ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Is Jesus Creator Or Created

Is Jesus Creator, or created being?

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Who Is Jesus Bible Quiz
 ---Warwick on 6/17/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



"You quoted a political statement"- Marc

RIght. Quoting the National Council of Churches that opposes "Christian Zionism" is a "political statement".

What? Are you a little uncomfortable (after all of your criticism directed at David and I ) to have a light turned toward your controversial theology/ideology?

The National Council of Churches opposes Christian Zionism "since Jews are seen as mere pawns in an eschatological scheme."

The Reformed Church in America at its 2004 General Synod found "the ideology of Christian Zionism and the extreme form of dispensationalism that undergirds it to be a...

...distortion of the biblical message."
---scott on 6/26/12


Scott,

1. In other words, he isn't qualified?
2. Re JW original research, their education [sic] material is a rolling out of Watchtower theology with liberal sprinklings of borrowed data/research by other organizations. Yes, someone else does do all the researching. Show me some original, peer-reviewed papers. Should be easy, if there are any?
3. You quoted a political statement i.e. "adversely affects justice and peace in the Middle East", for your own hypocritical ends.
4. Re "brag", here's another one you wrote, "in astronomical numbers for their global preaching work". Youre so used to being dishonest you cant see it anymore when you are. The tactic? Don't respond directly.
---Marc on 6/26/12


"You ask what we are doing to spread the gospel". Warwick

No, for the third time, I asked:

"How are you [Marc] and other Christian Zionists following Jesus' commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom (Matt 24:14, 28:19)

"This is a difficult question..." Warwick

Shouldn't be. It's a clear commission for all disciples of Jesus Christ.

When did Jesus' commission to his disciples stop being of any real importance?

"Earning salvation." Warwick

Silly. No Witness believes this. While 'faith without works is dead" (James 2:20) salvation only comes through faith in the ransom sacrifice of Christ.
---scott on 6/26/12


1. "Beduhn's Qualifications"- Marc

Get his book "Truth in Translation..." and decide for yourself.

2. Original research.

You're kidding right? The writing and translation committees of JWs produce bible education materials in the form of books, magazines and brochures in over 200 languages and in astronomical numbers for their global preaching work. So someone else is actually researching the topics and writing all of this? Got it.

3. Political statement-

False. Anyone can read for themselves my statement below. Another Red herring.

4. "brag"-

And another red herring to avoid asking the direct question about Jesus' commission to preach.
---scott on 6/26/12


Scott,

1. Re Beduhn, I asked for his qualifications as a translator and you assiduously avoided this question, twisting my request. More dishonesty from the Watchtower.

2. You avoided providing any proof that the Watchtower does original research.

3. Now you quote a political statement about the Middle East in order to score a few points. Yet, JWs are forbidden to get involved in politics, but can dishonestly break their own rules when they're losing the argument.

4. I refuse to "brag", as you do, about what, if any, evangelical work I do. Why? Because I am saved by my Lord and Saviour, Christ, not by my puny efforts and am ashamed to speak like you do. But of course, works save a JW.
---Marc on 6/25/12




Scott, you believe Jesus is described as 'a god' in John 1:1. I of course disagree, but leaving that aside for the moment, maybe you could answer one of my questions. Can you show me where anyone else in the NT refers to Jesus as 'a god'?
---Warwick on 6/25/12


Scott you ask what we are doing to spread the gospel. This is a difficult question as we Christians are saved by the grace of God, through the finished work of Jesus upon the cross. This is all of faith, not human works as even the measure of faith we exercise to say forgive me Lord, is given to us. JW's however are pressured into door knocking to earn their salvation. This is another gospel, one of damnation as no one can earn forgiveness.

Do we share our faith? Do we witness? Do we oppose error and heresy? Do we take any opportunity to preach the gospel? We do but should we boast of this, or do it quietly in His service. "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness" 2 Corinthians 11:30.
---Warwick on 6/25/12


Scott, you like your fellow slave David, persist in perverting what people write. I have not seen anywhere that Marc has "dismissed Gesenius." As I remember it Marc said that in being Jewish Gesenius would not be favourable to Christian doctrine. This is to be expected and is somewhat similar to the fact that you a slave of the WTS do not look favourably upon Christian doctrine either. How could it be otherwise?

You say Marc lacks credibility in your eyes. I should hope so!
---Warwick on 6/25/12


"BeDuhn's qualifications" Marc

You have dismissed Gesenius, respected 'father of Hebrew Lexicography' because he was Jewish (and every other scholar who disagrees with you), of course you dismiss BeDuhn.

You really have no choice.

When you approach these discussions with the non-objective, blind animosity that you have toward Witnesses it changes what otherwise would be a normal conversation (even disagreement), into a personal attack. As a result, in my opinion, any credibility that you otherwise have disappears.

For you to give the slightest impression of agreement with Witnesses (ever) threatens your threadbare theology so you will never, can never do so.

Fascinating stuff.
---scott on 6/25/12


Door Bell Ditch- (Mark_V)

Your habit of making accusations and then running from an actual discussion/debate is childish.

How 'bout we start with your exegesis of John 1:1c. (either Koine Greek or Coptic is fine...your choice) since that's the topic being discussed.
---scott on 6/25/12




"What Christian Zionists are DOING..." Marc

Let me open a window to let the fog of your red-herring clear the room. What I asked was:

"How are you and other Christian Zionists following Jesus' commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom (Matt 24:14, 28:19) 6/23/12

1. Did Jesus tell his disciples to do the above or not?

2. Are you and [other] Christian Zionists (who The General Assembly of the National Council of Churches says adversely affects justice and peace in the Middle East...relationships with Middle Eastern Christians [and] Jews, etc.)...

...following Jesus commission to "go therefore, making disciples of all the nations..."?
---scott on 6/25/12


Since JESUS created all things and since He could not create himself then no JESUS the Christ is not a created being.

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
---Samuelbb7 on 6/24/12


Scott,

You asked what Christian Zionists are DOING for God's Kingdom.

Well, since you don't know if you're saved or not, you would ask a question like that. The reason for this question is quite simple: JWs have to work for their salvation and must do something. A real Christian doesn't have to do anything because Christ saves, not our works. This is why the JWs are a cult because they've paganised the Christian salvation message. If you're not saved by Christ, then someone other than Christ has to tell you what to do in order to maybe, just maybe, obtain salvation. This is why whatever message comes from Brooklyn is the "Good News".
---Marc on 6/24/12


Scott, Jehovah Witnessess have been changing the word of God, changing the way they believe, changing their predictions, all through their history. At one time they worshipped Christ, their Chapter said so, now they don't. They predicted the Second coming so many times, that each time they got new revelation it was another time. Judge Rutherford quoted himself as president of the New York City Bar, when there was no New York City Bar, so Rutherford could not have been president, but was well known to frequent New York City Bars. The whole religion is a farce.
---Mark_V. on 6/24/12


Scott,

A while back I asked you for Jason BeDuhn's qualifications as a Greek translator. You didn't respond.

Now you quote him as saying that anyone who says that John 1:1 can't be translated as 'the word was a god' is dishonest or grammatically illiterate. Well, Scott, there must be an awful lot of such translators out there. Isn't that a little bit of the old Us Vs the world conspiracy theory?
---Marc on 6/24/12


Scott I am disappoinbted you did not notice my absence. However I am thrilled you have noticed my transparency. Better than guile any day. Transparency is the natural state of someone who has nothing to hide. Guile, on the contrary, is the natural state for those who have much to hide.
---Warwick on 6/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


"Minority"- Marc

Scott: "Ahhh a total lack of knowledge regarding the long history of Monotheistic Unitarianism. See Wikipedia's "History of Unitarianism"

I looked at it. So?

Of course heresies existed from the earliest. But your particular brand didn't stick its head up until some 3 centuries AFTER Christ. Yours was a minority view and still is.

My point stands: If your heresy is the real orthodox, then God has failed to get his message across. What a feckless "God" you have.
---Marc on 6/24/12


Scott, Barclay's comment was "You could translate, so far as the Greek goes, the Word was a God, but it seems obvious that this is so much against the whole of the rest of the New Testament that it is wrong."

There lies the point, the one you perenially contrive to avoid-CONTEXT. If John 1:1 was the only NT reference to the Word (Jesus) then there would be no context, and a case could be made for "a god." However doctrines are not constructed on a few words, as "Scripture interprets Scripture."
---Warwick on 6/24/12


Scott:

If one does not believe that Jesus is GOD, then that person is NOT A CHRISTIAN! It's that simple. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. also don't believe that Jesus is God - and they aren't Christians either.



---jerry6593 on 6/24/12


"Barclay"- Warwick

"You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God..." Barclay

"So far as the Greek goes..."

"So far as the Greek goes..."

"So far as the Greek goes..."

"So far as the Greek goes..."

"So far as the Greek goes..."

"You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God..."


Is a serious student of the bible not more interested in the actual Greek text than theological spin?
---scott on 6/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Jesus Is The Creator ! Scripture where Jesus says, I am Alpha & Omega.
Alpha - beginning, that makes Him The Creator.
---Lawrence on 6/23/12


Scott, you would have us believe Barclay accepts -The Word was a god-is an acceptable translation. Not so "The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who said: 'The Word was as to his essence, essential deity.' But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely correct rendering: 'What God was the Word was'" (Barclay, p. 23) 'Many Witnesses one Lord.'

You have Barclay writing "...and the Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God..." Even if you have quoted this correctly at best Barclay is saying if you take these few words out of context it 'could' mean....

Underwhelming.
---Warwick on 6/23/12


"My absence"- Warwick

Sorry, hadn't noticed.

Your comments on this topic are so transparent I thought you were still posting but your words just began to disappear altogether.

Barclay (theology aside) said "Nowhere does the NT identify Jesus with God."

The letter (below) says:

"You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God..."

Regarding Barclay's "intellectually dishonest" comment, Jason BeDuhn says:

"This statement is false, the NWT translation of John 1:1 is not "grammatically impossible," and someone who says that it is either is ignorant of Greek grammar or themselves "intellectually dishonest."
---scott on 6/23/12


Scott, In my absence haven't you been busy with your misquote mining?

Regarding Dr Barclay, (acclaimed leading Greek scholar), he wrote of the Watch Tower Society "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."-An Ancient heresy in Modern Dress, Expository Times, 65, Oct.1957.

No matter how you practise to deceive you cannot avoid the fact Barclay considers the WTS as heretics who deliberately dishonestly distort truth.

Why would you quote him?
---Warwick on 6/23/12


Send a Free Smiles & Hugs Ecard


"What's interesting..." Marc (1)

You do know that the Watchtower is a magazine right?

"Original research."- Marc.

Right. So Witnesses translate John 1:1c "The Word was a god", receive the Trinitarian stink-eye (citing a tampering with the Greek)...We demonstrate that many respected scholars and translators recognize the significance of the Greek anarthrous theos, translating the verse similarly...and we are trawling. Got it.

"Unorthodox ideology"- Marc

(Asked 3 times now) How are you and other Christian Zionists following Jesus' commission to preach the good news of the Kingdom (Matt 24:14, 28:19) Unorthodox? Please.
---scott on 6/23/12


"What's interesting..." Marc (2)

"This means dishonestly slicing up anything from the Catholic Encyclopedia."- Marc.

Prove it.

The reason that the Catholic Encyclopedia is so forthright when it comes to the gradual, post apostolic, development of the Trinity is because, unlike most Protestants or evangelicals, Catholics view the creeds and words of men that came after the completion of the biblical cannon as equally important...perhaps even inspired.

Protestants and other "solo scriptura" believers attempt to prove by God's word alone that the doctrine is "orthodox". They're very uncomfortable with the notion that it was pieced together over time. (And it was).
---scott on 6/23/12


"Interesting..." Marc (3)

"Barclay was no Trinitarian"

Thank you. It only took about 50 posts with the deafening sound of your (and Warwick's) teeth gnashing to establish that possibility. Now that wasn't so painful was it?

"Misrepresented"- Marc

In "Ever Yours, A Selection From the Letters of Barclay" he writes to David Burnett, May 20, 1974 (long after his original comments) saying that (while he believes the 'whole of the NT makes such a translation unacceptable):...

"...and the Word was God." You could translate, so far as the Greek goes: "the Word was a God..."

I'm sticking with "So far as the Greek goes."
---scott on 6/23/12


Barclay

Scott,

What's interesting about the Watchtower is that it seems that they do no original research but trawl through others', looking for anything that ostensibly supports their unorthodox ideology. This means dishonestly slicing up anything from the Catholic Encyclopedia to tendentiously carving this or that academic's words, including Trinitarian ones.

Yes, yes, Barclay was no Trinitarian, but the Watchtower has misrepresented his words in order to find some support. After all, there is no genuine academia for JWs, just a parasitical masquerade.

Prove me wrong, Scott.
---Marc on 6/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


"No solace" Marc

I've never represented anything that Barclay has said as some type of endorsement for my beliefs. I am interested in his comments on biblical Greek. You accuse Witnesses of misrepresenting him so posting the fascinating views expressed in his "Spiritual Autobiography" is fair game.

What did he mean when he said: "It is not that Jesus is God."? And "Nowhere does the [NT] identify Jesus and God..."?

The early Judean/Christian use of Theos and Elohim allow for Christ to be referred to as god without making him Jehovah. (Ex 7:1)

Let us not forget that Christ has someone that he referred to as HIS God...who is that? (John 20:17, 1 Peter 1:3, Rev 3:12).
---scott on 6/22/12


Scott, quoting Barclay, wrote,"The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God".

I'm not quite sure why you would quote this. This is no solace for a JW. How is it possible for a created being to be in the same order/class/group, whatever, as God Almighty? If God is ONE, then he is unique and there is no other class member. That's a problem for the JWs and Arians to wiggle out of.

The Trinitarians (and to a limited extent, so too the Modalists) solve this exegetical and theological problem by having Jesus included in God. Thus Thomas can say TO Jesus, "The Lord of me and THE God of me." After all, 1x1x1=1, not 3.
---Marc on 6/21/12


"What Barclay actually says" Warwick (2)

Continued

..."If John had said 'ho theos en ho logos', using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would have definitely identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos ['God'/'god'] it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, 'The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God'...

...John is not identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God."- Barclay, Many Witnesses, One Lord, 1963, pp.23,24.

Yes I know...judicious cutting...evil JWs...etc., etc.
---scott on 6/21/12


What a ridiculous argument,
Sons of humans are humans.
We are sons of God only by adoption.
Jesus was not adopted,He is a true Son of God,so what is He? Human? no,animal? no?
Obviously a son of a god would also be a god,what else could he be?
The very fact that God mentioned a "Son" brought someone else into the picture not just another of His own personalities!
How many personalities do you have? If it's more than one,you have a medical problem!
---1st_cliff on 6/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


For four thousand years God walked and talked to and faought for and fed "His" people.
He stated at Deut.6.4 that he was "one" God!
When did Moses,Abraham,Isaac,Jecob or any of the OT Saints ever mention that God was a "Godhead" made up of more than one person or personality? (3 even?)
An immortal God who died???
---1st_cliff on 6/21/12


If one does not believe that Jesus is GOD, then that person is NOT A CHRISTIAN! It's that simple. Atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. also don't believe that Jesus is God - and they aren't Christians either.


---jerry6593 on 6/21/12


"Selective Comments"- Warwick (1)

What exactly is "selective" in the following?

Barclay's "A Spiritual Autobiography".

"...In Jesus I see God. When I see Jesus feeding the hungry...befriending men and women with whom no one else would have anything to do, I can say: This is God.'

It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus and God..."
---scott on 6/20/12


Scott: "it clearly rules out a definite rendering"

Depends. If the definite article had been attached to'God' then that would have meant Jesus, and only Jesus, was God (or some form of modalism). Thus the context would not allow Jesus to be called 'the God'. Despite this however, given all the other information included in that first chapter (e.g. Jesus is the creator) and then Thomas' addressing him as The God at the end of John's Gospel, your comment is not really squaring up to the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth.
---Marc on 6/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Eph 3:9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

JESUS created all things he could not create himself so he is one with GOD.
---Samuel on 6/20/12


"What Barclay actually says" Warwick (1)

"Think man, think!" Marc

"Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them...when a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than a noun...

...We can see exactly the same in English. If I say, 'James is the man', then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind, but, if I say, 'James is man', then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification...."

Continued
---scott on 6/20/12


"Selective Comments" - Warwick (2)

Continued-

"Jesus did not say: He who has seen me has seen God. He said: He who has seen me has seen the Father. These are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see Gods omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know. I do not see Gods omnipotence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do...

...I do not see Gods omnipresence in Jesus, for in his days on earth Jesus could only be in one place at any given time, and once and for all revealed and demonstrated, the attitude of God to men...In Jesus there is the full revelation of the mind and heart of God..." (p 50)

Barclay's "A Spiritual Autobiography"
---scott on 6/20/12


Scott, in 'Many witnesses One Lord,' Barclay confronts Modalism, the belief the Father and the Son are the same person. Barclay simply says John is not calling the Son the Father. Barclay says "The Word was in the same class as God, belonging to the same order of being as God." Recently I referred to Barclays letter to Shoemaker where he says, "that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God." Anyone can see here that Barclay's comments equate to the Athanasian creed.

When you read what Barclay actually says as opposed to selective comments it is obvious he does not agree with the WTS. He considers the WTS to be a "deeply deceitful" organization. Right on Barclay!
---Warwick on 6/20/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


"Wright and Ricchuiti" Marc

Your childish and gratuitous insults aside...

I have already commented on the premise of the JTS paper (a rehashing of apologist Hommel's work six years ago).

Again...the argument (Wright, Ricchuti and Hommel's premise) that the indefinite article signals an adjectival quality in "Noute" [god} is open to debate because "Noute" is a count noun. But either way...

...it clearly rules out a definite rendering.

Witnesses have no problem with "The Word was divine" or some similar qualitative treatment.

Once again "And the Word was God" does not reflect the Coptic or Greek language of John 1:1c.
---scott on 6/20/12


Scott,

The full quote from Lambdin's BASIC grammar book is "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in Englishonly exceptions to this general correspondence will be noted in the following lessons when appropriate."

I referenced Wright and Ricchuiti's paper, one detailing Coptic at a more advanced level. You have so far declined to engage with their grammar explanation. Is this because your beloved-and-never-can-be wrong-because-it's-God's-only-mouthpiece-on-earth Watchtower hasn't yet given its permission to discuss the paper or does the paper demolish the idea that Jesus is a mere creature?
---Marc on 6/20/12


"outreach" Marc

No, not "outreach", "preaching" as directed by Jesus Christ himself. (Matt 28:19, Matt 24:14).

The rest of your comments are pedestrian, uneducated, anti-Witness rhetoric....Yaaaaawn.

BTW my last post on this topic mentioned 8 million Bible studies being conducted. That's per month, not annually.

Again I ask what sort of preaching, in response to Jesus' command to make disciples, are Christian Zionists involved in Marc?

As one minister said aptly after the failed "Key 73" door-to-door evangelical effort by numerous churches:

"Ministers today are keepers of the aquarium rather than fishers of men"
---scott on 6/19/12


Scott, regarding where Harner did or did not place square brackets has you arguing with your authority.

If John meant to say "the Word was a god" he had 2 unambiguous ways to do this. For example if John wrote 'ho logos en theos' it could be translated "the Word was a god." But as you well know John chose to write 'theos en ho logos' which means the Word is as much God as is the Father.

"a prophet" etc makes sense both grammatically and contextually. However "a god" neither fits with grammar nor context How could John call the Creator, Redeemer, Saviour, Mighty God 'a god,' a creature? Ridiculous!

Does he do this elsewhere?
---Warwick on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Scott,

Yes, JWs do lots of outreach. So do others, but naturally, JWs don't notice because that would spoil their idea they, and they alone, are God's chosen.

Your comment only demonstrates two things: the man-centred hubris of JWs, "Hey, look I'm bringing God's Kingdom to earth by MY effort." It's man's works, not God's. Second, JWs door-knock because it's connected to their salvation e.g. "To get one's name written in that Book of Life will depend upon one's works." (The Watchtower, April 1, 1947).

For me, "But to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly [that's me], his faith is accounted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) What do you think, Scott?
---Marc on 6/19/12


Grammar Rules- Marc

"Rules" that Horner doesn't employ consistently- (again...no brackets).

4:19 "a prophet"

6:70 "a devil"

8:48 "a Samaritan"

9:24 "a sinner"

10:1, 6 "a thief"

10:13 "a hired hand"

18:35 "a Jew"

18:37 "a king"

Thomas Lambdin's Coptic Grammar says, "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English." Exceptions he cites are "indefinite articles designating unspecified quantities of a substance" and "abstract nouns."

That's not the case with with John 1:1c.
---scott on 6/19/12


Grammar Rules- Marc (2)

It's not enough to just suppose and guess that the Sahidic Coptic indefinite article before a regular noun has qualitative (or definite) significance.

Where's the proof from the Coptic Scriptures?

Because trinitarian apologists see their 'go-to' proof text slipping through their fingers (they've, for the most part, already acquiesced a 'definite' reading of Greek John 1:1c) their only choice is to stretch the straight-forward, Coptic language to fit their theological biases.

And they attempt to disguise it as grammar. It's smoke and mirror apologetics.

If not, prove it with actual Sahidic Coptic NT verses.

Until you find those verses, the argument is irrelevant.
---scott on 6/19/12


Micha9344, **What "they" have in common which makes "them" God**
They,them plural right?
** Which is it?**
It's psychobabble having to invent a word "homoousios" because no word in the bible supports "trinity!
Is God a soliloquist who prays to himself"
---1st_cliff on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Those that believe in the trinity of the Godhead have no problem seeing the differences between the three as do Arians, but where Arius stumbled was what they had in common which makes them God.
I can accept Irenaeus' comments as to their differences, but can you, scott, accept all these people's comments to their sameness?...that the Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are God?
to the Jews, a stumbling block.
to the Greeks, foolishness.
Which is it scott?
---micha9344 on 6/19/12


Scott,

Possibly the reason for Horner's bracketing of 'a' in John 1:1 is because of the grammar rules I quoted in this thread, rules you've, thus far, not responded to. It is all about CONTEXT. As Warwick previously mentioned, the context is that there is a close identification of the Word with God. In order to explain an ontological aspect, John, picked up by Horner and the Copts, could not say 'The Word is the God' because that would either imply modalism or that Jesus is all of God. This is reflected in the indefinite article's inclusion in Coptic but it's exclusion in English. Your textual "counter-examples" are irrelevant.
---Marc on 6/19/12


Scott, you miss the point, attempting to misuse Trinitarian Horner, to support your antiTrinitarian story. Horner says concerning the square brackets "Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English" (p. 376).

The deletion of 'a' leaves a sentence which makes sense in English, both grammatically and contextually. I do not know Coptic but understand a few languages. I remind you of the French 'Qu'est-ce que c'est cette maison?' Literally 'What is it that it is that house?' If we translate it following Horner's lead we could write 'What [is it that it is] that house?' Square brackets imply words used by the French and not required by the English"
---Warwick on 6/19/12


scott, In the windy night Jesus went to them walking upon the sea, and spoke to them, "Take courage: I AM, be not afraid." Jesus clearly says of himself, "No one always stepped in heaven except he out of heaven came down, the Son of man who from being in the heaven. I am from above, I am not of this world: for if you all believe not that I AM, you all will die in your sins. Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I AM. You all call me The LORD, indeed you all say well, for I AM. I am the Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and Ultimate, which from being, and which to being, and which coming, The Almighty." Mt.14:24-27+ John 3:13+ 8:23,24,58+ 13:13+ Revelation 1:8.
---Eloy on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


Yhwh is Yeshuah: Jesus is God: "Know you all that Yhwh, he God, none else. For to us a child is born, to us a Son is given: and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Who will give Yeshuah up to Israel out of Zion: when Yhwh turns the captivity of his people, Iaakob will rejoice, Israel will be glad. Note, God my Yeshuah, I will trust and not fear: for Yh Yhwh, my strength and song, he also is become my salvation. Note, Yhwh has proclaimed to the ends of the earth, Say to the daughter of Zion, Note, your Yeshuah comes: note, his reward with him, and his recompense forward by him." -Brit Yashan or Old Testament of B.C. Before Christ.
---Eloy on 6/19/12


Barclay-"Judicious Cutting"? Warwick (1)

Barclay's "A Spiritual Autobiography".

"For me the supreme truth of Christianity is that in Jesus I see God. When I see Jesus feeding the hungry...befriending men and women with whom no one else would have anything to do, I can say: This is God.'

It is not that Jesus is God. Time and time again the Fourth Gospel speaks of God sending Jesus into the world. Time and time again we see Jesus praying to God. Time and time again we see Jesus unhesitatingly and unquestioningly and unconditionally accepting the will of God for himself. Nowhere does the New Testament identify Jesus and God...

Continued
---scott on 6/19/12


Barclay-"Judicious Cutting" Warwick (2)

"Autobiography". Continued

"Jesus did not say: 'He who has seen me has seen God.' He said: 'He who has seen me has seen the Father.' These are attributes of God I do not see in Jesus. I do not see God's omniscience in Jesus, for there are things which Jesus did not know. I do not see Gods omnipotence in Jesus for there are things which Jesus could not do...

...I do not see Gods omnipresence in Jesus, for in his days on earth Jesus could only be in one place at any given time, and once and for all revealed and demonstrated, the attitude of God to men, the attitude of God to me. In Jesus there is the full revelation of the mind and heart of God."
---scott on 6/19/12


Horner..."and [a] God was the Word." Warwick

Once again you have completely avoided the point, hoping no one notices.

Questions:

1. If, as Reverend Horner said, the brackets indicate words not required in English why did he use an "a" at all? Why is it there? What does it mean?

2. And if the brackets indicate words not required in English why did he not use those same brackets throughout his translation where the exact same Coptic construction appears?

For example -

John 4:19:


"Lord, I see...thou art a prophet." (No bracket)

And John 8:44:

"that one was a murderer..." (No bracket)
---scott on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


Just as one triangle has 3 points, it remains 1 triangle, so too it is with our One Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus says, "I and Father are one", Not two, but one. Jn.10:30. Jesus says, "The person that believes on me, believes Not on me, but on him that sent me. The person that sees me sees him that sent me." Jn.12:44,45. Jesus says, "The person that has seen me has seen The Father. Believe me that I in the Father, and the Father in me, or else believe me because of the very miracles' sake." Jn.14:9,11. Yes, The Lord God our Shepherd became the Sheep, born in the stable.
---Eloy on 6/19/12


Irenaeus- micha9344

Book II Chapter 28:6 "The very Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgement..."

28:8: "For if any one should inquire the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day (of judgement), he will find at present no more suitable, or becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master)...

...that we may learn through him that the Father is above all things. For the Father, says he, 'is greater than I'...The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge..."
---scott on 6/19/12


\\Cluny, You're on the right track **SAME NATURE as Himself**...if you can count you're talking "2" persons here! a father and a son.
Now ,like all the other heretics, change it to make "0ne and the same" person!
1+1 =3 ???
---1st_cliff on 6/19/12\\

Wrong again, as in everything else you say.

Two errors alone here:

1. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different PERSONS (as the theological term in English is), not "one and the same person". No instructed Christian has ever believed that. You are using a straw man argument.

2. You have your math signs wrong.

It's 1 x 1 x 1 = 1.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/19/12


"Minority"- Marc

Ahhh a total lack of knowledge regarding the long history of Monotheistic Unitarianism. See Wikipedia's "History of Unitarianism".

"Enter through the narrow gate...wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." Matt 7:13

"[God] has failed because he has failed to communicate the true revelation..." Marc

Knock, knock.

Last year Witnesses spent (worldwide) some 1 1/2 billion hours preaching the "Good news of the Kingdom", conducting over 8 million bible studies with interested individuals.

How are the 'Christian Zionists' doing in fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 Marc?
---scott on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


The Bible says that Jesus was our Creator! I really don't care what anyone else thinks.


---jerry6593 on 6/19/12


Cluny, You're on the right track **SAME NATURE as Himself**...if you can count you're talking "2" persons here! a father and a son.
Now ,like all the other heretics, change it to make "0ne and the same" person!
1+1 =3 ???
---1st_cliff on 6/19/12


Scott you quoted Horner to support your WTS view that Jesus is but a god, not God. However Horner's English translation of John 1:1c is as follows: "...and [a] God was the Word."' About this Horner said "Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English" (p. 376).

You try to avoid the issue, as usual ducking off into tangents asking where are the brackets. I answer they are above, in the quote along with Horner's explanation of same. How strange it is that you use Horner who is, as you say, a Trinitarian, in the vain endeavour to demote the Son from His position within the Godhead. Is it rational to use him when you know he rejects your view right from the outset? Bizarre!
---Warwick on 6/19/12


Scott,you didn't quote Barclay?

The Watchtower, May 15, 1977, page 320, quotes from Barclay's 'Many Witnesses, One Lord,' 1963, pp. 23, 24. By deceitful selection they have him appearing to agree John 1:1 says "The Word was a god." However Barclay, wrote to Professor Donald Shoemaker (26.8.77)"The Watchtower article has, by judicious cutting, made me say the opposite of what I meant to say. I was meaning to say, as you well know, is that Jesus is not the same as God, to put it more crudely, that he is of the same stuff as God, that is of the same being as God," but the way the Watchtower has printed my stuff has simply left the conclusion that Jesus is not God in a way that suits themselves."
---Warwick on 6/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Of Jesus Scripture says of him, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions, or rulers, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him." Jn.1:10+ Col.1:16. Jesus says, "I am from above, I am not of this world: if you all believe not that I AM, you all will die in your sins. You all call me, The Lord, indeed you all say well, for I am. I am the Alpha and the Omega, Beginning and Ultimate, which from being, and which to being, and which coming, The Almighty." Jn.8:23,24+ 13:13+ Rev.1:8.
---Eloy on 6/18/12


Scott,

As you should know, if John's 1:1c's theos, in Coptic and Greek, had the definite article it would mean that Jesus is all of God. Many commentators have acknowledged that John's syntax and grammar delivers the message (i.e. Jesus is God) and removes all the problems (i.e. Jesus being all of God)that saying Jesus is ho theos would raise.
---Marc on 6/18/12


Scott "regarding the use of the indefinite article in Coptic John 1:1c it rules out the definite rendering "The Word was God"

However, the following in Greek are anarthrous (i.e. without article) yet in Coptic hold the indefinite article: 1 Cor. 8:6 "God the Father" and Eph. 4:6 "Father of all".

Contary to JW falsehood, WRIGHT and RICCHUITI concluded recently (The Journal of Theological Studies, October 2011), "the best way to take John 1:1c's indefinite article is an attempt by Copts to interpret the anarthrous "theo" descriptively/qualitatively. As a result, they interpreted
and translated John 1.1c to mean 'the Word' possesses the same qualities as 'God of the Bible'."
---Marc on 6/18/12


Arius' doctrine was considered heresy well before Constanine or even Arius was alive...Hence, the JW doctrine is also a heresy, even before Charles Taze Russell founded it.
"...Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father..."-Irenaeus (120-202AD), against heresies, Bk 1, Ch 10.
"Hear, too, how He was to ascend into heaven according to prophecy. It was thus spoken: Lift up the gates of heaven, be ye opened, that the King of glory may come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty"-Justin Martyr (110-165AD), First Apology, Ch 51
Justin here quotes Psa 24:7-8...the LORD in that verse is Jehovah, to which he refers to Jesus Christ.
---micha9344 on 6/18/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


If the JWs are correct in their understanding, then God has failed. He has failed because he has failed to communicate the true revelation to all but a wee minority of people i.e. an exclusive group. He has failed to adequately reveal the truth of the relationship between God and Jesus because it is only known to a few million JWs.

That's really a completely inept advertising project when your intended audience is billions and billions, but you only succeed to reach a few million in the last few decades. (Of course, cults believe they're the chosen few so maybe God never intended his message to reach the many.)

Some God the JWs have. He's quite impotent and mean, when you think about it.
---Marc on 6/18/12


Would the Arians/JWs please explain (i)how if someone begets they produce something other than what the begetter is i.e. if God begets Michael, an angel, how is 'beget' the appropriate word i.e. how can God beget an angel, and (ii) why they ignore the idiomatic meaning of 'firstborn' and take Jesus' being God's firstborn to only mean a temporal concept (i.e. Jesus was God's first created thing) when 'firstborn' sometimes has nothing to do with first in time e.g. Manasseh and Ephraim, and can mean 'rightful heir'.
---Marc on 6/18/12


Create and beget are NOT synonyms.

A man CREATES something of different nature from himself: a house, painting, sculpture, or whatever.

But a man BEGETS only something of the SAME nature as himself, and that will have the same kind of life that he does.

What the FAther begets is of the SAME NATURE as Himself, namely the Son.

What the Father CREATES is of a different nature.

You're a heretic, 1st Cliff, and you need to repent.
---Cluny on 6/18/12


According to Rev.3.14 He was created, "begotten" as God put it!
Arius was trampled by Constantine's (Priest of Sol) gang of heretics!
"Might is right" as Hitler put it!
There's only "one"(supreme) God (deut.6.4) and He has a Son named Jesus!
Too simple for fundamentalists who dabble in psychobabble!
---1st_cliff on 6/18/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Mark Driscoll-

"Unfortunately, in the end, Driscolls so-called mis-"reading" of Targum Neofiti is a mere fabrication - a complete misreading of the text, which he uses as evidence for something that isnt there (evidence of the Trinity in the OT). Its almost as egregious of a fabricated defense of the Trinity as the Johannine Comma, in which a medieval publisher (Erasmus) intentionally inserted text (under pressure from others) in 1 John 5:7-8 in an attempt to provide some explicit Biblical evidence for the Trinity (because there was/is none)."

Dr. Robert Raymond Cargill, Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies at The University of Iowa.
---scott on 6/18/12


"All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." (in John 1:3)

So, Jesus was not created. And we have that He is "the Son of God," in 1 John 4:15. A human father does not create his son, but he begets his son. And John speaks of Jesus as being "the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth," in John 1:14 . . . not "created".

And "His name is called the Word of God" > in Revelation 19:13. It's like how a word-idea in you is you, being in your mind and heart. He "is in the bosom of the Father" (in John 1:18). Jesus is all God can be in human form . . . the living and love meaning of God's word.
---willie_c: on 6/18/12


First off, the Logos/Son was NOT known as Jesus until incarnate in the womb of the Virgin.

Second, He is uncreated.

To say that the Son is created is to recite the heresy of Arius. It was wrong in 325 and it's wrong today.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/18/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.