Jesus ain't God.

[JM2C]

Acts 1519 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.You see here, sir the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ, and is still AT CORE viable and alive for all believers, the Ten and the Shema and the Golden Rule all affirmed.

What they were saying in verse 21 is; these restrictions in verse 20, was in the Law of Moses already and read in the synagogues during the diaspora where the Jews were living at that time with the Gentiles.

The Gentiles, before they became Christians, practice these rituals with their IDOLS THAT WERE AGAINST THE Law of Moses AND THEREFORE, IT IS AGAINST THE WILL/LAW OF GOD. These things that they used to do, they cannot continue to practice after they became Christians. IOW, the Gentile Christians cannot serve their IDOLS by practicing these rituals and at the same time serve God.

Rev 2:14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality.

Rev 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

 

[Anttjuan]

So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

John 1:1 came along and assures us it has been so SINCE THE BEGINNING and not just some new concept. I don't believe they forsook monotheism.

 

[pearl]

{EyeofOdin said: ↑
IMO Jesus was an illiterate, lower class, uneducated peasant who had the treasonous agenda to kick Rome out of Palestine and reestablish it as an independent nation. It was for this reason he was crucified.


Jesus' agenda was salvation for all, this would include the Romans. He had no political interest in kicking Rome out of Palestine.

 

[pearl]

It seems you have a somewhat insidious view of the Christ, sir. We are not really of the same faith. Also you are not an inerrancist of scripture, unfortunate.

It seems you have a somewhat insidious view of the Christ, sir. We are not really of the same faith. Also you are not an inerrancist of scripture, unfortunate.

I assume you are referring to biblical inerrancy.
Inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy. Are you a biblical fundamentalist. Or since you stated we are not of the same faith, did you pull a
Thomas Jefferson and write your own bible, keeping only what you believed? Which translation do you refer to?

 

[JosephThomas]

In order to understand the Word, you must understand how the Jews spoke and wrote then. I am no expert, but I do not start out with a SEEING or "FAITH" first and then seek to prove this by scripture. The Prologue of John has many terps and only one true one, the authorial intent intact.

On the surface what you say might be cohesive, but see where you end up. You end up saying something outside of Bible and this quite plainly, whereas the Bible says nothing of the sort, that Jesus is God, PLAINLY.

So then where do you get off, and is this not a dynamic of heresy, to ADD to scripture as you and your buds see fit? Hey, I'm not a cool kid, but maybe it is better to be on the side of truth?

I entirely disagree and find no reason to agree with this claim.

as a Christian I am in complete contest of this opinion. Abraham did not have a Bible, and yet his understanding of God was perhaps the purest of all humanity. Other prophets also did not have a bible and yet their contributions to the Bible were pure.

The scriptures do not make God who he is or acknowledgeable. "The law creates sin."
for it confuses and confounds it's followers. Although it is a righteous, uplifting and correct law of endless fruits, it is befuddling.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty God. (Note also vs 2, which would be unnecessary if vs 1 actually showed the Word to be God.) Additionally, the word for “god” (Gr., the·os&#8242 in its second occurrence in the verse is significantly without the definite article “the” (Gr., ho). Regarding this fact, Ernst Haenchen, in a commentary on the Gospel of John (chapters 1-6), stated: “[the·os′] and [ho the·os′] (‘god, divine’ and ‘the God’) were not the same thing in this period. . . . In fact, for the . . . Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ ([ho the·os′]; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other . . . . It was quite possible in Jewish and Christian monotheism to speak of divine beings that existed alongside and under God but were not identical with him. Phil 2:6-10 proves that. In that passage Paul depicts just such a divine being, who later became man in Jesus Christ . . . Thus, in both Philippians and John 1:1 it is not a matter of a dialectical relationship between two-in-one, but of a personal union of two entities.”—John 1, translated by R. W. Funk, 1984, pp. 109, 110.

After giving as a translation of John 1:1c “and divine (of the category divinity) was the Word,” Haenchen goes on to state: “In this instance, the verb ‘was’ ([en]) simply expresses predication. And the predicate noun must accordingly be more carefully observed: [the·os′] is not the same thing as [ho the·os′] (‘divine’ is not the same thing as ‘God’).” (pp. 110, 111) Elaborating on this point, Philip B. Harner brought out that the grammatical construction in John 1:1 involves an anarthrous predicate, that is, a predicate noun without the definite article “the,” preceding the verb, which construction is primarily qualitative in meaning and indicates that “the logos has the nature of theos.” He further stated: “In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [the·os′] cannot be regarded as definite.” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Other translators, also recognizing that the Greek term has qualitative force and describes the nature of the Word, therefore render the phrase: “the Word was divine.”—AT; Sd; compare Mo; see NW appendix, p. 1579.
Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

My answer:-
I find it incredibly sad to see your opening words 'First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty. " Who are you as a created being to dictate to the Creator with your limited faulty human logic to dictate how God manifests Himself?
It is interesting that you are quoting Ernst Haenchen to support your argument about Jesus being a god in John 1:1. That is not what Haenchen said. Haenchen is a Trinitarian believing Christian. My research on the internet shows that the Watchtower has terribly misquoted him.

The Greek literal translation: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..

NWT translation: In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses say because the Greek word ....(theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” What this means is that since the definite article, the, is before the first mention of God but not the second, and the verb, was, is after the second mention of god, then the rendering “a god” is justified." What a total load of garbage.
1) So, let's apply this same reasoning to some more verses that the NWT committee decided NOT to apply this reasoning to.
2) John 1:12 “However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become a god’s children.”
3) John 1:13 “and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from a god’s.”
4) John 1:18 “No man has seen a god at any time....”.
5) John 3:2 “....Rabbi, we know that you as a teacher have come from a god....”
None of those four make sense if using the same rule that should apply if following the Watchtower logic. The Watchtower is biased.

In the New Testament, God appears 1305 times (without the article 282, and with the article 1023 times). Of the 282 times, the NWT translates 16 times as a god. That is only 6% of the time. The NWT state that where Theos without the article is given, then it should be translated as 'a god.' They are inconsistent with their own rules of translation, when it comes to John 1.:1. They have a vested interest in making sure that Jesus is not seen to be God. Jesus cannot be a god, as there is no god with God in Deuteronomy 32:39.
Christ's Prophet
Certainty for Eternity

 

[Nada]

My answer:-
I find it incredibly sad to see your opening words 'First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty. " Who are you as a created being to dictate to the Creator with your limited faulty human logic to dictate how God manifests Himself?
It is interesting that you are quoting Ernst Haenchen to support your argument about Jesus being a god in John 1:1. That is not what Haenchen said. Haenchen is a Trinitarian believing Christian. My research on the internet shows that the Watchtower has terribly misquoted him.

The Greek literal translation: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..

NWT translation: In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses say because the Greek word ....(theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” What this means is that since the definite article, the, is before the first mention of God but not the second, and the verb, was, is after the second mention of god, then the rendering “a god” is justified." What a total load of garbage.
1) So, let's apply this same reasoning to some more verses that the NWT committee decided NOT to apply this reasoning to.
2) John 1:12 “However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become a god’s children.”
3) John 1:13 “and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from a god’s.”
4) John 1:18 “No man has seen a god at any time....”.
5) John 3:2 “....Rabbi, we know that you as a teacher have come from a god....”
None of those four make sense if using the same rule that should apply if following the Watchtower logic. The Watchtower is biased.

In the New Testament, God appears 1305 times (without the article 282, and with the article 1023 times). Of the 282 times, the NWT translates 16 times as a god. That is only 6% of the time. The NWT state that where Theos without the article is given, then it should be translated as 'a god.' They are inconsistent with their own rules of translation, when it comes to John 1.:1. They have a vested interest in making sure that Jesus is not seen to be God. Jesus cannot be a god, as there is no god with God in Deuteronomy 32:39.
Christ's Prophet
Certainty for Eternity

Ok......

 

[JM2C]

My answer:-
I find it incredibly sad to see your opening words 'First, it should be noted that the text itself shows that the Word was “with God,” hence could not be God, that is, be the Almighty. " Who are you as a created being to dictate to the Creator with your limited faulty human logic to dictate how God manifests Himself?
It is interesting that you are quoting Ernst Haenchen to support your argument about Jesus being a god in John 1:1. That is not what Haenchen said. Haenchen is a Trinitarian believing Christian. My research on the internet shows that the Watchtower has terribly misquoted him.

The Greek literal translation: In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..

NWT translation: In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses say because the Greek word ....(theos) is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article.” What this means is that since the definite article, the, is before the first mention of God but not the second, and the verb, was, is after the second mention of god, then the rendering “a god” is justified." What a total load of garbage.
1) So, let's apply this same reasoning to some more verses that the NWT committee decided NOT to apply this reasoning to.
2) John 1:12 “However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave authority to become a god’s children.”
3) John 1:13 “and they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from a god’s.”
4) John 1:18 “No man has seen a god at any time....”.
5) John 3:2 “....Rabbi, we know that you as a teacher have come from a god....”
None of those four make sense if using the same rule that should apply if following the Watchtower logic. The Watchtower is biased.

In the New Testament, God appears 1305 times (without the article 282, and with the article 1023 times). Of the 282 times, the NWT translates 16 times as a god. That is only 6% of the time. The NWT state that where Theos without the article is given, then it should be translated as 'a god.' They are inconsistent with their own rules of translation, when it comes to John 1.:1. They have a vested interest in making sure that Jesus is not seen to be God. Jesus cannot be a god, as there is no god with God in Deuteronomy 32:39.
Christ's Prophet
Certainty for Eternity

May God bless you with more wisdom.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

John 1:1 came along and assures us it has been so SINCE THE BEGINNING and not just some new concept. I don't believe they forsook monotheism.

Good point ^above ^ about ' SINCE THE BEGINNING ' because only God was BEFORE THE BEGINNING - Psalm 90 v 2

As gospel writer John wrote in Revelation 1v 5; 3v14 saying about Jesus that Jesus is the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION BY GOD, so Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Jesus did Not forsake monotheism at John 10 v 36 when he said that he is the Son of God.

 

[Lilly44]

Christians didn't go off the narrow path. What I have learned from OT observers is that they take scripture out of context to justify old Mosaic/Hebraic laws and customs as their religion. The entire Bible was written about Christ coming to humanity. So imo OT or Torah Keepers are the ones who have fallen off the narrow path. Jesus said, "I and the Father are ONE".

 

[Anttjuan]

Good point ^above ^ about ' SINCE THE BEGINNING ' because only God was BEFORE THE BEGINNING - Psalm 90 v 2

As gospel writer John wrote in Revelation 1v 5; 3v14 saying about Jesus that Jesus is the BEGINNING OF THE CREATION BY GOD, so Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

Jesus did Not forsake monotheism at John 10 v 36 when he said that he is the Son of God.

Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic by saying "good point" but my guess is that you are since the rest of what you say seems to contrast your first sentence. Having said that, let's see what you're talking about:

Revelation 1:5 calls Him the firstborn from the dead. Isn't that true since He is the first and only human as of yet who has died and resurrected to immortality? Kind of what like 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 says: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming." So truly He is the firstborn from the dead.

Okay now Revelation 3:14 says "...the beginning of the creation OF God" and not "BY God" as you say. Not sure if this was a typo on your part or just an attempt to emphasize your point because I coudn't find a translation with "BY God".

And what I was trying to say about "SINCE THE BEGINNING" is that, again, it was not a new concept or idea that John was trying to introduce, as the Jews of his day thought. They thought they were trying to bring in a whole new religion altogether with Jesus but instead, the true religion is what was being RESTORED. Thus, we have "IN THE BEGINNING was the Word...and the Word was God" (John 1:1).

And notice too that in the beginning WAS the word and not "in the beginning CAME the word". Does not that word, "was", imply that He was already there?

And I think you might have missed the part where I said, "I don't believe the forsook monotheism."

 

[pearl]

Isn't that true since He is the first and only human as of yet who has died and resurrected to immortality?

The first believed to be the Messiah.

Pharisaic Judaism believed in the resurrection of the body.

 

[Anttjuan]

The first believed to be the Messiah.

No, you can't fit that interpretation in with "firstborn from the dead". It's a giant leap to say "first born from the dead" = "first believed to be the Messiah". Why not just take it as it reads? Firstborn from the dead.

Pharisaic Judaism believed in the resurrection of the body.

Yes but Jesus is the only one who has accomplished it.

 

[pearl]

No, you can't fit that interpretation in with "firstborn from the dead". It's a giant leap to say "first born from the dead" = "first believed to be the Messiah". Why not just take it as it reads? Firstborn from the dead.



Yes but Jesus is the only one who has accomplished it.

"So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on is feet." 2 Kings 13.
This is but one such reported. The resuscitation describes a physical resurrection . It was not met with unbelief in Israel. Hosea-
"...after two days he will revive us: on the third he will raise us up..." Ezekiel--"Behold I will open your graves

 

[Anttjuan]

"So Elisha died, and they buried him. Now bands of Moabites used to invade the land in the spring of the year. And a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on is feet." 2 Kings 13.
This is but one such reported. The resuscitation describes a physical resurrection . It was not met with unbelief in Israel. Hosea-
"...after two days he will revive us: on the third he will raise us up..." Ezekiel--"Behold I will open your graves

Okay, so my understanding is that by quoting those scriptures to me, you are discrediting my belief that "firstborn from the dead" means firstborn from the dead as I had said above in my quote: "the first and only human as of yet who has died and resurrected to immortality." So let's just say I agree with your point (which I don't because it can easily be debunked), where in the world do you get "firstborn from the dead" to mean "first believed to be the Messiah"? That, I don't understand but I want to hear your side.

Regardless, this is going off topic and wish to eventually bring it back to the original discussion.

 

[pearl]

where in the world do you get "firstborn from the dead" to mean "first believed to be the Messiah"?

There is nothing here, referring to Jesus' physical birth or infancy, but to Jesus' birth as the Messiah through his death.
The resurrection of Jesus is the event that has inaugurated the new age. This is the uniqueness of Jesus' resurrection.

 

[Christ's Prophet]

Abrahamic Monotheism was the religion of the first gen saints of Jesus.
Including Christ.
This says it all. Really no more needs to be said unless the hagglers want to haggle.
So then what happened since then? How did we get off the narrow path?

I find it hard to believe that the Prophet Abraham was monotheistic. I would think that he would have been aware of previous stories of the activities of God as outlined in Genesis up until his time, particularly the story of creation. There are some Scriptures that you should consider when asking the question ‘Was Abram/Abraham monotheistic?’ Here are some events in Scriptures:- In Chapter 1 of Genesis, we read…
Ist event in Genesis 1:26-27 (NIV2011)
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Note the plural of God then identified in the singular. Who then is the OUR and the US. The consistency with the rest of the Bible will tell us that it can be identified as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is not the only instance. Similarly, see also the plurality of God displayed in Genesis 3:22, 23 and Genesis 11:7
2nd event in Genesis 18:1-2 (NIV2011)
1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
Here we see Abraham visited by three men/angels/LORD with the view of passing judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. This is also where God became the guest of His own saints. You can read the full account for yourself in Genesis 18. The story develops as such…
Genesis 18:20-21 (NIV2011) 20 Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” But then
Genesis 18:22 (NIV2011) 22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
Here we have the pluralistic existence of Yahweh, put on display. Yahweh remained with Abraham, yet Yahweh went down to Sodom. Would have Abraham had an idea of the pluralistic nature of Yahweh? The answer is Yes. It wasn’t a problem for him, why is it a problem for you?
These verses are only up until the time and including Abraham. There is much, much more in the Old Testament after the time of Abraham which shows the pluralistic nature of God, and yet God is One God. In conclusion, if you have any doubt about the pluralism of God anywhere else, can I leave you with the two Yahwehs verse in Isaiah 44:6 which reads:- Isaiah 44:6 (KJV) 6 Thus saith YAHWEH the King of Israel, and his redeemer the YAHWEH of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
In Hebrew it reads:-
אָמַר (Thus Saith) יְהוָֹה (Yahweh), מֶלֶךְ (the King) יִשְׂרָאֵל (of Israel) גָּאַל (and His redeemer) יְהוָֹה (Yahweh) צָבָא (of Hosts) רִאשׁוֹן (I am the first) אַחֲרוֹן (I am the last) בִּלְעֲדֵי (and beside) אֱלֹהִים (Me there is no god)
Here we have two Yahwehs, Yahweh the Father, and Yahweh who is Jesus Christ who is the Redeemer of mankind. Don’t believe it? Check your own interlinear for yourselves, and yet some ungodly people with a hidden agenda, try to cover it up by revealing only one Yahweh. May the Spirit of God speak to your hearts? Christ’s Prophet. Certainty for eternity

 

[Christ's Prophet]

First of all 71 verses juxtapose, rather position separate beings in the same verse, the LORD Jesus and GOD.
This is never reversed, the GOD Jesus and the Lord God (the Father). Secondly it ignores your vaunted but incognito third partner, the Holy Spirit. Thirdly this evidence alone should turn you away from the idea that NT authors were meaning "Lord" as being synonymous with "God."

Also you are ignoring the plain intent, which I suppose all JW's also do, that the trump and voice of the Archangel ACCOMPANIES Jesus' arrival. What you think he got a trumpet in his hand? Why do you believe this means HE is the archangel? An archangel is also a lesser 'elohim' UNDER God, so then where are you coming from my man? Confusion?

I think you are talking about 1 Thessalonians 4:16 which says:-
1 Thessalonians 4:16 (KJV) 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
There is some silly reasoning that I have heard, that is because Christ returns with the voice of the archangel, that He then is an archangel. That is ridiculous logic. Christ can make any sound He wishes when he returns. Using the same logic, Christ would have to be a shout, or a trumpet perhaps. Christ's Prophet. Certainty for eternity.

 

[nothead]

If you want to follow the Law of Moses then you will judge according to the Law of Moses, and that is, THE WHOLE LAW OF MOSES. Do you think you could follow THE WHOLE LAW OF MOSES without a single fault? That’s what I think. Therefore, you failed and will be judge according to the Law of Moses or Moses/Law of Moses is your accuser.

It is incredible you are pitting your own pet theology against the very words of Christ which I just quoted.

Or maybe not so much for you have many to affirm the very same thing. No...it is still incredible. NOT edible. NOT reasonable and NOT the Judaic POV, which by the way Paul knew. OF COURSE I am guilty, for not doing Shema sufficiently. This is WHY continuing Grace is still a mediating and propitiating factor in my life CONTINUALLY.

 

[nothead]

I think you are talking about 1 Thessalonians 4:16 which says:-
1 Thessalonians 4:16 (KJV) 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
There is some silly reasoning that I have heard, that is because Christ returns with the voice of the archangel, that He then is an archangel. That is ridiculous logic. Christ can make any sound He wishes when he returns. Using the same logic, Christ would have to be a shout, or a trumpet perhaps. Christ's Prophet. Certainty for eternity.

I don't know how to respond here, since I agree. Amen, although your previous post is alarming. At least the first sentence.