John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

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

It does not seem that you really want to discuss topics seriously. There are three categories of people on CAF. You might consider them a Trinity They are:

1. 
   ]Those in ** Dan - Heaven* - I always read their posts as they are informative and presented with respect.
   *]Those in Dan - Purgatory - Their posts are generally not informative and frequently disrespectful and insulting. I may not read them very often.
   *]Those in Dan - Hell - CAF allows me to ignore these ones.
   
   Your category has just changed from Dan-Purgatory to a few floors down.

 

[jlhargus]

Dan: So then you must believe that the rendering “the Word was a god (ie a divine being)” does not mean that the Word is a second God.

In English, when one says that the Word is with God and the Word was a divine being the sense is clearly that this divine being is not the same God he is with. I don’t see how you can assert otherwise. The simple reading of that sentence is obvious to anyone who reads it.

That is why the NWT is criticized by some who say that if the Word is “a god” then it is polytheism. However Jehovah’s Witnesses take this to have the same sense as Moses being a god in Exodus 7:1, as the representative of God. That is certainly not polytheism.
Dan

JL: There is only ONE divine being, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Their being is devine and ONE. The WT teaches Jesus is a god or a divine being, which you say agrees with JW theology, that would be polytheism in that they are separate divine beings. Mckenzie does not believe nor say they are separate beings, that would be contrary to Church teaching.

 

[brb2]

I would not use John 1:1 as a text to disprove the Trinity

.

If so, you are not in step with JW teaching on John 1:1. Do you also reject the other scriptures the JW uses to deny the Trinity ?

 

[brb2]

It does not seem that you really want to discuss topics seriously. There are three categories of people on CAF. You might consider them a Trinity They are:

Your category has just changed from Dan-Purgatory to a few floors down.

We are here to debate/challenge your ideas. When you misrepresent the facts … expect others to point them out. Alternatively, we could leave you alone … and let your Lt. hemisphere debate your Rt.
One is the loneliest # …

 

[twb1621]

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.

**John CH1; 1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και ****θεος **ην ο λογος

θεὸς = “was God” as contained in the true text.

"like a god" as used by the NWT would have required the original Greek text to contain - “σαν ένα” = “like a”

**Where does the print “σαν ένα” show up in the above Greek text to support it’s addition in the NWT. **

Latin Vulgate John CH1:1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

Latin vulgate 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[twb1621]

It does not seem that you really want to discuss topics seriously. There are three categories of people on CAF. You might consider them a Trinity They are:

1. 
   *]Those in Dan - Heaven - I always read their posts as they are informative and presented with respect.
   *]Those in Dan - Purgatory - Their posts are generally not informative and frequently disrespectful and insulting. I may not read them very often.
   *]Those in Dan - Hell - CAF allows me to ignore these ones.
   
   Your category has just changed from Dan-Purgatory to a few floors down.

1. 
   See when Dan looses traction or can no longer support himself in the debate he blocks you out… There is a long list.

 

[jlhargus]

McKenzie distinguishes between God in John 1:1a and the Word who he calls a divine being.

JL: McKenzie is NOT distinguishing between God in Jn1:1 and the Word. He is showing the Word is DIVINE therefore God. How could one be DIVINE and not be God? only God is divine. McKenzie’s distinction is distinguishing persons in the Godhead. The Word was WITH God and the Word WAS a divine being, God. If the Word was WITH and IS divine, God, then there must be a Person or Persons for him to be with in the Godhead. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is three PERSONS in the ONE DIVINE NATURE or BEING of God, GOD IS ONE GOD, not three Gods.

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.

JL: Can one be a DIVINE BEING and not be God? The Father is a divine being, the Son is a divine being, the Holy Spirit is a divine being. There is only ONE DIVINE BEING the Holy Trinity, Yahweh, God.

Yes, the God the Word, who is God, was WITH was the Father AND the Holy Spirit, there are three Persons in the GODHEAD. To quote the book; Theology for Beginners, by F. J. Sheed, pg 50 2nd paragraph. “The aptness of the attribution of operatins to one or other Person must not blind us to the reality that in all these operations all three Persons are at work.”] So when GOD acts or one calls on GOD or Yahweh, it is not the Father only, but Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “But appropriation is a constant reminder to us that they are distinct; not only that, it reminds us of the personal character of each—that the Father is Origin, the Son proceeds by the way of Knowledge, the Holy Spirit by the way of Love.”] 3rd paragraph pg 50.

There is only ONE GOD. Just as there is only ONE NAME GIVEN UNDER HEAVEN BY WHICH MEN CAN BE SAVED, [Acts4:10 then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by THE NAME JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11 He is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone. 12 SALVATION IS FOUND IN NO ONE ELSE, for THERE IS NO OTHER NAME under heaven GIVEN to men BY WHICH WE MUST BE SAVED." ] NIV caps added.

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

That being said, I have already quoted Catholic John L McKenzie, S.J. whose interpretation of the text (the Word was a divine being) agrees with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Dan

JL: First McKenzie does interpret Jn20:28 and Titus2:13 as examples where the Son is called God with the definite article. McKenzie does believe Jesus was a divine being, which can only be GOD. If JW’s believe that Jesus is a DIVINE BEING, which he is, then JW’s believe Jesus is God as God alone is DIVINE. If JW’s do not believe in a duo or Trinity then they believe there is more than ONE GOD. That would be polytheism. There can’t be two or three separate DIVINE BEINGS or Gods and not be polytheism.

Actually the McKenzie quote is much worse for your position that you realize. Trinitarians believe that there is only one Being who is God and that this one Being is three persons. **To say that the Word is a divine being all by himself would make him a different divine being than his Father and that would be polytheism. **Dan

JL: Yes as you post, To say that the Word is a divine being ALL BY HIMSELF would make him A DIFFERENT DIVINE BEING THAN HIS FATHER and THAT WOULD BE POLYTHEISM.

In your post you have addmited Jesus as a divine being is on the same level as the Father, with which I agree, however I believe they are ONE in the DIVINE BEING of God the Holy Trinity. According to WT teaching they are separate beings. Therefore if BOTH are DIVINE and separate beings that would clearly be polytheism

 

[jlhargus]

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?

JL: Simple answer, Jesus has two natures one man, one God. As man he cannot know that which is not in his human nature to know. His human nature cannot know the future without revelation by God. Jesus is still both man and God and will be so for ever.

1Tm2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the MAN Christ Jesus,

Acts17:31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the** MAN **he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

[Rv1:5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6 and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen. 7 Look, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see him, EVEN THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. 8 “I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA,” SAYS THE LORD GOD, “WHO IS, and WHO WAS, and WHO IS TO COME, THE ALMIGHTY.”]

Who is to come? The Lord God the Almighty. Who was Pierced? The Alpha and the Omega. Who is the Alpha and the Omega? Jesus and every eye will see HIM even those who PIERCED HIM.

Jn 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING was the Word, and THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, and THE WORD WAS GOD. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; WITHOUT HIM **nothing was made **THAT HAS BEEN MADE. 4 IN HIM WAS LIFE, and that life was the light of men.

Col 1:15 HE IS THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For BY HIM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED: things IN HEAVEN and ON EARTH, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM and for him. 17 He is before all things, and IN HIM ALL THINGS HOLD TOGETHER

I see you did not put into your own words the WT canned “Sidebar” remarks.

 

[jlhargus]

See when Dan looses traction or can no longer support himself in the debate he blocks you out… There is a long list.

JL: You got that right for sure, I keep posting to learn and fine tune, hopefully some will find it helpful. Congratulations brb2, evidently you have caught Dan in something he can’t answer or in a contradiction so he put you on ignore. It is a growing club and I’m sure it will continue to grow, I also have the honor.

Here is the reason he put me on ignore; forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5720027&postcount=275

P.S. I’m not good with grammar, but would one who can point out an AORIST tense and know grammar as well as Dan portrays, end a sentence with a preposition such as TO? He posted in his last post putting me on ignore; “There are plenty of polite Catholics on this board, and those are the ones I enjoy talking TO.” Also would those are the ones be good grammar??

 

[Danno2281]

JL: You got that right for sure, I keep posting to learn and fine tune, hopefully some will find it helpful. Congratulations brb2, evidently you have caught Dan in something he can’t answer or in a contradiction so he put you on ignore. It is a growing club and I’m sure it will continue to grow, I also have the honor.

Here is the reason he put me on ignore; forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5720027&postcount=275

P.S. I’m not good with grammar, but would one who can point out an AORIST tense and know grammar as well as Dan portrays, end a sentence with a preposition such as TO? He posted in his last post putting me on ignore; “There are plenty of polite Catholics on this board, and those are the ones I enjoy talking TO.” Also would those are the ones be good grammar??

The inability to end a sentence with a preposition is “a rule up with which I will not put.” W. Churchill. Only purists still adhere to it.

 

[Dan_Parker]

The inability to end a sentence with a preposition is “a rule up with which I will not put.” W. Churchill. Only purists still adhere to it.

Hi Danno, what have you been up to?

 

[jlhargus]

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:

It does not seem that you really want to discuss topics seriously. There are three categories of people on CAF. You might consider them a Trinity They are:

1. 
   ]Those in ** Dan - Heaven* - I always read their posts as they are informative and presented with respect.
   *]Those in Dan - Purgatory - Their posts are generally not informative and frequently disrespectful and insulting. I may not read them very often.
   *]Those in Dan - Hell - CAF allows me to ignore these ones.
   
   Your category has just changed from Dan-Purgatory to a few floors down.

1. 
   JL: Interpretaion
   
   Dan – Heaven - I always read their posts as I can find WT canned remarks to answer in my own words.
   
   Dan – Purgatory – Their posts generally don’t fall into the the WT canned remarks answer categories, so I must put up a smoke screen such as grammar or an out of context misquote.
   
   Dan – Hell – I can’t answer or they caught me trying to fake it, with a so called quote from The Lutheran financed Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon. So it wont be so obvious, I then accuse them of being rude as a pretext to put them on ignore.
   
   THESE ONES???

 

[Danno2281]

Hi Danno, what have you been up to?

Your last post responding to mine said that you had just “proved” that those three A&W references coulod not apply to Jesus. I had just finishied showing that your proof was invalid. Dioalogue then must come to an end. There is nothing more to say

 

[Dan_Parker]

Your last post responding to mine said that you had just “proved” that those three A&W references coulod not apply to Jesus. I had just finishied showing that your proof was invalid. Dioalogue then must come to an end. There is nothing more to say

Thanks for the discussion Danno. It appears we have been talking past each other on this one. Do you agree that the language in Proverbs 8:22-30 proves that the Son had a beginning if one takes the temporal language as temporal language?

 

[Danno2281]

Thanks for the discussion Danno. It appears we have been talking past each other on this one. Do you agree that the language in Proverbs 8:22-30 proves that the Son had a beginning if one takes the temporal language as temporal language?

Hardly. It illustrates that He WAS in the beginning and that the beginning came about through Him. There was no point at which God was without Wisdom in all of its varied powers.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Hardly. It illustrates that He WAS in the beginning and that the beginning came about through Him. There was no point at which God was without Wisdom in all of its varied powers.

I thought that you agreed that God was not the Creator until he created?

I also did demonstrate that a sense of wisdom (hokma) as that of the master craftsman, not only in Proverbs 8, but also Proverbs 3 and elsewhere in the OT.

As a result the sense of Wisdom as the master craftsman would have not been demonstrated until God created.

So, yes, God was not without wisdom in the sense of knowledge and understanding, but he had not yet come into possession of the quality of Wisdom in the sense of making something as the Creator.

As for the Son being “in” the beginning, yes he was, in the context of John 1:1, but in the context of Proverbs 8:22 he **is **the beginning.

NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the **first-born = Heb Reshit, LXX ARXH] **of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

 

[brb2]

the language in Proverbs 8:22-30 proves that the Son had a beginning if one takes the temporal language as temporal language?

What is the context of this single verse ? 8:22 The LORD created ME at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old.

Lord Christ ]
Me Wisdom]

Christ was begotten, not created [made].

---

DP … How do you read 1 Timothy 2:5-6 ?

For there is ‘one’ God, and there is ‘one’ mediator between God and men, the ‘man’ Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.

Does this prove that God and Christ are separate, that Christ is ONLY a man … and not divine ?

 

[Danno2281]

Thanks for the discussion Danno. It appears we have been talking past each other on this one. Do you agree that the language in Proverbs 8:22-30 proves that the Son had a beginning if one takes the temporal language as temporal language?

                                                                                                                                                       The following is from post#540. We are just re-hashing what we've already said

“The Divine, being unlimited, is not time bound and always knows all, and has fashioned that which is not Itself, to learn of It, and to participate in It. Some of that other is spirit, some is both spirit and matter, some just matter (a form of energy?) - the created world. The Power through which creation occurred, the Word, is logically antecedent to that which is created, but not subject to time or it could not be logically antecedent. The argument, then, was not about time, but about reasonableness. This is why I inasist that the position you advanced attempts to rob God of His divinity by subjecting Him to change Who Is beyond change.”

 

[Danno2281]

I thought that you agreed that God was not the Creator until he created?

I also did demonstrate that a sense of wisdom (hokma) as that of the master craftsman, not only in Proverbs 8, but also Proverbs 3 and elsewhere in the OT.

As a result the sense of Wisdom as the master craftsman would have not been demonstrated until God created.

So, yes, God was not without wisdom in the sense of knowledge and understanding, but he had not yet come into possession of the quality of Wisdom in the sense of making something as the Creator.

As for the Son being “in” the beginning, yes he was, in the context of John 1:1, but in the context of Proverbs 8:22 he **is **the beginning.

NAB Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD begot me, the **first-born = Heb Reshit, LXX ARXH] **of his ways, the forerunner of his prodigies of long ago;

Perhaps you were referring to post#528: “My objection is to the implication that before this (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of God’s timelessness) Wisdom did not exist, as if the Creator did not exist until He created. You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se, but to say that He did not yet exist is a very different statement. I hope this helps to make my position more understandable.”
We are still left with words like “until” and “before” which are temporal expressions, but if we understand that we speak of a rational antecedent rather than a temporal one (as the begetting of the Son is a rational construct rather than temporal), and that there was never a “time” when it was not the case, then we might have some agreement, but I cannot subscribe the concept of God’s “coming into” posession unless we carefully note that there was no “time” when it was not the case.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Perhaps you were referring to post#528: “My objection is to the implication that before this (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of God’s timelessness) Wisdom did not exist, as if the Creator did not exist until He created. You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se, but to say that He did not yet exist is a very different statement. I hope this helps to make my position more understandable.”
We are still left with words like “until” and “before” which are temporal expressions, but if we understand that we speak of a rational antecedent rather than a temporal one (as the begetting of the Son is a rational construct rather than temporal), and that there was never a “time” when it was not the case, then we might have some agreement, but I cannot subscribe the concept of God’s “coming into” posession unless we carefully note that there was no “time” when it was not the case.

I don’t expect to convince you of my view, but I do have hopes that we can agree on why we don’t agree. Your term “rational antecedent” appears to be an acceptance that the Father was the cause of the Son. I understand you qualify this with the assertion that this happened " before the beginning of time" (NJB 2 Timothy 1:9)

Is this an accurate description of your position?