A
ajcstr
Guest
In the grand scheme of things remember that a couple of councils needed to debate this. The JW view is more or less a resurgence of Arianism.
- Status
W
Wesrock
Guest
ἀπεκρίθη Θωμᾶς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ· Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου.
Thomas answered and said to him, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” (My Lord and my God would be better English, but Greek has different grammar).
From the opening midrash of John to this, we reach the real meaning of conclusion of what John was trying to show, here in Thomas’ words. The structure is beautiful.
Then there are the I AM statements, or ἐγὼ εἰμί, which are a direct reference to the I AM WHAT I AM statement in Exodus from the Greek Septuagint, and the implicit references to his equality wirh God through the Gospels (which require familiarity and exegesis of the Old Testament), to Jesus declaring himself greater than the stone Temple (which is quite dramatic and may not sink in for a lot of modern readers) to the not denying charges of equating himself with God to giving the law under his own authority to Paul’s high Christology and calling Jesus equal with God to God and the Lamb sharing the same throne in Heaven in Revelation . . . There is so much.
Plus, the apostolic tradition on top of all thay.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Which is a terrible translation.
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
The article before logos indicates that it is the subject of the sentence. Theos is also in the nominative case, though, so the best way to distinguish the subject from the predicate nominative is to put the article in front of the subject and not in front of the predicate nominative. But then John chooses to put Theos as the first noun of his sentence. That wasn’t grammatically necessary. Word order in Greek is used for emphasis.
If it was written as καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεὸς we could properly translate it as “a god,” but not with the actual word order. Add in the I AM statements throughout John and Thomas’ declaration and Johannine thought in general and I don’t see how you can translate differently. There can be no doubt about what the author was saying, regardless of whether you believe the Christian message or not.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
But yeah the New World Translation is not an actual translation I mean there were people who knew a little bit of Greeks that did work on it but it is more or less translated to fit Jehovah’s Witness theology
And from what I understand the people who didn’t know Greek that worked on it only knew a little bit and it wasn’t biblical Greek
S
Servant19
Guest
God is not subordinate to anyone or anything.
That is the definition of a God. Why would I worship a subordinate to God? Take me to the one that create subordinates and I want to worship Him.
.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
JW believe only a certaun number if people can be saved. Although most are not saved I always point out to them that salvation is OPEN to ALL!
W
Wesrock
Guest
There are reasons why the Jews are thunderstruck at certain statements.
John 18: 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When he said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go.”
What is here translated as “I am he” (to be proper English) is in Greek simply ἐγὼ εἰμί which is grammatically correct in Greek but is also a direct reference to the Exodus I AM statement. This is why the soldiers drew back and some fell to the ground. They heard this and understood exactly what he was declaring (regardless of if they would truly believe it intellectually, it was still frightening).
We miss out on so much context as 21st century readers. Such things as this are frequent in the New Testament. What would have been bold as brass in the first century goes unheard now.
John 18: 4 Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” 5 They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. 6 When he said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he; so, if you seek me, let these men go.”
What is here translated as “I am he” (to be proper English) is in Greek simply ἐγὼ εἰμί which is grammatically correct in Greek but is also a direct reference to the Exodus I AM statement. This is why the soldiers drew back and some fell to the ground. They heard this and understood exactly what he was declaring (regardless of if they would truly believe it intellectually, it was still frightening).
We miss out on so much context as 21st century readers. Such things as this are frequent in the New Testament. What would have been bold as brass in the first century goes unheard now.
W
Wesrock
Guest
It’s one God. You would not be worshipping a subordinated god, you would be worshipping the one God, whose is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When I pray “Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,” I am declaring “glory be to God”. We baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We do not baptize in the names (plural). This is God, who has revealed himself fully to men through the person Jesus Christ.
The Son is not created, either. The Father did not create the Son. He begets him, eternally. There was never a moment when God was only the Father. God has always been the Father begetting the Son, with the Holy Spirit proceeding from both of them. There has never been a moment when the Son was not begotten. There has never been a moment when the Spirit did not proceed. The Son and the Spirit are uncreated. Such is God.
S
Servant19
Guest
S
Servant19
Guest
Might I just add also that if all 3 persons make up the one God, one should never exclude the others when referring to God. So the phrase “Jesus is God” becomes an inaccurate statement since separating the Persons only serves to introduce the importance of subordination in this distinction.
.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Please keep in mind the limits of analogies, as helpful as they may be. The universe was made from nothing. God made it apart from Himself. The Son wasn’t brought forth from nothing. He is begotten of the Father’s own substance, somewhat as a Father and Mother beget a child from their own flesh. That said, for God, this was not a before and after. The Father did not beget the Son (past tense) at some moment in time before the rest of Creation, but the Son is eternally begotten from the Father. God is one being, is eternally one being, and that being is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
John does not say in the beginning God made the Word, he says in the beginning was the word.
It is hard to get one’s mind around. In fact, I don’t think the mind can get all the way around it from our current perspective. But this is God’s revelation of Himself to us. And just because it’s outside full comprehension doesn’t make it contradictory. And it makes sense that God is not fully comprehensible, doesn’t it?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Well, at the same time, we don’t divide God up into parts. The Father is by nature fully God. The Son is by nature fully God. As is the Spirit. They are all one essence, one substance. There is no difference in the nature between them. The only distinction is in their relationship to each other. We can properly say, “Jesus is God” without saying “Jesus is the Father.”
Again, comprehension is hard, here. It would have been far easier, even more rational (in a fleshly sense) to accept Arianism. Arianism was rejected because that was inconsistent with the Revelation received. I’d say Arianism would have been the easy choice.
But it’s the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail. It’s hard to understand, but we accept God’s revelation of Himself.
S
Servant19
Guest
Thankyou
I simply cannot agree that an eternally begotten Son is not created. The process of generation, begotten-ness, and procession is an act of creation, whether it is eternal (which I agree with) or not.
One can be eternally begotten and created also.
(Just on a side note, your statement “God made it apart from Himself” is not supported by Catholic teaching which clearly states that Gods essence is found within all of creation, which IMHO is pantheism, so I agree with your statement but I want you to know that it is not a Catholic teaching)
.
W
Wesrock
Guest
You’re welcome! I appreciate your asking and trying to understand what we mean better, even if you don’t agree with the conclusion.
Could you provide a source for God’s essence being in everything according to Catholic teaching. I’m aware of “existence” being an action in itself, which God does infinitely, and we finite beings do finitely, but I have not heard your particular phrasing before, and I’ve studied some metaphysics/natural philosophy of Catholic thinkers. Catholics do not see God as some substance extending through all space and time. He is immaterial, occupying no space and no time, though he does sustain it.
Could you provide a source for God’s essence being in everything according to Catholic teaching. I’m aware of “existence” being an action in itself, which God does infinitely, and we finite beings do finitely, but I have not heard your particular phrasing before, and I’ve studied some metaphysics/natural philosophy of Catholic thinkers. Catholics do not see God as some substance extending through all space and time. He is immaterial, occupying no space and no time, though he does sustain it.
S
Servant19
Guest
Sure thing
St. Thomas Aquinas noted in the Summa:
newadvent.org/summa/1008.htm
This section from “The Beauty and Truth of the Catholic faith” published originally in German in 1816, explains this well:
catholictradition.org/Easter/easter6c.htm
Again from Fr. John Hardon’s dictionary (he was the founder of Catholic Answers):
catholicculture.org/cult…x.cfm?id=35261
.
The reason I cannot believe that these teachings are true, nor are they Biblical (IMHO) is because this effectively amounts to pantheism.
Hope it all helps in your search for Truth
W
Wesrock
Guest
I will delve further into these statements. I would like to note a caveat, though. Most of the statements clarify what they mean in that God is present inasmuch as he is the cause of their existence, and actively maintaining them in existence. We can contrast this with the deist God which created but becomes unnecessary after the universe is in motion. I do not believe these statements characterize God as a substance within soace and time.
We also hold that God’s essence and existence are the same. God IS infinite existence. Existence isn’t just what he does. It’s what he is. But existence is not just a state either, it’s an action. God is Action. So insofar as we exist we participate in the same action as God. However, our own essence and nature is not existence itself. But we are separate beings in our own right, with distinct essences.
But again, the statements you quoted seem to infer his presence by his sustaining action, not be some type of substance extended through us.
We also hold that God’s essence and existence are the same. God IS infinite existence. Existence isn’t just what he does. It’s what he is. But existence is not just a state either, it’s an action. God is Action. So insofar as we exist we participate in the same action as God. However, our own essence and nature is not existence itself. But we are separate beings in our own right, with distinct essences.
But again, the statements you quoted seem to infer his presence by his sustaining action, not be some type of substance extended through us.
A
ajcstr
Guest
They believe only 144,000 will go to heaven (literal interpretation). The rest will live on a paradise earth or be annihilated. There is no limit placed on the number on paradise earth.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Proving to JW’s that Jesus is God
Step 1:
a. Ask the Witness to read Revelation 1:8:
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says Jehovah God, “the one who is, and who was, and who is coming, the Almighty.”
b. Ask the Witness, “Who is ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ in this passage?”
They will respond that He is Jehovah God since that is what the verse says. You’re just nailing this down.
Step 2:
a. Ask the Witness to read Revelation 21:6-7:
“And he said to me, ‘They have come to pass! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free. Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I shall be his God and he will be my son.”
b. Ask the Witness, “Who is the 'Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega’ in this passage?”
They will respond again that he is Jehovah God. Again, you’re just nailing this idea down.
Step 3:
a. Ask the Witness to read Revelation 22:12-13:
“Look! I am coming quickly, and the reward I give is with me, to render to each one as his work is. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
b. Optional—you can Point out that verse 16 says, “I, Jesus…” The Witness may say that in verse 16, the speaker changes—that’s OK. You’re just making connections that they have to explain somehow.
c. Ask the Witness, “Who is the ‘the First and the Last’ in this passage?”
They must answer, “Jehovah God” since “the first and the last” is also “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.”
Step 4:
a. Ask the Witness to read Revelation 1:17-18:
"And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last, and the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.”
b. Ask the Witness, “Previously, you said that ‘the first and the last” is Jehovah God. This passage says that ‘the First and the last’ became dead.
So, when did Jehovah God die?"
+++
Jehovah God = Alpha and Omega = Beginning and End = First and Last = the Living One who “became dead” = Jesus who was crucified and resurrected
M
mtolympus
Guest
Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament.(Exo. 6:3) In the KJV Christ is named as the God of Moses in the book of Hebrews:
“By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt.” (Heb. 11:24-26)
Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jacob told his son Joseph in a blessing: “His hands were made strong by the hand of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel).” (Gen. 49:24)
“Give ear O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest Joseph like a flock.” (Ps. 80:1)
Jesus Christ identified himself as the shepherd of Israel when he told his disciples, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 15:24)
And also in John: “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:15-16)
Paul taught us that the Rock (“the stone of Israel”) who provided the spiritual drink received by the children of Israel was Christ: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:1-4)
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
It can be reasonably drawn out from the scripture that Jesus is God. There are so many themes in the New Testament that on a basic reading will naturally lead people to believe Jesus is God or divine, certainty more than human.
In order to reach the fullness of that belief however you need the tradition of the Church. Why do all the hard work yourself when it’s been done for you centuries earlier?
In order to reach the fullness of that belief however you need the tradition of the Church. Why do all the hard work yourself when it’s been done for you centuries earlier?
- Status