New World Translation

[NonTrinitarian]

I am interested in our discussion, not one you had with others. Your assertion about John 1:1 was very well rebutted on another thread...look it up.

I have answered the majority of your verses that dealth with "Son of God" issues, in my post. I am not at all interested in researching your posts on Tweb...thanks for the offer, but no.

Your verses are old and been there done that with them. Nothing new, and nothing insighful about them...very well explained in other posts. You can look them up.

Typical response. You don't mind me answering your questions but when I throw in a hundred or so scriptures you bow out. Keep turning your head from the evidence and maybe it will all go away.

And the only thing I asserted about John 1:1 was that it was grammatically possible to render it as "a god", to which I have a number of Trinitarian scholars that agree with me. Now where was that rebutted at?

[One Bad Pig]

Dr. Jason Beduhn

Okay. I'm not sure he's such a good example, though. He's apparently willing to gloss over some errors as irrelevant, and the NWT best supports his contentions that Jesus was a mythical figure.

Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-
"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

Note carefully the wordings; "For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him" vice "we are filled in Christ". See the difference?

Since you never got around to posting your proofs from John, I'll make some observations starting with 1:1.

Granting the NWT translation of "the Word was a god", let's run with it and see what happens. Also in v. 1, the Word was with God in the beginning. Now we have a Word that 1) was a god, and 2) was with God in the beginning.

v. 3: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."
This 'god' created everything. Compare with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth".

v. 6: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." (NRSV)
Note that it explicitly says that John was a man.

v. 14: "The Word became flesh and lived among us..."
Okay, so this god became flesh; he pre-existed before he was born.

v. 34, 49, etc.; this 'god' is the "Son of God".

So, you have either 1)Jesus as a wholly separate, distinct deity who has coexisted eternally with God, created as God, and is the Son of God, which goes against all the evidence of the OT, or you have 2) Jesus as God the Son, ontologically equivalent but functionally subordinate to God the Father along with God the Holy Spirit, which is classic Trinitarianism. Either way, Jesus Christ is deity.

[NonTrinitarian]

OBP said,

I'll settle for a credentialed scholar who prefers the NWT over all other translations, then.

I replied with Dr. Jason Beduhn



OBP said,

Okay. I'm not sure he's such a good example, though. He's apparently willing to gloss over some errors as irrelevant, and the NWT best supports his contentions that Jesus was a mythical figure.

You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.



Regarding Col 2:9, I said

Your merely asserting they are not synominous is not convincing. I believe they are part of the same thing, first noting that the fullness dwells in Christ and then dwells in us. Furthermore, note Col 1:19-

"For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him[Christ]". Was Paul saying all the fullness of God was in Christ because Christ was God or that the fullness of God was in Christ because it pleased God [Note: a separate person from Christ] to have His fullness dwell in Christ. The New English Bible says it was "by God's own choice" that his fullness dwelt in Christ. Thus, far from proving Jesus is God because all the fullness of God dwells in him, we se all the fullness of God dwells in Christ only because it pleased God to do so. As the New Testament in Modern English states, "It was in him that the full nature of God chose to live." If God had to make a choice as to whether or not all His fullness would dwell in Jesus, then Jesus is obviously not God.

OBP replied,

Note carefully the wordings; "For God was pleased to have all of his fullness dwell in him" vice "we are filled in Christ". See the difference?

God was "pleased" or "chose" to have his fullness in Christ. I take it you are wanting to hang on to the word "All" in the phrase "all his fullness" as if it somehow supported your argument that this proves Jesus is God. Mere assertion on your part doesn’t make it so. As Col 2:10 shows, whatever fills Christ fills us as well. If "ALL" is your argument for Christ’s fullness making him God and not us, what do you say of Eph 3:19?

"and to know this love that surpasses knowledge--that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God"

OBP said

Since you never got around to posting your proofs from John, I'll make some observations starting with 1:1.

I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.

OBP said,

Granting the NWT translation of "the Word was a god", let's run with it and see what happens.

So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?

Also in v. 1, the Word was with God in the beginning. Now we have a Word that 1) was a god, and 2) was with God in the beginning.

v. 3: "All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being."

This 'god' created everything. Compare with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth".

v. 6: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." (NRSV)

Note that it explicitly says that John was a man.

v. 14: "The Word became flesh and lived among us..."

Okay, so this god became flesh; he pre-existed before he was born.

v. 34, 49, etc.; this 'god' is the "Son of God".

So, you have either 1)Jesus as a wholly separate, distinct deity who has coexisted eternally with God, created as God, and is the Son of God, which goes against all the evidence of the OT, or you have 2) Jesus as God the Son, ontologically equivalent but functionally subordinate to God the Father along with God the Holy Spirit, which is classic Trinitarianism. Either way, Jesus Christ is deity.

1. Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?
2. Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?
3. Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?

I need to know your answers to these questions to move forward.

[One Bad Pig]

You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.

...and someone who doesn't believe in a historical Jesus isn't going to be biased towards a translation that makes his case easier? Right.

God was "pleased" or "chose" to have his fullness in Christ. I take it you are wanting to hang on to the word "All" in the phrase "all his fullness" as if it somehow supported your argument that this proves Jesus is God. Mere assertion on your part doesn’t make it so. As Col 2:10 shows, whatever fills Christ fills us as well. If "ALL" is your argument for Christ’s fullness making him God and not us, what do you say of Eph 3:19?

I already covered this in post #38.

I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.

The problem is that I would probably agree with you in many of those cases. Jesus is functionally distinguished from God the Father. I'd be interested in what 11 verses or so that you think I'll use.

So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?

No, I'm just not sure what the NWT gets you.

Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?

Not explicitly, no. However, the Spirit is mentioned in v. 2.

Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?

No.

Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?

As in elohim? Yes. That's the word also translated as "angels". Angels refused to allow people to worship them, however. Show me where Jesus rebuked someone for worshipping Him.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT
You said you wanted "a" scholar. I gave you one. I don’t care if he is an atheist who believes aliens from outer space will carry him away to another planet or if he likes wearing women’s underwear. At issue is the language and grammar of the NWT, and an atheist who wears women’s underwear and believes in little green men (not that he does) can know Greek as well as anyone else. In fact, since Dr. Beduhn doesn’t appear to have a theological concern in the matter, he is probably more suited for an unbiased review of the grammar than say a Baptist theologian who has a dog in the fight and strong motives for preserving the Trinity.


OBP-
...and someone who doesn't believe in a historical Jesus isn't going to be biased towards a translation that makes his case easier? Right.

Well, let’s see. Beduhn doesn’t dispute the many other verses in the NWT that testify to a historical Jesus. He doesn’t dispute the verses that show Jesus being called "son of God" or where he performs miracles, etc. etc. etc. So you tell me… The end result is you asked for a scholar and I gave you one. Now you’re crying about it. Actually, far more convincing than Beduhn is the significant number of TRINITARIAN scholars that support the various verses in the NWT, as the many Bibles I listed demonstrate. So now you have 1.) Trinitarian scholars who support certain verses in the NWT and 2.) A scholar who feels the NWT as a whole is a very good translation. So move on…

NT-I never got around to it but I can. If I did, would you answer the 80 some verses in John that differentiate Jesus from God? If so, I’ll answer the 11 or so verses in John that you say means Jesus is God.



OBP-
The problem is that I would probably agree with you in many of those cases. Jesus is functionally distinguished from God the Father. I'd be interested in what 11 verses or so that you think I'll use.

And the problem with that is these verses don’t distinguish Jesus from "God the Father". They distinguish him from "God". You read into the text what does not appear. When people heard Jesus say: "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality", they didn’t already have the Trinitarian doctrine defined and say ‘Oh, well he’s is still God even though he speaks of God as someone other than himself. He only means "God the Father", not "God"’

I would assume you would use the following verses:
1:1; 1:3; 1:23; 2:19; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 10:33; 14:9; 16:30; 20:28 primarily, though there are some others that are quite a stretch that I’ve seen used before.

NT-
So are in agreement that we can leave the grammar alone and realize that either translation is grammatically possible?


OBP-
No, I'm just not sure what the NWT gets you.

Doesn’t matter for now where it gets us. Can you provide proof that the scholars I quoted above are wrong when they say "a god" is grammatically possible? If not, move on.

NT-
Was anyone else besides Jesus and God "in the beginning" when the earth was created at Gen 1:1?


OBP-
Not explicitly, no. However, the Spirit is mentioned in v. 2.

The thousands of angels who watched and praised God as he created the earth will be surprised to hear that. Or are you not aware of that verse?

NT-
Would it be incorrect to say that Jesus healed people when he was on the earth?


OBP-
No.

Good. I wouldn’t either. But note what the scriptures say:

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching…and the power of the Lord was present for him (Jesus) to heal the sick." –Luke 5:17

"namely, Jesus,…how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Acts 2:22

These verses say Jesus healed people, but then, the scriptures say Elisha, Elijah, Peter and Paul healed people too. But did they, including Jesus, really heal the people? No. These three verses show that really it was God, spoken of as someone other than Jesus, who actually had the power to heal. These verses don’t seem to think Jesus had the power to heal the people, they say it was God’s power that Jesus was allowed to use. So the scriptures can say Jesus did the healing but in reality it was God. Now why do you think I bring this point out?

NT-
Is anyone else in the Bible called "god"?

OBP-
As in elohim? Yes. That's the word also translated as "angels". Angels refused to allow people to worship them, however. Show me where Jesus rebuked someone for worshipping Him.

No, not elohim. I mean, sure, people were called elohim (not just angels), but I am asking if anyone was called theos besides God or Jesus in a positive sense (IE, not as a false god).

And I don’t know of any verses that say people worshipped Jesus. I know of Bible translations that translate proskyneo as "worship" when it is directed to Jesus, but then again, I know many Bible translations, listed above, that do not. So you’ll have to take that up with the Trinitarian scholars who opted to not translate proskyneo as "worship".

[twohumble]

Non trinitarian wrote

Good. I wouldn’t either. But note what the scriptures say:

"One day as he (Jesus) was teaching…and the power of the Lord was present for him (Jesus) to heal the sick." –Luke 5:17

"namely, Jesus,…how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly shown by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."- Acts 2:22

These verses say Jesus healed people, but then, the scriptures say Elisha, Elijah, Peter and Paul healed people too. But did they, including Jesus, really heal the people? No. These three verses show that really it was God, spoken of as someone other than Jesus, who actually had the power to heal. These verses don’t seem to think Jesus had the power to heal the people, they say it was God’s power that Jesus was allowed to use. So the scriptures can say Jesus did the healing but in reality it was God. Now why do you think I bring this point out?

This demonstrates one of the huge areas that lead to your misunderstanding of who and what Jesus is. Jesus voluntarily shed His God mantle, and became man. As such, He did not have access, directly, to His omnipotence. All miracles were therefore done, through the Godhead, or through the father, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, if you will notice, after the resurrection, Christ performed many signs and miracles that were not "through the Father". Why? When resurrected, he once again had access to all of His power and omnipotence. This is the reason, as fully human (voluntarily) he was "inferior" to the Father. This was a voluntary state that He chose as a necessary step on the ultimate goal to achieve salvation for the His chosen people. The inferiority was self imposed, and not a reflection of His lack of 'divinity'. This also explains all of your verses that suggest Christ is inferior to the Father. He is voluntarily submissive to the Father, but co-equal with Him.

[NonTrinitarian]

Non trinitarian wrote


This demonstrates one of the huge areas that lead to your misunderstanding of who and what Jesus is. Jesus voluntarily shed His God mantle, and became man. As such, He did not have access, directly, to His omnipotence. All miracles were therefore done, through the Godhead, or through the father, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. However, if you will notice, after the resurrection, Christ performed many signs and miracles that were not "through the Father". Why? When resurrected, he once again had access to all of His power and omnipotence. This is the reason, as fully human (voluntarily) he was "inferior" to the Father. This was a voluntary state that He chose as a necessary step on the ultimate goal to achieve salvation for the His chosen people. The inferiority was self imposed, and not a reflection of His lack of 'divinity'. This also explains all of your verses that suggest Christ is inferior to the Father. He is voluntarily submissive to the Father, but co-equal with Him.

There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Trinity doctrine very well. I use this example to 1.) demonstrate that the people who walked with Christ did not think he was God because he performed miracles (they couldn't refer to the Trinity doctrine to explain these away like you just did) and 2.) that even though there are other verses that say Jesus healed people, without mentioning that he actually had to rely on God for the ability to do the healing, other verses clearly show he did not heal these people on his own ability. God was the true healer, not Jesus.

Now I ask you: even though there are verses that show Jesus was involved in the creation process, are there other versus that show that Jesus was not the source of the power that did the creation and thus was not the true Creator, just as he was not the true healer? Are there verses that show that God worked through Jesus to create just as He worked through Jesus to heal?

[twohumble]

There is no misunderstanding. I understand the Trinity doctrine very well. I use this example to 1.) demonstrate that the people who walked with Christ did not think he was God because he performed miracles (they couldn't refer to the Trinity doctrine to explain these away like you just did) and 2.) that even though there are other verses that say Jesus healed people, without mentioning that he actually had to rely on God for the ability to do the healing, other verses clearly show he did not heal these people on his own ability. God was the true healer, not Jesus.

Now I ask you: even though there are verses that show Jesus was involved in the creation process, are there other versus that show that Jesus was not the source of the power that did the creation and thus was not the true Creator, just as he was not the true healer? Are there verses that show that God worked through Jesus to create just as He worked through Jesus to heal?

The people who walked with Jesus eventually got that He was God, and those that heard his claims crucified Him because of His claims to be God. The people of His day clearly knew what His claims were, thats why he was condemned to die. In regard to your point 2. above, the fact that Christ healed through the Father is explained in my post, did you read it? Jesus voluntarily shed the 'God mantle' to be fully human, therefore, He did all things through the Father until He was resurrected....notice after the resurrection how Jesus did not invoke the Father, but performed miraculous things on His own.

Even now, Christ resides in a glorified body, and will return in that form to judge and conquer Satan, then make a new universe and world....notice I said 'make a new'...he will not restore the old one...but make a new one.

[NonTrinitarian]

The people who walked with Jesus eventually got that He was God, and those that heard his claims crucified Him because of His claims to be God. The people of His day clearly knew what His claims were, thats why he was condemned to die.

Uh, no. Jesus was condemend to die because he claimed to be the son of God.

So the people thought Jesus was God huh? Here are some verses to consider. Why don't you tell me when they figured out he was God.

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 2:16

And he said to those selling the doves: "Take these things away from

here! Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!""

The house was known as YHWH’s house. Would these people think Jesus was claiming to be YHWH or His Son?

John 3:2

This one came to him in the night and said to him: "Rabbi, we know that

you as a teacher have come from God; for no one can perform these signs that

you perform unless God is with him.."

I think it’s obvious that Nicodemus didn’t think Jesus was God. He merely thought God was "with him."

John 3:16

For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order

that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have

everlasting life.

God, not just the Father, but GOD is spoken of as someone other than Jesus.

John 3:34-35

For the one whom God sent forth speaks the sayings of God, for he does

not give the spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son and has given

all things into his hand

Ditto

John 4:20-24

Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain; but you people say that in

Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship." Jesus said to

her: "Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain

nor in Jerusalem will you people worship the Father. you worship what you

do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation originates with the

Jews. Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true

worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the

Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and

those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth."

Do you think this woman walked away from this conversation thinking Jesus is God? Jesus said the Jews worshipped what they knew (implying they were worshipping correctly). They didn’t worship a Triune being.

John 4:25-26

The woman said to him: "I know that Mes·si´ah is coming, who is called

Christ. Whenever that one arrives, he will declare all things to us openly."

Jesus said to her: "I who am speaking to you am he."

This woman didn’t believe the Messiah would be God either. She thought he would clear things up. Jesus identified himself as the Messiah and she believed. She didn’t fall down and worship him or act surprised as if Almighty God was standing in front of her. She did not leave Jesus thinking he was God.

John 4:34

Jesus said to them: "My food is for me to do the will of him that sent me

and to finish his work."

This would have caused people to think Jesus was someone less than God.

John 5:19

Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to

you, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what

he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things

the Son also does in like manner."

The Jews accuse Jesus of trying to make himself equal to God and this is his response. It’s obvious Jesus was not claiming equality with God.

John 5:30

cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and

the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will,

but the will of him that sent me.

This too would have caused people to think Jesus is less than God. Note that they couldn’t go to a book on the Trinity and read a 300 page dissertation on how Jesus had two natures in him, functional subordination, or all of the other theories used to explain why this doesn’t really mean Jesus is less than God.

John 6:29

In answer Jesus said to them: "This is the work of God, that you exercise

faith in him whom that One sent forth."

Jesus again describes himself as someone other than, not just the Father, but God.

John 6:45

It is written in the Prophets, ‘And they will all be taught by Jehovah.’

Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me.

Jesus distinguishes himself from Jehovah by showing that learning from the Father is learning from Jehovah. Then they can come to Jesus.

John 7:16-18

Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: "What I teach is not mine, but

belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will

know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own

originality. He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own

glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that sent him, this one is true,

and there is no unrighteousness in him."

Imagine the people standing there hearing this. Are they thinking that Jesus is God when they hear this? Would the words "What I teach is not min" and "teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality" cause you to think this man was claiming to be God. These people are NOT drawing the conclusion that this man is God.

John 7:28-29

Therefore Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple and said: "You

both know me and know where I am from. Also, I have not come of my own

initiative, but he that sent me is real, and you do not know him. I know

him, because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me forth

Jesus claimed to be a representative from God, not God Himself.

John 7:31

Still, many of the crowd put faith in him; and they commenced saying: "When

the Christ arrives, he will not perform more signs than this man has

performed, will he?"

These people were putting faith in Jesus. Does it sound like they think he is God? Or does it even sound like they had expectations of the Messiah being God?

John 8:26-27

I have many things to speak concerning you and to pass judgment upon. As

a matter of fact, he that sent me is true, and the very things I heard from

him I am speaking in the world." They did not grasp that he was talking

to them about the Father.

Jesus again says the things he is teaching are not his own but from the Father. All there would immediately conclude the Father is the superior.

John 8:28-30

Therefore Jesus said: "When once you have lifted up the Son of man, then

You will know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of my own initiative;

but just as the Father taught me I speak these things. And he that sent

me is with me; he did not abandon me to myself, because I always do the

things pleasing to him." As he was speaking these things, many put faith

in him.

Does God do nothing of his own initiative? People were putting faith in Jesus at this point. But faith in what? That he IS Almighty God?

John 8:40

But now you are seeking to kill me, a man that has told you the truth

that I heard from God.

Jesus claims to be "a man that has told you the truth that [he] heard from God." Does it sound like he is claiming to be God?

John 8:42

Jesus said to them: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for from

God I came forth and am here. Neither have I come of my own initiative at

all, but that One sent me forth."

Jesus doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He claims to have been sent forth from the their God.

John 8:54

Jesus answered: "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my

Father that glorifies me, he who you say is your God."

Jesus again doesn’t claim to be the God of the Jews. He said their God is his Father. These accounts in John 8 show that Jesus was not claiming to be God in verse 58.

John 9:16

Therefore some of the Pharisees began to say: "This is not a man from God,

because he does not observe the Sabbath"

Again, no one is claiming Jesus is God or that he is even claiming to be God. Only that he claims to be sent from God.

John 9:31-33

We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if anyone is God-fearing

and does his will, he listens to this one. From of old it has never been

heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind. If this [man] were

not from God, he could do nothing at all.

A man who personally experienced a healing by Jesus did not think he was God. He repeatedly speaks of God as someone other than Jesus and I doubt he meant ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Father’.

John 10:32

Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father.

For which of those works are you stoning me?"

Jesus attributes his miracles to his Father, not to himself. Just as any prophet of old would have done.

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?

John 11:22

And yet at present I know that as many things as you ask God for, God

will give you

Here is a close friend of Jesus. She obviously had a lot of faith in him. Do you think she thought Jesus was Almighty God? Or did she understand the Trinity and that 1/3 of God n the flesh would need to relinquish some of his God abilities and so that 1/3 of God would need to ask another 1/3 of God for help in performing a miracle?

John 11:27

She said to him: "Yes, Lord; I have believed that you are the Christ the Son

of God, the One coming into the world."

And she was correct.

John 11:41-42

Therefore they took the stone away. Now Jesus raised his eyes heavenward

and said: "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. True, I knew that

you always hear me; but on account of the crowd standing around I spoke, in

order that they might believe that you sent me forth."

Those who heard this would not have drown the conclusion that this man was Almighty God.

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 12:49-50

because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who

sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.

Also, I know that his commandment means everlasting life. Therefore the

things I speak, just as the Father has told me [them], so I speak [them]."

This too would cause people to think Jesus is not Almighty God but one who does what God tells him to do.

John 13:16

Most truly I say to you, A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one

that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him

36 times in the Gospels Jesus said he was sent by God. The connection is obvious.

John 13:31-32

Hence when he had gone out, Jesus said: "Now the Son of man is glorified,

and God is glorified in connection with him. And God will himself glorify

him, and he will glorify him immediately

Jesus again speaks of himself as someone other than God.

John 14:1

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Exercise faith in God, exercise faith

also in me

Jesus told this to his apostles the night before he died. He again speaks of himself as someone other than God.

John 14:10

Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in

union with me? The things I say to you men I do not speak of my own

originality; but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works

Jesus continues to lead them to a conclusion of God being someone who tells Jesus what to do and say.

John 14:28

You heard that I said to you, I am going away and I am coming [back] to you.

If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father,

because the Father is greater than I am.

Reflect on the above verses and what Jesus said here. It’s obvious the conclusion they would have drawn.

John 15:10

If you observe my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I

have observed the commandments of the Father and remain in his love.

Jesus obeys his Father and remains in his love.

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

Jesus calls his Father the ONLY True God, and separates himself from the only true God. Others have tried, ineffectively in my opinion, to argue this away since Jude refers to Jesus as our only lord. They argue, this doesn’t mean the Father is not our Lord too so Jesus’ words at John 17:3 doesn’t mean Jesus isn’t our true God too. But the instances are not the same.

Paul tells Timothy that Jesus alone has immortality. This doesn’t mean that the Father doesn’t have immortality. What you have to look at is the context. Paul was comparing Jesus to human kings and thus, from THAT perspective, Jesus is the one who alone has immortality. So context is VERY important. Furthermore, Peter said God has appointed Jesus as Lord of the congregation. (see Acts 2:36) Thus, God has relinquished that authority to His Son. See Ephesian 4:5,6 where Paul says there is one God and one Lord and also 1 Cor 8:6. From the standpoint of the Christian congregation, Jesus is our one Lord because God put him in that position. Additionally, note that in John 17:3 Jesus not only says his Father is the only true God, but he then separates or distinguishes himself from the only true God.

John 17:7-8

They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you;

because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have

received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your

representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth.

Again, Jesus shows that he is not the only true God but that he is His representative whom He sent forth. The great wisdom Jesus gave to men came from God, not himself.

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?’ (see John 18:33-38 and John 19:12-15) Understand, 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. (Go back and compare John 1:49; 11:27; 10:34-36; 12:13 with 19:7)

John 20:17

Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the

Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending

to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God"

Jesus shows his God is our God.

John 20:31

But these have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the

Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, you may have life by

means of his name.

Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the king of God’s Kingdom? I know you do. Just understand what the term Son of God meant to these people. None of them used it to mean 1/3 of God who came to the earth and had to relinquish his authority and came under functional subordination but was ontologically equal with God. People who were close to Jesus repeatedly referred to him as someone other than God. That has to have an effect on you.

And yes, I did read your explanation (of course you ignored my question about whether there are any verses that show Jesus was not the creator, just as he was not the healer). Did you read mine? I am telling you right now that the people who heard Jesus say all the things above were not able to explain them away the way you did with your preconceived belief in the Trinity. Thus, when they heard Jesus say he was someone other than God, they had no basis for assuming he meant anything other than God. And if you think they did, show the evidence.

[twohumble]

I'll take this as an implicit statement from you that you don't want to make a stand on this. The NWT stands as an acceptable translation until you prove otherwise. Start listing scriptures or else I'll have to assume you're scared what you'll find out.


"the Word was a god" is grammatically incorrect huh? Let's see what people say who have a little more knowledge on the subject than you.



Note that they
1.) admit that grammatically it can be as the NWT
2.) their reason for not liking the NWT is not due to grammar but due to their theological beliefs.

So unless you start proving these men wrong, you have nothing.

I was hoping our Greek scholars would address this, but I will give it a brief shot.

I am not familiar with all of the authorities you quoted in this post, but, I am familiar with the JW's list of supposed authors that have been used to support their contention about John 1:1 in their JW publications. Here are a few that I have seen mentioned by JW's in the past:

1. Dr. Julius R. Mantey- 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'
2. Dr. Philip B. Harner's- Author of "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns" in 'Journal of Biblical Literature'
3. Dr. John L. McKenszie- 'Dictionary of the Bible'
4. Johannes Greber-occultist and author of 'Comminication with the Spirit World of God'.......Watchtower has since discovered Grebers occult nature and has disavowed citing him as a reference since 1961

What is interesting is the fact that in review of the men the Watchtower have used in printed material to support their claim, all three of the above mentioned scholars expressly deny agreeing with the NWT interp of John 1:1

Mantey went so far as to claim the Watchtower misquoted him, Mantey continued on to say "....ninety nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the bible are in disagreement with the Jehovahs Witnesses...."

[NonTrinitarian]

I was hoping our Greek scholars would address this, but I will give it a brief shot.

I am not familiar with all of the authorities you quoted in this post, but, I am familiar with the JW's list of supposed authors that have been used to support their contention about John 1:1 in their JW publications. Here are a few that I have seen mentioned by JW's in the past:

1. Dr. Julius R. Mantey- 'A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament'
2. Dr. Philip B. Harner's- Author of "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns" in 'Journal of Biblical Literature'
3. Dr. John L. McKenszie- 'Dictionary of the Bible'
4. Johannes Greber-occultist and author of 'Comminication with the Spirit World of God'.......Watchtower has since discovered Grebers occult nature and has disavowed citing him as a reference since 1961

What is interesting is the fact that in review of the men the Watchtower have used in printed material to support their claim, all three of the above mentioned scholars expressly deny agreeing with the NWT interp of John 1:1

Mantey went so far as to claim the Watchtower misquoted him, Mantey continued on to say "....ninety nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the bible are in disagreement with the Jehovahs Witnesses...."

This isn't an argument. Show me modern scholars who apply colwell's rule to John 1:1 or argue that "a god" is grammatically incorrect. I can't help it if you're not familiar with certain scholars:

Here's one of them:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

This is Dr. Murray Harris, author of a number of books, including this one where he tries to prove Jesus is God.

Furthermore, I will dig up some other quotes when I get a chance. I know Robert Bowman recognizes "a god" is grammatically correct, even though he thinks it's theologically wrong. I believe Dr. Robert Morey recognizes the same thing but I'll have to look to verify. Surely you've heard of these two Trinitarians and anti-JW's. Additionally, Phillip Harner, whom you mentioned, does believe Colwell's rule is not applicable at John 1:1, he just disagrees with us on the translation based on his theology, not grammar. But we don't quote Harner in an attempt to say "See, Harner agrees that the translation should be "a god"" We quote him to show that, according to his research, "a god" is grammatically possible and that Colwell's rule is inapplicable at John 1:1. No, Harner doesn't like that translation but it's because of his personal belief that Jesus is God. He didn't argue against it because it was grammatically incorrect.

[truthman]

Regardless of the significant amount of debate regarding the New World Translation and its authenticity, has anyone considered why the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes a great amount of book and then lets them exit publication and go out of print, never to be seen again except for used bookstores and people's personal libraries.

Personally, one might think that errors have been found in these earlier books and so they were taken out of publication.

Many of these are:
"Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!
"The Day of Vengeance" ~ Studies in the Scriptures ~ Series IV
Commentary on the Letter of James
Holy Spirit ~ The Force Behind the Coming New Order!
Is the Bible Really the Word of God?
Is This Life All There Is?
Let God Be True
Let Your Name Be Sanctified
Life Does Have a Purpose
Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God
Life ~ How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
Revelation ~ Its Grand Climax at Hand!
Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie
True Peace and Security ~ From What Source?
True Peace and Security ~ How Can You Find It?
You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth
You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World
Your Will Be Done On Earth

Now, nontrinitarian, I'm sure you don't own all of these, do you?

truthman

[One Bad Pig]

How clever of you , non-trin, to appeal to John 10:32, 34-36 to argue that Jesus was not inferring himself to be God, when verse 33 explicitly states that very fact.

[NonTrinitarian]

Regardless of the significant amount of debate regarding the New World Translation and its authenticity, has anyone considered why the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society publishes a great amount of book and then lets them exit publication and go out of print, never to be seen again except for used bookstores and people's personal libraries.

Personally, one might think that errors have been found in these earlier books and so they were taken out of publication.

Many of these are:
"Babylon the Great Has Fallen!" God's Kingdom Rules!
"The Day of Vengeance" ~ Studies in the Scriptures ~ Series IV
Commentary on the Letter of James
Holy Spirit ~ The Force Behind the Coming New Order!
Is the Bible Really the Word of God?
Is This Life All There Is?
Let God Be True
Let Your Name Be Sanctified
Life Does Have a Purpose
Life Everlasting in Freedom of the Sons of God
Life ~ How did it get here? By evolution or by creation?
Revelation ~ Its Grand Climax at Hand!
Things In Which It Is Impossible For God To Lie
True Peace and Security ~ From What Source?
True Peace and Security ~ How Can You Find It?
You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth
You May Survive Armageddon into God's New World
Your Will Be Done On Earth

Now, nontrinitarian, I'm sure you don't own all of these, do you?

truthman

I have a few of them but not all.

[NonTrinitarian]

How clever of you , non-trin, to appeal to John 10:32, 34-36 to argue that Jesus was not inferring himself to be God, when verse 33 explicitly states that very fact.

Wow. Could the reading comprehension really be that bad? Tell me OBP, is Jesus the one speaking verse 33 (and thus inferring he is God) or are the religious leaders? WHERE IN VERSE 33 DOES JESUS "explicitly states that very fact?"

Man, the extent some people will go to to make their point. If only part of what they did was actually READ the verse they are referring to! And what was Jesus' reply to their accusation in verse 34?

"Yes, I am God"

or

'If God can call these men "gods", and the scriptures cannot be nullified, why do you condemn me because I said I was God's Son?'

They accused Jesus of trying to make himself God and Jesus replies that other men are called "gods" by Almighty God and if THEY can be called "god", why do they condemn him for saying he is God's Son? Jesus was not affirming their charge, he was denying it.

You're right, I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall.