 23:1)
Elders are called shepherds of the Church
is the "I AM" (Jn 8:24, 58; 13:19 - is the "I AM" (ex 3:14, isa 43:10)
A man said he was "I AM" just a few verses after Jesus (John 9:9)
is the "creator" (jn 1:3, col 1:15-17) - is the "creator" (gen 1:1; isa 43:10)
Neither of these verses call Jesus the Creator. They say the world came into existence "through" him. By your reading into a verse what it does not say, and also by selective quoting, such as ignoring Hebrews 1:1,2 where it reads "God…has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he (that is GOD, not the Son) made the world", you are not getting what the Bible says.
is the "first and the last" (rev 1:17) - is the "first and the last"(gen 1:1; isa 40)
go here to see my discussion on: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3024&page=7&pp=16
is "God" (john 1:1, 20:28; tit 2:13; heb 1:8 - Is "God" (isa43:10, 45:22) Only one of those are undisputed as referring to Jesus. Also, it ignores the fact that Moses, Solomon, Angels, and human judges are called "God"
Is the "savior" (acts 4:12; Rom 10:9) - is the "savior (isa 45:21; 43:3,11) Men were called "savior" because God made them one.(Judges 3:9, 3:15) Jesus is a savior only because God made him one (Acts 5:31)
Is the "forgiver" of sins (mk 2:7,10) - Is the "forgiver" of sins (jer 31:34) The apostles were granted the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23) and the honest-hearted people who DID believe in Jesus thought God gave him the power to forgive, not that he WAS God. (Matt 9:8)
is"addressed in prayer" (acts 7:59) - is "adressed in prayer" (dan 6) Acts 7:59 is not a prayer. It was a vision in heaven in which Stephen spoke to Jesus because he saw him. John and Daniel had visions into heaven too and spoke to angels. Unless you think they were praying to angels.
is "confessed as Lord" (phil 2:10) - Is "confessed as Lord" (isa 45:23)
There are many people called "Lord" in scripture. Also, Jesus was Lord ONLY because God made him Lord. (Acts 2:36)
is "worshipped by angels (heb 1:6) - Is worshipped by angels (ps 148:2)
"worship" at Heb 1:6 is translator preference. There are a number of Bibles that do not say worship there. Only because you already believe Jesus is God do you favor the translation as "worship". If you thought Jesus was not God you would translate proskyneo as obeisence, reverence or homage, like you would when that same word was applied to Abraham, David, etc.
is "worhsipped" by men (mt 14:31-33) - is "worshipped" by men (ex 34:14)
Same as above. A number of Bibles do not translate this as "worship"
is "unchaging (heb 13:8) - Is "unchageing" (mal 3:6)
Sure, if you rip things out of context. Paul explains in the VERY NEXT VERSE what he meant. He said "do not be carried away by various and strange teachings." The Jews were trying to distort the truth about Jesus and his sacrifice. Paul was warning them that Jesus had not changed and his sacrifice (read latter half of Heb 13) would not fade out like animal sacrifices did. Thus, Jesus sacrifice is unchanging, it will never need to be done again. You can’t just rip a verse out of context like that. He didn’t all of a sudden, out of the blue spout off that Jesus was unchanging. He was discussing his sacrifice and the superiority of it over animal sacrifices, which did change.
is "eternal " (jn 8:58, heb 13:8) - is eternal (deut 33:27)
Heb 13:8 in no way suggests eternal and John 8:58 merely states Jesus was before Abraham.
is omniscient" (john 2:24-25) - is omniscient" (1 john 3:20)
Yes, Jesus knew what was in man. But so did Peter. (Acts 5:1-11) Both of these men could do this only because of God’s power, not there own. (Luke 5:17; Acts 2:22; 10:38)
is omnipresent (mat 18:20) - is omnipresent (ps 139)
Via his influence. Jesus is literally in heaven. He doesn’t divide himself up and go to each group. He is in heaven but his influence is everywhere. Same with God. This is more of a semantic argument and people today say similar things to loved ones like their children.
is "all powerful" (col 2:10, mat 28:18) - Is " all powerful" (psalm 139)
But you know what is different about Jehovah’s power versus Jesus’? It’s that little word "GIVEN" which is said about everything Jesus possesses. His power, authority, even his great name were all GIVEN to him. I don’t recall any verses saying any of that about Jehovah.


Therefore Jesus is God. I am not saying Jesus is the Father but i am saying Jesus is God - by reading the scripture openly and honestly that is the conclusion you come too. To deny that truth is to deny the plain reading of scripture.

Here’s some plain reading of scripture for you.

This is only the first book of the NT.
Matthew 3:17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved."

I believe the people hearing this would think the voice was God’s and Jesus was His Son. I do not think they thought this was 1/3 of God speaking about another 1/3 of God.

Matthew 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the spirit up into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil

Trinitarians today have a nifty explanation on how the "human" side of Jesus was tempted but the God side wasn’t. I don’t think people in Jesus’ day could have used that explanation.

Matthew 4:3 Also, the Tempter came and said to him: "If you are a son of God, tell these stones to become loaves of bread

Satan calls Jesus God’s Son, not God.

Matthew 4:6-7 and said to him: "If you are a son of God, hurl yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels a charge concerning you, and they will carry you on their hands, that you may at no time strike your foot against a stone.’" Jesus said to him: "Again it is written, ‘You must not put Jehovah your God to the test.’"



Again, Jesus is God’s Son and Satan speaks of God as someone other than Jesus. Jesus also speaks of God as someone other than himself.

Matthew 4:9-10 and he said to him: "All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me." Then Jesus said to him: "Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.



I don’t think God could be tempted into worshipping Satan. Maybe his "human" side could be tempted to making food out of rocks due to hunger but that doesn’t explain this one. Jesus again speaks of God as someone different than himself.

Matthew 8:27 So the men became amazed and said: "What sort of person is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?"



The disciples apparently didn’t believe he was God up until this point.

Matthew 8:29 And, look! they screamed, saying: "What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?"

Demons refer to Jesus as God’s son. I think when people heard this they thought Jesus was God’s Son, not God.



Matthew 9:8 At the sight of this the crowds were struck with fear, and they glorified God, who gave such authority to men.



The honest-hearted crowd thought Jesus could forgive sins because God, someone other than Jesus, gave Jesus that authority.



Matthew 11:2-3 But John, having heard in jail about the works of the Christ, sent by means of his own disciples and said to him: "Are you the Coming One, or are we to expect a different one?



John apparently didn’t think Jesus was God. He was wondering if he was even the Messiah.

Matthew 12:18 Look! My servant whom I chose, my beloved, whom my soul approved! I will put my spirit upon him, and what justice is he will make clear to the nations



This prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. When people heard this prophecy applied to Jesus, did it make them think he was God or someone other than God? To me it is clear Jesus is God’s servant.

Matthew 12:32 For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come



I think this would have caused people to think Jesus is someone below God in importance.

Matthew 14:33 Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: "You are really God’s Son."



The apostles finally, after half-way through Matthew, understand Jesus is actually who the demons claimed he was. God’s Son. If they thought he was actually God, why not just say "you really are God?" Was there a rule somewhere that said ‘God in the flesh shall only be referred to as the Son of God’?

Matthew 16:14-16 They said: "Some say John the Baptist, others E·li´jah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them: "You, though, who do you say I am?" In answer Simon Peter said: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.



It’s obvious that the majority of people did NOT believe Jesus was God. Even the apostles did not say he was God. They said he was His Son.

Matthew 17:5-6 While he was yet speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them, and, look! a voice out of the cloud, saying: "This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved; listen to him." At hearing this the disciples fell upon their faces and became very much afraid.



The disciples had been with Jesus (God according to Trinitarians) for several years. Yet when they hear this voice from heaven, they fall in fear of being in the shear presence of someone who was obviously God. Would you not say they gave supremacy to the voice in heaven who said Jesus was His Son?

Matthew 20:23 He said to them: "You will indeed drink my cup, but this sitting down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.



The disciples no doubt associated Jesus’ Father as God, someone of much higher authority that Jesus. Wouldn’t you have if you were there?

Matthew 21:9-11 As for the crowds, those going ahead of him and those following kept crying out: "Save, we pray, the Son of David! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name! Save him, we pray, in the heights above!" Now when he entered into Jerusalem, the whole city was set in commotion, saying: "Who is this?" The crowds kept telling: "This is the prophet Jesus, from Naz´a·reth of Gal´i·lee!"



Again, these people did not think Jesus was God. How could people who lived with Jesus and actually heard him speak come to a conclusion far different than Trinitarians today? They didn’t think he was Jehovah but that he came in Jehovah’s name. They called him a prophet, as did the apostle Peter in the book of Acts.

Matthew 22:31-32 As regards the resurrection of the dead, did you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? He is the God, not of the dead, but of the living."



Jesus distinguished himself from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Would you think he was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob after hearing this?

Matthew 22:43-45 He said to them: "How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet"’? If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?"



Quoting Psalm 110:1, Jesus clearly distinguishes himself from Jehovah.

Matthew 24:36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father



Would you think Jesus was the Almighty, equal to the Father, if you were standing there hearing him say this?

Matthew 26:63 But Jesus kept silent. So the high priest said to him: "By the living God I put you under oath to tell us whether you are the Christ the Son of God!"



Even the religious leaders apparently didn’t believe Jesus was actually claiming to be God as they put him under oath by God. They accused him of being God’s Son. And Jesus confirmed their accusation.

Matthew 27:40 and saying: "O you would-be thrower-down of the temple and builder of it in three days, save yourself! If you are a son of God, come down off the torture stake!"



No accusations of being God, only His Son.

Matthew 27:43 He has put his trust in God; let Him now rescue him if He wants him, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’





Jesus put trust in himself as God? These people understood him to claim to be someone other than God.

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus called out with a loud voice, saying: "E´li, E´li, la´ma sa·bach·tha´ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?



What would you have thought if you heard this man crying out to his "God"? Would you have thought he was God?

Matthew 27:54 But the army officer and those with him watching over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things happening, grew very much afraid, saying: "Certainly this was God’s Son."



And he was right.

Depending on how you handle these will determine if I bring out the big guns. Keep in mind this is just ONE book of the NT. There are HUNDREDS of verses that I want you to explain.

And you can go here and read about my explanation for your verses in more detail

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15883&page=1

[twohumble]

Nontrin...you totally mist the point, as do all JW's, of the context of the phrase "Gods Son" why did the Pharisee's get inflamed at Jesus's choice of this title? What is the context of the phrase?

Do you comprehend the "willing submission of the Son", do you understand the nature of "God stuff"?

God, who was the only One who could fulfill the covenant, sent Himself, in the second person of the Trinity, He willinglingly shed the "Godmantle" so He would become fully man, and yet, fully in touch with His nature. Your assertion of His powers being "given" are very interesting. Yet it ignores the fact that after the resurrection, He took full authority over His powers, and they were 'no longer' given. Why? Simply put, He was in His glorified form, and in full control of His "Godmantle".

You have totally ignored the multidimensionality of God. Prior to the resurrection, He willingly limited Himself to our dimensions, yet after the resurrection, he controled ALL dimensions. You keep thinking God in the biblical terminology is limited to our existence. He is not.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin...you totally mist the point, as do all JW's, of the context of the phrase "Gods Son" why did the Pharisee's get inflamed at Jesus's choice of this title? What is the context of the phrase?All you offered is your opinion on what it means to be God’s Son. Here is fact:

John 1:49 Na·than´a·el answered him: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel."



Nathanael calls Jesus the Son of God as soon as he meets him. Later he wonders how Jesus can perform miracles such as calming a storm while they were at sea. It’s obvious Nathanael did not mean Jesus was Almighty God when he called him the Son of God in this account. The title was closely linked to another title Nathanael called Jesus, the King of Israel. It’s important for Trinitarians to realize that what they mean by calling Jesus the Son of God is NOT what was meant by those who called Jesus the Son of God in the 1st century.

John 10:34-36 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: "You are gods"’? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?"



Jesus acknowledges that God did give the title "god" to human kings. Then he asks what their problem is since he is claiming to be God’s Son. Were not Israelite Kings called God’s sons too? Yes. Note Psalm 82

"I myself have said you are Gods and all of you are sons of the most high."- Ps 82:6

Jesus thus demonstrates that the Jews misunderstood his claim. If these kings can be called God's, and they are also called sons of god, why can Jesus not call himself God's Son? After all, he is the king. He wasn't claiming to be equal to God, he was claiming to be the king. (see John 18:33-37)
John 12:13 took the branches of palm trees and went out to meet him. And they began to shout: "Save, we pray you! Blessed is he that comes in Jehovah’s name, even the king of Israel."



The King of Israel was references as a son of God. These people were not hailing Jesus as God. They were hailing him as coming on behalf of God and as their Messiah King.

John 19:7 The Jews answered him: "We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son."



This goes back to Nathanael’s comment when he first met Jesus. He called Jesus the "Son of God" and the "king of Israel." The religious leaders knew a claim to be the Son of God was a claim to being the King of Israel. This is why the charge against him to Pilate was his claiming to be a king. Jesus’ saying he was the Son of God was a claim to be the King of Israel. That’s why Pilate asked, ‘are you a king?’ No one thought Jesus’ saying he was the Son of God was his way of saying he WAS God. The people who called him "Son of God" recognized him as their king. Trinitarians use the term "son of God" in a totally different way from the Jews of this time. Here is the trial

John 19:12-15From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."
13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.
15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

Now note this. AFTER the say Jesus’ claim was to be God’s Son they say a few verses later that his real claim was to be a king. (Compare John 19:7 with John 19:12) Here is a scriptural explanation of what it means to be the son of God. Now offer your proof that being God’s Son means being God Himself.
Your assertion of His powers being "given" are very interesting. Yet it ignores the fact that after the resurrection, He took full authority over His powers, and they were 'no longer' given. Why? Simply put, He was in His glorified form, and in full control of His "Godmantle". Man, you are so far off. You really need to research stuff before sticking your foot in your mouth.

"All authority in heaven and earth has been GIVEN to me." –Matthew 28:18.

Now tell me, TwoHumble, is this before or after Jesus’ resurrection?

"For this reason also God exalted him to a superior position, and GAVE him a name that is above every other name."-Phil 2:9 (and note from verse 8 this is after his death) (see also Acts 2:32,33)

You have totally ignored the multidimensionality of God. Prior to the resurrection, He willingly limited Himself to our dimensions, yet after the resurrection, he controled ALL dimensions. You keep thinking God in the biblical terminology is limited to our existence. He is not.Save your philosophical arguments for someone else. I’m here with scripture. There are other things I don’t understand about God but I accept because the Bible says so. I don’t reject the Trinity because I don’t understand it. Otherwise I would reject a lot of other beliefs. I reject the Trinity because the Bible doesn’t teach it. As is demonstrated in the verses from Matthew I quoted above.

[twohumble]

Nontrin...your post of the Ps 82 vs, regarding us as "sons of the Most High" and gods....do you know see the contextual difference between that and Jesus's claims?

Here are two things to think about:

1. The Pharisee's were mighty irritated by Jesus claim to be "The Son of God"...why? Could it be a different context? I will not post the dissertation written by many a scholar on this, but you should read some.

2. Is there not a HUGE difference between "sons of the Most High", and "Only begotten Son"? Either this is a contradiction in scripture (which none of us believe), or there is a clear and understandable difference here.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin...your post of the Ps 82 vs, regarding us as "sons of the Most High" and gods....do you know see the contextual difference between that and Jesus's claims?

Here are two things to think about:

1. The Pharisee's were mighty irritated by Jesus claim to be "The Son of God"...why? Could it be a different context? I will not post the dissertation written by many a scholar on this, but you should read some.

2. Is there not a HUGE difference between "sons of the Most High", and "Only begotten Son"? Either this is a contradiction in scripture (which none of us believe), or there is a clear and understandable difference here.
Well first of all, I quoted a lot more than Ps 82. But besides that, how does it escape your attention that it was JESUS who resorted to Ps 82 to defend his claim about himself. They made the accusation to which he immediately went to Ps 82 to defend himself.

There is a difference between being God's only begotten son and being sons of the most high, just as there is a difference between being a Father's begotten son and adopted son. Christians are said to be adopted sons of God. But note that neither a literal son nor an adopted son are their Father. Now before you say 'But I don't think Jesus is the Father', let me remind you the scriptures say the following:
1.) There is one God
2.) God is One (not three)
3.) Jesus is God's Son

Logically if there is one God and that God is only one (not three) and Jesus is said to be someone other than that God, then being God's Son was not a claim to be God. All of the scriptures I demonstrated show they understood claiming to be God' Son as meaning he was claiming to be their King. I'll quote one section again, the hailing before Pilot

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he (and here is the charge) made himself God’s son.”

seven verses later they repeat the same charge

12 For this reason Pilate kept on seeking how to release him. But the Jews shouted, saying: “If you release this [man], you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.

THAT, TwoHumble, is how they understood the charge. NO ONE even had a remote concept of the 3 in 1 God back then and there are hundreds of verses where Jesus speaks of God as someone other than himself. The onus is on you to refute the evidence I've provided and then provide some logic on how the Jews would have even been able to rationalize that Jesus was claiming to BE God, especially after they heard him make statements like this:

"Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God OR IF I speak of my own originality"

Now demonstrate to me how the Jews constantly heard sayings like that and yet thought that when Jesus said he was God's Son he was infact claiming to be God. I demonstrated from John 19 they had no such understanding at all.

And I also challenge you to demonstrate to me that when Nathaniel called Jesus "Son of God" and "King of Israel" at John 1:49 he meant Jesus was actually Almighty God Himself who was not one but three and whom 1/3 came to the earth as a man. And then explain all of the other instances after that where Jesus performed a miracle and Nathaniel and the other apostles kept asking themselves, 'Who is this man that he can do all of this?' If Nathaniel meant Jesus was God by calling him the "son of God" then why did he later wonder how Jesus could perform miracles? It should be blatantly obvious Nathaniel meant the term Son of God the same way the Jews did.
Once more:

Na·than´a·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel."

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he (and here is the charge) made himself God’s son...12 For this reason Pilate kept on seeking how to release him. But the Jews shouted, saying: “If you release this [man], you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.

[twohumble]

Well first of all, I quoted a lot more than Ps 82. But besides that, how does it escape your attention that it was JESUS who resorted to Ps 82 to defend his claim about himself. They made the accusation to which he immediately went to Ps 82 to defend himself.

There is a difference between being God's only begotten son and being sons of the most high, just as there is a difference between being a Father's begotten son and adopted son. Christians are said to be adopted sons of God. But note that neither a literal son nor an adopted son are their Father. Now before you say 'But I don't think Jesus is the Father', let me remind you the scriptures say the following:
1.) There is one God
2.) God is One (not three)
3.) Jesus is God's Son

Logically if there is one God and that God is only one (not three) and Jesus is said to be someone other than that God, then being God's Son was not a claim to be God. All of the scriptures I demonstrated show they understood claiming to be God' Son as meaning he was claiming to be their King. I'll quote one section again, the hailing before Pilot

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he (and here is the charge) made himself God’s son.”

seven verses later they repeat the same charge

12 For this reason Pilate kept on seeking how to release him. But the Jews shouted, saying: “If you release this [man], you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.

THAT, TwoHumble, is how they understood the charge. NO ONE even had a remote concept of the 3 in 1 God back then and there are hundreds of verses where Jesus speaks of God as someone other than himself. The onus is on you to refute the evidence I've provided and then provide some logic on how the Jews would have even been able to rationalize that Jesus was claiming to BE God, especially after they heard him make statements like this:

"Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. 17 If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God OR IF I speak of my own originality"

Now demonstrate to me how the Jews constantly heard sayings like that and yet thought that when Jesus said he was God's Son he was infact claiming to be God. I demonstrated from John 19 they had no such understanding at all.

And I also challenge you to demonstrate to me that when Nathaniel called Jesus "Son of God" and "King of Israel" at John 1:49 he meant Jesus was actually Almighty God Himself who was not one but three and whom 1/3 came to the earth as a man. And then explain all of the other instances after that where Jesus performed a miracle and Nathaniel and the other apostles kept asking themselves, 'Who is this man that he can do all of this?' If Nathaniel meant Jesus was God by calling him the "son of God" then why did he later wonder how Jesus could perform miracles? It should be blatantly obvious Nathaniel meant the term Son of God the same way the Jews did.
Once more:

Na·than´a·el answered him: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are King of Israel."

"The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he (and here is the charge) made himself God’s son...12 For this reason Pilate kept on seeking how to release him. But the Jews shouted, saying: “If you release this [man], you are not a friend of Caesar. Every man making himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Nontrin...I did not address all your mistakes in one post, lets start with the question I asked.

How do you explain the reaction of the Pharisee's to Jesus's claim?

You acknowledge that Jesus is Begotten, and we are adopted. So, there is CLEARLY a different context of terminology here ...right? Ok, so, since we are not talking about "sonship" from sexual procreation. What do you think is meant by Jesus is Gods only 'begotten' Son. You must understand, I assume, that there are many Titles Jesus has, like "the Lamb of God"....you know these show an aspect of Jesus and His purpose, but are not strict or literal terms right? So, what do you think a "Son" is, a "NATURAL SON"?

You can start to answer this by asking ...what is a "natural son", to us? Well, that son has our "genetic nature", he has our "stuff". So, since this is a term of "analogy", what is Jesus made up of? Answer?

GOD STUFF!!!! You see Nontrin...Man begets man, God begets God.....Man makes machine...God makes man.

You say the Trinity is not taught....well, its such a basic concept, its not taught...ITS ASSUMED, SINCE ITS SO OBVIOUS! The doctrine of the Trinity is rife throughout scripture. I understand the confusion you have, since you keep trying to put God into a 3 dimensional box, but try to come out of that box for a minite and see what I am saying.

Now, you quote some NWT verses in your last post, and they are quite NWT,ish ...if you know what I mean.

You also realize the Pharisee's asked how they should tolerate "a man who makes himself out to be God"...they did not say "a" god, there is NO predicate in that sentence. Your NWT does not say it that way...but this thread specifically asked you to use "any translation except the adultered NWT".

[NonTrinitarian]

How do you explain the reaction of the Pharisee's to Jesus's claim? They misinterpreted Jesus’ claims. They twice accused him of trying to make himself equal to God. One time Jesus replied back "the son can do nothing on his own but only what he beholds the Father doing", thus obviously denying their claim. The other time Jesus told them that he claimed to be God’s Son, not God, and explained to them that humans were called Gods by God.

You acknowledge that Jesus is Begotten, and we are adopted. So, there is CLEARLY a different context of terminology here ...right? Ok, so, since we are not talking about "sonship" from sexual procreation. What do you think is meant by Jesus is Gods only 'begotten' Son. You must understand, I assume, that there are many Titles Jesus has, like "the Lamb of God"....you know these show an aspect of Jesus and His purpose, but are not strict or literal terms right? So, what do you think a "Son" is, a "NATURAL SON"?

You can start to answer this by asking ...what is a "natural son", to us? Well, that son has our "genetic nature", he has our "stuff". So, since this is a term of "analogy", what is Jesus made up of? Answer?

GOD STUFF!!!! You see Nontrin...Man begets man, God begets God.....Man makes machine...God makes man. Jesus is God’s only begotten son in that he was the only creature created directly by God. All other creatures were created by God through Jesus. and thus could not be only begotten by God. Yes, man begets man but let’s not forget that it is a different man. AND, the one begetting is older than the one begotten. So let’s take your proposed analogy to God and Jesus. Are you saying Jesus is a different God from God? If you’re going to use your ‘man begets man’ analogy you will. Are you saying the Father is older than the Son? If you’re going to use your ‘man begets man’ analogy you will. It in fact blows up in your face. You’ve taken it upon yourself to determine how far to take your analogy. You want to take it to the point of man begetting man but then arbitrarily stop there because if you go any further it is damaging to you. Angels are also called "Sons of God" without the "adoption" clause but you don’t want to apply your analogy to them, do you?

You say the Trinity is not taught....well, its such a basic concept, its not taught...ITS ASSUMED, SINCE ITS SO OBVIOUS! The doctrine of the Trinity is rife throughout scripture. I understand the confusion you have, since you keep trying to put God into a 3 dimensional box, but try to come out of that box for a minite and see what I am saying. I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the Jews in Jesus’ time believed in a Trinity! That Nathanael called Jesus the "son of God", meaning he thought 1/3 of God came to the earth as a man? Then Nathanael later somehow forgot Jesus was God and wondered how he could perform miracles?

Now, you quote some NWT verses in your last post, and they are quite NWT,ish ...if you know what I mean.

You also realize the Pharisee's asked how they should tolerate "a man who makes himself out to be God"...they did not say "a" god, there is NO predicate in that sentence. Your NWT does not say it that way...but this thread specifically asked you to use "any translation except the adultered NWT". I’m cringing right now TwoHumble because you just really, really demonstrated your ignorance in Greek. You might want to stay away from grammatical arguments. There is no definite article before theos in that verse. The lack of the definite article (ton) can make it indefinite. (Greek doesn’t have an indefinite article so having the definite article does not allow the "a" but if it is missing it can allow the "a"). Case in point: You might want to note that the phrase "a man" 5 words earlier ALSO doesn’t have the indefinite article and yet your bible translation puts the "a" in front of it!

Kai (AND) oti (that) su (YOU) anqrwpos (human) wn (BEING) poieis (ARE-makING) seauton (YOURself) qeon (god)

Above is the Greek and English interlinear from Westcott-Hort text. Note that the definite article (ton) does not appear before anqrwpos (human) or qeon (god). Yet your translation DOES put the "a" in front of anqrwpos (human)!

For future reference you probably need to review some basic Greek before trying to embark down this road. Now, having said that, you haven’t demonstrated any grammatical errors in the NWT and so I will continue to use it. If you don’t like that, don’t reply back to my posts.

And when are you going to reply to the small number of verses I posted earlier from Matthew on who Jesus is? You want me to answer your verses and yet it appears you are afraid to answer mine.

[twohumble]

Nontrin said:
Jesus is God’s only begotten son in that he was the only creature created directly by God.

Sorry, no time to deal with all your inaccuracy at this point, but the above quote says it all. You have no concept of the terms. Begetting is NOT creating.

Man begets man. We do not "create" a baby, we "beget" a son. I guess this is the root of your misunderstanding.

[NonTrinitarian]

Sorry, no time to deal with all your inaccuracy at this point, but the above quote says it all. You have no concept of the terms. Begetting is NOT creating.

Man begets man. We do not "create" a baby, we "beget" a son. I guess this is the root of your misunderstanding.
And man begets a different man from himself. The one that begets is older than the one he begat. So God begets a different God from himself? And one God is older than the other? Oh wait, I forgot. You arbitrarily carry out your analogy as long as it suits you, then you toss it away when it causes a problem for you. Whatever.

At least you were wise enough to leave the grammar alone.

[twohumble]

And man begets a different man from himself. The one that begets is older than the one he begat. So God begets a different God from himself? And one God is older than the other? Oh wait, I forgot. You arbitrarily carry out your analogy as long as it suits you, then you toss it away when it causes a problem for you. Whatever.

At least you were wise enough to leave the grammar alone.
what does "older" have to do with infinite? Do you think God had "sexual procreation"? NO, of course not..hence the word begat refers to the "stuff" that is Jesus...God stuff...part of the Trinity...get it?

I see you abandoned your line of reasoning. Clearly to imply that man "makes" or "creates" man is foolishness...so you admit we beget....and God begat His Son...so, our kids are human...Gods Son is.....GOD!! Its a term of analogy so we know what Jesus is, not "how old"...you are thinking in the 3 dimensions of space and 1 time dimension you live in...you must get out of the box nontrin..or you won't ever really understand what scripture is saying

[NonTrinitarian]

what does "older" have to do with infinite? Do you think God had "sexual procreation"? NO, of course not..hence the word begat refers to the "stuff" that is Jesus...God stuff...part of the Trinity...get it?I see you abandoned your line of reasoning. Clearly to imply that man "makes" or "creates" man is foolishness...so you admit we beget....and God begat His Son...so, our kids are human...Gods Son is.....GOD!! Its a term of analogy so we know what Jesus is, not "how old"...
This is just your human reasoning. And again, YOU arbitrarily set up the bounds. I didn't abandon my line of reasoning. Jesus was created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, John 6:57). I was simply pointing out your selective use of the term begotten, and thus, inconsistent use of it. You cannot demonstrate one example of a son who is as old as his own father. Additionally, you can also not provide one example of a man begetting a man and their being the same man. They are two different men. The only conclusion you can draw is that you then have two different Gods. But oh no, TwoHumble takes it upon himself to set the conditions for the definition of a word. But you can’t do that. You have no authority to do that. You either take the word as it is or not. Since the way YOU want to take it doesn’t work unless you butcher out MOST of the meaning (such as there now being TWO Gods and one if OLDER than the other) we have to go to another meaning.

Let’s see how dictionaries define begotten:

From dictionary.com

To father; sire.
To cause to exist or occur; produce: Violence begets more violence.
Also, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 has the same definition.

Thus Jesus is God’s only begotten because he (Jesus) was caused to exist by God directly whereas all other creatures were created through Jesus. That is why Jesus is God’s only begotten. But now, let's just nail down this 'begotten' thing. Who existed first, the Father or the Son? In what way did the Father begat the Son?

you are thinking in the 3 dimensions of space and 1 time dimension you live in...you must get out of the box nontrin..or you won't ever really understand what scripture is sayingThis is your philosophy. I don't see any scriptures that say I have to think out of the three dimensions of time. In fact, the scriptures plainly tell us we can understand God by examining the creation, not by ignoring it. And yet that is precisely what you want me to do. Ignore God's creation as a means to understand God. You want me to go into some voodoo theory that defies all known elements. And why? Because there is a scripture that tells me to? No. The scriptures say just the opposite. (Rom 1:20) It's only because TwoHumble wants me to. You're the one who doesn't understand what scriptures say.

Ask any child what the terms Father and Son mean and he will tell you. Ask any child what the phrase "my Father is greater than I am" and he will tell you. But you have become wise in your own eyes. (Rom 1:21,22) You have chosen to believe the accusations of the religious leaders ('You make yourself equal to God') rather than Jesus' response to those accusations ('truly I tell you, I can do nothing on my own'). (John 5:18,19) And because you choose to believe the wicked religious leaders rather than Jesus' reply to them, you will not be able to get the truth.

[twohumble]

[size=2]This is just your human reasoning. And again, YOU arbitrarily set up the bounds. I didn't abandon my line of reasoning. Jesus was created (Col 1:15, Rev 3:14, John 6:57).

Funny, none of the three passages you list indicates that Jesus is created.

The closest is the "firstborn of all creation" passage in Col. However, this term is NOT used as an indication of birth order nor does it indicate Jesus is created. That is just poor exegesis, and a lack of understanding. Being the 'firstborn' also does NOT say He was created. This is a strawman argument Nontrin, and totally inappropriate use of supportive scripture.

I was simply pointing out your selective use of the term begotten, and thus, inconsistent use of it. You cannot demonstrate one example of a son who is as old as his own father. Additionally, you can also not provide one example of a man begetting a man and their being the same man.

I have no selective use of the word Nontrin. Look at the very def you provided...the example is "violence begets more violence" or LIKE BEGETS LIKE KIND".

Next, you are hung up on "age"..don't you realize that is a meaningless term for an ageless being? God existed before time..thats right out of scripture, and Jesus existed with Him, BEFORE TIME. Therefore your entire argument about age is meaningless, since age is a contruct of time..come on now...I know you like staying in the box..but try to think bigger.

They are two different men. The only conclusion you can draw is that you then have two different Gods. But oh no, TwoHumble takes it upon himself to set the conditions for the definition of a word. But you can’t do that. You have no authority to do that. You either take the word as it is or not. Since the way YOU want to take it doesn’t work unless you butcher out MOST of the meaning (such as there now being TWO Gods and one if OLDER than the other) we have to go to another meaning.

This entire line of reason only holds if you apply the restrictions of man and this universe, on God. I know God is not bound by our restrictions, or our universe, hence your reasoning is reasoning unsound.

[NonTrinitarian]

Funny, none of the three passages you list indicates that Jesus is created.

The closest is the "firstborn of all creation" passage in Col. However, this term is NOT used as an indication of birth order nor does it indicate Jesus is created. That is just poor exegesis, and a lack of understanding. Being the 'firstborn' also does NOT say He was created. This is a strawman argument Nontrin, and totally inappropriate use of supportive scripture.Yes, how foolish of me. To think that being called the "firstborn" of something would not place the person within the group. I tell you what TH. You provide ONE example in the Bible where someone is called the "firstborn" of something and is not part of the group it is firstborn of and I will withdraw this argument. Good luck, you’re gonna need it.

BTW:

Revelation 3:14- "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God" (not beginner, beginning)


I have no selective use of the word Nontrin. Look at the very def you provided...the example is "violence begets more violence" or LIKE BEGETS LIKE KIND". Which fits in with the definition of "cause to exist". The like kind is not a necessary attribute of this definition. You just added it yourself.

Next, you are hung up on "age"..don't you realize that is a meaningless term for an ageless being? God existed before time..thats right out of scripture, and Jesus existed with Him, BEFORE TIME. Therefore your entire argument about age is meaningless, since age is a contruct of time..come on now...I know you like staying in the box..but try to think bigger. This entire line of reason only holds if you apply the restrictions of man and this universe, on God. I know God is not bound by our restrictions, or our universe, hence your reasoning is reasoning unsound.I’m just using the words God had written down. If you don’t like the definitions of them, take it up with Him. All I am asking is for ONE example of someone begetting someone else and yet the one being begotten is the same man as the one who begat him. One example of them both being the same age. That’s all I’m asking. I mean come on TwoHumble! You can’t just throw out any crazy definition you want to a word that has no example or basis in all of the universe known to man and expect me to just accept it because you said so. And quit falling back on that ‘God is not bound by our restrictions.’ If the Bible doesn’t say it then neither should you. Unless you can provide a scriptural reason on why I should only hold to your limited, VERY limited definition of begat, we will go nowhere.

And why won’t you answer my question on what you mean by God begetting Christ?


In what way did the Father beget him?
How did the Father beget the Son if they are the same age?
Come on now, stop avoiding the fundamental issue. After all, you brought it up. So let’s see you answer it. Explain what you mean. I’ve already explained how I understand it. Let’s see what you have to say on it.

[twohumble]

Nontrin wrote:
Yes, how foolish of me. To think that being called the "firstborn" of something would not place the person within the group. I tell you what TH. You provide ONE example in the Bible where someone is called the "firstborn" of something and is not part of the group it is firstborn of and I will withdraw this argument. Good luck, you’re gonna need it.


Well, luck must be with me...why don't you look up how Jacob was refered. He was called "the firstborn", and clearly was not. There are other examples of firstborn not designating a 'birth order' or age...that is just one.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well, luck must be with me...why don't you look up how Jacob was refered. He was called "the firstborn", and clearly was not. There are other examples of firstborn not designating a 'birth order' or age...that is just one.
No, luck's not with you, just a bad case of not being able to read English. Here's is what I said:

"Yes, how foolish of me. To think that being called the "firstborn" of something would not place the person within the group. I tell you what TH. You provide ONE example in the Bible where someone is called the "firstborn" of something and is not part of the group it is firstborn of and I will withdraw this argument."

I NEVER said firstborn had to mean it was the first to be born. I said show me one example where the term firstborn did not include the person as part of the group it was firstborn over. Here is an excerpt from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?"

"Psalm 89:27 does show David is the firstborn of the kings, yet at the same time we realize David is still a king. So while David is head of the kings, he is still included among the group. In Jeremiah 31:9 and Exodus 4:22, Israel is said to be the firstborn of the nations in relation to God but at the same time, it is still in the group of nations . Though Ephraim is placed as firstborn over his older brother Manasseh, he is still one of the brothers. In each of these instances the firstborn, though meaning head of the group, is still part of the group. Thus, if we stick to the argument used by Trinitarians, even if the term firstborn, when used with Jesus, means he is head of creation instead of the first of creation, he is [i]still part of creation. There are no examples of someone not being part of the like group that he is firstborn (meaning "head") over."-Holt, TellWay Publishing, pg 251

So again, I challenge you to show me one example in the Bible where the firstborn is not part of the group it is firstborn over. And if you cannot, then explain why Col 1:15 should be the lone exception.

[twohumble]

No, luck's not with you, just a bad case of not being able to read English. Here's is what I said:

"Yes, how foolish of me. To think that being called the "firstborn" of something would not place the person within the group. I tell you what TH. You provide ONE example in the Bible where someone is called the "firstborn" of something and is not part of the group it is firstborn of and I will withdraw this argument."

I NEVER said firstborn had to mean it was the first to be born. I said show me one example where the term firstborn did not include the person as part of the group it was firstborn over. Here is an excerpt from the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?"

"Psalm 89:27 does show David is the firstborn of the kings, yet at the same time we realize David is still a king. So while David is head of the kings, he is still included among the group. In Jeremiah 31:9 and Exodus 4:22, Israel is said to be the firstborn of the nations in relation to God but at the same time, it is still in the group of nations . Though Ephraim is placed as firstborn over his older brother Manasseh, he is still one of the brothers. In each of these instances the firstborn, though meaning head of the group, is still part of the group. Thus, if we stick to the argument used by Trinitarians, even if the term firstborn, when used with Jesus, means he is head of creation instead of the first of creation, he is [i]still part of creation. There are no examples of someone not being part of the like group that he is firstborn (meaning "head") over."-Holt, TellWay Publishing, pg 251

So again, I challenge you to show me one example in the Bible where the firstborn is not part of the group it is firstborn over. And if you cannot, then explain why Col 1:15 should be the lone exception.

This is, once again, a strawman argument. I understand your question, and its foolishness, since you are applying rules of this universe to God. To me, its clear that all that exists (creation) is from Him, and nothing exists without Him....hence, he is not "of" creation, but transcendent to it. You ask for another such example, and I will grant you, there is none..why? BECAUSE NO OTHER THING, OR BEING IS TRANSCENDENT, thats why. Only God transcends, and Christ is the author of creation, and hence transcendent over it. You are still refusing to acknowledge that Christ is outside of the 3 dimensions of space, and 1 of time, that you experience. To give another example of someone existing outside of the "group" is to suggest something else is transendent, and nothing else is.

My point is clear, beget by your dictionary definition, is "like from like", and you refuse to acknowledge this, instead, quoting 3 verses that NEVER SAY JESUS WAS CREATED..POST THE VERSES, THEY DON'T SAY IT. There are only a few explanations for how one begets, and man like explanations are never going to be close to Gods realm....you want to ascribe begetting techniques of man to God?? SHeessh....you miss the point entirely. God is eternal..Jesus is co-eternal....begetting is not a "order" thing in relation to eternity. Do you see this?

This Zechariah 12 verse says it well:

10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.

[twohumble]

How is Jesus begotten of the Father? Maybe this analogy will help.
Jesus Christ issues out of the Father. Just as a solar flare, as part of the sun, issues out of the sun. "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father." (John 16:27-28) The word “forth” above is the Greek word exerchomai, it means to issue out of. The same word translated as “came” is used in (John 19:34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. Jesus came out of the Father, just as blood comes out of a person. Therefore, Jesus was alway with the Father, and came "out from Him". In this explanation, we see that no temporal issues of "age" are needed or appropriate since God is eternal.

I acknowledge that this is incomplete in relation to Christs nature, since scripture not only describes Him as part of the Godhead, but also as a personal entity, distinct from the Father, yet one with Him...that is the mystery of the Trinity.

[NonTrinitarian]

This is, once again, a strawman argument. I understand your question, and its foolishness, since you are applying rules of this universe to God. To me, its clear that all that exists (creation) is from Him, and nothing exists without Him....hence, he is not "of" creation, but transcendent to it. You ask for another such example, and I will grant you, there is none..why? BECAUSE NO OTHER THING, OR BEING IS TRANSCENDENT, thats why. Only God transcends, and Christ is the author of creation, and hence transcendent over it. You are still refusing to acknowledge that Christ is outside of the 3 dimensions of space, and 1 of time, that you experience. To give another example of someone existing outside of the "group" is to suggest something else is transendent, and nothing else is. This is desperation folks. TwoHumble has resorted to circular reasoning. Note that the argument is whether or not Christ IS God. That being the case, it’s a sad situation when one resorts to the argument that Christ is God to defend a point that demonstrates he is not. As he has admitted, there is no other example in the Bible where someone is the firstborn of a group and is not part of the very group he is firstborn. TwoHumble’s only response is ‘yeah, but Christ is God.’ Uhh, I believe that’s what we are trying to determine. You can’t use your conclusion to defend your conclusion.

My point is clear, beget by your dictionary definition, is "like from like", and you refuse to acknowledge this, instead, quoting 3 verses that NEVER SAY JESUS WAS CREATED..POST THE VERSES, THEY DON'T SAY IT. There are only a few explanations for how one begets, and man like explanations are never going to be close to Gods realm....you want to ascribe begetting techniques of man to God?? SHeessh....you miss the point entirely. God is eternal..Jesus is co-eternal....begetting is not a "order" thing in relation to eternity. Do you see this?TwoHumble is attempting to make me look the fool though his circular reasoning demonstrates which one in fact is. Indeed, please scroll up a few posts and note that I did quote Revelation 3:14 where it calls Christ "the beginning of the creation of God." And of course, Col 1;15, where he is called the "firstborn of all creation" and where TwoHumble can only respond by resorting to circular reasoning. And I’m not even going to touch his butchering of the term begotten where he takes it upon himself to select what definitions he wants to use and which ones he wants to discard.


This Zechariah 12 verse says it well:

10 "I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. This simply demonstrates TwoHumble’s ignorance on this subject. Please first note Luke 2:35 from the NIV Bible

Simeon says to Jesus’ mother, Mary: "And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

Now Simeon was obviously talking about the pain Mary would feel when Jesus would be killed. He was not saying Mary was going to be pierced herself. Furthermore, the Hebrew text doesn’t say "me", it says "he" or "him". Note how these Bibles translate:

"And they shall look on him whom they have thrust through"-The New American Bible

"When they look on the one whom they have pierced."- New Revised Standard Version

"And they will look at the one they stabbed to death."- The Bible in Living English

"They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced."-The New Jerusalem Bible

And added to this list (I don’t want to type anymore out) is The Good News Bible, The Revised Standard Version, the Jerusalem Bible and Moffat’s translation (I’ve admitted the NWT for Two Humble’s sanity). So which translation is correct? Ahh,. This is easy. The NIV translates it as TwoHumble proposes. But let’s turn in our NIV to John 19:37 where it quotes Zechariah 12:10. There the NIV reads "And as another scripture says, "They will look on the one whom they have pierced."

Here is the NIV again for emphasis:

"they will look on Me whom they have pierced"- Zechariah 12:10

"They will look on the one whom they have pierced"- John 19:37

So as we can see, TwoHumble has selectively offered a translation that is not supported by most Bibles. Furthermore, even the Bibles that DO translate his preferred way at Zechariah 12:10 translate it differently when the exact verse is quoted at John 19:37. So what leg of evidence do Zechariah 12:10 offer TwoHumble? None. In fact, few Trinitarians even offer this verse as support for Jesus being God. And it is now obvious why.

TwoHumble, I really do wish you would humble yourself and brush up on this subject. You don’t have to agree with me but you should at least have some basic knowledge on this subject. "Pride is before a crash and a haughty spirit before stumbling."-Prov 18:18

Get "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" or "The Doctrine of the Trinity-Christianities Self-Inflicted Wound." I recommend the first one because it is more in line with JW doctrine but both of these books will at least bring you up to speed on this very important subject. At any length it will save you some embarrassment.

[NonTrinitarian]

How is Jesus begotten of the Father? Maybe this analogy will help.
Jesus Christ issues out of the Father. Just as a solar flare, as part of the sun, issues out of the sun. "for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me, and have believed that I came forth from God. "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father." (John 16:27-28) The word “forth” above is the Greek word exerchomai, it means to issue out of. The same word translated as “came” is used in (John 19:34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. Jesus came out of the Father, just as blood comes out of a person. Therefore, Jesus was alway with the Father, and came "out from Him". In this explanation, we see that no temporal issues of "age" are needed or appropriate since God is eternal.

I acknowledge that this is incomplete in relation to Christs nature, since scripture not only describes Him as part of the Godhead, but also as a personal entity, distinct from the Father, yet one with Him...that is the mystery of the Trinity.
Uhh, Christ isn't called the "exerchomai of God", he called the "monogenes of God" so your whole argument up there is bologna. Additionally, which exists first, the sun or the solar flare? Jesus' body or the pierce? Neither example you offer suggest the same time frame. If the Son came forth from the Father then the Father had to exist BEFORE the Son. Now, demonstrate to me how the Son came from the Father and yet existed before his begetting.

[twohumble]

With only limited time at this point, let me just say that the NASB is the translation I have quoted. It is a "word for word" translation, not a transliteration or a "thought for thought" translation, like most you quoted.

You assert many things in your response, and seem to be getting rather personal in your reply...if this is too emotional for you, maybe you should refrain from the discussion, since I intent to make this purely an academic debate, and not an ad hominem forum.

[NonTrinitarian]

With only limited time at this point, let me just say that the NASB is the translation I have quoted. It is a "word for word" translation, not a transliteration or a "thought for thought" translation, like most you quoted.Really? Tell me, what is the Hebrew word that is translated "me" at Zechariah 12:10 and demonstrate how these other translations got it wrong. And before you do that, you might want to ask yourself this question, "Has the NASB translated this Hebrew word differently from "me" at other verses?" Furthermore, here is the NASB at John 19:37

"And again another Scripture says, "THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

Hmm. Now this is strange. The NASB is quoting Zechariah 12:10 at this verse and yet they don’t quote it the way they translated it at Zechariah 12:10. So let's see. Either the NASB translated the term incorrectly or the Apostle John did as it's obvious "me" is not in the Greek. So who are you going with? NASB or slew of other Bibles and John?

You assert many things in your response, and seem to be getting rather personal in your reply...if this is too emotional for you, maybe you should refrain from the discussion, since I intent to make this purely an academic debate, and not an ad hominem forum.
Purely acedemic? Please. Do I need to go back and start pulling quotes from your posts out to show the spirit you’ve displayed? TwoHumble, your pride will be your downfall. You have been proven wrong time and time again and you just keep on trudging through this, hoping at some point to get something right. Jesus was kind at first, then it turned into "snakes and offspring of vipers." I've not placed you in that category yet but your hard-headedness is really showing.

I've had good calm discussions with other Trinitarians such as AV Metro. But it was built on both granting the other's arguments were somewhat sound and using good sound arguments in the first place. You appear to be shooting from the hip with blanks and when proven wrong, you just ignore it and move on in deeper. To be honest, it's almost like you're getting your arguments from Ron Rhodes or something. You need to up your level of academics as Rhodes and those like him are bafoons, even by most Trinitarian standards.

[twohumble]

Proven wrong??? the only mistake I made is typing "aramaic" for "greek" in the NT...there is no other "proven wrong" to it. You refuse to see the obvious. Thats ok, its predicted.

You call ME hard headed??? wow..amazing the perspectives.

Explain this for me: You claim Jesus was the first created thing. In the passage you use to quote it, you quote Col 1 correct? Ok, if I got you right, explain how you get that to me..one more time. Thanks.

PS. The word "me" in Zech that the NASB uses is interesting..and I will look up the use of the word in a word study of the OT I just ordered.....I will answer your question more completely then.

[twohumble]

Bible Gateway, is an online site that gives you access to 18 translations of the Bible. 17 of those translations translate Zech 12:10 as "Me whom they have pierced". I am wondering how all of these scholars got it so wrong?

[NonTrinitarian]

Proven wrong??? the only mistake I made is typing "aramaic" for "greek" in the NT...there is no other "proven wrong" to it. You refuse to see the obvious. Thats ok, its predicted.

You call ME hard headed??? wow..amazing the perspectives.

Explain this for me: You claim Jesus was the first created thing. In the passage you use to quote it, you quote Col 1 correct? Ok, if I got you right, explain how you get that to me..one more time. Thanks.
Provide ONE other instance where "firstborn" is used of someone who is not part of the group he is firstborn over. In otherwords, EVERY other time (barring Col 1:15 since it is in question) firstborn is used in the Bible, the one called firstborn, whether literally the one born first or the one set as head over the rest, is still part of the group. So whether Christ is literally the one born first of the Creation or the one set as head over creation, he is still part of creation. There are NO examples in the Bible where one is said to be firstborn and is not part of the group he is firstborn over.

[NonTrinitarian]

Bible Gateway, is an online site that gives you access to 18 translations of the Bible. 17 of those translations translate Zech 12:10 as "Me whom they have pierced". I am wondering how all of these scholars got it so wrong?
You've got to be kidding me, right? Since when does majority mean correctness? And everyone of those Bibles translate John 19:37 DIFFERENTLY from Zechariah 12:10. Do you know why? Have you researched this? Or have you simply written off another page of your Ron Rhodes book?

Demonstrate your research here. Demonstrate the depth of your studies. Why the different translations? Why does John not quote Zechariah 12:10 the same way these other translations do? Why do the following translations not say "me" at Zechariah 12:10?
The New American Bible
The New Revised Standard Version
The Bible in Living English
The New Jerusalem Bible
The Good News Bible
The revised Standard Version

Is it translator preference or is there another reason? And what about Simeon saying Mary would be pierced? What are you proposing with that verse? That Mary is ALSO Jesus? Has the depth of your research been to go to Biblegateway.com? I'm not going to give you the answer right now but I'll give you a hint. It has to do with which manuscripts one translates from. What do you know about these?

Further more, I'll give you a hint:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.-NIV

"I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.-NASB

"Then I will pour out a spirit of grace and prayer on the family of David and on all the people of Jerusalem. They will look on me whom they have pierced and mourn for him as for an only son. They will grieve bitterly for him as for a firstborn son who has died.-NLT



I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.-KJ


That should be enough to give you a clue. (and I'd like to hear you explain who the different pronouns apply to!) Have you ever even read all of Zechariah 12:10? Now go do your research and ditch the low-budget Trinitarian book. And ask yourself, why do all of the 17 translations that say “me” then turn around and say “him” and designate him as the "son" or "firstborn"in the same sentence? So who was pierced, the Father or the Son? Does it seem out of whack? It doesn’t even make sense with a Trinitarian doctrine because only one was pierced. The answer might help you explain why John did not quote the verse the way the 17 translations rendered it. Why didn't John say me? NONE of the translations at Biblegateway.com say "me" when quoting Zechariah 12:10! That in itself should give you a clue as to which ones are correct.

[twohumble]

Provide ONE other instance where "firstborn" is used of someone who is not part of the group he is firstborn over. In otherwords, EVERY other time (barring Col 1:15 since it is in question) firstborn is used in the Bible, the one called firstborn, whether literally the one born first or the one set as head over the rest, is still part of the group. So whether Christ is literally the one born first of the Creation or the one set as head over creation, he is still part of creation. There are NO examples in the Bible where one is said to be firstborn and is not part of the group he is firstborn over.
Stawman argument here again. You are stuck on a word, that must be taken in context with all of scripture, and not impose your own meaning. Certainly you have made your point that in relation to creation, all firstborns are part of the group..and in essence, Christ is, since he is "completely God, AND, completely man". In order to fulfill the convenant with Abraham, God had to become man, completely and thoroughly. Otherwise, there was no payment for sins.

Additionally, the term cannot be used as you imply, since there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.

[NonTrinitarian]

Stawman argument here again. You are stuck on a word, that must be taken in context with all of scripture, and not impose your own meaning. Certainly you have made your point that in relation to creation, all firstborns are part of the group..and in essence, Christ is, since he is "completely God, AND, completely man". In order to fulfill the convenant with Abraham, God had to become man, completely and thoroughly. Otherwise, there was no payment for sins.

Additionally, the term cannot be used as you imply, since there is a Greek word for "first created" and it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians. He did not use it here. The Greek for "firstborn" is proto with tikto which would give us "firstborn" and that is what we find here in Colossians 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be proto with ktizo and it is not used here.
Uhh, first of all, I never argued for "firstborn" meaning 'first to be born'. I simply argued that it means he is part of those who were created. Such cannot be said of God and I'm fairly sure your fellow Trinitarians would now label you as a heretic for saying such as I have NEVER hear or read ANY Trinitarian say what you just said. Secondly, you have exposed a fundamental flaw in your argument due to bad information. (Still reading Rhodes I see) Had you researched some Greek databases you would have discovered that protoktistos (first-created) was FIRST used by Clement! It then becomes more and more popular after Clement. In otherwords, there are NO Greek documents that contain protoktistos BEFORE Clement, who wrote AFTER Paul. And this includes ALL Non-biblical writings BEFORE the NT, starting with Homer. Thus, the available evidence appears to suggest that the word protoktistos didn't even exist in Paul's day! Allow me to provide a scholarly quote of which you can verify to demonstrate that this is not my opinion.

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and "first-born," but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement." - John Patrick, Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh: Willaim Blackwood and Son, 1914), pg 103, 104 (emphasis added by me)

In otherwords, TwoHumble, Rhodes, or whatever unscholarly book you are typing your information out of, has misled you yet again. The distinction you attempt to derive from these words simply did not exist in the NT period. Now provide your scholars who prove such facts as incorrect. That is, prove your statement of "it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians" as all of the evidence I have says you (or rather, the book you are quoting from,) are a liar.

[twohumble]

Uhh, first of all, I never argued for "firstborn" meaning 'first to be born'. I simply argued that it means he is part of those who were created. Such cannot be said of God and I'm fairly sure your fellow Trinitarians would now label you as a heretic for saying such as I have NEVER hear or read ANY Trinitarian say what you just said. Secondly, you have exposed a fundamental flaw in your argument due to bad information. (Still reading Rhodes I see) Had you researched some Greek databases you would have discovered that protoktistos (first-created) was FIRST used by Clement! It then becomes more and more popular after Clement. In otherwords, there are NO Greek documents that contain protoktistos BEFORE Clement, who wrote AFTER Paul. And this includes ALL Non-biblical writings BEFORE the NT, starting with Homer. Thus, the available evidence appears to suggest that the word protoktistos didn't even exist in Paul's day! Allow me to provide a scholarly quote of which you can verify to demonstrate that this is not my opinion.

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and "first-born," but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement." - John Patrick, Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh: Willaim Blackwood and Son, 1914), pg 103, 104 (emphasis added by me)

In otherwords, TwoHumble, Rhodes, or whatever unscholarly book you are typing your information out of, has misled you yet again. The distinction you attempt to derive from these words simply did not exist in the NT period. Now provide your scholars who prove such facts as incorrect. That is, prove your statement of "it was in use at the time of Paul's writing to the Colossians" as all of the evidence I have says you (or rather, the book you are quoting from,) are a liar.
From what I read, you are taking Patrick out of context. Clement knew Jesus to be God in the flesh (although the body of Jesus was
called a "creature" from where John Patrick gets his comments). See
Clement's quotes on who is Jesus:


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

SYBT: "Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his
prehuman existence ‘a creature’ but called God ‘the uncreated and
imperishable and only true God.’ He said that the Son ‘is next to the only
omnipotent Father’ but not equal to him.

Again, note the selective quotes. Clement, as demonstrated below, taught the
exact opposite of what is implied here. Clement learned his theology in the
Alexandrian "school" which was said to have been founded by Apollos and the
Apostle Mark, so not only are his words of great value because they were
penned so early, but also because they may well reflect Apostolic teaching.

"The Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made
equal to the Lord of the universe..." – Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 10.

"There was; then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word
itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one
with the Father, is eternal and uncreate." - Fragments, Part I, section III.

"I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third
is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made
according to the will of the Father." - Stromata, Book V, ch. 14.

"Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son
He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the
form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is
God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the
form of God is God." – Instructor, Book I, ch. 2.

"His Son Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor…. He is God and Creator."
- Instructor, Book I, ch. 11.

"This very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and
man." – Exhortation to the Heathen, ch. 1.

I think your book on JW apologetics falls way short, selectively taking quotes from scholars out of context.

[twohumble]

In regard to John Patricks comment on the greek use of "first born" and "first created", I can only respond that Patricks opinion is different than other scholars. I won't bother descending to an appeal to authority in regard to this difference, but suffice it to say, others disagree with that assessment. I am not a greek scholar, and therefore, I am at the mercy of the opinions of the various scholars in the field. There does appear to be differing thoughts on this subject, so to quote Patrick as the end all and final authority is absurd. I will leave it to you to review the different commentaries of those who disagree with Patrick.

[NonTrinitarian]

From what I read, you are taking Patrick out of context. Clement knew Jesus to be God in the flesh (although the body of Jesus was
called a "creature" from where John Patrick gets his comments). See
Clement's quotes on who is Jesus: Did you really miss the whole point of my quote? I wasn’t quoting John Patrick to prove that either he or Clement was saying Jesus wasn’t God. You made the incorrect statement that Paul would have said protoktistos if he meant first-created. I was quoting Patrick to show that that word apparently didn’t exist until Clement’s time because we have thousands of Greek documents from as early as Homer and the first time the word protoktistos appears is after the writing of the NT. How did you miss the point of my argument? I could careless what an apostate church Father thinks.



In regard to John Patricks comment on the greek use of "first born" and "first created", I can only respond that Patricks opinion is different than other scholars. I won't bother descending to an appeal to authority in regard to this difference, but suffice it to say, others disagree with that assessment. I am not a greek scholar, and therefore, I am at the mercy of the opinions of the various scholars in the field. There does appear to be differing thoughts on this subject, so to quote Patrick as the end all and final authority is absurd. I will leave it to you to review the different commentaries of those who disagree with Patrick.
Other scholars disagree with that statement? What scholars? You have a quote from a scholar that says he/she has a historical Greek document earlier than Clement which uses protoktistos? Please provide the name and publication of this scholar. After all, it was YOUR argument. I believe it's suffice to say that argument has been dismantled.

[twohumble]

Really? Tell me, what is the Hebrew word that is translated "me" at Zechariah 12:10 and demonstrate how these other translations got it wrong. And before you do that, you might want to ask yourself this question, "Has the NASB translated this Hebrew word differently from "me" at other verses?" Furthermore, here is the NASB at John 19:37

"And again another Scripture says, "[size=2]THEY SHALL LOOK ON HIM WHOM THEY PIERCED."

Hmm. Now this is strange. The NASB is quoting Zechariah 12:10 at this verse and yet they don’t quote it the way they translated it at Zechariah 12:10. So let's see. Either the NASB translated the term incorrectly or the Apostle John did as it's obvious "me" is not in the Greek. So who are you going with? NASB or slew of other Bibles and John?




You asked this question awhile ago, and I was curious, so I looked some stuff up and found some commentary on it.

The change to the third person ("mourn for Him" in Zech, rather than ”mourn for Me", in John 19) is common in prophetic literature. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

I will go with the majority of interpretations of Zech 12:10 and the Translations rather than transliterations.

In regard to why John used the 3rd person in "Him" rather than "ME": My best guess is that John is simply editorializing here – using Zechariah’s word “Me” which clearly refers to Messiah – and calling Messiah “Him” for the sake of clarity for his readers. John does this editorializing in other places as well – especially in Ch 3 and 4 if I recall correctly. Done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can be sure of his rendering.

I would like ask you :who is the alpha and omega? Is it the same as the one who is pierced?

[NonTrinitarian]

You asked this question awhile ago, and I was curious, so I looked some stuff up and found some commentary on it.

The change to the third person ("mourn for Him" in Zech, rather than ”mourn for Me", in John 19) is common in prophetic literature. Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

I will go with the majority of interpretations of Zech 12:10 and the Translations rather than transliterations. Buzz. Wrong answer. Try again. This is not why there is a difference of opinion on the translation. Hint: Might want to see what different manuscripts there are. Also, might want to read that whole verse in Zechariah. It has a clue as to whether Jesus is speaking or being spoken of.

In regard to why John used the 3rd person in "Him" rather than "ME": My best guess is that John is simply editorializing here – using Zechariah’s word “Me” which clearly refers to Messiah – and calling Messiah “Him” for the sake of clarity for his readers. John does this editorializing in other places as well – especially in Ch 3 and 4 if I recall correctly. Done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can be sure of his rendering. You're right. It's a guess. Again, rather than trying to rationalize this away. Read the whole verse at Zechariah to see if Jesus is speaking or being spoken of. Contemplate the different manuscripts and how they read there and then how John quoted the verse.

I would like ask you :who is the alpha and omega? Is it the same as the one who is pierced?We already discussed this subject on another thread. Search for it here at TWeb as I'm not retyping it.

[apostle]

I use the JW bible when they come to my home.

And I ask them why they insist that the name of God is Jehovah?
They show me this verse.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

I then say OK. What does this verse mean?

Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

This is normaly where I start.

[NonTrinitarian]

I use the JW bible when they come to my home.

And I ask them why they insist that the name of God is Jehovah?
They show me this verse.

Exo 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

I then say OK. What does this verse mean?

Isa 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a NEW NAME, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.

This is normaly where I start.
And then the JW would take you to Jeremiah 33:16 where the verse in Isaiah is fullfilled: There it reads,
"In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety. This is the name by which it will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.'" New International Version

I'm sure you recognize what the all caps LORD is referencing. So do you not believe God's name is Jehovah or Yahweh?

[twohumble]

Buzz. Wrong answer. Try again. This is not why there is a difference of opinion on the translation. Hint: Might want to see what different manuscripts there are. Also, might want to read that whole verse in Zechariah. It has a clue as to whether Jesus is speaking or being spoken of.

Wow, wrong answer? I doubt it. I have read the whole vs, and you disagree not just with me, but the majority of OT scholars as well.

You're right. It's a guess. Again, rather than trying to rationalize this away. Read the whole verse at Zechariah to see if Jesus is speaking or being spoken of. Contemplate the different manuscripts and how they read there and then how John quoted the verse.

Again, I did read the verse, and we disagree on what to me and many many others, seems a clear and concise Messianic verse.
The "rationalization" is the use of logic and reason to understand and exegete meaning. You simply take your presups and apply them whimsically as you choose.

You keep throwing "different manuscripts" around, what specifically are you talking about? The Septuagint version maybe?


We already discussed this subject on another thread. Search for it here at TWeb as I'm not retyping it.


My question is somewhat different than your response to "alpha and omega". Also, your response was HUGE and I don't feel like treading through that ...this is simple, a one line or a 3 word answer will suffice.
I would like ask you :is the alpha and omega the same as the one who is pierced?

All that is required is a "no its not the same as the one pierced" or "yes, it is"...Dont' make this harder than it is, and don't evade a simple question, if you must refer to another of your posts, then link me, if you don't want to link me, then answer it here, its a simple question, I don't require a long explanation.

[NonTrinitarian]

Wow, wrong answer? I doubt it. I have read the whole vs, and you disagree not just with me, but the majority of OT scholars as well.And you disagree with a lot of scholars and noted bible translations too.

Again, I did read the verse, and we disagree on what to me and many many others, seems a clear and concise Messianic verse.
The "rationalization" is the use of logic and reason to understand and exegete meaning. You simply take your presups and apply them whimsically as you choose.
Where did I ever say this was not a messianic verse? I do believe it applies to Jesus. Here is the verse from the NIV-

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

Notice the change in pronouns. Now fill in the identities of each one. And then factor in the other MSS that do have "one" instead of "me" and then factor in John's quote of it and then factor in that Simeon told Mary that she would be pierced when Jesus died and you can see why this verse is not very convincing to me.


You keep throwing "different manuscripts" around, what specifically are you talking about? The Septuagint version maybe?No, the LXX is butchered in this verse. It doens't even discuss the piercing. I am refering to about 50 MSS that have "one" instead of "me".

My question is somewhat different than your response to "alpha and omega". Also, your response was HUGE and I don't feel like treading through that ...this is simple, a one line or a 3 word answer will suffice.
I would like ask you :is the alpha and omega the same as the one who is pierced?

All that is required is a "no its not the same as the one pierced" or "yes, it is"...Dont' make this harder than it is, and don't evade a simple question, if you must refer to another of your posts, then link me, if you don't want to link me, then answer it here, its a simple question, I don't require a long explanation.I smell a trap...which is why you really do need to go and read the information on the A&O that Dee Dee and AV discussed with me. You are making the assumption that the person in Rev 1:7 is the same person as Rev 1:8, that being Jesus. I'm not getting into another A&O debate unless new evidence other than what Dee Dee and AV posted is presented.

[apostle]

I believe the name Jehovah is given as the old covenant name.
The new covenant name I believe is Jesus.

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What do you believe the New Name is?

Same God.

[NonTrinitarian]

I believe the name Jehovah is given as the old covenant name.
The new covenant name I believe is Jesus.

Rev 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a NEW NAME written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Rev 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

What do you believe the New Name is?

Same God.
Don't make this more complicated than it is. If my name is Bill and your name is Joe and I say that I am giving YOU a new name, does that mean MY name is not Bill anymore? And if I say that my mother has a name (say Betty) and I write on YOU MY new name (say I changed it from Bill to George), does that mean my mother's name is not Betty? So please explain to me how the verses you quoted all of a sudden change God's Name from Jehovah to Jesus? Especially when there are a number of scriptures that say that the name Jehovah will be God's Name forever.

I have already demonstrated that the "new name" for God's people that you mentioned in Isaiah still included the name Jehovah. What proof are you offereing that it changed? The scriptures you provided don't SAY anything about God's name changing. You are reading that into them. At most they mention the name THEY are called or the name that JESUS takes on. None of them say ANYTHING about God's Name changing. Go back and read what the verses say and pay special attention to what the DON'T say. I even bolded it for your conveinence.

[twohumble]

And you disagree with a lot of scholars and noted bible translations too.

Really? Cause I have not found a commentary, even by a version that translates it "him" or "one" that does not equate that with Jesus. The point, of course, is that the rest of Zech. is clearly the Father speaking, hence making Himself "one" with the One who is pierced. Its also interesting how Rev 1:7-8 does the same thing. Yet you deny both.

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority.


No, the LXX is butchered in this verse. It doens't even discuss the piercing. I am refering to about 50 MSS that have "one" instead of "me".


Simply for your review regarding the use of the LXX's use of "piercing"

"....and there is a remarkable nicety in the choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing.” The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. In that sense it is used in all the ten places, besides this, where it is found. How suitable this was to express the action of the Roman soldier, is manifest; and our Evangelist uses the exactly corresponding word, which the Septuagint certainly does not. Very different is the other word for “pierce” in Ps 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. How striking are these small niceties!" Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.

[NonTrinitarian]

Really? Cause I have not found a commentary, even by a version that translates it "him" or "one" that does not equate that with Jesus. The point, of course, is that the rest of Zech. is clearly the Father speaking, hence making Himself "one" with the One who is pierced. Its also interesting how Rev 1:7-8 does the same thing. Yet you deny both. You're right, the rest of the verse IS the Father speaking. Which is why "him" is obviously more appropriate than "me" as it harmonizes the pronouns. And you can try to explain away whatever you want however you want. I've got enough comfort knowing the apostle John sees it my way, not yours.

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority. So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway. You're like the people Jesus was talking about:

With whom shall I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who cry out to their playmates, saying, ‘We played the flute for YOU, but YOU did not dance; we wailed, but YOU did not beat yourselves in grief.’ Correspondingly, John came neither eating nor drinking, yet people say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man did come eating and drinking, still people say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”

There's no pleasing you so why even try? And don't blame me because you have a small library.


Simply for your review regarding the use of the LXX's use of "piercing"

"....and there is a remarkable nicety in the choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for “piercing.” The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. In that sense it is used in all the ten places, besides this, where it is found. How suitable this was to express the action of the Roman soldier, is manifest; and our Evangelist uses the exactly corresponding word, which the Septuagint certainly does not. Very different is the other word for “pierce” in Ps 22:16, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” The word there used is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. How striking are these small niceties!" Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.
I think your confused so I'm gonna help you out on this, not that it will make any difference-
"and they will look upon me, because they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one, and they will suffer as over the loss of of a firstborn."-

That's from the LXX. Notice there is no mention of piercing. What were you trying to prove by your quote?

[twohumble]

You're right, the rest of the verse IS the Father speaking. Which is why "him" is obviously more appropriate than "me" as it harmonizes the pronouns. And you can try to explain away whatever you want however you want. I've got enough comfort knowing the apostle John sees it my way, not yours.

So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway. You're like the people Jesus was talking about:

With whom shall I compare this generation? It is like young children sitting in the marketplaces who cry out to their playmates, saying, ‘We played the flute for YOU, but YOU did not dance; we wailed, but YOU did not beat yourselves in grief.’ Correspondingly, John came neither eating nor drinking, yet people say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man did come eating and drinking, still people say, ‘Look! A man gluttonous and given to drinking wine, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ All the same, wisdom is proved righteous by its works.”

There's no pleasing you so why even try? And don't blame me because you have a small library.


I think your confused so I'm gonna help you out on this, not that it will make any difference-
"and they will look upon me, because they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one, and they will suffer as over the loss of of a firstborn."-

That's from the LXX. Notice there is no mention of piercing. What were you trying to prove by your quote?

So, I am wrong?? You have more than one source that is NOT from a JW background? No, I didn't think so. MY library is without Jw material, so you are right, I don't have those kind of sources. Funny, it seems that is the extent of yours.

Now, if I am wrong, prove it. Type them out so we can all see the VAST references that support your claim.

[twohumble]

Non Trin...you have suggested I read your discourse with Dee Dee Warren on A&O, yet I only see the response you made without her original, or her rebuttal. Where is the original posted?

[NonTrinitarian]

So, I am wrong?? You have more than one source that is NOT from a JW background? No, I didn't think so. MY library is without Jw material, so you are right, I don't have those kind of sources. Funny, it seems that is the extent of yours.

Now, if I am wrong, prove it. Type them out so we can all see the VAST references that support your claim.
You're humulity is so becoming (cough cough). Here is one: F. F. Bruce. Have you heard of him? Probably one of the most famed theologians in the 20th century and a staunch Trinitarian.

This has been done with Zech. 12:10, which foretells a day of great mourning in Jerusalem and the surrounding territory when, as the Masoretic Hebrew text puts it, "they shall look unto me whom they have pierced" (so R.V.). The passage is quoted once and echoed once in the New Testament, and in both places the pronoun is not "me" but "him". This is not so significant in the place where the passage is merely echoed (Rev. I : 7, " and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him"), for that is not an exact quotation. Here the predicted looking to the one who was pierced is interpreted of the Second Advent of Christ. But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced'." It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and indeed the reading "him' instead of "me" appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall moum for him, as on e mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading "me" be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading "me" is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ,.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person ("they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him") suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is pierced. - History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

I've got quite a few more but what's the point? You'll probably shrug them off too.

[twohumble]

You're humulity is so becoming (cough cough). Here is one: F. F. Bruce. Have you heard of him? Probably one of the most famed theologians in the 20th century and a staunch Trinitarian.



I've got quite a few more but what's the point? You'll probably shrug them off too.
In reading Bruce, I am not at ALL convinced he agrees with you. But, you have more, please list this "vast" list of references that you refered too.

[NonTrinitarian]

In reading Bruce, I am not at ALL convinced he agrees with you. But, you have more, please list this "vast" list of references that you refered too.
Are you kidding me?

"But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced'." It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and indeed the reading "him' instead of "me" appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall moum for him, as on e mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading "me" be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading "me" is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ,.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person ("they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him") suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is pierced. - History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

Now what part of that made you think Bruce supported YOUR position? He said there was "a reasonable inference" that it should be "him", not "me". He acknowledges that those who criticize the RSV rendering (and noticed he said "some" and is obviously separating himself from this group) do so out of a desire to support the Deity of Christ (IE, your obvious bias). He even takes issue with the LXX translation of the whole passage in general, which I pointed out to you earlier and which you typically ignored. Then concludes with his own opinion that the evidence in the passage suggests someone other than YHWH being refered. And he also did something you might want to do as well. He put a very high value on how the apostle John quoted the verse. Like Bruce, I'm going with John over you.

I'm not giving you anymore as you simply can't comprehend English and are apparently blinded by your bias. You go ahead and think you're right. You're interpretation of F.F. Bruce's writing demonstrates to all the veil you wear over your eyes. If you read the above and actually think Bruce supports you, I don't see any reason to discuss anything with you. And anyone reading these will understand why I have no need to respond to you anymore. I'll save my many other references on Zechariah 12:10 for someone else.

[twohumble]

Your reference is garbled and difficult to follow, since you do not properly quote, and end-quote. I don't know what is your insertion or Bruces comments. If its all Bruce, then the entire passage should be in quotes.

Maybe if you communicate with your emotions in check, you will do better.

[NonTrinitarian]

Your reference is garbled and difficult to follow, since you do not properly quote, and end-quote. I don't know what is your insertion or Bruces comments. If its all Bruce, then the entire passage should be in quotes.

Maybe if you communicate with your emotions in check, you will do better.
This is almost pathetic, and that is keeping my emotions in check. I missed ONE quote at the end.

"But in John 19:37 the piercing is interpreted of the piercing of Christ's side with a soldier's lance after His death on the cross, and here Zech. 12:10 is expressly quoted: "And again another scripture says, 'They shall look on him whom they have pierced'." It is a reasonable inference that this is the form in which the Evangelist knew the passage, and indeed the reading "him' instead of "me" appears in a few Hebrew manuscripts. The R.S.V. thus has New Testament authority for its rendering of Zech.12:10 , "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication, so that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall moum for him, as on e mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born." Why then is the R.S.V. criticized for conforming to the New Testament here? Because, if the reading "me" be retained, the reference would be to the speaker, who is God, and in view of the application of the passage in the New Testament, there are some who see here an anticipation of the Christian doctrine of our Lord's divine nature. The reading "me" is certainly quite early, for it appears in the Septuagint (which otherwise misses the point of the passage); but the New Testament seems to attach no significance to Zech. 12:10 as providing evidence for the deity of Christ,.... And, whoever the pierced one is, the fact that he is referred to elsewhere in the verse in the third person ("they shall mourn for him....and weep bitterly over him") suggests that he is Yahweh's representative (probably the anointed king), in whose piercing Yahweh Himself is pierced."
- History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

I fail to see how leaving out the blue quote at the end (right before the publisher information) confused you. Everything in the quote is Bruce's comment, not mine. Is it a more clear for you?

[twohumble]

This is almost pathetic, and that is keeping my emotions in check. I missed ONE quote at the end.
[/color][/b]
- History of the Bible in English, pages199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979 third edition.

I fail to see how leaving out the blue quote at the end (right before the publisher information) confused you. Everything in the quote is Bruce's comment, not mine. Is it a more clear for you?

Without proper quotations, it is impossible for me to determine if you have "interjected" your thoughts or comments throughout the excerpt.

If you take such an attitude about your mistakes, then you need to analyze whether these discussions are in your best interest. You seem headed for a stroke here. Chill fella...woe big guy....mellow out some....smell the roses....relax...you get the idea.

So, you have provided one excerpt that supports your claim, yet you offered a HUGE number of references. I am not asking you to quote them, just to give me the names of the authors (not from JW camps) that agree with you...I will look them up for myself.

[NonTrinitarian]

Without proper quotations, it is impossible for me to determine if you have "interjected" your thoughts or comments throughout the excerpt.

If you take such an attitude about your mistakes, then you need to analyze whether these discussions are in your best interest. You seem headed for a stroke here. Chill fella...woe big guy....mellow out some....smell the roses....relax...you get the idea.

So, you have provided one excerpt that supports your claim, yet you offered a HUGE number of references. I am not asking you to quote them, just to give me the names of the authors (not from JW camps) that agree with you...I will look them up for myself.
I'm not even close to getting worked up. I'm somewhat enjoying this. I just hope everyone else is reading these posts too. I see no reason to provide more. You asked for one, I gave you one. Why do you want more? So you can misread them too?

[twohumble]

I'm not even close to getting worked up. I'm somewhat enjoying this. I just hope everyone else is reading these posts too. I see no reason to provide more. You asked for one, I gave you one. Why do you want more? So you can misread them too?

Well Nontrin..I believe my request was a direct response to your claim that you had a large number of references in your library that supported your claim. You now refuse to list more than one, and I accept that....as a fine example of an overblown claim. Post them, or retract your statement, or remain silent, the last is a clear enough retraction.

[NonTrinitarian]

Well Nontrin..I believe my request was a direct response to your claim that you had a large number of references in your library that supported your claim. You now refuse to list more than one, and I accept that....as a fine example of an overblown claim. Post them, or retract your statement, or remain silent, the last is a clear enough retraction.
I don't see why I should. I already stated earlier this:

So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway.

And I stand by that. Then, I do give you one just because I felt like it and you misread it and say you can't see how he supports my position! So if you can't even grasp a quote I do give you, which so blatantly goes against your opinion, then why bother typing out more that you won't get either? You go ahead and think F.F. Bruce is the only scholar who supports my argument. And whatever you do, don't look at those Bible translations that also support my position. Oh, and don't read John's quote of this verse in ANY Bible translation. And work on growing your library.

I think your TWeb ID should be "not too Humble" as you've been proven wrong so many times in this thread alone it's sort of embarrasing and you just keep coming back for more. Some guys just like getting punched in the head I guess.

[twohumble]

I don't see why I should. I already stated earlier this:

[/size]

And I stand by that. Then, I do give you one just because I felt like it and you misread it and say you can't see how he supports my position! So if you can't even grasp a quote I do give you, which so blatantly goes against your opinion, then why bother typing out more that you won't get either? You go ahead and think F.F. Bruce is the only scholar who supports my argument. And whatever you do, don't look at those Bible translations that also support my position. Oh, and don't read John's quote of this verse in ANY Bible translation. And work on growing your library.

I think your TWeb ID should be "not too Humble" as you've been proven wrong so many times in this thread alone it's sort of embarrasing and you just keep coming back for more. Some guys just like getting punched in the head I guess.

I think you protest too loudly. As I stated: your silence on other references is defening.

[NonTrinitarian]

I think you protest too loudly. As I stated: your silence on other references is defening.
It's "deafening" and I'm perfectly fine with you thinking so.

[twohumble]

It's "deafening" and I'm perfectly fine with you thinking so.
thx for the permission, and the spell check...I do think so.

[Leroy]

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority.

So which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway.

I would be interested in seeing this large list of source commentaries to back up your statement NonTrinitarian, I think it’s only fair if you make a statement such as that, to be ready to back it up.
…I do give you one just because I felt like it and you misread it and say you can't see how he supports my position! So if you can't even grasp a quote I do give you, which so blatantly goes against your opinion, then why bother typing out more that you won't get either?

Why don’t you just lay them all out and help us all to understand your position with the overwhelming magnitude of supporting evidence?

[NonTrinitarian]

I would be interested in seeing this large list of source commentaries to back up your statement NonTrinitarian, I think it’s only fair if you make a statement such as that, to be ready to back it up.


Why don’t you just lay them all out and help us all to understand your position with the overwhelming magnitude of supporting evidence?
I might if TwoHumble lays out his sources that support his position. I've offered one so far by one of the most respected Trinitarian theologians there is. What has TwoHumble laid out? Notta

[twohumble]

I might if TwoHumble lays out his sources that support his position. I've offered one so far by one of the most respected Trinitarian theologians there is. What has TwoHumble laid out? Notta
wow..that is funny...you start out by saying you might list it for someone else that your points are not lost on, and when someone asks you too, you dodge it. I am sure, absolutey sure, you are a dodgeball stud!!!
Did you try out for that movie?

My library is too poor to comply, per your observation. Yours, on the other hand is vast, and hence your claim. So, another poster has asked, will you look for a way out? Or be a man and do as you said? That is the measure of a man, will he do what he says. So...will you?

[NonTrinitarian]

wow..that is funny...you start out by saying you might list it for someone else that your points are not lost on, and when someone asks you too, you dodge it. I am sure, absolutey sure, you are a dodgeball stud!!!
Did you try out for that movie?

My library is too poor to comply, per your observation. Yours, on the other hand is vast, and hence your claim. So, another poster has asked, will you look for a way out? Or be a man and do as you said? That is the measure of a man, will he do what he says. So...will you?

I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?

[Leroy]

I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?

I thought your point was "many", hey if you only have one that's fine, just say so.

[NonTrinitarian]

I thought your point was "many", hey if you only have one that's fine, just say so.
If you read this sentence:
"I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?"
and concluded that I only have one then you probably wouldn't be able to grasp what these scholars are saying anyway.

[twohumble]

If you read this sentence:
"I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?"
and concluded that I only have one then you probably wouldn't be able to grasp what these scholars are saying anyway.
We are all intellectually inferior to you, so spoon feed us. Come on NonTrin, be a man, do what you said you could do, and stop dodging.

[NonTrinitarian]

We are all intellectually inferior to you, so spoon feed us. Come on NonTrin, be a man, do what you said you could do, and stop dodging.
Well that's a given. Leroy can't understand one sentence and I gave you a quote and you couldn't see how it supported my position. I'll give you one more and we'll see if it makes sense to you.

Here you go. Per an earlier email you said you only needed the reference.

H.W.F. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley, 2d Eng. Ed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 444-446

Let me know if you think this one supports your position too. I think I'll save the rest for another time.

[NonTrinitarian]

Moving on from the Zechariah stuff as you aren’t able to keep up in an effective discussion with references, let’s track back to some unfinished business. You have a pattern of just moving on when things get too deep for you. I selected some of the more blatant times you moved on with no reply. There are other too but these will do. Let’s pick up with one of these.

TwoHumble said

Well ...it IS the name, the only name we are given to bless or baptise under. It is how we are told to address God when we baptise. Read the verse again. It says "in the name ....." the Father, Son , and Holy Spirit" IS the name.NT responded

Acts 2:38-"Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."TwoHumble replied

no, not giving up on Baptism,and the 'name'...giving up on your ability or willingness to understand it. You must be willing to look at the commentaries on that section and the aramaic lingustics. That passage clearly defines the "name" as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit"....That IS the name by which we are baptized. Your analogous posts are far far from good analogies, and don't use any of the same linguistic properties intrinsic in the Matthew passage. NT responded

FYI-Matthew is in Greek, not Aramaic. I asked if you gave up on this subject because you made the erroneous statement about the only name we are baptised in is Father, Son and HS. Acts 2:38 clearly shows you were wrong. You didn't address it so I assumed you moved on. Shall we pick up with this one?

Regarding the proof I offered that the term "first-created" was not in use during the NT period, TwoHumble said

In regard to John Patricks comment on the greek use of "first born" and "first created", I can only respond that Patricks opinion is different than other scholars. I won't bother descending to an appeal to authority in regard to this difference, but suffice it to say, others disagree with that assessment. I am not a greek scholar, and therefore, I am at the mercy of the opinions of the various scholars in the field. There does appear to be differing thoughts on this subject, so to quote Patrick as the end all and final authority is absurd. I will leave it to you to review the different commentaries of those who disagree with Patrick.NT replied Other scholars disagree with that statement? What scholars? You have a quote from a scholar that says he/she has a historical Greek document earlier than Clement which uses protoktistos? Please provide the name and publication of this scholar. After all, it was YOUR argument. I believe it's suffice to say that argument has been dismantled.regarding the LXX of Zechariah 12:10 I mentioned that it was butchered from the Hebrew version. TwoHUmble replied

Simply for your review regarding the use of the LXX's use of "piercing"

"....and there is a remarkable nicety in the choice of the words employed both by the prophet and the Evangelist for "piercing." The word in Zechariah means to thrust through with spear, javelin, sword, or any such weapon. In that sense it is used in all the ten places, besides this, where it is found. How suitable this was to express the action of the Roman soldier, is manifest; and our Evangelist uses the exactly corresponding word, which the Septuagint certainly does not. Very different is the other word for "pierce" in Ps 22:16, "They pierced my hands and my feet." The word there used is one signifying to bore as with an awl or hammer. How striking are these small niceties!" Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A.R.; and Brown, David, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1998.NT replied I think your confused so I'm gonna help you out on this, not that it will make any difference-
"and they will look upon me, because they performed a victory dance, and they will lament over him, as over a beloved one, and they will suffer as over the loss of of a firstborn."-

That's from the LXX. Notice there is no mention of piercing. What were you trying to prove by your quote?Later TwoHumble said

Your assertion of His powers being "given" are very interesting. Yet it ignores the fact that after the resurrection, He took full authority over His powers, and they were 'no longer' given. Why? Simply put, He was in His glorified form, and in full control of His "Godmantle". NT replied Man, you are so far off. You really need to research stuff before sticking your foot in your mouth.

"All authority in heaven and earth has been GIVEN to me." –Matthew 28:18.

Now tell me, TwoHumble, is this before or after Jesus’ resurrection?

"For this reason also God exalted him to a superior position, and GAVE him a name that is above every other name."-Phil 2:9 (and note from verse 8 this is after his death) (see also Acts 2:32,33)Maybe we can pick up on this one?

Furthermore, both you and Leroy have put words in my mouth! I just assumed you were quoting me and I forgot I had said such but I went back an NO WHERE did I say I had a "vast" amount of references or even "many" references. I said this:


And you disagree with a lot of scholars and noted bible translations too.To which TwoHumble replied

Can you give me a source of a commentary (other than a JW source) that disagrees with me? I have not seen any. I am not saying there are none, I am sure there are, I just don't know of any.

The fact that you may produce a source or 2, is a long cry from the vast majority that agrees with my position, and disagrees with yours. Majority vote does not make it right, but in this case, I go with the majority. NT then saidSo which is it? First you ask for a source and then, knowing I obviosuly have some, you say even if I gave them to you it wouldn't matter. So forget it. I'm not going to type them out if it won't mean anything anyway. You're like the people Jesus was talking about: TwoHumble replied

So, I am wrong?? You have more than one source that is NOT from a JW background? No, I didn't think so. MY library is without Jw material, so you are right, I don't have those kind of sources. Funny, it seems that is the extent of yours.

Now, if I am wrong, prove it. Type them out so we can all see the VAST references that support your claim.HA! YOU said my references were "vast", not me! I said "some". In fact, I have about six plus numerous Bible translations. After I posted one I then said "I have quite a few more". You then come back and say

So, you have provided one excerpt that supports your claim, yet you offered a HUGE number of references. I am not asking you to quote them, just to give me the names of the authors (not from JW camps) that agree with you...I will look them up for myself.I declined and you said

Well Nontrin..I believe my request was a direct response to your claim that you had a large number of references in your library that supported your claim. You now refuse to list more than one, and I accept that....as a fine example of an overblown claim. Post them, or retract your statement, or remain silent, the last is a clear enough retraction. Large number? Where did I say that? So far you have accused me of saying I had a "vast" number, a "huge" number" and a "large" number. Rather I said I had "some" and after posting one I said I had "quite a few more", which I do. I believe five more qualifies as quite a few more than one. So you put words in my mouth and then try to make me live up to them.

So I’ve given you two. The first one you totally misunderstood. Probably will the second one. I see no reason to carry this on further so pick one of the goofs you made above and we can start from there.

[Leroy]

If you read this sentence:
"I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?"
and concluded that I only have one then you probably wouldn't be able to grasp what these scholars are saying anyway.


I actually read both sentences and answered the first one:

I thought your point was "many",

Referring to your point you made of having “some” not just one.


Then I added the comment:
hey if you only have one that's fine, just say so.
,bewildered in the fact that you would assume that one equals “some” and therefore your point has been made.


As to your conclusion that I “probably wouldn’t be able to grasp what these scholars are saying anyway“, your probably right! If you learned this from them.

I’ve yet to read any scholar using the tactic of having “some evidence” but the reader must believe the first initial piece presented before any more will be provided.

It reminds me of a boxer taking his best shot on his opponent and crying foul because his opponent didn’t go down for the count.

[NonTrinitarian]

As to your conclusion that I “probably wouldn’t be able to grasp what these scholars are saying anyway“, your probably right! If you learned this from them.

I’ve yet to read any scholar using the tactic of having “some evidence” but the reader must believe the first initial piece presented before any more will be provided.

It reminds me of a boxer taking his best shot on his opponent and crying foul because his opponent didn’t go down for the count.
And it reminds me of a boxer whose taken too many shots to the head and doesn't know when to go down. Let's review:

NT
I provided one to prove my point. If I provide one more will you then lay out all of yours?
Leroy
I thought your point was "many", hey if you only have one that's fine, just say so.Note you quoted "many" as if I said that. I didn't. I said I had "some" and that was in an earlier thread. But beside your putting words in my mouth, explain to us how you read my words and concluded I only had one. Or even that I only had one more, as in two total. You read into that sentence your own opinion much like you read into my words "many".

As far as 'believing the initial piece or else I won't post more', WHERE did I EVER say TwoHumble had to BELIEVE F.F. Bruce? Shoot, if I thought people had to believe him I wouldn't have gotten other references in addition to him.

TwoHumble, after reading the quote, said he didn't think F.F. Bruce supported my position. It is quite obvious he does. He doesn't have to agree with Bruce but he has to at least recognize what Bruce is saying. That is what prompted me to say that there was no point in posting another one if the first commentary cannot be understood. You simply keep reading into my words what is simply not there.

[twohumble]

And it reminds me of a boxer whose taken too many shots to the head and doesn't know when to go down. Let's review:

NT

Leroy
Note you quoted "many" as if I said that. I didn't. I said I had "some" and that was in an earlier thread. But beside your putting words in my mouth, explain to us how you read my words and concluded I only had one. Or even that I only had one more, as in two total. You read into that sentence your own opinion much like you read into my words "many".

As far as 'believing the initial piece or else I won't post more', WHERE did I EVER say TwoHumble had to BELIEVE F.F. Bruce? Shoot, if I thought people had to believe him I wouldn't have gotten other references in addition to him.

TwoHumble, after reading the quote, said he didn't think F.F. Bruce supported my position. It is quite obvious he does. He doesn't have to agree with Bruce but he has to at least recognize what Bruce is saying. That is what prompted me to say that there was no point in posting another one if the first commentary cannot be understood. You simply keep reading into my words what is simply not there.
Nontrin...you are too full of yourself or something, and take WAY too much time defending your honor....but, for the record, you did not say you had "some" you said:

nontrin said:
I've got quite a few more but what's the point?

So, quite a few is not "vast", I will grant you, but it certainly implies more than "some"...so the truth lies somewhere between your loud protestations, and my literary license with your phrase "quite a few".

In regard to my not being sure Bruce supported your position: mainly it was due to your misuse of quotation marks that caused me to pause and wonder what was what.

[twohumble]

Well that's a given. Leroy can't understand one sentence and I gave you a quote and you couldn't see how it supported my position. I'll give you one more and we'll see if it makes sense to you.

Here you go. Per an earlier email you said you only needed the reference.

H.W.F. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch, trans. A.E. Cowley, 2d Eng. Ed (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980), 444-446

Let me know if you think this one supports your position too. I think I'll save the rest for another time.

This reference is not available anywhere for me to check out. If you know a place for me to look this up, let me know..or we will chalk this up to file 13.

The FF. Bruce book is on its way from a seminary friend of mine..I will read your quote in its full context.

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin...you are too full of yourself or something, and take WAY too much time defending your honor....but, for the record, you did not say you had "some" you said:



So, quite a few is not "vast", I will grant you, but it certainly implies more than "some"...so the truth lies somewhere between your loud protestations, and my literary license with your phrase "quite a few".

In regard to my not being sure Bruce supported your position: mainly it was due to your misuse of quotation marks that caused me to pause and wonder what was what.
Yeah, whatever. I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time proving that "quite a few" is very far off from what I've stated. Why don't you explain to us the difference between "some" and "quite a few". Either way, I'm done with this subject. Can we move on to something more constructive?

[twohumble]

Yeah, whatever. I'm pretty sure you'll have a hard time proving that "quite a few" is very far off from what I've stated. Why don't you explain to us the difference between "some" and "quite a few". Either way, I'm done with this subject. Can we move on to something more constructive?
Before I delve back into some of the other areas you seem to think you have "won"....and I will; let me ask you about how the JW's justify the teaching that Jesus is the incarnation of Michael the archangle?

[NonTrinitarian]

Before I delve back into some of the other areas you seem to think you have "won"....and I will; let me ask you about how the JW's justify the teaching that Jesus is the incarnation of Michael the archangle?
Let's move this to a new thread. And let's both try to be more civil. Agreed?

[twohumble]

Let's move this to a new thread. And let's both try to be more civil. Agreed?
Absolutely, I am all for civility.

I will post that question on another thread.

[barryrob]

For any JW that can answer, please tell me:

1. In what name in the NT are we baptised under?

2. In what name in the NT are we to witness?

3. In what name in the NT are blessings bestowed?

Please site your scripture source text in response, and use any translation except the NWT.

I just thought I might go back to here and inject this thought:-

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?



“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513



*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.





1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”



*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-



John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”



John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.



“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-



John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.



John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”“



Is The Fathers name God?

*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



So what else did Jesus say:-

The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-



Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””



“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.



Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”



Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.



What is God The Father’s Personal Name?

Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”



Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.

**Who became “Israel.”



During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-

Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”



Acts 15:17 “in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations [who became Christians], people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,”



So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name?

Barryrob

[twohumble]

I just thought I might go back to here and inject this thought:-

Is it expectable to refer to The Almighty only by the term “God”, what do the Holy Scriptures say?



“GOD … The names of God . . . As the words ‘el and theos can be used to refer to any supernatural power, of which there may be many, as well as to the supreme or absolute supernatural being. Because of this, translators of the Bible have felt free to use similar words in other languages which have a corresponding breath of meaning (e.g. ‘God’ in English), This is in contrast to Islamic translators of the Qur’an, for example, who retain the word ‘Allah as an untranslatable proper name, even thought there is no semantic justification for this. The Bible’s willingness to use generic* words of deity to refer to the unique God of Israel confirms its assertion that some knowledge of him in innate in every rational creature and that pagan deities are but pale and corrupt reflections of this knowledge.

In the Bible God reveals himself by the name YHWH, which is usually vocalized as ‘Yahweh’, but which at some point ceased to be used by the ancient Israelites . . . which has come into English via its Latinized form ‘Jehovah’.”-‘New Dictionary of Biblical Theology’ published by InterVarsty Press p.513



*”generic adj. 1 characteristic of or relating to a class; general, not specific or special. 2 Biol. characteristic of or belonging to a genus. generically adv. [Latin: related to *genus].”-Oxford Dic.





1 Corinthians 8:5-6 “For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father*, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.”



*Who is the Father? Jesus’ prayer to The “Father” at John Ch. 17 helps us to understand:-



John 17:1 “Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,”



John 17:3 “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.



“The Father” is the “only TRUE God” who has a name:-



John 17:6 ““I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.



John 17:26 ““And I have made your name known to them and will make it known, in order that the love with which you loved me may be in them and I in union with them.”“



Is The Fathers name God?

*“god n. 1 a (in many religions) superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature, human fortunes, etc. b image, idol, etc., symbolizing a god. 2 (God) (in Christian and other monotheistic religions) creator and ruler of the universe. 3 adored or greatly admired person. 4 (in pl.) Theatr. gallery. God forbid may it not happen! God knows 1 it is beyond all knowledge. 2 I call God to witness that. God willing if Providence allows. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



“name —n. 1 word by which an individual person, family, animal, place, or thing is spoken of etc. 2 a (usu. abusive) term used of a person etc. (called him names). b word denoting an object or esp. a class of objects etc. (what is the name of those flowers?). 3 famous person. 4 reputation, esp. a good one. —v. (-ming) 1 give a name to. 2 state the name of. 3 mention; specify; cite. 4 nominate. have to one's name possess. in the name of as representing; by virtue of (in the name of the law). in name only not in reality. make a name for oneself become famous. nameable adj. [Old English].”-Oxford Dic.



So what else did Jesus say:-

The first phrase from the ‘Lord’s Prayer’:-



Matthew 6:9 ““‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified (“Hallowed” KJV).””



“hallow v. 1 make holy, consecrate. 2 honour as holy. [Old English: related to *holy].”-Oxford Dic.



Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.”



Christians are to identify with “the name of the Father”.



What is God The Father’s Personal Name?

Psalm 83:18 “That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.”



Exodus 3:15 ““This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob**, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite (“for ever” K.J.V.; “forever” N.I.V.), and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.

**Who became “Israel.”



During the formation of the Christian Congregation:-

Acts 15:14 “Symeon has related thoroughly how God [of Israel, Jehovah] for the first time turned his attention to the [non Israelite] nations [who became Christians] to take out of them a people for his name [Jehovah].”



Acts 15:17 “in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations [who became Christians], people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,”



So to identify with The God of Israel who was preached by Jesus and the Apostles shouldn’t we use his Personal name?

Barryrob
Barryrob

By your own dissertation we see that the "name" of the Father varies by the circumstance and how He wants to get His nature across to His people.

Math 28
"....baptising them in the name of The Father, and The Son,and the Holy Spirit" is an instance where the "name" is one very indicative of the Trinity, since the "name" is singular in this case, and not plural. The baptism is NOT in the name of Jehovah, which you claim is His "personal" name.

[barryrob]

Barryrob

By your own dissertation we see that the "name" of the Father varies by the circumstance and how He wants to get His nature across to His people.

Math 28
"....baptising them in the name of The Father, and The Son,and the Holy Spirit" is an instance where the "name" is one very indicative of the Trinity, since the "name" is singular in this case, and not plural. The baptism is NOT in the name of Jehovah, which you claim is His "personal" name.

If the Bible taught the Trinity that might be the case, but as the Bible does not teach the Trinity what you say cannot be.
Barryrob

[NonTrinitarian]

Barryrob

By your own dissertation we see that the "name" of the Father varies by the circumstance and how He wants to get His nature across to His people.

Math 28
"....baptising them in the name of The Father, and The Son,and the Holy Spirit" is an instance where the "name" is one very indicative of the Trinity, since the "name" is singular in this case, and not plural. The baptism is NOT in the name of Jehovah, which you claim is His "personal" name. Barryrob,
Twohumble tried to pull this bologna on me earlier. He was immediately shown where multiple persons were included in the phrase of a singular name. IE. 'In the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' It seems the subject shut down pretty quickly after that.

As far as God's personal name being Jehovah, anyone that denies that probably isn't even halfway qualified to be in this discussion. The name "Jehovah" appears nearly three times as often as the word "God". It appears more times than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, and Moses combined. I don't think anyone would say that these are not personal names of these persons. How the name Jehovah can appear more than all of those combined and yet have someone argue it is not God's personal name is amazing. And a signal that you might not want to even bother messing with them.

[Sparko]

excerpts from http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1989/v46-2-tabletalk.htm

The God of Israel has a distinctive name, YHWH, in Holy Scripture. The English name "Jehovah" is a hybrid form of the consonants YHWH and the vowels of the Hebrew word for "Lord" (Adonai, see below), hence it is not a serious option for the vocalization of the name YHWH. Another suggested spelling, "Yahweh," arises as the result of persuasive evidence from discoveries in West Semitic language literature. W. F. Albright long contended that there was only one plausible explanation for YHWH, namely, Yahweh, a causative Hebrew verb form translated "He causes to be." It is clear from Greek transcriptions of YHWH that the pronunciation "Yahweh" was known. Nevertheless, it cannot be maintained conclusively that we know the specific origin of the pronunciation or that it is unequivocably correct.

...

in the Hebrew text and the name YHWH was not spoken because of the awesome reverence attached to it....

The word usually substituted for YHWH was 'Adonai which comes from the word 'adon, a common noun meaning "Lord." 'Adonai is the plural form of the noun with the first person singular possessive suffix. Translated both "my Lord" (Ex. 4:10) and "the Lord" (Ps. 37:13), 'Adonai is the traditional Hebrew language substitute for YHWH, and it is clear that Israel understood YHWH to be the Lord of creation, the world, and the community, and to be the Holy One who expected Israel's obedience.

The other most common name for God in Hebrew is 'Elohim, which we translate as "God." It is a plural form of the noun, and perhaps the English word "deity" is closer to its meaning. In the Hebrew scriptures, it usually appears with a verb in the singular, which may indicate that it was understood to be a valid means of expressing monotheism. Hence, 'Elohim used in the singular sense is characteristically a Hebraic usage and can therefore be a synonym for YHWH. This is not true of other Hebrew words for God, such as 'El, which may refer to YHWH or any other god(s). It is interesting that in the so-called "Elohistic Psalter" there are examples of the interchangeable use of YHWH and 'Elohim.




So while YHWH is the name of God, it is more of a decriptive name than a personal one, and it really can't be said that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation.

Personally, I consider YHWH to be my heavenly Father, and my Lord. I never called my father by his name, but used "dad" or "father" out of respect. I do the same with God. I call him Father.

Edited to add: Also, can you point to one instance in the new testament where Jesus calls the Father by his "personal name?"

[twohumble]

Barryrob,
Twohumble tried to pull this bologna on me earlier. He was immediately shown where multiple persons were included in the phrase of a singular name. IE. 'In the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' It seems the subject shut down pretty quickly after that.

As far as God's personal name being Jehovah, anyone that denies that probably isn't even halfway qualified to be in this discussion. The name "Jehovah" appears nearly three times as often as the word "God". It appears more times than Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus, and Moses combined. I don't think anyone would say that these are not personal names of these persons. How the name Jehovah can appear more than all of those combined and yet have someone argue it is not God's personal name is amazing. And a signal that you might not want to even bother messing with them.
Nontrin:
1. Your tone and demeener are once again lacking in a "Christian" bent.
2. I have searched this thread, and not found where you have rebutted my assertion, and your claim that "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is analogous to Matt 28 is incorrect on a number of grounds. Before I enumerate them, why don't you point us to the exact passage you are refering too.
3. As far as "being qualified" for this discussion: what is the criteria for qualification, and who sets the criteria??? YOU?

If so, I would suggest you search your heart a little and ask what the JW theology has really taught you.

[barryrob]

So while YHWH is the name of God, it is more of a decriptive name than a personal one, and it really can't be said that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation.


Hmmmmm, intresting but, who is the ultimate one to say it is right or not?

Exodus 3:15



NWT "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.



KJV And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Now it would seem to me that the Name "Jehovah" is not being used less but in reality more as there are 5,000 new Jehovah's Witnesses each week and that we are in every nation world wide:-

Micah 4:5

NWT For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah (Heb YHWH) our God to time indefinite, even forever.

KJV For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD (Heb YHWH) our God for ever and ever.

thus spreading God's name -Jehovah- (or however in is said in any tounge) is today more than yesterday but less that tommorrow, so it would seem that the author of the Bible does not agree with you.

Barryrob

[Sparko]

thus spreading God's name -Jehovah- (or however in is said in any tounge) is today more than yesterday but less that tommorrow, so it would seem that the author of the Bible does not agree with you.

Barryrob
Does not agree with me about what? and which author? Moses? or God?

[twohumble]

So while YHWH is the name of God, it is more of a decriptive name than a personal one, and it really can't be said that Jehovah is the correct pronunciation.


Hmmmmm, intresting but, who is the ultimate one to say it is right or not?

Exodus 3:15



NWT "This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘Jehovah the God of YOUR forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to YOU.’ This is my name to time indefinite, and this is the memorial of me to generation after generation.



KJV And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.

Now it would seem to me that the Name "Jehovah" is not being used less but in reality more as there are 5,000 new Jehovah's Witnesses each week and that we are in every nation world wide:-

Micah 4:5

NWT For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah (Heb YHWH) our God to time indefinite, even forever.

KJV For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD (Heb YHWH) our God for ever and ever.

thus spreading God's name -Jehovah- (or however in is said in any tounge) is today more than yesterday but less that tommorrow, so it would seem that the author of the Bible does not agree with you.

Barryrob

Barryrob
The names used at the different times, reflect different ideas and revelations about God. The NT never asks us to be witnesses to "Jehovah", but it does ask us to be witnesses for Christ. The name above all names is that of Christ, yet, the OT claims that YHWH is above all other names. Why do you suppose this is?

[NonTrinitarian]

Nontrin:
1. Your tone and demeener are once again lacking in a "Christian" bent. And once Christ spotted snakes, so was his. (Matt 3:7)
2. I have searched this thread, and not found where you have rebutted my assertion, and your claim that "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" is analogous to Matt 28 is incorrect on a number of grounds. Before I enumerate them, why don't you point us to the exact passage you are refering too. You have searched this thread? This is typical of the level of your research. Why don't you READ this thread? After all, it does pertain to one of the questions you had. Start with page one next time.

3. As far as "being qualified" for this discussion: what is the criteria for qualification, and who sets the criteria??? YOU? The criteria of common sense. If God used his name nearly 7000 times in the Bible, you might want to thnk a little harder before doubting that it is His personal name.

If so, I would suggest you search your heart a little and ask what the JW theology has really taught you. That God is not a Trinity. That there is no immortal soul. That the earth will be a paradise and that Christians wouldn't kill Christians in war, unlike Catholoics, Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians, to name a few.

[barryrob]

Try 2 Tim 3:16-17

[barryrob]

Barryrob
The names used at the different times, reflect different ideas and revelations about God. The NT never asks us to be witnesses to "Jehovah", but it does ask us to be witnesses for Christ. The name above all names is that of Christ, yet, the OT claims that YHWH is above all other names. Why do you suppose this is?
I think that:-

Micah 4:5
For all the peoples, for their part, will walk each one in the name of its god; but we, for our part, shall walk in the name of Jehovah (Heb YHWH) our God to time indefinite, even forever.


Goes well beyond N.T. and beyond today.

Barryrob

[JAY-PC]

The plain and simple fact is that Jesus Christ is called God and anyone who reads the Bible has to recognize that. After you recognize that Jesus is called God you have to ask what that means but let’s not ever say that Jesus is not called God that would be a lie.

(John 1:1 NWT) In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.

(John 20:28 NWT) In answer Thomas said to him: "My Lord and my God!"

(Isaiah 9:6 NWT) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.


*** g72 3/22 pp. 5-6 Is Jesus Christ God? ***
Jesus Called “God”
First it is of interest to note, as does Canon Theologian of Coventry Cathedral H. W. Montefiore, that “very seldom indeed is Jesus called God in the New Testament.”1
(Watchtower CD 2001)