Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[TiggerII]

Of course the angel is delivering the message. That doesn't change any of the points I made.

The angel was delivering the message he was sent to deliver. It was clearly being said thru the angel's message, that he (the one coming quickly) was the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Revelation 22:12-13

Revelation 22:16 lets you know who sent his angel. Just a few verses earlier it said it was God who sent his angel. Revelation 22:6 ( More proof he is the Almighty)

Surely you don't think the angel was speaking for, or about himself in Revelation 22:12-13 do you?

When there is a quote within a quote, single quotation marks are used (').

So if the angel had spoken all the words from Rev. 22:10-15, it would have been punctuated like this in the NASB (and others):

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

11 “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

13 “[beginning of God's words as quoted by the angel] 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.' [end of God's words as spoken through the angel.]

14 [angel continues]"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

15 "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." [end of angel's words]

Instead we have the NASB (and many more) translating it:

10 And he said to me, [angel begins speaking]“Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.


11 [angel continues]“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.” [end of angel's words]


12 [new speaker]“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.


13 [speaker continues]“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” [End of this speaker's (God's) words]


14 [John's narration begins] Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


15 [John's narration continues] Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. [John's narration ends]


The next speaker is clearly identified as not the angel, not God, not John, but Jesus! There is no connection here between 'Alpha and Omega' and Jesus in the NASB translation (or the many others I have cited).

 

[Brian2]

Hi Brian2,

You seem to be able to see that the scriptures prove he was YHWH manifest in the flesh. Yet you still believe in the Trinity don't you?

Yes I'm afraid so.

 

[Brian2]

Is Jesus ‘Alpha and Omega’ in Rev. 22?
Now look at Rev. 22:8-16. John is identified as the speaker in 22:8. The angel speaks in verse 9). The angel apparently continues speaking in verse 10). The angel may be still speaking in verse 11) --- or it could be John or even someone else (as implied in verse 10 in the NAB, 1970 ed.).

Now is the angel still speaking in verse 12) or is it God, or is it Jesus, or even John? There is simply no way of telling who the speaker is from any of the early Bible manuscripts. It’s entirely a matter of translator’s choice. Some translators have decided it is the angel who continues to speak, and they punctuate it accordingly. So the NASB, JB, and NJB use quotation marks to show that these are all words spoken by the angel.

However, the NKJV, NEB, REB, RSV, and NRSV show by their use of quotation marks that someone else is now speaking in verse 12. Most Bibles indicate that the person who spoke verse 12 (whether God, angel, Jesus, or John) also spoke verse 13 (“I am Alpha and Omega”).

Let's forget about quotation marks that do not appear in the original text and are just added for our convenience and can be manipulated as desired by translators as you indicate.
The NWT indicates that it is God speaking in verse 12 and 13. ie the one who says I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end in verse 13 is the one who is coming quickly in verse 13.
Of course we know that Jesus is the first and the last, and that means the same as the Alpha and Omega,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and we know that the one in verse 20 who says "Yes I am coming quickly" (as if He had already just said it---verse 12 maybe ) is Jesus.
Could it be that the text is telling us that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

When there is a quote within a quote, single quotation marks are used (').

So if the angel had spoken all the words from Rev. 22:10-15, it would have been punctuated like this in the NASB (and others):

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.

11 “Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.

12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.

13 “[beginning of God's words as quoted by the angel] 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.' [end of God's words as spoken through the angel.]

14 [angel continues]"Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

15 "Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying." [end of angel's words]

Instead we have the NASB (and many more) translating it:

10 And he said to me, [angel begins speaking]“Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.


11 [angel continues]“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.” [end of angel's words]


12 [new speaker]“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.


13 [speaker continues]“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” [End of this speaker's (God's) words]


14 [John's narration begins] Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.


15 [John's narration continues] Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. [John's narration ends]


The next speaker is clearly identified as not the angel, not God, not John, but Jesus! There is no connection here between 'Alpha and Omega' and Jesus in the NASB translation (or the many others I have cited).

You are just muddying the waters. Adding in your quotation marks to suit your beliefs.

It is clear to see the one coming quickly is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last.
And it is also clear to see who the one coming quickly is referring to from Revelation 22:20

 

[Clear]

Hi Tigger2;

I have a question regarding your claim that different persons may be speaking in various verses in revelations chapt 22. .


REGARDING VERSE 10 (SECOND PHRASE) THROUGH VERSE 15 AND CHANGE OF SPEAKERS

Are you claiming that there is a change of speakers from verse 10 (second phrase) through verse 15?
If so, where is the transition from one person to another and on what data and reasoning are you personally using to support this theory?

Thanks for this information in advance.

Clear.
εισετωνεω

The ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version; TEV; and WE show (by quotation marks and indenting) that Rev. 22:14 and 15 are not the words of the speaker of verses 12 and 13 but are John’s words. (The Jerusalem Bible; the NJB; and Moffatt show us that the angel spoke all the words from verse 10 through verse 15.) Then they show Jesus as a new speaker beginning to speak in verse 16.

So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)

The Trinitarian-translated Bibles cited above are the ones who are saying (by use of quotation marks) that there is a change of speakers between verses 10 -15. The exceptions, as noted above, are JB; NJB; and Moffatt whose quotation marks indicate that the angel spoke everything from verse 10 - 15.

Do you think I should explain the use and non-use of quotation marks in English for others here?

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/ao-speaker-confusion.html

Hi @tigger2

I apologize. I didn't notice you had responded until I saw your post just a few minutes ago.

1) I am confused as to why you think Jesus cannot be a Messenger that is mentioned in verse 10. He was not just A messenger, but he was THE preeminent messenger who brought the Gospel during his life. Can you explain why you think Jesus cannot be a messenger? (I assume you realize that the word for "angel" and "messenger" are the same word and it is only context that causes a translator to use one word instead of another (i.e. angel versus messenger).

The word "angelos" (gk αγγελοσ) IS a messenger and a Messenger IS an αγγελοσ, whether is it an angel/messenger from a king or an angel/messenger from God. The only way to tell if the "angel"/Messenger is from God or a man sent as a messenger from a person of power is by context. Why do you think these specific verses prohibit Jesus of vs 16 from being a messenger that is referred to in vs 10?

2) I am also confused as to why you think the quotations in an english version have anything to do with the original greek. Can you explain why you are referring to the use of quotations as a reason to believe the messenger in vs 10 is not the same speaker in vs 16? As you know, quotations without a referral source are somewhat arbitrary in their usage.

Regarding your questions about quotations. No, I do not think quotations and non quotations are relevant in this instance, since the source greek does not use them and they are used as interpretive tools by whoever is translating the greek in vs 10-16 of revelations chapter 22. Different translators will use them differently in these specific verses, depending upon their bias.

3) Can you explain your claim that IF one insists that if the speaker being referred to in vs 15 is a messenger who is Jesus, then one is saying "john is Jesus"?

Thanks for the additional information.

Clear
εινεφισιω

 

[TiggerII]

Hi @tigger2

I apologize. I didn't notice you had responded until I saw your post just a few minutes ago.

1) I am confused as to why you think Jesus cannot be a Messenger that is mentioned in verse 10. He was not just A messenger, but he was THE preeminent messenger who brought the Gospel during his life. Can you explain why you think Jesus cannot be a messenger? (I assume you realize that the word for "angel" and "messenger" are the same word and it is only context that causes a translator to use one word instead of another (i.e. angel versus messenger).

The word "angelos" (gk αγγελοσ) IS a messenger and a Messenger IS an αγγελοσ, whether is it an angel/messenger from a king or an angel/messenger from God. The only way to tell if the "angel"/Messenger is from God or a man sent as a messenger from a person of power is by context. Why do you think these specific verses prohibit Jesus of vs 16 from being a messenger that is referred to in vs 10?

2) I am also confused as to why you think the quotations in an english version have anything to do with the original greek. Can you explain why you are referring to the use of quotations as a reason to believe the messenger in vs 10 is not the same speaker in vs 16? As you know, quotations without a referral source are somewhat arbitrary in their usage.

Regarding your questions about quotations. No, I do not think quotations and non quotations are relevant in this instance, since the source greek does not use them and they are used as interpretive tools by whoever is translating the greek in vs 10-16 of revelations chapter 22. Different translators will use them differently in these specific verses, depending upon their bias.

3) Can you explain your claim that IF one insists that if the speaker being referred to in vs 15 is a messenger who is Jesus, then one is saying "john is Jesus"?

Thanks for the additional information.

Clear
εινεφισιω

I am concentrating on quotation marks here because it shows the understanding of the translators. Trinitarian translators and scholars, understandably, very rarely translate a verse or passage which includes a standard trinity 'proof' in a non-trinitarian way unless they believe it is necessary. In other words, these NT Greek experts believe this particular trinity 'proof' is false.

So when we see that at least 19 trinitarian-translated Bibles show that their trinitarian translators do not believe the 'Alpha and Omega' statement here was made by Jesus, it is certainly far from a trinity 'proof.' It is disputed by many trinitarian translators and publishers.

 

[Brian2]

I am concentrating on quotation marks here because it shows the understanding of the translators. Trinitarian translators and scholars, understandably, very rarely translate a verse or passage which includes a standard trinity 'proof' in a non-trinitarian way unless they believe it is necessary. In other words, these NT Greek experts believe this particular trinity 'proof' is false.

So when we see that at least 19 trinitarian-translated Bibles show that their trinitarian translators do not believe the 'Alpha and Omega' statement here was made by Jesus, it is certainly far from a trinity 'proof.' It is disputed by many trinitarian translators and publishers.

It seems to be you who is saying that the quotation marks in the NASB around verses 12, 13 refer to God. Why do you think that the translators thought that?
They are not the ones who want to hide the idea that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. You are putting thoughts in their head which they probably did not have.
Imo they probably realised that anyone should be able to see that the one coming quickly in verse 7 and verse 12 and verse 20 is the same person.

 

[Clear]

I am concentrating on quotation marks here because it shows the understanding of the translators. Trinitarian translators and scholars, understandably, very rarely translate a verse or passage which includes a standard trinity 'proof' in a non-trinitarian way unless they believe it is necessary. In other words, these NT Greek experts believe this particular trinity 'proof' is false.

So when we see that at least 19 trinitarian-translated Bibles show that their trinitarian translators do not believe the 'Alpha and Omega' statement here was made by Jesus, it is certainly far from a trinity 'proof.' It is disputed by many trinitarian translators and publishers.

It seems to be you who is saying that the quotation marks in the NASB around verses 12, 13 refer to God. Why do you think that the translators thought that?
They are not the ones who want to hide the idea that Jesus is the Alpha and Omega. You are putting thoughts in their head which they probably did not have.
Imo they probably realised that anyone should be able to see that the one coming quickly in verse 7 and verse 12 and verse 20 is the same person.

Hi @tigger2,

1) INTERPRETING THE INTERPRETORS
I have to agree with @Brian2 on his point that you seem to be over-interpretating the translators to have translated against their own theology in order to have them agree with your theology.
Your claim that these "trinitarian translators" believe this particular trinity proof "is false" has insufficient supporting data as far as I can tell. I suspect the trinitarian translators would say you have misrepresented them.

Where do you find the actual translators telling us that this text doesn't support their own theology?


2) INTERPRETING ARBITRARY QUOTATIONS?
"Translating quotations" is a very "iffy" and "arbitrary" set of data partly because quotation marks themselves are somewhat arbitrary.

For example, KJV has no quotation marks at all while the NIV has quotation marks on almost each sentence that encompasses verses 12-16. Thus, the NIV has the person saying "I am the Alpha and Omega" in verse 12 as Jesus of verse 16 in this phrasing in it's pattern of opening and closing quote marks.

While I can support some of your translation claims against the majority (e.g. John 1:1c, and John 10:33), this specific claim regarding the trinitarian translators, I find unsupportable as it goes directly against logic and lacks supporting data..


3) JESUS AS A MESSENGER
I am still confused as to why you think Jesus cannot be a Messenger. I assume you realize that the word for "angel" and "messenger" are the same word and it is only context that causes a translator to use one word instead of another (i.e. angel versus messenger).

4 THE UNUSUAL CLAIM THAT IF THE MESSENGER OF VS 15 IS JESUS, THEN ONE MUST CONCLUDE "JOHN IS JESUS"
Can you explain your claim that IF one insists that if the speaker being referred to in vs 15 is a messenger who is Jesus, then one is saying "john is Jesus"?



Clear
τωτζφισεω

 

[Oeste]

Alpha and Omega is a title used only for the Father [YHWH].

First and Last however, meaning 'only' may be used for many persons and things. E.g., Adam is the first and last person made from the dust of the earth. I'm sure you can see how Eve was first and last in some respect.

Likewise, I can imagine how some might see Moses as "the first and the last" to part the Red Sea, and even more to claim they were "the first and the last" to set sail on the Titanic, but somehow I don't think that's what the authors had in mind.

Besides, Revelation 22:13 tells us it's all the same:

"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”​

Three questions:

1. Are you really asking us to understand that God is "the first and the last" in the same manner as Adam was "the first and the last" made from dust???

2. Wouldn't your interpretation tell us that God is simply "a first and a last" since their have been untold "firsts and lasts" since the beginning?

3. If we are to understand "the first and the last" to mean an 'only' that 'may be used for many persons and things', why do you think this phraseology is included here, with "the Alpha and the Omega"?

 

[cataway]

Likewise, I can imagine how some might see Moses as "the first and the last" to part the Red Sea,

side note ;did you ever read about ''napoleoon's escape from the red sea'' ?

 

[TiggerII]

T2 wrote: "So, if you must insist that the person speaking just before verse 16 is the same person who is speaking in verse 16, then, according to the trinitarian ESV; ISV; LEB; MEV; MOUNCE; NAB (2010 ed.); NASB; NEB; NKJV; NLT; NRSV; REB; RSV; 21st Century King James Version, TEV; and WE, you are saying John is Jesus!!! (According to the JB and NJB you would be insisting that the angel is Jesus!)"

Because of the lack of quotation marks in 14, 15 in NASB (and the others), the translators are telling us John is narrating there. Then new quotation marks start in 16 and Jesus is clearly speaking there. So if you believe the same person speaking in 14 and 15 according to NASB is still speaking in 16, you are saying John is Jesus.

......................

There are only three places in all the Scriptures where the title “Alpha and Omega” is used: Rev. 1:8; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:13.

Rev. 1:8 is obviously the Almighty God.

Rev. 21:6 is, in context, God, the Father. 21:5 shows the "One seated on the throne" (the Father - cf. Rev. 5:1, 7,13), and 21:7 also shows the A&O is the Father.

Since the only other uses of "A&O" are the Father, the Almighty God, and it appears to me that it, unlike "first and last," is used as an exclusive name or title, I had decided that its use in Rev. 22:13 referred to God the Father, YHWH also.

For those who reject my understanding and insist that "A&O" should be applied to Jesus as the new speaker of Rev.22:13, I can see the possibility of it grammatically, but it seems highly unlikely to me.


"First and Last"

We could certainly call Jesus “The first and the last” because he was the first and last (only) direct creation by Jehovah himself. The rest of creation from Jehovah came through Jesus.

But, instead of speculating on the many ways Jesus could be considered the “first and the last” (only), we need to examine the use of “first and last” in context to discover in what sense it probably was intended originally!

Examining Is. 44:6, 8, we see that “first and last” refers to Jehovah being the only person who is the Most High God: “I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God ... I know not any.” - compare Is. 43:10.

Now if we examine Rev. 1:17, 18, we can see in what sense “the first and last” (only) is intended there. Context shows that it is not (as it could have been) in the sense of the only direct creation by the Father, Jehovah, and it is certainly not in the sense of the only true God (John 17:1, 3), but it clearly refers to the resurrection (the dying and then living again) of Jesus!

Notice that the entire context refers to death and being raised to eternal life by the Father Himself: Rev. 1:17:

“I am the first and the last, Rev. 1:17, 18) and the living one; and I was [or ‘became’] dead, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death ...” - compare Rev. 2:8 (the only other place Jesus calls himself “the first and the last”).

Jehovah, the Father, uses the expression at Rev. 22:13 - see the study on the “Speaker Confusion Trick” (AO) - and makes no reference to dying and living again, apparently intending it as he did at Is. 44:6 - “I am the only God.”

So in what sense is Jesus the first and last resurrected person? Just as he was the first and last (only) of Jehovah’s direct creations (and all other things were created through Jesus), so Jesus was also the first and last (only one) of those resurrected to eternal life who was resurrected directly by the Father (Jehovah) Himself (and all others are resurrected through Jesus who now has “the keys of death”) - see John 6:39, 40; Acts 3:26; Acts 13:30, 33, 38.

 

[TiggerII]

Who is coming?

If God is the Father alone, and is a separate person from Jesus (as JW's believe), and if he will not literally, physically come to earth (as JW's believe), then how can He be saying at Rev. 22:12 “I am coming soon” (as Jesus also says at Rev. 22:20)? Because Jesus is Jehovah, say trinitarians, and it is Jehovah/Jesus speaking in these scriptures, saying he is to come!

But the very trinitarian NIVSB tells us the following:

“Because God reigns over all things and is the Lord of history, Israel lived in hope (as the prophets announced) of the ‘coming’ of God - his future acts by which he would decisively deal with all wickedness and establish righteousness in the earth.” - Ps. 96:13 f.n. And, “The LORD [YHWH] is coming. An OT expression describing the Lord’s intervention in history [see Ps 18:9; 96:13; 144:5; Isa 26:21; 31:4; 64:1-3].” - Micah 1:3 footnote.

When John the Baptist’s father said, “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come and redeemed his people.” - Luke 1:66-68, NIV, he certainly did not mean the angel he was speaking to was literally God. He meant that God was now operating from heaven to help righteous mankind. When Moses was described as having God with him (Josh. 1:5), it meant God in heaven was helping him. When Joshua told the Israelites “God is among you” (Josh. 3:10), he was saying God was helping them!

The trinitarian Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, p. 64, 1980 ed., tells us about God “coming”:

There are three senses in which God is said ‘to come.’ God ‘comes’ through an angel (Judg. 6:11) or other incarnated being [such as Jesus]....


Secondly, God promises to ‘come’ to the faithful wherever and whenever they properly worship Him (Exod. 20:24)....

Finally, there is a group of prophetic pictures of divine ‘comings.’ This theme may have originated in the hymns sung of God’s ‘coming’ to aid His people in war (cf. Deut 33:2).

So when God “comes” to earth, he is often operating through some other person. When Moses came back to Egypt to help his people, God “came” to help them (through Moses). When Jesus came in the flesh to earth to help mankind, God “came” (through Jesus). And when Jesus “returns” from heaven, God “comes”! If Jesus is “coming soon” to do God’s will, then, by the very same act, God will “come” also (not literally, but through Jesus).

We can see the truth of this by looking at Rev. 1:8 and Rev. 1:4, 5.

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. - Rev. 1:8, RSV.

We know this is the Father alone because only he is called ‘the Lord God’ and ‘Almighty’ in holy scripture. Notice that the Father (not the Son) in this verse is described as one who is to come. And, again, these 2 verses show the same thing:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness....” - Rev. 1:4, 5, RSV.


Again there can be no doubt that this is the Father alone (not the Son) who is said ‘to come.’ He is clearly separated from the Christ and his holy spirit in this verse. Therefore, the sense in which he will ‘come’ must be as described above. And so it is clear that God will “come” and Jesus Christ will come, but they are still not both God!

 

[Brian2]

Again there can be no doubt that this is the Father alone (not the Son) who is said ‘to come.’ He is clearly separated from the Christ and his holy spirit in this verse. Therefore, the sense in which he will ‘come’ must be as described above. And so it is clear that God will “come” and Jesus Christ will come, but they are still not both God!

Certainly distinct from His Son and the His Holy Spirit, but that does not mean separate.
The Father can come with and in His Son, since the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father and in the Son dwell all the fullness of absolute deity in bodily form (Col 2:9).

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

It certainly looks as if He is coming in person, because His reward is with Him.

But whether Jesus is God or not is cleared up for us at John 1:3 where we see that every single thing that came into existence came into existence through the prehuman Jesus. That He is God is unquestionable at this point.
The mistake that some people make is to listen to the JW teachings about Jesus beyond this verse.

 

[Clear]

Hi @tigger2;

GRAMMAR FAVORS "A GOD"
Just as with the question underlying the lack of article in John 1:1c, the question of article in John 10:33 is going to be based on historical religious context since grammar was always in the favor of the Jehovahs Witnesses on this issue regarding John 10:33 and Jesus being "a" God in the text.

Regarding quotation marks
I felt like I was a bit snotty regarding my criticism of doing interpretation by looking at how a translator uses the quote marks in English. Sorry. If one introduces the variable of quotation marks, the problem doesn't reveal original meaning but instead simply indicates what the bias of the translator was but not what the bias and theology of the writer was.

MULTIPLE MODELS OF THE TRINITY, EARLY=SEPARATE, LATER=TRI-UNE
Though there are multiple models of the nature of the relationship between the three individuals that make up the trinity. The Jehovahs Witness Model where God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, seems to be the oldest and more original version in early Judeo-Christian literature.

I also think this early version of the trinity is more intuitive as well. (Ironically, this version also comes from a Judeo-Christianity which @Deeje says represents an apostate religion…… I don’t know how that is justified in Jehovahs Witness theology to agree with a model one claims comes from apostate religion).

At any rate, though I disagree with Jehovahs Witness theology in multiple areas, I wanted to agree that the Jehovahs Witness model of the Trinity as three individuals is the older version but register some push back on the value of relying on a modern theists’ use of quotes to distinguish a transition from God speaking, to an angel speaking, to Jesus speaking, to John speaking, etc. I don’t think Quote marks are going to resolve the debate of Revelations 22 10-16. Grammar itself won't clearly prove transitions in this case so, basic use is that if no transition is indicated, or obvious, then the base assumption is no transition exists. In this case, it is theology and not grammar, and not quotes which is driving the assumption that specific transitions of speakers is occurring and who the speaker is.

Good journey @tigger2

Clear
τωτωτωνεω

 

[cataway]

Hi @tigger2;

GRAMMAR FAVORS "A GOD"
Just as with the question underlying the lack of article in John 1:1c, the question of article in John 10:33 is going to be based on historical religious context since grammar was always in the favor of the Jehovahs Witnesses on this issue regarding John 10:33 and Jesus being "a" God in the text.

Regarding quotation marks
I felt like I was a bit snotty regarding my criticism of doing interpretation by looking at how a translator uses the quote marks in English. Sorry. If one introduces the variable of quotation marks, the problem doesn't reveal original meaning but instead simply indicates what the bias of the translator was but not what the bias and theology of the writer was.

MULTIPLE MODELS OF THE TRINITY, EARLY=SEPARATE, LATER=TRI-UNE
Though there are multiple models of the nature of the relationship between the three individuals that make up the trinity. The Jehovahs Witness Model where God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate individuals, seems to be the oldest and more original version in early Judeo-Christian literature.

I also think this early version of the trinity is more intuitive as well. (Ironically, this version also comes from a Judeo-Christianity which @Deeje says represents an apostate religion…… I don’t know how that is justified in Jehovahs Witness theology to agree with a model one claims comes from apostate religion).

At any rate, though I disagree with Jehovahs Witness theology in multiple areas, I wanted to agree that the Jehovahs Witness model of the Trinity as three individuals is the older version but register some push back on the value of relying on a modern theists’ use of quotes to distinguish a transition from God speaking, to an angel speaking, to Jesus speaking, to John speaking, etc. I don’t think Quote marks are going to resolve the debate of Revelations 22 10-16. Grammar itself won't clearly prove transitions in this case so, basic use is that if no transition is indicated, or obvious, then the base assumption is no transition exists. In this case, it is theology and not grammar, and not quotes which is driving the assumption that specific transitions of speakers is occurring and who the speaker is.

Good journey @tigger2

Clear
τωτωτωνεω

proper english grammar describes it rather well .BTW its not ''a God'' ,its ''a god''

 

[Clear]

Hi @cataway

Cataway said : "proper english grammar describes it rather well '' post #155
1) My point is that grammar can only take one so far and rules of writing are often not followed.
For example, if you want to use correct rules of writing, you need to capitalize the first letter of your sentence.

2) Another point is that is it not perfect or even correct grammar that is going to perfect our understanding of ancient historical writing.
For example, your sentence speaks of an "it", but you don't tell us what "it" refers to. Without additional context which explains "it", your sentence is not understandable. While "it" may be clear to you since you HAVE a context in your mind (which is absent in your sentence), the context may not be clear to readers. This is the same problem we are having with Revelation 22:13-16

Ancient writers made similar mistakes as you've made with incorrect writing and with leaving out context which would have made their meaning more clear.


Cataway said : "BTW its not ''a God'' ,its ''a god'' post #155
Your statement is incorrect. If "God" is a proper noun, then it should be capitalized. In the early Judeo-Christian literature that speaks of the "Gods" and the "God-like" individuals in heaven (e.g. the Dead Sea Scroll literature), they are typically capitalized, since "God" and "Gods" are proper nouns.

Remember, the earliest Greek texts were written in ALL caps.

Clear
τωτωφιδρω

 

[SLPCCC]

Early Christians and the Trinity​

If the Trinity is false, why would an organization use deception to prove it wrong? The Watchtower uses a lot of deception. For example, they claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was not officially formulated until the fourth century and that it is of pagan origin. They claim that “from biblical times and for several centuries thereafter” it was unknown. The JW's and their bible students are unknowingly deceived by such claims through the WT's publications. Reading the JWs' Brochure, "Can You Believe in the Trinity", I found misquotes of the early Christian Church Fathers made by the WTS. The following are some of the quotes but in their full quote supporting the Trinity. Again, if the Trinity is false why the deception?

“WHAT THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS TAUGHT”

Ignatius was an early Christian writer. He is identified, along with his friend Polycarp, as disciples of John the Apostle. He is said to be one of the children whom Jesus Christ took in his arms and blessed. While en route to Rome, where he met his martyrdom, Ignatius wrote a series of letters.

IGNATIUS (30-107 A.D.)

• “Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia…predestinated before the beginning of time…and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God….Being the followers of God, and stirring up yourselves by the blood of God, ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was beseeming to you….There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, — even Jesus Christ our Lord.” —The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 49, 52

Ignatius provides ample evidence that the concept of the Deity of Christ was well-known and accepted by the apostles and the early Church, and therefore cannot be of pagan origin.



Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, is regarded as the foremost exponent of the Divine Word, the Logos, in the second century. The Watchtower teaches that Justin Martyr “called the prehuman Jesus a created angel. Justin Martyr actually taught that Christ is “the Angel of God” who conversed with Moses out of the burning bush and revealed Himself as the Jehovah God saying, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.…I AM WHO I AM.” Justin Martyr also understood the Scriptural term “first-begotten” of God to mean that Christ is of the same nature as God the Father.

JUSTIN MARTYR (165 A.D.)

• “For at that juncture, when Moses was ordered to go down into Egypt…our Christ conversed with him under the appearance of fire from a bush….‘And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers….’…the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets….in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts….Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout….’ And Trypho said, ‘…For you utter many blasphemies, in that you seek to persuade us that this crucified man was with Moses and Aaron, and spoke to them in the pillar of the cloud…and ought to be worshipped.’…And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters.…For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages…’ ”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pp. 184, 212, 213, 219

WTS claims that Irenaeus “said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the ‘One true and only God,’ who is ‘supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.’ ” This assertion on the part of the Watchtower Society is deceitful because Irenaeus did not contrast Christ with the “One true and only God” but actually contrasted the true God with the lesser gods of Gnosticism. In reality, Irenaeus taught the following concerning Christ:

IRENAEUS (200 A.D.)

• “Very properly, then, did he say, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ for He was in the Son; ‘and the Word was with God,’ for He was the beginning; ‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, p. 328

These other quotes also support the Trinity but they are misquoted in the WTS Brochure. Notice how they support the Tinity in their full quote.


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (215 A.D.)

• “…the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God….I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.…There was, then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreate.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, pp. 202, 468, 574

TERTULLIAN (230 A.D.)

In his writings, Tertullian was very explicit in his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity:

• “He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God….so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature….and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.…Thus does He make Him equal to Him.…I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other….they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being….when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity….In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons)….”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pp. 34-35, 601, 603, 606-607

HIPPOLYTUS (235 A.D.)

• “God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world….Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality….And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods….Thus, then, these too, though they wish it not, fall in with the truth, and admit that one God made all things….For Christ is the God above all…..He who is over all is God; for thus He speaks boldly, ‘All things are delivered unto me of my Father.’ He who is over all, God blessed, has been born; and having been made man, He is (yet) God for ever….And well has he named Christ the Almighty.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, pp. 227, 153, 225

ORIGEN (250 A.D.)

• “This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same….From which it most clearly follows that there is no difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father….Having made these declarations regarding the Unity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit….And who else is able to save and conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word…inasmuch as He was the Word, and was with God, and was God?”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, pp. 255, 604

Reading the early Christian writing clearly shows that the claim of the Trinity was not a fourth-century pagan creation as the WTS says. These early Christians not only affirmed the concepts found in the Trinity doctrine, but they actually taught the very opposite of what the JWs claims they taught.

 

[TiggerII]

Hi @cataway

....
Cataway said : "BTW its not ''a God'' ,its ''a god'' post #155
Your statement is incorrect. If "God" is a proper noun, then it should be capitalized. Remember, the earliest Greek texts were written in ALL caps.

Clear
τωτωφιδρω

"God" (meaning the Almighty) is used as a proper noun when capitalized in English. However, when it is used as one of a class, it is a common noun. So, if an angel, for example, is called elohim or theos, he is being called 'a god.' He is one of others who can be called 'gods.'

 

[cataway]

"God" (meaning the Almighty) is used as a proper noun when capitalized in English. However, when it is used as one of a class, it is a common noun. So, if an angel, for example, is called elohim or theos, he is being called 'a god.' He is one of others who can be called 'gods.'

so true so true

 

[SLPCCC]

The scriptures clearly show that Jesus is God. JW's (neo-Arians) are trained to do mental gymnastics when cornered. Even with all the false prophecies made by their leaders, who are not even inspired, they really don't apply the scriptures. They are expected to put the WT publications and their leaders before the scriptures.

But if they would apply the scripture, they would use Deut. 18:20-22, then they would see the light.

• Deuteronomy 18: 20 - 22 – Any prophet ["The Governing Body", WT.org] who arrogantly speaks a word in my name that I haven't commanded him to speak, . . . that prophet must die. Now, you might be wondering, How will we know which word God hasn't spoken? Here's the answer: The prophet who speaks in the LORD's name [Jehovah] and the thing doesn't happen or come about [1914, 1918, 1975, 20th century, etc. ]—that's the word the LORD hasn't spoken. That prophet spoke arrogantly. Don't be afraid of him.