Jesus is not God....part 2

[Mus Zibii]

Eh... that's a good lot of fooling around with semantics and if it weren't for so many contrary remarks in the gospel story it'd make a substantial argument. But semantics aside, Jesus demands (one of the elements of Christianity I ignore because I find it adverse to my preferred interpretation) worship, demands to be acknowledged as a singular passage into the favor of god. Now, apart from the gospel of John his identity doesn't appear to be synonymous with god. Mark's Jesus seems to be a prophet, Matthew's the Messiah, Luke's Son of God, and finally John's as God himself. Those descrepancies can be harmonized to fit virtually any interpretation, except possibly the JW's preference.

 

[Ben57]

You may view that as "a good lot of fooling around with semantics ", and you are entitlted to view it that way. The question I was answering was "Was Jesus Worhiped". The simple answer is he received due hour and "worship" as someone in a higher positio. That facts are Jesus NEVER received religous worship only honour due to one of higher rank. Even in Johns writtings Jesus is kept seperate from God.

All the apostles writtings are in complete harmony with each other, and The JW view of Jesus being a created individual and the Son of God is in full harmony with All the Bible. But fro now I am answering the 4 questions posted to Bruce aboyt "worship". Respond with reason as to why my concluions above are wrong. instead of avoiding the issue.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Well, due to opinions like 'all the apostles writtings are in complete harmony with each other' I'm not sure how possible such a discussion is.

I apologize for saying 'a good lot of fooling around with semantics'. While technically, that's what I meant it sounded more rude than I intended it. I only glimpsed at the word-study and it seems accurate, but I don't think there's enough ambiguity in the words to warrent such examination. Certainly in the instances of the 'I am', but otherwise not so much.

The most difficult element of this discussion is my lack of clarity of what JW's doctrine is. I was unaware that Jesus is thought of as 'son of god'. Does that mean that Mary bore a unique offspring or fragment of God that sets Jesus apart from every other religious character? If so, then that seems to go against Bruce's assertion that Jesus was a man.

Anyway, back to Jesus' begging veneration. First off, I'm excluding the line where Jesus says 'bring those who will not worship me before me and slay them'. I just don't know what the hell to make of that line. I'd prefer it just disappear.

Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Joh 10:38 ...that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Joh 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

Joh 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father,

Joh 16:23Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever, ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Joh 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in nthee, that they also may be one in us.

I'm neglecting to quote the epistles of Paul and the other fraudulent epistles. Though these say clearly that Jesus is God, JW acceptance of them is as of yet unclear to me. I'm also leaving out the numerous so-called prophecies of Jesus from the OT which clearly reference the Hebrew god in many cases. If nothing else such would show that the authors modelled the story after a mystical midrash of Pslams, Isaiah, etc.

Rev 1:8 I am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending.

Compare to:

Isa 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside, me there is no God.

 

[Ben57]

G'day from Oz

The idea of examining original Greek Words is extreemly important in understand the Bible. To see how they are used and the context they are used in and the way different translators use them.

I wiil email you a discution on the JW view of Jesus if you like.

I can answer all those texts you quote bellow not using the NWT but any other Bible as well as the lexicons that I have to show thaT Jesus is not God. Beside the original Greek words used the context is also important.

But not to side step just yet the topic was the worship of Jesus. Lets stay on that for now unless you have nothing more to say on the use of that word in relation to Jesus.

Perhaps we should start a new thread so that other readers know that this discution is happening.

 

[iBrian]

New threads are always welcome, to help keep discussions focussed on particular issues.

 

[shannon]

New threads are always welcome, to help keep discussions focussed on particular issues.

The title of this tread is appropriate and the above few posts would be relevant to this as well as a new thread.

We are inside of question 1 of 4 questions I posted above. The topic at the moment is "Did Jesus accept Worship" and we're looking at the definition of worship as translated from the greek. This may answer questions 2 (in part) and 3 as well.

Ben57: Thank you for your response I will respond to the issue of proper translation from the greek, both specifically and generally, shortly. My internet from home is supposed to be up on friday.

 

[Mus Zibii]

Again, I have to say that language isn't at fault here. By the restrictions of logical fallacy, this is called a 'straw man'. There are curious vague passages, but there are far more that outweigh what is at play here. And if Christ claiming to be the sole pathway to salvation isn't demanding worship, I don't know what is.

In the gospel of John the 'jews' try to kill Jesus for the blasphemey of 'because you, a mere man, claim to be God'.

Jesus replied:

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

NOTE! He did not say, worship me not, I ain't God. By JW standards, Jesus is lying about himself. Now, as the Moslems would claim, this gospel might be heretical and corrupted by fools, but that's the only out I can see.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I'm going to exploit the conception that the four gospels are harmonious. Keep in mind, this isn't my belief, but for the sake of the argument it seems permissible.

On accepting worship:

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskuneo) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship (proskuneo) him (angel of the lord which JW's say is of the rank of Jesus). And he said unto me, See thou do it not:I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:

Rev 22:8 And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not:

Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

Act 14:14 Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out.

Jesus did not turn away from worship:

Mat 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshiped (proskuneo) him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

Joh 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped (proskuneo) him.

Mat 2:2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship (proskuneo) him.

Mat 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshiped (proskuneo) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Luk 24:52 And they worshiped (proskuneo) him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshiped (proskuneo) him: but some doubted.

Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

By JW standards (and Moslems), Jesus let these men sin.

Why did they 'worship' him?

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever.

Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Phi 2:5 Let this mind be, in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man,he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death even the death of the cross.

 

[Ben57]

Hi Mus Zimii

I apreciate that you are stepping outside of your belife sytem in answering this, but can I please ask that you keep the texts that you use ti those that directly relate to the "worship" of Jesus.

I havn't got the time right now to answer all the texts bellow but I will give a comment on a couple of them. Before i do thou, may I make a suggestion that will aid in this discution and any others? When you quote a text can you please say why you are using that particular text. An explanation as to what you are thinking will help me and possibly others understand what it is you are trying to say.

On accepting worship:

Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskuneo) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This si an interesting text. I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to say with this, but it does highlight the need to understand the Greek words being used here.

First you rightly point out that the word 'worship' here is derivied from the Greek (proskuneo). There is another word in this text that adds extra meaning to that word. I will now copy some information from another Lexicon, the On LineBible Greek Lexicon (GOBL) as it gives some extra details about the word (proskuneo)

from 4314 and a probable derivative of 2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); TDNT-6:758,948; v

AV-worship 60; 60

1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence

2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence

3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

3a) used of homage shown to men and beings of superior rank

3a1) to the Jewish high priests

3a2) to God

3a3) to Christ

3a4) to heavenly beings

3a5) to demons

As you can see this word is used in wide range of settings. So the first part of that Text in affect is saying

"Thou shalt Kneel 'down and show respect' to the Lord thy God". Now to get to the other part of that text that is important ...."and him only shalt thou serve.." The important word here is the word 'serve'. This is the Greek word as per Strongs

3000. latreuw latreuo lat-ryoo’-o; from latriv latris (a hired menial); to minister (to God), i.e. render, religious homage:—serve, do the service, worship(-per).

Rememder this from my previous post. Now I will post the extra wording from the GOBL

from latris (a hired menial); TDNT-4:58,503; v

AV-serve 16, worship 3, do the service 1, worshipper 1; 21

1) to serve for hire

2) to serve, minister to, either to the gods or men and used alike of slaves and freemen

2a) in the NT, to render religious service or homage, to worship

2b) to perform sacred services, to offer gifts, to worship God in the observance of the rites instituted for his worship 2b1) of priests, to officiate, to discharge the sacred office

This word renderd serve has by far a more religous role to it. Therefor to express the meaning of the original writer in more padded out way that text is telling us​

"Thou shalt Kneel 'down and show respect' to the Lord thy God, and to him alone shalt though perform sacred service".​

Remember as stated earlier the word (proskuneo) has a very wide usage, and just becuase it is used of one person does not mean that a second person receiving (proskuneo) is the same as the first. It was given to God, Jesus, High Priests amd even demons. The important thing to remember here is that humans wer due (proskuneo).​

The only other text that I have time for at this time is

Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship (proskuneo) him (angel of the lord which JW's say is of the rank of Jesus). And he said unto me, See thou do it not:I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:

The first thing I would loke to point out is that JWs do not say that the (angel of the lord ....is of the rank of Jesus) We say it was just an angel.

Remember the word proskuneo was used of those of higher rank, but in this verse the angel is saying "do not kneel before me as I am also a fellow servant" The angel is putting 'himself' on the same level as John not worthy of receiving any reverace as some one of higher rank when John obviously thought that the angel was.

So both those texts show that correct usage of the word "worship" as translated from the Greek proskuneo. The same usage as referd to Jesus as recognising him "Jesus" as being of a higher rank, and there was nothing improper of his followerers doing so just as it was not improper to givethis sort of worship to the priests.

 

[Mus Zibii]

My reasoning for quoting Mat 4:10 was to establish the gospel understanding of worship. To look at its numerous connotations is to miss the context (Equivocation). In one instance Jesus says its wrong to 'worship' (with all its meanings) that which is not God. Paul freaks when he is worshiped as God. The Angel of God tells John not to worship him. Jesus, when bowed to, when his feet are embraced, praises he/she that prostrates himself/herself, especially so when Thomas identifies him as God. That was the point of my quotes, which you don't need to address on an individual basis unless you just want to.

Now, I'm thinking you consider the act of 'worship' as a church-related veneration. I believe this to be a modern misconception of 'worship' (see the thread elsewhere on this issue of semantics). But even if this is not so, you have the establishment of the Christian church/movement/etc. Jesus says, ask of God in my name. The Apostles say, come to God through Jesus. By any standard, this is 'worship' rightly or wrongly. There's a saying that deals with this semantics issue. Not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are dogs. Not all worship is righteous, but all righteousness receives worship.

As I said before, you can dismiss the texts, say its a result of corruption or Satanic intervention, but to look at the instances where Jesus seems to indentify himself as something less than divine and reconcile his veneration by the Apostles and veneration in the book of John from that point is error. But here's the rub, every sect makes its own rules on how to reconcile the New Testament. And thus we return to the contention that the four gospels are perfectly in agreement.

If its any consolation, the acceptance of Jesus as God wasn't immediate. It certainly didn't become the orthodox interpretation until Irenaeus attempted to bring untity to the various sects during Christian persecution. The different sects worshipped different gospels. Some wanted to combine many gospels into one, but Irenaeus allowed the four most similar ones to represent the 'true' Christendom. It was an olive branch to the sects that might otherwise have not joined in his 'universal church' which was later adapted into Catholicism.

I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, and even if you did concede any point of contention I don't know what exactly that'd accomplish (I don't belong to a sect). What Christian interpretation boils down to, is conflict between church history and the heavily embellished creeds of various denominations (all of whom demand to be worshiped as singular). If this were a debate between JW and a secular view of Christian history, the burden of proof would rest on you. And the evidence that the JW doctrine existed before 1881 (or lack thereof) trumps point by point scriptural analyisis.

 

[PersonaNonGrata]

who else is god if not you





my uncle once said "yer a *ucking idiot, you know that?" laughed )

 

[Mus Zibii]

I was sleepy last night when I last responded and kinda meandered around the topic, so I want to summarize for myself the discussion thus far.

Ben says that the use of the term proskuneo can be as benign as handshake or salute and so, borrowing from the statements of Jesus that one should 'worship only God' the instances of this term is relegated as something less than it might appear.

My contention is that in the context the world appears in within the gospels indicate the authors (be they divine or anonymous) intended 'proskuneo' to indeed reflect recognition and veneration of Jesus as something holy. Moreover, I say that simply because 'proskuneo' is used to describe worship of demons or any thing lesser than Yahweh, the term loses none of its impact. To pay homage or reverence or obeisance to any given thing does nothing to negate the definition of the root word. And its other biblical uses may even add significance.

As this relates to definite JW doctrine, the NWT declines to translate 'proskuneo' as worship in reference to Jesus, opting for a descriptive response from the one performing the action, while maintaining its translation as 'worship' in every other usage, i.e. altering the word and meaning to fit a perceived context, though the word itself in Greek never changes. Also, there is evidence of inconsistency with JW doctrine, found in Watchtower texts that early on (as far back as 1898) imply that worship of Jesus is acceptable.

Thus, I contend that the JW interpretation of 'proskuneo' is due to an arbitrarily set standard that seeks to justify itself after the fact, rather than an interpretation of the text itself.

These are the standpoints. Is there anything that can be added to it? If not, then we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Maybe Shannon or someone else can add something.

 

[Ben57]

I am not trying to be difficult here. Some one wrote in this forum (I can not place the area) that JWs are not open to reason. Well I think that applies to all of us when we see things from different points of view. Like you I do not belong to a sect either. By the way if you think about it the followers of Jesu were said to belong to a sect, because their teacings were readically different from the "norm" at that time. But I digress.

I personally feel that undersdtanding the original usage of the the Greek words is important. Back in the 1960s there was a very popular stone age TV cartoon show that had a very interesting last line in its theme song, well interesting, if that line was to be used today. If I memory serves me, the last line went like this

"We'll have a gay ole time"

If I said to someone today to some freinds, especially if they were male, 'lets go have a gay ole time', what do you think people will be thinking of?

In the context of the 1960s and that particular TV show that phrase neant we were going to have some fun, a happy time. Yes words do change their meaning, so that is why it is important to understand what the original writer was saying not necesarily what some translator has re writen their words into English. Personally I beleive ALL Bibles have a theological bias to them, some a lot more so than others.

Now when it comes to the word worship, as I pointed out earlier there were five words that today have been translated as "worship". Most of us understand this word to mean "a reverence or devotion to a diety". So when that word apears in the Bible it is generally assumed that that is the meaning attached to it. However the Greek language had 5 words to convey different ideas. The word that is used of Jesus NEVER meant "a reverence or devotion to a diety".


Bo back and re read what I had to say on Matt 4:10. The essece of that text is to say "You shall worship [we should bow before God (in order to show respect)]the LORD your God, and it is Him alone you shall serve [worship in a religous way (as one would to a diety) by rendering sacred service to God]. So when we read the word worship in English what was the intent. Is the English word 'worhip' appropriate in that contex?

So is it not wise to be careful as to the way we use the word worship and its general English meaning.

If its any consolation, the acceptance of Jesus as God wasn't immediate. It certainly didn't become the orthodox interpretation until Irenaeus attempted to bring untity to the various sects during Christian persecution. The different sects worshipped different gospels. Some wanted to combine many gospels into one, but Irenaeus allowed the four most similar ones to represent the 'true' Christendom. It was an olive branch to the sects that might otherwise have not joined in his 'universal church' which was later adapted into Catholicism. .

I fully agree with you that the Trinity doctrin was established after the Bible was written.

I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, and even if you did concede any point of contention I don't know what exactly that'd accomplish (I don't belong to a sect). What Christian interpretation boils down to, is conflict between church history and the heavily embellished creeds of various denominations (all of whom demand to be worshiped as singular). If this were a debate between JW and a secular view of Christian history, the burden of proof would rest on you. And the evidence that the JW doctrine existed before 1881 (or lack thereof) trumps point by point scriptural analyisis.

Most JWs doctrine was around and taught by many groups since the death of Jesus. The none trinity no hell no imortal soul etc are not JW inventions. They were taughrt by many before hand but that is another story.

 

[Mus Zibii]

I know you're not being difficult. You've handled the argument perfectly. Like I said before, its unlikely there's going to be any changing of minds, so much as concession on points that simply don't have a landslide of undeniable proof in either direction (few discussions ever do). Now, Bruce, whether he meant to be or not, was somewhat difficult.

This discussion on the divinity of Jesus has really given me an excuse to look deeper at the actual texts. In all the gospels, there's a real REAL line that's only occasionly breached (especially in John) in distinguishing Jesus as holy or simply faithful. I consider it yet another nuance that endears the religious texts to me.

I can definitely agree that doctrines existed prior to Watchtower that ran parallel to JW doctrine. But not to be outdone, many other sects also have basis in extra-orthodox doctrines. For what its worth, I'll say again that if it were not for the Epistles and John, the argument for the divinity of Jesus would be near impossible. Still, in virtually every sect, there's extra-biblical 'revelation' that's determined the rules and wages of the denomination.

I feel that the secular take on the Jesus story is probably most accurate in that Jesus was developed as an intermediary, as apparently illustrated in the expectations of mystic Jews such as the one who collected and composed the Qumran scrolls. My own personal, preferred take revolves around Psalm 82, that Jesus through his logic and wisdom was a man indistinguishable from God, rendering him almost an atheist. I enjoy reconciling his words on evangelism, condemning the villages that refuse his truth to a fate worse than Sodom. As I look out to the Islamic world, the fundamentalist Christians, the ever-backward Jews, the frustrated Hindus, the decidely-vague Buddhists, the secularists, and the countless sects of all of the above, I can't help but feel this prophecy has come to pass.

But anyway, what other topics of JW doctrine could be discussed? I think we've both made the best arguments respecting the 'worship' of Jesus. Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

 

[Ben57]

....... For what its worth, I'll say again that if it were not for the Epistles and John, the argument for the divinity of Jesus would be near impossible. Still, in virtually every sect, there's extra-biblical 'revelation' that's determined the rules and wages of the denomination.

Personally I disagree that the Writtings of John show Jesus to be God. If you are refering to John 1:1 that text is translated wrong in most Bibles and the context of Joh 1 supports that. Colwells rule was missused and missunderstood for many years utill the late 80s or so when scholars started examining it more closely. The NWT is correct when it says "and the Word was a god". But that is another topic, perhaps one you might loke to take up on a new thread.


In a nut shell (no deep discution here just an overview) the JW view of Jesus is that he was the very first act of creation by God and then was used to creat all other creation. Jeusus was not the instigator or promoter of creation but the one that did the work. Much in the same way as a builder.

If I approch a large building company to build me a home, (We have one here in Aust. with a mans name lets call the company A.J Brooks and Co) I contract to A.J.Brooks to build. Now A.J does not literally go out and build my house, he has workers do that. Both A.J and the workers that did the work can rightly say they built my house. God is like A. J Brooks, he organises the work Jesus is like the workers that do the work.

So we have Jesus as Gods first born of creation and his life force is tranfered to the womb of Mary and he is born a perfect human, but with God as his Father. Jesuus is now fully human but perfect and the Son of God. With the help of God Jesus teaches many things and performs miricals.

At death his life force is returned to the heavens and Jesus was granted to sit at the right hand of God and appointed as King of Gods Kingdom.

But anyway, what other topics of JW doctrine could be discussed? I think we've both made the best arguments respecting the 'worship' of Jesus. Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

Perhaps some of the information above could be a topic for discution, or perhaps the JW view of Gods purpose for the earth, or salvation, or hell. or imortality, or why they do not vote, or why they do not celebrate christmas or easter. What ever how about we start a new thread. You ask the question and I will attemopt to answer. Leave this thread for any one that wants to continue and I will check it again

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MZ and Ben!

Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

You might be surprized. I have been following the conversation and learning a lot. I also have nothing to add but opinion, and I think we know what opinions are like...

So, rather than spoil the knowledgeable interchange between you both, it is better IMO to leave you to your discussion. It is being read, likely by many others. Thank you both!

 

[Mus Zibii]

Well, I'm glad it wasn't just me and Ben picking each others noses. LOL

 

[Mus Zibii]

Personally I disagree that the Writtings of John show Jesus to be God. If you are refering to John 1:1 that text is translated wrong in most Bibles and the context of Joh 1 supports that. Colwells rule was missused and missunderstood for many years utill the late 80s or so when scholars started examining it more closely. The NWT is correct when it says "and the Word was a god". But that is another topic, perhaps one you might loke to take up on a new thread.

That is another interesting contention. The thing that I notice first is the new complication that would arise if that translation were true. What would that mean? The word was a god?

As for that translation, I see no basis for the downgraded god theory. The implication that the rendering of 'theos' as 'deity' or 'god' simply means... well, there's only one alternative. Polytheism or false God. Now if it had said 'kai aggelos en ho logos'... that would make sense. Either Jesus as 'word of God' is recognized as deification in John 1:1 or John was a liar (or heretic). The funny twist to the JW take on John 1:1 is that 'theos' translated as God is used many times without any possible ambiguity and yet only in this instance does it denote a lesser deity - see John 1:13 or Matthew 1:23. More evidence - as I see it - that JW interpretation of the Greek bible is convoluted at best and makes a habit of selectively exploiting altered text to suit their own needs.

However! If John 1:1 had said 'and YHWH was the word' it would make the implication undeniable. Which further proves my contention that doctrine-makers of that age still had to toe the line when in came to interpretation (probably in writing the gospel, while lifting influence from the epistles) of the gospel story and Jewish scripture. This also provides evidence for the gentile denial of YHWH as God, or at least a false rendering of the God the Christians adopted.

 

[Ben57]

Hi Mus Zibii

First I would like to say that I am glad others have been reading the posts. Please feel free to ask a question or put ypur point of view across. That is how we ALL learn by exchanging ideas.
The reaction you give below is the most common reaction that people have. It is most likely due to the English understanding of the word God. For the Hebrews (of which the apostles were and spoke, but wrote in the common language of the day Greek), the word god did not just mean a diety. So again this is a good example of

That is another interesting contention. The thing that I notice first is the new complication that would arise if that translation were true. What would that mean? The word was a god?

As for that translation, I see no basis for the downgraded god theory.

May I ask by what you mean by downgrading ther god theory

The implication that the rendering of 'theos' as 'deity' or 'god' simply means... well, there's only one alternative. Polytheism or false God. Now if it had said 'kai aggelos en ho logos'... that would make sense. Either Jesus as 'word of God' is recognized as deification in John 1:1 or John was a liar (or heretic).

Actually most think that way but again it is due to the English understanding of the word god.

I do not have the time right now, but I will get back ASAP with an explanation of the word god and the difference between John 1:1 and John 1:13 Matthew 1:23.

The funny twist to the JW take on John 1:1 is that 'theos' translated as God is used many times without any possible ambiguity and yet only in this instance does it denote a lesser deity - see John 1:13 or Matthew 1:23. More evidence - as I see it - that JW interpretation of the Greek bible is convoluted at best and makes a habit of selectively exploiting altered text to suit their own needs.

However! If John 1:1 had said 'and YHWH was the word' it would make the implication undeniable. Which further proves my contention that doctrine-makers of that age still had to toe the line when in came to interpretation (probably in writing the gospel, while lifting influence from the epistles) of the gospel story and Jewish scripture. This also provides evidence for the gentile denial of YHWH as God, or at least a false rendering of the God the Christians adopted.

See you soon

 

[Mus Zibii]

May I ask by what you mean by downgrading ther god theory

Reducing 'theos' in a context that implies capital G God to lower case G god.

I'll wait until you reply to add anything, but I gotta reiterate my position on John 1:1. As far as Hebrew/Jewish understanding, it would seem less likely for the title of deity to be used separate from the one and only in a positive light. The intro to John - as Abogado del Diablo said in another post - is a combination of Platonic wisdoms and the book of Genesis. Its a culmination of Philo's conception of an intermediary between God and man, manifest in 'words'. Then the author of John, turns to Genesis, and in Adam's role as truly the son of God, he places Jesus. Compare. The verses where 'John' mentions logos, run parallel to the Genesis account of God speaking.

I've looked through Watchtower literature on the net, hoping to anticipate points I need to address, but its hard to tell what's JW doctrine and what critics claim is JW doctrine. Watchtower itself seems to look at its interpretation as evident.