Is Jesus God?

[JohnOneOne]

I am not a linguist so I will not attempt to school you on the accidents of languages… but as I understand it, the Hebrew language does not contain vowels (“a god” could not be rendered) and suggesting that God existed along side “a god” (a rendering by any other language that would use an article) would mandate that there be more than One God; further, if God existed with a “created” “god” then God could not be Immutable and Eternal; regardless upon the research done, Scriptures are exact: One God revealed in Three Divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Maran atha!

Angel

Although I must acknowledge the truthfulness of your statement, that “the Hebrew language does not contain vowels,” except for some who are of the opinion that the Gospel of Matthew might have been initially composed in Hebrew, the rest of the “New Testament” was actually written in (Koine) Greek, not Hebrew. And, although the Greek of this period did not have and, therefore, use indefinite articles (a/an), except when sometimes being guided by theological bias, when translating to English, most all Bibles do utilize them, especially when confronted with parallel syntactical constructions; e.g., Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44a; 8:44b; 9:17; 10:1; 10:13; 10:33; 12:6, that is, when of the same, basic Greek grammatical construction as found within the third clause of John 1:1.

As for ‘God existing along side Jesus as “a god,” mandating that there be more than One God,’ this is, in fact, verified by Holy Scripture; to wit:

“Jesus answered: Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So it uses the word ‘gods’ of those people to whom the word of God was addressed - and scripture cannot be set aside. Yet to someone whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world you say, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said, 'I am Son of God.” - The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), John 10:34, 35 (italics theirs, bold mine).

Interestingly, within both The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Official Catholic Edition, Complete and Unabridged (Image Books Edition, 1956) and Saint Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible (1963), there is this same explanation in footnote to these verses:

“[John] 10, 34ff: Cf Ps[alm] 81 (82), 6. The judges who administered the Law were called gods, because they represented God. If they, merely men, and so often unfaithful to their duties, as in Ps[alm] 81 (82), could enjoy this title, how much more right to it has He who was made holy, i.e., especially set aside for God’s work!” - pp. 211 & 109 (respectively; italics & bold mine).

And, to this, I would whole-heartedly agree; for, on the basis of the fact that God had, indeed, made Jesus “holy,” as one who was “especially set aside for God’s work,” and that “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36 - JB), because of this and more, Jesus certainly has “more right to” that title, as a “god” himself, than those earlier judges (ftn “magistrates” - JB) ever had.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

 

[happyhippo]

Welcome! Your brother has my head realing. Jesus is not only God but man as well. Jesus speaks in these versus as man. It is ironic that your brother sees John 5 : 26 as disputing that Jesus is God when it is Jesus who is claiming to be God. He claims two divine prerogatives. 1. to give life 2. judgment. He is reveling here the Trinity. It is the same as when He told the Pharisees that before Moses “I am” which was the name of God. They understood Him, that is why they tried to kill Him.

The second verse is from what is called the Bread of Life. Again Jesus is man like us in all things but sin. The Trinity was revealed by Jesus. JW’s have had to alter their scripture in order to eliminate this revelation. In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God has been changed to In the beginning was the Word and the Word was a god. Hopefully someone will explain better than me.

Hello adrift,

Thanks for the reply, I’ll print it out and ask my brother what his response is!
The “I am” bit I’ve heard him dispute with an Angican priest, who I know of and he himself is a Greek scholar, but my brother took him to task on the “I am” and they began to speak in Greek (It’s all Greek to me - Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun) and then (thank goodness) English was heard! The priest said that John 8:58 was with reference to “identity”, and then pointed also to Ex 3:14, my brother said it was a “temporal” statement and that the context shows such! I know my brother is very busy, but has another JW apologist friend called “Letusreason” who has an extensive blog and sometimes uses his papers, when he hasn’t much time, as he said that typing out extensive material for answers is very time consuming, so he may point you in that direction, he said that the papers in the blog would only mirror what he would say and since the material is already there, it would save both parties a lot of time! Any way ‘adrift’ I’ll pass on what you have written above and many thanks for your help…watch this space, as they say!

Happyhippo

 

[Fink]

i know adrift and jcrichton have replied, but this third one might be useful, as well.

straight forward logical questions…

“…logical…” But logical only in the HUMAN sense. With the Blessed Trinity, we`re dealing with an Entity infinitely above the human level. So human logic on its own means nothing.

John 5:26

“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the son also, to have life in himself”

Keep in mind that the Father is pure Spirit: ie He has no material makeup in His essence (the stuff of which something consists) or nature. His essence is utterly simple. He does not occupy space.

“For as the Father has life in Himself…”
This shows that the Father is Existence Itself. He is the Origin of all existence.
In Himself, the Father is perfect, infinite, eternal.
The Father knows Himself totally, utterly: ie
The Fathers Selfknowledge is perfect, infinite, eternal. Everything that the Father is is contained in His Selfknowledge. The Fathers Selfknowledge is God the Son: literally fully God (fully Divine), possessing the fullness of the Godhead because everything that the Father is is in His Selfknowledge (deliberately repeated)
He is generated by the Father in ETERNITY.
God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God (Nicene Creed).

The Son is NOT a separate God because He depends on the Father for His existence. Neither can the Father exist without the Son, because He cannot exist without His Selfknowledge. So the Two are eternally, totally united.
An analogy would be with ourselves: we generate our thoughts which cant exist independently; and we cant exist without (generating) thoughts.

Because of their interdependence, Father and Son are perfectly, infinitely, eternally united in a perfect, infinite, eternal bond of Self-giving Love. Father gives Himself totally to the Son: Son gives Himself totally to the Father. So, the union of Love is total: it contains the fullness/totality of the Godhead.
That Love is the Holy Spirit. (God is love: 1 John 4:8)
The Holy Spirit is the Breath of God.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son (Nicene Creed).

The Holy Spirit cannot exist independently of the Father and the Son. Neither can the Father and the Son exist without the Holy Spirit. So the Three are perfectly, infinitely, eternally united.

There`s one Divine will.

Again, remember that were dealing with pure Spirit. The Mystery of the Trinity has nothing to do with some mathematical attempt to make 1=3, and 3=1. And theres no puzzle with how the Three Persons can “co-occupy” the same space, because God in His essence doesn`t occupy space.

My brother said…

…given “life in himself” by another,

…John 6:57…"As the living Father sent me,*** and I live because of the Father***…

…so that the Father is the cause of the son’s existence.

Dead right, as explained above. When interpreted correctly, the Scripture quoted by your brother reinforces the Truth of the Trinity re the Father`s generating of the Son.

“Before Abraham was: I AM.” John 8:58

Remember Jesus has a human nature, as well.

He said… that the relationship between Jesus and his Father from a Catholic Trinitarian point of view is a metaphysical one, built on the foundations of “Plato” and someone called “Plotinus”?

Capital Enn Oh!

MY brother seems very objective… but ***treats us kindly ***and believes that they are not being given all the facts by Catholic Chuch leaders

Sounds more than a bit patronising!
ive noticed that superior (smug?) manner in the ones who come to the door. They think we know nothing; and tragically, thats mostly true. Most Catholics are sitting ducks.

and because*** we are generally not schooled in such deep matters***, are being mislead and that the priests are hidding empirical evidence from us, is this true?

Can any one help, please!

Happyhippo

“…generally not schooled in such deep matters…”!
Thats the pot calling the kettle black! Their theology is extremely shallow. Seriously, i choked when i read those words. Actually, by denying the Blessed Trinity, theyve ripped the Heart out of Christianity, and replaced it with something which may be easier to understand. That doesnt alter the fact that its FALSE!

As already said, the JW concept of God is extremely shallow, and shows what happens when ordinary people try to unravel the Sacred Mysteries.

God creates Man in His image.
Man-made religions conceive of God in MANs image. Jesus revealed the reality of the Blessed Trinity in various places in the Gospels; and the command to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is pretty definite! If your brothers creed is followed, the whole thing doesnt make sense: to baptise in the name of Jehovah God, a twice-reconstituted Michael the archangel, and Jehovah Gods impersonal Spirit.
Jesus says: “…in the NAME of…”, not “…in the NAMES of…”.
Inother words: it`s ultimately in the name of the Blessed Trinity.

If you can, get hold of a copy of “Theology and Sanity” by Frank Sheed, published by Ignatius Press. It devotes more than 30 pages to the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. In other words, theres a lot that we ordinary non-theoligian peasants can learn about the Inner Life of God. Even though hed probably reject it, its DEPTH and SCOPE would stop your brother in his tracks. It might at least get him thinking. The concepts seem alien and bizarre when first encountered: but they`re true!

The Catholic Church has an answer to EVERY challenge to her teachings on Faith and Morals, regardless of who her opponent is.
Dont let your brothers supposed Bible knowledge beat you down!

This took hours!

 

[happyhippo]

Hi!

Welcomed!

I must confess… my head is still spinning!

Due to text limits I must cut both your post and my response, so please do not interprete this as disrespect or evasion…

It is not the version of Scriptures that matters but the sect’s interpretation of Scritpures.

… have you noticed how you have to take his word on a major premise of Faith: Jesus was in Heaven for 60 years… really? …so the interviewer was granted passage to Heaven in order to quote Jesus?

…Scriptures tell us that Yahweh God’s Way is far removed from our understanding… here’s what your brother, and his group, keeps missing: Jesus is not only immortal but He is Eternal! The Father could never go back into Time (Existence) to grant Him the Power of Always Existing–once a micro/nano second has experired Eternity has been concluded: Jesus, the Eternal Word, has always Existed!

…does that mean that they believe, as Catholics Believe, in the Real Presence in the Eucharist–since they accept that the Father has given Life to the Son and has granted the Son to give Life to those who Eat Him, they too eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood, correct? …it is Divine Doctrine… that we, all who desire a Life in God and with God, must Eat Jesus… so they do, right?

…again… interpretational quirks…

…a while back JWs used to quote Jesus as a means to demonstrate that He could not be God… they loved to quote “the Father is greater than I…”

I would agree with them and come back with “the Father and I are One…” and “the Father is in Me and I am in the Father” and “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father…”

…it always turned out that Jesus was only literal when He stated that the Father was greater than He… the rest of the times… you’ve guessed it, was not literal!

Here’s a perfect example of that sect’s interpretational error: God says He is God, JWs insist He is not:

6 And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him. 7 And to the angels indeed he saith: He that maketh his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire. 8 But to the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Hebrews 1:6-9–DRV)

…God, the Father, Commands the angels to adore the Son, Jesus–but did He not demand that we worship/adore only God? …then He calls Jesus God–is it not confusing? God acknowledges another God besides Himself! …but wait… why are Scriptures revealing to us that God is God’s God?

…has it began to spinning yet?

…what if I tell you that God, the Father, is Spirit and that the Holy Spirit is Spirit… then throw in how the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, the Father and the Spirit of God, the Son?

…Hebrews also reveals that the Holy Spirit is God:

7 Wherefore, as the Holy Ghost saith: To-day if you shall hear his voice, 8 Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the desert, 9 Where your fathers tempted me, proved and saw my works, 10 Forty years: for which cause I was offended with this generation, and I said: They always err in heart. And they have not known my ways. 11 As I have sworn in my wrath: If they shall enter into my rest. (Hebrews 3:7-11, read to verse 19–DRV; check against Numbers 14)

…only he can tell you what he means; sadly, anti-Catholic propaganda has had terrible influence on those who reject the Church’s Authority (they are still claiming that the Church taught a flat earth); if you truly want to know about keeping secrets check out “the Catholic Church: Builder of Civilization,” on EWTN."

…as far as deep… check out Apocalypse 5:7-14–why are these Heavenly hosts so disrespectfully rendering worship to both the Father and the Son?

Maran atha!

Angel

Hello,

Just a quick point, just got a few mins! I should my JW brother a point that you make from scripture:

"I would agree with them and come back with “the Father and I are One…” and “the Father is in Me and I am in the Father” and “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father…”

he siad the the Catholic view on this is nothing more than disguied Modalism!

He said, if “the Father and I are One…” is to be talen literally, then what about a little later on in johan, where he says of Jesus with the apostles in mind,

John 10:30 NASB

"I and the Father are [e]one.”

John 17: 22, 23 NASB

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity…”

My brother said, how do Trinitarians explain the above? Trinitarians he said, take John 10:30 to mean that the son identifies himself with the Father, as being God, so says he, are Trinitarians going to apply the same rule to John 17:22, 22 and that the apostles share in the exact same glory, as that given to the son, and that the son gives that exact same glory, given to him, to the apostles, so that there is no distinction in glory, also he says, if the son and the Father are one, does that mean also, that the apostles are now one along with the Father and son, so that now they are all one…?

He said that the answer lies in verse 22 “that they may be perfected in unity…” he said, John 10:30 should be seen in context, especially that of John 17:22, 23, which Trinitarians ignore, because it make the apostles equal to the Father and the son, in glory and in all of them being one, using Trinitarian mental gymnastics, as they have tunnel vision only for a literal sense, which accords for Trinitarianism, but ignores the surrounding contextual texts of John!

Many thanks everyone for your help
Happyhippo

 

[happyhippo]

Hello,

Just a quick point, just got a few mins! I should my JW brother a point that you make from scripture:

"I would agree with them and come back with “the Father and I are One…” and “the Father is in Me and I am in the Father” and “if you have seen Me you have seen the Father…”

he siad the the Catholic view on this is nothing more than disguied Modalism!

He said, if “the Father and I are One…” is to be talen literally, then what about a little later on in johan, where he says of Jesus with the apostles in mind,

John 10:30 NASB

"I and the Father are [e]one.”

John 17: 22, 23 NASB

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity…”

My brother said, how do Trinitarians explain the above? Trinitarians he said, take John 10:30 to mean that the son identifies himself with the Father, as being God, so says he, are Trinitarians going to apply the same rule to John 17:22, 22 and that the apostles share in the exact same glory, as that given to the son, and that the son gives that exact same glory, given to him, to the apostles, so that there is no distinction in glory, also he says, if the son and the Father are one, does that mean also, that the apostles are now one along with the Father and son, so that now they are all one…?

He said that the answer lies in verse 22 “that they may be perfected in unity…” he said, John 10:30 should be seen in context, especially that of John 17:22, 23, which Trinitarians ignore, because it make the apostles equal to the Father and the son, in glory and in all of them being one, using Trinitarian mental gymnastics, as they have tunnel vision only for a literal sense, which accords for Trinitarianism, but ignores the surrounding contextual texts of John!

Many thanks everyone for your help
Happyhippo

Hello again,

I’m going to try to get my brother to joint this group, as I find I am unable to match him! Do fellow Catholics object?

 

[humble_maid]

Look for the answers in the old testament. I posted before about the name of G-d being YWHW. The Hebrews were privileged to have this name and if one understand the value and significance of these hebrew letters it would give unto this meaning. Clearly showing that Jesus crucified is God.

YUD-HE-WAW-HE(YHWH)=“BEHOLD THE HAND, BEHOLD THE NAIL”

youtube.com/watch?v=1wiBtYITrxM
soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/treeoflifeletters.htm

There are other scriptures too, but this says it all. Aside from the fact that God is the only one who saves and that He forgives and restores life, clearly stated in the OT, while in the NT Jesus does all this as well.

I think what people are confusing is the persons of the Holy Trinity. While Jesus is man He is divine and God too.

 

[T_More]

Although I must acknowledge the truthfulness of your statement, that “the Hebrew language does not contain vowels,” except for some who are of the opinion that the Gospel of Matthew might have been initially composed in Hebrew, the rest of the “New Testament” was actually written in (Koine) Greek, not Hebrew. And, although the Greek of this period did not have and, therefore, use indefinite articles (a/an), except when sometimes being guided by theological bias, when translating to English, most all Bibles do utilize them, especially when confronted with parallel syntactical constructions; e.g., Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44a; 8:44b; 9:17; 10:1; 10:13; 10:33; 12:6, that is, when of the same, basic Greek grammatical construction as found within the third clause of John 1:1.

As for ‘God existing along side Jesus as “a god,” mandating that there be more than One God,’ this is, in fact, verified by Holy Scripture; to wit:

“Jesus answered: Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So it uses the word ‘gods’ of those people to whom the word of God was addressed - and scripture cannot be set aside. Yet to someone whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world you say, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said, 'I am Son of God.” - The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), John 10:34, 35 (italics theirs, bold mine).

Interestingly, within both The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Official Catholic Edition, Complete and Unabridged (Image Books Edition, 1956) and Saint Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible (1963), there is this same explanation in footnote to these verses:

“[John] 10, 34ff: Cf Ps[alm] 81 (82), 6. The judges who administered the Law were called gods, because they represented God. If they, merely men, and so often unfaithful to their duties, as in Ps[alm] 81 (82), could enjoy this title, how much more right to it has He who was made holy, i.e., especially set aside for God’s work!” - pp. 211 & 109 (respectively; italics & bold mine).

And, to this, I would whole-heartedly agree; for, on the basis of the fact that God had, indeed, made Jesus “holy,” as one who was “especially set aside for God’s work,” and that “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36 - JB), because of this and more, Jesus certainly has “more right to” that title, as a “god” himself, than those earlier judges (ftn “magistrates” - JB) ever had.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

Alan, where do you or the WTBS receive the authority to interpret scripture and teach about Jesus Christ?

 

[jcrichton]

…he siad the the Catholic view on this is nothing more than disguied Modalism!

Hi!

…this is exactly what St. Jude said that the ignorant do, they attack what they do not comprehend! By issuing forth such rant, your brother avoids having to explain why JWs have taken the task to determine when Jesus is being literal and when He is being allegorical. They ignore both context and content and reject every single Scripture that does not support their preconceived theology.

He said, if “the Father and I are One…” is to be talen literally, then what about a little later on in johan, where he says of Jesus with the apostles in mind,

John 10:30 NASB

"I and the Father are [e]one.”

John 17: 22, 23 NASB

“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; 23 I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity…”

My brother said, how do Trinitarians explain the above? Trinitarians he said, take John 10:30 to mean that the son identifies himself with the Father, as being God, so says he, are Trinitarians going to apply the same rule to John 17:22, 22 and that the apostles share in the exact same glory, as that given to the son, and that the son gives that exact same glory, given to him, to the apostles, so that there is no distinction in glory, also he says, if the son and the Father are one, does that mean also, that the apostles are now one along with the Father and son, so that now they are all one…?

He said that the answer lies in verse 22 “that they may be perfected in unity…” he said, John 10:30 should be seen in context, especially that of John 17:22, 23, which Trinitarians ignore, because it make the apostles equal to the Father and the son, in glory and in all of them being one, using Trinitarian mental gymnastics, as they have tunnel vision only for a literal sense, which accords for Trinitarianism, but ignores the surrounding contextual texts of John!

Many thanks everyone for your help
Happyhippo

Only when we read Scriptures and divorce them from all other non-supporting Scriputres can we come to a theology as limited and convulated as that of those who deny the Holy Trinity–just look at their definition of who they are: they claim to be the visible people/church of Yahweh God; but the only Name given in Scriptures by Whom we are to be known as children of God is that of Christ!

…and even when they claim to be Christians they fail miserably since we can have but One Master and if Jesus is their Master (which He must be in order for them to be Christians) then they are serving two Masters (from their theological standing) since they deny Jesus’ Divinity while seeking His Favors!

I digress… the reason why we can become partakers in Jesus’ Glory and the reason why we can become One with Jesus as He is One with the Father… ready for this one?.. is because we were made from the very Beginning in the essence of God (do you recall Scriptures where the issue arises: for I said that you are gods/be perfect for the Father is Perfect?); Creation had a fall and at the appointed time the Word (Who is otherwise known as the Immanuel {God-with-us}, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace, King of kings, Lord of lords, and the God of the Amen–amongst other Names and Titles) Became Flesh and dwelled among us in order to Bring Salvation (correct the error) to the world. When we become Christ’s we share in His Glory (Divinity) through the Grace of the Holy Spirit Who with the Father and the Son indwells in us!

Do I fully understand this Holy Trinity or sharing God’s Glory or Being One with Jesus… no, I can honestly say I do not! I don’t even begin to want to know or understand it… but here’s the secret: God’s Mysteries are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of God, and it is He Who makes it possible for me to Trust God’s Wisdom rather than my own! (Wisdom 7:7 thru 8:1; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; St. James 1:5)

I, on the other hand, have but One Master: the Word, God Incarnate, Who Created everything that is seen and unseen, Who holds everything in its place, Who is the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the One and Only True God, Who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit!

…just one more little quirk in their soup: till the 80’s or perhaps the 90’s they claimed that they were the people spoken of in Apocalypse 7, the 144,000… it seems that they completely ignored that this specific Scriptural passage was speaking of the Twelve Tribes of Israel as it annotated 12,000 each from the Twelve Tribes; further, they used to teach (maybe still do) that only these 144K would be in Heaven and that they were already selected (as of the late 1980’s)… as Scriptures would have it… if you continue to read the 7th chapter you would find the Catholics (my personal little twist) holding palm branches, in our white garments, washed by the Blood of the Lamb, by the hundreds of thousands–all in Heaven! …they always seem to want to white-wash those and any other passages that blow them out of the Spiritual Waters!

I pray that the Holy Spirit employs abundant Mercy and Grace on you, your brother and all those who are missing the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hello again,

I’m going to try to get my brother to joint this group, as I find I am unable to match him! Do fellow Catholics object?

I do not see why–even those who deny Christ, if they are truly seeking to know the Truth, will be convicted by the Holy Spirit about the Truth (St. John 14, 15, 16) and they will either embrace the Fullness of the Mystical Body or continue on their obstinate course to perdition (a little dramatization of Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Isaiah 1:16-20; St. Matthew 7:13-14).

I would caution him (and all) to keep the argument as concise as possible since we do have a limit of 6000 characters–so it is best to discuss one or two items at a time in order to maximize the expression of clear thought.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Look for the answers in the old testament. I posted before about the name of G-d being YWHW. The Hebrews were privileged to have this name and if one understand the value and significance of these hebrew letters it would give unto this meaning. Clearly showing that Jesus crucified is God.

YUD-HE-WAW-HE(YHWH)=“BEHOLD THE HAND, BEHOLD THE NAIL”

youtube.com/watch?v=1wiBtYITrxM
soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/treeoflifeletters.htm

There are other scriptures too, but this says it all. Aside from the fact that God is the only one who saves and that He forgives and restores life, clearly stated in the OT, while in the NT Jesus does all this as well.

I think what people are confusing is the persons of the Holy Trinity. While Jesus is man He is divine and God too.

Hi!

I’ve always thought that YHWH stood for Yahweh or “I Am” or “I Am Who Am;” but I do recall coming across the phrase above (“behold the hand, behold the man”)… I just don’t know where I read/heard it (could be from Father Mitch Pacwa–he always offers great explanations on the Hebrew/Aramaic roots).

Are you familiar with the link? …if so, do you know if the poster is fluent in Aramaic/Hebrew?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Although I must acknowledge the truthfulness of your statement, that “the Hebrew language does not contain vowels,” except for some who are of the opinion that the Gospel of Matthew might have been initially composed in Hebrew, the rest of the “New Testament” was actually written in (Koine) Greek, not Hebrew. And, although the Greek of this period did not have and, therefore, use indefinite articles (a/an), except when sometimes being guided by theological bias, when translating to English, most all Bibles do utilize them, especially when confronted with parallel syntactical constructions; e.g., Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44a; 8:44b; 9:17; 10:1; 10:13; 10:33; 12:6, that is, when of the same, basic Greek grammatical construction as found within the third clause of John 1:1.

As for ‘God existing along side Jesus as “a god,” mandating that there be more than One God,’ this is, in fact, verified by Holy Scripture; to wit:

“Jesus answered: Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So it uses the word ‘gods’ of those people to whom the word of God was addressed - and scripture cannot be set aside. Yet to someone whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world you say, ‘You are blaspheming’ because I said, 'I am Son of God.” - The New Jerusalem Bible (1985), John 10:34, 35 (italics theirs, bold mine).

Interestingly, within both The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Official Catholic Edition, Complete and Unabridged (Image Books Edition, 1956) and Saint Joseph Edition of the Holy Bible (1963), there is this same explanation in footnote to these verses:

“[John] 10, 34ff: Cf Ps[alm] 81 (82), 6. The judges who administered the Law were called gods, because they represented God. If they, merely men, and so often unfaithful to their duties, as in Ps[alm] 81 (82), could enjoy this title, how much more right to it has He who was made holy, i.e., especially set aside for God’s work!” - pp. 211 & 109 (respectively; italics & bold mine).

And, to this, I would whole-heartedly agree; for, on the basis of the fact that God had, indeed, made Jesus “holy,” as one who was “especially set aside for God’s work,” and that “God has made this Jesus…both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36 - JB), because of this and more, Jesus certainly has “more right to” that title, as a “god” himself, than those earlier judges (ftn “magistrates” - JB) ever had.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

…you have missed Jesus’ argument completely!

He is not gravitating into “we are all gods” argument; Jesus is difining them as made of the essence of God–for Scripture cannot lie–while placing Himself in the singular possition of Being of God (Yahweh God’s Own Spirit) and thusly Being above them… they, who were made by God had become incensed at Christ’s Revelation that He is Divine!

…you’ve also missed my argument completely, as I am not suggesting that the word “god” is not found in Scriptures; but, rather, that Yahweh God is very explicit about no “god” existing before Him, with Him, and after Him! Anyone claiming that God did exist with a god (founded, created, or just beign) is in exact contradition with Yahweh God. The only way that God can have existed with God is through Jesus’ Revelation in St. John 14, 15, 16–and more exactly in St. Matthew 28:19.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Fink]

Hello again,

I’m going to try to get my brother to joint this group, as I find I am unable to match him! Do fellow Catholics object?

Why would we object?
Ultimatey, ERROR is no match for TRUTH.

Throw down the gauntlet, and see what happens.
Even if your brother refuses to take any notice of the evidence from Scripture, plus the writings of the early Church Fathers and Church Councils, observers will see it.
The combined evidence is overwhelming.

ive noticed that the Jehovahs Witnesses make use of straw man arguments, and reference to questionable “sources”.

PS
**PLEASE **try to get hold of that book: Theology and Sanity!
From the back cover:
Of Sheed`s many books, this is my favorite, ***not just because it includes the ***clearest explanation of the Trinity ever put on paper, but because it proves that only the Catholic view of reality can satisfy our mental hunger.: Karl Keating (!)

 

[JohnOneOne]

Alan, where do you or the WTBS receive the authority to interpret scripture and teach about Jesus Christ?

As you will note, the “authority to interpret scripture and teach about Jesus Christ” which I had utilized above was by way of what has been published by the ‘Holy Roman Catholic Church,’ for, as you can see, that is the source of the materials from which I had presented my arguements.

Therefore, perhaps needless to say, if you have a problem, that is, on those particular present points I was making, it would be with the Catholic Church and not me.

Agape, Alan.

 

[JohnOneOne]

…you have missed Jesus’ argument completely!

He is not gravitating into “we are all gods” argument; Jesus is difining them as made of the essence of God–for Scripture cannot lie–while placing Himself in the singular possition of Being of God (Yahweh God’s Own Spirit) and thusly Being above them… they, who were made by God had become incensed at Christ’s Revelation that He is Divine!

Curiously, this notion of “Jesus…difining them [those other “gods”] as made of the essence of God” is not even suggested within the Catholic Bible’s and their commentaries of which I quoted.

On the other hand, if Jesus was, indeed, declaring himself as a greater ‘God above them,’ that is, as Almighty (as “Being above them,” those others who were also legitimately called “gods”) then this would still not address the contradiction such thoughts present, that is, as in contrast to Yahweh’s words that there are no other “gods” before or after Him.

…you’ve also missed my argument completely, as I am not suggesting that the word “god” is not found in Scriptures; but, rather, that Yahweh God is very explicit about no “god” existing before Him, with Him, and after Him! Anyone claiming that God did exist with a god (founded, created, or just beign) is in exact contradition with Yahweh God. The only way that God can have existed with God is through Jesus’ Revelation in St. John 14, 15, 16–and more exactly in St. Matthew 28:19.

Maran atha!

Angel

By way of my quotes (from Catholic sources), I am first, trying to establish the fact that the Bible does, indeed, speak of others as being legitimately called “gods.”

Secondly, if we are to accept that the Bible (including God or Jesus) does/do not contradict itself/themselves, then we are called upon to re-evaluate what our first impression of what Yahweh’s words must have meant, that is, when it is that He said that, besides Him, there are no other “gods,” before Him or after Him.

I think the problem of acquiring a correct understanding of such statements arises from our assumption that such declarations by Yahweh can be properly understood without giving consideration to His initial intent nor in consideration of the context to which such expressions were made. After all, as I suspect you might also agree, so much misunderstanding of the Bible comes from just such mis-treatment(s).

Agape, Alan.

 

[T_More]

As you will note, the “authority to interpret scripture and teach about Jesus Christ” which I had utilized above was by way of what has been published by the ‘Holy Roman Catholic Church,’ for, as you can see, that is the source of the materials from which I had presented my arguements.

Therefore, perhaps needless to say, if you have a problem, that is, on those particular present points I was making, it would be with the Catholic Church and not me.

Agape, Alan.

So are you speaking for the WTBS? What I’m asking, Alan, is were you or the WTBS commissioned by God’s Church mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 to go and share with others what God’s true divine plan of salvation is?

Alan, it’s very simple. You can proof text sources all day long to “support” your position, but at the end of the day, you and the religion that you profess to be a part of begins with Charles Taze Russell and goes no further back in history. Since Christ promised His Church would never fail in Matthew 16:18, would be guided into all truth in John 16:13, would be with them until the end of time in Matthew 28:20, would be the pillar and foundation of truth as claimed by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 and would be with all generations in Ephesians 3:20-21, clearly there must be an entity that exists today that has endured since the time of Christ. Are you prepared to make the claim that it is the WTBS, or yourself?

 

[JohnOneOne]

So are you speaking for the WTBS? What I’m asking, Alan, is were you or the WTBS commissioned by God’s Church mentioned in Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 to go and share with others what God’s true divine plan of salvation is?

Alan, it’s very simple. You can proof text sources all day long to “support” your position, but at the end of the day, you and the religion that you profess to be a part of begins with Charles Taze Russell and goes no further back in history. Since Christ promised His Church would never fail in Matthew 16:18, would be guided into all truth in John 16:13, would be with them until the end of time in Matthew 28:20, would be the pillar and foundation of truth as claimed by Paul in 1 Timothy 3:15 and would be with all generations in Ephesians 3:20-21, clearly there must be an entity that exists today that has endured since the time of Christ. Are you prepared to make the claim that it is the WTBS, or yourself?

To answer your last question, I would say yes.

On the other hand, when you say, “…you and the religion that you profess to be a part of begins with Charles Taze Russell and goes no further back in history,” that is simply not true.

I am of the opinion that Jehovah (along with His Son, Jesus, the Christ/Messiah) have, throughout history, had their “Witnesses” testifying to revealed ‘truth,’ each under the direction/influence of ‘Holy Spirit,’ and that this has taken place in spite of any efforts on the part of man and his philosophies (religious and secular) to squelch such - even if posed under the guise of maintaining religious purity.

Apparently, you (along with many others) are of the opinion that this has been by way of the control and/or influence of the ‘Holy Roman Catholic Church,’ whereas I am convinced it was not.

So therefore, I too can say, “You can proof text sources all day long to ‘support’ your position”; but, the difference I see between you and me is that, when seeking such ‘“support” for my position’ is actually being drawn from your own authentic sources, and then you wish to simply dismiss them by raising another question as to my religious validity, I can’t help but believe there must be a few others here who do see through the disingenuous of such a task, whereas, you apparently do not.

Agape, Alan.

 

[T_More]

To answer your last question, I would say yes.

Wow. That is a breathtaking claim. So you’re saying that Christ is a liar and Satan was stronger than He.

On the other hand, when you say, “…you and the religion that you profess to be a part of begins with Charles Taze Russell and goes no further back in history,” that is simply not true.

Then show where your connection to the Apostles is. Before Russell, there was…?

I am of the opinion that Jehovah (along with His Son, Jesus, the Christ/Messiah) have, throughout history, had their “Witnesses” testifying to revealed ‘truth,’ each under the direction/influence of ‘Holy Spirit,’ and that this has taken place in spite of any efforts on the part of man and his philosophies (religious and secular) to squelch such - even if posed under the guise of maintaining religious purity.

**Your “opinion” blinds you the reality of your position. Name your “Witnesses” please. No one believed as JW’s did. Allow me to use a WTBS article quote here:

“Beginning with Pentecost, 33 C.E., and continuing through the 19 centuries since then, this slavelike congregation has been feeding its members spiritually.” Watchtower 1981 March 1 p.24

Who was this faithful and discreet slave feeding it’s members before Russell came along?

**

Apparently, you (along with many others) are of the opinion that this has been by way of the control and/or influence of the ‘Holy Roman Catholic Church,’ whereas I am convinced it was not.

**Of course you’re not convinced. Your whole reason for existence as a religion would disappear if you thought differently. The proof is in scripture itself and the writings of disciples that were taught by the Apostles themselves. The Church was called “Catholic”, like it shows in the Greek in Acts 9:31(katholikos ekklesia) and their beliefs looked and sounded remarkably Catholic. These men, many of which knew and were ordained by the Apostles, did not hold beliefs that looked anything like JW’s, and this was well before some misconceived notion that Constantine corrupted truth at the Council of Nicea. **

So therefore, I too can say, “You can proof text sources all day long to ‘support’ your position”; but, the difference I see between you and me is that, when seeking such ‘“support” for my position’ is actually being drawn from your own authentic sources, and then you wish to simply dismiss them by raising another question as to my religious validity, I can’t help but believe there must be a few others here who do see through the disingenuous of such a task, whereas, you apparently do not.

**The difference between you and I, Alan, is that I realized that I could not point to any connection to early Christians as a JW, since JW doctrine has changed radically over it’s short 100 year history, without calling Christ a liar, and you can’t admit the same. I realized I could not slap the Catholic Church in her face without sitting in her lap. Why? Because She decided what was to make up the table of contents of the bible. If I called into question the Church and Her authority, then I must call into question her judgement in discerning what is authentic books to be included in the bible, and what was not. Or do you believe in an open canon?

You’re giving a great witness for my case, and I trust all here can see the same. The JW’s have made prophetic predictions about the end of the “this system of things” that have not come to pass, all the while claiming to speak for God as His mouthpiece. This alone should prove to anyone that the WTBS is not God’s “organization”. If you’d like, I can pull out WTBS publications that prove these things. Be careful with where you go here, Alan, because the WTBS “old light” publications will prove very damaging to your position.

**

Agape, Alan.

 

[jcrichton]

Curiously, this notion of “Jesus…difining them [those other “gods”] as made of the essence of God” is not even suggested within the Catholic Bible’s and their commentaries of which I quoted.

Granted!

Though I am a cradle Catholic I do not know everything that the Church has written or how the Church defines everything in Scriptures… that said, I can only tell you that I suspect that the Church is not invested in teaching that we are equal to God (of God’s essence) due to the inherited errors that may arise when people go on proclaiming themselves god or equal to God.

However, anyone reading through the whole of the Sacred Scriptures can only conclude that though we are not yet as He is (God) we are of His essence since we were brought to life only through the influx of His Spirit, and that it is His Holy Spirit that continues to construct us into that new man (in the image of His Son) in order to perfect us into God’s Being. The battle that surges in us brings the flesh (temporal corporeal self) into direct conflict with the spirit (God’s Spirit who dwells in us); it is this same spirit that the Holy Spirit aides, as St. Paul reveals, in order to make our worship (prayer) acceptable to God. We find this revelation from the very beginning of the first indication of worship where Abel is instructed to offer to God the best of his herd… it is this same Holy Spirit, that awakens in Abraham the need to offer to Melchizedek the very first tithing… it is this very same Holy Spirit that reveals to Jacob that he has been in the Presence of God and he builds God the altar at Bethel… we are not just beigns of flesh and blood!

Jesus reminds the people of Israel that they have been called gods by God and that He is not merely of God’s essence, as all humans are, but that He is God (God of God)!

On the other hand, if Jesus was, indeed, declaring himself as a greater ‘God above them,’ that is, as Almighty (as “Being above them,” those others who were also legitimately called “gods”) then this would still not address the contradiction such thoughts present, that is, as in contrast to Yahweh’s words that there are no other “gods” before or after Him.

…but the contradiction only lies with our limited understanding of God and our need to bring everything to our level in order to accept it. Have you not noticed hollowood’s version of spirituality? It is a mish of eveything out there, which includes Catholic, Eastern religions, and even Satanism–have you noticed how eagerly some not only soup it up but actually are proud to identify themselves with such “spirituality?”

…we love to feel part of something… but we hate surrendering our will to God’s Authority; seeking to know Him as He has chosen to Reveal Himself is a great Stumbling Stone!

…God said we are gods–we are! …God said obey me–we must! …God said be perfect–we must strive to be perfect… problem is we cannot unless we accept God’s Terms!

Remember St. Peter on the water? …was he able to walk on the water because he determine that he could? …what happened when Peter relied on his temporal abilities rather than on Christ?

Since we are of God’s essence there is no contradiction with Scriptures because God is Eternal and Immutable: we are of God so we are gods. This state of beign does not place us in competition with God–well… that is… until we choose to place ourselves above Him. When that occurs we are engaging a practice well known to history where man no longer seeks to know God but proclaims himself to be a god!

It is this proclamation, even if it is just a thought within our own mind, that creates the rift between God the Creator and His creatures, made in His Image and Likeness (remember God is Spirit).

By way of my quotes (from Catholic sources), I am first, trying to establish the fact that the Bible does, indeed, speak of others as being legitimately called “gods.”

Secondly, if we are to accept that the Bible (including God or Jesus) does/do not contradict itself/themselves, then we are called upon to re-evaluate what our first impression of what Yahweh’s words must have meant, that is, when it is that He said that, besides Him, there are no other “gods,” before Him or after Him.

…again, I am not disputing the fact that Scriptures speak of man as being “god;” what I am suggesting to you is to look into the context of the usage… beings of the essence of God cannot be but minuature gods (Image and Likeness); but there are levels of differinciation: while Moses was a god (of the essence of God), he was made “a god” unto the Egypcians and Hebrews by God–both of these levels are still within God’s parameters since neither are above Yahweh God. Yahweh can state with no contradiction that there never existed a god before, with and after Him!

I think the problem of acquiring a correct understanding of such statements arises from our assumption that such declarations by Yahweh can be properly understood without giving consideration to His initial intent nor in consideration of the context to which such expressions were made. After all, as I suspect you might also agree, so much misunderstanding of the Bible comes from just such mis-treatment(s).

Agape, Alan.

I concurr! If it were as simple as picking up and reading through the Sacred Writings we would not have a splintered Christendom and our elder brothers, the Jews, would be sharing the Faith and Worship right alongside of us. That is why we must surrender our will to God’s and allow the Holy Spirit to convict us of the total Truth (St. John 14, 15, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; Wisdom 6:12-18, 7:7 thru 8:1).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[JohnOneOne]

The JW’s have made prophetic predictions about the end of the “this system of things” that have not come to pass, all the while claiming to speak for God as His mouthpiece. This alone should prove to anyone that the WTBS is not God’s “organization”.

Actually, regarding your claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses have “made prophetic predictions about the end of…‘this system of things,’” to put this into proper perspective, I would suggest your consideration of the following:

jehovah.to/exe/general/prophetic.htm

Agape, Alan.

 

[Michael19682]

The language of mysticism is nearly impossible to comprehend grammatically. God’s name in English I AM, could be said by anyone at anytime. It doesn’t say I AM G-d; rather, it points to Being itself.

Jesus came and broke down the barrier of superstition and abuse of the leaders who oppressed the common man to the point where the common man lost his identity as free child of God (for he was prohibited from saying God’s own name). Strictly speaking, as we all know, Jesus essentially uttered God’s name and then expounded a little on the logical and real consequences of knowing I AM 's meaning. If men had bothered to listen to Moses and had heeded the name God gave to himself as his name proper…But as it turned out Jesus had to come and also say “But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” [Mt 24:26] That for me is one of the best reason’s the Trinity is the only way to conceptualize GOD. The holy spirit is among us, Jesus is present in a gathering of two or three in his name, we all pray to the Father…yet no one knows the end times exact day or hour. God apparently reserves that knowledge for the actual second coming of his second person, Jesus Christ.

Why, if Jesus is one in being with the father as he says, does he not know of the time of his own second coming? That question only makes sense if you separate his person from the father’s person…“which our Catholic faith forbids…”

Christians of other denominations should not blame the difficulty of comprehending this mystery on those who helped develop it via language. It’s an attempt conscious or otherwise to chain react Christian thought toward the end of blaming the Catholic Church for everything not understood or vague in the world, and to ultimately throw the problem of evil on her shoulders.