Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Oeste]

Jesus, the Word, was there "in the beginning."

So then, "In the beginning, the Word 'was'".

Again, doesn't mean he was without beginning

We can solve for this with a few questions:

Which comes first in your mind?

1. Jesus
2. Time
3. "The beginning"

Who or what is before all things?

1. Jesus
2. Time
3. "The beginning"

If your answer to both questions is "Jesus" then you've told me Jesus is eternal and without beginning, He is the creator of "all things" and thus "before the beginning". There was never a time when Jesus was not.

Time did not create itself, and time is not eternal (if you believe time is eternal, please point me to the WT article which stipulates this). There is no beginning without time; time must already exist for their to be a beginning just as it must already exist for you to say "the end" or "forevermore".

So the Father did not first create time, wait a fraction for it to begin (remember, we're not 'at' the beginning but 'in' it already), and then create Jesus so he could be "in the beginning".

So what is your answer? How would you order the 3? Which do you consider primary, secondary, or tertiary?

 

[rational experiences]

As all themes and stories are applied and review, looking back, which is his story, then males told stories about the past.

No human, no story.

Simple fact. If you told a story that said my DNA healed and returned due to one cycle yearly December returned ICE MASS, stable state with bio life animals, the same as self. Then you did.

If you said I was once living a long time ago as a scientist and my adult Father self did it to me, then he did. As a human. Not as some inference to anything else.

Science however wants to argue, the occult self who includes aliens today as a spirit body form that pre existed microbes and then inherited it, evolved into a human.

The theme says proof that your own life and God came from the same place historically actually, the eternal.

Reason. MASS pre existed created and was in its coldest forms. The spirit came out of the eternal, pre formed in the eternal. So you would question how did God affect the eternal. The mass of the atmosphere had filled in space around Earth.

How deep is space is the next question...a mystery says science, cannot measure it. If you tried a non stop number would just keep counting and counting, its explanation.

So then you would say, I wonder how much space gases went into....as those gases surrounding Earth only....you go further out into space, gases are not burning around Earth. Those gases removing gas back to carbon burning get removed for 12 hours on non stop burning, then Earth rotates and gets another 12 ours of non stop burning.

Reasoning of a cycle, flat plane says science today trying to reach the mind of lying coercing. 12 hours and not O mass circulation owns the light constant. Why it was stated to be the Holy state on Earth. Not the Sun and not the UFO.

UFOlogists today state in science, the Sun is a destroyer body. Radiation in space ejected by the Sun x mass is now cold. So you contradict science history to say...the Earth owns its own heavenly gas mass burning. By that event of teaching. Always contradicting information constantly.

Therefore as coercion is science human owned, what other coercive subjects have you applied? That Moses was a Holy Act....when it was an evil act of science destruction done to life. The Egyptians get hated in the teaching theme...like Romans got hated, like the Hebrews were hated......do you get the message yet?

Coercion and science are hand in hand. To take the reader away from realisation of what the actual choice science meant for life on Earth involving the occult/UFO mass. Natural light is just gas burning, the UFO mass is extra attacking.

The spatial void cannot cool and deal with radiation mass until it does, as it gets dispersed and used up our water to cool it. By that time life on the ground dies.

The true history how evil the UFO is, occult science is evil it activated ground fission to remove the roots of trees from being bound to the Earth. For the males who had come out of the eternal as a pre owned spirit, the living spirit in eternal that always had existed. That lost a portion of its body to change and it burnt exploded, by spirit manipulation.

The same as the inheritor, male and human owns today, manipulation. You are the spirit who inherited their own cause. To be the spirit in the eternal body who chose to effect change.

The history memory where did we come from. The memory shows all pre owned spirits already formed. A male in occult science themes that memory today as clouds....seeing lots of images of everything are spiritual imaged in clouds.

Yet clouds came from the original volcanic release in space. We never came out of a volcano. So UFOlogists claim secretly the Roman Church are evil and we know better about the ufo and the volcano history...as UFOlogists.

And you are all wrong.

Our water use mass with microbes got mass evaporated as a huge water lift off the face of Earth, got burnt in the radiation UFO attack, how our image, the water/microbe mass use was put into the cloud mass. Cloud mass is only in origin rolling smoking burning clouds. Not images.

Therefore if a human says where did I come from, the eternal is that answer. When you die most humans believe, I still have one higher spirit of my own ownership in the eternal....for that is where we came out of and was separated by coming into a lower mass...water/oxygen.

If a body can take on form in water and oxygen using microbes as its body fuel/energy and science changes bacterias and microbes in water due to atmospheric irradiation of it....why do you think we are all sick today? For some other reason.

Science said to AI, meningococcal disease, must be something missing in the water. Yes that is right scientist you already know. You removed the natural microbes, for atmospheric water mass removal evaporation was why a non stop 40 day and night flooding occurred in the ancient past. Microbe/bacteria balances is why we all get sick, for we live in HOLY WATER.

Water used in the power plant proof that you manipulate the radiation effect with use water. The story theme, mass water split off the ground, due to the radiation effect, fake pyramid mountain and the UFO real.

Today China whose cities got imaged in the clouds are now constantly flooded, as the history and themes, occult causes are real.

Science was always an act of evil against self. Science as the first male group wanted to be de manifested, and removed personally so that they could go back into spirit. Why science was invented for ground fission removal reaction as the activator of it.

Common sense would today say, yes this story and history is real....the spirit always existed first.

 

[Oeste]

I believe this is because the WT recognizes the dilemma of proclaiming Jesus “a god” at John 10:33 even if many Witnesses do not.

This is a lie.

No, it's what I believe.

In effect, both JW.ORG and the NWT are giving backhand support for the Trinitarian translation that the crowd was about to stone Jesus for calling himself Jehovah, and not for simply referring to himself as “a god”.

This is a lie.

Then feel free to explain, finally, why the WT points the reader to Leviticus 24:16 when they rendered John 10:33 "a god".

Christ denies the interpretation of the Jews, put's his own words into context, says he is God's Son "Son of God", and says if his works not of his God who sent him then believe him not.

Jesus is talking to the crowd about to stone him. Where in John 10:30-39 does he say all that?

babbling

Another unsupported comment.

Because it was not his words,

Correct, as I’ve already pointed out to Tigger.

but interpretation of his words by those who had no understanding of them.

Not quite. It was not “….an interpretation of his words” but “…a total fabrication of words”.

The narrative where Jesus claims he is not God or a god to the crowd about to stone him simply isn’t there. Neither is your narrative where "Christ denies the interpretation of the Jews, puts his own words into context, says he is God's Son "Son of God" and says if his works are not of his God who sent him then believe him not." {/Quote]

This would be incorrect. Neither does the bible you read says "The Word is God" or "The Word has been God".

Why would it? The Word was God. He was always God.

Difference Between Has Been and Was | Difference Between

I'm not aware of any bible that says "Has been", so why do we need to read about differences? This is a false dichotomy you set up, by yourself. As such it appears the explanation is for you.

Jesus is always God. There was no time when he "has been" God but there was a time when he was not man.

 

[rational experiences]

Ask a question in human reality are scientists Satanists who only changed their title?

Yes.

Ask self another question did you lie about being safe to do science atmospheric UFO reactive?

Yes.

Did Jesus lie when he said his Father sacrificed his life to save everyone else?

Yes and No. A contradiction.

If the amount of water mass split and lost off the ground did not form new cloud cooling amassing and water rain/flooding effect, the gases would be set alight and we would all have burnt to death.

It did save our life but it was not why life was saved. We already owned natural life, was living in a natural historic atmosphere that belonged just to the Planet and not to science and a machine, the Satanists, and science is a proven liar.

Today just like everyday they read the bible hoping to own what they believe is contact signals that began in out of space for a machine reaction.

Now does that sound like God and Jesus and human being Genetics?

No.

But if you asked that occult society what are you attacking and studying Nature for...the answer is looking for the ANTI signals actually, so then I can falsify rebuilding of the non ANTI signals...when the ANTI signals have not stopped existing, which is owned historically by out of space, UFO cold radiation mass heated and hot UFO radiation mass. The UFO is owned by the machine and not by humans.

What science of the occult organization lies about.

History water on Earth frozen and then unfrozen. Water historically are Earth owned always owned its own microbes in it from the stone body.

Why else does science claim that stone bodies have microbes on it due to water?

Life however is not stone...another of their lies. God the stone first one PLAN ET is.

So if they claim UFO and the ANTI state and claim God the stone owned microbes, it is why God the stone no longer owns those microbes, for they burnt it out in new sink hole activation. Removing SIN falsely in first male Satanic theorising, saving life on Earth by making stone the first God disappear.

For we only live inside of the heavenly gases you know as the HOLY LIFE.

That sort of inanity is what science as a psyche in AI conditions expresses.

If you ask why microbial life can live in darkness for microbes were living in water first, water was frozen and saved them, water unfroze and they lived.

O G O D is a mind psyche explanation exactly as it is stated, gases in the spatial deep are cold and clear. They were historically burnt sacrificed in a Satanic attack and then owned natural light with water evaporation on the face of the deep in the Heavens. The movement of light in gases in water is O circular and defined as G O D, the only GOD.

Yet God is not the gases, mass is. God was one definition only. Ask science why it claimed God was the stone also? For it cooled and evolved in the O circulating G O D history of why a planet owned mass also. For it is just a scientific definition.

Ask a male are you God? The answer will define their sanity. For a human is supposed to say, No I am just a human and I am born by 2 human parents who pre exist me who have sex. The biologist scientist then says and the next closest one body an Ape owns no human life presence. So claim human life is HOLY also won't you before you have us all destroyed Satanic organization of liars.

 

[YoursTrue]

The beginning before anything was created. We know the Word was not created (John 1:3) so why do you want to say that the Word had a beginning?
"Beginning" at Gen 1:1 means before anything was created also. The heavens where the angels live was not created then. (In the beginning God created the heavens..........) so the angels were not created then.
The idea that the angels were created before this is an invention and is not in the Bible.

First of all, have you looked at an interlinear for John 1:3, because not all translations agree. Some say 'made,' and others say 'created.' Yet the definition of the Greek doesn't give a real good explanation. And to say that nothng was made (or some say, created) without the Word does not mean that the Word did not have a beginning. It means that the Word made everything other than himself. He didn't make himself. In fact, putting it all together, it says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." So through him (the Word - Jesus) all things were made, "without him nothing was made that has been made" tells us that without the Word nothing was made. So there were TWO at the beginning of what was made. God and the Word. Two. And everything that was made was made through the word. "Without him" tells there was one (God Almighty) that did not 'make things' without the Word. (That's two.) Sensible thinking tells us that it means what came after the Word.
Further, it doesn't say there were three persons there "at the beginning," each without beginning. It doesn't say that at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it's what I believe.





Then feel free to explain, finally, why the WT points the reader to Leviticus 24:16 when they rendered John 10:33 "a god".



Jesus is talking to the crowd about to stone him. Where in John 10:30-39 does he say all that?



Another unsupported comment.



Correct, as I’ve already pointed out to Tigger.




Not quite. It was not “….an interpretation of his words” but “…a total fabrication of words”.

The narrative where Jesus claims he is not God or a god to the crowd about to stone him simply isn’t there. Neither is your narrative where "Christ denies the interpretation of the Jews, puts his own words into context, says he is God's Son "Son of God" and says if his works are not of his God who sent him then believe him not." {/Quote]




Why would it? The Word was God. He was always God.



I'm not aware of any bible that says "Has been", so why do we need to read about differences? This is a false dichotomy you set up, by yourself. As such it appears the explanation is for you.

Jesus is always God. There was no time when he "has been" God but there was a time when he was not man.

Let's go back to basics. Jesus was not God encapsulated in the flesh. Now it gets complicated because, simply speaking, you believe there were three persons in heaven, separate and distinct from one another, don't you? And then -- and then -- one of those persons LEFT HEAVEN and was placed in Mary's womb (flesh) to grow and become a human man. Is that true so far?

 

[YoursTrue]

The beginning before anything was created. We know the Word was not created (John 1:3) so why do you want to say that the Word had a beginning?
"Beginning" at Gen 1:1 means before anything was created also. The heavens where the angels live was not created then. (In the beginning God created the heavens..........) so the angels were not created then.
The idea that the angels were created before this is an invention and is not in the Bible.

We all have a position, don't we? My position (I believe) is that (1) there are NOT three persons each and all called God "from the beginning without a beginning." (2) As John describes it, At the beginning were two persons anyway. God and the One with Him, called the Word and given the title, or description, of a God. Time permitting, I'll go into the Greek asap. The question is now, however, what happened to the third one? So far that's only two persons there "in the beginning."

 

[Iymus]

No, it's what I believe.

How are you going to bear false witness, be exposed, and your excuse is "No, it's what I believe"?

Silence is Golden for a Reason. Outside of an apology or Correction "partial Pro 15:10 reference" why even continue to speak or reply.

The foundation of what you believe has been taken away and you are naked. But apparently even if no works or valid foundation behind it, you will continue to believe a lie. At this point you simply refuse to listen and try the spirits appropriately.

You have no proof to make your belief valid or truthful. "partial Jas 2:17 & Joh 10:37 reference if can read between the lines and see the concept"

Then feel free to explain, finally, why the WT points the reader to Leviticus 24:16 when they rendered John 10:33 "a god".

You can ask them yourself. they are not incorrect to do so, the jews misinterpreted Christ words and were under the impression that he blasphemed the Name/Identity of the God of Heaven and Earth.

Jesus is talking to the crowd about to stone him. Where in John 10:30-39 does he say all that?

Joh 10:32 & Joh 10:33-37

Not quite. It was not “….an interpretation of his words” but “…a total fabrication of words”.

The narrative where Jesus claims he is not God or a god to the crowd about to stone him simply isn’t there. Neither is your narrative where "Christ denies the interpretation of the Jews, puts his own words into context, says he is God's Son "Son of God" and says if his works are not of his God who sent him then believe him not." {/Quote]

It's there but you are blind to it for whatever reason. Once again Joh 10:32 & Joh 10:33-37.

No, it's what I believe.

Once again I will remind you that, you have shown that what you believe in to be a lie. Therefore anything adverse to the lie you believe in is unacceptable to you. But of course you won't say it's a lie even with the works of your doctrine and words proving such.

Why would it? The Word was God. He was always God.

if that was the case you would not need to add the word always nonchalantly.

Example:
Sometimes my Battalion Commander "BC" would go on leave or temporary duty and would give Assumption of Command to the Battalion Executive Officer "XO". With authority "or context" the XO was the BC; However you cannot say the XO was always the BC, when the same XO was in the beginning with the BC.

To say the Word was always God is not only adding to John 1:1 but disregarding John 1:2

I'm not aware of any bible that says "Has been", so why do we need to read about differences?

Context. God is God. God has been God. never was. But very slick/ subtil of you to use the phrase or term "was always". In your heart you self corrected John 1:1 to validate your lie / doctrine.

I can say the word was God because I know the word is not God and has not been God according to the volume of the book.

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

God is not servant.

Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

Jesus is always God.

Hypocrisy.

The Son or Word or Christ is not:

Lord God
Most High
Heavenly Father
our God
The Lord our God
Ancient of Days
Majesty on High
Possessor of Heaven and Earth
Lord of Heaven and Earth
Owner
Husbandman
Above all

 

[Brian2]

First of all, have you looked at an interlinear for John 1:3, because not all translations agree. Some say 'made,' and others say 'created.' Yet the definition of the Greek doesn't give a real good explanation. And to say that nothng was made (or some say, created) without the Word does not mean that the Word did not have a beginning. It means that the Word made everything other than himself. He didn't make himself. In fact, putting it all together, it says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." So through him (the Word - Jesus) all things were made, "without him nothing was made that has been made" tells us that without the Word nothing was made.

John 1:1-4 is something like this for most translations. It is rather emphatic in verse 3 that nothing that has been made without the Word's participation.
The NWT takes away the emphatic nature of verse 3 by joining "that has been made" on to verse 4 to created a sentence that does not make much sense really, and it does not change the meaning of what verse 3 tells us, just takes away some of it's emphatic nature. I guess that is good for the WT and makes them think that they can now say that the Word was also made,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it doesn't do that at all. It still means that every little or big or material or spiritual thing that was made/brought into existence, was brought into existence through the Word.
Your reasoning seems to be illogical and a way of denying what is written there.

NIV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

NWT John 1........What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.

So there were TWO at the beginning of what was made. God and the Word. Two. And everything that was made was made through the word. "Without him" tells there was one (God Almighty) that did not 'make things' without the Word. (That's two.) Sensible thinking tells us that it means what came after the Word.
Further, it doesn't say there were three persons there "at the beginning," each without beginning. It doesn't say that at all.

Yes there were 2 at the beginning of what was made. The God and the Word were both there already before anything was made. Now you seem to be getting it. The Word certainly was not another god and He was not "the God". I could try to explain John 1:1 but I think the best way to go about it is to go to a couple of other verses which show who the Word has to have been.
Isa 44:24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself, (See also Job 9:8)
Psalm 102:25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

We can see in these verses that God alone stretched out the heavens and that the heavens are the work of God's hands. Nobody else was there, God alone did it.
Then we see at Heb 1:10 that these things are attributed to Jesus.
God was alone doing it, Jesus was there doing it. What is the logical conclusion?
Heb 1:10 “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Interestingly this is one of those places where "Lord" should probably have been translated as "Jehovah" in the NWT since Psalm 102 is speaking of God. But that is another topic.
Anyway we now can see that the Word, since He was God at the beginning, did not have a beginning.

Since John 1:1-3 is speaking about the Word (prehuman Jesus) and His origins and who He is, I don't expect it to say anything about the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless I bet you agree with me that God's Holy Spirit was there. Just who/what the Holy Spirit is can be seen in other passages.

 

[Brian2]

We all have a position, don't we? My position (I believe) is that (1) there are NOT three persons each and all called God "from the beginning without a beginning." (2) As John describes it, At the beginning were two persons anyway. God and the One with Him, called the Word and given the title, or description, of a God. Time permitting, I'll go into the Greek asap. The question is now, however, what happened to the third one? So far that's only two persons there "in the beginning."

I think I answered this in the last post I did, but it would be interesting to hear your version of the Greek for John 1:1. Then again I have read a bit about the different ideas Greek scholars have about this verse. It is not saying that the Word was "the God". It is not saying the Word was "a god". It seems to be another way of saying that the Word was in image of "the God".
But of course a whole theology is not built on one verse, even if one verse can wreck a whole theology.

 

[Clear]

Hi @YoursTrue and @Brian2 ;

1) REGARDING FRANZ'S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:4 IN HIS NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

John 1:1-4 is something like this for most translations. It is rather emphatic in verse 3 that nothing that has been made without the Word's participation.
The NWT takes away the emphatic nature of verse 3 by joining "that has been made" on to verse 4 to created a sentence that does not make much sense really, and it does not change the meaning of what verse 3 tells us, just takes away some of it's emphatic nature. I guess that is good for the WT and makes them think that they can now say that the Word was also made,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it doesn't do that at all. It still means that every little or big or material or spiritual thing that was made/brought into existence, was brought into existence through the Word.
Your reasoning seems to be illogical and a way of denying what is written there.

NIV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

NWT John 1........What has come into existence 4 by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men..

I've never read John 1:3-4 in the manner Franz translated it when he created his New World Translation, that is, I've never place the period at the end of "...and without him, nothing was made. [period placed here}. And the next sentence beginning "That [which] came to pass in him was life." .....and the life was the light of men.... (I used "it came to pass" for γεγονεν since it doesn't, technically, mean "made' in most uses)

I do not see a reason that a form of Franz's translation could not have been the legitimate translation. . It depends upon where one divides the sentences and the original text did not have periods, commas, paragraph separations, etc.

It's long been a joke among translators that Robert Stephanus (who divided the N.T. into chapters and verses) often put a comma into a sentence whenever his horse hit a chuckhole (he was in a hurry to finish his text and often worked on horseback...) since some of the paragraph and sentence divisions seemed arbitrary and improper.


2) REGARDING WHETHER JOHN 1:1 LIMITS ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS AS EXISTING IN BEGINNING THIS SPECIFIC CREATION

Having said that, I might point out that John 1:1 does not limit the number of individuals to just two. The text simply tells us that the word was in the beginning with God. It says nothing of limiting this number to just those two. There could have been hundreds present. The text simply doesn't tell us.

Just as Genesis 1:1 lacks the article on purpose, thus the translation is "in beginning", rather than in THE beginning, it doesn't tell us which beginning is contemplated here. For example, the Jewish talmud tells us that there were almost 1000 worlds created before this one. If this is correct, then the reference is simply referring to the beginning of this specific creation and not to other creations God has created.

Also, according to early Judeo-Christian literature, Jesus was (as the word) in the beginning with God and was the one to whom God the Father spoke when he said "Let US make man...." and the spirit was present as well "and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep"......

The personal meaning of such texts has much to do with the theology we bring to the text as we read it and then apply our own biases to derive personal meaning to the texts.

In any case, I hope your journeys are wonderful.

Clear
φυακδρακω

 

[YoursTrue]

John 1:1-4 is something like this for most translations. It is rather emphatic in verse 3 that nothing that has been made without the Word's participation.
...
But of course a whole theology is not built on one verse, even if one verse can wreck a whole theology.

Before I get into the Greek (because I have a lot of things to do today), let me mention that I was reading Exodus 20 and verse 3 caught my attention, where Jehovah tells Moses that no other gods (or god) are to be put before Him. Now what do you think that means? I draw your attention to first, the verse, and then the Hebrew word for 'gods' in that verse, and would like you comment about it. It does relate to John 1:1 even before we get into the Greek there. So --

Exodus 20:3 -
New International Version
"You shall have no other gods before me."
New Living Translation
“You must not have any other god but me."

***I am speaking strictly of the Hebrew, not necessarily interpretation***. So tell me if you know what Hebrew word is translated there as 'gods' or 'god.' Thank you. Then perhaps we can go further when I have time to continue with John 1.

 

[YoursTrue]

The Word was not created because the Word created all things, but Jesus the man is part of creation because He stepped into the creation (at least partially) when He became a man,,,,,,,,,,,,,.



Luke 1:32The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
Are you trying to say that the Bible is contradicting itself?



You will have to do more than point to scriptures which I agree with, unless you are agreeing with me.



Heb 1:4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
Phil 2:9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,

Sounds like Yahweh to me. But there are many other places where Jesus is called Yahweh by implication.




Isa 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord,
“and my servant whom I have chosen,
so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me no god was formed,
nor will there be one after me.

So if Jesus is an uncreated god then He is Yahweh, one with His Father.

Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Jesus is over all and through all and in all and Jesus is in the Father. The Father is the one God and in Him is the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son, even though equal to the Father, submits to the will of His Father. The Holy Spirit is in God and is everywhere as the body of God, yet the Spirit is shown in the scriptures to be alive and to have the qualities of a living person.

John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

The Son was sent as a human, a servant, to do the will of His Father.



The rope, our rope is one. Composite one, the rope is made of more than one thread.
We are talking of one God so the sentence shows all things as singular, but that does not mean that "One" is not a composite one.
IOWs Yahweh is a composite One, there is one God only. That is what monotheism is all about, even if in that one God is His Son and Spirit.
Let us make man in our image and likeness, so God made man in His image and likeness. One God more than one (for want of a better word) persons, consciousness.

OK, I kind of think I know where you're coming from. But according to John 1:1 there were TWO (not three) persons, one with the other. You can say no, there were always the godhead, or three persons, but that is not what it says. All things that were made having been made by means of the Word, or Son, does not mean that the Son did not come from the Father. Obviously the Father does not come from a son. Meanwhile there were two "in the beginning." These two were there "in the beginning." It was in the beginning of something. They were there before that. Just as it takes time for a (normal) baby to start pronouncing words that make sense. The Word (or Logos) is considered a person next to God. Words come out of someone's mouth. Therefore...however you want to look at it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @YoursTrue and @Brian2 ;

REGARDING FRANZ'S TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:4 IN HIS NEW WORLD TRANSLATION


I've never read John 1:3-4 in the manner Franz translated it when he created his New World Translation, that is, I've never place the period at the end of "...and without him, nothing was made. [period placed here}. And the next sentence beginning "That [which] came to pass in him was life." .....and the life was the light of men.... (I used "it came to pass" for γεγονεν since it doesn't, technically, mean "made' in most uses)

I do not see a reason that a form of Franz's translation could not have been the legitimate translation. . It depends upon where one divides the sentences and the original text did not have periods, commas, paragraph separations, etc.

It's long been a joke among translators that Robert Stephanus (who divided the N.T. into chapters and verses) often put a comma into a sentence whenever his horse hit a chuckhole (he was in a hurry to finish his text and often worked on horseback...) since some of the paragraph and sentence divisions seemed arbitrary and improper.


2) REGARDING WHETHER JOHN 1:1 LIMITS ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS AS EXISTING IN BEGINNING THIS SPECIFIC CREATION

Having said that, I might point out that John 1:1 does not limit the number of individuals to just two. The text simply tells us that the word was in the beginning with God. It says nothing of limiting this number to just those two. There could have been hundreds present. The text simply doesn't tell us.

Just as Genesis 1:1 lacks the article on purpose, thus the translation is "in beginning", rather than in THE beginning, it doesn't tell us which beginning is contemplated here. For example, the Jewish talmud tells us that there were almost 1000 worlds created before this one. If this is correct, then the reference is simply referring to the beginning of this specific creation and not to other creations God has created.

Also, according to early Judeo-Christian literature, Jesus was (as the word) in the beginning with God and was the one to whom God the Father spoke when he said "Let US make man...." and the spirit was present as well "and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the deep"......

The personal meaning of such texts has much to do with the theology we bring to the text as we read it and then apply our own biases to derive personal meaning to the texts.

In any case, I hope your journeys are wonderful.

Clear
φυακδρακω

If you're going to say that John 1:1 doesn't limit it to two and not three (types of Gods in heaven "in the beginning" -- or "persons" called God), I have no words to reply. (shrug and a smile)
I do agree that it doesn't tell us which beginning is spoken of. But it seems to mean in Genesis that preparation which is regarding the Earth. As regards the term in the beginning, to me it is clear, Clear that many planets, suns, and moons were around before God prepared the earth for human habitation. Oh, and angels too.

 

[Clear]

Hi @YoursTrue and @Brian2

1) REGARDING JOHN 1:1-4 NOT EXCLUDING OTHER BEINGS EXISTING "AT THE BEGINNING" OF THIS SPECIFIC CREATION.
YoursTrue said : If you're going to say that John 1:1 doesn't limit it to two and not three (types of Gods in heaven "in the beginning" -- or "persons" called God), I have no words to reply. (post #414).

I agree that the limited data of these four sentences does not support the assumption that ONLY two individual existed at this time, or that the Holy Spirit did not exist at this time as well as the Father and the son (i.e. three individuals).

I was responding to the exegesis you and Brian2 offered in posts 405 and 409.
YourTrue said :"So there were TWO at the beginning of what was made. God and the Word. Two". (Post #405)
Brian 2 said : "Yes there were 2 at the beginning of what was made" (post #409)
My point was that the data is insufficient to support this new exegesis/theory in opposition to early judeo-Christian beliefs.



2) REGARDING THE ASSUMPTION THAT JOHN 1:1-4 IS REFERRING TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF THIS EARTH WITH IT'S PLANETS, STARS, ETC.
YoursTrue said : "I do agree that it doesn't tell us which beginning is spoken of. But it seems to mean in Genesis that preparation which is regarding the Earth. As regards the term in the beginning, to me it is clear, Clear that many planets, suns, and moons were around before God prepared the earth for human habitation. Oh, and angels too." (post #41)

My current assumption is similar. I think that the early Judeo-Christian literature describing the ancient Judeo-Christian belief that that spirits uncountable in number existed prior to the creation of the earth is more rational and more logical than the many later theories developed in later Judeo-Christian movements.

I am glad we can find an area of partial agreement.

However, YoursTrue, none of this is relevant to our discussion regarding your theory that "elohim" (the word for God or Gods) can mean, simply a "judge". Do you have any data you want to offer to support your religious linguistic theory regarding this hebrew word?
Good journey @YoursTrue

Clear
φυακακφυω

 

[YoursTrue]

So then, "In the beginning, the Word 'was'".



We can solve for this with a few questions:

Which comes first in your mind?

1. Jesus
2. Time
3. "The beginning"

Who or what is before all things?

1. Jesus
2. Time
3. "The beginning"

If your answer to both questions is "Jesus" then you've told me Jesus is eternal and without beginning, He is the creator of "all things" and thus "before the beginning". There was never a time when Jesus was not.

Time did not create itself, and time is not eternal (if you believe time is eternal, please point me to the WT article which stipulates this). There is no beginning without time; time must already exist for their to be a beginning just as it must already exist for you to say "the end" or "forevermore".

So the Father did not first create time, wait a fraction for it to begin (remember, we're not 'at' the beginning but 'in' it already), and then create Jesus so he could be "in the beginning".

So what is your answer? How would you order the 3? Which do you consider primary, secondary, or tertiary?

I'm not able to answer those questions now. Meaning I'd have to look more at the scriptures and pray about it. I do not, cannot in good conscience from the Scriptures, believe that Jesus always existed without a beginning as the Logos. Because while I believe in God always there, never created, never having had a beginning, I simply cannot believe that God the Almighty did not create or make a Son. How this happened I have not the slightest idea. It is far less astounding (for me) to believe that the Word, or Logos, WITH God, came by means OF God the Almighty, than to believe and assert that there were three persons, all and each distinct and separate yet each claimed to be "God."
But now since I have been looking at Origen's comments about this, can you tell me what it means when it is said that the Word is the same "substance" as the Father? Or that the Word WITH God is the same substance AS God? What does substance mean? I mean a plant usually comes from a seed of the plant. Does that mean that they are of the same substance? Does it mean that the second plant did not come from the first plant???

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @YoursTrue and @Brian2

1) REGARDING JOHN 1:1-4 NOT EXCLUDING OTHER BEINGS EXISTING "AT THE BEGINNING" OF THIS SPECIFIC CREATION.
YoursTrue said : If you're going to say that John 1:1 doesn't limit it to two and not three (types of Gods in heaven "in the beginning" -- or "persons" called God), I have no words to reply. (post #414).

I agree that the limited data of these four sentences does not support the assumption that ONLY two individual existed at this time, or that the spirit of God did not exist at this time as well.

I was responding to the exegesis you and Brian2 offered in posts 405 and 409.
YourTrue said :"So there were TWO at the beginning of what was made. God and the Word. Two". (Post #405)
Brian 2 said : "Yes there were 2 at the beginning of what was made" (post #409)
My point was that the data is insufficient to support this new exegesis/theory in opposition to early judeo-Christian beliefs.



2) REGARDING THE ASSUMPTION THAT JOHN 1:1-4 IS REFERRING TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CREATION OF THIS EARTH WITH IT'S PLANETS, STARS, ETC.
YoursTrue said : "I do agree that it doesn't tell us which beginning is spoken of. But it seems to mean in Genesis that preparation which is regarding the Earth. As regards the term in the beginning, to me it is clear, Clear that many planets, suns, and moons were around before God prepared the earth for human habitation. Oh, and angels too." (post #41)

My current assumption is similar. I think that the early Judeo-Christian literature describing the ancient Judeo-Christian belief that that spirits uncountable in number existed prior to the creation of the earth is more rational and more logical than the many later theories developed in later Judeo-Christian movements.

I am glad we can find an area of partial agreement.

However, YoursTrue, none of this is relevant to our discussion regarding your theory that "elohim" (the word for God or Gods) can mean, simply a "judge". Do you have any data you want to offer to support your religious linguistic theory regarding this hebrew word?

Good journey @YoursTrue

Clear
φυακακφυω

Let's take elohim/judges out of the picture for a moment. I was reading Exodus 20 today and noticed the following statement at verse 3, I'll give you a couple of different translations, but the point is clear when you look up the Hebrew term:

Good News Translation
Worship no god but me.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Do not have other gods besides Me.

International Standard Version
You are to have no other gods besides me.

The word god or gods there is translated from elohim. It doesn't always mean judges. Thus, elohim can mean gods (or god) other than the true God of Israel. Can you agree with that?

 

[Clear]

Hi @YoursTrue

1) REGARDING THE WORD "ELOHIM" SIMPLY MEANING "GOD" WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ITS BASE MEANING OF "GOD" OR "GODS"
YoursTrue wrote "The word god or gods there is translated from elohim." (post #417)
This is correct

YoursTrue wrote "It doesn't always mean judges." (post #417)
It never means simply "a judge" or "judges" without reference to a characteristic of the base meaning of the word, which is "God" or "Gods". I have asked you multiple time if you have a scriptural reference where it means simply "a judge" or "judges" without some reference to a divine or "god like" characteristic. Do you have a scriptural reference you want to discuss where you think elohim means simply "a judge" without reference to it's base meaning of God or God like?

YoursTrue wrote " Thus, elohim can mean gods (or god) other than the true God of Israel. Can you agree with that?" (post #417)
Yes. In reference for example, to the worship of a thing as divine, or having a power or influence as a God, it can refer to a belief in an object or a person as having some characteristic of "God" or "Gods". In such cases, the thing is seen as having some characteristic of an actual God, such as worthiness of worship.

@YoursTrue - I must apologize that I introduced this issue of translation of "elohim" into THIS thread when it actually started and is on-going in another thread. Sorry. I was confused. We can continue this in the "evidence for "a God" at John 10:33" thread if you'd rather. I apologize. I made it sound like you were avoiding me when you were not.

Clear.
φυνεσεσεω

 

[rational experiences]

Father said, Jesus is a contradiction and the question is, should life have been sacrificed?

Ask self a question in science, do you and are you not notified that extra UFO mass metal radiation that is NOT natural light as gases burning in natural mass.

Mass not light by conditions x mass the first observed realisation, God was just a concept. Light burning gases. Mass does not all burn, a portion of it burns....yet if you relate gases and burning x mass, then it is what you invented your own self, science self.....in reality Science/Satanism is a liar.

Second concept Father said, Jesus said HIS Father sacrificed him.

My spiritual human Father said our brother did science.

Now ask self another question if you said God concepts were by human brother, then you would not today be lying about Father of God or God the Father by male he or him or his comments. For straight away you would know that God is a concept in science, just as it is expressed today in science, a concept.

But you do not, because science is a liar because science says so.

Now what you double lie about is that science told science that it is a liar, instead you blame the innocent human self who knows nothing about science as calling you a liar, when your own brother did.

For he knows his Father was not the scientist. How a contradiction of brother against brother, hatred for Egyptians the literal Moses theme....yet Moses the DATA said that the theme, destruction of life was titled MOSES...life sacrificed.

Whose life was put under the flood?

In the Moses story Moses, the winner by a male concept, irradiated brain thinker said Moses won. For Moses says I built the Ark as Noah, knowing God was going to flood the Earth and kill of most life.

So said whatever animal life was left and human life left afterwards, would be irradiated mutated life. For small animal life did become mutated, and tried to take back on the giant dinosaur mutated existence. As animals prove historically.

Why the theme human hatred always has to first be assessed. For it was human males who made a choice to convert the ONE and only original God theme STONE and STONE MASS. Which is nothing at all like a heavenly mass.

Why you said whatever you did to the stone the upper heavens gained as an equals sign. Meaning mass UFO metal radiation attack. How relativity was taught.

Also the condition space infinite, a non factored number unknown, the unknown mystery is relativity taught. Science egotism however says, but one day I will know it all. In the moment you are destroyed. For NDE already proves to everyone that is the moment when a human said suddenly I knew everything.

In reality....why science studying all and every concept to self preach to self preaching, you are wrong and the Destroyer. Why he photographed the planets to prove that the Sun and Earth was put into a corner O cyclic spin rotation as he tried to force speed Earth around the Sun itself, as the concept particle owner in mass and then tried to drop Earth of its orbit into a Satanic fall in space as curvature.

The cornerstone down into the deep pit with O previous God planets blown into Satan as a line of mass.

The true theory how did machine parts get put deep inside of a churning opened planetary body historically by scientists. Real story. Volcanic mass tries to overheat the Sun core of Earth, iron o mass...the Sun a self consuming beginning.

Lava by ICE melt moves up through old tunnels owning lots of crystalline fusion, melts it, lava x mass increased, Earth overheats and starts to melt the core....how it changed into twisted torsion.

Ask a spiritual human, how do you know? I got a vision in spirit just before the 2 Twin towers were burnt out, that showed Earth moving towards the corner spin, and the voiced message said and you will be lost forever. Do not let it happen. And the first time ever, spirit in that message actually sneered at my brother in law, who is an engineer and said, he did it.

Now you know what the first original science in cosmological UFO and Sun themes did as first origins of science on Planet Earth before dinosaur giant life inherited Earth life in the Nature Garden. For he sure did it.

So if you use brother and God terms, you would never have believed in Father as being God and you would know the correct answer today, seeing the bible literature is in fact a self contradiction.

For when you state, and when life was sacrificed, it WAS sacrificed.
For when you state, and then life was saved, it was, but it was already irradiated mutated.

So even though the cloud and flooding rain occurred, it did not remove the re gained mutated DNA life...so we live the life of sacrifice and have done ever since the event JESUS.

The water mass and cloud amassing did block out the UFO radiation mass, the gases were burning, cooled in 40 day of flooding rain. Father said the only reason China is not flooding as a 40 day advice is due to the ownership power plant model and water cooling, changing how the UFO holding of radiation mass interacts with Earth in modern occult science.

The ONLY reason Father said, using an evil occult machine first using water cooling allowed a different attack response.

Never the less the theme Earth core is about melting it into a torsion/destruction of life by machine action.

 

[rational experiences]

What Father also said to me today is that hating your brother as blame about science was all about the pyramid, not the person.

For all males in human life on Earth choose to think, agree with technology, apply technology and own technology. The human was never to blame.

If you are truly spiritual, then you would also own no blame, and instead only want to self advise a truth, for being honest about being wrong as a human choice, science.

Therefore today it made common sense why particular humans claiming to be the Saviour of life on Earth came to some non actual conclusions about Moses and the Jewish humanity. By reference Biblical teaching. Who then professed another evil act, which was totally false.

So when you pose an ideal about a particular human status, that is only imposed and preached, when all humans are humans. We live and migrate anywhere on Earth as it is lived upon by all humans. Then in reality no human owns a claim to a land holding as a human, for humans are the family, and DNA only is a diverse expression.

Why migration and shared community world advice, that we have actually shifted into, sharing countries population as small world communities is a self preaching to us all. It is how we all once lived. With the same parents, the same DNA and the same extended family.

Today why we are different, because RADIATION fall out by UFO conditions sacrificed our life and we diversified our human race. Yet we are actually all one life, HUMAN living our human life on our human Planet.