John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

“The Sadducees (sedûqîm) were one of the three main Jewish political and religious movements in the years between c.150 BCE and 70 CE. (The other movements were the Essenes and the Pharisees.) They had a conservative outlook and accepted only the written Law of Moses. Many wealthy Jews were Sadducees or sympathized with them.”

You neglect the article in wikipedia showing the division among them.

I got this from your link:
The fact that the Sadducees had a very high opinion of the five first books of the Bible, does not mean that they denied that the other books of the Bible -e.g., the prophets and the historical writings- were divinely inspired. But they refused to accept the other Biblical books as sources of law. When a Sadducee had to judge a case, he would look in the written Torah and ignore the oral traditions that the Pharisees accepted as normative.

What is the source of your new quote? I don’t see a reference. If it is from the same source as the previous link, then they must be harmonized… they accepted the law of Moses for sources of law but the rest was still inspired. We find similar hermeneutics amongst professed Christians today with the 66 books and how they slice and dice them.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno2281;5811378:

I got this from your link

:
The fact that the Sadducees had a very high opinion of the five first books of the Bible, does not mean that they denied that the other books of the Bible -e.g., the prophets and the historical writings- were divinely inspired. But they refused to accept the other Biblical books as sources of law. When a Sadducee had to judge a case, he would look in the written Torah and ignore the oral traditions that the Pharisees accepted as normative.

What is the source of your new quote? I don’t see a reference. If it is from the same source as the previous link, then they must be harmonized… they accepted the law of Moses for sources of law but the rest was still inspired. We find similar hermeneutics amongst professed Christians today with the 66 books and how they slice and dice them.
One more time - from Wikipedia - “that there was an internal schism among those called “Sadducees”—some who rejected Angels, the Soul, and Resurrection—and some which accepted these teachings and the entirety of the Hebrew Bible.”
Obviously some did not accept the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. I cannot give a citation, but in reading about the Qumran community there are some who think them an offshoot of the Sadducees and it was in that context that it was mentioned that some Sadducees did not accept any but the Torah. Quite possibly in a Biblical Archaeology magazine article or in one of the books that I (sigh) donated to my old parish’s library. When I get a chance, I’ll research this more for you(and myself).

 

[Danno2281]

Perhaps you missed early on, but I posted that in Revelation God gives the Revelation to Jesus who gives it to an angel who gives it to John. (Rev 1:1) So the angel is speaking the words to John. In a couple of instances a particular construct is used to signal that the speaker has changed. The are the words “I” followed by a name such as “I John” or “I Jesus.”

Here is one:
DRA Revelation 22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.
.

Note that in verse 14 the speaker speaks of the lamb in the third person. While not definitive, this suggests the speaker is not the lamb.
DRA Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in** the blood of the Lamb**: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city.

Here is another example:
NAB Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.” 9** I, John**, your brother, who share with you the distress

With your logic, since I John shows John is speaking in verse 9, he must be the Alpha and Omega from verse 8! However this is not the case. The construct “I John” shows the speaker has changed.

In Rev 22:8 the words “I John” appear again after the words of the one who is coming quickly, again, not John, because John just started speaking.

I don’t claim that you assert the Father is not the Alpha and Omega. I claim that you present no compelling evidence that Jesus is the A&W. In Rev 1 Jesus is distinguished from the A&W. In Rev 21:6 the same one is God who calls Christians sons. Jesus is never called God in the book of Revelation and never calls his brothers, sons. In addition I gave you the Catholic catechism which teaches that Rev 21:7 is the Father.

Rev 22:12 is one you have not yet brought up. This is the Father as well. He says his reward is with him in an allusion to Isaiah 40:10.

NJB Revelation 22:12 Look, I am coming soon, and **my reward is with me**, to repay everyone as their deeds deserve.

NJB Isaiah 40:10 Here is Lord Yahweh coming with power, **his arm **maintains his authority, **his reward is with him** and his prize precedes him.

Note also in Rev 1:4-8 that the Father is also said to be coming, the one who is, who was and who is coming.

Do you know who the arm is? It is Jesus.

NJB Isaiah 53:1 Who has given credence to what we have heard? And who has seen in it a revelation of **Yahweh's arm**? 2 Like a sapling he grew up before him, like a root in arid ground. He had no form or charm to attract us, no beauty to win our hearts;

John identifies Jesus as the arm:

NJB John 12:38 this was to fulfil** the words of the prophet Isaiah**: Lord, who has given credence to what they have heard from us, and who has seen in it a **revelation of the Lord's arm?**

Therefore there is good evidence that the A&W in all three instances is the God and Father of Jesus Christ.

What I asked is that you tell me what Greek text gives you the argument “the blood of the Lamb.” The passage begins: (v.10)“And he said to me…I am the A&W.” Speaking immediately before is the angel cautionong John to worship only God. The next speaker identifiable is Jesus. It is certainly not the angel claiming to be A&W, but the angel was sent by Jesus. Nothing in the opening asserts that the One giving the revelation is anyone other than Jesus through an angel. In the circumstance of the revelation, there is absolutely no reason for the Father to speak a word, because His Word speaks. And when the deity says “I am A&W,” that is the Word of God speaking

 

[twb1621]

What I asked is that you tell me what Greek text gives you the argument “the blood of the Lamb.” The passage begins: (v.10)“And he said to me…I am the A&W.” Speaking immediately before is the angel cautionong John to worship only God. The next speaker identifiable is Jesus. It is certainly not the angel claiming to be A&W, but the angel was sent by Jesus. Nothing in the opening asserts that the One giving the revelation is anyone other than Jesus through an angel. In the circumstance of the revelation, there is absolutely no reason for the Father to speak a word, because His Word speaks. And when the deity says “I am A&W,” that is the Word of God speaking

God’s peace to you for your patience

 

[Dan_Parker]

What I asked is that you tell me what Greek text gives you the argument “the blood of the Lamb.” The passage begins: (v.10)“And he said to me…I am the A&W.” Speaking immediately before is the angel cautionong John to worship only God. The next speaker identifiable is Jesus. It is certainly not the angel claiming to be A&W, but the angel was sent by Jesus. Nothing in the opening asserts that the One giving the revelation is anyone other than Jesus through an angel. In the circumstance of the revelation, there is absolutely no reason for the Father to speak a word, because His Word speaks. And when the deity says “I am A&W,” that is the Word of God speaking

Whether or not you accept what Revelation 1:1 says is irrelevant to my argument. However if God gives the Revelation to Jesus who gives it to the angel who gives it to John, then the angel does the speaking for all parties except John in this vision.
DRA Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

**
Sidebar:**
One might ask, though, if Jesus in heaven is equal to God and omniscient, then why did God give him a Revelation? Did Jesus not know this before?

Back to the original points, so we don’t lose sight of the arguments:

1. ** Rev 1:4-8 **- identifies the A&W as the Father because Jesus is distinguished from the one who is, who was, and who is coming.
2. DRA **Revelation 21:6 **And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega: the Beginning and the End. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely. 7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And I will be his God: and he shall be my son. - The Catholic catechism agrees with me, contra you, that verse 7 identifies the Father (see our Father in the catechism). Other footnotes in the NAB show that the one who gives the water is God through the Son. The Alpha and Omega here is the Father.
3. DRA Revelation 22:12 Behold, I come quickly: and** my reward is with me**, to render to every, man according to his works. 13** I am Alpha and Omega**, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14** Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb**: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city. - In Isaiah Yahweh has his reward with him who is his arm who is Jesus. The Alpha and Omega here speaks about the Lamb in the third person. The A&W here is the Father.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan Parker;5812256:

One more time - from Wikipedia - “that there was an internal schism among those called “Sadducees”—some who rejected Angels, the Soul, and Resurrection—and some which accepted these teachings and the entirety of the Hebrew Bible.”
Obviously some did not accept the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. I cannot give a citation, but in reading about the Qumran community there are some who think them an offshoot of the Sadducees and it was in that context that it was mentioned that some Sadducees did not accept any but the Torah. Quite possibly in a Biblical Archaeology magazine article or in one of the books that I (sigh) donated to my old parish’s library. When I get a chance, I’ll research this more for you(and myself).

So you have one link that does not support you and can’t find the one which does. In the mean time, how about accepting what Josephus said. That is documented by a first hand observer in the 1st century.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno2281;5812464:

So you have one link that does not support you and can’t find the one which does. In the mean time, how about accepting what Josephus said. That is documented by a first hand observer in the 1st century.

How do you read? “And some which accepted these teachings AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE”
You seem to have forgotten (again) to tell me wher you find “in the blood of the Lamb in the Greek text.” You certainly do seem to like switching sources.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan Parker;5812881:

How do you read? "And some

which accepted these teachings AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE HEBREW BIBLE"
You seem to have forgotten (again) to tell me wher you find “in the blood of the Lamb in the Greek text.” You certainly do seem to like switching sources.

What is the source of that quote? I trust Josephus over some anonymous wiki article. As for the blood of the lamb, don’t you recognize the Douay Rheims? If you discount the DR because it was translated from the Latin, then fine, become a JW.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno2281;5813530:

What is the source of that quote? I trust Josephus over some anonymous wiki article. As for the blood of the lamb, don’t you recognize the Douay Rheims? If you discount the DR because it was translated from the Latin, then fine, become a JW.

Somewhat disingenuous to use a quote that you believe to be erroneous to prove a point, wouldn’t you say? Again, do you have a Greek text that says washed in the blood of the Lamb, or don’t you? It is lacking in many Latin MSS, and I don’t know of any Greek that have it.
You trust Josephus? Absolutely?
Does he contradict scripture in his history of the Israelites? ah!

I do believe that you have quoted Wiki (e.g.post#136) Were we supposed to trust the anonymous author of your citation? You seem to like changing the rules to suit yourself, Dan

 

[twb1621]

Whether or not you accept what Revelation 1:1 says is irrelevant to my argument. However if God gives the Revelation to Jesus who gives it to the angel who gives it to John, then the angel does the speaking for all parties except John in this vision.
DRA Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to make known to his servants the things which must shortly come to pass: and signified, sending by his angel to his servant John,

Sidebar:
One might ask, though, if Jesus in heaven is equal to God and omniscient, then why did God give him a Revelation? Did Jesus not know this before?

Back to the original points, so we don’t lose sight of the arguments:

1. **Rev 1:4-8 **- identifies the A&W as the Father because Jesus is distinguished from the one who is, who was, and who is coming.
2. DRA **Revelation 21:6 **And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega: the Beginning and the End. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely. 7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And I will be his God: and he shall be my son. - The Catholic catechism agrees with me, contra you, that verse 7 identifies the Father (see our Father in the catechism). Other footnotes in the NAB show that the one who gives the water is God through the Son. The Alpha and Omega here is the Father.
3. DRA Revelation 22:12 Behold, I come quickly: and** my reward is with me**, to render to every, man according to his works. 13** I am Alpha and Omega**, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14** Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb**: that they may have a right to the tree of life and may enter in by the gates into the city. - In Isaiah Yahweh has his reward with him who is his arm who is Jesus. The Alpha and Omega here speaks about the Lamb in the third person. The A&W here is the Father.

The following excerpt is from a non-Catholic independent Christian web site founded and maintained by reformed Christians from the Jehovah Witnesses beliefs. It pertains to the alteration of interpretation from Greek to their belief system.

THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION compared with THE KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION OF THE GREEK SCRIPTURES:

In 1969, the Watch Tower Society produced *The Kingd**om Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, *“Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in ‘The New Testament in the Original Greek – The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony Hort D.D.’ ” --Title page of 1969 ed. The Watch Tower Society states:

“The purpose behind the publishing of The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures is to aid such seekers of truth and life. Its literal interlinear English translation is specially designed to open up to the student of the Sacred Scriptures what the original koi-ne’ Greek basically or literally says…The word-for-word interlinear translation and the New World Translation are arranged in parallel on the page, so that comparisons can be made between the two readings. **Thus, the accuracy of any modern translation can be determined…**We offer no paraphrase of the Scriptures…To each major word **we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.”
—The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985 edition, pp. 5, 9-10 The following is a comparison between the rendering of the Society’s Kingdom Interlinear Translation and the New World Translation:
**Verse Col. 2:9 *****Interlinear Translation ***“all the fullness of the divinity” dwells in Christ.

***New World Translation ***“all the fullness of divine quality” dwells in Christ.

Note: Greek scholar Joseph Henry Thayer states that the Greek word used here “Theotes” literally means “deity i.e. the state of being God, Godhead” —The New Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974 p. 288
**Verse Col. 1:16-17 *****Interlinear Translation ***Christ created “all (things).”

New World*** Translation Christ created“all [other] Things.”*

Note: The Watch Tower Society inserts the word “other” four times into this passage, in order to make it compatible with their doctrine of Christ having been created. However, in John 1:3, we read that Christ created “all things” *—*not all other things.

**Continued at; **
http://www.4jehovah.org/jehovahs-witness-facts.php

see also;
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=386400

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan Parker;5813748:

Somewhat disingenuous to use a quote that you believe to be erroneous to prove a point, wouldn’t you say? Again, do you have a Greek text that says washed in the blood of the Lamb, or don’t you? It is lacking in many Latin MSS, and I don’t know of any Greek that have it.
You trust Josephus? Absolutely?
Does he contradict scripture in his history of the Israelites? ah!

I do believe that you have quoted Wiki (e.g.post#136) Were we supposed to trust the anonymous author of your citation? You seem to like changing the rules to suit yourself, Dan

I quote the DR. Are you saying the DR has added words that are not in the latin? I don’t really care about the Greek or latin. When I quote a Catholic bible I expect Catholics to accept it since it has the obstat and imprimatur. It is therefore not an error from the Catholic perspective.

As for the wiki, it is a collection of articles by many different people. I look at the facts they present and could care less about their opinions. Everything in wiki needs to be verified.

 

[Danno2281]

Danno2281;5813896:

I quote the DR. Are you saying the DR has added words that are not in the latin? I don’t really care about the Greek or latin. When I quote a Catholic bible I expect Catholics to accept it since it has the obstat and imprimatur. It is therefore not an error from the Catholic perspective.

As for the wiki, it is a collection of articles by many different people. I look at the facts they present and could care less about their opinions. Everything in wiki needs to be verified.

And have you verified everything in Josephus? Have you verified the citation from Wiki that you used?
For someone who doesn’t care about the Greek or the Latin you seem to have devoted an incredible amount of time to citing the Greek texts, or is it only when it suits your case that you like to use them. My source, as I mentioned earlier, is Merck’s edition of Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine with a apparatus criticus giving the citations used for the text given. This is how I know that the Douai used a Latin soource that is far friom definitive. I asked you four times to cite the Greek in support of your argument, and you give me a citation from a work that you will not be guided by (except as it might benefit you). It might help if you were to find out the exact nature of the nihil obstat and imprimatur. They do not even imply the agreement of the bishop with the book, but only that in his (fallible) opinion they are not contrary to the teaching of the Church. I am trying to be patient and tolerant, but i do become weary.

 

[brb2]

The difference between our approaches is substantial. When I started studying the bible and having debates on this subject I decided that I should learn as much about Greek and Hebrew as I could in order to make my own informed decision. As a result I can discuss this in as much detail as necessary and am quite confidant that the translation “and the Word was a god” is both contextual and grammatical.

Dan … you are coming at this all wrong. How are you ever gonna understand the infinite Creator with your finite faculties … without his help [grace] to you ?

If you could … you/we wouldn’t need Faith. Once you start from faith (plus reason) … God will reward your investigation and illuminate your understanding via his Glory, thru the Sacraments… available only in his Body, the Church.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan Parker;5814699:

And have you verified everything in Josephus? Have you verified the citation from Wiki that you used?
For someone who doesn’t care about the Greek or the Latin you seem to have devoted an incredible amount of time to citing the Greek texts, or is it only when it suits your case that you like to use them. My source, as I mentioned earlier, is Merck’s edition of Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine

with a apparatus criticus giving the citations used for the text given. This is how I know that the Douai used a Latin soource that is far friom definitive. I asked you four times to cite the Greek in support of your argument, and you give me a citation from a work that you will not be guided by (except as it might benefit you). It might help if you were to find out the exact nature of the nihil obstat and imprimatur. They do not even imply the agreement of the bishop with the book, but only that in his (fallible) opinion they are not contrary to the teaching of the Church. I am trying to be patient and tolerant, but i do become weary.

BTW, I have already proven that the three references to the A&W are with reference to the Father with or without the Douay Rheims. Lets focus on that for a while

 

[brb2]

You are somehow under the misconception that Jehovah’s Witnesses bring up John 1:1 as proof against the Trinity.

:nope: U misrepresent your JW dogmas. Source: 1989 JW Watchtower book : [Should You Believe in the Trinity ? ] … pages 26-28

"At John 1:1 the KJV reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo’gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the KJV says, “The Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person CANNOT BE the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Jour. of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God. …

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos’. The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [logos] was with God [a form of theos]”). This first theos’ is preceded by the word ton(the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God” ). On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos’ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they [Catholics] do this ?

So, John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine”, “godlike,” “a god,” BUT NOT ALMIGHTY GOD. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesperson, was an obedient SUBORDINATE sent to earth by his SUPERIOR, Almighty God. … John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could NOT BE GOD but was “a god”, or “divine”. … for the testimony of the ENTIRE Bible is that Jesus IS NOT Almighty God. … Jesus has a position far higher than the angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god”. Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.” … John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6​

:sad_yes: 3 pages of a 30 page document … developed right from John 1:1 … attempting to disprove the Trinity.

Do you really know (accept) the dogma’s of JW church ?

 

[Dan_Parker]

:nope: U misrepresent your JW dogmas. Source: 1989 JW Watchtower book : [Should You Believe in the Trinity ? ] … pages 26-28

"At John 1:1 the KJV reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Trinitarians claim that this means that “the Word” (Greek, ho lo’gos) who came to earth as Jesus Christ was Almighty God himself. Note, however, that here again the context lays the groundwork for accurate understanding. Even the KJV says, “The Word was with God.” Someone who is “with” another person CANNOT BE the same as that other person. In agreement with this, the Jour. of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean “the” God, this “would then contradict the preceding clause,” which says that the Word was with God. …

At John 1:1 there are two occurrences of the Greek noun theos’. The first occurrence refers to Almighty God, with whom the Word was (“and the Word [logos] was with God [a form of theos]”). This first theos’ is preceded by the word ton(the), a form of the Greek definite article that points to a distinct identity, in this case Almighty God (“and the Word was with [the] God” ). On the other hand, there is no article before the second theos at John 1:1. So a literal translation would read, “and god was the Word.” Yet we have seen that many translations render this second theos’ (a predicate noun) as “divine,” “godlike,” or “a god.” On what authority do they [Catholics] do this ?

So, John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was “divine”, “godlike,” “a god,” BUT NOT ALMIGHTY GOD. This harmonizes with the rest of the Bible, which shows that Jesus, here called “the Word” in his role as God’s Spokesperson, was an obedient SUBORDINATE sent to earth by his SUPERIOR, Almighty God. … John 1:1 shows that the Word was with God, he could NOT BE GOD but was “a god”, or “divine”. … for the testimony of the ENTIRE Bible is that Jesus IS NOT Almighty God. … Jesus has a position far higher than the angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god”. Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.” … John 1:1, Isaiah 9:6​

:sad_yes: 3 pages of a 30 page document … developed right from John 1:1 … attempting to disprove the Trinity.

Do you really know (accept) the dogma’s of JW church ?

As I said, JWs don’t bring up John 1:1. Trinitarians do. Once that happens I will certainly exegete the text. You can look at what happened on this site and see that I did not bring it up. However since someone else brought it up I have posted more than 30 pages on that subject.

 

[brb2]

Note that McKenzie is a Trinitarian and a Catholic who interprets John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 as examples where he feels the Son is called God with the definite article. But he agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus was “a divine being” and not “God” in John 1:1.

Dan

You say here … But HE AGRES WITH JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES THAT JESUS WAS A ‘divine being’ AND NOT GOD in John 1:1

So, you now are misrepresentiing your earlier representations of JW dogma. :sad_yes:
Don’t play word games with us … and think we take you a serious scholar on scripture.

If you now wish to accept Catholic Trinitarian teachings … fine ! We welcome you to the fuller Truth on Christ. :hug3:

 

[brb2]

As I said, JWs don’t bring up John 1:1. Trinitarians do. Once that happens I will certainly exegete the text. You can look at what happened on this site and see that I did not bring it up.

.

As I have shown 3 posts above … JW dogma certainly sets forth in 31 pages of the WatchTower publication [Should We Believe the Trinity ? ] 1989, pub. date, ( 5 MILLION Copies in print) ---- that YOU MISREPRESENT the facts here.

So, -----go to a Catholic Priest … and most especially our HIGH PRIEST & GOD, Jesus Christ — and confess your err

 

[twb1621]

As I said, JWs don’t bring up John 1:1. Trinitarians do. Once that happens I will certainly exegete the text. You can look at what happened on this site and see that I did not bring it up. However since someone else brought it up I have posted more than 30 pages on that subject.

JW avoid bringing up a great deal of scripture. In fact, you yourself refused to comment on many verses I previously presented you. When I presented you the Old Testament verses proving the holy and the prophets after leaving mortal life not only were in heaven but served as messengers for God and at times interceded for the Jews at times of crisis, you responded questioning why I was referring to the Old Testament.

 

[Dan_Parker]

You say here … But HE AGRES WITH JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES THAT JESUS WAS A ‘divine being’ AND NOT GOD in John 1:1

So, you now are misrepresentiing your earlier representations of JW dogma. :sad_yes:
Don’t play word games with us … and think we take you a serious scholar on scripture.

If you now wish to accept Catholic Trinitarian teachings … fine ! We welcome you to the fuller Truth on Christ. :hug3:

McKenzie distinguishes between God in John 1:1a and the Word who he calls a divine being. That is because the God the Word was with was the Father and to identify the Word AS the Father would not be Catholic teaching. Contra the NAB, DR and NJB, McKenzie does not refer to the Word as “God” in John 1:1.

I would also like to add that I brought this up because a Catholic criticized the New World Translation’s rendering of “and the Word was a god” and not to disprove the Trinity as you maintain. I would not use John 1:1 as a text to disprove the Trinity and it certainly does not prove it either as only two persons are mentioned. However when discussing the proper translation of the verse it is necessary to also discuss the context.