The Anarthrous God of John 1.1

[KingdomRose]

You should really read the links. They adequately address the problems, specifically, with JW's. Nutshell: They are inconsistent and hypocritical for their theological bent. I don't believe you could be JW if you really understood this. The truth disallows it.

YOU should really go to THIS link: www.jw.org

I have seen and heard all of people's "problems" with JWs. I have faced them all, and they all are very weak, most nonsensical.

I pray that you find the truth someday.

 

[Lon]

YOU should really go to THIS link: www.jw.org

I have seen and heard all of people's "problems" with JWs. I have faced them all, and they all are very weak, most nonsensical.

I pray that you find the truth someday.

Sorry, I've had one of your regional directors in my home. I'm not at all impressed with JW academic prowess.
He even lied, couldn't read a lick of Greek. JW's have never impressed me on a godly or academic consideration (known too many of you). It just isn't ever going to happen Kingdomhall kid.

Arians ceased being in the first century because you guys are too ingrown and contentious. Today, no difference.

Be a JW. There is really no reason for you guys to be on a Christian website like this because nothing is going to come of it BUT a platform for your contentious nature. It will spotlight that yet again, if that's what you are in to. I'm not really. My intelligence level (whatever it may be) disallows me from ever being a JW. There is no point to this discussion.

Read the thread if you've a mind to learn. If not, this is the time for me to shake dust :wave:

 

[KingdomRose]

Jarrod, you make your case that John may have been intentionally ambiguous in his wording in 1.1: Do you believe he intended that ambiguity to lead to the above conclusion? It seems but a short step to me. For this reason I argued vigorously against it ~ not against you, my friend, but against the idea of ambiguity when there is none. I invite you and KingdomRose and others who may be so inclined to revisit the posts in this thread; there are not that many of them. See for yourselves. John's wording is precise, concise, definite, and succinct: The Word was not only with the God. God was the Word as well!

I agree that John was precise and concise. He meant to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GOD ALMIGHTY AND THE WORD. The Word, Jesus, was with God...and yet the Word was merely "divine" (as per Moffatt),or, "a god," which meant what his audience then would have understood to mean an important, powerful, respected individual. Not God Almighty.

The Word is not the one-and-only God, but is "a god," or divine being. The fact remains that that is what John wrote. As one scholar wrote: "His purpose in doing so was, at least in part, to avoid the notion that God the Father himself incarnated as Christ. The one who incarnated was somehow DISTINCT from 'God,' while still being 'a god.'" And what did the term 'god' mean to the people who read John's Gospel in the first century? I said it above. An important, respected, powerful person.

The New World Translation has been denounced by many as being biased. The same scholar says: "It may very well be that the NWT translators came to the task of translating John 1:1 with as much bias as the other translators did [for they ALL translated with bias]. It just so happens that their bias corresponds in this case to a more accurate translation of the Greek."

He further says: "The noun theos ('god') in the nominative (subject) form is used 298 times in the New Testament. In 274 of those occurrences, the definite article is used. The definite article specifies that the reference is to 'the god,' that is, 'God,' with three exceptions. In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul refers to 'the god of this age,' meaning Satan. In Philippians 3:19, he speaks of those for whom 'the god is the belly' (one could arguably translate this as 'God is the belly'). Acts 14:11 speaks of 'the gods' in the plural, referring to the pantheon of Greco-Roman paganism. The exceptions show that 'god' can be used in the New Testament as part of the jargon of the times in which it was written. People around the early Christians spoke of 'gods,' and the New Testament authors used this language to communicate important ideas....I have no doubt that the wording of John 1:1 is careful and deliberate in its every detail. John was doing a very tricky thing: trying to express Jesus' exalted status without violating monotheism. This has been a challenging task throughout Christian history, and John was the first person to tackle it. I think we owe it to him, therefore, to stick as closely to his words as we can, and not contort them into something else."

Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, pages 113-134.


The Word was NOT God.

 

[KingdomRose]

Sorry, I've had one of your regional directors in my home. I'm not at all impressed with JW academic prowess.
He even lied, couldn't read a lick of Greek. JW's have never impressed me on a godly or academic consideration (known too many of you). It just isn't ever going to happen Kingdomhall kid.

Arians ceased being in the first century because you guys are too ingrown and contentious. Today, no difference.

Be a JW. There is really no reason for you guys to be on a Christian website like this because nothing is going to come of it BUT a platform for your contentious nature. It will spotlight that yet again, if that's what you are in to. I'm not really. My intelligence level (whatever it may be) disallows me from ever being a JW. There is no point to this discussion.

Read the thread if you've a mind to learn. If not, this is the time for me to shake dust :wave:

I think YOU are lying about the regional director. None of us would say we knew Greek if we didn't.

Arians weren't overpowered because they were contentious. They were overpowered because they were not in league with the more powerful political entities of the time. It really had very little to do with what the Bible said.

There is every reason to be on a Christian website, because we ARE Christian. Jesus is working with US.

Good. You shake your dust and I'll shake mine. I'll also take my pearls back from the pigs. :wave2::chuckle:

 

[Lon]

I think YOU are lying about the regional director. None of us would say we knew Greek if we didn't

Understood. You necessarily have to protect yourself somehow. :up: I guess.

Arians weren't overpowered because they were contentious

As with most, cultist have a biased eye. It is completely understood that you missed the point here. I never said overpowered.
You guys are simply very few. Those ones just didn't amount to much. They just 'died off.' Poof, end of arians.

They were overpowered because they were not in league with the more powerful political entities of the time. It really had very little to do with what the Bible said.

You can say that again, though probably not what you meant. We two read that differently, I'm sure....

There is every reason to be on a Christian website, because we ARE Christian. Jesus is working with US.

Er, delusional. Much.

Good. You shake your dust and I'll shake mine. I'll also take my pearls back from the pigs. :wave2::chuckle:

Aw, see how you revert to type? Nice. :up: Thanks for keeping my experience with JW's consistent. :up:

 

[KingdomRose]

Understood. You necessarily have to protect yourself somehow. :up: I guess.


As with most, cultist have a biased eye. It is completely understood that you missed the point here. I never said overpowered.
You guys are simply very few. Those ones just didn't amount to much. They just 'died off.' Poof, end of arians.

You can say that again, though probably not what you meant. We two read that differently, I'm sure....

Er, delusional. Much.

Aw, see how you revert to type? Nice. :up: Thanks for keeping my experience with JW's consistent. :up:

Hey, at least I didn't call you a GOAT!! We aren't supposed to judge people as to whether they are sheep or goats. Anyway, it's too bad you can't take some humor; you referred to shaking the dust off your feet and I referred to another scripture uttered by Jesus as well.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think YOU are lying about the regional director. None of us would say we knew Greek if we didn't.

Arians weren't overpowered because they were contentious. They were overpowered because they were not in league with the more powerful political entities of the time. It really had very little to do with what the Bible said.

There is every reason to be on a Christian website, because we ARE Christian. Jesus is working with US.

Good. You shake your dust and I'll shake mine. I'll also take my pearls back from the pigs. :wave2::chuckle:

The Jehovah Witness CULT is a Para-Christian organization, just like LDS, SDA, and Freemasonry, etc.

 

[KingdomRose]

The Jehovah Witness CULT is a Para-Christian organization, just like LDS, SDA, and Freemasonry, etc.

So what religious group do you belong to?

 

[TFTn5280]

The Word, Jesus, was with God...and yet the Word was ... not God Almighty.<SNIP>

"The Word is not the one-and-only God, but is "a god," or divine being." ~ BeDuhn

The Word was NOT God.

Oh? The Apostle Thomas seemed to think he was. "And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" (Joh 20.28). Here both "Lord" and "God" are articular: "O kurios mou kai o theos mou," translated literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

And who is this God? The Apostle Peter calls Him "Yahweh," or in the English of King James, "Jehovah." Acts 2.23-25 "Him [Jesus], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He [Jesus] should be held by it. For David says concerning Him [Jesus]: 'I foresaw Yahweh always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken."

There's really nothing more to be said about this. BeDuhn is wrong and you are wrong. I wish you well and I hope you will reconsider your position.

 

[TFTn5280]

Delete

 

[daqq]

Oh? The Apostle Thomas seemed to think he was. "And Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'" (Joh 20.28). Here both "Lord" and "God" are articular: "O kurios mou kai o theos mou," translated literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me."

And who is this God? The Apostle Peter calls Him "Yahweh," or in the English of King James, "Jehovah." Acts 2.23-25 "Him [Jesus], being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He [Jesus] should be held by it. For David says concerning Him [Jesus]: 'I foresaw Yahweh always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken."

There's really nothing more to be said about this. BeDuhn is wrong and you are wrong. I wish you well and I hope you will reconsider your position.

That is a misreading of the text. David speaks of the Holy One (of YHWH) and that is what Peter is highlighting:

Acts 2:24-27 ASV
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord [YHWH] always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:
27 Because thou [YHWH] wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou [YHWH] give thy Holy One [Messiah] to see corruption.

The passage is not equating Messiah with the Father but rather equating Messiah with the "Holy One" of YHWH.

 

[TFTn5280]

That is a misreading of the text. David speaks of the Holy One (of YHWH) and that is what Peter is highlighting:

Acts 2:24-27 ASV
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
25 For David saith concerning him, I beheld the Lord [YHWH] always before my face; For he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:
27 Because thou [YHWH] wilt not leave my soul unto Hades, Neither wilt thou [YHWH] give thy Holy One [Messiah] to see corruption.

The passage is not equating Messiah with the Father but rather equating Messiah with the "Holy One" of YHWH.

Yes, as I reread the text I see that you are right.

 

[themuzicman]

For Oneness types:

31 “If I alone testify about Myself, My testimony is not [g]true. 32 There is another who testifies of Me, and I know that the testimony which He gives about Me is true. 33 You have sent to John, and he has testified to the truth. 34 But the testimony which I receive is not from man, but I say these things so that you may be saved. 35 He was the lamp that was burning and was shining and you were willing to rejoice for [h]a while in his light. 36 But the testimony which I have is greater than the testimony of John; for the works which the Father has given Me to accomplish—the very works that I do—testify about Me, that the Father has sent Me. 37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. 38 You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.

Note that Jesus says that if his witness is the only one, then his testimony isn't valid. He then rejects John's testimony, although he mentions it so they might believe.

And the rest is from the Father.

But if Jesus IS the Father, then Jesus has not called any witnesses other than himself, and his testimony isn't true, as he stated. In effect, by deceiving the Jews there by calling "the Father" as a witness, but not telling them that he is, in fact, calling himself, he's bearing false witness. That's a violation of the 8th commandment.

So, according to this text, either Jesus isn't the Father, or Jesus broke the law.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So what religious group do you belong to?

I don't belong to a "religious group". I am part of the Body of Christ as His Bride, the Church; and in fellowship within a local gathering of those Believers.

Your cult has no foundation prior to the 19th century. You are not Christian. JW are not Christian, just as LDS are not Christian.

 

[Apple7]

So what religious group do you belong to?

Do you consider yourself a Christian...?

 

[SonOfCaleb]

I don't belong to a "religious group". I am part of the Body of Christ as His Bride, the Church; and in fellowship within a local gathering of those Believers.

So you're part of your own cult then...

Your cult has no foundation prior to the 19th century. You are not Christian. JW are not Christian, just as LDS are not Christian.

Using your spurious line of reasoning what arbitrary date/century do you deem suitable then to be viewed as an established Christian faith in your opinion?

Also do you understand what the definition of a Christian is? What do you believe Christianity to be if the JW's as you say aren't Christian? EG what specifically in your view makes them a non-Christian denomination.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you're part of your own cult then...

No.

Using your spurious line of reasoning

Spurious? To insist the 19th-century is too late? No. And your false Cult came out of the Restorationist Movement anyway.

what arbitrary date/century do you deem suitable

Nothing I would "deem suitable" would be arbitrary. False question.

then to be viewed as an established Christian faith in your opinion?

There's no such thing as "an" established Christian faith, only THE Christian faith. JW is NOT that faith. It's a 19th-century cult. Very simple.

Also do you understand what the definition of a Christian is?

Yes.

What do you believe Christianity to be if the JW's as you say aren't Christian?

All that is within Apostolic boundaries. Your cult is not. It's a 19th-century innovation.

EG what specifically in your view makes them a non-Christian denomination.

Wrong presumption. They're not a denomination. Wrong question. They're not Christian.

Theology Proper, Paterology, Christology, Pneumatology, Anthropology, Ponerology, Hamartiology, Soteriology, Eschatology, and more.

Every area of doctrine is antichrist to some degree, great or small.

Different God, different Christ, different Spirit, different everything except hijacked terminologies with false definitions and applications.

 

[beameup]

I would recommend looking into the Hebrew use of the word "Word" or "God said" in the Old Testament, as I'm sure that this is what John was conveying, and not the "abstract concepts" of the Greek language.
I believe you will make some amazing discoveries...

Now Samuel did not yet know YHWH, neither was the word of YHWH yet revealed unto him. 1 Samuel 3:7

 

[God's Truth]

God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are the same.

It is easy to prove.


When one is saved they receive the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit which is God the father and Jesus Christ.


See John 14:23.

 

[beameup]

Was Adam and Eve the same? Eve was inside of Adam and God "extracted" her from him, but prior to that they were "one" and "created in God's image". But thinking-outside-the-box is not everyones forte.