Some Qs about the JW view of Jesus and angels

[Harel13]

No, there was No physical resurrection for Jesus' physical body - www.jw.org

Thanks, I've gathered that from previous replies.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Depends...do you consider the devil to be evil or not? Do you consider 'evil' to even be a bad thing?

It isn't whether I believe that the devil is evil or not. It is the understanding of the user which is the problem as well as those who view it. It is ad hominum.

The intent is to discredit my character to prevent people from listening to my argument.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, logic 101 compare any information with www.jw.org

Funnily enough, that was all I did in this thread.

Also, the reason why your reasoning is slightly flawed is that the publications only go back to a certain point on the website, so one has to go to outside sources to scrutinize older publications.

Also, the group might also not be posting information about events that they do not want others to know. In the JW's case, the Australian Royal Commission is one such situation. So video and governmental sources are valid as well.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Eyes to See
Previously, I wrote:

And there's where I would differ from those who speak of "the spirit" or "a spirit" as some "non-physical" or "non-material" thing.
IMNO, "a spirit" and "a flesh-and-blood body" are both physical, material things. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul doesn't say: In the resurrection, the physical, material becomes spiritual.

Here's an example of what I grumble about:

No, there was No physical resurrection for Jesus' physical body

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Precisely why Matthew 16:28 is a false prophecy.
Revelation 1 describes the fulfilment of it’s prophecy as “soon” and that “the time is near”.
So either Revelation 1 contradicts Luke 19, or “immediately” means “on the spot” as opposed to, - within a short period of time - (ie soon).

I find Matthew 16:27-28 is in connection to Jesus 'glory time' of Matthew 25:31-33.
So, Matthew chapter 17 is Not false and the transfiguration is a VISION just as Matthew 17: 9 informs us that is is a VISION.

Revelation 1:10 puts the time setting for Revelation is for our day or time frame. Revelation Not written for the 1st century.
So, the' shortly come to pass' would be for our time period - Revelation1:19 in connection to Luke 21:11; 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13
Or, compare the similar duel prophecies:
Matthew 24:6 with Revelation 6:4
Matthew 24:7 with Revelation 6:6-8
Matthew 24:9 with Revelation 6:9
Matthew 24:13 with Revelation 6:11

 

[danieldemol]

I find Matthew 16:27-28 is in connection to Jesus 'glory time' of Matthew 25:31-33.
So, Matthew chapter 17 is Not false and the transfiguration is a VISION just as Matthew 17: 9 informs us that is is a VISION.

I’m left with the feeling you did not contemplate what I wrote at all

Where did I say Matthew 17 is false?
Where did I say the transfiguration is not a vision?

Revelation 1:10 puts the time setting for Revelation is for our day or time frame. Revelation Not written for the 1st century.

Revelation 1:1-3 opens with the following according to the NWT;

‘A revelation* by Jesus Christ, which God gave him,+ to show his slaves+ the things that must shortly take place. And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John,+ 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, yes, to all the things he saw. 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it,+ for the appointed time is near.’

Notice that it is not saying ‘shortly’ and the ‘time is near’ with respect to the Lord’s day.

Now let’s compare 3 bible translations, the KJV, NIV and NWT for Revelation 1:10

KJV:
‘I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,’

NIV
‘On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet’

What they are saying seems clear enough, and in keeping with Revelation 1:1-3.
On a Saturday (or was it Sunday) John was in (presumably the holy) Spirit.

Now compare that to the NWT’s radical departure to the above;

‘ By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet’

In the NWT they appear to make it sound as if John was moved by inspiration to the future, as opposed to sitting around on whatever John assumed to be the seventh day meditating in the Spirit.

 

[Terry Sampson]

In the NWT they appear to make it sound as if John was moved by inspiration to the future, as opposed to sitting around on whatever John assumed to be the seventh day meditating in the Spirit.

Hey! lighten up on 'em, Daniel. It's not easy rewriting the Bible, making stuff up, and trying to establish consistency.

 

[Clear]

NO. Its not so much that Pegg was wrong, but that you are misunderstanding her meaning.

For the sake of argument John 1:1 is always used to furnish proof that Jesus was God (capital "G") but the definite article is applied only to "ho theos" (THE God) and not to the Word (Jesus as God's spokesman...ho logos) as he is just given the title "theos" in a different sense....identifying him as "a god" (small "g"). A lesser "mighty one" in this context.

John 1:1
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

The definite article ho appears before the first mention of God in this sentence, but is omitted before the second. The presence of the definite article before the noun suggests an identity, a personality, whereas its absence merely suggests a quality about someone.

As one who is familiar with the Greek, "theos" is translated "god" but it has more than one meaning. In Greek there are no capital letters. If God himself referred to human judges as "gods" (those with divine authority) then the designation given to Jesus as "a god" (one endowed with divine authority both in heaven and on earth) equally applies, but not in the sense that the word applies to Yahweh. (ho theos) THE God has a capital "G"..."a god" has a small "g".

Yahweh is "the Most High over all the earth" according to Psalm 83:18 (Tanakh)....
יטוְיֵֽדְע֗וּ כִּי־אַתָּ֬ה שִׁמְךָ֣ יְהֹוָ֣ה לְבַדֶּ֑ךָ עֶ֜לְי֗וֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָֽרֶץ:

There is no one equal to, or higher than he is.

I don't know how to make it any plainer....

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in two gods unless you understand the nuance in the meaning of the Greek "theos" as "a mighty one" compared to "THE Mighty One."

Hi Deeje,

Thank you so much for the explanation. If I understand you correctly, you are applying the word "God" to Jesus in an entirely different sense than you apply the word "God" to his father, the "almighty God of God, Lord of Lord, etc.". Is this correct?

I agree with your explanation of the lack of the article and its apparently intentional lack in the third phrase of John 1:1. Grammatically, the Jehovah's witnesses are correct. It will always be the original writers context that determines whether"a" God, or"the" God is meant in this specific case, but grammar is on the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses on this point.

I ought to point out that your statement that "In Greek there are no capital letters." Is incorrect. The early great uncials were written in ALL capitals. Initially there were no LOWER case letters used. Still, I think your meaning is that distinction by capitalization was not available to the earliest writers. If so I think you are correct.

Thank you for your explanation.

Clear

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Hi Deeje,
Thank you so much for the explanation. If I understand you correctly, you are applying the word "God" to Jesus in an entirely different sense than you apply the word "God" to his father, the "almighty God of God, Lord of Lord, etc.". Is this correct?
I agree with your explanation of the lack of the article and its apparently intentional lack in the third phrase of John 1:1. Grammatically, the Jehovah's witnesses are correct. It will always be the original writers context that determines whether"a" God, or"the" God is meant in this specific case, but grammar is on the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses on this point.
I ought to point out that your statement that "In Greek there are no capital letters." Is incorrect. The early great uncials were written in ALL capitals. Initially there were no LOWER case letters used. Still, I think your meaning is that distinction by capitalization was not available to the earliest writers. If so I think you are correct.
Thank you for your explanation.
Clear

... and Clear I find in the King James the letter 'a' is omitted at John 1 but the letter 'a' is inserted at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B; Acts 12:22
Yet, the same Greek grammar rules applies to these verses.

King James took the liberty to use all Upper-Case letters for LORD at Psalms 110 where the Tetragrammaton appears.
In connection to Lord Jesus some lower-case letters are used at Psalms 110.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Hey! lighten up on 'em, Daniel. It's not easy rewriting the Bible, making stuff up, and trying to establish consistency.

In the Greek Interlinear Revelation 1:10 reads, " I came to be in spirit in the pertaining to Lord day, and I heard behind of me voice great as of trumpet."
So, yes the setting time frame for Revelation was Not the first century ( Revelation being written at the end of the first century ) but set for our day.
Thus, the consistency is established for the time of Revelation 6:8 as our day as also in connection to Luke 21:11.

 

[Deeje]

Hi Deeje,

Thank you so much for the explanation. If I understand you correctly, you are applying the word "God" to Jesus in an entirely different sense than you apply the word "God" to his father, the "almighty God of God, Lord of Lord, etc.". Is this correct?

Yes....the Almighty God Jehovah (The Most High) receives worship, but those with divine authority who can rightly be described as "gods" (according to the meaning of "theos" in Greek) do not.

I agree with your explanation of the lack of the article and its apparently intentional lack in the third phrase of John 1:1. Grammatically, the Jehovah's witnesses are correct. It will always be the original writers context that determines whether"a" God, or "the" God is meant in this specific case, but grammar is on the side of the Jehovah's Witnesses on this point.

Thank you for the concession.

I ought to point out that your statement that "In Greek there are no capital letters." Is incorrect. The early great uncials were written in ALL capitals. Initially there were no LOWER case letters used. Still, I think your meaning is that distinction by capitalization was not available to the earliest writers. If so I think you are correct.

Thank you for not misunderstanding my meaning. In English, the use of capital letters has meaning, but since this was not part of Greek grammar, "god" and "God" can get muddled up in translation. To place a capital "G" where it doesn't belong can change the whole position of a person and the intent of a sentence.

Thank you for your explanation.

Any time....

 

[Clear]

REGARDING JESUS AS A "GOD" IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Clear asked : “If I understand you correctly, you are applying the word "God" to Jesus in an entirely different sense than you apply the word "God" to his father, the "almighty God of God, Lord of Lord, etc.". Is this correct?” (post #148)

Deeje responded :”Yes....the Almighty God Jehovah (The Most High) receives worship, but those with divine authority who can rightly be described as "gods" (according to the meaning of "theos" in Greek) do not.”


Thanks for the explanation. You apply the word "God" to men and mention that such men, (i.e. "others") who are "described as "gods" do not deserve "worship".

One distinction between this position and early Christianity is that the degree of honor, reverence, and adoration early Christianity ascribed to Jesus as the word of God and for Jesus’ accomplishments is different and greater than that of mere “judges” or other men to whom the noun “god” is applied.

For example, Jesus, as the Word of God was “in the beginning” with the Father (John 1:1). He is, in some sense a God.
In early Judeo-Christianity, Jesus is the creator of the world. This is a “God-like” accomplishment that is different than when the word “God” is applied to mere judges.
In early Judeo-Christianity, it is Jesus, as the “Word”, to whom God, the Father says “Let us make man in our image.” This honor and position does not apply to me judges.
Jesus lives a sinless life, something no other mortal is able to do.
At some point, Jesus is the heir of his Father, he is a great judge of mankind, is given a throne, etc.
No other mortal has done or will do these and other great things.

These characteristics are not the characteristics applied to other men such as a "judge" who is referred to as a "God".

At some point, the honor due to Jesus as a God is greater than that of a simple Judge to whom is applied the title of a “God”. To determine how much honor the early Judeo-Christians who referred to Jesus as a “God” is historical, and contextual, and not a grammatical determination.

The original writer did not HAVE a capital/small “G” distinction in his writing. Thus, a later creator of a bible may apply a small “g” to the word God, as it applies to Jesus, but this only hints of the theology of the translator, but not of the original writer of the text. The original writer may have in his mind a capital “G” and honor Jesus to a much larger degree than another theist reading the text. If another person creates a different bible, they may add a capital “G” and feel a much greater degree of honor, adoration and reverence for Jesus that deserves a capital “G” in the term “God” which they apply to Jesus.

In some way, Jesus is a God and as creator of the world and for his atonement and sinless life and for a host of other accomplishments for mankind, deserves a degree of honor, adoration, and reverence.

Honor, adoration and reverence IS the definition of worship.

And, while one Christian movement with it's theological theories may ascribe one degree of honor to Jesus as a God, another Christian movement with it's theological theories may ascribe a much greater (or smaller) degree of honor to Jesus as a God. This is the context underlying my question as to what difference there was when you said you "honored" Jesus, but "worshipped" the Father.

In any case Deeje, I hope your spiritual journey and insights in life are wonderful and satisfying. Thank you for your patience in explanation of your theology

Clear
εινετζτωω

 

[Clear]

Hi URAVIP2ME

URAVIP2ME said : "...I find in the King James the letter 'a' is omitted at John 1 but the letter 'a' is inserted at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B; Acts 12:22
Yet, the same Greek grammar rules applies to these verses." (post #149)

Remember that Acts 28 is in an accusative form while John is nominative. This renders a different context and the translator is still inserting his own theology into the text. The Historical CONTEXT of the writer always overrides grammer in determining meaning in anarthrous Greek. One great problem in such historical texts is in determining the original context since the reader brings his own theological context to the text and applies their personal context to create meaning in the texts they are reading.


URAVIP2ME said : "King James took the liberty to use all Upper-Case letters for LORD at Psalms 110 where the Tetragrammaton appears.
In connection to Lord Jesus some lower-case letters are used at Psalms 110. (post #149)

If the writer is quoting the "christian" septuagint from approx 300 b.c. (most likely), then the tetragrammaton would not have been present in the text he is quoting.

Secondly, we've already discussed the fact that the original writer was using ALL caps and later Capital/lower case distinctions are the creation of the translator. I do agree with your implied suggestion that translators will (whether intentionally or inadvertently) place their own theology into the bible they create for others to read. I don't know how they can avoid doing this since their own contextual theology will affect their translation.

Good journey to you

Clear

 

[nPeace]

Maybe I'm not following the OP's question. The short and simple answer was that Jesus had only one body. Since Genesis 2:7 says (with respect to Adam as the first man), "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," it appears that there was a two-step process. The physical body was created and then it was given life. The Greek word "pneuma" refers to the breath of life, the spirit, or the life force which, when infused into a body results in a "living soul." When the spirit leaves the body at death (Jesus acknowledged that He was commending His spirit into His Father's hands), the body dies. It is an empty shell, so to speak, an entity without awareness or consciousness that was laid in a borrowed tomb. When the spirit re-enters it, it once again becomes a "living soul." Mormons believe that this new soul is sustained entirely by the spirit which gives it life. It is no longer mortal in the sense that it a mortal relies on a beating heart circulating blood through the body, but on the spirit which will never again leave it. It is now a resurrected being. I'm not sure how this could possibly imply the existence of two bodies. Perhaps @Harel13 could explain where he got this idea from.

Sorry about that. It was only a question, not an idea. Thanks for answering.