Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Soapy]

"Trinitarian believers" are not all on the same page, as many believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not literally God.

ALL Trinitarians are confused and mislead in their confusion - so if matters not what the split is between different trinitarian cults.

WRONG IS WRONG and there is no value in splitting which WRONG is more WRONG or less WRONG concerning the ‘oneness’ of the almighty God: Yahweh.

The simple fact is that Yahweh told his favoured nation that they should worship ONLY HIM as their ONLY GOD. This was in view of the fact that the Israelites were often among tribes and nations who all worshipped MULTIPLE GODS.

So, that is the purpose - and the ONLY purpose to usage of ‘One’ in relation to the almighty God.

If someone can show me something different concerning Yahweh stating that the Israelites should only worship him as their only God then they might have a point - but the fact is that there is none so the real point is actually moot!

No one should claim that there are no OTHERS called ‘God’... the simply fact is that ALL WORSHIPPERS claim a ‘GOD’ (or ‘GODS’) as the focus of their worship... Israelites, Hebrews, Jews, Christians, ... are no different. THE DIFFERENCE is that pagans (none of the above) worship MANY GODS but (the above) worship only ONE GOD.

Yahweh did not tell his favoured nation to worship ‘US’ or ‘WE’ or ‘OUR’... as Trinitarians try to claim... and why does ‘IS’, ‘We’ or ‘OUR’, mean ‘THREE’?

 

[Soapy]

"Trinitarian believers are often heard to CLAIM that the Jews KNEW Jesus was GOD despite NEVER EVER saying so and even stating clearly ‘You being a MAN’, and ‘It is best we remove THIS MAN before the Romans come and take away our rights’ (paraphrased).

"JW are incorrect to claim ‘a God.’There is no such translation." [from Soapy (#1029)]

….………………………..


The following is a small part of a personal study which proves the use of the accusative theon at John 10:33 should be understood as "a god." Examining the Trinity: THEON - 'RDB's Rule' (Jn 1:18; 10:33) and Examining the Trinity
...............................................
We may safely say, then, that, if theon (the accusative case) in John’s writings (1) is not in a “prepositional” (modified by a genitive or a prepositional phrase) construction and (2) does not come before the verb, then the definite article with it always signifies the only true God (“God”), and its absence signifies someone else (“a god”). If this were not the case, the following statement by a respected trinitarian source would be absolutely senseless. In its analysis of 1 Thess. 1:8 (written by the Apostle Paul who is known to be less careful in article usage than the Gospel writers) A Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament states:

“the definite article with theon indicates their faith in the true God and contrasts their present attitude to God with their past pagan attitude to idols.” - Vol. 2, p. 241, Zondervan, 1980.

Now let’s look at John 10:33-36. Notice that theon here does not have a definite article and does not come before the verb, nor is it in a “prepositional” construction. Obviously then (as context also indicates) John 10:33 should be translated “a god” (as in the trinitarian New English Bible) rather than “God” (as in the majority of trinitarian Bibles).

Famous trinitarian Dr. Robert Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, confirms this understanding:

“... ‘makest thyself a god,’ not ‘God’ as in [KJV], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- ‘gods..gods,’ where the title is applied to magistrates.”

And it is further admitted that this is the meaning of Jn 10:33 by noted trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
“making himself a god.” - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint. (Also see p. 344, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, Newman and Nida, UBS, 1980.)

The Jews were not saying that Jesus was making himself the only true God. They were using theon in its secondary sense of the word (“a god” or “a mighty person”). This secondary, sense of the word was applied in a negative sense to false gods and in a more positive sense to angels, judges, etc. by the Bible writers - (see the BOWGOD and DEF studies).

Jesus’ response also shows that he understood the Jews to be using the word in its secondary sense (not “God” but “a god” - probably meant here in the negative sense of a false god), and he reminded them, by quoting Ps. 82:6, that God himself had called certain Israelites “gods” (John 10:34). With this reply Jesus showed them he could have called himself “a god” in that very same positive sense, and it would have been proper. (His reply, however, would have been nonsensical if the Jews had really said, “you make yourself God”!)

That was a load of information over a small point.

What are you hoping to prove... really!

Trinitarians and JW are the strangest bedfellows in arguments about the scriptures. And the fact is that BOTH are wrong in individual ways:

• Trinitarians claim a blasphemous three in one God in which three persons share the same fishbowl water (they call it ‘essence’) they call ‘god’. Trinitarians say the three are each ‘god’ because they share in the same substance. But where does this ‘essence’ come from? Moreover, the application of this ‘sharing’ is more akin to ‘BEING that essence’. So Trinitarians are saying that the three ARE the same essence. So, from ‘sharing’ to ‘being’...! Furthermore, the three are absolutely EQUAL as the essence is the same for each... however, Trinitarians say the three are RANKED... ranked equality????? And not satisfied with ridiculous notions they then say that ONE of the completely equal essence Persons DECIDED HE NO LONGER THOUGHT THAT BEING ALMIGHTY ESSENCE WAS WORTHY and GAVE IT UP... to become HOS OWN CREATION - a man in mortal flesh... BUT HE DIDNT GIVE UP BRING THE ESSENCE... he just HID IT at times meaning that he was now SCHIZOPHRENIC meaning that one moment he knew and could do all things the other two essence persons could do - and the next he didn’t know what a ‘God’ should know! And then he died... but Trinitarians say he DID NOT DIE... but then they say ‘GOD’ raised him up again... !!! again??? And can you believe it, one of the essence persons sat the human essences one next to him and ...eventually made him to rule over a limited physical mortal world FROM his original position of an unlimited IMMORTAL world. WHY? So the human essenced one was DEMOTED in his Being and Position... and that demotion was a REWARD!!!!!
• JW claim that Jesus was an Angel before becoming a man... What response do JW give to the scripture verse that states absolutely that ‘God’ never said to an Angel: “This day you have become to me a son and I to you a Father’. An adoption... Also, do we not know that scripture says that “The world to come will by no means be ruled by angels’ - yet JW say Jesus was an Angel!!! However, that’s not all. JW spend way to much time arguing over moot points such as ‘abstaining from the Consummation of blood’; ‘Stake not Cross’; ‘John 1:1’, etc. Really, the ‘blood’ things is because pagans would eat LIVE or UNCOOKED animal flesh. Or drink the blood of their victims (of sacrifice or warfare). The stake... Jesus was HUNG ON A TREE.... anything made of WOOD which is Cross or single stake... the point is that it’s made from a TREE... which the Romans knew was a HUMILIATION to Jews following their own saying: “Cursed is he who is hung on (or from) a TREE’. Jesus carried the CROSSBEAM of the cross towards Calvary. And John 1:1. There’s a simple answer to that but JW and trinis are too busy disputing with each other to see the truth.

 

[metis]

ALL Trinitarians are confused and mislead in their confusion - so if matters not what the split is between different trinitarian cults.

WRONG IS WRONG and there is no value in splitting which WRONG is more WRONG or less WRONG concerning the ‘oneness’ of the almighty God: Yahweh.

The fact that you say the above with the certainty of supposedly being correct means that you're simply not into any serious theology whatsoever as the enemy of serious theology is certainty.

As a Catholic who took college courses in it [I wasn't even Catholic back then-- a long story] and then taught it for 15 years, the Catholic interpretation of the Trinitarian concept is that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not exactly the same as God. It helps if one understands the Greek concept of "essence", whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God the Father, such as when Jesus said that he and the Father are one [thus of God's essence].

Now, is this Catholic teaching correct? I honestly don't know.

 

[Soapy]

The fact that you say the above with the certainty of supposedly being correct means that you're simply not into any serious theology whatsoever as the enemy of serious theology is certainty.

As a Catholic who took college courses in it [I wasn't even Catholic back then-- a long story] and then taught it for 15 years, the Catholic interpretation of the Trinitarian concept is that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not exactly the same as God. It helps if one understands the Greek concept of "essence", whereas Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the essence of God the Father, such as when Jesus said that he and the Father are one [thus of God's essence].

Now, is this Catholic teaching correct? I honestly don't know.

You are surprised at the certainly of what I said.... why? Anyway, you aren’t the first.... Jesus Christ was disbelieved even when he spoke the words of the Father: Yahweh.

Catholicism is the ‘Whore’ spoken of in the book of Revelation. Religiously, every nation has ‘indulged in her’!

You are right that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are ‘of God’. That is nothing new, profound, nor trinitarian revelational. It is written in the scriptures:

• Son ‘of God’
• Holy Spirit ‘of God’

However, and you are right again, neither ‘IS GOD’. But again, that is patently obvious from the scriptures:

• The Father sends the HIS holy spiritual as a GIFT to the apostles
• Jesus says, “The Father (God) taught me what to say...” “Father, I know you always hear me ... but [I pray to you for your holy spirit] because of these people standing by - - Jesus to God as he was about to use the POWER OF GOD (the Holy Spirit) to raise Lazarus from the dead.

Only Trinitarians strain at a gnat of truth and yet swallow an elephant of fallacy.

Do I notice you don’t acknowledge the scenario of an almighty God demoting himself to become his own creation - and then becoming ruler of LESS THAN what he already is ruler of..... hmmmm...!

 

[kjw47]

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.

Jesus didnt claim to be God-He said--i and my father are one--Not in being, but in purpose-All servants of the true living God live to do his will,( Matt 7:21) over their own as Jesus did as well-John 5:30)
There is no capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1--Their own translating-Greek- proves it--The true living God was called-(Ho Theos = the God) in the second line. Plain Theos is in the last line.= a god. Carries the meaning--Has godlike qualities. This is why-Acts 2:22--Gods power went through Jesus.
The pharisees and Israelite spiritual leaders hated Jesus-They did not say truth about him. They as well taught, that Jesus got his power from satan. Do you believe them there? Jesus did not say he was God. They twisted it as is done to this day because of an error at John 1:1 in their translations.

 

[Muffled]

"Trinitarian believers" are not all on the same page, as many believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God but not literally God.

I believe an "of God" belief is in error. God is one. He is not divided into pieces. So if you say there is a piece of God that is inside Jesus and piece of God outside called the Father then you are dividing God into pieces. The reason Jesus can say He is one with the Father is because they are not two.

 

[metis]

I believe an "of God" belief is in error. God is one.

They do not contradict one another.

 

[Oeste]

I believe an "of God" belief is in error. God is one. He is not divided into pieces. So if you say there is a piece of God that is inside Jesus and piece of God outside called the Father then you are dividing God into pieces. The reason Jesus can say He is one with the Father is because they are not two.

Agreed.

They do not contradict one another.

Agreed.

Both of you are correct.

From my viewpoint its a matter of how the Trinity is best expressed especially when talking to an audience that prides itself on being obstinate.

Let's look at that word "of". There are many definitions for it:

of
/əv/

preposition
preposition: of

1. 
   expressing the relationship between a part and a whole.
   "the sleeve of his coat"
   
   
2. 
   expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value.
   "an increase of 5 percent"
   • expressing an age.
     "a boy of 15"
3. 
   indicating an association between two entities, typically one of belonging.
   "the son of a friend"
   • expressing the relationship between an author, artist, or composer and their works collectively.
     "the plays of Shakespeare"
4. 
   expressing the relationship between a direction and a point of reference.
   "north of Chicago"
   
   
5. 
   expressing the relationship between a general category or type and the thing being specified which belongs to such a category.
   "the city of Prague"
   
   
6. 
   following a noun derived from or related to a verb.
   • followed by a noun expressing the subject of the verb underlying the first noun.
     "the arrival of the police"
   • followed by a noun expressing the object of the verb underlying the first noun.
     "the murder of the two boys"
7. 
   where the head of the phrase is a predicative adjective.
   "it was kind of you to ask"
   
   
8. 
   indicating the relationship between a verb and an indirect object.
   • with a verb expressing a mental state.
     "I don't know of anything that would be suitable"
   • expressing a cause.
     "he died of cancer"
9. 
   indicating the material or substance constituting something.
   "the house was built of bricks"
   
   
10. 
    NORTH AMERICAN
    expressing time in relation to the following hour.
    "it would be just a quarter of three in New York"

Muffled, like me, does not like to use "of" because it expresses a "part of the whole" (#1). However Metis appears to like it because it shows one communal aspect as shown in # 3. I suppose the difference in expression is based on what Protestant and Roman Catholics like to stress when they conceive and speak about the doctrine.

As far as the doctrine itself, I haven't found much of a difference except with the Eastern Church (Filioque), something I really don't want to get into now.

In any event, anti-Trinitarians will pit one expression (of) against the other, claim the Trinity concept is confusing them, then mumble something about Tritheism or Oneness which has nothing to do with the doctrine at all.

 

[Oeste]

There is no capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1

Who told you "There is no capital G God in the last line at John 1:1"? Is this something they taught you in ministry class? At Bethel??

Jesus didnt claim to be God-He said--i and my father are one--Not in being, but in purpose

You only have half of the Watchtower story. Please explain the full. Remember what the Watchtower says:

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)​

In other words, according to the Watchtower, by the time John 10:33 roles around, Jesus is just an ordinary guy, neither "God" or "a god"....you know, like the rest of us.

How do you explain?

 

[Oeste]

ALL Trinitarians are confused and mislead in their confusion - so if matters not what the split is between different trinitarian cults.

Yahweh did not tell his favoured nation to worship ‘US’ or ‘WE’ or ‘OUR’... as Trinitarians try to claim... and why does ‘IS’, ‘We’ or ‘OUR’, mean ‘THREE’?

Trinitarians claim a blasphemous three in one God in which three persons share the same fishbowl water (they call it ‘essence’) they call ‘god’

Trinitarians say the three are each ‘god’ because they share in the same substance.

Catholicism is the ‘Whore’ spoken of in the book of Revelation. Religiously, every nation has ‘indulged in her’!

Only Trinitarians strain at a gnat of truth and yet swallow an elephant of fallacy.

Do I notice you don’t acknowledge the scenario of an almighty God demoting himself to become his own creation - and then becoming ruler of LESS THAN what he already is ruler of..... hmmmm...!

​

You are surprised at the certainly of what I said.... why? Anyway, you aren’t the first...

I think we can agree with you on that.

 

[Oeste]

why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

This is a “twofer”.

Both of Clear's questions are relatively easy to answer because they’ve been answered before. However, since you’ve asked me the same question over and over and over and over again (apparently to fill out your response), I thought I would bring this to the forefront now rather than getting to them later.

Earlier I spoke to you about the word “horse”. The word horse does not have one meaning but several. It can refer to a four legged equine mammal, cocaine, or a certain type of rock formation. So the word “horse” is the same word, in the same language, in the same time period but it carries different meanings in its usage. Not the same meaning….different meanings. This is called “semantic range”.

The word “God” will mean one thing to @Soapy and quite another to @oldbadger. Both use the word “God” in the same language, in the same time period but it carries different meanings for both of them. It would be wrong to force Soapy’s definition of God into Old Badger’s mouth just as it would be wrong to force Old Badger’s definition of God into Soapy’s mouth.

Likewise in the first century, the word “Messiah” had different meanings. It has one meaning to the Jews, and quite another to the Christians living at the same time. So the word “Messiah” (Khristós (Χριστός) is the same word, in the same koine Greek language, in the same time period but it still conveys different meanings in its usage. This is why Christians don’t go by what the Greeks of that time said about the Messiah, or even what the Hebrews said about the Messiah around that time, but by what our scriptural authors say regarding the Messiah. This is why I asked you to consult someone at your Church regarding this. They will be better able and better positioned to explain the mechanics of this than Oeste.

Don’t get me wrong…it would be great if we could find everyday papyri, obelisks and disks that had “Χριστός” (Khristós) splattered all over them. It would be a great find and further historic evidence that the Christ of scripture existed but it would not be authoritative but simply confirmative of any scriptural understanding we have of Christ.

So now when you come to the Greek word Χαρακτηρ as found in Greek artifacts and wonder why it wouldn’t have the same meaning found in Hebrews 1:3, you will be fully equipped and able to answer this question yourself. Perhaps you’ll find the answer a bit more believable that way. This is simply another explanation, my prior explanation, which you have not refuted still stands.

CLEAR'S ARGUMENT IS NOT NEW

The historic Orthodox Church has heard this argument from Clear before:

The point of this exercise is to show historical CONTEXT and demonstrate how this word Χαρακτηρ was actually used and what it actually meant to the ancient writers who used it. (Clear, post 987)​

If this argument sounds familiar to Christians it’s because you’ve heard it from the Jehovah Witnesses. They argue the same thing about our holidays, especially around Christmas and Easter (Resurrection Day). There point about “pagan” holidays runs much the same:

The point of this exercise is to show the pagan historical CONTEXT and demonstrate how this holiday was actually celebrated and what it meant to the ancients pagans who celebrated it.​

In short it’s the same argument wearing a different dress.

When Christians tell them we’re not celebrating the Feast of Saturn or whatever it is they think we’re doing on Christmas, they tell us it’s irrelevant, just as Clear has told the Christian church here:

It is irrelevant what ANY religion of our age thinks the word means or should mean. It matters what the word meant to the ancients who used the word in their literature. Post 1004​

So if December 25th was a pagan holiday to the ancients, it doesn’t matter what December 25th means to us or any other religion “…of our age”. It only matter what it meant to the ancients who used December 25 in their literature, which is of course why Clear points us to ancient Greek artifacts and demands we get our word meanings from statutes and papyri rather than the Greek New Testament.

Ephesians 6:11 tells us “Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.” One essential weapon in the Christian toolkit is what some call the “Whac-a-mole”. When these arguments pop up randomly in their various forms, this trusty tool allows Christians to simply whack the argument back into the hole where it belongs.

Even when we tap the dirt down, the mole or rabbit simply waits, and pops up at random as if newly resurrected to the utter amazement and astonishment of anyone willing to listen. The Church has battled these arguments since its inception and will do so until Christ returns, but to be clear there is nothing new being presented here. We’ve heard these arguments before.

 

[Oeste]

1) OESTES USE OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FROM MEDIEVAL TIMES VERSUS MILLIGANS USE OF ORIGINAL GREEK FROM ALMOST 2000 YEARS EARLIER

You are back to "Oeste's use" again. I would love to take credit for it, but It's actually the historic Church's use. As I stated previously, proper attribution is essential, and I don't want anyone thinking I'm taking credit for scholarly work that was completed long before I was even born.

Oeste said : "Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.
Clear said: Look at the historical calendar and timeline.[/QUOTE]

I looked.

"Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.

In illustrating what words meant and how they were used in ancient Koine, Milligan uses ancient text (Syll 226 is approx. 320 b.c.) and they are in the original ancient Koine Greek.

Yes he illustrated how some New Testament words were used in Greek artifacts. What he didn't do was reverse engineer these vernacular meanings into the Paul's mouth and the New Testament at Hebrews 1:3. As I've stated before, you have greatly misunderstood and misrepresented the purpose and scope of Milligan and Moulton's "Vocabulary". He does not claim his illustrations should be used as a basis to interpret New Testament text. What he does hope for is that these illustrations would lead to a more robust understanding of how koine Greek was used in everyday life.

Quite simply there are a lot of things that “are in the original ancient koine Greek” that you won’t find in our bible…and for good reason…the authors, acting under the direction of Holy Spirit did not put it there.

You refer to modern english translations (medieval ages at best) to attempt to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. This will not do. It is a classic example of an etymological fallacy.

This statement makes no sense. OF COURSE we are going to use MODERN ENGLISH to translate ancient words. We do that because we speak MODERN ENGLISH! This is NOT an "etymological fallacy"! Translators have been doing this for hundreds of years, ever since the dawn of modern English.

You are arguing emotionally rather than logically Clear. You really need to speak with your church on this. If you have disagreements with how the LDS Church translates Hebrews 1:3 then please speak with someone you trust regarding this. From my standpoint, if you cannot convince your own church it will be doubly hard to convince anyone here.

 

[Clear]

POST ONE OF THREE

Hi Oeste, I hope your time spent with relatives was pleasant.

Back to your claim that the lone, uncontexted word "Χαρακτηρ" in ancient Koine greek meant "exact representation"



1) EVEN THE WORD “HORSE” IN YOUR EXAMPLE MUST HAVE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEANING

Oeste said : “Earlier I spoke to you about the word “horse”. The word horse does not have one meaning but several. It can refer to a four legged equine mammal, cocaine, or a certain type of rock formation. “

This claim doesn’t help you because it is my point as well. and it is another example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

The word “Horse” CAN have multiple meanings, BUT, the single, uncontexted word “horse” must have context in order to clearly mean MORE than “horse”.

Can any reader offer even one single example in english where the lone, uncontexted word “horse” clearly conveys the meaning of “cocaine” or “a certain type of rock formation” to them WITHOUT adding additional context?

Similarly, the lone, uncontexted word “Character” does not mean “exact representation” unless you add context to the lone, uncontexted word “Character”. This is another point against your claim.




2) THE ENTYMOLOGICAL FALLACY REFERS TO INACCURATE ASSUMPTION OF MEANING, NOT OF LANGUAGE USED

Clear said : “You refer to modern english translations (medieval ages at best) to attempt to tell readers what an ancient word, in another language meant. This will not do. It is a classic example of an etymological fallacy.
Oeste replied : “This statement makes no sense. OF COURSE we are going to use MODERN ENGLISH to translate ancient words.”

You are confused.
This point doesn’t help you since An Entymological fallacy does not refer to the LANGUAGE used (i.e. modern English) but instead the fallacy is assuming a relatively modern MEANING of a word is the same as the ancient MEANING.

The definition of entymological fallacy : "It holds that it’s a fallacy to claim a present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning. There is nothing to suggest that present day meanings are similar to ancient meetings.” (Oeste post #996)

This is another point against your claim.




3) LINGUISTIC DISCOVERIES IN ANCIENT IMPROVE LINGUISTIC ACCURACY AND AFFECT TRANSLATIONS OF ANCIENT KOINE

Oeste said : “He does not claim his illustrations should be used as a basis to interpret New Testament text. What he does hope for is that these illustrations would lead to a more robust understanding of how koine Greek was used in everyday life.”

This claim doesn’t help your theory since Milligan offers multiple examples where this specific increasing linguistic knowledge of Koine changed prior translations and tools of translation.

Regarding newly discovered knowledge obtained by ancient Koine papyri Milligan said : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.

Increasing Knowledge both plays a role in creating lexicons and grammars and translation as well as in improving lexicons and improving grammar and improving translation.

Milligan give us examples of how such discoveries led to new exegisis and to corrections of prior interpretations of New Testament text. One of multiple examples from Milligan is how such illumination changes translations of Matt vi.27


MILLIGANS EXAMPLE FROM MATTHEW 6:27 AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW IMPROVING KNOWLEDGE OF KOINE CHANGES TRANSLATIONS

Early translations such as Tyndale (1530), Matthews (1537), Taverners (1539), The Great bible (1539) assumed ηλικια in Matthew 6:27 referred to “stature”.
Thus early translations (translators) created texts that referred to "stature" in Matt 6:27.

For example :
Tyndale 1530 reads : “Which of you (though he toke thought therfore) coulde put one cubit vnto his stature?”
Mattews 1537 reads : “Which of you (though he take thoughte therefore) coulde put one cubit vnto hys stature?”
Taverner’s 1539 reads : “Which of you (by taking thoughte) can put one cubit unto his stature?”
The Great bible 1539 reads : “Which of you (by taking careful thought) can adde one cubyte unto hys stature?”
The Geneva bible (1599) reads : ‘Which of you by taking care is able to adde one cubite vnto his stature? “

Early English translations (kjv, etc) often used “stature” in this phrasing whereas the newer translations use such discoveries such as ηλικια as a reference to life-span or age and renderings can be improved and corrected.

For example the NIV and some more modern versions read : “Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life?”

This example in Matthew 6:27 was one of Milligans examples. He pointed out that the ancient greek literature demonstrated that ηλικια does NOT refer to "stature", but instead, it refers to a period of time.

Such discoveries that correct our concepts trickle down from the discoverers, to the translators and finally to the translations and end up changing our translations.

Translations improve and are corrected based on newer and better and more correct linguistic knowledge. In fact, Greek readers (such as yourself) will see other mistakes in this single phrase in some of the translations above.

These are all points against your claim.


Oeste said : "Now please show us exactly where Milligan refers to "modern translators". I want to see Milligan speaking this, not you.”

The most original Koine source greek came from the peri c.e. era and not much beyond while the first English translations were approximately 1500 years later. Compared to original Greek, the English only existed in a much later era.

In any case, this point is another point against your claim regarding the uncontexted, lone Greek word for “Character”.


POST TWO OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST TWO OF THREE

4) RESTARTING WHERE WE ACTUALLY LEFT OFF

IN POSTS #1025 AND 1026 YOU HAD MADE YET ANOTHER CLAIM REGARDING THE GREEK OF SYLL 226 3.495 AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING MILLIGANS MANY GREEK EXAMPLES AGAINST YOUR CLAIM THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO ANSWER.



You say you read greek with comprehension and you are now, finally, discussing the examples from greek that demonstrate your claim is incorrect.
I do not think your habit of claiming everything is a "strawman" will help against Milligans examples. He is well respected in his data.

Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at Syll 226 3.495.16
YOU claimed the lone word Χαρακτηρ meant "exact representation" rather than merely "representation".
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.



Oeste said : "We do not base definitions of Hebrews 1:3 on Syll 226 3.495.16.
Syll 226 is simply a single illustration among hundreds, and we DO base definitions of ancient meaning of ancient words and their usage on the larger data pools of hundreds of examples from ancient language as a whole.

That is the advantage of allowing readers to examine MULTIPLE examples.
A pattern of what something meant to the ancients becomes clear only after diligently looking at how the ancients used words and what those words meant TO THEM in THEIR language and in THEIR time period.

Lexicons and grammars of ancient languages are supposed to tell us what a word meant IN THE LANGUAGE AND IN THE ERA the lexicon refers to.
You’ve used a modern definition and modern usage in English in an attempt to support religious bias and Milligan is simply providing illustrations that demonstrate ancient definition and usage in the original ancient language.
This accumulation of data DOES tell us what New Testament words meant in the original language and useage.

Milligan tells as much in his preface of these illustrations regarding the discoveries of these texts : “It is leading to the re-writing of our Lexicons and Grammars of the New Testament, and no modern commentary on any of its books fails to avail itself of the help afforded by these new treasures from Egypt.

Meanwhile, it may be helpful to those who have made no special study of the subject if I attempt to indicate some of the ways in which the new evidence can be applied to the elucidation of the words of the New Testament. “


Clear gave an example from Milligan : "In Syll 226 3.495.16 (of approx. 320 b.c.) the text says: “ Του δε ξενου φεροντος επι τον χαρακτηρα”.
There is no implication of “exactness” but merely a χαρακτηρ.
Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 226 3.495.16.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 226 3.495.16 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between Syll and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Flor I. 61.21 (of approx. 85 a.d.) the text says: “…ου των χαρακτηρων μονων κληρονομους δει ειναι”
No exactness is implied
Oeste said : "No one claimed there was "exactness" at P Flor I. 61.21.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste claimed : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P Flor I. 61.21, a concept that appears to have been lost with Clear despite mentioning this numerous times.
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Flor I. 61.21 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P Flor I and Hebrews?



Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Leid X xxiv.11 (of 2-3 a.d.) the text reads : “ τελει τε μοι κυριε τον μεγαν, κυριον αφθεγτον Χαρακτηρα, ινα αυτον εχω.”
The text could have read “χαρακτηρας ακριβης” but it did not and thus, it does not mean “exact representation”.
Oeste claimed : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in P. Leid X xxiv.11.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.
If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste said : "We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in P. Leid X xxiv.11
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think P Leid X is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Leid X and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In Syll 3 783.23 (written sometime after 27 b.c.) the text says “μεχρι των Σεβαστειων ευπλοησεν Χαρακτηρων…”
There is no “exact representation” here in the word.
Oeste said : "No one claimed χαρακτηρα should be translated as "exact representation" in Syll 3 783.23.
However, the illustration tells us what the word meant the the ancients who used the word and in the time period the word was used.
It tells us there is NO exactness implied in Χαρακτηρ in ancient Koine Greek.

If you are admitting that no “exactness” is implied in the word Χαρακτηρ, this is good.


Oeste said : "7. We do not compare a metaphoric χαρακτηρ as found in Hebrews 1:3, with a literal χαρακτηρ as found in Syll 3 783.23
Why in the world are you making such a claim?
What makes you think Syll 3 is more literal than the same word in Hebrews.
Why do you think there is no comparison of usage between P. Syll and Hebrews?


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The New Testament Revelations text uses a form of the word saying :
ο εχων το χαραγμα η το ονομα του θηριου
τους εχοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου
τους λαβοντας το χαραγμα του ξηριου

Here again, no exactness is implied. In fact Milligan remarks that “The exact meaning of the figure has been much discussed.”


Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In CPR I.11 (a text of of a.d. 108) the text reads : Ετους ιβ Αυτοκρατορος Καισαρος Νερουα Τραιανου “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "The text of Preisigke 5275.11 (written in 11 a.d.) says “… αντιγραφον απ αντιγραφου χαραγματος και υπαγραφης Ελληνικοις γραμμασι “
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In BGU IV 1088.5 (written in a.d. 142) the text refers to a “χαλαγμενην Αραβικοις χαραγμαςιν”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond V 1658.8 (written in 4 a.d.) Ghedini provides the example of “…δια χαραγματων ευχομαι…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?
POST THREE OF THREE FOLLOWS

 

[Clear]

POST THREE OF THREE



Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P. Oxy I 144.6 (of 580 a.d.) the text speaks of “χρυσου εν βρυζω Χαραγματι” ,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Ryl II 160(a)10, (written approx. 14-37 a.d.) the text says “…τω προς το γραφειω Χαραξαντι αποδουναι”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Lond 854.11 (written 1 to 2 a.d.) the text says Των φιλων εμων τα ονοματα ενεχαραξα τοις ιεροις.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Milligan : "In P Oxy XIV 1680.12 (written in 3 to 4 a.d.) the son says “…σημα εθελησα ενχαραξαι σοι.”.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Milligans illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


If we look at the dates of the examples, we can see that from 300 b.c. to peri c.e. era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
In the texts from 1 a.d. to the Christian era, the word did not mean “exact representation”.
Texts from early Christian eras to the early centuries, the word did not mean “exact representation”.



EXAMPLES FROM DELITZSCH DEMONSTRATE YOUR CLAIM IS INCORRECT

YOU offered Delizsch’s remarks and his first comments in German do not support your claim (they were simply irrelevant)


Clear gave an example from Delitzsch : "Delitzsch says : “and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. “ and “... of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die.
Both comments speak of engraved or stamped images. They do not speak of “exact ingraving” or “exact images”.

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :" Delitzsch offers the example from “Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689,
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers “ ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch says regarding Χαρακτηρασ “Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished.
His example is Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας,
This demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, in the same language in a similar time period to the same word in Hebrews 1:3”?

Clear gave another example from Delitzsch : “τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται.
Lucians point regarding αντιμορφων rather than a true μορφων is another example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect.
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"from “Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55),
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως ἀπεμάττετο τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect. While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα as τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως,
As with his other examples, this demonstrates your claim is incorrect.

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example “Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. H

While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?


Clear gave another example from Delitzsch :"Delitzsch offers yet another example, this time from the colleague of the apostle Peter (Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33). The text reads : “ αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα.
Not only does Delitzsch give us this example that demonstrates your claim is incorrect, but Delitzsch goes on to say : “Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex…”
While you now seems to be admitting that there is no implication of “exactness” in the word, why would Delitzschs’ illustration of the meaning and usage of this word in this phrase not apply to the meaning and usage, to the same word, in the same language, in a similar time period to Hebrews 1:3”?

Milligan and others have given us almost 30 examples to show you are incorrect and you still have not been able to give readers a single example in all of ancient greek literature where your claim is true. Not once so far. I still do not see how your greek claim that has no greek data to support it can ever work in the real world.



The score from O.T. Leviticus, Clement, Delitzsch, and Milligan still remains 30 to Oestes' zero.

δρφυσεφιφυω

 

[kjw47]

Who told you "There is no capital G God in the last line at John 1:1"? Is this something they taught you in ministry class? At Bethel??



You only have half of the Watchtower story. Please explain the full. Remember what the Watchtower says:

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)​

In other words, according to the Watchtower, by the time John 10:33 roles around, Jesus is just an ordinary guy, neither "God" or "a god"....you know, like the rest of us.

How do you explain?

One must take the whole bible--Jesus is Gods son-not God--Gods power goes through Jesus,( acts 2:22) making him--a god. or has godlike qualities.

In the 2nd line at John 1:1--The true God is called HO Theos( in trinity translation of the greek) The word is NOT called Ho Theos in the last line--Plain Theos= a god. The trinities use plain Theos in the 2nd line in their bible translating= Error. Billions being mislead because of that error.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus didnt claim to be God-He said--i and my father are one--Not in being, but in purpose-All servants of the true living God live to do his will,( Matt 7:21) over their own as Jesus did as well-John 5:30)
There is no capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1--Their own translating-Greek- proves it--The true living God was called-(Ho Theos = the God) in the second line. Plain Theos is in the last line.= a god. Carries the meaning--Has godlike qualities. This is why-Acts 2:22--Gods power went through Jesus.
The pharisees and Israelite spiritual leaders hated Jesus-They did not say truth about him. They as well taught, that Jesus got his power from satan. Do you believe them there? Jesus did not say he was God. They twisted it as is done to this day because of an error at John 1:1 in their translations.

I believe those are words you have added. As I recall one means one and only one and nothing else.
However by definition since they are one then they one in every way that God is one and purpose is certainly part of that.

 

[Muffled]

They do not contradict one another.

I believe a rock is of God because He created it but God is not a rock. Neither is He a physical body. God is Spirit.

 

[Muffled]

One must take the whole bible--Jesus is Gods son-not God--Gods power goes through Jesus,( acts 2:22) making him--a god. or has godlike qualities.

In the 2nd line at John 1:1--The true God is called HO Theos( in trinity translation of the greek) The word is NOT called Ho Theos in the last line--Plain Theos= a god. The trinities use plain Theos in the 2nd line in their bible translating= Error. Billions being mislead because of that error.

I don't ever believe that JW's have clue what the bible says.

 

[kjw47]

I don't ever believe that JW's have clue what the bible says.

It takes believing Jesus, Few that claim to be his followers will believe him. It is sad.

Reality--straight from Jesus--John 20:17, Revelation 3:12.