Is anyone here a Jehovah's Witness?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Paul here does of the kindness of saying that 1) other gods and lords definately exist, and 2) explaining that "there is no God but one" means "yet for us there is but one God" despite the existence of other.

In this phrase Paul uses these names:
ÅÉÄÙËÏÍ,n {i'-do-lon} for the 'idols'
ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the 'idols'
ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the "One True God"

How can Paul claim right here there is only one theos for us, despite the existance of others, while at other places in the NT Jesus is clearly named theos as well. Even "the theos of me" by Thomas?

This either means that there are actually two theos for us, Jesus AND God, or it means that Jesus = God = the only theos for us, despite the existance of other gods.

Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term. It was the gradual elimination of these broader meanings that forced 3rd and 4th century theologians to adopt the Trinity, inorder to reconcile Biblical passages with their new, more limited understanding of who could be a god.

Here is another example of how Scripture uses "god", in John 10:34-36 [all passages NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway, unless otherwise specified):
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

Note Jesus is specifically referring to the men who wrote Scripture (in this case, the OT) as "gods". These are not idols or false gods, as they were servants to God. They were also not the One True God. Note also Jesus compares his being the Son of God to their being gods. If the men who wrote Scripture were gods, then so is Jesus. Also, Jesus has been given rulership over the world by the Father. Thomas statement is a declaration of fact, and his action is the same type of obeisance given to any earthly king. Neither recognizes Jesus as the One True God.

The first commandment forbids the worship of other gods, it does not forbid recognizing the authority of gods in service to Jehovah. Jesus is indeed Thomas' god, as Jesus is a god in service to the Father with authority over Thomas.

the first commandment clearly states: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.period."
Thomas clearly has a god (the god of me).
You can choise, it's either God Jehova, or it's indeed true that Thomas has another God, and Jesus aproves it.

Do you think there is a difference between (from Deut 5:7) "You shall have no other gods before Me" as opposed to "You shall have no other gods"? Does the "before Me" act in any way to qualify the command?

My answer would be yes, it means that any other gods recognized could not be placed in a psoition of equality or supremacy to Yahoweh. Thomas' proclamation does not ange that Thomas recognizes the Father as the One True God, and it does accurately descibed Jesus' role as God's vassal.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Indeed, Jesus was certainly the first and the last from the dead who was raised and given the keys to Hades. That doesn't make him God, anymore than my son Nathan, who is my first and last autistic child, is God.

According to the teachings of the JW Jesus is not the last who was raised from the dead. He's the first of many who'll be raised from dead.

Yes, I did abbreviate their explanation. More accurate would have been, "Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades.

besides that, the line "I am the first and the last" is clearcly a line on itself, between more things that are applied on on Jesus, followed directly by "the living one". "I am the first and the last" is one of the many things that can be said about Jesus, and there is no reason to believe that in this case all these things stand on themselves, but the line "The First and The Last", which should be connected to a part that's located further in the line.

I agree. Rev 1:17-18
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "(63) Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

John 1:18a "No one has seen God at any time;". Whatever Isaiah saw, it was not Jehovah of Hosts.

this can only be applied to see with the bare eyes, not to see in a vision. Isaia is clearly explaining what he saw in a vision.

Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself.

That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

weak reasoning.

On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

Thanks for returning after the weekend,
I appreciate this debate and your debating style very much. Thanks for that.

CyberShy

Thank you. I look forward to further discussion.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy
forgot this:

First of all, Rev 1:7 and 1:8 have different speakers. Second, neither uses "first and last".

Rev 1:8 says:
{eg-o'} {i-mee'} {ho} Alfa {kahee} {ho} Omega {leg'-o} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {er'-khom-ahee} {ho} {pan-tok-rat'-ore}

I am the Alpha and the Omega
Says Curios the God
The to be and the past and the to come the almighty.

The phrase: {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} is the same as sais by Thomas {ho} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os}

Right now it's not Thomas who claims Jesus is Ho Theos, but it's The Curios himself who claims it.
In this case not just The God of Thomas, but "The God" (ho theos).
The Curios is only applicable to Jesus.
For sure if you read the context, in which verse 17 comes with the same claim.

Thomas says: "ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou", limiting the application of "lord" and "god". Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase.

Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Plan Austral
It seems both of you know quite a lot of religions,
Can I ask something about predestination and arminianism?
I have a doubt.

I know a very little about them. I don't think the doctrine are very relevant, as the human condition is such that anyone could convince themselves they were of the elect, and no one else would be able to determine if they were right or wrong.

[Robert]

Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term.

1. Thomas said "ho theos" which is only used for The One True God, in the Bible.
2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God for him"
3. If you doubt "ho theos" to be the title given to The One True God, you should doubt that "God Jehova" is "The One True God" as well, since he's titled that way all over the New Testament.
4. There is no indication at all that thomas is recognising other gods as "ho theos MOU".

5. back to 1 Cor 8:6, Paul clearly states that for us there is only one God (in opposition to all those other theos around). "yet for us there is but one God, the Father"

Paul uses the words "hice theh'-os" which clearly leaves no room left open for "another theos"

He uses the word " eg-o' " to make it personal.
How can Paul say "ego-o' hice theh'-os" and mean God the Father, the One True God,

while Thomas says "hos theh'-os mou" and means "another" God for him personally.

Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?

Jesus names them just 'theos'
not 'ho theos' neither 'ho theos mou'
Thus you are right that there are more gods,
but those gods are not 'theos mou' because Paul clearly says that there is "for us no other god but God the Father".

Which is comparable with the first commandment,
"You should not have other God before me"

Do you think there is a difference between (from Deut 5:7) "You shall have no other gods before Me" as opposed to "You shall have no other gods"? Does the "before Me" act in any way to qualify the command?

Yes and no,
without 'before me' it would have approved my position as much as it does right now.
Both make clear that we shall not recognise other gods as "The One True God" but as you made clear already, there are other gods. We are gods!

Thomas' proclamation does not ange that Thomas recognizes the Father as the One True God, and it does accurately descibed Jesus' role as God's vassal.

Oh no, he names Jesus "ho theos"
None of the 'vassals' in the bible is named "ho theos"
Only The One True God is named that!

And no 'theos' in the bible is named 'ho theos MOU' in the bible like Jesus is right here, but God the Father.

Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades.

I'm sorry, this really makes no sence.
Why not add "he's the first and the last to be born out of a virgin" or "he's the first and the last who lives" (that's the first phrase after "The First and The Last")

it makes no sence, Jesus says that He is "The First and The Last" - COMMA. He titles himself several titles, and "The First and The Last" is one of them.
If you think different you should clearly explain why "The First and The Last" is connected to "who has the keys of hades" and NOT to "The living One"
but it does connect again to "raised from death without reyling upon grace".

Besides that, didn't Pete god those keys as well?
And what about God The Father, I'm sure He has those keys as well.....

You really need to come with strong evidence that "The First and The Last" is not standing on it'self, despite the fact the phrase is seperated with a comma from the next phrase, and another comma seperates it from the phrase after that.

I agree

now you contradict your earlier statement.
Does that mean that you agree that Jesus titles himself "The First and The Last.period."?

Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself.

Still Isaiah claims he saw God Jehova,
pherhaps that means that Jesus = God Jehove,
and Isaiah did indeed see Jesus......

On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

Can you give me some biblical evidence for the latter.

Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus.

I didn't formulate that quiet well,
I meant that in the bible "kurious" is only said to Jesus. As in this case.

Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase.

Jesus is speaking in Rev 1, but still you claim that these specific words are said by God the Father, how comes?

I'm sorry for the delay of one day,

greetings,

CyberShy

[Sava]

Edited by ming... If you want to join the discussion, do it in a civil way and say something besides a simple swearing rant.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term.

1. Thomas said "ho theos" which is only used for The One True God, in the Bible.

Acknowledging that Thoms said “ho theos”, do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God for him"

The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him"

3. If you doubt "ho theos" to be the title given to The One True God, you should doubt that "God Jehova" is "The One True God" as well, since he's titled that way all over the New Testament.

I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title.

4. There is no indication at all that thomas is recognising other gods as "ho theos MOU".

Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

5. back to 1 Cor 8:6, Paul clearly states that for us there is only one God (in opposition to all those other theos around). "yet for us there is but one God, the Father"

Paul uses the words "hice theh'-os" which clearly leaves no room left open for "another theos"

He uses the word " eg-o' " to make it personal.
How can Paul say "ego-o' hice theh'-os" and mean God the Father, the One True God,

while Thomas says "hos theh'-os mou" and means "another" God for him personally.

Lets look at the context of Paul’s statement, 1Co 8:4-6 (all unspecified quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway)
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped.

Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades.

I'm sorry, this really makes no sence.
Why not add "he's the first and the last to be born out of a virgin" or "he's the first and the last who lives" (that's the first phrase after "The First and The Last")

Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description.

it makes no sence, Jesus says that He is "The First and The Last" - COMMA. He titles himself several titles, and "The First and The Last" is one of them.

Just in case you weren’t aware, there are no commas, periods, or any other punctuation marks in what John recorded. We shouldn’t read to much into where modern translators insert them.

If you think different you should clearly explain why "The First and The Last" is connected to "who has the keys of hades" and NOT to "The living One" but it does connect again to "raised from death without reyling upon grace".

I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say.

Besides that, didn't Pete god those keys as well?

Peter was given the key to open heaven to non-Jewish groups (Mat 16:17-19)
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

In Acts 8:14-17 we see Peter use one such key.

And what about God The Father, I'm sure He has those keys as well.....

You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus.

I agree

now you contradict your earlier statement.
Does that mean that you agree that Jesus titles himself "The First and The Last.period."?

That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate.

Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself.

Still Isaiah claims he saw God Jehova,
pherhaps that means that Jesus = God Jehove,
and Isaiah did indeed see Jesus......

I don’t think you can apply the Name “Yahoweh” to Jesus. For example, in Psalm 110 we have Yahoweh speaking to Jesus. You also have phrases like Is. 63:16.

When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision.

On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

Can you give me some biblical evidence for the latter.

I can give you “some evidence”. I’ll happily acknowledge that it does not constitute anything like definitive proof, BTW. If you are determined to believe Jesus is a person in the God, there is no passage in the Bible that definitively contradicts this.

Some evidence:
Jesus is an image of God and a member of creation (Col 1:15, 4:4).
God is a god to Jesus (Heb 1:9, Rev 1:6).
Jesus is a radiant medium for God’s glory, and a representation of God’s nature (Heb 1:3)

Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus.

I didn't formulate that quiet well,
I meant that in the bible "kurious" is only said to Jesus. As in this case.

Even in Matt 9:35-38?
Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, " The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

Matt 11:25?
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Need more?

Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase.

Jesus is speaking in Rev 1, but still you claim that these specific words are said by God the Father, how comes?

Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff.

I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff.

[Robert]

I'm leaving for the weekend in 2 minutes, I'll get back to you next week.

have a good weekend!

[Robert]

do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos):
Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

the phrase "ho theos" appears on more places, but in those places the phrase is longer.

like 2Co 4:4
"-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, (..)"

or Mat 22:32
"I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

in these texts 'ho theos' does not stand on itself.
which God? - THE God of Abraham.
which God? - THE God of this world.
which God? - THE God.

in the first 2 examples there's room left over for other gods. The god of mohammed. The god of another world.
That matches with the 'other' gods (theos) in the bible.
But there is in the end only ONE TRUE GOD, THE GOD.

And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Please do.

The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him"

Does that change anything for the argument?

2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God of him"

compare it with the first argument in this message,
Jesus is THE God of him. Which leaves no other room left over for other gods.

That's like:
Woman1 is the wife of me.
Woman2 is the other wife of me.

I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title.

Which again changes nothing for the argument.
The One True God is named "ho theos" al over the new testament. If you doubt that Jesus is The One True God when named like that, how can you be sure that Jehova is the One True God, since he's named 'ho theos' as well all the time.

Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped.

John 9:38:
"And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."
worshipped: (proskuneo)

even without this phrase your argument is still an argument ex nihilio.

And even if that was not the case you can clearly read that in opposite to the worshipping of idols christians are encouraged to seek no other but God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description.

Thus Jesus is the first and the last who lives,
that makes me wonder about The living God. If God the Father is the first and the last, how can Jesus be The first who lives and the last who lives, while he's not God the Father?

Just in case you weren’t aware, there are no commas, periods, or any other punctuation marks in what John recorded. We shouldn’t read to much into where modern translators insert them.

My greek translations does add commas, periods etc.
But I can see your point, and accept it that these are obviously added later.

but it still keeps the argument open that there's no reason to connect "The First and The Last" to the other properties Jesus gives to himself, other than wishful thinking.

I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say.

No, to make a gestalt of what Jesus IS.
He IS the first and the last.
He IS the living One
He IS......

notice that the word 'kai' seperates the properties as well, which must have been omitted if the properties "First and Last" and "was dead and behold I am alive for evermore" would be connected.

Peter was given the key to open heaven to non-Jewish groups (Mat 16:17-19)

This argument is irelevant thus I leave it.

You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus.

I think Jesus and God the Father are one, I think they both hold these keys. Or better: He holds these keys.

If Jesus is the first and the last who holds the keys, this means that The Father never had them...
How could The Father pass them to Jesus if he didn't own them?

That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate.

We've talked much about this phrase, but I think you still not made clear how the way Jesus names himself "The First and The Last" is different than when God the Father does that.

You try to claim that in this case "The First and The Last" does not stand on itself but is connected to other phrases after it, which leads to new problems, because if God Jehova is THE First and THE Last in general, it's impossible that Jesus is the first and the last in specific things.

When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision.

And in that vision he saw God Jehova, Jesus Christ.

Even in Matt 9:35-38?
Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, " The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

In this Case kurios could very well apply to Himself.

Matt 11:25?
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Jesus names his father his Kurios.
But no human names God the Father like that.

Need more?

yes please.

Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff.

I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff

those similarity is there indeed because the speaker is the same, God Jehova Jesus Christ.

There is no indication that the first part is spoken by God the Father, while the 2nd part is spoken by Jesus Christ, besides that argument you just gave. But that argument shows for me that God and Jesus are the same.

If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
Jesus is revealed as being:
The Alpha and the Omega
The First and The Last
The One which is, which was and which is to come
The beginning and the ending.

These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons.

If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos):
Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”.

the phrase "ho theos" appears on more places, but in those places the phrase is longer.

like 2Co 4:4
"-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, (..)"

or Mat 22:32
"I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

in these texts 'ho theos' does not stand on itself.
which God? - THE God of Abraham.
which God? - THE God of this world.
which God? - THE God.

in the first 2 examples there's room left over for other gods. The god of mohammed. The god of another world.
That matches with the 'other' gods (theos) in the bible.
But there is in the end only ONE TRUE GOD, THE GOD.

In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me).

And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Please do.

I did. Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular.

The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him"

Does that change anything for the argument?

2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God of him"

compare it with the first argument in this message,
Jesus is THE God of him. Which leaves no other room left over for other gods.

That's like:
Woman1 is the wife of me.
Woman2 is the other wife of me.

In NT times, men were allowed to have multiple wives. 

More to the point, you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory. In any case, the word does not convey a sense of uniqueness to “theos”, or a limitation in number.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3588&version=nas

I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title.

Which again changes nothing for the argument.
The One True God is named "ho theos" al over the new testament. If you doubt that Jesus is The One True God when named like that, how can you be sure that Jehova is the One True God, since he's named 'ho theos' as well all the time.

Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT. It is not difficult to show the God of Jesus is Yahowah.

Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

More like “the greater God” of Thomas.

Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped.

John 9:38:
"And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."
worshipped: (proskuneo)

What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4352&version=nas

Some other acts of this sort of “worship”: Mt 18:26, Mar 15:19, Rev 3:9. Note in particular in Rev 3:9 that Jesus himself says he will cause other men to “worship” Christians in this manner.

Note that the two other words translated “worship” (“latreuo”, to render sacred service, and “sebomai”, to revere) are used of God and false gods, but never Jesus.

even without this phrase your argument is still an argument ex nihilio.

Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped.

And even if that was not the case you can clearly read that in opposite to the worshipping of idols christians are encouraged to seek no other but God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

Certainly. No other God but the Father and his viceroy, Jesus.

I’ll break the response here.

[One_Brow]

Response continued.

Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description.

Thus Jesus is the first and the last who lives,
that makes me wonder about The living God. If God the Father is the first and the last, how can Jesus be The first who lives and the last who lives, while he's not God the Father?

Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys.

God was never dead.

I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say.

No, to make a gestalt of what Jesus IS.
He IS the first and the last.
He IS the living One
He IS......

notice that the word 'kai' seperates the properties as well, which must have been omitted if the properties "First and Last" and "was dead and behold I am alive for evermore" would be connected.

I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above.

You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus.

I think Jesus and God the Father are one, I think they both hold these keys. Or better: He holds these keys.

“Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism.

If Jesus is the first and the last who holds the keys, this means that The Father never had them...
How could The Father pass them to Jesus if he didn't own them?

God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18

That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate.

We've talked much about this phrase, but I think you still not made clear how the way Jesus names himself "The First and The Last" is different than when God the Father does that.

You try to claim that in this case "The First and The Last" does not stand on itself but is connected to other phrases after it, which leads to new problems, because if God Jehova is THE First and THE Last in general, it's impossible that Jesus is the first and the last in specific things.

I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is.

When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision.

And in that vision he saw God Jehova, Jesus Christ.

Saw the real Yahowah, with his own eyes? Moses could only see his “backside”, and his face glowed from that glory. There is no record of Isaiah glowing.

On the other hand, there are plenty of records where a speaker in the Bible is referred to as Yahoweh, only to be later revealed to be his messenger. I’d go with the standard Biblical pattern and trust the Biblical declarations, which indicate that Isaiah saw a vision of Yahoweh brought by Yahoweh’s messenger, Jesus.

Even in Matt 9:35-38?

In this Case kurios could very well apply to Himself.

Matt 11:25?

Jesus names his father his Kurios.
But no human names God the Father like that.

Need more?

yes please.

Acts 4:24-30 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,
25 who (33) by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,
'WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.' "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.

Note this “Lord” has a holy servant, Jesus.

Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff.

I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff

those similarity is there indeed because the speaker is the same, God Jehova Jesus Christ.

There is no indication that the first part is spoken by God the Father, while the 2nd part is spoken by Jesus Christ, besides that argument you just gave. But that argument shows for me that God and Jesus are the same.

As I said before, there is nothing of which I know in the Bible that disproves Trinitarianism. However, to be frank, it seems that your Trinitarianism is driving your reading that the speakers are the same, not the other way around.

If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise? 

However, there are indications on who is peaking at which point: Rev 1:4a specifies John, Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location), Rev 1: 17b-18 (a person who died, and is therefore capable of death, thus not the Father).

Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
Jesus is revealed as being:
The Alpha and the Omega
The First and The Last
The One which is, which was and which is to come
The beginning and the ending.

These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons.

If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar.

Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God?

[Robert]

One_Brow: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

CyberShy: Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos):
Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

One_Brow: I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”.

These verses speak about the One True God.
This shows that "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" are directed at The One True God. If everytime God is named "ho theos" and Jesus is named "ho theos" as well, than we can conclude that Jesus = The One True God.

One_Brow: In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me).

Indeed, God the Father is the God of me for all possible qualifications. You can split these verses into two categories, the category "God is The One True God", thus general speaking. And the category in which people confess that God is their God, thus a personal faith confession.

There can be only one "One True God" and you can only have one "God of me" because we know out of the first commandment that we can have no other gods but God the Father.

If in both categories there can be only one, and Jesus is named like that, we can only conclude that Jesus id The One True God.

CyberShy: And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

One_Brow: I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

Pherhaps the circular argument is sufficient.

One_Brow: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. (...) Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular.

Give me a passage in which "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" is directed to someone who's not God the Father neither Jesus Christ.

One_Brow: you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory.

let's take a look at what your links says about "ho" (3588) in combination with "theos" (2316):

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=nas

Theos:
of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with (3588)) the supreme Divinity

One_Brow: Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT.

You'd rather remove the evidence that God the Father is The One True God from the new testament, than accepting that these same arguments can be aplied to Jesus.......

One_Brow: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

CyberShy: Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

One_Brow: More like “the greater God” of Thomas.

Thus Thomas has two Gods, God the Father which is the great, and another god, which is Jesus Christ, while God the Father said "Thou shall have no other gods before me"

One_Brow: What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols.

One_Brow: Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped.

He is worshipped, but that's not described with words that aren't used for worshipping men.

God is One God, but God has 3 faces,
God the Creator, which is to be worshipped.
God the Salvator, who has been punished instead of us.
God the Holy Spirit, who leads our life.

One_Brow:
Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys.

God was never dead.
I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above.

ego eimi protos...kai...eschatos
I......am..the first and..the last

zao..............kai..ginomai nekros
(I am) alive.and was.......dead

kai...idou.....eimi..zao..eis aion aion amen
and behold I am alive for evermore! amen

If "The First and The Last" refer to all that comes after it (which can only be until "amen") it can only applied like:
1. I am the first and the last alive
2. I am the first and the last who was dead and lives forever more.

application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more)

application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above.

Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

Conclusion, Jesus is The First and The Last,
and since we know that God is The First and The last, we can only draw from this verse that Jesus is God Jehova.

One_Brow: “Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism.

John 17:22: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: "

But I see that you mean that I did not mention the Holy Spirit, and yes, the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one.

One_Brow: God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18

God the Father was not dead in person of The Father, but God, in person of the Son was dead.

One_Brow: I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is.

It's said about God in the Old Testament.

CyberShy: If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

One_Brow: You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise?

The vision migh be not that clear all the time, but the vision did not start yet at this moment.

One_Brow: Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location)

In fact it is given to Jesus at this location.
John tells that Jesus speaks to him.
In fact, as far as I can see, God the Father is not speaking at all in the whole book of revelations.

If God is not speaking through the entire book, while Jesus is the one who delivers the messsage, we can only conclude that Jesus is speaking that He is the almighty. Which makes this passage the passage in which we can read that Jesus is the Almighty, and thus is the One True God.

CyberShy: Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
Jesus is revealed as being:
The Alpha and the Omega
The First and The Last
The One which is, which was and which is to come
The beginning and the ending.

These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons.

If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

One_Brow: The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar.

How can anybody be simular to "The First and The Last"
How can anybody be simular to "The Almighty"

I'm sorry, but that sounds like very weak reasoning towards me.

One_Brow: Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God?

I think being the first and the last is not to be confused with parables or symbols. And even *if* this would be a parable, what else but saying that Jesus and God are the same, if they are both described as "The First and The Last". What else could any symbol mean, if both God and Jesus receive the same symbols!

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

One_Brow: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

CyberShy: Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos):
Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

One_Brow: I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”.

These verses speak about the One True God.
This shows that "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" are directed at The One True God. If everytime God is named "ho theos" and Jesus is named "ho theos" as well, than we can conclude that Jesus = The One True God.

As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions. There is nothing but your preferred assumption to sy this phrase is only used of God.

One_Brow: In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me).

There can be only one "One True God" and you can only have one "God of me" because we know out of the first commandment that we can have no other gods but God the Father.

You have incorrectly paraphrased the first commandment, so it is no surprise you are confused here.

Deu 5:6-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh. You'll find other verses (for example, in Isaiah) that descibe Yahoweh's uniqueness, that say He has no equals, etc. I still haven't seen one that says there are no gods inHis service. Meanwhile, there are plenty of occurences where beings in His service are called gods.

If in both categories there can be only one, and Jesus is named like that, we can only conclude that Jesus id The One True God.

Howver, since we have no directive that there can only be one, we have no evidence that Jesus is the One True God.

CyberShy: And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

One_Brow: I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

Pherhaps the circular argument is sufficient.[/QUOTE]

If it is sufficient for you, great. However, accepting that the argument is circular means that you need to abandon any pretense that the Unitarian position, in particular the JW version, is inferior.

One_Brow: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. (...) Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular.

Give me a passage in which "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" is directed to someone who's not God the Father neither Jesus Christ.

They would be the only two beings who are not unbegotten creatures.

One_Brow: you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory.

let's take a look at what your links says about "ho" (3588) in combination with "theos" (2316):

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=nas

Theos:
of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with (3588)) the supreme Divinity

Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias.

One_Brow: Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT.

You'd rather remove the evidence that God the Father is The One True God from the new testament, than accepting that these same arguments can be aplied to Jesus.......

It's certainly true that I don't need to defend against non-existant evidence.

One_Brow: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

CyberShy: Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

One_Brow: More like “the greater God” of Thomas.

Thus Thomas has two Gods, God the Father which is the great, and another god, which is Jesus Christ, while God the Father said "Thou shall have no other gods before me"

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience).

One_Brow: What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols.

One_Brow: Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped.

He is worshipped, but that's not described with words that aren't used for worshipping men.

It is not described with any word that means worship, unless you believe Rev 3:9 means Jesus will force non-believers to worship believers.

One_Brow:
Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys.

God was never dead.
I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above.

ego eimi protos...kai...eschatos
I......am..the first and..the last

zao..............kai..ginomai nekros
(I am) alive.and was.......dead

kai...idou.....eimi..zao..eis aion aion amen
and behold I am alive for evermore! amen

On Crosswalk (after deciphering their transliteration within my very limited abilities):

ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai ...

This is essentially what I presented above.

If "The First and The Last" refer to all that comes after it (which can only be until "amen") it can only applied like:
1. I am the first and the last alive
2. I am the first and the last who was dead and lives forever more.

3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected).

application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more)

application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above.

Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly.

Conclusion, Jesus is The First and The Last,
and since we know that God is The First and The last, we can only draw from this verse that Jesus is God Jehova.

God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless.

One_Brow: “Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism.

John 17:22: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: "

So, you meant one in purpose, just as his disciples became.

But I see that you mean that I did not mention the Holy Spirit, and yes, the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one.

In the same way Jesus' desciples were, certainly.

One_Brow: God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18

God the Father was not dead in person of The Father, but God, in person of the Son was dead.

Certainly the Son was dead, but there is only circular reasoning to say the Son was God.

On another note, what exactly would it mean for God to be dead?

One_Brow: I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is.

It's said about God in the Old Testament.

Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself.

CyberShy: If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

One_Brow: You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise?

The vision migh be not that clear all the time, but the vision did not start yet at this moment.

The vision starts in Rev 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking.

One_Brow: Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location)

In fact it is given to Jesus at this location.
John tells that Jesus speaks to him.
In fact, as far as I can see, God the Father is not speaking at all in the whole book of revelations.

Circular reasoning.

If God is not speaking through the entire book, while Jesus is the one who delivers the messsage, we can only conclude that Jesus is speaking that He is the almighty. Which makes this passage the passage in which we can read that Jesus is the Almighty, and thus is the One True God.

Circular reasoning.

CyberShy: Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
Jesus is revealed as being:
The Alpha and the Omega
The First and The Last
The One which is, which was and which is to come
The beginning and the ending.

The third is never definitively applied to Jesus. The others are all perfectly compatible with Unitarianism.

These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons.

If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this.

One_Brow: The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar.

How can anybody be simular to "The First and The Last"
How can anybody be simular to "The Almighty"

I'm sorry, but that sounds like very weak reasoning towards me.

As the only-begotten Son, Jesus is more like God than any other being.

One_Brow: Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God?

I think being the first and the last is not to be confused with parables or symbols. And even *if* this would be a parable, what else but saying that Jesus and God are the same, if they are both described as "The First and The Last". What else could any symbol mean, if both God and Jesus receive the same symbols!

That Jesus rules as God's viceroy, of course.

[Robert]

As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions.

That's true, but without conditions it can only be directed at the One True God.

as you have pointed out, 'ho' usually means "this"
"This god of the underworld"
"This God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel"

Without conditions "ho" is generally translated as "the", like in the NWT (ho theos mou, the god of me)

We take difference conclusions out of this.
You say that since "ho theos" has been directed not only to the One True God, but to Jesus as well, it cannot be read as the unique title to the One True God.

I say that since "ho theos" has only been directed to Jesus Christ and The One True God, they are one being (2 persons).

The only conclusion I can make is that your first assumption that "theos" is directed to more than just "God the Father" in the new testament is true, but this is not the case with "ho theos".

There is nothing but your preferred assumption to sy this phrase is only used of God.

Without conditions? If we keep out the verses about Jesus, can you give others? Or do you agree with me that it's directed only to God and to Jesus Christ?

Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh.

Exodus 20:3: the word translated with "before me" is paniym (06440)

The dutch translation (I'm dutch) says (literal translated into english) "thou shall have no other god in front of my face"

other verses that use this word:

Gen 1:2 And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 1:2 And the earth [0776] was [01961] (8804) without form [08414], and void [0922]; and darkness [02822] [was] upon the face [06440] of the deep [08415].

And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 3:8: and Adam [0120] and his wife [0802] hid themselves [02244] (8691) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068] God [0430] amongst [08432] the trees [06086] of the garden [01588].

Gen 4:16: And Cain [07014] went out [03318] (8799) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068]

all these phrases show that "before me" has not to be translated in any hierarchical way, as "Not before me, but after me"
It morely means "God does not want to see his followers to have other gods"

you need to abandon any pretense that the Unitarian position, in particular the JW version, is inferior.

I would say it is wrong in my opinion. not inferior.
It's up to God to decide the latter.

Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias.

Thus you only quote from a source if it backs one of your opinions, but you deny the same source if it's against it?

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience).

I do not say that Jesus is greater than God.

ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai

to be honest my source does not put 'ho' in front of 'protos', 'eschatos'. But this proves again the ussage of 'ho' as 'the' in several verses.

"the first and the last" is the usual translation of this phrase.

3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected).

the 2nd assumption is self-made and cannot be extracted out of the phrase.

"I am alive for evermore" does indeed imply "immortality" but Jesus is certainly not the last who will live for evermore after being dead and raised. That counts for all christians.

CyberShy: application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more)

application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above.

Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

One_Brow: Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly.

in that case it cannot be difficult to counter my arguments with counter-arguments.

God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless.

Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God."

it appears to be a title.
The blanc appearantly doesn't need to be filled out.
Pherhaps we can say "The first and the last who is God" since that can be get out of the phrase that follows.

Rev 22:13 Jesus says:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

ego eimi a kai omega arche kai telos protos kai eschatos.

If you claim that Rev 1:8 is said by Jehova,
than Rev 22:13 shows that Jesus and Jehova are said to be both the first and the last. Both be the alpha and the omega. Both to be the Beginning and the Ending.

On another note, what exactly would it mean for God to be dead?

Something I cannot understand neither explain.
God was dead in Jesus while being alive in the Father.

Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself.

I just quoted Isa 44:6 and rev 22.
Both 'hang by itself'.

To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking.

Verse 11 is clearly Jesus who's speaking.

Thus we have verse 8, in which the speaker clearly is the highest divinity, the One True God, the almighty.
Verse 11 claims the same titles, verse 17 claims the same titles.

I very admit that in verse 8 God is speaking,
God the being. And after that in 11 and 17, Jesus, God in person, is speaking.

Both claim to be 'the alpha' and 'the omega'
The NWT translates both as 'the' and not as 'this alpha' and 'this omega'.

What other purpose but showing that in the vision the same person is speaking as the one speaking before the vision could this repeating of titles be?

Do you imply that John heard God speaking straight in verse 8, and by a vision in verse 11?
I would say both are either a vision or reality.

If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this.

No prince will be called "King" as long as his father is living or gave up the title.
Jesus is titled "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"

If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.

I would like to sidestep to Romand 9:5,
obviously a known phrase for you as well.

"Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

I might add that the greek version of the JW puts a comma (,) at the same places, eventhough the NWT (TRANSLATION) puts a dot before "God blessed forever"

I assume we'd rather use the greek bible than any translation when speaking about this very important phrase.

Paul clearly states that Jesus is both flesh and God, blessed forever.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions.

That's true, but without conditions it can only be directed at the One True God.

as you have pointed out, 'ho' usually means "this"
"This god of the underworld"
"This God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel"

Without conditions "ho" is generally translated as "the", like in the NWT (ho theos mou, the god of me)

We take difference conclusions out of this.
You say that since "ho theos" has been directed not only to the One True God, but to Jesus as well, it cannot be read as the unique title to the One True God.

I say that since "ho theos" has only been directed to Jesus Christ and The One True God, they are one being (2 persons).

The only conclusion I can make is that your first assumption that "theos" is directed to more than just "God the Father" in the new testament is true, but this is not the case with "ho theos".

I think we've wrangled about all we're going to on this point. We have pretty much each acknowledge that our reasoning here is theologically based, rather than textually based. No need to quibble of minor details.

Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh.

Exodus 20:3: the word translated with "before me" is paniym (06440)

The dutch translation (I'm dutch) says (literal translated into english) "thou shall have no other god in front of my face"

other verses that use this word:

Gen 1:2 And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 1:2 And the earth [0776] was [01961] (8804) without form [08414], and void [0922]; and darkness [02822] [was] upon the face [06440] of the deep [08415].

And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 3:8: and Adam [0120] and his wife [0802] hid themselves [02244] (8691) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068] God [0430] amongst [08432] the trees [06086] of the garden [01588].

Gen 4:16: And Cain [07014] went out [03318] (8799) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068]

all these phrases show that "before me" has not to be translated in any hierarchical way, as "Not before me, but after me"
It morely means "God does not want to see his followers to have other gods"

Other gods that they worship, certainly. Since Scripture itself refers to some of God's servants as being gods, the commandment does not mean that there can be no being who are called gods.

Either "before me" or "in my presence" still implies that this commandment is about the primacy and exclusivity of worship, not exclusivity of category.

Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias.

Thus you only quote from a source if it backs one of your opinions, but you deny the same source if it's against it?

Using a Trinitarian source removes one area from a claim of bias when discussing the meaning and usage of words like "proskuneo". No source will be unflawed for free from bias.

In this case, identifying "ho theos" as it did seems to be a clearly theologically motivated addition. I do not think any intent to deceive or alther the truth was intended by this, it simply a result of bias.

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience).

I do not say that Jesus is greater than God.

I am sorry I was not more clear.

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never "before Him" (in a place of greater promience), so there is no concern about violating the first commandment.

ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai

to be honest my source does not put 'ho' in front of 'protos', 'eschatos'. But this proves again the ussage of 'ho' as 'the' in several verses.

They are there in Crosswalk. I didn't find which version of the Greek text Crosswalk uses.

"the first and the last" is the usual translation of this phrase.

As a translation it is acceptable.

3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected).

the 2nd assumption is self-made and cannot be extracted out of the phrase.

"I am alive for evermore" does indeed imply "immortality" but Jesus is certainly not the last who will live for evermore after being dead and raised. That counts for all christians.

Yes, if you take just those for properties of the five, Jesus is not unique.

The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive

1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.

CyberShy: application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more)

application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above.

Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

One_Brow: Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly.

in that case it cannot be difficult to counter my arguments with counter-arguments.

I have already supplied them. When you say "impossible", that implies my argument that Jesus is the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected does not agree with the text. It does agree with the text.

Again, I'm not trying to say your interpretaion is plainly wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are alternate ways of understanding this text.

God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless.

Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God."

it appears to be a title.
The blanc appearantly doesn't need to be filled out.
Pherhaps we can say "The first and the last who is God" since that can be get out of the phrase that follows.

Perhaps instead of filling in the blank for ourselves, we can allow Scripture to do so.

Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.

Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.

Rev 22:13 Jesus says:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

ego eimi a kai omega arche kai telos protos kai eschatos.

If you claim that Rev 1:8 is said by Jehova,
than Rev 22:13 shows that Jesus and Jehova are said to be both the first and the last. Both be the alpha and the omega. Both to be the Beginning and the Ending.

Rev 22:12-13:
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.

Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself.

I just quoted Isa 44:6 and rev 22.
Both 'hang by itself'.

As I just demonstrated, neither does.

I will grant you that in Rev. 1:8, the phrase hangs by itself, without qualification. I haven’t seen this in any other location.

To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking.

Verse 11 is clearly Jesus who's speaking.

Thus we have verse 8, in which the speaker clearly is the highest divinity, the One True God, the almighty.
Verse 11 claims the same titles, verse 17 claims the same titles.

I very admit that in verse 8 God is speaking,
God the being. And after that in 11 and 17, Jesus, God in person, is speaking.

Both claim to be 'the alpha' and 'the omega'
The NWT translates both as 'the' and not as 'this alpha' and 'this omega'.

What other purpose but showing that in the vision the same person is speaking as the one speaking before the vision could this repeating of titles be?

While the titles/descriptions are not actually the same, the purpose of the similarity of the titles is to emphasize that Jesus is serving as the vassal of the Almighty.

Do you imply that John heard God speaking straight in verse 8, and by a vision in verse 11?
I would say both are either a vision or reality.

You can say this, but the text does nothing to support your saying this. There is definitely a vision that starts in vs. 10. At the very least, it seems likely that any putative vision in verse 8 would therefore be a different vision.

If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this.

No prince will be called "King" as long as his father is living or gave up the title.
Jesus is titled "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"

The Bible says, in many ways and places, that the Father does give up the title to the Son, with the expectation of it being returned to the Father.

If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.

Here you have two beings from beyond time, one having been begotten from the other. They are both from the beginning (one as a self-aware being, the other as a yet-to-be-begotten part of the self-aware being), and now two beings.

I would like to sidestep to Romand 9:5,
obviously a known phrase for you as well.

"Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

I might add that the greek version of the JW puts a comma (,) at the same places, eventhough the NWT (TRANSLATION) puts a dot before "God blessed forever"

I assume we'd rather use the greek bible than any translation when speaking about this very important phrase.

Paul clearly states that Jesus is both flesh and God, blessed forever.

First of all, we don't even have the definitive "ho" preceding "theos" here, so I don't see why you assume the "theos" of this verse is Yahowah (outside of theological preference).

Second, many of the commentaries on Crosswalk seem to feel that the phrase is better understood as “who is ‘theos’ overall, blessed forever”. While they also equate “theos” to “God”, the point that Jesus is “theos” to all creation, as well as forever blessed, is central to JW theology, not in opposition to it.

Lastly, since this thread is ostensibly about JWs, I feel obligated to bring up a common JW argument: “God blessed forever” is some sort of interjection after the sentence. The JWs do occasionally give out explanations that seem to designed for people who don’t, and never will, learn the Greek text, in order to give them easy-to-understand responses in their door-to-door work. In this case this particular JW argument seems to be a very unlikely understanding of the verse.