As you have noticed (and we agree), this website is pretty awesome. Why you would choose to not be a member or logged in is baffling to both of us. The process is simple and costs you nothing, unless you really feel the urge to pay then we will not deny you that request. Back on point, once you become a member you will wonder why you put up with this notice all this time and ask yourself, "What was I thinking?" Being a tWebber is too awesome to pass up.
So stop playing ninja trying to act all stealth and lurking about (we see you), do you really want to be seen as a "lurker". Its like you are peeking in people's windows while they undress. How naughty of you. Does your mom know what you are doing right now? She agrees you should just register or login already. Good job.
JESUS AS "A GOD" ALONGSIDE GOD: Jehovah's Witnesses and John 1:1
By Sam Shamoun
There has been much discussion regarding the translation of John 1:1 and the significance it has in our understanding of the Lord Jesus Christ. Evangelicals insist that John 1:1, when properly exegeted, provides irrefutable proof that Jesus is fully and eternally God and yet distinct from another who is called God. Evangelicals take this to mean that the true God is a multi-personal Being, that Yahweh is more than one Person. The Evangelical understanding can be seen from the way Evangelical translations, and certain others, have traditionally rendered this verse:
Other translations that render this passage somewhat differently, yet still reflecting the traditional Evangelical understanding, include:
Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs for short), on the other hand, believe that John 1:1 supports their position that Jesus is a distinct god from the true God. JWs claim that John 1:1 demonstrates that Jesus is a different kind of god from the God whom he was with. This understanding is reflected in their NWT translation of the Holy Scriptures:
The obvious problem with the JW rendering is that it posits two distinct gods, which goes against the clear and explicit testimony of the Holy Scriptures that there is only one God. All citations taken from the NWT unless otherwise noted:
The Septuagint renders this verse in the following manner:
Amazingly, the Lord Jesus claims to be able to perform the same divine functions that Yahweh performs:
Hence, this provides evidence that Jesus cannot be just “a god,” but is the true God who is distinct from both the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The preceding citations show that Christ cannot be another god alongside the true God. Unless, of course, one opts for the view that John’s theology contradicts the OT teaching of monotheism. Since neither the JW nor the Evangelical believes that the scriptures contradict themselves, being the inspired and inerrant word of God, this view is not an option for either party.
Hence, Jesus is either the true God or he is a false god. But since the NT emphatically denies that the Lord Jesus is a false god, the only option left is that he is the true God. To help clarify the implication that De 32:39 has on our exegesis and understanding of John 1:1, as well as on the person of Christ, we present the following syllogism:
1. There are no other Gods besides Yahweh.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh God.
John’s prologue doesn’t stop there but goes on to distinguish the Lord Jesus from another who is called God. Again:
1. The Person with Jesus is identified as God
2. There is only one God.
3. God must subsist in at least 2 Persons.
How does the Watchtower respond to this? In the Watchtower, 1975, p. 63, this is what they write:
"Viewed in their proper setting, these texts in no way contradict each other. They are discussing entirely different matters. At Deuteronomy 32:39, the point being made is that the false gods of the nations have no share with Jehovah in his saving acts. They are unable to deliver their worshipers from disaster. This is evident from the preceding two verses 37, 38,which read: "Where are their gods, the rock in whom they sought refuge, who used to eat the fat of their sacrifices, to drink the wine of their drink offerings? Let them get up and help you. Let them become a concealment place for you." Other parts of this song likewise indicate that these false gods had no share in the expressing of Jehovah's saving power. With reference to the nation of Israel as represented in its forefather Jacob, De 32 verse 12 says: "Jehovah alone kept leading him, and there was no foreign god along with him." Apostasy, however, set in among the Israelites, as De 32 verses 16, 17 and 21 tell us: "They began inciting him to jealousy with strange gods; with detestable things they kept offending him. They went sacrificing to demons, not to God, gods whom they had not known, new ones who recently came in, with whom your forefathers were not acquainted. They, for their part, have incited me to jealousy with what is no god." Against this background, we can appreciate that none of such false gods were 'together with Jehovah' in anything that he did. He alone is the true God, whereas the false gods are an unreality, nonexistent and powerless to help their worshipers in time of calamity. As for the reference to the Word's "being a god," it does not disagree with the statement at Deuteronomy 32:39. Why not? Because the Word does not stand in opposition to Jehovah nor is he a rival, as was the case with the false gods. Then, too, in the phrase rendered "the Word was a god," the term "god" is a predicate noun that describes the Word. Says the noted scholar Westcott, coproducer of the famous Westcott and Hort Greek text of the Christian Scriptures: "It describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person." In view of the descriptive nature of the predicate noun for "god" in the original Greek, An American Translation renders John 1:1: "The Word was divine." The New World Translation, however, retains the predicate noun and indicates the significance of the omission of the definite article by using the indefinite article. Being God's firstborn Son, "the Word" could rightly be described as a "god" or powerful one, even as are God s other angelic sons at Psalm 8:5. (Compare Hebrews 2:6-8.) But neither the firstborn Son nor the other faithful angelic sons of God stand in opposition to their Creator, or try to equal him or substitute for him, as do false gods. They all recognize that worship is properly directed to Jehovah God alone.- Phil. 2:5, 6; Rev. 19:10." (http://users.eggconnect.net/noddy3/john11deut32.htm; bold emphasis ours)
Commenting on the Isaianic denials of the existence of other gods, JW apologist Greg Stafford writes:
In view of the consistent condemnation of idol gods in Isaiah, it is certainly understandable for us to view Isaiah 43:10 in the same light. There is nothing in the context of Isaiah 43:10 that suggests, let alone conclusively proves, that Jehovah’s words are meant not only for the idols of man, but also for any heavenly beings who serve Jehovah, and who are elsewhere considered ‘gods.’ No living god has been ‘formed’ by the hands of the idol-worshiping nations. Which is why Jehovah goes on to condemn the idols and those who ‘form’ them in Isaiah 44:8-10.
The context of these texts shows that such denials are directed against the gods of the nations, not the angelic gods of Jehovah’s heavenly court. In fact, Isaiah 43:10 uses the same verb for ‘form’ that we see used in Isaiah 44:10. Using such scriptures in an effort to deny that the angels are gods, when in fact the Bible clearly refers to them as ‘gods,’ is to ignore the purpose for which these denials were written. As stated by Yehezkel Kaufmann: ‘We are constrained to offer the embarrassing reply that nowhere in the Bible is the existence of god denied, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Even the polemic of Second-Isaiah attacks the idols with no word at all for the gods.’” (Stafford, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended An Answer to Scholars and Critics [Elihu Books, Huntington Beach, CA: second edition 2000], pp. 101-102)
Stafford’s footnote 92 on page 102 reads:
See also Isa 44:11-20. Compare Isa 42:8, 17; 45:18-20; 48:5 Regarding De 32:39, compare De 32:16, 21, 37, 38 (see note 105 below). (Ibid., bold emphasis ours)
Stafford informs us in footnote 105 that:
“The LXX of De 32:43 is more likely the source of Paul’s quotation as there are LXX manuscripts of this text that match Paul’s quotation word for word. That he primarily quotes from the Psalms is not a deterrent to accepting Heb 1:6 as a quotation from De 32:43, since he also quotes from 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5. The quotation in Heb 1:6 seems to have come from a Hebrew recension other than MT, which is reflected in 4QDeutq… Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32 (OTS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 248-252, 422-425. On pages 426-429 Sanders discusses the relationship between Jehovah and the gods spoken of in verse 8 (see below) and verse 43 and the statements in verses 12 and 39, where it is said there are no gods ‘with’ Jehovah. He concludes: ‘Verse 12 and verse 39 say that there is no god “with” YHWH. These affirmations relate to his activity: YHWH is the only god who acts on behalf of Israel. In that respect there is no other god with him… Though the conceptual background of the passage [De 32:8-9] may be archaic the message of the passage is completely in line with the “monotheistic” affirmation in the song; other gods may exist-in fact they do- but for Israel the only significant god is YHWH. He is even the highest god… and the other gods… are subordinate to him’ (ibid., 427). See ibid. pages 237-238 for more on De 32:39.” (Ibid., p. 111)
To summarize the JW position:
1. The passages in Isaiah and Deuteronomy where Yahweh is said to be the only God do not rule out the existence of angelic gods. The context deals with refuting the existence of the false gods and/or idols of the nations.
2. According to Sanders, which Stafford cites approvingly, Deuteronomy 32:39 is not denying that there are no other gods alongside Yahweh. The text is indicating that Yahweh is the only god who acts on behalf of Israel. Presumably, this implies that other gods do exist, but they simply do not act on Israel’s behalf.
In response to point 1, a careful reading of De 32 will show that the gods mentioned in the text includes the angelic host:
The Israelites worshiped demons, something reiterated elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures:
Interestingly, the Watchtower magazine mentions that the gods spoken of include demons, but fails to see the significance in this. Stafford makes reference to De. 32:16, but doesn’t mention verse 17. It seems that Stafford, unlike the Watchtower, realized that the mention of demons in v. 17 poses major problems for the claim that angels are gods. Demons are said to be angels:
Regarding demons, the Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pp. 612-613, says:
The demons as such were not created by God. The first to make himself one was Satan the Devil (see SATAN), who became ruler of other angelic sons of God who also made themselves demons. (Mt 12:24, 26) In Noah’s day disobedient angels materialized, married women, fathered a hybrid generation known as Nephilim (see NEPHILIM) and then dematerialized when the flood came. (Ge 6:1-4) However, upon returning to the spirit realm, they did not regain their lofty original position, for Jude 6 says: “The angels that did not keep their original position but forsook their own proper dwelling place he has reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (1Pe 3:19, 20) So it is in this condition of dense spiritual darkness that they must now confine their operations. (2Pe 2:4)…
… However, wayward Israel went so far as to sacrifice their sons and daughters to the demons. (Ps 106:37; De 32:17; 2Ch 11:15)…
According to this same volume the Greek word for demon, as well as its compound form, can also be used in reference to deities:
This use of the word ‘demon’ is narrow and specific compared with the notions of ancient philosophers and the way the word was used in classical Greek. In this regard the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel (Viol. II, p. 8), remarks: “The meaning of the ad[jective daimonios] brings out most clearly the distinctive features of the G[ree]k conception of demons, for it denotes that which lies outwith human capacity and is thus to be attributed to the intervention of higher powers, whether for good or evil. [To daimonion] in pre-Christian writers can be used in the sense of ‘divine.’” (Translated and edited by G. Bromiley, 1971) When speaking controversially with Paul, some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers concluded: “He seems to be a publisher of foreign deities [Gr., daimonion].”- Ac 17:18
When speaking to the Athenians, Paul used a compound of the Greek word daimon, saying: “You seem to be more given to the fear of the deities [Gr., deisdaimonesterous; Latin Vulgate, ‘more superstitious’] than others are.” Commenting on this compound word, F. F. Bruce remarks: “The context must decide whether this word is used in its better or worse sense. It was, in fact, as vague as ‘religious’ in Eng[lish], and here we may best translate ‘very religious’. But AV ‘superstitious’ is not entirely wrong; to Paul their religion was mostly superstition, as it also was though on other grounds, to the Epicureans.”- The Acts of the Apostles, 1970, p. 335.
When speaking to King Herod Agrippa II, Festus said that the Jews had certain disputes with Paul concerning their “worship of the deity” [Gr., deisdaimoni’as; Latin Vulgate, ‘superstition’]. (Acts 25:19) It was noted by F. F. Bruce that this Greek word “might be less politely rendered ‘superstition’ (as in AV). The corresponding adjective appears with the same ambiguity in [Acts] 17:22.”- Commentary on the Book of the Acts, 1971, p. 483. (Ibid., p. 613)
The NWT renders these specific terms as deities, lending further support that demons were mistakenly viewed and/or worshiped as gods. The following citation further demonstrates that demons are angels, and that behind every idol lay an angelic presence:
The LXX understood these gods to be angels:
Let all that worship graven images be ashamed, who boast of their idols; worship him, all ye his angels. Brenton’s
We know of course that the angels which are connected to the idols are in fact demons. More importantly, both the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the LXX retain a variant reading in De 32:43 that is not found in the Masoretic text (MT). The variant reading provides additional evidence that the gods to whom Yahweh was referring in De. 32:39 included the angels:
“Rejoice, O heavens, together with him, and bow down to him all you gods, for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and will render vengeance to his enemies, and will recompense those who hate him and will atone for the land of his people.” (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich [HarperCollins, paperback edition: October 22, 2002], p. 193; bold emphasis ours)
“Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him; for he will avenge the blood of his sons, and he will render vengeance, and recompense justice to his enemies, and will reward them that hate him; and the Lord shall purge the land of his people.” Brenton’s LXX
Stafford, interestingly, believes that Paul [sic] quoted De 32:43 in Hebrews 1:6:
“It is also not out of the ordinary to find ‘angels’ as a translation for ’elohim. The LXX of both Deuteronomy 32:43 and Psalm 97:7 use ‘angels’ for ’elohim. The author of Hebrews (whom Jehovah’s Witnesses believe to be the apostle Paul) even quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 in Hebrews 1:6, again showing his agreement with the LXX in using ‘angels’ for ‘gods.’ The same is true of Psalm 138:1, where ’elohim again is translated ‘angels.’” (Ibid., pp. 110-111)
And:
“The LXX of De 32:43 is more likely the source of Paul’s quotation as there are LXX manuscripts of this text that match Paul’s quotation word for word. That he primarily quotes from the Psalms is not a deterrent to accepting Heb 1:6 as a quotation from De 32:43, since he also quotes from 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5. The quotation in Heb 1:6 seems to have come from a Hebrew recension other than MT, which is reflected in 4QDeutq… (Ibid., p. 111, f. 105)
At times, the DSS and the LXX preserve a more primitive, and thus more accurate, form of the Hebrew text. Stafford agrees. In commenting why Hebrews 10:5 used the LXX’s rendering of Psalm 40:6 instead of the MT, Stafford writes:
“… As for why Hebrews 10:5 accepts the meaning of the LXX over the Hebrew of Psalm 40:6, it may be that at this point the LXX reflects a more ancient Hebrew text than the MT. This is clearly the case with Deuteronomy 32:43, which differs from MT but agrees with the more primitive text of 4QDeutq (see note 105 above).” (Ibid., p. 112; bold emphasis ours)
The most amazing part about all this is that Stafford fails to make the connection between the gods mentioned in De 32:39 with the angelic gods of De 32:43! Stafford actually thinks that the renderings found in DSS and LXX support his position that angels are gods, when in fact it proves the exact opposite! It proves that when Yahweh says that there are no gods with him he means exactly that, i.e. that neither angels nor idols are gods in nature. In this respect the Watchtower got it right since it is true that De 32 is attacking beings which are falsely viewed as gods. Yet where the Watchtower got it wrong is in their claim that these beings do not include angels. The scriptures clearly teach that others may falsely consider angels as gods, but the truth is that Yahweh alone is God in essence and nature. As the Psalmist says:
The inspired Psalmist states that Yahweh alone is God amongst the other so-called gods. The 1984 NWT of the Holy Scriptures with References has a footnote here, which reads:
Evidently, the Jewish translators of the Targums understood these gods to be angels. There is nothing in the context of Psalm 86 linking these so-called gods with the gods/idols of the nations. Furthermore, the Psalms themselves provide support that these are angels, as the NWT makes plain. The NWT cross-references the preceding text with Psalm 89:6. Verse 7 is included for context:
"For who in the skies can be compared to Jehovah? Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God? God is to be held in awe among the intimate group of holy ones; He is grand and fear-inspiring over all who are round about him.”
The reference to the sons of God demonstrates that these are angels, which provides additional support that Yahweh alone is God amongst the heavenly host.
Other passages affirming that Yahweh alone is God include:
The LXX reads:
KURIOS hO QEOS SOU hOUTOS QEOS ESTI (“the Lord your God, He is God”)… KURIOS hO QEOS SOU hOUTOS QEOS.
Notice that we have a Colwell Construction (preverbal anarthrous QEOS before EIMI) in verse 35 and an implied one in verse 39. It may be that here we have a qualitative use of QEOS here, which would entail that the text is actually saying, “The Lord your God, He is (by nature) God.”
Yahweh alone is elohim in heaven and on earth, showing once more that the angels who are in heaven are not real gods. It would be nonsense to say that this refers to idols and/or to the false gods of the nations, since neither the idols nor the false gods dwell in heaven.
Again:
Finally:
Again, there is nothing in the particular context of the preceding citations about the gods or idols of the nations, which indicates that the claim that there is none besides Yahweh means exactly that. There are simply no other gods. Hence, all these citations conclusively demonstrate that whatever the word “gods” means in relation to Yahweh’s angelic host, one thing it does not mean is that these beings are actually gods in nature. In the words of the Apostle Paul:
“Nevertheless, when YOU did not know God, then it was that YOU slaved for those who by NATURE are NOT gods.” Galatians 4:8
To summarize the data thus far:
1. De 32:39 states that there are no gods alongside Yahweh.
2. The context shows that these gods include demons.
3. Demons therefore are not gods.
4. According to the Holy Bible demons are actually angels.
5. Since demons are angels who are not gods, angels therefore are not gods.
We now turn to the second point, namely that De 32:39 refers to God’s activity. Sanders’ claim that there was no other god besides Yahweh who acted on Israel’s behalf provides additional proof that the JW position is unbiblical. The scriptures clearly say that God wasn’t alone in redeeming Israel:
[verse]“I will make mention of the lovingkindnesses of Jehovah, [and] the praises of Jehovah, according to all that Jehovah hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesses. For he said, Surely, they are my people, children that will not deal falsely: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, AND THE ANGEL OF HIS PRESENCE SAVED THEM: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and grieved his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, [and] himself fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses [and] his people, [saying], Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit in the midst of them? that caused his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses? that divided the waters before them, to make himself an everlasting name? that led them through the depths, as a horse in the wilderness, so that they stumbled not? As the cattle that go down into the valley, the Spirit of Jehovah caused them to rest; so didst thou lead thy people, to make thyself a glorious name.” Isaiah 63:8-9 ASV [verse]
Other passages show that this angel wasn’t alone since there were myriads of angels accompanying him:
[verse]“… Jehovah-from Si’nai came, And he flashed forth from Se’ir upon them. He beamed forth from the mountainous region of Pa’ran, And with him were holy myriads, At his right hand warriors belonging to them.” Deuteronomy 33:2[verse]
We are now left with one of two conclusions. Either Sanders is right that Yahweh was the only god who acted on behalf of Israel, which means that these angels were not gods. Or the Watchtower and Stafford are correct regarding the existence of angelic gods, which means that Yahweh wasn’t the only god who acted on Israel’s behalf. Both positions can’t be true.
Either way, JWs are left with major problems. Adopting Sanders’ position nullifies the JW belief in angelic gods. Adopting the JW view that there are angelic gods would lead to a contradiction with De 32:39 which says that there are no gods with Yahweh. As we have seen, the reference to demons in De 32:17 shows that angels are also included amongst those who are said to be no gods, contrary to the claims of the Watchtower and Stafford.
In light of the preceding, the JW position that angels are gods cannot be maintained. Yahweh alone is God in essence and nature.
Stafford may argue that an angel acting as God’s agent on behalf of Israel is not the same thing as an angelic god working on Israel’s behalf of his own accord. He nay argue that since the angels are God’s agents, it is still God who acts alone through them on Israel’s behalf.
If Stafford chooses to argue this way, then he would only be missing the point that the word “only” means “only one.” If angels acted on Israel’s behalf - regardless of their supposed agency - they are still there with YHWH, and YHWH is therefore not alone.
What then of the JW interpretation of John 1:1? The biblical data shows that translating the passage as “a god” is not acceptable. It is in clear violation of the clear absolute monotheism taught in the inspired pages of Scripture.
For more information regarding John 1:1 and the JW translation, please consult the following excellent articles and discussions:
Apologist Greg Stafford takes issue with Evangelicals using Galatians 4:8 to deny the existence of angelic gods:
Galatians 4:8 is often misused to prove that there are no gods other than Jehovah. After rightly referring to Isa 45:21-22 as a challenge to idol gods, James White (The Forgotten Trinity, 37-38) refers to Ga 4:8 as evidence that Paul refers to idols as “those that ‘by nature are no gods.’” But he then concludes, “A god other than Yahweh is, by nature, a ‘no god.’” Unless White is going to argue that Galatians slaved for the angels who served God ‘when they did not know God,’ his general conclusion does not follow from Paul’s specific statement in Ga 4:8. Bowman’s handling for this text (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 53-54) and 1Co 10:20 is also rather interesting. Paul refers to the idols in 1Co 10:19 as “nothing”; they are not the demons who use them in verse 20. Bowman simply assumes that in Ga 4:8 Paul is speaking about the demons, and not the idols. Since this cannot be proven, then for him to use it as proof against facts that are clearly articulated elsewhere regarding the angels as “gods” is most unfortunate. (Ibid., p. 99. 90n)
Before addressing Stafford’s claim, it needs to be mentioned that Paul wrote Galatians to combat the false teachings of the Judaizers. There were some Jews who were trying to persuade the Galatians to follow a false Gospel which taught the necessity of faith in Christ and observance of the Mosaic Law for salvation. Little is said about idols. In light of this Paul writes:
The context shows that being enslaved to these so-called gods meant being enslaved to false religious teachings which do not originate from God. Paul reiterates this point elsewhere:
Furthermore, the Holy Bible states that this corrupt and evil world is under Satan’s control:
Note that Satan here requests worship, providing indirect evidence that the gods whom Paul said that the Gentiles served were Satan and his demons.
Third, the scriptures teach that all false human wisdom and traditions are inspired by Satan and his angels, with the purpose of preventing men from embracing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:
We see here that an antichrist is one who belongs to and speaks from the world.
The preceding citations help clarify Paul’s meaning in Galatians 4. Both this fallen world and its religious traditions and wisdom are under the control of Satan. This provides evidence that Paul’s reference to the so-called gods is not a reference to idols as such, but to the evil, wicked spirits that enslave man through their false teachings. In other words, Paul is claiming that Satan and his demons, being the source of all false religious knowledge and wisdom, are false gods; spiritual beings that are not gods in nature.
Furthermore, even if Paul did have idols in mind this still wouldn’t help Stafford’s case in the least. The pagans who worshipped idols weren’t that naive. They understood that the piece of wood or stone was not the god itself, but an earthly representation of a divine being. It was the divine being behind the idol that they worshipped. Paul himself says as much when he states that the heathen made images of the creature and worshiped them instead of worshiping the Creator:
Thus, when Paul says, “we know that an idol is nothing in this world,” he is presupposing that his audience would heartily agree - and not simply because as Christians they had come to some sort of new understanding. Rather, they knew the idol was nothing and could not help them, but now - as Christians - they acknowledge the one, true God (in distinction from the “gods many” whom the pagans knew stood behind their idols) - the only God who is “God by nature.”
If these ‘gods’ were not ‘gods by nature,’ Paul implies that there is at least one who is God by nature - and this itself refutes the JW argument that Scripture does not speak of God’s nature. De 32:17 says the same thing - the demons (not idols!) were “not God.”
Finally, as we have already shown, even without Galatians 4:8 there is still plenty of evidence proving that demons, and therefore angels, are not gods. Here are a couple of more citations:
A JW may claim that singular theos here shows that Paul is not denying that demons are essentially gods, but that the sacrifices of Gentiles are not offered to the one eternal God. The problem with this assertion is that it neglects to take Paul’s statement in light of its OT background which, as we have seen, emphatically teaches that there is only one God in essence and nature:
The demons that Jeroboam and others sacrificed to are specifically said to be no gods at all, reinforcing our claim that the Holy Bible denies that angels are gods in nature. Hence, Paul’s use of singular theos may simply be his way of highlighting the consistent OT teaching that there is only one God. Every other so-called deity is a non-deity.
[align=left][/align]
For An Answer is an Evangelical Christian ministry dedicated to defending the Historic Christian Faith. We believe the Bible to be God's inerrant Word. We believe God's Word to be sufficient for any endeavor, including and especially defending our faith (2 Timothy 3:16). Our goal is to provide a reasoned defense of the Historic Christian faith through sound Biblical exegesis, supplemented with grammatical, historical, textual, and philosophical research. We shall strive to be gentle, respectful, and always ready in the defense of the faith we cherish (1 Peter 3:15). We seek to serve the Evangelical Christian community, to "equip" fellow Christians for the "good work" of defending our faith. We also welcome skeptics and followers of othe! r faiths to examine our pages and ask questions as well.
[align=left][/align]
TheologyWeb thanks For An Answer for allowing us to feature this article. Their resources have proven invaluable for our members in defending the rightful Honor and Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
[align=left][/align]
Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement
It's odd how one's memories of youth turn out so bleak. Why does the business of growing up - one's recollections of growth itself - have to be so tragic? I still haven't found the answer. I doubt if anyone has. When I finally reach thar stage at which the placid wisdom of old age, with the dry clarity that comes toward autumn's end, occasionally descends on a person, then I too may suddenly discover that I too understand. But I doubt whether, by that time, understanding will have much point. ~Yukio Mishima
Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate for a. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.
Well, it would have been nice if this article even broached the view that I consider the truth.
Which is that God literally begat a Son in the fullest sense of the word and is divine on that basis.
The JW's do not believe this.
Amazing. From my vantage point, every other view has one consistency. None really believes the Christ is the Son of God, in its fullest sense. Divine for the very same reason I am human.
boy, ya know. I think more people need to comment on this article. it took me about 3 hours to get the vb coding right! c'mon people! it's good stuff!
As I was raised a person who believed that Jesus was totally human and indeed the son of god I found this article to be somewhat interesting. I also found it interesting because I like, or at least find interesting, translation issues with the bible because I think that at times it can be a problem.
Notice I said was in the above statement. I guess you could say i've reformed.
It's odd how one's memories of youth turn out so bleak. Why does the business of growing up - one's recollections of growth itself - have to be so tragic? I still haven't found the answer. I doubt if anyone has. When I finally reach thar stage at which the placid wisdom of old age, with the dry clarity that comes toward autumn's end, occasionally descends on a person, then I too may suddenly discover that I too understand. But I doubt whether, by that time, understanding will have much point. ~Yukio Mishima
Third, the scriptures teach that all false human wisdom and traditions are inspired by Satan and his angels, with the purpose of preventing men from embracing the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:
What does this mean? That all human knowledge is false, or that human knowledge which is "false" is bad?
Vorkosigan
People are the only mirror we have to see ourselves in. The domain of all meaning. All virtue, all evil, are contained only in people. There is none in the universe at large. Solitary confinement is a punishment in every human culture. -- LM Bujold
I think the JW'S are closer to truth than this author.
Although i am not a JW, their view makes more sense than this author. To say that Jesus is God is nonsesnsical. Jesus is Jesus period. God is God. Jesus is A God, and the SON of a God. To call the Father God Jesus, is in error, just as it is error to call Jesus the father God. These articles show how deeply entrenched error is so prevelsant in christianity.
Although i am not a JW, their view makes more sense than this author. To say that Jesus is God is nonsesnsical. Jesus is Jesus period. God is God. Jesus is A God, and the SON of a God. To call the Father God Jesus, is in error, just as it is error to call Jesus the father God. These articles show how deeply entrenched error is so prevelsant in christianity.
THE ERRORS ARE IN MOST RELIGIONS. (including JW'S)
Let's try a little humor...cause people have a tendency to complicate things...and kill each other in the name of Allah/God.
...I suppose we’all have to live by the word of Allah/God because someone told it...it's in the Qur’an, Torah, and the Bible...and we have to believe it...if we didn't believe it...we’all would be condemned to hell...do I have it straight?
And...This God...HE magically appeared out of nowhere...HE then created the whole universe, magically...out of nuthin'...cause he was lonely by HIMSELF...cause there was nuthin' but himself floatin' around in nuthingness...do I have it straight?
Y’all need to think straight...y’all have been duped...and need to get rid of superstitions...it's the 21st Century.
My spirit has seen the face of God and if I'm lying I'm risking the survival of my soul...and I KNOW that my soul will be with God...God is spiritual and is the progressive and accumulative spiritual intelligence of the universe; of all the righteous souls who have passed into the spiritual realm. God does not and never has meddled in the tangible universe.
It is of no importance during our physical life whether God exists or not if one so chooses. Whether or not one believes in a spirit or God really makes no difference to God. Righteous living will determine the continuance and destiny of our spirit/soul.
One's life can be enhanced by receiving solace and being comforted during life's trials and tribulations by having our spirit inspired and blessed by the Spirit of God. This is normally man's only connection with God except when God’s Spirit interacts with a person’s spirit directly; God’s messenger. However, the Ultimate Truth is indecipherable by the human mind and can only be divulged to the spirit which also often misinterprets its meaning, hence we have various religions and beliefs.
All religions have the same goal. Our intelligence compared to God is like that of a 2 year old child. God will make allowances for our ignorance.
The Scenario
The souls of a Rabbi, a Christian minister, and a Islamic cleric appeared at the gates of heaven at the same time and they eye each other suspiciously. The gatekeeper asked if there is a problem.
The Rabbi tells St. Peter , "Ours is the true religion. We have the word of God that this is so and it is written in the Torah that God said that we are the chosen children of God, not the Christians or the Muslims."
The Christian minister says, "Jesus told us that he is the son of God and that the only way to God was by following his teachings and that unless one is born again, one would not get into heaven. What Jesus said is the word of God and it is written in the holy Bible".
The Muslim cleric says, "God has told Muhammad that he was the last true prophet and that everything that God told him was written in the Qur’an and that those who did not follow what was written there, would not get into heaven. Islam is the only true faith which has been promised to be free from being wiped away from its true path. We believe in a Prophet, Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad , to be the Messiah that was foretold by all faiths, and he sowed the seeds for our community to guide all of the various faiths under the banner of Islam, towards allah.”
Other souls appeared and some sided with and gathered around each of their leaders, while some other souls who sided with no one entered directly through the gates of heaven.
The gatekeeper told the souls who had gathered around the souls of their clerics, "In heaven there can be no disagreement and until you all are in agreement, you have to move to the Purgatory area".
No agreement was reached and eventually the souls died (Hell) because souls who were not with God could not exist.
The lesson is: Having tunnel-vision or being closed-minded, without compassion for the belief of others around you can be bad for the body and suicide to the soul.
**************
Transcendentalism is not a religion. It is the rationality and logic that should be applied to All religions. One needs to keep an open mind and allow the spirit to absorb the logic of who/what God is without being inhibited by what should be considered outdated religious dogma and conditioning that has been a major contributing factor to the causes of terrorism.
I'd like to thank those who've commented on Sam's article. I'll be sure to pass your comments on to him.
For those disagreeing, I have not seen any substantive arguments made, so I find I have very little to respond to.
Ob2Wise said he believes in a literal begetting of the Son. Ob, are you a member of the LDS church? Sam, of course, was addressing current Jehovah's Witness apologists, so it would be beyond his intention to address this 'solution' you offer.
I would be curious to see any Bible verses that you think point to a Heavenly Mother (who would seem a necessary member of any "literal" begetting). Also, lexically, the term monogenhs (rendered "only-begotton" in the KJV and NASB) is probably better rendered "unique," or "one and only." I have a lot if information on this that will make its way into an article I'm preparing on John 1:18. Other verses that use simply "begotten" (as in "Today I have begotten you") are applied to Jesus' resurrection by the Apostles, so these certainly cannot be used in defense of a "literal" begetting.
I am quite busy at the moment, but will try to drop by once or twice a week to check for any replies or further posts in this thread.
Of course, you are all welcome to drop by For an Answer or send us email directly.
A most excellent and illuminating article. Of course, the JWs have altered many other verses in their NWT to conveniently align the scriptures with their beliefs. Since they do not believe in the Trinity, this is an essential scripture for them to alter. Their work to defend this interpretation is essentially intellectual dishonesty.
JWs have been asked many times for the names of the "committee" that created the NWT, and they always refuse. It is widely believed that there was not a single recognized bible scholar involved with creating the NWT, and certainly no experts in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Of course, if we don't know the names of the "translation" committee we can't ask them to defend their work! The JWs may be a cult, but they are not stupid.
Others may be interested to know that the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) teach that Jesus was actually the arch-angel Michael. I'd be interested to see a JW apologist cite scripture to support that teaching.
“The fool has said in his heart, There is no God - Psalm 14:1.”
Others may be interested to know that the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) teach that Jesus was actually the arch-angel Michael. I'd be interested to see a JW apologist cite scripture to support that teaching.
I haven't seen any JW's on this board lately. There is a book written by a JW on this subject and he has an appendix on Jesus and Michael. It's called "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt. It's available at Amazon.com.
Another TWebber (Phantaz) did a review of it at Tektonics.
You're scary when you go BOOM BOOM. You're like the sound of a big big truck, or a ladder falling from a tree, or a balloon popping nastily. Really scary.
God Bless
The Law of Moses is followed only if it is followed in full:
Galatians 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.
The Jews were...
There are two subforums here where I'm sure your contributions will be... let's just say most welcome.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?15-Apologetics-301...
Or tribal or in/out "tribal" group-think; economic ideologies; greed; family honour; cultural heritage; enlightened best intentions (it was Quakers who introduced treadmills into prisons); regime...
What follows below are five questions that I believe advocates of the conventional view of final punishment as everlasting conscious torment (ECT) must seriously address before any headway can be...
The Scholarly Nutshell, #1
"Death With Honor: The Mediterranean Style Death of Jesus in Mark"
by John Pilch
This is the introductory entry in a new series I've called "The Scholarly...
I've come back to you now, at the turn of the tide.
It's been over a year without any updates. Why? Well, that's simple - I'm a procrastinator. A huge one. If I don't keep on a schedule, I'll...
Globalization isn't all its...
Yesterday, 10:28 PM in Civics 101