Is anyone here a Jehovah's Witness?

[Robert]

Thomas used the word "theos", which does not specifically refer to angels, nor specifically to the One True God. It is a word that can be used of any being of relative authority or might to the speaker. The One True God is the pinnacle of godliness, but not the only god around (in the biblical usage of the term).

Give me another biblical phrase in which 'theos' is used for someone else but the "One True God"

Or explain more detailed how the phrase "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou" can be applied to anyone but the One True God, since it's not only "ho theos" but even "ho theos mou"! Can anyone but The One True God be "ho theos mou"?

That would be against God's first commandment.

You mean, the characteristics of a divine being? They are assigned to many creature, such as angels, in addition to God.

no, not the characteristics of a divine being, but the characteristics of the One True God.

compare:
A. Isa.44:6 Jehovah is the first and the last.
B. Rev.1:7-8, 22:13 Jesus is the first and the last.

Either God Jehovah is the first and the last, or Jesus is. The can only both be the First and the Last if they are one, and if Jesus is for that reason the One True God.

Jno.12:37-41 John says that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory.
Isa.6:5 Isaiah saw Jehovah of Hosts.

A. Jno.1:3 That’s a strong negative – no created thing that was ever created, was created without Jesus
creating it. If Jesus was created. Then how did he create himself?
B. Col.1:15-17 There isn’t anything that he didn’t create. All creation continues to be, by his authority and
creative power. (consist = hold together)

Lk.12:11 “rulers” in this verse is the same word as beginning. ARCHE.
Would this then be “synagogues and beginnings and authorities”?
“ARCHE means a beginning. The root “ARCH” primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb
ARCHO meant to be first; and ARCHON denoted ruler. So arose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether it be a person or a thing, e.g. (Col.1:18) “who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence.” [Vine’s Expository Dict. of N.T. Words]
So Jesus is the beginning, the origin, the active cause, the ruler of the creation of God.

A. Jno.8:58 Before Abraham became, I am. (not was) The only other person in all of scripture who said this and meant it was Jehovah. (Ex.3:14)
B. Mt.2:5-6
The prophecy concerning the place of his birth. But look at the whole verse. Cf. Micah.5:2 “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
C. Heb.7:1-3 The son of God is one who has no beginning of days nor end of life.

[Lars-E]

Originally posted by One_Brow
Just for thoroughness, I check the Off-Topic and Off-Topic archive for "Jahve". Outside of this thread, no hits.

God's name is "I AM". You could have searched for that. I know for a fact that I have mentioned John 8:58 before. I think several times. The thread(s) might have been deleted.

So, I look forward to your example of Yahoweh in the NT, when you have the time. That is, assuming you didn't think this was actually the first time I had seen John 8:58 in five years, and that is what you meant.

I've been through all the "Jesus is God" relevant scriptures with the JWs. We can't get passed them if we wanna discuss Jesus' deity.

Tomaito, tomahto.

I wrote Jahve, you searched for Jehova, then you wrote Yahoweh, and I finished with YHWH.

"Jehova" is probably a wrong translation.

Quite possibly guilty of arrogance as charaged. Yes, after five years discussion on the web, plus reading quite a few JW and anti-Jw books before that, I think I've seen pretty much every argument the Trinitarians use to bolster their doctrine

I'd say that JWs have heard it all...

I have a quite good anti-JW book "The dream about paradise lost". Too bad it's only in Scandinavian...

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Too bad your knowledge is considered heretic by the christian church.

that I am arrogant does not make me incorrect.

That's right. But you're being both arrogant and incorrect

Actually, I don't *want* to believe it, and never did *want* to believe it.

I actually think that ppl who have some knowledge and spiritual christian experience will be better handling the teachings of the JWs and others considered heretic. It's better to know something on which both the Christian Church and the Watchtower teaches instead of being a tabula rasa.

For those not in the know, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society uses the phrase "I have been" instead of "I am".

And up to this point you pointed out that the other translations used by most christians were as good... Not good enough anymore, hey?

Is this supposed to be the mistake? If so, then you were wrong. If this suppose to be the existence of the Divine Name? You are wrong again.

No, this wasn't the mistake. It was like the elder said a "small thing". It might have been a preposition or something that was translated wrong from NT Greek into English. I don't remember. I was correct and the elder agreed with me. I think he knows his JW translation. He brought his JW bible and we both saw it.

I can approach this any number of ways. We can discuss the context of the passage, in which Jesus is comparing his age to Abraham's age. We can discuss the passage in Exodus 3:14, which no Jew of that era would take to mean "I am", not too mention that the Divine name does not even appear in 3:14.

"I have been" in like "I am no more" ? It just doesn't sound right.

Ex 3:14 (John 8:58):

And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,.... This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their to on from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is
o wn: it is said {z}, that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it, "I am all that exists, is, and shall be." And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written ei, the contraction of eimi, "I am" {a}. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" {b} the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:

thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it, "I am he that is, and that shall be." This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

{z} Phutarch. de Iside & Osir. {a} Plato in Timaeo. {b} hyha rva hyha "ero qui ero," Pagninus, Montanus, Fagius, Vatablus.

We can discuss a variety of Trinitarian translations (a partial list includes Goodspeed and the Living Bible) that do not use "I am."

I know 13 bible versions who translate into "I am". Why don't we discuss the majority, not the minority?

We can discuss how the general use of the "I am" phrases is to show Jesus is the Messiah, not God.

Go ahead.

Any of of the above is enough to show that John 8:58 offers no support for Trinitarian dogma.

I beg to differ.

A Triune God:

Colossians 1:17 And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).

Refering to Jesus here.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God the Father, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are eternal beings.

I know that the Watchtower hates Athanasius...

1 John 2: 23 No one who [habitually] denies (disowns) the Son even has the Father. Whoever confesses (acknowledges and has) the Son has the Father also.

Well, I'll be gone all weekend, so take your time in getting your research together and gathering up your arguments. If you take this to a new thread, please email me so I'll see it on Monday. Have a great weekend.

Have a good un.

[Lars-E]

The deity of Christ/ A Triune God

I couldn’t fit the following into the former post:

John 1:1 (Scandinavian translation...):

In Hebrew there is one word for “in the beginning” – bere****. Be and Re****. The preposition Be can be translated to:

1. In.
2. By (through).
3. To.

The main word Re**** can be translated in four ways:

1. Beginning, before all things.
2. The sum, the total.
3. The Head.
4. Firstborn (firstfruit)

In Col 1:16-18 we find a praise to Jesus, praise for creation and redemption. In Col 1:16 we again meet the three prepositions:

1. In him.
2. By him.
3. To him.

And in Col 1:17-18 we find the four expressions for the noun:

1. He is before all things [the beginning], v. 17a
2. In Him all things consist [the sum, the total], v. 17b
3. He is the head of the body, the church, v. 18a
4. He is the firstborn from the dead, v. 18b

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1] Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2] Himself.(1)

Footnotes

In John's vision (Rev. 19), he sees Christ returning as Warrior-Messiah-King, and "the title by which He is called is The Word of God... and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:13, 16).
Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: "God" appears first in the Greek word order in this phrase, denoting emphasis--so "God Himself."

In the beginning was the word,.... That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to John 1:14 as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ, John 1:15. And likewise from what this evangelist elsewhere says of him, when he calls him the word of life, and places him between the Father and the Holy Ghost; and speaks of the record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, as the same thing; and represents him as a warrior and conqueror, 1 John 1:1. Moreover this appears to be spoken of Christ, from what other inspired writers have said of him, under the same character; as the Evangelist Luke, Luke 1:2, the Apostle Paul, Acts 20:32 and the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3:5. And who is called the word, not as man; for as man he was not in the beginning with God, but became so in the fulness of time; nor is the man God; besides, as such, he is a creature, and not the Creator, nor is he the life and light of men; moreover, he was the word, before he was man, and therefore not as such: nor can any part of the human nature be so called; not the flesh, for the word was made flesh; nor his human soul, for self-subsistence, deity, eternity, and the creation of all things, can never be ascribed to that; but he is the word as the Son of God, as is evident from what is here attributed to him, and from the word being said to be so, as in John 1:14 and from those places, where the word is explained by the Son, compare 1 John 5:5.

And is so called from his nature, being begotten of the Father; for as the word, whether silent or expressed, is the birth of the mind, the image of it, equal to it, and distinct from it; so Christ is the only begotten of the Father, the express image of his person, in all things equal to him, and a distinct person from him: and he may be so called, from some action, or actions, said of him, or ascribed to him; as that he spoke for, and on the behalf of the elect of God, in the eternal council and covenant of grace and peace; and spoke all things out of nothing, in creation; for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, as he was in Eden's garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, yyd armym, "the word of the Lord," so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them: that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius {f}, a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master's doctrine: his words are these;

"and this was truly "Logos," or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man."

In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews {g}, and understood prophecy {h}, and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy {i}; but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests {k}, and to understand the rites of the prophets {l}; and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms {m}, he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher {n}, charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses "Atticising?" or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius {o}, an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown. Moreover, the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews, and may be the reason of the evangelist's using it.

This word, he says, was in the beginning; by which is meant, not the Father of Christ; for he is never called the beginning, but the Son only; and was he, he must be such a beginning as is without one; nor can he be said to be so, with respect to the Son or Spirit, who are as eternal as himself; only with respect to the creatures, of whom he is the author and efficient cause: Christ is indeed in the Father, and the Father in him, but this cannot be meant here; nor is the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, by the preaching of John the Baptist, intended here: John's ministry was an evangelical one, and the Gospel was more clearly preached by him, and after him, by Christ and his apostles, than before; but it did not then begin; it was preached before by the angel to the shepherds, at the birth of Christ; and before that, by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden: nor did Christ begin to be, when John began to preach; for John's preaching and baptism were for the manifestation of him: yea, Christ existed as man, before John began to preach; and though he was born after him as man, yet as the Word and Son of God, he existed before John was born; he was in being in the times of the prophets, which were before John; and in the times of Moses, and before Abraham, and in the days of Noah: but by the beginning is here meant, the beginning of the world, or the creation of all things; and which is expressive of the eternity of Christ, he was in the beginning, as the Maker of all creatures, and therefore must be before them all: and it is to be observed, that it is said of him, that in the beginning he was; not made, as the heavens and earth, and the things in them were; nor was he merely in the purpose and predestination of God, but really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father: so Philo the Jew often calls the Logos, or word, the eternal word, the most ancient word, and more ancient than any thing that is made {p}. The eternity of the Messiah is acknowledged by the ancient Jews: Micah 5:2 is a full proof of it; which by them {q} is thus paraphrased; "out of thee, before me, shall come forth the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel; whose name is said from eternity, from the days of old."

Jarchi upon it only mentions Psalm 72:17 which is rendered by the Targum on the place, before the sun his name was prepared; it may be translated, "before the sun his name was Yinnon"; that is, the Son, namely the Son of God; and Aben Ezra interprets it, Nb arqy, "he shall be called the son"; and to this agrees what the Talmudisis say {r}, that the name of the Messiah was before the world was created; in proof of which they produce the same passage.

And the word was with God; not with men or angels; for he was before either of these; but with God, not essentially, but personally considered; with God his Father: not in the Socinian sense, that he was only known to him, and to no other before the ministry of John the Baptist; for he was known and spoken of by the angel Gabriel before; and was known to Mary and to Joseph; and to Zacharias and Elisabeth; to the shepherds, and to the wise men; to Simeon and Anna, who saw him in the temple; and to the prophets and patriarchs in all ages, from the beginning of the world: but this phrase denotes the existence of the word with the Father, his relation and nearness to him, his equality with him, and particularly the distinction of his person from him, as well as his eternal being with him; for he was always with him, and is, and ever will be; he was with him in the council and covenant of grace, and in the creation of the universe, and is with him in the providential government of the world; he was with him as the word and Son of God in heaven, whilst he as man, was here on earth; and he is now with him, and ever will be: and as John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; Psalm 110:1 "the Lord said to my Lord," is rendered, "the Lord said to his word"; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in Hosea 1:7 the Lord promises to "have mercy on the house of Judah," and "save them by the Lord their God." The Targum is, "I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God"; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of "the word" being "with God," is in the Targums expressed by, Mdq Nm rmym, "the word from before the Lord," or "which is before the Lord": being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases Genesis 31:22 "and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban," &c. and Exodus 20:19 thus, "and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die"; for so it is read in the King of Spain's Bible; and wisdom, which is the same with the word of God, is said to be by him, or with him, in Proverbs 8:1 agreeably to which John here speaks. John makes use of the word God, rather than Father, because the word is commonly called the word of God, and because of what follows;

and the word was God; not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, John 1:6 and which shows, that the word "God," is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Genesis 28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos; "if "the word of the Lord" will be my help, and will keep me, &c. then "the word of the Lord" shall be, ahlal yl, "my God":" again, Leviticus 26:12 is paraphrased, by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, thus; "I will cause the glory of my Shekinah to dwell among you, and my word shall "be your God," the Redeemer;" once more, Deuteronomy 26:17 is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum after this manner; "ye have made "the word of the Lord" king over you this day, that he may be your God:" and this is frequent with Philo the Jew, who says, the name of God is his word, and calls him, my Lord, the divine word; and affirms, that the most ancient word is God {s}.

{f} Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 19. {g} Stromat. l. 1. p. 274. {h} Ib. p. 303. {i} Ib. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 1. p. 150. {k} Valer. Maxim. l. 8. c. 7. {l} Apuleius de dogmate Platonis, l. 1. in principio. {m} Apud. Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 13. c. 12. {n} Hesych. Miles. de Philosophis. p. 50. {o} Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 9. {p} De Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 93. de Plant. Noe, p. 217. de Migrat. Abraham, p. 389. de Profugis, p. 466. quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. {q} Targum Jon. in loc. {r} T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. & Nedarim, fol. 39. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 3. {s} De Allegor. l. 2. p. 99, 101. & de Somniis, p. 599.

When the Bible talks about God the word Elohim is sometimes used. This implies “more than one”. That God’s name is plural we also find in Gen 1:26: God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.

That God is one and yet three is deep. This is difficult to understand, it has to be revealed.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Thomas used the word "theos", which does not specifically refer to angels, nor specifically to the One True God. It is a word that can be used of any being of relative authority or might to the speaker. The One True God is the pinnacle of godliness, but not the only god around (in the biblical usage of the term).

Give me another biblical phrase in which 'theos' is used for someone else but the "One True God"

1Co 8:4-6 4
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. (All quotes from the NASB and courtesy of Bible Gateway, unless otherwise stated).

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.

Or explain more detailed how the phrase "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou" can be applied to anyone but the One True God, since it's not only "ho theos" but even "ho theos mou"! Can anyone but The One True God be "ho theos mou"?

That would be against God's first commandment.

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.

You mean, the characteristics of a divine being? They are assigned to many creature, such as angels, in addition to God.

no, not the characteristics of a divine being, but the characteristics of the One True God.

compare:
A. Isa.44:6 Jehovah is the first and the last.
B. Rev.1:7-8, 22:13 Jesus is the first and the last.

Either God Jehovah is the first and the last, or Jesus is. The can only both be the First and the Last if they are one, and if Jesus is for that reason the One True God.

First of all, Rev 1:7 and 1:8 have different speakers. Second, neither uses "first and last". Perhaps you meant Rev 1:17-18, which says "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "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."

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.

Jno.12:37-41 John says that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory.
Isa.6:5 Isaiah saw Jehovah of Hosts.

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

A. Jno.1:3 That’s a strong negative – no created thing that was ever created, was created without Jesus
creating it. If Jesus was created. Then how did he create himself?

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

B. Col.1:15-17 There isn’t anything that he didn’t create. All creation continues to be, by his authority and creative power. (consist = hold together)

Certainly, and completely in line with WTBTS teachings, and valueless for showing Jesus is God.

Lk.12:11 “rulers” in this verse is the same word as beginning. ARCHE.
Would this then be “synagogues and beginnings and authorities”? “ARCHE means a beginning. The root “ARCH” primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb ARCHO meant to be first; and ARCHON denoted ruler. So arose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether it be a person or a thing, e.g. (Col.1:18) “who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence.” [Vine’s Expository Dict. of N.T. Words]
So Jesus is the beginning, the origin, the active cause, the ruler of the creation of God.

Nothing in Scripture attaches the notion of "active cause" to "arche". Absent this phrase, there is nothing in that passage to show Jesus is God.

A. Jno.8:58 Before Abraham became, I am. (not was) The only other person in all of scripture who said this and meant it was Jehovah. (Ex.3:14)

Ex. 3:14 is better translated "I will be", "I will cause to be", or "I shall prove to be", not "I am". John 8:58 is a declaration of being older than Abraham, not being God.

B. Mt.2:5-6
The prophecy concerning the place of his birth. But look at the whole verse. Cf. Micah.5:2 “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

As appropriate for a being that existed "before" time, and lives outside of it.

C. Heb.7:1-3 The son of God is one who has no beginning of days nor end of life.

Ditto.

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lars-E
I wrote Jahve, you searched for Jehova, then you wrote Yahoweh, and I finished with YHWH.

"Jehova" is probably a wrong translation.

Missing the final consanent, it would be.

As for "Yahweh", "Yahoweh", or "Jehovah", there are reasons for preferring each (essemtially meaning, combination names, colloquialism). "Jehovah" is no worse than "Jesus" as a "translation".

I'd say that JWs have heard it all...

Those who have activley investigated the issue, certainly.

I have a quite good anti-JW book "The dream about paradise lost". Too bad it's only in Scandinavian...

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Too bad your knowledge is considered heretic by the christian church.

According to JWs, the Christian church strongly approves of their doctrine. So, there is no charge of heresy by the Christian church.

That's right. But you're being both arrogant and incorrect

I'll concede the former, even though you offer no evidence. As for the latter, perhaps you could first demonstrate an actual inaccuracy. I won't hold my breath.

I actually think that ppl who have some knowledge and spiritual christian experience will be better handling the teachings of the JWs and others considered heretic. It's better to know something on which both the Christian Church and the Watchtower teaches instead of being a tabula rasa.

Certainly those who have already been indoctrinated by Trinitarians are less likely to be indoctrinated by JWs, as you first would have to undo the current level of indoctrination. Similarly, JWs who were never indoctrinated are more likely to become Trinitarians.

For those not in the know, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society uses the phrase "I have been" instead of "I am".

And up to this point you pointed out that the other translations used by most christians were as good... Not good enough anymore, hey?

I was trying to clarify the dispute, for those who were not aware of the disagreement. In any case, my personal opinion of which translation is preferrable is beside the point, both concepts have their scholarly adherents.

No, this wasn't the mistake. It was like the elder said a "small thing". It might have been a preposition or something that was translated wrong from NT Greek into English. I don't remember. I was correct and the elder agreed with me. I think he knows his JW translation. He brought his JW bible and we both saw it.

Prepositions can be tricky to translate, as I'm sure you know just from going between Swedish and English. Without more information, I don't think that the acknowledgement of some elder of unknown knowledge of Greek is sufficient to say the translation is definately improper.

"I have been" in like "I am no more" ? It just doesn't sound right.

You are correct in that "I am no more" would be completely wrong. You may have confused "I have been", indicating a continuous condition from the past into the present, with "I had been", indicating a continuous condition that terminated at some point in the past. Far from implying "I am no more", "I have been" implies the opposite.

Ex 3:14 (John 8:58):

And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,....

I snipped most of the philosophical meandering, as it depended on the result you are still attempting to prove. I only snip the below for an observation:

"I am he that is, and that shall be." This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

The author seems to have missed that "Jehovah" would be third person, not first person. The statments at Ex. 3:14 do not give the Name, the Name given in Ex. 3:15 is not "I am", but "He will be/shall be/causes to be/is".

I know 13 bible versions who translate into "I am". Why don't we discuss the majority, not the minority?

If the text were unequivocal, there would be no minority. We need to discuss the majority and the minority, and why they see it differently, in order to separate the bias from the translation.

We can discuss how the general use of the "I am" phrases is to show Jesus is the Messiah, not God

Go ahead.

Perhaps in a subsequent post. Just to clarify, do you agree that the "I am" verses are to highlight Jesus as the Messiah, or diagree?

A Triune God:

Colossians 1:17 And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).

Refering to Jesus here.

JWs agree, yet have no Trinity, so the verse obviously does not imply one.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God the Father, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are eternal beings.

I know that the Watchtower hates Athanasius...

Genesis 1:2 doesn't say holy Spirit is any sort of being.

The WTBTS doesn't feel Athanasius was any sort of especially hateful person, he was simply wrong (they would say Arius was less wrong).

1 John 2: 23 No one who [habitually] denies (disowns) the Son even has the Father. Whoever confesses (acknowledges and has) the Son has the Father also.

Of course, JWs habitually recogize the Son.

I'll respond to the third post tomorrow (or much later). I want to make sure I digest it thoroughly.

[One_Brow]

Re: The deity of Christ/ A Triune God

Originally posted by Lars-E
I couldn’t fit the following into the former post:

You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence) and mixes Scriptural paraphrases with doctrine that is not Scripturally supported, all in a long blurb about what the Trinity means for this person, nothing that can validate its existence. I will cull out a pssage or two for quick comment.

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1] Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2] Himself.(1)

Footnotes

In John's vision (Rev. 19), he sees Christ returning as Warrior-Messiah-King, and "the title by which He is called is The Word of God... and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:13, 16).
Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: "God" appears first in the Greek word order in this phrase, denoting emphasis--so "God Himself."

The emphasis denoted by the phrase "theos en ho logos" means that the "logos"/word is an ideal or typical version of a "theos"/god. While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god".

You can only strech John 1:1c into a Trinitarian translation if you assume that John would never refer to any separate being in the service of God as a god. The falsity of that assumption is quite plain at John 10:33.

That God is one and yet three is deep. This is difficult to understand, it has to be revealed.

Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality.

[Lars-E]

Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality.

Your last sentence proves your first wrong and my quote right.

You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence)

Same words can and do mean different things in all languages and is especially prolific in rich languages such as Hebrew.

"While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god"."

And since it is one verse it’s not the Word of God? And/or doesn’t count?

Most words can be used in any context. This is certainly not an argument.

and mixes Scriptural paraphrases with doctrine that is not Scripturally supported

If you say so...

all in a long blurb about what the Trinity means for this person, nothing that can validate its existence.

Are you saying God's existance can be validated like in proven?

I will cull out a pssage or two for quick comment.

This was clear and stood out from all the blur?

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Both sides have arguments and believe in them. You have spent much time with JWs and studied their doctrines:

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Romans 10:17

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lars-E

Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality.

Your last sentence proves your first wrong and my quote right.

Well, I was not being completely serious about that, although you might have more trouble differentiating the Triniity from MPD than you realize.

You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence)

Same words can and do mean different things in all languages and is especially prolific in rich languages such as Hebrew.

Since the passage was a discussion of John 1:1, the passage in question was 1) written in Greek, and 2) a single passage in a single context. While I agree that the phrase could indeed mean different things to different people in this context, it normally would not mean both things at the same time.

"While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god"."

And since it is one verse it’s not the Word of God? And/or doesn’t count?

Of course is counts. However, we have to look at secular uses of the construction to understand for what it counts, that is, for what it really is saying. In this case, the usage is no more saying that Jesus is God than it would be saying some market is a part of tne One True Market.

Are you saying God's existance can be validated like in proven?

For the sake of the discussion on the differences between Trinitaians and Unitarians (like the JWs), I normally accept the validity of the Bible as a premise. I think the existence of God is easily proven is you accept the Bible as valid.

This was clear and stood out from all the blur?

The whole passage was clear, there was no blur. There was just very little relevant or noteworthy that applied to the discussion of the Scriptural support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

[/QUOTE]I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Both sides have arguments and believe in them. You have spent much time with JWs and studied their doctrines: [/QUOTE]

I don't know where you were trying to go. I made a claim that Scripture never referred to Jesus as being God, you claimed that you could provide Scriture showing he was. In my arrogance we have agreed to acknowledge for this discussion, I already knew that you would fail to provide such Scripture, so this discussion has already gone as far as I expected it would go.

If you expect to take it to a place where you can provide some actual Biblical proff Jesus is God, you'll be quite disappointed in the journey.

[Lars-E]

Well, I was not being completely serious about that, although you might have more trouble differentiating the Triniity from MPD than you realize.

I view the trinity as three persons who have bound themselves in an eternal covenant to eachother.

Since the passage was a discussion of John 1:1, the passage in question was 1) written in Greek

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth..."

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention... Too much coffee and too little sleep - can be fun sometimes. I thought you were referring to OT.

I don't know where you were trying to go. I made a claim that Scripture never referred to Jesus as being God, you claimed that you could provide Scriture showing he was. In my arrogance we have agreed to acknowledge for this discussion, I already knew that you would fail to provide such Scripture, so this discussion has already gone as far as I expected it would go.

No I didn't use the word prove. When I read the bible it tells me Jesus is God.

If you expect to take it to a place where you can provide some actual Biblical proff Jesus is God, you'll be quite disappointed in the journey.

Proof is not a word I take lightly. When I and the christian church read the Bible we understand that Jesus is God. As I said earlier Jehovas Witness denies the divinity of Christ and they are therefore not considered christians. This does not exclude the fact that they probably view themselves as christians. Mormons and JW are often put in the same "non-christian" bracket by the christian church.

Interesting note: I know there are JWs that believe Christ is God. They've decided to stay put in the JW-organization so that they'll be able to influence their fellow biblestudents and maybe save them from eternal hellfire.

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message
Romans 10:17a

What I meant here is that your faith is a result of the preaching/teaching/guided studypath you've heard, followed, and paid serious attention to. If you had started to study with evangelical christians from the start instead - yes some visit homes, your opinion would be pro-trinity. I betcha.

Endnote: You seem to convey a thought that you've disproven the trinity to me. Well, you haven't. I tried to convince you or at least be a witness I suppose . When JW visited me I viewed it as an opportunity - the mission field coming home to you.

Now, pure logic is not sufficient. JWs are good at that - trying to understand God from a human perspective. This is not a good starting point. Understand God from a God perspective! You need the Holy Ghost to enlighten you - he is after all the author of the bible, yet Jehovas Witness go very far in their own thoughts to explain their view. Making up your mind and then saying God did it is a wrong practise. What JWs need is a revelation of the trinity and the divinity And try to relax their efforts. God has done all the effort.

I'm sure you know that christians feel and believe that Jehovas Witness and the Mormons and others need to be saved. There are probably a few individual JWs that are saved and perhaps Mormons and others too, but the teaching of those organizations...

Isn't God the only one who can forgive sins? Remember what the Jews thought when Jesus said "your sins are forgiven" and then healed the lame man coming through the roof? You used yourself "what the Jews" believed as an argument in another context.

There is a danger of secterianism or a sign thereof when a group of ppl claim to have the truth and the others don't. Don't tell me that JW view christians positively. Maybe when they talk to you, but when you read their writings... for ex their magazine.

Jehovas Witness put a lot of emphasis on theory and what they believe. When you tell them of experiences you've had with the Holy Spirit they denounce it as "feelings". And perhaps say "it is good to have feelings". This indicates that they don't experience the Holy Spirit in their life - it seems to boil down to faith and teachings (or even feelings). Where is the inntervening of the Almighty God in their life? I'm sure some have had experiences, but it doesn't seem to be an integral part of their life with God. Is the "life of God" lacking? - Not in their theory no. But I am not asking about what they think in their heads - where is the presence of God in their life ?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Lars-E
I view the trinity as three persons who have bound themselves in an eternal covenant to eachother.

Interesting. In English, when you say "who have bound themselves", you make it sound as if the process is one of will rather than nature. This would be highly unorthodox, I think.

No I didn't use the word prove. When I read the bible it tells me Jesus is God.

It tells other people that Jesus is not God.

Proof is not a word I take lightly. When I and the christian church read the Bible we understand that Jesus is God. As I said earlier Jehovas Witness denies the divinity of Christ and they are therefore not considered christians. This does not exclude the fact that they probably view themselves as christians. Mormons and JW are often put in the same "non-christian" bracket by the christian church.

JWs would say that those who try to elevate Jesus to a status only God has are not true Christians. For them, you are not a true Christian. this does not exclude the fact that you probably think you are a Christian.

What I meant here is that your faith is a result of the preaching/teaching/guided studypath you've heard, followed, and paid serious attention to. If you had started to study with evangelical christians from the start instead - yes some visit homes, your opinion would be pro-trinity. I betcha.

Your statement is completely inaccurate. I had quite a bit of experience with both Catholoic and evangelical Christianity before I astarted studying with JWs. You would have lost your putative bet.

Endnote: You seem to convey a thought that you've disproven the trinity to me.

No, I'm not so foolish as that. I know there is nothing in the Bible to directly contradict the idea of two, three, four, five, six, or twenty persons in one God. There is simply nopthing to support having more than one. You are determined to accept three, so for you there are three.

Well, you haven't. I tried to convince you or at least be a witness I suppose . When JW visited me I viewed it as an opportunity - the mission field coming home to you.

Now, pure logic is not sufficient. JWs are good at that - trying to understand God from a human perspective. This is not a good starting point. Understand God from a God perspective! You need the Holy Ghost to enlighten you - he is after all the author of the bible, yet Jehovas Witness go very far in their own thoughts to explain their view. Making up your mind and then saying God did it is a wrong practise.

Oddly, the JWs would agree with you that people can't understand God from a human perspective, and that people need Holy spirit to enlighten and guide them. This guidance from god seems to be as important to them as it does to you.

What JWs need is a revelation of the trinity and the divinity And try to relax their efforts. God has done all the effort.

I think they believe they have received correct revelations regarding the Trinity and divinity.

There is a danger of secterianism or a sign thereof when a group of ppl claim to have the truth and the others don't. Don't tell me that JW view christians positively. Maybe when they talk to you, but when you read their writings... for ex their magazine.

They view Christian quite positively, although you would not number in that group. As people, they view most Christians as people who may be hungry for truth. As organizations, they feel Christendom is an evil worked by Satan.

Jehovas Witness put a lot of emphasis on theory and what they believe. When you tell them of experiences you've had with the Holy Spirit they denounce it as "feelings". And perhaps say "it is good to have feelings". This indicates that they don't experience the Holy Spirit in their life - it seems to boil down to faith and teachings (or even feelings). Where is the inntervening of the Almighty God in their life? I'm sure some have had experiences, but it doesn't seem to be an integral part of their life with God. Is the "life of God" lacking? - Not in their theory no. But I am not asking about what they think in their heads - where is the presence of God in their life ?

Their opinions is that you can see the evidence of a good/rotten vine in its fruit, and religions that rely too much on peoples subjective experience with God fall prey to division. Feelings come from the corrupted heart. They feel the heart must be guided by the mind in order to find truth. The mind finds the path to slavation, the heart can then choose to walk it.

[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.

[Robert]

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.

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.

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.

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.

For sure since it makes no sence because Jesus is not the last who will ever be raised from dead.

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.

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

weak reasoning.

I'll leave the rest of my arguments, because I can't see how we can come to each other through those, besides that I think the arguments above are strong enough.

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

CyberShy

[Robert]

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.

[Robert]

It seems both of you know quite a lot of religions,
Can I ask something about predestination and arminianism?

I hope I can answer, but those are difficult topics that tend to go beyond our (at least my) imagination.
Both are dogma's that try to catch the problem and bind it into words. I think a dogma is a good thing to explain these difficult things, but if you want to take a deeper look into it, it's a good thing to do further investigation.

said that, ask your question but don't expect too much from me.

[gsmoove23]

Wow, very cool thread, debate between christians instead of the usual atheist-christian bashing. Keep it up sorry to interrupt.