Oeste
Well-Known Member
Yes, but necessary.
Agreed, but there are many modalists on this forum who claim Jesus is the Father.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
- Thread starter Oeste
- Start date
Yes, but necessary.
Agreed, but there are many modalists on this forum who claim Jesus is the Father.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Is that what modalists claim? I don't know that much about it and find upon reading about it, that it's hard for me to understand the concept, although I must say I have real trouble following why some believe the trinity doctrine also. O well, perhaps ttyl.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
Synopsis of my reading of 10:30-36 from the NWT:
1. Jesus, not the crowd, claims he and the Father are one.
2. The crowd took that to mean he blasphemed. Perhaps the crowd thought Jesus was saying he was the Father, perhaps something else. It doesn't really matter because when Jesus asked why they were picking up stones, the crowd told him exactly what they were thinking.
Are we agreed so far?
3. Jesus asks and the crowd tells him they intend to stone him for blasphemy. We know from reading the NWT and Talmudic law that blasphemy only occurs when you defile the Divine Name. The penalty is death by stoning.
4. We also know and all agree that Yahweh is not "a god" but God.
Are you with me so far?
5. We can only blaspheme God, we cannot blaspheme "a god" in Jewish culture. Blasphemy goes back all the way to seven laws of Noah.
6. This means the crowd was stoning Jesus for making himself God, and not making himself "a god".
7. The crowd was mistaken as to what Jesus meant.
8. Jesus realizes the crowd is mistaken and corrects them. He tells them about the judges whom God condemns as "gods".
9. Jesus' correction in no way allows us to go back and "correct" something the crowd has already uttered.
10. Thus John 10:33 should read "God" and not "a god". The crowd thought he was claiming to be God (otherwise there is no blasphemy) and their statement should reflect that fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe Jesus is God or not, because this is a statement of the crowd, and not a statement of your church's doctrine.
Our conclusion is augmented by the Watchtower which points the reader to Leviticus 24:16 when reading John 10:33 in the New World Translation and by a 1962 article, still "current truth" at JW.ORG, which tells us Jesus was not claiming to be "a god" at John 10:33.
1. Jesus, not the crowd, claims he and the Father are one.
2. The crowd took that to mean he blasphemed. Perhaps the crowd thought Jesus was saying he was the Father, perhaps something else. It doesn't really matter because when Jesus asked why they were picking up stones, the crowd told him exactly what they were thinking.
Are we agreed so far?
3. Jesus asks and the crowd tells him they intend to stone him for blasphemy. We know from reading the NWT and Talmudic law that blasphemy only occurs when you defile the Divine Name. The penalty is death by stoning.
4. We also know and all agree that Yahweh is not "a god" but God.
Are you with me so far?
5. We can only blaspheme God, we cannot blaspheme "a god" in Jewish culture. Blasphemy goes back all the way to seven laws of Noah.
6. This means the crowd was stoning Jesus for making himself God, and not making himself "a god".
7. The crowd was mistaken as to what Jesus meant.
8. Jesus realizes the crowd is mistaken and corrects them. He tells them about the judges whom God condemns as "gods".
9. Jesus' correction in no way allows us to go back and "correct" something the crowd has already uttered.
10. Thus John 10:33 should read "God" and not "a god". The crowd thought he was claiming to be God (otherwise there is no blasphemy) and their statement should reflect that fact. It doesn't matter whether you believe Jesus is God or not, because this is a statement of the crowd, and not a statement of your church's doctrine.
Our conclusion is augmented by the Watchtower which points the reader to Leviticus 24:16 when reading John 10:33 in the New World Translation and by a 1962 article, still "current truth" at JW.ORG, which tells us Jesus was not claiming to be "a god" at John 10:33.
Iymus
Active Member
The way John 10 :30 has been consistently translated into the English language; it is a sentence fragment because it does not describe or give the context or complete thought of how two subjects are one.
No context is needed when one is one, but if two or more is one; context or a complete thought must be given.
For example; Husband and Wife being One. One what and/or how?
Gen 2:24 KJV Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Complete thought is
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one.
therefore one in agreement ; as Father is greater and Christ is lesser, and lesser being subject unto the greater
Incomplete thought
I and my Father are one. "No how or why given"
No justification of interpreting an incomplete thought or sentence fragment.
-----------------------------------------------
Satan has been using verses with incomplete thoughts as well as half truths to propagate his own doctrine as well as the deceived and disingenuous. Might I remind you that through your own words you have shown yourself to be disingenuous so I have no need to accuse you.
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Last edited:
Brian2
Veteran Member
I have been thinking about this a bit and the short answer is that God is everywhere and so you whole premise is wrong.
Yet God can be an observer everywhere and the one who holds everything together or God can be more than that and actually be present and interacting with people.
This does not mean that God has left heaven to be on earth to do this. When God was with Moses does that mean that He was not also in heaven and everywhere else also? No.
When the prehuman Jesus was sent to be a man I guess that does not mean that He was not also in heaven and everywhere else also. (and He was everywhere before He left heaven because He was in the form of God, who is everywhere Phil 2)
And since He retained this form when He became a man (according to the Greek Grammar) that means that He was also everywhere else at the same time.
But Jesus was sent to be a man and obey His Father and so I think that Jesus consciousness was limited by Him to that body (even if He was given the Spirit without measure John 3:34) and when He ascended He allowed Himself, His consciousness to fill all things (Eph 4:10)
So now Jesus is that life giving Spirit (1Cor 15:45) as well as being a man with a transformed human body, as seen in the resurrection story, and in whom dwells all the fullness of complete deity. (Col 2:9), so that Thomas believed and said that Jesus was his God,,,,,,,,,,which had to mean that Jesus was Jehovah.
But of course the complete understanding of God is a bit beyond me even if the WT thinks that if we cannot understand it, it must be untrue,,,,,,,,,as with a God who is one and at the same time 3. (a compound one God).
Brian2
Veteran Member
That is a bit of an open questio. Maybe you should tell me what you are driving at.
Have seen the many places in the New Testament where Jesus is called Yahweh?
Brian2
Veteran Member
Not separate, they are always together. A better word is distinct.
I think I just answered the rest of the question. But of course no doubt volumes have been written about it so maybe I can say a bit more,,,,,,,,,,,or maybe ask you what you think.
We all know that the Holy Spirit can be in many places at once. (maybe I should not assume anything,,,,,,,,,,,,so is that true?)
We all know that the prehuman Jesus was in the form of God, who is everywhere, and so the prehuman Jesus was everywhere then, since He was in that same form. Again I should not assume that we all know that since the WT wants you to believe that "the same form" means just that Jesus was a spirit before He became a man. So what do you think?
We all know that the scriptures teach us that God is everywhere and that heaven and the heaven of the heavens cannot hold Him. (1Kings 8:27) Again I better ask if that is true or not?
Brian2
Veteran Member
Those verses seem to be saying that the disciples are one, just as Jesus and His Father are one.
Different members of the Body of Christ may disagree strongly about various things, but we still can be joined spiritually to each other if we are joined spiritually to Jesus.
1 Cor 6:16 Or don’t you know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with Him in spirit.
We have the Spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15) which makes us all children of God and heirs with Christ.
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Interestingly as Eph 4:4 tells us, there is one Spirit. This Spirit is called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of Liberty, the Spirit of Christ. It is in this Spirit that the Father and Son come to dwell with and in a believer. (John 14:23) The Father and the Son are joined in Spirit,,,,,,,,,,,,,they are one in Spirit. That does not just mean that they agree with each other about everything, it means they are One, just as the Shema says, Jehovah is One Jehovah. The Father is Jehovah, the Son is Jehovah and the Spirit is Jehovah. That is what the Bible tells us.
God is the Father, who is above all, and He is the source of the Son and the Spirit, who are in Him, just as He is in them.
Last edited:
SLPCCC
Active Member
One of the ways the JW's are misled by the WT is through their NWT bible. They add and subtract words to fit their doctrine.
In the WTS Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. at John 14:14 it says,
In their NWT it reads,
The WTS don't want their members to be praying to Jesus so they took out "ask me". It's not surprising that "God " is changed to "a god" at John 10:33.
Capital punishment was only for serious sins: blasphemy, adultery, etc. In the Bible, saying you are a god or even having a preexistence isn't blasphemy. Claiming to be one with God is. In John 10:30-33 Jesus said,
Jesus was claiming to be God. Now, where would they get that idea? Could it have been where he said, "Before Abraham was, I am"? Could it be from where Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). They wanted to kill Him both times because as they said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (not a god).
In the WTS Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. at John 14:14 it says,
- “If ever anything you should ask me in the name of me this I shall do.”
In their NWT it reads,
- If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
- New International Version - You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
The WTS don't want their members to be praying to Jesus so they took out "ask me". It's not surprising that "God " is changed to "a god" at John 10:33.
Capital punishment was only for serious sins: blasphemy, adultery, etc. In the Bible, saying you are a god or even having a preexistence isn't blasphemy. Claiming to be one with God is. In John 10:30-33 Jesus said,
- "I and the Father are one. The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning me?" "The Jews answered Him, 'For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (NASB).
Jesus was claiming to be God. Now, where would they get that idea? Could it have been where he said, "Before Abraham was, I am"? Could it be from where Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (10:30). They wanted to kill Him both times because as they said, "You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God" (not a god).
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It was a setup trial. Not a trial based on the evidence. The charge of blasphemy was OBVIOUSLY, and I mean obviously, a false charge. You draw the conclusions.
Iymus
Active Member
lean on whatever interpretation you want to lean on; however Eph 4:6 clearly tells us One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
This God and Father who is the only Lord God ; is also one God and Father over our lord
2Co 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
----------------------
Lord God will be giving his anointed dominion over the kingdom but in the end all authority and power goes back to him because he is the Father or Originator.
Luk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
--------------------
SLPCCC
Active Member
You are correct that a sentence has to have a complete thought with a subject (the who or what is doing the action or that the sentence is about) and a predicate (what the subject is doing or more information about the subject). The predicate is the verb and everything that follows it.
I and my Father are one. - This sentence has the compound subject who (I and my Father) and the verb with more information about them (are one). That makes it a sentence.
A sentence fragment is a group of words that does not express a complete thought. It is usually missing a subject or a verb.
are one - This is a sentence fragment. It is missing a subject.
I and my Father - This is a sentence fragment. It is missing a verb.
I and my Father are one. A sentence, it has a complete thought with a subject and a verb.
A sentence can also have just two words but it has to have a subject and a verb to make a complete thought: Children play. Birds sing. God loves. I am. He is.
Yes, you can ask for more information but they are still sentences.
- Children play what? Children play tag in the park all of the time.
- Birds sing where? Birds sign in the trees during the morning hours.
- God loves why? God loves everyone everywhere because he is love.
- I am who? I am the God of your fathers.
Expressions like "One Love" are not sentences. They are just expressions.
Last edited:
Iymus
Active Member
Instead of saying it has a complete thought, why not showing?
What is the complete thought?
How are they one? or Why are they one? Where is this explained in that verse
------------------
Also to make sure I am not in error I am going to be doing deeper research into this for added confirmation "hopefully".
Last edited:
Iymus
Active Member
I knew it's usage or context was that of an adjective. Now I have proof
Definition of one | Dictionary.com.
Emphasis on 4 under Adjective;
of the same or having a single kind, nature, or condition:We belong to one team; We are of one resolve.
-----------------------
Definition of one | Dictionary.com.
Emphasis on 4 under Adjective;
of the same or having a single kind, nature, or condition:We belong to one team; We are of one resolve.
-----------------------
cataway
Well-Known Member
john 17:11
11 “I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.
Iymus
Active Member
so that they may be one just as we are one
Essentially; "one like us?"; Seems to be a complete thought.
SLPCCC
Active Member
If I say to my brother, "You are family. Come into my house and make yourself at home.
If I say to my friend, "You are family. Come into my house and make yourself at home.
Am I saying that my friend is a blood relative? Just because I'm using the same sentence, "You are family, it does not mean that they have to have the same meaning. We have to look at the context.
The WT says that at John 10:30 and John 17:11 "being one" has to have the same meaning. But it doesn't.
Looking at the context at John 10:30 the Jews want to kill Jesus for saying that he was one with the father. Whereas at John 17:11 the context is different. They don't have to have the same meaning. Many would agree that the context is Jesus is praying that the disciples be as he and the Father are united together and not being one as God unlike John 10:30. The Jews would not want to kill you for wanting to be united with God.
If I say to my friend, "You are family. Come into my house and make yourself at home.
Am I saying that my friend is a blood relative? Just because I'm using the same sentence, "You are family, it does not mean that they have to have the same meaning. We have to look at the context.
The WT says that at John 10:30 and John 17:11 "being one" has to have the same meaning. But it doesn't.
Looking at the context at John 10:30 the Jews want to kill Jesus for saying that he was one with the father. Whereas at John 17:11 the context is different. They don't have to have the same meaning. Many would agree that the context is Jesus is praying that the disciples be as he and the Father are united together and not being one as God unlike John 10:30. The Jews would not want to kill you for wanting to be united with God.
Oeste
Well-Known Member
The notion that John or the other apostles did not speak in complete sentences is a rather tepid argument from Christian critics.
Sorry, but context can be determined by the surrounding verses. It need not be given in the immediate sentence.
Ah, so how does that work in the Tanakh?
God: And He said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Moses: 'I AM?' What do you mean 'I am'? I am what, or who? Can you talk in complete sentences? Let me remind you what @lymus told me:
Is God using the same "verses with incomplete thoughts" as Satan, or is He, in your opinion, using different ones?
No @Lymus, it wasn't an accusation, it was a threat. Did you forget already?
You threatened to besmirch me and now you up the ante by claiming I am disingenuous!
From my standpoint, people who engage in ad hominem attacks lack spiritual maturity.
Are you a juvenile?
Moses: 'I AM?' What do you mean 'I am'? I am what, or who? Can you talk in complete sentences? Let me remind you what @lymus told me:
Is God using the same "verses with incomplete thoughts" as Satan, or is He, in your opinion, using different ones?
No @Lymus, it wasn't an accusation, it was a threat. Did you forget already?
You threatened to besmirch me and now you up the ante by claiming I am disingenuous!
From my standpoint, people who engage in ad hominem attacks lack spiritual maturity.
Are you a juvenile?
Iymus
Active Member
I do not know whether your friend or brother is a blood relative ; you have not specified.
Not affiliated with watchtower; I am myself and I am focused on the Commandents and Laws of the Most High, Culture of the Jews, and the laws of the English language in which the scholars translated it to that we are speaking.
Technically they do have the same meaning; Both times one is being used as a descriptive adjective to describe something however at a minimum you need John 10:29 in conjunction with John 10:30 to get the context unlike with John 17:11 where the context of one is given in the same verse.
Iymus
Active Member
Why not ask me if I believe that instead of making your own interpretation?
When the books of the Bible were originally written, there were no such things as chapters or verses.
Also there might be some verses which lacks a complete thought and need the surrounding verses for clarity and context to make it whole.
In the English if a sentence lacks a complete thought it can be considered a sentence fragment and not a complete sentence.
Yet you refuse to lean on verse 29 for context of verse 30. "The Hypocrisy".
Proved yourself to be disingenuous once again along with hypocritical,
Believe it or not I am actually neutral in regards to you as a person but in my opinion perhaps the shoe really seems to fit if you can wear it comfortably.
I can be abrasive so I do apologize for being so direct or not filtering my words better.
I could be a juvenile or immature person in regards to certain doctines in the bible but in regards to John 10:30; in my opinion you would be considered a juvenile: No shame in that if you allow growth though instead of mocking JWs who seem to have a much better assessment in regards to the Heavenly Father
Last edited: