Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

POST TWO OF TWO


THE LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING JESUS HAVING “THE CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE” INTO “THE EXACT CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE”

Hebrews 1:3 says in Greek ““He reflects the glory of God and the stamp of his nature, bringing forth (upholding / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."


Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.
God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.
God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.
God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.
God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep, as Jesus did.
God must eat, as Jesus did.
God must be ignorant of certain facts, as Jesus was.
God must have power which is given him by another, as Jesus had.
God must have a Father, as Jesus did.
God must have a body and hair and knees and dirty feet as Jesus did.
God must have a body which can die, as Jesus did.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equality between the man/Messiah Jesus, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God the Father to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.”


What do I tell the parents of the girl I saw with the Χαρακτηρ on her arm that I mentioned in post #760?


Clear
ειδρνετωδρω

 

[Brian2]

POST TWO OF TWO


THE LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING JESUS HAVING “THE CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE” INTO “THE EXACT CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE”

Hebrews 1:3 says in Greek ““He reflects the glory of God and the stamp of his nature, bringing forth (upholding / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."


Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.
God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.
God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.
God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.
God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep, as Jesus did.
God must eat, as Jesus did.
God must be ignorant of certain facts, as Jesus was.
God must have power which is given him by another, as Jesus had.
God must have a Father, as Jesus did.
God must have a body and hair and knees and dirty feet as Jesus did.
God must have a body which can die, as Jesus did.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equality between the man/Messiah Jesus, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God the Father to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.”

That the imprint of God's nature is exactly the same as God's nature goes without saying really, it is what it is. As a man Jesus had the nature of God. This can be seen in Phil 2:6 where the present participle indicates that Jesus kept God's nature as a man and keeps it going into the future.
We can also see that added to this nature is the nature of a servant which Jesus took when He became a man. Being the Son and also having a servant nature is the answer to your list above. But of course even in His servant nature as a man Jesus shined with the nature of God and so acted as His Father would have if He were a man.
Basically your list above together with Heb 1:3 seems to be a Mormon misinterpretation of the Bible for the sake of it's own doctrines.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Brian2


TAKING A THEOLOGICAL POSITION IS NOT THE SAME AS TRANSLATION OF HEBREWS 1:3

Brian2 said : "That the imprint of God's nature is exactly the same as God's nature goes without saying really, it is what it is. As a man Jesus had the nature of God." (post #762)
I appreciate the fact that you have a personal belief. I honor this.
However, declaring your personal belief is irrelevant to the question of word definition and textual translation of Hebrews 1:3.
The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.) and not "Exact Character" in early Koine greek. Historical vocabulary and historical definitions do not change based on our shared beliefs.


Brian2 said : "This can be seen in Phil 2:6 where the present participle indicates that Jesus kept God's nature as a man and keeps it going into the future." (post #762)

I agree with Phillipians 2:6 and I do believe Jesus of the New Testament was Jehovah of the Old Testament.
However, this agreement doesn’t change the ancient meaning of the single greek word "χαρακτηρ" It still meant “Character” and not “exact character”


Brian2 said : "“Basically your list above together with Heb 1:3 seems to be a Mormon misinterpretation of the Bible for the sake of it's own doctrines.” (post #762)
Mischaracterization of another theological belief does not change the meaning of the ancient, single, greek word, "Χαρακτηρ".
"Character" still meant “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 in ancient Koine Greek and we have no ancient greek base text or variation of the base text that has "exact Character" in Hebrews 1:3.

So, while I honor your belief and find very close agreement with your theological beliefs, the ancient greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (eng "Character") still meant "Character" and not "Exact Character" to the ancient greeks speaking Koine.

I am glad to find some theological agreement despite the disagreement on what a specific greek word means.

Good journey Brian2. I hope your life is wonderful.

Clear
ειφιδρσετωω

 

[Oeste]

Oeste said : “I did not make any rule of “assumption”.”

You referenced the basic rule of communication that says writers typically wrote what they meant and translators assume they understand the meaning before they translate the meaning. For example :

Correct, whereas you stated :

This logic assumes that a translator correctly assumes to know that the author intended to write something the author did not write AND that the translator knows what to add, subtract, or modify to the text the author actually DID write.

Such assumptions were not part of my logic at all.

Oeste said : “…if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ. (Oeste post #740)

I agree with you on this point that the fact the writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not write something else means that he meant to write just what he wrote.

Excellent!

For example, you claimed that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “similar Character”, he would have written όμοιος χαρακτήρας, or “similar Character” in Greek.
You pointed out that the writer did not do this. He wrote what he intended.

Correct.

I then similarly pointed out that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “exact Character”, he would have written “ακριβης χαρακτερας” or “exact Character” in Greek.
The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

He wrote exactly what he intended, however the degree of representation has always been “exact”. The question of whether Christ was of similar or same (exact) substance as the Father was settled by the church at Nicea hundreds of years ago and Hebrews 1:3 was part and parcel of the settlement. Jesus is the final revelation to mankind; the perfect representation of the Father, and there is nothing “similar” to perfection. As James 1:17 puts it:

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (ESV)​

Had there been a “variation” I could understand your argument that Jesus might be "similar" but where there is no variation, Jesus is the exactly the same.

I like Constable’s notes on the subject:

“… the Son is "the exact representation of His [God"s] nature." The Greek word charakter, translated "representation," occurs only here in the New Testament. Greek writers used it to describe the emperor"s picture on Roman coins and the clear-cut impression made by a seal (a facsimile). It did not express a general likeness but an exact duplication of the original. Jesus Christ let humankind know exactly what the nature of God, whom no one has seen, is like during His earthly ministry (cf. John 14:9).​

Constable’s statement is in harmony with John 14:9…when you have seen Jesus you have seen the Father. You do not see some character “similar” to the Father.

"Similar” or “inexact” representations fall short in some way which would mean Christ fell short as well. In fact, it changes the meaning of the author's intent so much that we now have an imperfect being radiating the glory of God. In contrast, "exact" simply makes clear Christ was perfect just as his Father was perfect. We know this because Christ has the imprint of the Father.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Oeste

1) REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE WRITER OF HEBREWS 1:3 WROTE THE WORD “CHARACTER” AND NOT “EXACT CHARACTER”.


Oeste said : “…if the writer had meant “similar” ὁμοίως or “likeness” ὁμοίωσις he would have written that instead of “representation” χαρακτηρ. (Oeste post #740)

Clear replied : ‘I agree with you on this point that the fact the writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not write something else means that he meant to write just what he wrote.

For example, you claimed that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “similar Character”, he would have written όμοιος χαρακτήρας, or “similar Character” in Greek.
You pointed out that the writer did not do this. He wrote what he intended.

I then similarly pointed out that If the writer of Hebrews 1:3 had meant to say “exact Character”, he would have written “ακριβης χαρακτερας” or “exact Character” in Greek.
The writer of Hebrews 1:3 did not add any adjective at all to the word CHARACTER. He wrote what he intended.

While readers may take away from the text additional meaning not found in the bare text, the translator of actual, authentic, written Greek is not allowed to add any adjective at all to the translation.

A trinitarian is not allowed to add “equal”, or “exact”, or “same” to the text.
A non-trinitarian is not allowed to add “similar” or “like” to the text.
An atheist is not allowed to add adjectives such as “imaginary” or “non existent” to the text.
An Agnostic is not allowed to add “maybe” or “could be” to the text.


Oeste : Your reply simply describes your theological position but it is irrelevant to the issue of the ancient meaning of the Koine word “Χαρακτηρ”.
“Character” still meant “Character” and not “exact Character” in ancient Koine.



2) HOW DOES YOUR CLAIM TO “EXACTNESS” WORK IN THE REAL WORLD?

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste replied ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”

Clear replied :”You are, in this case, assuming that there is "exactness" implied.
I asked you to apply your assumption of exactness in Leviticus 13:28 to a test to see how adding “exact” the word “Character” works as follows :

DOES THE WORD “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 IMPLY “EXACTNESS” IN IDENTIFYING SKIN LESIONS?

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?

Can you tell me ANYTHING, in any EXACT terms that might describe the skin lesion I saw that tells me the lesion was not leprosy?

EXACTLY what marks a lesion as leprosy in this description?
Does the description contain EXACTNESS that can differentiate leprosy from non-leprosy?
How does your claim to EXACTNESS in the word “CHARACTER” work in practice?
If I show you a few pictures of skin lesions, can you use the description in leviticus to identify which are leprosy with any exactness?



Oeste, can you answer my question?
You say Leviticus tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
Should I tell the parents the girl has leprosy or Not?



3) IF GOD HAS EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE AS THE MAN JESUS, HOW DOES THAT WORK?

THE LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING JESUS HAVING “THE CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE” INTO “THE EXACT CHARACTER OF GODS NATURE”

Hebrews 1:3 says in Greek ““He reflects the glory of God and the stamp of his nature, bringing forth (upholding / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."


Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.
God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.
God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.
God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.
God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep, as Jesus did.
God must eat, as Jesus did.
God must be ignorant of certain facts, as Jesus was.
God must have power which is given him by another, as Jesus had.
God must have a Father, as Jesus did.
God must have a body and hair and knees and dirty feet as Jesus did.
God must have a body which can die, as Jesus did.

Rather than insisting on "exact" representation and "exact" equality between the man/Messiah Jesus, there MUST be some logical and rational allowance for God the Father to have some differences to the man Jesus in some natural ways, rather than God having “exactly the same” nature as Jesus otherwise one must accept the logical theological consequences of the father being exactly like the Son.”


If Gods' Nature is EXACTLY like Jesus' nature, and Jesus gets tired and is ignorant of certain facts, then this implies God gets tired and is ignorant of certain facts.
The Nature of God and Jesus cannot be EXACTLY alike in all respects.

Clear
ειφιδρακφυω

 

[Oeste]

While readers may take away from the text additional meaning not found in the bare text, the translator of actual, authentic, written Greek is not allowed to add any adjective at all to the translation.

I see no prohibition against using words that better describe an author’s intent. Translation is tied to the intent of the author and not to a particular word in a dictionary. There will be times when there is a one-to-one correlation, but not always. Also there will be times when a formal one-to-one translation is not preferred.

A trinitarian is not allowed to add “equal”, or “exact”, or “same” to the text.
A non-trinitarian is not allowed to add “similar” or “like” to the text.
An atheist is not allowed to add adjectives such as “imaginary” or “non existent” to the text.
An Agnostic is not allowed to add “maybe” or “could be” to the text.

I agree! Changing the source text would be very bad. For translators, the key is keeping fidelity with the source while conveying its full meaning into your target language.

Let’s take an example from a bible we all use…the authorized King James Bible.

Now let’s turn to Hosea 17:6 and read the first few words:

עָ֗ל לֹ֣א יָשׁ֣וּבוּ׀
return not height​

Literally, that’s all the opening to Hosea 17:6 says, yet, if we are to believe @Clear, all bibles, including his own are in “error”:

KJV They return, but not to the most High:

NWT They changed course, but not to anything loftier;

ESV They return, but not upward;

AV They return, but not to the most High:

NASB They turn, but not upward,

LEB They turn, not to the Most High,

CSB They turn, but not to what is above;

NIV They do not turn to the Most High;

NRSV They turn to that which does not profit;​

So what’s the problem? There is none. Each translation is using a functional rather than formal translation.

Remember the goal of the translator: it’s to convey the author’s intent (meaning) into a target language. A formal translation is simply not going to do that for us here. “Return not height” makes perfect sense in Hebrew during the period and culture when it was written, but would make little sense if literally translated into modern English today.


Example 2 (New Testament)

Culture may change language:

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.” Mat 21:33​

When translating the above into Tausug a translator asked the native speakers how to properly translate “went into a far country”.

They tried various words such as Viaje, a word borrowed from Spanish which means to take a trip for a specific purpose—a purpose like smuggling or carrying passengers. This didn’t seem to fit, since the parable didn’t mention a specific purpose for the owner’s trip.

Layn means to change one’s residence. The parable doesn’t say that the vineyard owner was moving, so they looked for another word.

The translator asked the team, “The owner of the vineyard didn’t give his destination, didn’t say how long he planned to stay, or when he was coming back. How would you say that?”

The team replied, “We would say, ‘he paddled.’”

The people live over the water in houses on stilts, and they earn their living from the sea. From birth, they spend time in their boats. “But,” the translator said, “this vineyard owner lived in the interior, not near the shore, and he didn’t go on a boat.”

“That doesn’t matter,” the team replied, “This is the word we’d use even if he went by truck or on foot.”

So in that New Testament, the owner of the vineyard “paddled” to a far country.

Example 3 (Old Testament)

In ancient Hebrew culture, the kidneys were considered the center of feelings and desires. The heart was viewed as the center of thought. In English, we feel with our hearts and think with our minds, and we don’t speak of our kidneys figuratively at all. So when we translate a passage like Psalm 7:9, we swap body parts: “. . . you who test the minds [Hebrew: hearts] and hearts [Hebrew: kidneys], O righteous God!”

These kinds of cultural differences in expression are needed to allow God’s word to speak to the reader’s hearts (or kidneys, if you prefer) while keeping fidelity with the written word and the author’s intent. It's extremely difficult to spread the gospel if we insist on speaking in confusing cultural terms or in a language the audience doesn't understand.

Example 4 (It's been done before)

Also germane to our discussion is the widely noted fact that the Septuagint demonstrates a “noticeable concern” to reduce anthropomorphisms. Psalms 28 (LXX 27)and 31 (LXX 30) provide examples. In both instances, the metaphor tsur ‘rock’ is avoided in the Greek. In the first instance where David addresses God as “my rock,” the Septuagint substitutes kurie “O Lord.” In the second instance (Psalm 31:3), David says to God, Heyeh lile tsur ma’oz “Be(come) for me as a rock of refuge.” In the Septuagint, “Be(come) for me as God, Protector.” It is likely that this approach was followed in the interests of better communication, that is, to forestall misunderstanding in a translation that would be used in an idolatrous context.

Source: The First Versions: The Septuagint, the Targums, and the Latin David Burke​

As we can see, the Septuagint changed what was found in the original Hebrew in order to preserve the intent of the author. Rather than say "My rock" they substituted "O Lord" in order to address their target pagan audience yet they still retained fidelity with the original text. Ditto for "...a rock of refuge" which becomes "God Protector".

If we are truly tied to words rather than meaning we would go forth and preach in Hebrew and Koine Greek. However I suspect this would be even more confusing then listening to a Mass in Latin.

@Clear may have a personal preference for wooden word-for-word translations but I do not see his theology reflected by the traditional Christian church (early or current), the 70 plus Jewish scholars who wrote the Septuagint, or even by the Mormon church.

 

[Oeste]

ASSUMING AN AUTHOR OR SPEAKER MEANT SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY SAID OR WROTE DOES NOT JUSTIFY CHANGING A QUOTE OR A TEXT

On March 21, 1942 General McArthur, in a speech said “I came through and I shall return”.
McArthur may have actually MEANT, he would “return with an army” but he didn't say that.
We cannot quote McArthur as saying “My army and I came through this difficult situation and the army and I will return to free Bataan”

McArthur said “I shall return” regardless of what his intent was.

There's no need to add “army” or to make up quotes here, and I'm not aware of anyone who quoted him as saying “My army and I came through this difficult situation and the army and I will return to free Bataan”

McArthur told the Philippine people and his men "I shall return". He did exactly that on October 20, 1944.

 

[Oeste]

Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.
God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did...

You would have to explain why these things “are not particularly 'Godly'" and how ungodly you think they are. I’m not sure why being a servant is not Godly (Genesis 2:18; Genesis 3:21; Mark 10:45; Matthew 18:4) or why it wasn’t particularly Godly for Jesus to send the Spirit. (John 14:16)

Also I am not following the inherent logic of your argument. We were talking about character like righteousness, faithfulness, loyalty, charity (giving), empathy, mercy, etc. and whether Jesus represents these attributes of the Father “exactly” or “similarly”.

For example, Person A can be giving, person B can be giving but it does not mean they live the exact same lives even if both are giving the exact same amount or for exactly the same reasons. So it does not follow that two persons of exact character will do the exact same thing, go into the exact same line of work, or experience life exactly the same.

Third, in the Trinity the pre-incarnate Jesus is not “similar” but exactly the same in substance. The Son and the Father are not exact in person but they are exact in character. A lot of your questions might be stumpers for Modalists but it’s important to remember that the historic, traditional church views Jesus as having a dual nature.

 

[Oeste]

DOES THE WORD “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 IMPLY “EXACTNESS” IN IDENTIFYING SKIN LESIONS?

It implies who is clean and unclean with “exactness” in the eyes of the Lord. The priest makes a spiritual diagnosis, not a medical one.

I am a medical clinician and I saw a χαρακτηρ a few days ago on the skin of a teenage girl.

You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.

Since you claim the verse describes “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not”, you can help me out?

A medical clinician has different guidelines and criteria than a priest. In order to make a diagnosis with any exactness they’ll take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab. They are not going to follow any guidance found in Leviticus but they will follow those published by the CDC, AMA or any of the various accredited and Board certified professional societies peculiar to their profession and practice.

The diagnosis of a Levitical priest will not match up one-to-one with the International Classification of Diseases v. 10 used by modern medical clinicians.

The Levitical priest will follow the guidelines and criteria as spelled out under the Law. Two different authorities, two different professions, two sets of guidelines, two different diagnoses , two different time periods that are operating under two different domains.

What do I tell the parents of the girl I saw with the Χαρακτηρ on her arm that I mentioned in post #760?

As a medical clinician, you are most likely telling her you have most likely made a general diagnosis, and that are waiting on the lab results prior making a diagnosis of any specificity

 

[Oeste]

That the imprint of God's nature is exactly the same as God's nature goes without saying really, it is what it is. As a man Jesus had the nature of God

I appreciate the fact that you have a personal belief. I honor this.
However, declaring your personal belief is irrelevant to the question of word definition and textual translation of Hebrews 1:3.
The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.) and not "Exact Character" in early Koine greek. Historical vocabulary and historical definitions do not change based on our shared beliefs.

This belief is not only personal, it's doctrinal; shared and supported by the historic, traditional church.

Your belief which elevates formal over functional translation (even when an author is clearly speaking metaphorically) does not seem to be shared by the Mormon church.

Mischaracterization of another theological belief does not change the meaning of the ancient, single, greek word, "Χαρακτηρ".
"Character" still meant “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 in ancient Koine Greek and we have no ancient greek base text or variation of the base text that has "exact Character" in Hebrews 1:3.

Why start and stop here? If you believe "exact representation" changes the meaning of "representation" then, to be consistent, "heart" should be changed back to "kidney" in the KJV as well as many other verses, and we should not stop there. We should make long needed changes to the Septuagint as well.

 

[JW Minister]

From my conversation and studies with Jehovah Witnesses they sincerely believe Jesus claims to be “a god” at John 10:33, but they would be wrong…not only from majority Christian standards but by Watchtower standards as well. 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.

Let’s take a look at a traditional (NIV) and the Watchtower’s New World Translation (NWT) paying special attention to verse 33:

30 I and the Father are one.”

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”​

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” NIV​

OR:

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT​

We’ll proceed with the “a god” translation as if it were correct, just to see how much mileage we get. Unfortunately this crashes us head first into our first dilemma.

Dilemma #1: Blasphemy

As soon as Jesus said “The Father and I are one” the Jews picked up stones. When Jesus asked why, the Jews explained it was for making himself “a god” according to the Watchtower’s translation.

This presents us with our first dilemma. According to the NWT, the blasphemy was for abusing Jehovah’s name, not some “gods’” name:

View attachment 41469

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/nwt/books/john/10/#v43010033

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”.


Dilemma #2: Biblical/Historical record

Jehovah Witnesses and other Arians are quick to tell us that judges, magistrates, and other powerful people were routinely considered or called “gods”. The problem here is that the NWT tells us the Jews were about to stone Jesus for calling himself “a god”. It doesn’t matter if the Jews were wrong or correct in their interpretation, what matters is their explanation that Jesus should be stoned simply for calling himself “a god”.


Let’s think about this…If Jews are stoning Jesus for being “a god” then all the other “gods”…their judges, magistrates, and other “powerful people”…were equally subject to being stoned by the Jews!

Yet the biblical and historical record is absolutely silent in this regard. There is no record of Jews stoning their judges, magistrates, or other “powerful people” simply for considering themselves “gods”.

So where’s the evidence?


Dilemma #3: Watchtower claims Jesus is “a god” (John 1:1) but not “a god” (John 10:33)

This is perhaps the most bizarre dilemma of all. Witnesses believe that the WT teaches Jesus is “a god”. Perhaps the Watchtower does, but as I am about to illustrate they just don’t teach it all the time. In fact, the WT claims that at John 10:33, Jesus specifically denies he’s “a god” at all! The reason for this will become clear.

Let go back to the Watchtower’s biblical scenario:

The mob is about to stone Jesus for blasphemy…calling himself “a god” according to the WT translation. They have rocks in hand, and they're itching to fly. But Jesus, having grabbed the crowd’s undivided attention does something curious. He quotes Psalm 82:6:

I have said, “You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. But like mortals you will die, and like rulers you will fail.” Psalm 82:6-7.​

The last thing you want to do with a stone wielding crowd is compare yourself to Israel’s judges of old. Why? Because the judges of old were condemned by Jehovah God! In other words, Jesus is saying “The judges of old were “sons of God”, I am the son of God, the judges of old were “gods” and I just told you I was “a god”, the judges of old were condemned by God…so what on earth is taking you so long to condemn me?”

If that doesn’t get a rock hurtling by your ear, I don’t know what would, and therein lays the Watchtower’s dilemma. They simply can’t have Jesus comparing himself to the corrupt judges of Israel by declaring he’s “a god” at John 10:33, and they certainly can’t have the crowd thinking that Jesus had just declared himself “God”.

But our clever “truth finding” friends at the Watchtower have a solution. A “twofer” they gleaned straight out of the text. Not only does Jesus deny he’s God at John 10:33, he also denies he’s “a god”! :

· 66 Jesus told those who wanted to stone him that he had not claimed to be God or a god, even though Psalm 82:6 had called some men, some Israelite judges, “gods.”

- The Watchtower—9/15/1962 pp. 560-567​

source: Prehuman Existence — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY (see paragraph 66)

How the WT got Jesus to deny being God and/or “a god” at John 10:33 is baffling, but I suppose if you’re a Jehovah Witness it’s all there right there, embedded somewhere in the text.

Unfortunately that still leaves us with a huge problem. Let’s not forget that Jehovah Witnesses tell us Jesus is “a god” at John 1:1 so it’s really disconcerting to see them claiming Jesus denies ever being “a god” by the time John 10:33 rolls around. But as the quote and link above shows, this is “current truth” even to this day.

It’s a confusing, contradictory Christology.

I and the Father are one Jesus said so does that me Jesus was saying he is GOD?
What was he really saying here? the clue is a prayer :

New World Translation John 17
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.


Good News Translation
And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one.


In your explanation I dont remember this passage being explained .

So if Jesus is GOD then all of his followers are the same person

As far as being a god yes Jesus is a god that doesn't mean almighty God ,the Devil is called a god angels are called gods :

English Standard Version
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
Angels are godlike beings very powerful one Angel killed close to a million solders

Jesus never said he was GOD he always said he was the son of GOD

 

[Clear]

1) THE CONSEQUENCE OF USING PERSONAL THEOLOGY AS A MEANS OF “TRANSLATION” INSTEAD OF THE ACTUAL MEANING OF WORDS.

Clear said : “The single greek word "Χαρακτηρ" (“character”) still meant “Character” (imprint, etc.) and not "Exact Character" in early Koine greek. Historical vocabulary and historical definitions do not change based on our shared beliefs.”

Oeste said : “I see no prohibition against using words that better describe an author’s intent. Translation is tied to the intent of the author and not to a particular word in a dictionary.”

I agree with this to a point.

The problem with using a theology as the dominating criteria underlying translation is that theological opinion is, to a certain extent, arbitrary.
What happens if we allow that sort of arbitrariness determining what the intent of the ancient author was?



2) THE PROBLEM WITH VARIOUS RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT CREATING THEIR OWN PARAPHRASE

Each of the many conflicting Christian movements have their own opinions regarding what a specific text means to them.

If each of these religious movements simply creates a bible that paraphrases and supports their own theology without regard to the actual text, there will be a hundred paraphrases instead of accurate translations. For example :

The original codex reads “He reflects the glory of God and [bears] the stamp of his nature, upholding (or bringing forth / carrying / gk φερων) the universe by his word of power."

A trinitarian, using their theology as a guide to creating a bible might render the phrase “Jesus, who is the same being as God the father, therefore radiates Gods glory just as he did as in his manifestation as the father since the two, son and Father are the same being because Jesus is the God, who, as the Word upholds the Universe as the Father."
A non-trinitarian, using their theology as a guide to creating a bible might render the phrase “Jesus displays the same type of glory that God has and he not God, but instead, Jesus is an example of Gods nature. Jesus is, in this way, somehow divine and was able to bring forth the universe having been given power and authority to do so by God, his Father.”
Another Christian movement, using their theology as a guide to creating a bible might render the phrase “Jesus was really a good man, even a Godly man and had a godly nature in that he was kind and patient with others. This is what made him Godly and Jesus was grateful in his recognition that God made the universe."

Each religious movement may assume the authors intent was describing their own theology.
Each movement may create a bible that conforms to their own theology, rather than forming their theology to the text.
It is the original text and fidelity to it that anchors us to early Christian thought and worldviews.

While I agree that there is some leeway in wording, Hebrews 1:3 does not need to be changed.
The word “Character” can keep the meaning of “Character” without causing theological upheaval or confusion of meaning.




3) THE LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ATTRIBUTING CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES TO GOD

Clear said : If the man Jesus is an “Exact” representation of God’s nature, this will have theological consequences that logically, must follow “exactness”.
IF Jesus and God share the EXACT same nature then God must share characteristics which are not particularly “Godly”. For examples :

God the Father must be a servant of another since Jesus was.
God must have been sent by another as Jesus was.
God the Father must follow the commandments of his Father since Jesus did.
God the Father must have been born of a mother since Jesus was.
God the Father must have grown up, since Jesus did.
God the Father must sometimes become tired and sleep, as Jesus did.
God must eat, as Jesus did.
God must be ignorant of certain facts, as Jesus was.
God must have power which is given him by another, as Jesus had.
God must have a Father, as Jesus did.
God must have a body and hair and knees and dirty feet as Jesus did.
God must have a body which can die, as Jesus did. (post #761)


Oeste replied : “You would have to explain why these things “are not particularly 'Godly'" and how ungodly you think they are.” (post #768)



GOD MUST POSSESS CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS IN ORDER FOR US TO HAVE FAITH IN HIM

While the God of the universe may Choose to serve mankind, if God does not have all authority but instead is “sent” by another being to accomplish another beings purpose this undermines the authority and sovereignty of the God of the universe.

If God is not the most powerful being in the universe, we cannot center our faith in him since a more powerful being could thwart his promises to us.

If God ceases to function due to tiredness and lack of sleep or lack of food then he is subject to external needs to function.

If God is ignorant of certain facts, we could not center our faith in him since there could be things he did not know that could thwart his eternal plans.

If God receives his powers and authority from another being, then he may not be the most powerful being and we have no guarantee that he will always have authority and power to carry out his eternal purposes and his promises.

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character".



4) WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING TRANSLATION OF HEBREWS 1:3

Oeste said : "We were talking about character like righteousness, faithfulness, loyalty, charity (giving), empathy, mercy, etc. and whether Jesus represents these attributes of the Father “exactly” or “similarly”.

No. We were not.

We were talking about translation of the single word “Character” in Hebrews 1:3 and whether the single word "Character" meant “Exact Character”.

In Koine Greek and in english, “Character” meant “Character”.
One had to add an adjective such as “exact”, before “Character” becomes “Exact Character”.




5) THEOLOGY IS DIFFERENT THAN TRANSLATION OF TEXT

I have always agreed with the theology that Jesus has the same characteristics of “righteousness, faithfulness, loyalty, charity (giving), empathy, mercy, etc.” that characterize God the Father. This doesn’t change the fact that in ancient Koine, the single word “Character” meant “Character”.

Oeste said : "For example, Person A can be giving, person B can be giving but it does not mean they live the exact same lives even if both are giving the exact same amount or for exactly the same reasons. So it does not follow that two persons of exact character will do the exact same thing, go into the exact same line of work, or experience life exactly the same."

The fact that they do different things, do different work, and experience a different life means they are not EXACTLY the same in certain ways.

If they DO different things, this is a DIFFERENCE.
If they DO different work, this is another DIFFERENCE.
If they live different lives, this is another DIFFERENCE.

Person A and Person B share SOME Characteristics.
They do not share the same EXACT Characteristics and they do not share the same EXACT nature.

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character"



6) THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” IN LEVITICUS 13:28 TELLS EXACTLY WHAT DESCRIBES LEPROSY AND WHAT DOES NOT

Clear said : “For example, when χαρακτηρ/Characteristic was used in Leviticus 13:28 it speaks of a skin lesion that represents something else (The chapter deals with identifying leprosy)...” The scar is a Χαρακτηρ or Characteristic of the burn. It is NOT an “exact representation” of the burn. It looks, in fact, different. But it is a χαρακτηρ or a sign or identifying mark of the burn. No exactness is implied.

Oeste replied ; “I see the verse as telling the priest exactly what marks leprosy and what does not. This exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”



TESTING THIS CLAIM OF TELLING THE PRIEST "EXACTLY" WHAT MARKS LEPROSY

Clear tested this claim by using an example of a girl with a skin lesion, a “χαρακτηρ”.

Clear asked Oeste : “You claim Leviticus, tells the priest "exactly" what marks leprosy and what does not.
If so, can you use the information from Leviticus, tell me EXACTLY what it looked like that tells me it was not leprosy.
OR, did I make a mistake and should I call the parents back and tell them their child has leprosy.


Oeste responded : “A medical clinician has different guidelines and criteria than a priest. In order to make a diagnosis with any exactness they’ll take a skin biopsy and send it to a lab.

Wrong.
Maybe you are watching too much television. It was obvious the girl simply had a spot of eczema.
There was no need for any silliness, no waste of money and no waste of time with a biopsy.


Oeste responded : “As a medical clinician, you are most likely telling her you have most likely made a general diagnosis, and that are waiting on the lab results prior making a diagnosis of any specificity.”

Wrong again. This is yet another example of wrong assumptions..

Even if you had taken the time to think and ask me questions based on Leviticus which you claim was so "exact", you could not have accurately distinguished leprosy from eczema using the description in Leviticus because leviticus did NOT describe leprosy sufficiently to tell the difference between leprosy and this girl's eczema.

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character"




THE CLAIM THAT “CHARACTER” MEANS “EXACT CHARACTER” DOESN’T WORK.

The claim that the use of “χαρακτηρ” (Character) in Leviticus has "....exactness helps the priest differentiate between lesions that represent leprosy and similar lesions which do not.”
Doesn’t work.

Using the "exactness" of the description in leviticus, Oeste is unable to tell the difference between leprosy and common eczema using a description that is “exactly what marks leprosy and what does not.”

None of this changes the meaning of the Greek word "Character" into "exact character"



After these many posts, we are still left with the single greek word for "Character" still meaning "Character".
The only way "Character" in Koine greek meant "exact Character" was to add the adjective "exact" to the word "Character". Same as in english.


Clear
ειφιφυειακω

 

[Muffled]

I and the Father are one Jesus said so does that me Jesus was saying he is GOD?
What was he really saying here? the clue is a prayer :

New World Translation John 17
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.


Good News Translation
And now I am coming to you; I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world. Holy Father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one.


In your explanation I dont remember this passage being explained .

So if Jesus is GOD then all of his followers are the same person

As far as being a god yes Jesus is a god that doesn't mean almighty God ,the Devil is called a god angels are called gods :

English Standard Version
I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;
Angels are godlike beings very powerful one Angel killed close to a million solders

Jesus never said he was GOD he always said he was the son of GOD

I believe so.

I believe that is not correct logic. The prayer does not alter the statement nor does it controvert it.

I believe God is the same person in all those who have received Jesus as Lord and Savior.

 

[Skywalker]

Witnesses are aware that God is separate from Jesus. When they call him god they're referring to God being manifested in the flesh. I mean the dude did rise from the dead after all.

"Thunder lips in the flesh baby"
Haha

I believe that Jesus is God because He referred to Himself as the Son of man multiple times.

 

[metis]

I believe that Jesus is God because He referred to Himself as the Son of man multiple times.

But "son of man" is more of a messianic statement than one of divinity.

 

[Skywalker]

But "son of man" is more of a messianic statement than one of divinity.

Everlasting Father is a reference to the Messiah being God.

 

[metis]

Everlasting Father is a reference to the Messiah being God.

"Everlasting Father" is a reference to God the Father, thus not the Son.

 

[Skywalker]

"Everlasting Father" is a reference to God the Father, thus not the Son.

I believe in the Sonship of Jesus in the Trinity.

 

[metis]

I believe in the Sonship of Jesus in the Trinity.

You obviously have the right to believe whatever you want.

The Trinitarian concept does distinguish between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but what it also does posit is the "essence" of God being in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, thus being much more than just a use of symbolism.

 

[Skywalker]

You obviously have the right to believe whatever you want.

The Trinitarian concept does distinguish between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but what it also does posit is the "essence" of God being in Jesus and the Holy Spirit, thus being much more than just a use of symbolism.

Jesus is part of the Trinity because the Bible says that the iniquity of us all was laid upon him. The Messiah has a ministry that has an international scope and his ministry extends to the Gentiles. Jesus said that he was the judge of all people, and Joel 3:12 says God will sit to judge all the nations on every side.