Did Jesus say he was God???

[BornAgain]

Hello, Born again. I do not think the question of the Trinity can be resolved but you make very scholarly and well thought out attempts at it. I lean towards the truth of the Trinity but have never seen a need to resolve it absolutely. However as C.S. Lewis said: Christ was either a madman or divine but the claim he was merely a Razul (good teacher) is an option history has not left open.

With your permission I will PM you in the future for information or input in other debates. It is rare to see another Christian with orthodox views in these forums. I am a born again Christian and my views are traditional protestant but for some reason it is rare to find another traditional Christian in these debates.

My core values are:
1. We must be spiritually born again to get to heaven.
2. This is a matter of pure grace and merit plays no role in salvation its self.
3. This salvation is permanent and irrevocable (outside the possibility of some absolute rejection of Christ, intentionally). Salvation gained by Christ's merits is not maintained by my own. It is Christ from start to finish.
4. Scripture alone is allowed to decide matters of faith and tradition never supersedes it.

For future reference do you adhere to these core doctrines or do you disagree with any of them. My apologies for a departure from the threads context.

Verses that comes to mind about debates like this is,

2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

As a Christian, the reason why we read the bible is very simple, to know the truth.

As the Lord Jesus Christ have said,

Jn 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Free from what?

Ro 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
Ro 10:7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
Ro 10:8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You see, one need not to go far to get this freedom.

 

[Shermana]

“Trinatarian English translation”?

What are you saying?

Phil2:6 Who in form God being not prize count equal God.

Phil 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Phil 2:6
hos/who
en/in
morphë/form
theou/God
huparchön/being
ouch/not
harpagmon/prize
hëgësato/count
to einai isa/equal
theö/God

What is it that you did not understand here?

This Koine Greek translation is from any Christian bible.

This is the same bible you people are trying to adulterate.

Once again you have demonstrated you have no idea what you're even arguing about. We're talking about the issue of the Anarthrous here.

Remember I asked you what kind of bible you use. The reason for that is maybe we can read it from there and still prove you wrong.

What part of the fact that particular English translations don't necessarily prove anything don't you understand.

Translate the very word of God in English language base on human/mortal opinions.

Ummm, we're talking about the issue of whether it's indefinite.

Since when your opinion, a mere human, a mortal man became relevant to the mind of the immortal God?

Oh, I see, you're saying your opinion is God's opinion? I love how quickly Trinitarians are to blaspheme like this when they've been proven wrong with facts.

You want to be a teacher of the law? You want to translate koine Greek to English language. The question is, how are going to do it? You can not even understand the difference between Modern Greek to Classic Greek to Koine Greek. One minute you were saying “oh it’s modern Greek” then “no its koine Greek”

Let me get this straight. You're accusing me of not knowing the difference between Modern and Koine Greek...when I'm the one who showed you that Tau does not mean "Of the" in Modern Greek. You're not even debating. You have no basis for your personal accusations, you're not even attempting to discuss the Greek grammar, and you completely misunderstand what I said.

Where did I say "Oh it's modern Greek" and then "it's Koine Greek"?

You're either not even capable of even reading what I say correctly, or you are deliberately distorting what I said or you're in such a flurry to rebuke me with things like 'This is God's opinion" that you are forgetting what I even said.

I have an idea, why don't you try actually addressing what I say.

This is what you wrote; “So did you not notice the Tou or do you think the "Tou" simply means "of" and not "of the"? If so, you're mistaking Modern Greek grammar for Koine.”

That's what I said yes.

Now your are contradicting your statement. Tell me which one are we talking here, the modern Greek, or the koine Greek, or the Attic Greek, or the classic Greek?

I'm contradicting myself here? How? Because I bring up the fact that Tau has an implied definite article and is not just "The" in Koine Greek?

You are seriously embarassing yourself.

You asked what was the point of the Greek language history that I posted?

This is the point.

So the point is that you can't even follow what I'm saying correctly, thanks.

Let me repeat for anyone else reading, Tau = "of the" in Koine, which we're talking about here, and simply "of" in Modern Greek.

If you read Acts20:28 in modern Greek you will see what you wanted to see, and this is what you wrote, “So did you not notice the Tou or do you think the "Tou" simply means "of" and not "of the"?
“ekklësian tou theou” or the “church of the God” this is the modern Greek version that you wanted to see.

THE TOU THEOU IS IN THE KOINE!!!!!!!

Now, if you read it in Koine Greek, Acts20:28 this is how it should be from the original Koine Greek, “ekklësian theou” or “church God” they use the words “of” and “the” only to assist in English language.

NO IT SHOULD BE "CHURCH OF THE GOD" IN THE KOINE!!! THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!!

In other words, the words “of” and “the” are not in the original Koine Greek language.

In other words, you are lying and have not the slightest inkling of the fact that Tau means "of the" and not just "of" in the KOINE, and you confused what I said about the Modern Greek. This has to be one of the most embarassing posts by Trinitarians I've ever seen, and that's saying a LOT.

Please, STOP!!! You are the ONLY PERSON probably in the WHOLE WORLD who will say that Tau does NOT imply a definite article in Koine. Either back your claim that Tau does NOT imply the definite or kindly refrain from responding and save yourself from face.

Every time you people see two “God” in a verse, right away you panic and what do you do? You say, “there’s gotta be ANARTHROUS here”

Huh? Two "God" in a verse? Do you even know what Anarthrous means? You're not even close to reality, you're nowhere close to the same wavelength as what the issue is here.

Lets see if that is true.

Phil2:6 Who in form God being not prize count equal God.

That's the usual though incorrect mainstream translation. You have ignored over and over again the fact that it says "Form of a slave" with the same grammar.

I asked you this before but you refuse to answer with written theories or anything just to disprove this verse.

I refuse to answer? I POSTED WHAT A PROMINENT TRINITARIAN SCHOLAR SAID!!!!

You will never, never see anarthrous in this verse.

Except when prominent Trinitarians point out that it's supposed to be indefinite. You're confusing what Trinitarian translations say in English with the actual fact. Your answer to why it reads "Form of a slave" had absolutely no grammar connotation.

This was your pervious statement

And this was my answer.

Phil 2:7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men;

Why should the “a servant” be like “the servant” or “of servant” when the writer was just making a comparrison to “a or any servant”?

BECAUSE IT'S THE STANDARD GRAMMAR!!!

You don't seem to understand that context doesn't change the grammar. The grammar fits the context.

I did answer that already. Why do you insist on putting “A” in front of the “God” when it is not in the original KOINE Greek language?

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT ANARTHROUS MEANS? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE INDEFINITE IMPLIED ARTICLE IS? Wow, this is absolutely ridiculous. Stop. Check yourself. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? I didn't slap an A in front of it just because I felt like it. This is what even some major TRINITARIAN SCHOLARS also say. You also said this about John 1:1c, and I showed you many translations saying "a god" as well. You don't even know what the grammar is in question.

Why you cannot understand that all I was doing is translating from the Original KOINE Greek language to English language, or I am not doing this base on my own “OPINION” because I know where to find the answers. I did not fabricate any of these. They were all written in the bible and all you have to do is read it.

They were written in the ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS YOU USE.

You know why the Greeks called Paul a babbler/spermologos when he went to Athens?

Spermolog is a Greek word for a babbler.

I'm sure you're well acquainted with the term.

A babbler is a crow, or some other bird, picking up seeds. Then it seems to have been used of a man accustomed to hang about the streets, and markets, picking up scraps which fall from loads; hence a parasite, who lives at the expense of others, a hanger on.

Methaphorically it became used of a man who picks us scraps of information and retails them secondhand, a plagiarist, or of those who make a show, in unscientific style, of knowledge obtained from MISUNDERSTANDING LECTURES.

Yes, you apparently misunderstand basic Greek grammar.

They have these scraps of limited informations that they kept in a box, once gone or empty, they stop, unlike the unlimited source of truth from the bible that can never be exhausted. That is the reason why we have the bible, the source of the way, the life, and the truth about the eternal God.

Are you even interested whatsoever in discussing the debate?

The Greeks thought Paul was just a babbler of limited information about the resurrected Christ, -WITH NO FOUNDATION AT ALL- but it turned out, them Greeks, the philosophers of the Epicureans, and the Stoics, were the babblers instead about the resurrected Christ. Like the Pharisees, those Greeks don’t have any ideas about the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Seriously, you are embarassing yourself. Either actually debate the grammar in question, or kindly refrain from replying to me.

 

[BornAgain]

Anyone can tell in this forum how intelligently your answers were.

The only reason why you answered my questions was to save your face in this forum. I gave you the proper answers but you responded with sarcasm because you do not know how to answers my questions properly. You are avoiding my questions with sarcastic remarks, unfounded theory and hearsay.

You should not criticize what you do not understand.

How about me debating you about your religion. Tell me your doctrine, the foundation of your religion. I just want to find out how are you going to defend your religion, your belief from people like me. I would probably do the same thing that you were doing to my belief. Attacking you about your religion with no knowledge at all. I would probably answer you like you answered me. Or do you have any religion or belief at all?

Defending my belief, as a Christian, is not a matter of who won or who lost. Its about the truth and lie. I can not just sit back and pretend nothing is happening while people like you blaspheme what I believe.

When Pilate asked the Lord Jesus Christ about “What is truth?”

Jn 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

The truth is, “Pilate find in Christ no fault at all” -still crucified Him- And here we are in the 21st century, the Lord Jesus Christ is still on trial from people like. You want to crucify again the Lord Jesus Christ just to prove your philosophies, your baseless theories.

This is not about egos, who won or lost. Human philosophies sure can boost egos, but we have to set our egos on the side when we talk about what is the truth and what is lie with facts and where the actual facts came from. We cannot base our argument on things other people said, but on the actual facts that we read or studied.

Because of human pride, pure heart can be easily diluted and always looking for that human praise at any cost. We always wanted or looking for this highs or moments where we thought people are praising us because of what we do, and not what our pure hearts really desire, and that is what makes us human human.

 

[Shermana]

Anyone can tell in this forum how intelligently your answers were.

Anyone reading can see how intelligent your answers are, and how you have no clue how to debate or keep on the rails of the subject or discuss the grammar.

The only reason why you answered my questions was to save your face in this forum. I gave you the proper answers but you responded with sarcasm because you do not know how to answers my questions properly. You are avoiding my questions with sarcastic remarks, unfounded theory and hearsay.

I avoided your questions? Talk about projection. Where have my questions been answered exactly? You simply dismissed what I said and said that the scholars couldn't be used or something. What questions did I avoid? The only reason you are responding here is to try to have the last word and to vent on how you think I am "Crucifying Christ" because I dare to debate the Trinitarian view with facts and sources that prove the grammar concepts I'm speaking of. You think that your answer is right just because you want to say so, and you completely avoided responding to what I said. This is unfortunately most Trinitarians act when they've been proved wrong. How did I not answer your questions properly exactly? Please show me an example.

You should not criticize what you do not understand.

You should take your own advice. It is you who has demonstrated clearly that you didn't even understand what I meant when I pointed out the difference in Tau in Modern and Koine.

How about me debating you about your religion. Tell me your doctrine, the foundation of your religion. I just want to find out how are you going to defend your religion, your belief from people like me. I would probably do the same thing that you were doing to my belief. Attacking you about your religion with no knowledge at all. I would probably answer you like you answered me. Or do you have any religion or belief at all?

That's irrelevant to the thread. What you are demonstrating clearly is that you can't answer the subject so you are changing it. As for having no knowledge at all, that's attempt at nice personal dig, but it's not a substitute for the fact that you're projecting your own clearly displayed lack of knowledge and worse, unwillingness to discuss the facts behind it, of the grammar and context in question.

Defending my belief, as a Christian, is not a matter of who won or who lost. Its about the truth and lie. I can not just sit back and pretend nothing is happening while people like you blaspheme what I believe.

So now I'm blaspheming what you believe? So basically now instead of debating and responding to what I said, you basically double down on your errors and say "You are lying, I am telling the truth", and then say things like "I cannot respond to you" and such.

Born again, who do you think you are convincing here? This debate forum is for debating. It's clear you've been shown how wrong your position is. Do you know what "intellectual honesty" means? You don't just get to say "I am telling the truth" when your points have been blown out of the water. You didn't even know what I meant by bringing up the difference between Modern and Koine. You didn't even want to accept what Trinitarian scholars themselves say. You said I couldn't put it in my own words. Have you ever debated before?

I will ask you this, what I ask lots of unreasonable people who refuse to debate reasonably: Would you like to ask God to demonstrate which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth through a physical display? That's hardly "Tempting him" anymore so than when Moses challenged Korah's priests.

When Pilate asked the Lord Jesus Christ about “What is truth?”

And what is truth? Whatever you want to believe?

Jn 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

The truth is, “Pilate find in Christ no fault at all” -still crucified Him- And here we are in the 21st century, the Lord Jesus Christ is still on trial from people like. You want to crucify again the Lord Jesus Christ just to prove your philosophies, your baseless theories.

From people like me? Christ is on trial because I doubt the Trinity? This is ridiculous. I want to crucify Jesus because of the lack of belief in the Trinity? Really? Do you have any other total straw men to offer? Do you always resort to calling people's views and opinions "baseless theories" just because they disagree with yours? How are my views baseless exactly when I have loads of scholars and grammarians who agree with me? How do you define a "philosophy" or "theory" to have a base? Does it have to agree with your view to do so? How do know YOUR views are not baseless? How do you know that your "Theories" and "Philosophies" aren't the product of forged and distorted bases which are otherwise baseless because they rely on lies and distorted grammar?

This is not about egos, who won or lost

.

Oh, nice try, but your response is very much a sign of a sore ego from having been shown to be in error. I'm quite used to dealing with such types, and it's often very similar in the reaction.

Human philosophies sure can boost egos, but we have to set our egos on the side when we talk about what is the truth and what is lie with facts and where the actual facts came from. We cannot base our argument on things other people said, but on the actual facts that we read or studied.

So you mean only the facts on what YOU read and believe and to totally disregard what anyone who opposes your view says. Sigh, why is this the standard Trinitarian view of life?

Because of human pride,

No pride on your part of course. Since YOU speak the truth for some reason.

pure heart can be easily diluted

Yeah, only Trinitarians have pure hearts, just like how only they know the facts and truth regardless what anyone else says. I see.

and always looking for that human praise at any cost.

Interesting, I've noticed that Trintiarians (and Antinomians) dig in mostly because of their desire for social support and conformity. So apparently the only reason I'm opposing your view with facts, scholars, and grammatical explanation is for human praise. Interesting.

We always wanted or looking for this highs or moments where we thought people are praising us because of what we do, and not what our pure hearts really desire, and that is what makes us human human

What a tailspin.

 

[Muffled]

I had some free time and something pulled me to look at this site and see what has been going on... Anyways, i was reading a book that had brought up the Universe and how Time, Space, and Matter make up our 1 Universe. All of Time, All of Matter, and all of Space make up 1 Universe, yet we have 1 Universe.

Gen 18:1 Now the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.
Gen 18:2 When he lifted up his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth,
Gen 18:3 and said, " My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by.

Can God be 3 men if he so chooses to be? Isnt God, God?

in Love,
tom

He can be but the text suggests that two were angels.

 

[Muffled]

—————————————————————————————

Breath and spirit translate into basically the same thing. The spirit is the spiritual connection between God and humans. One can be a living soul but be spiritually dead. At the same time, in a literal sense, it is because of God that everything that breathes, lives and if a person ceases to breath they cease to live. For example,
Genesis 6:3 (CEV)

3 Then the LORD said, “I won’t let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever. No one will live for more than one hundred twenty years.”

Genesis 6:3 (NIV)

3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Notice how one version says "life-giving breath" and the other says "spirit." Also one version says "contend" which means to struggle and the other says "remain;" this is because God is referring to not just a physical death but a spiritual death. When God made this declaration, the entire world was consumed and condemned by evil with the exclusion of Noah and his family. The world no longer called upon God; instead they contended against him.
Genesis 6:5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.

Also if we believe Christ is God and Christ is the way the truth and the life, then we are spiritually alive and have the spiritual relationship with God Adam and Eve had with God before their fall. In addition, our souls will have eternal life the way God intended from the beginning.

I believe this translation to be false and it should read thusly: 6:3 ¶ And Jehovah said, My Spirit shall not strive with man for ever, for that he also is flesh: yet shall his days be a hundred and twenty years. ASV

 

[Muffled]

Again, this should also read, as has been discussed numerous times on this thread, "Form of a god", just like how it says "Form of a slave", the grammar doesn't change, except when Trinitarians do it.

How can a god be equal with God?

 

[BornAgain]

I will ask you this, what I ask lots of unreasonable people who refuse to debate reasonably: Would you like to ask God to demonstrate which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth through a physical display? That's hardly "Tempting him" anymore so than when Moses challenged Korah's priests.

I don't quite understand what you meant by "a physical display?" please explain. Was that a threat? Or is this what you meant?
Ac 12:22 And the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man.
Ac 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

Since you know what is definite article and indefinite article, -on theo and theos- can you translate these verseS into the original Koine Greek language, word for word.

The reason for the “word for word” is,

As the Classical Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, it was altered (which is true of any language). The dialects also interacted with each other. Eventually this adaptation resulted in what today we call Koine Greek.

Today, as the Koine Greek language spread across the world and met other languages, -like English language- it was altered also.

This is a challenge for YOU since you said "I don't understand Greek grammars"

This way readers in this forum can tell who really is the "SPERMOLOGO."

YOU CAN ASK "THE SCHOLARS" IF YOU WANT.

I forgot to mention, when translating please provide source of translation, that way readers can verify that the source of the translations did not come from just any unqualified translator.

Jn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Heb1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Phi2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Phi2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

Tit2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

2Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

Joh20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Rom9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Mt 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Mt 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Ac 27:23 For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,
Ac 27:24 Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.
Ac 27:25 Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me.

 

[BornAgain]

How can a god be equal with God?

You found the simplest answer to a very complicated -on their part- question.

 

[BornAgain]

Would you like to ask God to demonstrate which of us is lying and which of us is telling the truth through a physical display?

I you don’t see me here anymore, “the angel of the Lord smote me, because I gave not God the glory; and I was eaten of worms and gave up my ghost”

Ac 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.

 

[BornAgain]

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

[Shermana]

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

And the word was a god.

All things were made THROUGH him.

 

[BornAgain]

And the word was a god.

All things were made THROUGH him.

According to you, “a god” was with God -like in the bosom of the Father V18- in the beginning.

Why would God be with another/heteros/DIFFERENT “a god” if He said,

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other/heteros//DIFFERENT gods before me.

Exodus 20:5 “for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God”

If Christ is “a god” then God the Father would be jealous of Christ because He/Christ would be considered a /DIFFERENT or another/heteros “a god” or “gods“.

But according to,

Jn 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Christ, “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father”
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Blasphemy said the Jews,
Jn 10:33 “because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.”
Jn 10:36 “Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

Why would God be jealous of His only begotten Son, if Christ is really God, and not just another/heteros//DIFFERENT “a god”?

You have to understand, Christ in God’s bosom. Why would God place “a god”, or another/heteros//DIFFERENT “a god”, in His bosom when He is so against other gods?

God is only jealous of another/heteros//DIFFERENT gods or “a god“.

Since His only begotten Son, who is God, and is not just another/heteros//DIFFERENT “a god”, God would have no issue at all. Only unbelievers, like you, do.

Emphasized the word "DIFFERENT"

“Other or another” is a classical Greek word that has not lost its subtleties. Its deep meaning was preserved in the translation of the Hebrew language to Classic Greek, also known as the Septuagint or the LXX, and from LXX it was again preserved in the writings of the New Testament.

When you see the word “another or other” in the OT, or in the NT, you have to find out the meaning of this in Greek language because it can make a whole lot of differences concerning the verse at hand, and the previous verses, as well as the following verses. In other words, in English language it has one meaning while in Greek language it has two or more different meanings.

Simple hermeneutics!

We can go to Greek text and that would be more concrete.

 

[Shermana]

As has been explained numerous times on this thread alone, Angels and "Divine beings" are in fact called "gods" throughout the scripture.

The existence of "other" beings called "gods" is a given in the scripture. Some have tried to change this to say that they are really just "False gods" (whatever that means exactly), but the fact is that these "gods" are considered real "Heavenly powers" or "Divine beings". The word Theos and Theon can be called, and has been by numerous minority translations by scholars, "A divine being". The problem seems to stem in a misunderstanding of what the word "god" actually means, and ignorance of why THE god is called THE god.

God is not so much against other gods as he is against Israel worshiping and serving them as independent powers. The text seems to indicate that each nation has its own god appointed over them, especially so when we look at the Septuagint text of Deuteronomy 32:8, which may have in fact been edited by the reactionary Masoretes later on.

And the word "before" simply means "More important than". It does not mean that you cannot acknowledge the existence of said other beings. When THE God (Articulated as "THE" for a reason) in Isaiah says "Before me no God was formed, and after me there shall be none", the word "After" means "likewise" or "resembling" like "After this fashion".

 

[Shermana]

How can a god be equal with God?

This is most likely the correct rendering of what it means there:

1. "He did not think to snatch at [harpagmos, aJrpagmo" ] equality with God"[1] - NEB.

2. "He did not think that by force [harpagmos] he should try to become equal with God" - TEV (and GNB).

 

[BornAgain]

If the Lord Jesus Christ is just “a god”, Christians would be committing idolatry.

Phil 2:9 KJV Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Phil 2:10 KJV That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
Phil 2:11 KJV And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

If Christ is just “a god”, then Paul was teaching idolatry according to these verses, wasn‘t it?

Then, all Paul’s writings were just false teachings.

This is the new version of Watch Tower’s New World Translation of

John 1:1 NWT in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”

And in,

Philippians2:9 NWT For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above [other/allos or the same] name.

“ABOVE [OTHER/ALLOS OR THE SAME] NAME?”

Why would J Witness insert the word “other/allos or the same” in verse 9?
“gave him the name that is above [other] name.”

Are they implying that there are more names beside Jesus’ name like, the prophets or angels?

Statements like that is like a half a breath away into polytheism and idolatry.

Philippians2:10 NWT so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground,
Philippians2:11 NWT and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

See how they change the word “bow” to “bend”?

Bow in Greek is Kampto, meaning, to bend, [they didn't really got away with it from the original word "BOW", did they?] is used especially of bending the knees in religious veneration. See Romans 11:4, 14:11, and Eph.3:14.

By changing the word “bow” to “bend”, what were they trying to avoid?

Are they, J Witness, teaching polytheism and idolatry? Yes!

Because its against God’s commandment to bow down and worship on other gods OR “a god“.

Ex 20:5 KJV Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

And even the apostle Peter said in,

Ac 10:25 KJV And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Ac 10:26 KJV But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

So, if the Lord Jesus Christ is just “a god”, or just like ANY other prophets or an angel, or just a human being, according to their translations of,

John 1:1 NWT in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god”

And

Phil 2:9 NWT “gave him the name that is above [others/allos or the same] name.”

And they are teaching

Phil 2:10 NWT “that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend/bow”,

then they are teaching polytheism and idolatry.

That is the reason why Christians believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God; otherwise Christianity is nothing but polytheism and idolatry.

No matter how they changes the wordings in the bible, it will catch-up behind them, and they will be admitting unconsciously what they were denying consciously. They will be lost for words, and will be confuse, that they will just say anything without making any sense anymore. Its like one who is trying to walk out of a quicksand, the more you walk, the deeper they get -the more they talk, the more they will get deluded.

2Th 2:11 KJV And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

They, the Watch Tower and “OTHERS/ALLOS“ who do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, will walk themselves -mental straying- into polytheism and idolatry without even knowing it, and that is how strong the delusion God will give them.

 

[look3467]

In light of the bible and it's message in whole, the differences extrapolated between "a god" and "God" is distinctly shown.

"a god" is shown as Adam and Eve in the following verse: Gen_3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

"God" in: Deu_6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:

There is a definite difference between the two.

Now, in the case of Jesus, the two exist in one, both referenced in "son of man" as in the flesh and as "Son of God" in Spirit.

If Jesus was were not born of the Spirit of God, then He as is alluded, would would be mealy a man, as a god, like us.

But because He was born offspring of flesh and of the Spirit of God, He qualifies for both.

It is key in understanding the existence and purpose of Jesus as God and not just "a god".

If God were to redeem humanity from the fall it would have to be the power of God's work, "as a man" for that to work. Otherwise, no hope.

It is good to do word studies, word definitions and time word studies, but if the main theme of the whole bible is left not understood, the debate over words will never end.

Consider the following questions in getting to the theme:
Why was Adam and Eve banished from the garden?
Why was the tree of life withheld from them?
Why was there a need for a God/man redeemer of humanity?
And finally, why speak of a new creation?

If one can get an understanding of those questions, the theme will be clearly seen.

The rest of the bible supports the need and of which is a stumbling block to many for lack of understanding the true theme.

Thought I'd interject it, in reading some of the responses.

P.S. Please read my OP "What about the seven day creation" posting.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Shermana]

There is no idolatry in bowing down to Angels and Kings so long as you are SERVING only THE god. (I.e. bowing to his representatives is a-okay, bowing to those who are not, like Chemosh or Milcom, is NOT okay).

Abraham bows down to the Angels in Genesis 18.

King David as well was bowed down to in worship.

The commandment is to not SERVE THEM as if they are independent beings not in the direct Divine chain of command.

Now if you want to talk about "straying into Polytheism", dividing God into 3 "persons" who are all "God", THAT is Polytheism.

And for the record, the JWs are far the from only people who has ever denied Jesus being THE god himself.

 

[look3467]

Now if you want to talk about "straying into Polytheism", dividing God into 3 "persons" who are all "God", THAT is Polytheism.>>>Shermana

Just a note on that: again........understanding the theme of the whole bible lends understanding into the Trinity issue

There is but only one supreme entity..........God.

Blessings, AJ

 

[BornAgain]

There is no idolatry in bowing down to Angels and Kings so long as you are SERVING only THE god. (I.e. bowing to his representatives is a-okay, bowing to those who are not, like Chemosh or Milcom, is NOT okay).

“bowing to his reps is a-okay” some rules you got there huh!!

Who said that the Lord Jesus Christ is just “a god”?

Do not look any further the answer is here.

John 1:1*NWT*in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was*a god”

Is there any difference between “The God”, and the “a god”?

And what is the relationship of the “a god” to “The God”?

Abraham bows down to the Angels in Genesis 18.

King David as well was bowed down to in worship.

The commandment is to not SERVE THEM as if they are independent beings not in the direct Divine chain of command.

“other gods” is not the same, as in different, as “The God” Himself.

Please read the text very carefully.

Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other/heteros/different gods before me.
Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Ex 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

King David was not “a god”

Ge 18:1 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
Ge 18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
Ge 18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:

From these verses I do not see any other or different “a god” or “gods”.

Lk 1:19 And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings.

The angel, Gabriel, was he “a god”?

Now if you want to talk about "straying into Polytheism", dividing God into 3 "persons" who are all "God", THAT is Polytheism.

“Dividing God into 3 persons who are all God” THAT is Polytheism

Jn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

I can see the Trinity here without using division. Christians do not divide the word of God to satisfy our own theology, we simply read the bible. We do not change the wordings of the bible, because it came explained already and need not alteration.

Jn 14:16 kagö erötësö ton patera kai allon paraklëton dösei humin, hina meth' humön eis ton aiöna ë,

The Greek words that we are looking for here are “allos and parakleton”

The word “another” here has two meanings in Classical Greek,

For example, in classical Greek a[llo"//allos meant “other” of the same kind while e{tero"/heteros meant “other” of a different kind.

If you had an apple and you asked for a[llo"//allos, you would receive another apple.

But if you asked for e{tero"/heteros, you would be given perhaps an orange. Another example,
Ex 20:3 Thou shalt have no other/heteros/different gods before me.

Some of these classical Greek subtleties come through in Scripture but not often.

When the Lord Jesus Christ said, “I pray the Father and ANOTHER/ALLOS or the same Comforter/Parakleton give you to with you forever be.”

Christ made a tremendous claim both for Himself and for the Holy Spirit, for ALLOS here implies the personalality of the Holy Spirit, and equality of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit with the Father.

Now, that is an undivided Trinity you would ever see. When the Lord Jesus Christ said,
Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one.
The Father and Christ are not divided because they are ONE. The same thing here, the Trinity are One. Only in the mind of the unbelievers they, the Trinity, are divided.

How?!

John 1:1*NWT*in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was*a god”

That is how they divide God! When they say that Christ is “a god”, tell me who is dividing here? And that is polytheism.

And for the record, the JWs are far the from only people who has ever denied Jesus being THE god himself.

John 1:1*NWT*in [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God and the Word was*a god”

From this verse I could tell that they are claiming that Christ is “a god”, and you of course. So, if I see more altered verses from different versions of the bible, and what group they were from, I would post it.