Anarthrous God

[Strategos]

Now I've been told that JWs believe in John 1:1 that because qeoV is anarthorous it should be translated "a god." So my question is do JWs believe that EVERY instance qeoV occurs without the article it refers to "a god" and NEVER refers to "God" when found in LXX and NT?

[Sparko]

:popcorn:

[NonTrinitarian]

Now I've been told that JWs believe in John 1:1 that because qeoV is anarthorous it should be translated "a god." So my question is do JWs believe that EVERY instance qeoV occurs without the article it refers to "a god" and NEVER refers to "God" when found in LXX and NT?

No, there are numerous instances where theos appears without the article and refers to God. There are also instances where theos appears with the article and does not refer to God.

[John from Ebla]

No, there are numerous instances where theos appears without the article and refers to God. There are also instances where theos appears with the article and does not refer to God.


Your not making any sense in your response to what Strategos wrote. Try again

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Strategos]

No, there are numerous instances where theos appears without the article and refers to God. There are also instances where theos appears with the article and does not refer to God.

Thanks for your reply. A couple follow up questions if you (or someone else)could be so kind.

1) So you would say the JWs I talked to who said that John 1:1 refers to "a god" and we know this BECAUSE qeoV is anarthrous either don't know JW doctrine or don't know Greek (or both) and the lack of an article is not the prime causal reason JWs translate it "a god"

2) Is there any "rule" that JWs have to determine when an anarthrous qeoV should be translated "God" and when "a god"

Thanks again.

[NonTrinitarian]

Your not making any sense in your response to what Strategos wrote. Try again

Kind regards
John From Ebla

Just because you have reading comprehension problems doesn't mean Strategos does. What part of my reply to him confuses you? I'll try to explain it in an easier format.

1.) There are instances in the greek where theos does not have the article and it still refers to God.
2.) There are instances in the greek where theos does have the article but does not refer to God.

Comprende?

[NonTrinitarian]

Thanks for your reply. A couple follow up questions if you (or someone else)could be so kind.

1) So you would say the JWs I talked to who said that John 1:1 refers to "a god" and we know this BECAUSE qeoV is anarthrous either don't know JW doctrine or don't know Greek (or both) and the lack of an article is not the prime causal reason JWs translate it "a god"

The lack of the article is the reason we translate it as indefinite. However, this does not mean that every instance where the article is missing should be translated as "a god". The reason we do in this verse is for several reasons.

A.) The lack of the definite article does allow the translation of "a god" in grammatical terms. I can quote numerous Trinitarian scholars on that point. These scholars don't agree with the "a god" translation but their argument does not stand on greek grammar (quite frankly it can't), they object because they think it violates monotheism. (which is a different discussion)
B.) Since the text says the word was "with the God" before it says "the Word was (a) God", and then immediately follows it up again with the point that the word was with God, we believe it is telling us the Word is not The God. I personally feel John stressed that the word was "with" God two different times in an attempt to stress that Jesus was not 'ho theos'.


2) Is there any "rule" that JWs have to determine when an anarthrous qeoV should be translated "God" and when "a god"

Thanks again.

I would say context would be the main rule. For instance, see 2 Thess 2:4 and Acts 12:22. Most Bibles translate as "a god" because the article is missing. It will boil down to theology rather than grammar. If one believes Jesus is the one true God, they will not put the indefinite article in. If they think Jesus is not the God but rather, serves as god in a functional sense like Moses and Solomon did, then they will put the indefinite article in.

[apostoli]

Hi Strategos,

Now I've been told that JWs believe in John 1:1 that because qeoV is anarthorous it should be translated "a god." So my question is do JWs believe that EVERY instance qeoV occurs without the article it refers to "a god" and NEVER refers to "God" when found in LXX and NT?The WTS quote Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar in support of their NWT translation of John 1:1. In 1974, Dr Mantey wrote to the WTS as follows...

"...I am writing to express my disagreement with statements made in that letter, as well as in quotations you have made from the Dana-Mantey Greek Grammar.(1) Your statement: "their work allows for the rendering found in the Kingdom Inter-linear Translation of the Greek Scriptures at John 1: 1." There is no statement in our grammar that was ever meant to imply that "a god" was a permissible translation in John 1:1...Your quotation from page 148 was in a paragraph under the heading: "With the Subject in a Copulative Sentence." Two examples occur there to illustrate that "the article points out the subject in these examples", But we made no statement in this paragraph about the predicate except that, "as it stands the other persons of the Trinity may be implied in theos." And isn't that the opposite of what your translation "a god" infers? You quoted me out of context. on pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence. . "theos on ho logos" emphasises Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature.

0ur interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: "What God was, the Word was": and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God''

The full text of Dr Mantey's letter is available online
http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html

You might also be interested in James White's article
John 1:1 Meaning and Translation
http://www.aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html

As Mantey and White note, John 1:1 is not to be understood as "the Word was God" (a Sabellian idea) but rather as the NEB & TEV have it!

[NonTrinitarian]

You quoted me out of context. on pages 139 and 140 (VI) in our grammar we stated: "without the article theos signifies divine essence. . "theos on ho logos" emphasises Christ's participation in the essence of the divine nature.

0ur interpretation is in agreement with that in NEB and the TEV: "What God was, the Word was": and with that of Barclay: "The nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God''

As Mantey and White note, John 1:1 is not to be understood as "the Word was God" (a Sabellian idea) but rather as the NEB & TEV have it!

Barclay had this to say about John 1:1
"When in Greek two nouns are joined byt he verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs...
John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as Gor or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
This passage then does not identify the logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."-Jesus as They Saw Him, p.21-22

JW's agree with Barclay on his understanding of theos being adjectival but we do not accept his interpretation about the significance of the adjectival form. We recognize the adjective acting similar to how other servants of God are were called theos. In the same manner, we do not believe Judas is the same "substance" as the Devil even though Jesus calls Judas "a devil."

So my hat is off to Barclay for awareness of the greek anarthrous God though his opinion about what John meant by such is not in as highly esteemed.

[apostoli]

Hi NonT,

Barclay had this to say about John 1:1
"When in Greek two nouns are joined byt he verb to be and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs...
John has no definite article before theos, God. The Logos, therefore, is not identified as Gor or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs...
This passage then does not identify the logos and God; it does not say that Jesus was God, nor does it call him God; but it does say that in his nature and being he belongs to the same class as God."-Jesus as They Saw Him, p.21-22

JW's agree with Barclay on his understanding of theos being adjectival but we do not accept his interpretation about the significance of the adjectival form. We recognize the adjective acting similar to how other servants of God are were called theos. In the same manner, we do not believe Judas is the same "substance" as the Devil even though Jesus calls Judas "a devil."

So my hat is off to Barclay for awareness of the greek anarthrous God though his opinion about what John meant by such is not in as highly esteemed.Valid point! However, the verses that follow John 1:1, act as clarifiers...

v2. The Logos existed before creation began
v3. All things were made by the Logos

The Jewish concept is/was God is before all ages and God made all things.

v4. in [the Logos] was life, and the life was the light of men

In Jewish thought these are attributes of God. However, John 1:1 distinguishes between God and the Logos. Aka the Logos is not the source and cause but with the source and couse (cp: 1 Cor 8:6)

A non dogmatic, gammatical, understanding of the last clause of John 1:1 is "the Word has all the attributes by which we know God".

This reflects very well A.Paul's opinion that Jesus had "in him the fullness of God", was "the image of God" and pre-existed in "the form of God" but was not the one whom he was with (ie: the Father).

In primary grade Greek, it is valid to literally translate the clause as "the Logos was a god", as in the NWT (We can also apply literal Greek to 2 Peter 1:1 but that wouldn't be in your interest). However, to translate the text as "a god", makes Jesus an impotent force, just as all the gods of false religions. Of course we can understand John 1:1 in the context of Exodos where YHWH said to Moses he would make him "instead of God" to Aaron (Ex 4:16), and to Pharoah he made him as a god (Ex 7:1). However, A.Paul often contrast Jesus to Moses and in scriptures such as Phil 2:9-11 makes Jesus "God to us" as in the OT, the "angel of the Lord", "the angel of God", "the angel of the covenant" was as God to the Jews.

Dogmatic considerations:

Proverbs 8:22 has wisdom made (created) but it is talking of the Torah (the expounded wisdom of God), not the Son! The Son was begotten of the Father and through him the Torah was expounded! (Col 1:16). Possibly, this is why A.John refers to the pre-existent Jesus as the Logos (cp: Jn 1:17-18).

An orthodox trinitarian view is that the Father is the source and cause of the Son, and therefore YHWH is God of himself but the Son is God by deriviation, begotten of the Father and through him we have natural inheritence.

To view the Son as created and adopted, denies his natural inheritence by which the scriptures say we derive our adoption to be Sons of God. We are not adopted by God directly, but through Christ! An important distinction. And possibly a contrast to the Abrahamic adoption. Whereas the Jews gained adoption into the Abrahamic covenant, it is through Christ we receive our inheritence. (1 Peter 1:3-4; Heb 1:4;9:15). Think about it!

One of the things I disagree with the JW viewpoint, is they appear to deny the will of YHWH that "in the name of Jesus every knee should bow". And avoid the fact that in the scriptures this was never decreed for Moses or any other!

My perception is that as the Jews who venerate the Torah above God, so the JW, KJV only, etc adherents, venerate their opinion above God. The scriptures are clear about the Logos/Son/Jesus' status=Son of God.

Another objection to the JW thought that the Son is a creation: In Jewish thought all children are created by God, but a natural son (or daughter) is begotten of the natural father. In the first sence (all things are of God), the Logos is a creation but in his natural existence, scripturally, he is declared as the offspring of God, in both his pre-existence and human existence.

Skip catechism (book study, WT & Awake) and read the scriptures and find the Truth that will set you free!

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi NonT,

Valid point! However, the verses that follow John 1:1, act as clarifiers...

v2. The Logos existed before creation began
v3. All things were made by the Logos

The Jewish concept is/was God is before all ages and God made all things.

v4. in [the Logos] was life, and the life was the light of men

In Jewish thought these are attributes of God. However, John 1:1 distinguishes between God and the Logos. Aka the Logos is not the source and cause but with the source and couse (cp: 1 Cor 8:6)

A non dogmatic, gammatical, understanding of the last clause of John 1:1 is "the Word has all the attributes by which we know God".

This reflects very well A.Paul's opinion that Jesus had "in him the fullness of God", was "the image of God" and pre-existed in "the form of God" but was not the one whom he was with (ie: the Father).

In primary grade Greek, it is valid to literally translate the clause as "the Logos was a god", as in the NWT (We can also apply literal Greek to 2 Peter 1:1 but that wouldn't be in your interest). However, to translate the text as "a god", makes Jesus an impotent force, just as all the gods of false religions. Of course we can understand John 1:1 in the context of Exodos where YHWH said to Moses he would make him "instead of God" to Aaron (Ex 4:16), and to Pharoah he made him as a god (Ex 7:1). However, A.Paul often contrast Jesus to Moses and in scriptures such as Phil 2:9-11 makes Jesus "God to us" as in the OT, the "angel of the Lord", "the angel of God", "the angel of the covenant" was as God to the Jews.

Dogmatic considerations:

Proverbs 8:22 has wisdom made (created) but it is talking of the Torah (the expounded wisdom of God), not the Son! The Son was begotten of the Father and through him the Torah was expounded! (Col 1:16). Possibly, this is why A.John refers to the pre-existent Jesus as the Logos (cp: Jn 1:17-18).

An orthodox trinitarian view is that the Father is the source and cause of the Son, and therefore YHWH is God of himself but the Son is God by deriviation, begotten of the Father and through him we have natural inheritence.

To view the Son as created and adopted, denies his natural inheritence by which the scriptures say we derive our adoption to be Sons of God. We are not adopted by God directly, but through Christ! An important distinction. And possibly a contrast to the Abrahamic adoption. Whereas the Jews gained adoption into the Abrahamic covenant, it is through Christ we receive our inheritence. (1 Peter 1:3-4; Heb 1:4;9:15). Think about it!

One of the things I disagree with the JW viewpoint, is they appear to deny the will of YHWH that "in the name of Jesus every knee should bow". And avoid the fact that in the scriptures this was never decreed for Moses or any other!

My perception is that as the Jews who venerate the Torah above God, so the JW, KJV only, etc adherents, venerate their opinion above God. The scriptures are clear about the Logos/Son/Jesus' status=Son of God.

Another objection to the JW thought that the Son is a creation: In Jewish thought all children are created by God, but a natural son (or daughter) is begotten of the natural father. In the first sence (all things are of God), the Logos is a creation but in his natural existence, scripturally, he is declared as the offspring of God, in both his pre-existence and human existence.

Skip catechism (book study, WT & Awake) and read the scriptures and find the Truth that will set you free!

Hi,
I'm not going to debate you on this. It isn't the book study, WT or Awake that convince me Jesus is not God. It's the Bible that, in my mind, clearly shows who he is and who he is not. Have you read the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt? I believe it does a very good job of looking at ALL of the Bible verses, not just a select few. Most Trinitarian books seem to suggest the only verses we use are John 14:28 and Col 1:15. There are lliterally hundreds of verses that show Jesus is not God. Note I said they show he is not "God", I didn't say not "the Father." Because that's immediately what Trinitarians do when discussing these verses. Replace the term "God" with the term "God the Father". But the Bible contrasts Jesus, hundreds of times, not with "God the Father", but with "God", period. Jesus is greater than Moses and has more authority than he had. But the scriptures also say there is someone greater than Jesus.

[Topherlee]

Hi,
I'm not going to debate you on this. It isn't the book study, WT or Awake that convince me Jesus is not God. It's the Bible that, in my mind, clearly shows who he is and who he is not. Have you read the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt? I believe it does a very good job of looking at ALL of the Bible verses, not just a select few. Most Trinitarian books seem to suggest the only verses we use are John 14:28 and Col 1:15. There are lliterally hundreds of verses that show Jesus is not God. Note I said they show he is not "God", I didn't say not "the Father." Because that's immediately what Trinitarians do when discussing these verses. Replace the term "God" with the term "God the Father". But the Bible contrasts Jesus, hundreds of times, not with "God the Father", but with "God", period. Jesus is greater than Moses and has more authority than he had. But the scriptures also say there is someone greater than Jesus.

Hey NonTrin,

I think what people fail to see is the simplicity to who God is. God is the Father, YHVH and Jesus is the Son of God. The simple understanding of becoming a son is to have been a product of the Father. But this product or creation is not God;
Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (Jehovah), and my servant (Jesus) whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (Jehovah): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
We see here that Jesus is a servant of God. How can you serve God while being God? Jesus is the true and faithful witness to whom?
Rev 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;
All passages in the bible when they refer to Jesus being begotten suggest Jesus was created, begotten or firstborn - chosen (God chooses, he is not chosen) his unique existence.
John 1:3 is better understood as "through his existence"
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
A house is not a home unless it is filled with people. The world did not exist until Jesus had been created.
John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:1 and the "word" is literally the "word of God". It is God's thought and speech. It only pertains to Jesus figuratively, not physically.

People use the term "Jesus is eternally the Son of God". A concept that does not relay common sense. You cannot be a son if you have always existed. Jesus spent a great portion of his ministry teaching the difference between he and his Father; His God and our God. Who? YHVH.

[apostoli]

Hi NonT,

I'm not going to debate you on this. It isn't the book study, WT or Awake that convince me Jesus is not God. It's the Bible that, in my mind, clearly shows who he is and who he is not.We'll have to agree to disagree ;-)

In contrast, I am convinced by scripture and their quotation by the early church Fathers (pre 325AD) that Jesus is the Logos, born of God before all ages, incarnated in flesh and made God to us. And my belief is not based on often spurious interpretation of scripture nor the seven often quoted scriptures (with disputed mss, grammar or interpretation) that many rely on. There is a possibility that your understanding of scripture might be clouded from continuously having to refute the limited argumentation of cathechists. Which is understandable!

I'm sure you would agree with the many trinitarians who argue that in his humanity Jesus was inferior to the Father (Phil 2:7). However, you might have missed the fact that A.Paul attributes to the Son in his pre-existence and post-ascension, all those things one associates with the God of the OT but with the qualifier that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" (Col 1:19).

A.Paul refers to God our Father repetitively in his epistles, he even refers to him as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 1:17) to whom he bows his knees (Eph 3:14) "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph 3:15) but he also says "ho theos auton uperupssen kai ekharisato auto onoma to uper pan onoma" = "God [has] put him [Jesus] high up over [all], and [he] graciously gave [to] him the name [that is] over every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend." (Phil 2:9-10 (NWT Interlinear)). Elsewhere, A.Paul says all things have been subjected unto the Son by the Father ((excluding the Father) 1 Cor 15:27) and "all things were created by [the Son], and for him" (Col 1:16). I'm sure you are comfortable with this view, but have a different understanding in regards of what it means. So lets clarify...

Comparing Phil 2:6-8 and Ex 6:6-8, it is obvious to me that as YHWH was "proved to be" (Ex 3:14 NWT)the saviour of the people of Israel through Moses, that Jesus (which means YHWH is salvation) was empowered to be the saviour of all mankind and his Father has given him a name above YHWH and we have been chosen to be a people in Jesus' name (cp Ex 6:7). Every name in heaven and on earth means just that!

John 17:23, compared with Rom 8:9-11, makes it clear to me, that Jesus is God to us, "I [the Son] in them, and you [the Father] in me" . I agree with you that ultimately all things are directed to the Father, but scripturally, it is in/to the Son that we give God his worth (worship). By glorifying the Son we glorify the Father (Phil 2:11). To glorify the Son, we put him above every worldly thing, just as the Father wishes and this includes the OT name YHWH.

Of import to you, according to Acts 22:14-15; we are to be witnesses of God's "righteous one". A.Pauls calls this the "will of God". Think about it!

Admittedly, many religionists are lazy and parrot cathechism, just as many JWs do (no offense) but understanding Jesus as God to us, is understanding the will of God not a set of dogmatics.


Have you read the book "Jesus-God or the Son of God?" by Brian Holt? I believe it does a very good job of looking at ALL of the Bible verses, not just a select few.Haven't read Brian Holt. Is it available online? I have a limited budget. I'll assume like most it concentrates on countering the seven disputed scriptures, plus the spurious "I am" and the Pharisee arguments.

Most Trinitarian books seem to suggest the only verses we use are John 14:28 and Col 1:15. There are lliterally hundreds of verses that show Jesus is not God. Note I said they show he is not "God", I didn't say not "the Father." Because that's immediately what Trinitarians do when discussing these verses.It is a necessity to identify God in its primary sence as God the Father to stop Sabellianist (Jesus only=the Son is the Father=Oneness believers) getting excited. In the NT, the Son and the Father are distinguished, with God applied to the Father and Lord to the Son, and it is obvious that they are different individualities (which Sabellianists acknowledge) but of more importance they are different, co-existing individualities in the Sons pre-existence (which Sabellianists deny). I must admit, it bewilders me why TWEB hasn't a site to combat Oneness believers, from a trinitarian viewpoint they are in greater error than the JWs!

In the OT, YHWH is both our owner and master (Lord) is defined as God. In the NT Jesus, the Son of God is our owner and master (Lord). Think about it!


Replace the term "God" with the term "God the Father". But the Bible contrasts Jesus, hundreds of times, not with "God the Father", but with "God", period. Jesus is greater than Moses and has more authority than he had. But the scriptures also say there is someone greater than Jesus.I agree with you fully to a point! As do the pre-nicene Fathers and the orthodox churches who actively recognise Jesus as God! The Father is the source and cause of the Son, but everything by which we describe "God to us" is applied in the NT to Jesus.

Possibly it is the understanding of what God is, that differentiates us. To the orthodox churches the Father is God of himself (autotheos); and the Son is derivative of the Father, God begotten (Jn 1:18 - NWT).

To me the ultimate question is "What is God?" not "Who is God?"

[NonTrinitarian]

I'm sure you would agree with the many trinitarians who argue that in his humanity Jesus was inferior to the Father (Phil 2:7). However, you might have missed the fact that A.Paul attributes to the Son in his pre-existence and post-ascension, all those things one associates with the God of the OT but with the qualifier that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" (Col 1:19).
I didn't miss that fact. At the same time I didn't miss the fact that Jesus has these perogatives only because God was kind enough to give them to him.

A.Paul refers to God our Father repetitively in his epistles, he even refers to him as "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph 1:17) to whom he bows his knees (Eph 3:14) "of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named" (Eph 3:15) but he also says "ho theos auton uperupssen kai ekharisato auto onoma to uper pan onoma" = "God [has] put him [Jesus] high up over [all], and [he] graciously gave [to] him the name [that is] over every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend." (Phil 2:9-10 (NWT Interlinear)). Elsewhere, A.Paul says all things have been subjected unto the Son by the Father ((excluding the Father) 1 Cor 15:27) and "all things were created by [the Son], and for him" (Col 1:16). I'm sure you are comfortable with this view, but have a different understanding in regards of what it means. So lets clarify...
I have no problem with anything you just said, keeping in mind Jesus has this authority, not because he is God but because God, someone with more authority than Jesus, gave him that authority

Comparing Phil 2:6-8 and Ex 6:6-8, it is obvious to me that as YHWH was "proved to be" (Ex 3:14 NWT)the saviour of the people of Israel through Moses, that Jesus (which means YHWH is salvation) was empowered to be the saviour of all mankind and his Father has given him a name above YHWH and we have been chosen to be a people in Jesus' name (cp Ex 6:7). Every name in heaven and on earth means just that!
Jesus' name isn't above YHWH. The fact that YHWH had to GIVE Jesus a name above every other name is proof of that. And I do not believe the phrase 'every name in heaven and on earth' means literally every name, including YHWH. Otherwise you are telling me that YHWH, the Father, is also bowing down and worshipping Jesus. Look at verse 11 for clarification. Everyone is to acknowledge Jesus as Lord "to the GLORY of God the Father." Jesus honored the Father's name and told us to do the same. (Matt 6:9) Ultimately, all honor given to Jesus is for the sake of His Father.

John 17:23, compared with Rom 8:9-11, makes it clear to me, that Jesus is God to us, "I [the Son] in them, and you [the Father] in me" . I agree with you that ultimately all things are directed to the Father, but scripturally, it is in/to the Son that we give God his worth (worship). By glorifying the Son we glorify the Father (Phil 2:11). To glorify the Son, we put him above every worldly thing, just as the Father wishes and this includes the OT name YHWH.
I think you are reading too much into John 17:23. That verse doesn't say anything to me about Jesus being God. Jesus didn't tell his followers to worship him, he said to worship the "Father". (Matt 6:9; John 4:24) And again, Jesus' name is not above YHWH as it was YHWH that gave Jesus his name. If every thing in heaven includes YHWH's name then by the same token you think YHWH is bowing down and worshipping Jesus. There is no evidence in the NT that supports that other than the supposed interpretation of Phil 2:6-11.

Of import to you, according to Acts 22:14-15; we are to be witnesses of God's "righteous one". A.Pauls calls this the "will of God". Think about it!
As a JW, I frequently tell people in the ministry I am there to witness to them about Jesus. I am also a witness to the one of whom Jesus is "the faithful and true witness" (Rev 3:14)

Haven't read Brian Holt. Is it available online? I have a limited budget. I'll assume like most it concentrates on countering the seven disputed scriptures, plus the spurious "I am" and the Pharisee arguments.
You can buy it at Amazon.com or www.tellway-publishing.com (http://www.tellway-publishing.com/)
He covers almost 50 verses Trinitarians use and then outlines about 400 that show Jesus is not God.

In the OT, YHWH is both our owner and master (Lord) is defined as God. In the NT Jesus, the Son of God is our owner and master (Lord). Think about it!
I have thought about. Think about the reason why Jesus has that position in the first place. That alone should tell you who is the "only true God." (John 17:3)

regards

[apostoli]

Hi Topherlee,

I think what people fail to see is the simplicity to who God is. God is the Father, YHVH and Jesus is the Son of God. The simple understanding of becoming a son is to have been a product of the Father. But this product or creation is not God;Your interpretation of John 1:1 (see below), indicates to me you may be a oneness believer, and all should be aware that (if so) you deny that the Son had pre-existence before his incarnation; and you believe that the Father is the Son, that God simply caused flesh to be born of Mary and then he tabernacled in that body (possessed it) and disgarding it before it expired on the cross. When oneness believers refer to the Son being created they are referring to the "man" Jesus and deny that the "man" is the Logos himself.

JWs and trinitarians agree on the salvation story and the pre-existence of the Logos. Our dispute is regarding the origination of the Son in his pre-existence. Whether he was begotten or created! Thus whether he is God by diriviation or a god by appointment. A very different proposition to what oneness believers propose!

Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD (Jehovah), and my servant (Jesus) whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he (Jehovah): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.See vs 12. Who is it that carried out the salvation process in the NT?

Also note in Isa 43:10 the word "formed", "formed" means created. The Son was begotten not created (Jn 1:18 (NWT))

We see here that Jesus is a servant of God. How can you serve God while being God? Jesus is the true and faithful witness to whom?Read Phil 2:6-11. The Son took on the morphe (essential nature) of a servant but (vs 9) he is exalted and (vs 10) "every knee should bow" to him, to the glory of God, the Father.

Rev 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;It doesn't say that he was created. The one who begins creation is the beginning of that creation. 1 Cor 8:6 etc says that all things were created by the Lord Jesus.

All passages in the bible when they refer to Jesus being begotten suggest Jesus was created, begotten or firstborn - chosen (God chooses, he is not chosen) his unique existence.Brave statement. Can you demonstrate your assertion? Seems you are saying, Jesus was just a man God chose!

John 1:3 is better understood as "through his existence" John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.The grammar doesn't support your interpretation, nor 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3.

A house is not a home unless it is filled with people. The world did not exist until Jesus had been created.There isn't a single scripture that supports your view (given in the second sentence).

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.Presume you quoted this one to detract from your inability to prove your previous statement.

But consider Jn 1:11-12 "[the Logos] came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in. However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become God's children, because they were exercising faith in his name." (NWT) Notice it is not the name YHWH that has significance!

John 1:1 and the "word" is literally the "word of God". It is God's thought and speech. It only pertains to Jesus figuratively, not physically. Logos does not mean "literal word" (rheemeta is more appropriate) , dogma or teaching might be a better understanding and from Jn 1:17 you might even make it the "spirit" of the Torah. However, John 1:1-18, personalises the Logos and distinguishes him from God whom in John 1:1 it is said the Logos is "with" (literally face to face ).

People use the term "Jesus is eternally the Son of God". A concept that does not relay common sense. You cannot be a son if you have always existed.The official term is "begotten before all ages". On the basis of 1 Cor 2:11 we are unable to determine the means of begetal.

Jesus spent a great portion of his ministry teaching the difference between he and his Father;Jesus didn't spend a minute on distinguishing himself from the Father. He said to the Pharisees that "he and the Father are as one", because they didn't understand what that meant he had to explain it to them.

Jesus spent a great portion of his ministry teaching...His God and our God. Who? YHVH.A valid point! Jesus preached the fullfilment of the old covenant, made in the name of YHWH but God the Father has bestowed on the Son a name above all other names, in heaven and on earth (Phil 2:9-10) which includes the name YHWH because God has "proved to be" (Ex 3:14 NWT).

[apostoli]

I didn't miss that fact. At the same time I didn't miss the fact that Jesus has these perogatives only because God was kind enough to give them to him. I take your point, especially given 1 Cor 15:28.

Have a look at the NWT Interlinear and the translation in the NWT for Phil 2:9. "kindly gave" seems a bit of a strange rendering. The NWT Interlinear has "graciously gave" which seems better as it demonstrates the Father as a righteous God, giving due. I prefer "bestowed" as the RSV translates the Greek, which is what one would do when installing a king. At 1 Cor 15:27 it is stated that the Father makes "all things (excluding himself) subject to the Son". In the OT, this position was held by the Law (Gal 3:23) which was made as God to the Jews (Ps 138:2), by which the children of the law covenant are judged (Rom 2:12) - God's wisdom manifested. In the NT, the Logos became flesh and dwelt amongst us, by whom all are judged (Rom 2:16; 1 Peter 1:19-21) - God manifested (Jn 12:45;14:9)

I have no problem with anything you just said, keeping in mind Jesus has this authority, not because he is God but because God, someone with more authority than Jesus, gave him that authority1 Cor 15:24-28 more or less agrees. Eph 1:20-21 is worth a quote, it says God has set Jesus "above all principality, and power, and might, and dominions, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come."

A King can give his authority to his Son for a time, or delegate it to an ambassador, as is apparent in 1 Cor 15. I view the pre-existent Son as more than an ambassador of God (cp Heb 1:6-8). I view the Son of God as truely the begotten Son (1 Jn 4:9;5:1 cp. Heb 11:17 ) with all heritary rights (Heb 1:2,4). Therefore, God in essence (Heb1:3; Jn 1:1 "what God was the word was" NEB), not God of himself but because he is begotten of the Father (Col 1:19). Therefore, I view him as made God to us, in much the same way as YHWH made himself God to the Israelites ("I will take you for a people, and I will be your God (RSV Ex 6:7). In John 17, Jesus does say that the Father has given him a people of his own (Kyrios=owner=master=Lord) .

Jesus' name isn't above YHWH. The fact that YHWH had to GIVE Jesus a name above every other name is proof of that.The scriptures didn't say the Father had to give him a name, rather they say he did give him a name above every other name in heaven and on earth. As Ex 3:13-15 shows "Jehovah" was a name given to the Israelites to identify him as their God. Which is the Father's name to the Israelites forever and his memorial to time indefinite. The name of the God of the old covenant who has "proved to be" true and has establishment the new covanent in the name of his Son.

And I do not believe the phrase 'every name in heaven and on earth' means literally every name, including YHWH.1 Cor 15:27, Col 1:16 do state that the Son has dominion over everything. However, 1 Cor 15:27, does provide the qualifier, that "all things" excludes "[the Father] who did put all things under [the Son]" but at Eph 1:21 it says above that Jesus is above "every name named" (NWT).

The issue you seem to have is with the word "name". As the WTS publication "Insight on the Scriptures" (1988, page 464) notes "NAME...can mean a person's reputation or the person himself." And I think you will agree this is the significance of the name Jehovah, as it indicates his reputation as the one who will "prove to be" (NWT Ex 3:14). In the convenant sealed through Jesus' blood he has proved to be the one who has kept his promises and his new reputation is "I shall prove to be salvation", a name he gave to his Son.

Otherwise you are telling me that YHWH, the Father, is also bowing down and worshipping Jesus.As noted above 1 Cor 15:27 clarifies things (I'm surprised you didn't cite it).

Look at verse 11 for clarification. Everyone is to acknowledge Jesus as Lord "to the GLORY of God the Father."Think on that verse: Kyrios (Lord) means master/owner so the verse can be read "Jesus Christ is owner of the glory of God the Father" (cp: Jn 17:4&24). Which given that Jesus Christ, through his sacrifice causes the Father to be glorified (1 Peter 4:11) is a fair reading and corresponds to one of the variant readings of Titus 2:13, "Looking for that blessed hope, which is the appearing of the glory of our great God, which is the Savior Jesus Christ" (nb: for our viewers: the greek conjunction kai depending on context might be translated and, but, even=which is).

James 2:1 also calls Jesus "the Lord of glory" in most translations. In regards to James 2:1 the RSV has a clear reading but the NWT provides a perculiar one. Compare with the NWT Interlinear and you'll notice that the NWT has a semblance to the KJV but adds words not in the Greek. What has the WTS got against referring to Jesus as "the Lord of glory"?

Jesus honored the Father's name and told us to do the same. (Matt 6:9) Ultimately, all honor given to Jesus is for the sake of His Father.I agree 100%. And to honor the Father, we must bow our knees to Jesus. We must acknowledge his worth to us (in olde English worship means giving worth); it goes beyond a gesture expressing submission to an superior (obeisance).

I think you are reading too much into John 17:23. That verse doesn't say anything to me about Jesus being God.Presume you are reading the verse in the NWT - the "union with" phrase isn't in the Greek, it is exegesis on the part of the translators. Have a look at the NWT Interlinear rendering, it corresponds to the KJV. "I in them and you in me".

In my previous post I said "John 17:23, compared with Rom 8:9-11, makes it clear to me, that Jesus is God to us..." My point was that God doesn't dwell in us but in the Son, who dwells in us. Romans 8:9 says "the Spirit of God dwells in you" via verse 11, I understand this to refer to the Sprit of the Father but in 8:9 we do not have this Spirit without first having the Spirit of Christ. The NWT rendering muddies the waters somewhat, so again I refer you to the NWT Interlinear. In short we do not have God, unless we have Christ in whom God resides aka Jesus is made God to us. There is an OT pre-figurement ie: Ex 4:16; 7:1.

Jesus didn't tell his followers to worship him, he said to worship the "Father". (Matt 6:9; John 4:24)Matthew 6:9 is the sample prayer, not sample worship. Verses 1-14 indicate correct worth giving to God (worship). John 4:24 says "worship [God] with spirit and truth", note verse 23 it says "the hour is coming when the true worshippers" will do this. Now read Jn 14:6; 15:16; 16:23-24; 1 Cor 1:2; Eph 2:18 all prayer is not by the name of Jehovah but "in the name of Jesus Christ" and directed through him to his Father.

And again, Jesus' name is not above YHWH as it was YHWH that gave Jesus his name.God the Father gave the name Jehovah to the Israelites as a token. A name is a token (cp Ex 3:13) that signifies something, the Israelites called upon his name for salvation in times of trouble. In the NT it is the name of Jesus that has the power of salvation if we "exercise faith in his name." (John 1:12; 3:18; Acts 3:6 etc). Acts 9:10-20 is interesting, the Lord Jesus speaking to Ananias in a vision says regarding A.Paul "he is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name". At 1 Cor 6:11 A.Paul says "you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". Ephesians 1:21 is worth a look at two in the NWT interlinear.

If every thing in heaven includes YHWH's name then by the same token you think YHWH is bowing down and worshipping Jesus. There is no evidence in the NT that supports that other than the supposed interpretation of Phil 2:6-11.I had to have laugh at your comment. Its seems you had a need to do a bit of grandstanding, which I find amusing.

As noted above 1 Cor 15:27 clarifies that "all things, excludes the Father" and I'm still amazed you didn't cite it yourself.

As I chuckled to myself, it occurred to me that Jesus did not say "Jehovah and I are one" but rather "the Father" (Jn 10:30) and though he does say "I am come in my Father's name" (Jn 5:43) he never uses the name, Jehovah. Mind you, the "Jews" understood the name "the Father" as referring to God and this is what caused them to want to kill him "because...he said that God was his Father" (Jn 5:16-18).

I also had a look in the NWT Interlinear for where Jehovah has been inserted in John's gospel. There are five occurances, except maybe 12:13, all are a quotation from the OT. Three occurances are in two quotes made by Jesus. In the surrounding verses Jesus never uses Jehovah but the name "the Father" (Jn 6:44-45; Jn 12:27). Also Jesus at Jn 12:46 doesn't speak of Jehovah but the Father. Seems percular that at 12:13 in the NWT the crowd is calling on Jehovah and Jesus says the name twice when reciting Isaiah (12:38) but otherwise only refers to the Father (v. 26,27,49,50).

As a JW, I frequently tell people in the ministry I am there to witness to them about Jesus. I am also a witness to the one of whom Jesus is "the faithful and true witness" (Rev 3:14)Through family, I have had close association with witnesses both from Bethel and various congregations. I realise you preach Christ, but you must admit the preaching work tends to emphasise the coming of the kingdom, not the need for our total subjection to Christ. Consequently, those immature in your faith tend to relegate him as a tool of Jehovah, rather than our salvation itself.

You can buy it at Amazon.com or www.tellway-publishing.com (http://www.tellway-publishing.com/)
He covers almost 50 verses Trinitarians use and then outlines about 400 that show Jesus is not God.Thanks for that. I have a gift voucher for Amazon. Might be worth a read!

In the OT, YHWH is both our owner and master (Lord) is defined as God. In the NT Jesus, the Son of God is our owner and master (Lord). Think about it!

I have thought about it. Think about the reason why Jesus has that position in the first place. That alone should tell you who is the "only true God." (John 17:3)I have thought about the reason why God exalted the Son above all in heaven and on earth (excluding himself). Even why God would exhalt men to join in the judging and sit upon the thrones in heaven. Shows God to be very unselfish, loving and magnanimous to those in his family.

I do have the understanding that the Father is the one true God (God of himself), but also that the Son as begotten of the Father (1 Jn 4:) is derivitive, God from God, God by nature. If the adopted Sons of God, can "share in divine nature" (NWT 2 Pe 1:4) and the kingdom rule, how much more so the only begotten the first to be born of the Father (1 Jn 1:3; 3:9; 4:9,14,15; 5:1 cp Jn 17:3 with 1 Jn 5:11 NWT)

[NonTrinitarian]

A lot of what you said just doesn't ring with me. To me it's utterly clear the Father is greater than His Son. He has more authority (the one who sends is greater than the one sent according to Jesus), more power, has always existed (whereas Christ was either created or birthed, however you want to view it, at some point in the past) and is still the God of the Son. The Son is not the God of the Father. I don't have a problem calling Jesus "my God" and have done so several times in the ministry and even on the stage in the Kingdom Hall. Of course I clarified what I meant by such. Nothing you have said nor the verses you mentioned have overturned that viewpoint.



Through family, I have had close association with witnesses both from Bethel and various congregations. I realise you preach Christ, but you must admit the preaching work tends to emphasise the coming of the kingdom, not the need for our total subjection to Christ. Consequently, those immature in your faith tend to relegate him as a tool of Jehovah, rather than our salvation itself.
That's because the theme of Jesus' preaching was God's Kingdom. But where do you get that we don't teach total subjection to Christ? That's the whole reason we go in the ministry, because of our subjection to him. "All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations..." And Jesus is the means by which God will save mankind. Bible states that almost word for word. Means, tool, whatever you want to call it. You're drawing a false line in the sand as if saying Jesus is a tool of Jehovah for our salvation is somehow different from saying Jesus is our salvation. It's a false dicotohmy. (Sp?) You're hung on semantics but the root intent is the same.

I have thought about the reason why God exalted the Son above all in heaven and on earth (excluding himself). Even why God would exhalt men to join in the judging and sit upon the thrones in heaven. Shows God to be very unselfish, loving and magnanimous to those in his family.
agreed

I do have the understanding that the Father is the one true God (God of himself), but also that the Son as begotten of the Father (1 Jn 4:) is derivitive, God from God, God by nature. If the adopted Sons of God, can "share in divine nature" (NWT 2 Pe 1:4) and the kingdom rule, how much more so the only begotten the first to be born of the Father (1 Jn 1:3; 3:9; 4:9,14,15; 5:1 cp Jn 17:3 with 1 Jn 5:11 NWT)
God is the only true God because his godship was not derived from anyone else, no one birthed him at some distant point in the past, no one had to decide to give him authority, etc. Jesus is of the divine nature but he is not the Almight God; only one has that role. His Father.

[Strategos]

I have thought about the reason why God exalted the Son above all in heaven and on earth (excluding himself). Even why God would exhalt men to join in the judging and sit upon the thrones in heaven. Shows God to be very unselfish, loving and magnanimous to those in his family.

Fulfilment of prophecy, specifically Is.45:23

22 “Turn to me and be saved, all YOU [at the] ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no one else. 23 By my own self I have sworn—out of my own mouth in righteousness the word has gone forth, so that it will not return—that to me every knee will bend down, every tongue will swear,

Romans 14:11

11 for it is written: “‘As I live,’ says Jehovah, ‘to me every knee will bend down, and every tongue will make open acknowledgment to God.’”

Phil 2:10-11

10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

[NonTrinitarian]

Phil 2:10-11

10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

"He that honors you, honors me. He that honors me honors the one who sent me."

Also, you missed a phrase you should have boldened so I did it for you.

[apostoli]

Hi NonT & Strategos ,
"He that honors you, honors me. He that honors me honors the one who sent me."

Also, you missed a phrase you should have boldened so I did it for you.NonT has highlighted my issue with the WTS, by honoring the Son we preach the Father! By being Jesus' witnesses, we are Jehovah's witnesses.

NonT, in your reply to me, you said you have preached "Jesus as God to us". That must have raised many an eye brow, but I presume you correlated his godship to that of Moses, not to that of his Fathers ordained status in pre-sexistence and post-ascension.

The Father is the only true God, source and cause of all things, but the Son is ordained to us as God, our source and cause, by him are all things (1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:19).

As I noted previously, scripturally it is not the spirit of God that is to reside in us, but the spirit of Christ, and if the spirit of Christ resides in us, then the spirit of God, which resides in him, resides in us. (Rom 8:9-11).

We are witnesses of Christ to the glory of Jehovah!

[John from Ebla]

,
As I noted previously, scripturally it is not the spirit of God that is to reside in us, but the spirit of Christ, and if the spirit of Christ resides in us, then the spirit of God, which resides in him, resides in us. (Rom 8:9-11).

We are witnesses of Christ to the glory of Jehovah!

Well said. It means they are one God- not one God and another god. And then if we assume it is One God and another god as you try to say, then whos spirit is it- how many spirits are there?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[apostoli]

Hi NonT,

A lot of what you said just doesn't ring with me.Understandably.

To me it's utterly clear the Father is greater than His Son.As it should it. I'm often amused by trinitarians in their zealous ness to refute unitarians, deny the Son - despite 1 John 1:1-2,9 etc.

He has more authority (the one who sends is greater than the one sent according to Jesus), more power, has always existed (whereas Christ was either created or birthed, however you want to view it, at some point in the past) and is still the God of the Son.And as you noted in another post he was sent with all authority and power. I'm assuming you didn't read the various scriptures in my last post, they all say that since his coming all things are done in the authority and power of the name Jesus not the name Jehovah. This is the basis I set for our discussion. Is the power and authority in the name of Jesus or the name Jehovah?

Our neutral ground, is that the aim of our preaching is for the glorification of the Father. But under what authority and power?

The Son is not the God of the Father.Agreed 100%.

I don't have a problem calling Jesus "my God" and have done so several times in the ministry and even on the stage in the Kingdom Hall. Of course I clarified what I meant by such.I wished I had been there to see their faces ;-)

Nothing you have said nor the verses you mentioned have overturned that viewpoint.Which wasn't my intention. As we both know only the knowledge of God, lead by his spirit, has that power. Should it be needed.

That's because the theme of Jesus' preaching was God's Kingdom.And yet the NT is about Christ, the espistles teach our hope is in Christ, Christ first, then the kingdom comes. "Looking for that blessed hope, the [second] comimg of Jesus Christ" which brings the kingdom.

But where do you get that we don't teach total subjection to Christ?You might be ab exception. All WTS members I have met, subject themselves to Jehovah. In my reading, Jesus tends to be preached in the WT as a transient figure (a character in a play), the emphasis is on Jehovah's mercy not Jesus' graciousness.

I have had it said to me by many a member of the WTS that we are subject to Jehovah through Jesus Christ! However, scripturally Christ is our Lord=master=owner thus it is to him we are subject ; not by his own authority but by the decree of God (see the multiple scriptures referred to in my previous post). As you yourself said elsewhere, by honoring the Son we honor the Father. But I add, disrespect the Son (not give due honor to the Son) you dishonor and defy Jehovah.

That's the whole reason we go in the ministry, because of our subjection to him. "All authority has been given me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations..." And Jesus is the means by which God will save mankind. Bible states that almost word for word.If so why call yourself "Jehovah's witnesses"? A vassel praises his King, and bears witness to his king. Scripturally our King is Jesus Christ.

Means, tool, whatever you want to call it. You're drawing a false line in the sand as if saying Jesus is a tool of Jehovah for our salvation is somehow different from saying Jesus is our salvation. It's a false dicotohmy. (Sp?) You're hung on semantics but the root intent is the same.Long way from the truth.

At 1 John 1:9 it says "In this was manifested the love of God towards us, that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." God didn't use Jesus as a tool, but as a righteous offering! The NT says the very maker of all things, made recompense for the sins made by those whom he created and God (as his Father) had a personal, direct attachment to the one that made that sacrifice.

God is the only true God because his godship was not derived from anyone else, no one birthed him at some distant point in the past, no one had to decide to give him authority, etc.Basically I agree. the Father is God of himself, with no source or cause.

Jesus is of the divine nature but he is not the Almighty God; only one has that role. His Father.Not the almighty God is a stretch. He did make all things whether in heaven or on earth. So in a sence he is to be considered our almighty God. After all the scriptures do call him the power and wisdom of God [to us].

[apostoli]

Hi John,

Well said. It means they are one God- not one God and another god. And then if we assume it is One God and another god as you try to say, then whos spirit is it- how many spirits are there?
John 17:21 indicates there is only one Spirit, of which all believers are a part (cp: Rom 8:9:9-11,16;). Though there are many members there is one body. (1 Cor)

ps: To Everyone,

John from Elber believes the Father and Son are simply different methods by which God reveals himself to man. When he says the Logos was made flesh, he is refering to the spirit of God posessing the fleshly body of the man we know as Jesus. He denies that the individual who as man was known as Jesus had a distintict individuality from the Father in pre-existence. He believes that Jesus' sonship refers only to conception as man.

pss: John,

If I have misrepresented your current views, please feel free to clarify them to the audience.

Wouldn't be fair to the JWs or anyone else to think you were agreeing with someone, if you mean something else.

[John from Ebla]

[Hi, Apostli

this is what you said. QUOTE=apostoli],
As I noted previously, scripturally it is not the spirit of God that is to reside in us, but the spirit of Christ, and if the spirit of Christ resides in us, then the spirit of God, which resides in him, resides in us. (Rom 8:9-11).

We are witnesses of Christ to the glory of Jehovah[/QUOTE]

And said 'Well said" because it means one God- not one God and another god.

If you did not mean to say this, then you are confused about what you want to say. Think about and rephase the commets you made above.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[John from Ebla]

Hi, Apostoli,

This is what you said. ,
As I noted previously, scripturally it is not the spirit of God that is to reside in us, but the spirit of Christ, and if the spirit of Christ resides in us, then the spirit of God, which resides in him, resides in us. (Rom 8:9-11).

We are witnesses of Christ to the glory of Jehovah

And l said 'Well said" because it means one God- not one God and another god.

If you did not mean to say this, then you are confused about what you want to say. Think about and rephrase the commets you made above.

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[apostoli]

Hi John,

This is what you said.As I noted previously, scripturally it is not the spirit of God that is to reside in us, but the spirit of Christ, and if the spirit of Christ resides in us, then the spirit of God, which resides in him, resides in us. (Rom 8:9-11). We are witnesses of Christ to the glory of JehovahAnd l said 'Well said" because it means one God- not one God and another god.

If you did not mean to say this, then you are confused about what you want to say. Think about and rephrase the commets you made above.Peace be with you.

The difference in our beliefs, as I understand yours, is that you believe God, as the Father, became the Son and sacrificed himself for us. In my view based on the majority opinion of the NT, is that God sent his only begotten Son, by whom he made all things, offered himself to the Father as an offering for our sins. It is the Father that is in the Son, and it is we who are in the Son and thus receive the Father.

Possibly, it is only in language that we disagree. To my view, the Son is not only God by heriditary right, but moreso because he has been made such to us by the Father (Phil 2, Col 1, Heb 1 etc).

[Cal_Minian]

Now I've been told that JWs believe in John 1:1 that because qeoV is anarthorous it should be translated "a god." So my question is do JWs believe that EVERY instance qeoV occurs without the article it refers to "a god" and NEVER refers to "God" when found in LXX and NT?

I have not read all the way down this thread, so if someone has covered it, please forgive me.

The answer is no. There is a particular construction which John 1:1c has which is called a preverbal anarthrous predicate nominative. Greek is very highly inflected. The syntax matters, so you need to compare other verses which have the same syntax as John 1:1.

BTW in my sig file are quotes from the Greek lexicon used by most seminaries. It is BDAG and financed by the Lutheran Missouri Synod. They give an example in the Greek which explains why one could be called "a god" in their entry for qeos . They use this and Exodus 7:1 to explain how to understand John 1:1.

[JohnOneOne]

Now I've been told that JWs believe in John 1:1 that because qeoV is anarthorous it should be translated "a god." So my question is do JWs believe that EVERY instance qeoV occurs without the article it refers to "a god" and NEVER refers to "God" when found in LXX and NT?

Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of John 1:1 (as, "a god") often miss the point that this is "a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb," that is, not just that the noun theos lacks the Greek definite article.

For other examples of a similar Greek construction, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an "a" or "an":

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class and/or quality is.

Agape.

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com
john1one@earthlink.net


You are not allowed to advertise your personal website or email address in the body of your posts. Especially if they are used to advertise your book. You can use your signature for personal links if you wish. See the control panel

[JohnOneOne]

Many who take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of John 1:1 (as, "a god") often miss the point that this is "a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb," that is, not just that the noun theos lacks the Greek definite article.

For other examples of a similar Greek construction, please examine the following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether the translators had inserted either an "a" or "an":

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class and/or quality is.

Sorry. I dont want to make this look like I am picking on you since you are new! But you can't make duplicate posts either. You really need to read the campus decorum. the link is at the bottom of each page. You can edit your signature by going to the Control Panel and looking for "signature" on the left side of the screen. Whatever you put in there shows up on every one of your posts at the bottom.

Agape.
For more info on this, please visit my JohnOneOne profile.