Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one [echad]!"
The Hebrew word "echad" is used most often as a unified one, and sometimes as numeric oneness. For example, when God said in Genesis 2:24 "the two shall become one [echad] flesh," it is the same word for "one" that was used in Deut. 6:4.
A different word, "yachid," the main Hebrew word for solitary oneness, indisputably means an absolute numeric one. Anti-Trinitarians would naturally expect such a word to be commonly used of God, but it is never used to describe God.
Add to this plural pronouns like: "let US make man in OUR image" and Trinitarians have irrefutable evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament.
We find exactly the same in the New Testament as we do in the Old, namely, a combination of words meaning unified versus numeric oneness being employed to describe God's oneness. While yachid is never used of God’s oneness in the Old Testament, the corresponding Greek word "mono" is used of God’s oneness in the New Testament. But this is exactly what Trinitarians would expect to be the case because there are three persons in the one God.
Perhaps one of the strongest arguments the Trinitarian can use in the discussion of the words "echad" and "yachid" is the fact that Jews, shortly after the rise of Christianity, removed "echad" from Deut. 6:4 and added in its place the word "yachid". If the use of "echad" instead of "yachid" in Deut. 6:4 gave no help to the early Christians in proving to the Jews that Yahweh of the Old Testament was a multi-personal God, then Jews would not have felt compelled to change the word. If it is really that insignificant, then they would have told us the argument Christians were using to prove the Trinity is invalid to native Hebrews who know and speak the language. But instead, the Jews responded by changing the word in Deut. 6:4 from the unified oneness (echad) to the numeric oneness (yachid).
Jesus quoted Deut 6:4 in Mk 12:29 and chose the "unified oneness" word "hen" which is the same word used by Jesus in Mt 19:5, "the two shall become one (hen) flesh. It is significant that Jesus did not use "mono" in Mk 12:29. The word "hen" directly corresponds to "echad" which was used in Deut 6:4. Both texts used "unified oneness" words rather than absolute numeric oneness to the exclusion of all others.
Five different words for "one" in the Bible:
Echad (OT) - (Unified one: Gen. 2:24; Deut. 6:4) (Absolute numeric one: Ezekiel 33:24) - Used of God’s oneness
Yachid (OT) - (Always absolute numeric one: Judges 11:34) - Never used of God’s oneness
Bad (OT) - (Absolute numeric one: Isaiah 37:20) - Used of God’s oneness
Hen (NT) - (Unified one: John 10:30; Matthew 19:5; Mk 12:29) (Absolute numeric one: Galatians 3:20) - Used of God’s oneness
Monos (NT) - (Absolute numeric one: Matthew 24:36; 1 Timothy 1:17) - Used of God’s oneness
Following are a number of Old Testament passages that are either directly quoted in the New Testament, or contain parallel thoughts:
Two shall become one flesh (Echad, Old Testament: Gen. 2:24) (Matt. 19:5)
God is one (Echad, Old Testament: Deut. 6:4) (Hen, New Testament: Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:6)
One people (Echad, Old Testament: Gen. 11:6; Gen. 34:16; Gen. 22) (Hen, New Testament: John 11:52; Gal. 3:28)
One heart (Echad, Old Testament: 2 Chron. 30:12; Jer. 32:39) (Hen, New Testament: Acts 4:32; Phil. 1:27; Phil. 2:2)
Two objects becoming one (Echad, Old Testament: sticks: Ezek. 37:17) (Hen, New Testament: flocks: John 10:16)
Assembly as one (Echad, Old Testament: Ezra 2:64) (Hen, New Testament: Romans 12:5, 15:6; 1 Cor. 12:5,12)
(the above information is from: Bible.ca)
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
652 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 652 Newer› Newest»Nick,
Well, I guess I'm just finding it really hard to be patient and hold back questions and comments.
Earlier we discussed Hebrews 1:3, which says of Jesus, "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person..." (KJV) Jesus is the "brightness" of God's glory, even though Jehovah said in Isaiah 42:8 that He would not share His glory with another: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (KJV) So if Jehovah will not share His glory with another, and Jesus is the brightness of His glory, then how can Jesus be part of that glory, if Jehovah will not share it?
Nick,
John 16:15 says, "All the things that the Father has are mine." (New World Translation)
If Christ possesses all that the Father has, does He not possess His titles and thereby share His intrinsic deity also?
Nick,
In the New World Translation, Isaiah 43:10b says, "Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none." We talked about this verse before. But if Jesus is considered a "god" that was created by Jehovah, then how can Isaiah 43:10 be true? Where in the Bible does it say that Jehovah created a god? If Jehovah never formed a god before or after Himself, then how is it that He could have created or formed a god? Is this not a total contradiction?
Nick,
Earlier you said:
Something else you made known to me: “He would be far beyond our ability to define Him, such that we will never be able to fully comprehend Him?”
...
There is no need to super-impose non-biblical concepts and hold them in front of Scripture to try to explain the very explainable clear description of who God is and his relationship with His Son and what God’s holy spirit accomplishes.
Would you not agree that there are revelations and mysteries which were never intended to be fully understood outside of the mind of God? For Colossians 2:2-3 (KJV) says:
"That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
Don't you think "the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ" and "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" could possibly include the nature of God?
Nick,
Do you see striking similarities between the teachings of Charles Taze Russell and the Arians of the fourth century?
In 319 A.D. Arius of Alexandria said that Jesus was merely the first and greatest of God's creatures, created in time and elevated to the rank of "a god."
I read that, early in the history of the Christian Church, the rationalistic theology of Greece had begun to infiltrate itself into Christian doctrine, forever seeking a "reasonable" explanation to those revelations and mysteries I mentioned in Colossians 2:2-3. The most profound and mysterious of those revelations was unquestionable that of the Trinity, with its three-Persons-in-one-God doctrine of Biblical pre-eminence. Seeking to explain this mystery away, certain of the Greek-influenced theologians of the era criticized that part of the doctrine they believed most vulnerable, which was the identity and nature of the second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. The most prominent one was Lucian of Antioch. This Greek-thinking mystic trained a whole group of potential enemies of orthodox Christianity and schooled them in the cleverness of dialectical theology. Lucian was devoted to the concept that “once the Son of God was not.” His prize pupil was Arius, who lived to spread these teachings. I read that he was vain beyond description, and that his unscriptural speculations set in motion the Arian heresy, which basically says, (1) If God the Father gave birth to the Son, Jesus Christ who was born, has an origin of existence; (2) therefore, once the Son was not; (3) and therefore He was created out of nothing.
Arius arrived at this theory because he did not fully comprehend the Scriptures, and he sought to supply an answer for a question that he could not figure out: how Christ is both God and man, never ceasing to be either, yet true to each Nature.
In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian church, he reveals glimpses of the mysterious relationship that exists between the eternal God and His identical Son. In the first chapter, he declares that Christ is “the power and the wisdom of God.” John wrote that Jesus Christ was “the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20) So, if the Word or Reason of God did not always exist, as both the Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then the Father also has lacked true completeness. For, if the Word was not eternal, then neither would the Father possess eternal wisdom and power, seeing that Christ is the fullness of both in Him (1 John 5:20).
Similarly, Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus Christ upholds “all things by the word of his power” (KJV), and Colossians 2:9 says that “all the fulness of the Godhead” dwells bodily in Jesus Christ (KJV).
(cont.)
(cont.)
I read further that Athanasius, the greatest enemy of Arianism, led the battle against the impious Arius, and at the Council of Nicaea which convened in Bithynia the summer of 325 A.D., he had the satisfaction of seeing the Arian theology officially condemned as heresy and its leaders excommunicated. Some 300 bishops banded together against the Arian minority of 30 (which dwindled at length to 18), as the Nicaean Council set its stamp of approval on what the Scriptures had always taught, that Jesus Christ is “the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). (And later, in 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity.)
The Council of Nicaea drew a line once and for all between the theological double talk of the Arians and the straight pronouncement of the Bible. The Arians were willing to ascribe to Jesus Christ all the attributes and titles of His Father, except the one thing which alone could entitle Him to the identity of true deity, the equality of the Father’s Substance or Nature. We know, however, that the Christian Church has historically taught what the Scriptures declare: namely, that our Lord is Creator, Redeemer and Everlasting Sovereign, and that the Father Himself has decreed that one day at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11). Certainly, no one can say in retrospect that the Council of Nicaea solved the mystery of the Trinity or ended the Arian controversy, for it continued to flare for some years thereafter, but it did serve to reveal one important and wonderful truth, which the Christian Church has held inviolate throughout the ensuing ages. This truth candidly states and affirms that there is one eternal God subsisting in three separate and distinct Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; yet one in agreement of will, unity of Substance and equality of power: “neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance.” This one Being Christendom universal adores and worships as alone true God and true man in Jesus Christ, who Himself personally commanded that we baptize “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” and that these three in manifestation be worshiped as one in Personality and Nature (John 4:24) which is true unity, and the only real basis for Jehovah’s being the one true and living God.
Hi Jeff,
I am going to take your comments in order systematically as I said before.
You said:
"1 John 1:1-2 says, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us." God the Son, Jesus Christ, has always existed ("was from the beginning"). 1 John 2:13a says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning."
What could the expression, “That which was from the beginning,” mean?
I know you are aware when we read a sentence in Scripture we must not ask ourselves what that sentence means in isolation, but we must ask what it means in context. This is of course true of all Scripture, not this text alone.
Could you cross reference 1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:11 and 2 John 5? What do we see? I would appreciate your thoughts on what you think “from the beginning” means in these texts. Please let me know.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
I am going to take your comments in order systematically as I said before.
No problem.
Could you cross reference 1 John 2:7; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:11 and 2 John 5? What do we see? I would appreciate your thoughts on what you think “from the beginning” means in these texts. Please let me know.
Those verses are talking about love. More specifically, I would say the law of love.
The old command, "which you have had since the beginning," was this:
" 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18)
And also:
"And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:39-40)
1 John 2:8 talks about a new command:
"Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining."
The new command is:
"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)
It's newness is seen in the new and dramatic illustration of divine love on the cross, as well as Christ's exposition of the Old Testament law (i.e., as seen in Matthew 5; for example: murder, adultery, divorce, oaths, an eye for an eye, and love for enemies), which seemed 'new' to those Jesus was speaking to, in the way that Jesus expressed them. Also, the newness is seen in the daily experience of believers as they grow in love for each other.
Basically, John is pointing out that this command is not new. The commandment to trustfully obey God is an old commandment. It was really an old commandment. John reminds his readers that they had it "from the beginning." God has not changed in His love for us. From the beginning, God has intended that His creatures have intimate fellowship with Him. John says that this old commandment is "the word which you have heard." So it is from the beginning, and they have heard this in His Word. It is what they have heard before, and yet what John is writing them about also is new. It is new because this commandment "is true in him and in you." The reason this is new is because it is now true in Christ and in followers of Christ. Christ is the life that has been made manifest to us, but it goes beyond that. Christ by His life, death, and resurrection, has made this commandment a living reality both in Him and in us (believers). It is no longer a command outside of us, hanging over our heads, something we strive on our own to accomplish but always fail at. Jesus becomes human, grabs ahold of our humanity and makes this trusting, abiding, obedient relationship with His heavenly Father a reality in human flesh. And not just a reality for Himself, He makes it a reality in us (Christians). This means that God has done something real in my life by uniting Himself to me in His Son.
(cont.)
(cont.)
John goes on to say that this is a new commandment because "the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." Again John is saying that the reason for the newness is because something has changed in reality. The triune God has already done something and it is continuing to have real effect.
Jesus' sacrificial and atoning death on the cross is the climax and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. It is the fulfillment of the foreshadowings and types in the Old Testament. It is the completion and fulfillment of what the Old Testament sacrifices stood for. No longer do we have to have a human High Priest as an intercessor between us and God, because now, Jesus is that High Priest. No longer do we have to offer animal sacrifices on an altar, because now Jesus has offered His perfect, sinless life to appease the wrath of the Father. No longer do we have to follow ceremonies and feast days and all of that. Those who have become regenerated in Christ are now free, because they are no longer bound by legalistic enslavement to the law. The law could never save them anyway, because the law is only a mirror, to show us our need for a savior. In Hebrews 11, it shows that those in the Old Testament were saved by faith, and not by works; they were saved by their faith in the promised Messiah. It's not that Christ has done away with the law, for He showed us that the law is not just outward actions, but it also has to do with inward intentions, words and thoughts as well. This being the case, it is impossible to please Jehovah on our own, because we sin every day. But those who repent (turn away) from their sins and lay their sins at the foot of the cross (so to speak) and surrender their lives to Jesus Christ as God Almighty, Lord and Savior, will have all their past, present and future sins washed away, cast away as far as the East is from the West, and washed white as snow. God the Holy Spirit will come to dwell inside them, and will empower them to love others, to obey Him, and will give them brand new desires. Therefore, this new command to love one another is made possible to obey because the Holy Spirit now dwells in the hearts of those who have given their lives to Christ.
Christians can abide in Christ, live in Christ, know the truth about themselves and their complete inadequacy to save themselves, and yet not be crushed by it, because Christ has done all that is necessary to truly abide with us and share His life with us and make us able to receive that life.
Nick,
The Geneva Study Bible says this, about 1 John 2:7:
"The apostle expounding the commandment of charity towards one another, tells first that when he urges holiness, he brings no new idea of life (as they use to do who devise traditions one after another) but reminds them of that same law which God gave in the beginning, that is, by Moses, at the time that God began to make laws for his people."
I assume you are going to talk about "in the beginning" as related to Jesus Christ.
Micah 5:2 (a Messianic prophecy verse) in the NASB says, ""But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."
The KJV for Micah 5:2 says, "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament translates it literally as, "from aforetime from days of eon." One dictionary definition of "eon" is "An indefinitely long period of time." And one dictionary definition for "indefinite" is "without fixed or specified limit; unlimited." One dictionary definition of "unlimited" is "infinite." One definition of "infinite" is "endless." And one synonym for "endless" is "eternal."
Hi there Jeff,
Continuing where I left off, you I see you said:
“The apostle John testifies that the One who has existed from eternity "became flesh." John 1:14 says, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
No, that is not what the Bible says. Jesus was the Word, the Logos or the spokesman of God, who was in the “bosom position” of God and was Divine, but was not theGod (ho theos) he was with.
Contrary to what Trinitarian apologists have traditionally argued, a concept of eternal existence is not articulated or demanded here. All the text tells us is that he was in existence “in the beginning.” In the beginning of what? (Genesis 1:1)
The Son was there when all things were made in heaven and earth. This does not have to mean that he wasn’t brought into existence.
However, there is a Scripture that some have shown me in the past that they felt was irrefutable proof that “God was manifested in the flesh.” It is found in 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV. A Trinitarian correspondent friend of mine once said, “That is exactly what it says!”
The only problem is that this translation is not at all reliable and in no way can be used as "irrefutable proof," that God himself was made manifest in the flesh. In fact, "God," in this text is highly dubious!
I realize there are some translations like the KJV that have "God," instead of "He," or "Who." The New King James version (NKJV) alerts readers that earlier manuscripts omit "God." That is why even many TRINITARIAN Bible Translations like the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, The English Standard Version, The Today's New International Version, and the American Standard Version render it as "He," or "Who," instead.
This is because, as the footnote of the American Standard Version explains: "The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence."
-continued
-continuing
Even the Latin Vulgate, have in their text "He who" instead of "God." The truth is the oldest original-language manuscripts do not have "God," in the reading. Textual criticism reveals that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine.
Renowned Trinitarian, Bruce M. Metzger in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament concludes: "No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports θεός [the•os´]; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός [the•os´]."
Westcott and Hort show in their "Notes on Select Readings,'" that the alteration is found only in manuscripts written from the end of the fourth century C.E. onward.
I was wondering if you personally ever had an opportunity to check on the early ancient codex? In the past, I actually did this. This is what I could see. The contraction for "God," formed by two Greek letters "ΘC," appears originally to have read "ΟC," the word for "who."
Take a second look at the dash in the "OC," for God. You can see how easy it would be to convert "who" to the title "God" by just putting a single stroke through the "O" and a bar over the top of both letters. This is the alteration that was made in some ancient manuscripts. Textual scholars have exposed this alteration.
Even in the famous fifth-century Alexandrine manuscript in the British Museum which I twice visited, a microscope examination has revealed that the stroke and bar were added by another hand at a much later time! I saw the evidence and seen the x-ray test and picture that exposed two types of ink made in different time periods.
For myself, the course of wisdom to take when one approaches a passage like that is to be very hesitant and cautious about building my belief system upon my own preferred translation of a Scripture.
If there is any credible doubt or uncertainty in the rendering of a particular word, in this case, "God,' or "He who," why use this as "an absolute proof text," as undeniable, irrefutable evidence that "God," came to earth to give his life for us.
If one is at all reluctant on something so "iffy," and suspect, then the best thing to do is consult the rest of the Scriptures for a more clear definitive answer. And what do the rest of the Scriptures make abundantly and overwhelmingly clear? That "God," sent forth "His Son," (John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:9;) Not himself. This most ABSOLUTELY is verifiable and dependable.
As to all the other questions you recently asked, I WILL get to them. Someone I used to work with used to do the same thing. Try to find as much dirt on Jehovah's Witnesses as he could.
He soon realized he wasn't told all the facts and because of his investigation and after receiving satisfying answers he is now one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Give me a chance, I will respond very soon to each and everyone of them.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
No, that is not what the Bible says. Jesus was the Word, the Logos or the spokesman of God, who was in the “bosom position” of God and was Divine, but was not theGod (ho theos) he was with.
...
The Son was there when all things were made in heaven and earth. This does not have to mean that he wasn’t brought into existence.
Is there anything about Jehovah that has ever been created?
Has the Watchtower ever said that there is some part of Jehovah that has been created?
If no part of Jehovah has been created, and Jesus is God's Word, then how could Jesus be created?
Nick,
If Jesus was created, then how do you explain these verses?:
Micah 5:2-"Bethlehem...out of you will come...ruler over Israel, whose goings out are from of old, from days of eternity."
John 1:1-In the beginning was the Word [Creation is not mentioned until vs.3].
Col 1:17-He is before ALL things.
Heb 7:3-[Melchizedek]...having neither beginning of days...like the Son of God.
Nick,
We have mentioned this before, but let's look at it again.
Jesus is worshiped many times in the New Testament; the worshipers are never rebuked. An angel is worshiped twice in the New Testament [Rev 19:10, 22:8-9]; the worshiper is rebuked both times. Peter is worshiped once [Acts 10:25]; the worshiper is rebuked.
Why was there rebuke when angels and Peter were worshiped, but not when Jesus was worshiped?
Nick,
You have mentioned Robert Bowman twice in our discussion. Here is a quote from him:
"God himself had told Moses that no human being could see God and live (Ex. 33:20); but now, in God's "only-begotten," God is in effect seen in Jesus, who perfectly reveals and fully bestows the Father's glorious grace to all who believe in him (John 1:14, 16, 18). Thus, it is in his human existence that Jesus fully embodies God's glory."
("Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' Resurrection, and the Gospel of John," Part One: the Resurrection as Jesus' Climactic Miracle,
By Robert M. Bowman, Jr.)
Nick,
However, there is a Scripture that some have shown me in the past that they felt was irrefutable proof that “God was manifested in the flesh.” It is found in 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV. A Trinitarian correspondent friend of mine once said, “That is exactly what it says!”
The only problem is that this translation is not at all reliable and in no way can be used as "irrefutable proof," that God himself was made manifest in the flesh. In fact, "God," in this text is highly dubious!
OK, let's look at it.
"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." (1 Timothy 3:16, KJV)
OK, so I looked it up in the Zondervan Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The previous portion of that chapter talks about wives, deacons and bishops/overseers. But starting with verse 14, which begins a new paragraph (i.e., in the NIV), and where Paul begins to tell Timothy and others that he hopes to visit them soon, here is the literal translation from the Interlinear Greek-English:
"(14)These things to thee I write hoping to come to thee shortly; (15)but if I delay, in order that thou mayest know how it behoves in [the] household of God to behave, which is [the] church God of [the] living, pillar and bulwark of the truth. (16)And confessedly great is the - of piety mystery: Who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, was seen by angels, was proclaimed among nations, was believed in [the] world, was taken up in glory."
OK, so yes, it says "Who." But then we must ask, "Who is the "Who" that it is talking about?" Well, who is the only one mentioned in that section? God! He is mentioned twice! So it sure looks to me as if God is being implied there!
Nick,
Regarding 1 Timothy 3:16 and that section, Matthew Henry's Commentary says:
"2. But what is the truth which the churches and ministers are the pillars and grounds of? He tells us (v. 16).
(1) Christianity is a mystery that could not have been found out by reason or the light of nature, because it is above reason, though not contrary thereto. It is a mystery of godliness, and herein it exceeds all the mysteries of the Gentiles.
(2) It is Christ. [1] He is God manifest in the flesh. [2] He is justified in the Spirit. Whereas he was reproached as a sinner, and put to death as a malefactor, being raised again, he was justified in the Spirit. [3] He was seen of angels. Angels ministered to him, for he is the Lord of angels. [4] He is preached unto the Gentiles. This is a great part of the mystery of godliness, that Christ was offered to the Gentiles a Redeemer and Savior. [5] He was believed on in the world. Who would have thought that the world, which lay in wickedness, would believe in the Son of God, would take him to be their Savior who was himself crucified at Jerusalem? [6] He was received up into glory. It is not only his ascension that is meant, but his sitting at the right hand of God, where he ever lives. He who was manifest in flesh was God, really and truly God. This makes it to be a mystery. Godliness is a mystery in all its parts and branches. It being a great mystery, we should rather humbly adore it, than curiously pry into it."
Nick,
For myself, the course of wisdom to take when one approaches a passage like that is to be very hesitant and cautious about building my belief system upon my own preferred translation of a Scripture.
Thankfully, I do not build my belief upon any particular translation of Scripture. I often cross-reference multiple translations, and have read several different translations of the Bible from cover to cover.
If there is any credible doubt or uncertainty in the rendering of a particular word, in this case, "God,' or "He who," why use this as "an absolute proof text," as undeniable, irrefutable evidence that "God," came to earth to give his life for us.
You make it sound like that is the only place in the Bible that could possibly show that Jesus is Almighty God. This is not even close to being the case. And I don't even need to rely on that verse as "undeniable, irrefutable evidence," because that is only one tiny, minuscule piece of evidence among many evidences; in other words, even if it were proven as undeniable fact that the verse was not talking about God, that would not even put a dent in the fact that Jesus is God Almighty, because there are many other verses that show it as well, not to mention the evidence shown in transformed lives, including my own life and the lives of people I know personally, who have been radically and miraculously changed by Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Nick,
That "God," sent forth "His Son," (John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:9;) Not himself.
And again I want to ask you a question which I asked earlier. What does "His Son" mean? I know that Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus was Jehovah's first creation, but what does that mean? Who or what is Jesus Christ? Is He God Almighty/Jehovah? Is He a lesser god? Is He a false god? Is He an angel? Is He nothing more than merely a human being who was born and who died? What is He? I would not expect you to say that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jesus is nothing more than merely a human being, but then, what is Jesus?
And my next question would be this: I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses say that they "give honor" to Jesus, but what does that mean? If Jehovah God, God Almighty, says that only He is to be worshiped, then what are we supposed to do with Jesus? What exactly does it mean to 'honor' Him? I know of nothing that says we are to 'honor' angels, so what exactly does 'honoring' Jesus entail, if it is not the same as worshiping Jehovah, yet is apparently something more than what we are to show to angels?
Nick,
As to all the other questions you recently asked, I WILL get to them.
No problem. I realize I have asked many questions, and I know you can't answer them all at once.
Someone I used to work with used to do the same thing. Try to find as much dirt on Jehovah's Witnesses as he could.
I haven't even done that. All I have done, basically, is address the things you have brought up. You keep asking me questions, and also, you keep bringing up points that I feel should be addressed, so that is why I keep saying things. And, as I think of new questions, or sometimes find questions in my research, I will ask them, because if I put it off, I'll forget. But believe me, if I wanted to throw "dirt" on Jehovah's Witnesses, I have read and watched many things which I could use to do that. But that is not what I am trying to do. Therefore, I have so far avoided mentioning any of those things. Instead, I am trying to address the truth of what Scripture is saying.
Give me a chance, I will respond very soon to each and everyone of them.
Nick, please don't feel rushed. I know at one point earlier I mentioned that you had not answered 4 or 5 of the questions I had asked, but now I have asked even more questions, so I know that you can't answer them all right now. Take your time.
Hi Jeff,
You stated: “Christ Jesus is called "the life" because He is the living One Who has life in Himself.”
Yes, Christ Jesus lives because of the living Father. (John 6:57; English Standard Version) And you are correct that Christ Jesus has “life in himself.” But why? Only because of permission. It was granted by his Father to have life in himself. This means he at one time did not have it.
“For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” (John 5:26; English Standard Version)
Also, we could say Jesus is the living one when it comes to his death and resurrection. (Revelation 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:45); but he himself is actually, “the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (Matthew 16:16; English Standard Version)
Then you shared these two passages in John: “John 11:25 says, "Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies."
Yes, Jesus was the “word of life,” the one whom the Father had granted to have life-giving power to resurrect. Through Jesus, eternal life is possible. He is the resurrection and has been authorized by God to raise the dead. As it says in the KJV, “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:21, 22)
Continuing the same line of thought you said: “And John 14:6 says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jesus is “the way” in that only through him can we enter into an approved relationship with God. Why is that so? By proving faithful to death, Jesus gave his life as a ransom sacrifice. (Matthew 20:28)
Without this ransom provision, it would be impossible for us to have access to God. Sin creates a barrier between humans and God, for Jehovah is holy and therefore can never approve of sin. (Isaiah 6:3; 59:2)
-continued
-continuing
But the sacrifice of Jesus removed the barrier; it provided the necessary covering, or atonement, for sin. (Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 1:7) If we accept God’s provision through Christ and put faith in it, we can enter into Jehovah’s favor. There is simply no other way for us to become “reconciled to God.” (Romans 5:6-11)
Jesus is also “the way” when it comes to prayer. Only through Jesus can we go to Jehovah in prayer with the assurance that our heartfelt petitions will be favorably heard. (1 John 5:13, 14) Jesus himself said: “If you ask the Father for anything he will give it to you in my name…Ask and you will receive, that your joy may be made full.” (John 16:23, 24)
I mentioned this earlier that only “in the name of Jesus,” we can approach Jehovah in prayer and call Him “our Father.” (Matthew 6:9) Jesus is “the way” in yet another sense, by his example. True Christians need to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. It is what being Christian really means. (1 Peter 2:21)
Jesus was “the truth” because he always spoke the truth about his Father’s prophetic word. (John 8:40, 45, 46) No deception was ever found in Jesus’ mouth. (1 Peter 2:22) Even his opposers acknowledged that he taught “the way of God in line with truth.” (Mark 12:13, 14)
-continued
-continuing
However, when Jesus said “I am the truth,” he was not simply referring to the fact that he made truth known in his speaking, preaching, and teaching. More, much more, than talking was involved. By the way he lived, every word he spoke and every deed he performed, Jesus brought the prophetic patterns into the realm of actual truth. (2 Corinthians 1:20)
It was as if the truth of Jehovah’s prophetic word arrived in the person of Jesus. (John 1:17; Colossians 2:16, 17)
I already touched on how Jesus is “the life,” for it is only through him that we can receive life, that is, “the real life.” (1 Timothy 6:19) The Bible says: “He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life...” (John 3:36) Jehovah has entrusted his Son with “the keys of death and of Hades, (hell or the common grave of mankind)” granting him the power to resurrect. (Revelation 1:17, 18)
With those keys, the glorified Jesus will unlock the gates of Hades and thus release all those being held in mankind’s common grave. (John 5:28, 29) Yes, hades or (hell) will be emptied out and actually itself be destroyed. "Hell" does not last forever whatever we believe it to be. I know this is another discussion.
Another comment you sent me: “Jesus is also the source of life and sovereign over life. 1 John 5:11 says, "And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."
Not true. We just saw that Jesus was granted life so he is not the source. It is “the Father” and God of Jesus who is the cause of life. Speaking of Jehovah the Father the psalmist said, “For with you is the source of life.” (Psalm 36:9)
All life, including the life of his Son, stems from Him. God's position as the “source” of creation is explicitly defined when we are told that it is Him (the Father) “OUT of whom are all things.” (1Corinthians 8:6) The Son is the agent “through” whom he made all things.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
Well, I got through your first comment without addressing it, but regarding your second comment, I have some questions. And don't worry, I know I have asked many questions, and I know you are taking them in order, so I know these questions below will have to be put in the queue to await an answer after you first answer the previous questions. So again, take your time.
But the sacrifice of Jesus removed the barrier; it provided the necessary covering, or atonement, for sin. (Hebrews 10:12; 1 John 1:7) If we accept God’s provision through Christ and put faith in it, we can enter into Jehovah’s favor. There is simply no other way for us to become “reconciled to God.” (Romans 5:6-11)
What was the "barrier" that was removed?
If Jesus' sacrifice "provided the necessary covering, or atonement, for sin," then what does that mean for us, as far as how we get to live in Paradise forever?
What does it mean to be in "Jehovah's favor"?
With those keys, the glorified Jesus will unlock the gates of Hades and thus release all those being held in mankind’s common grave. (John 5:28, 29) Yes, hades or (hell) will be emptied out and actually itself be destroyed. "Hell" does not last forever whatever we believe it to be. I know this is another discussion.
Yes, because the word sometimes translated "Hell" in the Old Testament is often not the same word translated "Hell" in the New Testament. There is Hades, Sheol and Gehenna, so most of the words in the Bible translated as "Hell" do not mean 'the grave.' The Bible talks about the Lake of Fire, for example, and it talks about everlasting darkness (presumably from the smoke or from sulphur) and eternal suffering, where 'their worm never dies' and the fire never goes out. They will gnash (grind) their teeth together because of the intense agony, and they will never know relief. The everlasting Hell might be compared to an incinerator or a garbage dump where the garbage is always being burned---but, since the person's soul is everlasting, it cannot die, and therefore the souls of the lost will suffer forever (but I know that Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe this, so this, too, would be an entirely new discussion). Satan, the fallen angels, and all who are enemies of Christ (i.e., all who have not been reborn/regenerated, and therefore do not have their sins forgiven) will be tormented forever, without end. Jesus Himself verified this. If the lost and the fallen angels were simply annihilated, then God would not be a just God, because He would be letting them off easy, and they would never have to fully pay for their sins, because only a holy, sinless one can truly pay for sins, and therefore, the sins of anyone who was simply 'annihilated' would be left unpaid...which, as I said, would mean that God would be a pretty lousy Judge. But, like you said, the subject of "Hell" is an entirely different discussion, as is the subject of the human soul.
Not true. We just saw that Jesus was granted life so he is not the source.
No, I never saw where Jesus was granted life. You have not shown me anywhere that it says that.
Nick,
Let's say someone raped 185 women, and before he raped them, he tortured them horribly. He mutilated their bodies and even decapitated them. Let's say he also raped several little girls who were 2, 3 and 5 years old.
Now, he is arrested and tried, and, after spending 20 years in prison, where he gets free dental, free insurance, free cable, free gym time, etc., he is finally given a lethal injection. Does that seem fair, after all the horrible things he has done? And then, when he dies, God merely annihilates him. Again, does that seem fair, after all the horrible, disgusting, filthy, horrid, abominable things he has done? Would that be a just God that would simply annihilate him? If a lethal injection would be too good for him, then how can annihilation be called true justice? If that were the case, I would say that God was not a just God at all.
Hey there Jeff,
“But we shall find that on almost every occasion in the New Testament on which Jesus seems to be called God there is a problem either of textual criticism or of a translation. In almost every case we have to discuss which of two readings is to be accepted or which two possible translations is to be accepted.” (William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him, New Testament Interpretations of Jesus, p. 21)
With this honest comment in mind, let’s proceed and examine something you recently stated. You said: “Jesus is the true God. The end of 1 John 5:20 says, "He is the true God and eternal life.”
In 1 John 5:20 in the KJV it says, “We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.”
However, some Trinitarian Bible translations like the Knox Bible states in a footnote: “It is not certain whether the word ‘he’ [lit. ‘this (one)’] refers to the word ‘God’ [‘him who is true’] or to the word ‘Son.’”
So what is it? Is this a CLEAR instance of Christ being called “the true God”? Many take this scripture to mean that the Son is given such a title. If they were correct, we would have at this verse, a contradiction of John 17:3 where Jesus says to his Father in prayer: “that they may know you the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.” What is the import of 1 John 5:20? Note what even some Trinitarian scholars have reported and why:
“The KJV by adding here the word even, implies that him that is true now refers to Christ. This leads to the view that the following words, this is the true God, refer also to Christ. This gives one of the most explicit statements in the N.T. of the deity of Christ. Theological controversy has long raged about this passage. But the natural sense of the passage and the characteristic thought of the epistle and the Gospel preclude this interpretation. It is through Christ that we are in God. This God so known is the true God. The thought centers in God from Vs. 18 on, and the contrast with idols in the last verse confirms it. This God so know also means eternal life.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII, p. 301)
The respected Greek grammarian and Baptist, A.T. Robertson wrote:
“Him that is true (ton alethinon) [“the true (one)”]. That is God, Cf. 1:8. In him that is true (en to alethinoi) [“in the true (one)”], In God…in contrast with the world “in the evil one” (verse 19). See John 17:3. Even in his Son Jesus Christ (en toi huioi autou Iesou Chrisoti) [“in the son of him Jesus Christ”]. Hence this clause in not in apposition with the preceding, but an explanation as to how we are ‘in the True one’ by being ‘in his Son Jesus Christ.’ This (‘houtos’) [“this (one)”]...Grammatically houtos may refer to Jesus Christ or to ‘the True One.’ It is a bit tautological to refer it of God, but that is probably correct, God in Christ, at any rate, God is eternal life (John 5:26) and he gives it to us through Christ.” (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. VI, p. 245)
-continued
-continuing
“As far as the grammatical construction of the sentence is concerned the pronoun [houtos, ‘this one’] may refer to ‘Him that is true’ or to ‘Jesus Christ’. The most natural reference however is to the subject not locally nearest but dominant in the mind of the apostle (comp[are].) c[hapter]. ii.22; 2 John 7; Acts iv.11; vii.19). This is obviously ‘He that is true’ further described by the addition of ‘His Son.’ Thus the pronoun gathers up the revelation indicated in the words which precede…This being — the One who is true who is revealed through and in His Son, with whom we are united by His Son — is the true God and life eternal.” (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles Of St. John: The Greek Text With Notes And Essays, London, Macmillian And Co., 1883, p. 187)
Trinitarian NT scholar Murray Harris sums up his meticulous 13-page analysis of this scripture as follows:
"Although it is certainly possible that outos refers back to Jesus Christ, several converging lines of evidence point to `the true one,' God the Father, as the probable antecedent. This position, outos = God [Father], is held by many commentators, authors of general studies, and, significantly, by those grammarians who express an opinion on the matter." (p. 253, Jesus as God)
Notice how this respected Trinitarian scholar actually admits that the probability is that the Father (not Jesus) is being called the “true God” here. Murray Harris even tells us, and cites examples in his footnotes, that New Testament grammarians and commentators agree! Most of them are Trinitarian!
In the Epworth Commentary series, William Loader summarized the points accurately: “The Greek of 5:20 has only the true (one) and reads literally: we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding ‘so that we know the true (one) and we are in the true (one)’, in his Son Jesus Christ. ‘This (one) is the true God and eternal life.’ It is clear from this that ‘the true (one) is God throughout. Christ is his Son. In the final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still to God, not to Christ, as some have suggested. It is not unknown for Christ to be given God’s name. (Phil. 2:9-11) or even to be called ‘God’ (Hebrews 1:8, 9; John 1:1), but that would run contrary to the theme here, which is contrasting true and false understandings of God for which Christ’s revelation is the criterion. 5:20 reminds us of Jesus’ prayer according to John 17:3: ‘This is eternal life: to know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent.” (The Johannine Epistles, Epworth Commentaries, p.79)
Trinitarian William Loader understood this passage correctly. He got it because he recognized what the context of this entire chapter was saying. 1 John 5:11 says everlasting life comes from God even though it is through His Son. The first sentence of this verse undeniably shows that the “true one” is not Jesus since it states Jesus is His Son.
Logically then, the “true one” is the same person as the “true God” mentioned in the very next sentence. So what is the point? Jesus is not the true God. John wants us to confess that he is God’s Son.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I’m rereading your comments regarding Hebrews 1. Why would the inspired writer of Hebrews devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as GOD Almighty?
And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses and the angels. He would have dedicated the entire letter to proving absolutely that Jesus is God if he had really believed such a thing himself.
The weight of the evidence indicates that in Hebrews 1:8, Jesus’ throne, his office or authority, has its source in Jehovah the Almighty God. In many Trinitarian translations, either in the main text or in the margin, Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him.
As we both readily acknowledge, Hebrews 1:8, 9 is a quotation from Psalm 45:6, 7, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Surely the writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God and neither did the writer of Hebrews think that Jesus was Almighty God. Commenting on this, scholar B. F. Westcott said:
“It is scarcely possible that אלוהים [‘Elo•him′, “God”] in the original can be addressed to the king. . . . Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God.’”
Here are some Bible translations that show this is understood by even TRINITARIANS:
“Your Divine throne” – RSV
“Your throne is like God’s throne” – NEB
“God is your throne” - Byington
“The kingdom that God has given you” - GNB
“God has enthroned you” - REB
“Your throne is from God” - NJB
“Your throne is a throne of God” - NRSV (recognizes another very possible rendering)
“Thy throne is the throne of God” - ASV (recognizes another very possible rending)
Sounding completely confused, you stated: “Is God a chair? To say "God is your throne" doesn't make sense. What does it mean to say, "But to which of the angels did he say, God is your throne." What would that mean? Is God, Jesus' throne? God alone is on His throne and He isn't a throne for anyone else. So again, to translate it as "Your throne is God" it totally absurd.”
You objected that “it does not make sense,” even implying it would be ridiculous to call God a ‘throne.’” However, to any serious Bible student, it is entirely reasonable and appropriate. Calling God “the throne of Jesus” is an excellent figurative way to show that God approves and upholds Christ’s kingly reign (as in Westcott’s comment previously quoted).
Is God ever called anything in a figurative sense that are as equally “totally absurd” as calling him “a throne”?
-continued
-continuing
Would it be totally absurd to call Him someone’s “Rock”?(Psalms 78:35)
Would it be totally absurd to call Him a “fortress”? (Psalms 91:2)
Would it be totally absurd to call Him a “lamp”? (2 Samuel 22:29)
Would it be totally absurd to call Him a “crown”? (Isaiah 28:5; ASV)
Would it be totally absurd to call Him “our dwelling place”? (Psalms 90:1; KJV)
Would it be totally absurd to call Him “my song”? (Psalm 118:14)
Also notice Psalms 60:7, 8 in the NIV, “Ephraim is my helmet, Judah my scepter, Moab is my washbasin.” And in Isaiah 22:23 in the RSV we find Eliakim, whom Jehovah said he would call and commit authority to (Isaiah 22:20, 21), called a “throne” (“and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” So when Bowman says, “The rendering, "God is your throne," is nonsense - God is not a throne, He is the one who sits on the throne,” he ignores the very common language used in Scripture.
The trinitarian New Bible Dictionary tells us that in Scripture “the throne symbolizes dignity and authority” (p. 1196 (2nd ed.), Tyndale House, 1984) Also, compare Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. And the equally Trinitarian and highly respected by Trinitarians, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, tells us about “throne”:
“Usually the symbol of kingly power and dignity .... It symbolizes: (1) The exalted position of earthly kings, ... their majesty and power .... (2) The majesty and power of Jehovah as the true king of Israel; .... (3) The rule of the promised theocratic king (the Messiah), its everlasting glory and righteousness. He, too, is Jehovah’s representative [so Jehovah is the Messiah’s ‘throne’ (“power,” “authority,” and “glory”)]....” (p. 2976, Vol. IV, Eerdmans, 1984 printing)
However, why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Hebrews 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:5,6; Colossians 1:15,16)
It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon. (Luke 11:31) Since the Son obviously participated “in making all things” in the universe, the Son, too, could be said to have had shared in “laying the foundations of the earth.”
Many Trinitarians I have come across shows why they get stuck when they make statements as you did, “This becomes even more interesting when we note that in Isaiah 44:24 it says, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone." If God was laying the foundations of the earth alone, that would mean that either Jesus has to be God, the second person of the Trinity, who laid the foundation the same as YHWH did, or we have a contradiction in the Bible.”
Is there any other way to look at Isaiah 44:24? I will discuss this next. But first, can you read Daniel 4:30? How can we legitimately understand this text? How may it possibly help us understand Jehovah’s words in Isaiah 44:24?
Hope you are enjoying your weekend.
Sincerely,
Nick
Nick,
Why would the inspired writer of Hebrews devote this entire, long letter to proving that Jesus is superior to Moses and the angels if the intended readers, as the spirit-born Christians they were, had already accepted Jesus as GOD Almighty?
And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses and the angels.
From the NIV Introduction:
The letter to the Hebrews was addressed primarily to Jewish converts who were familiar with the Old Testament and who were being tempted to revert to Judaism or to Judaize the gospel (i.e., Galatians 2:14).
The theme of Hebrews is the absolute supremacy and sufficiency of Jesus Christ as revealer and as mediator of God's grace. The prologue (1:1-4) presents Christ as God's full and final revelation, far surpassing the limited preliminary revelation given in the OT. The prophecies and promises of the Old Testament are fulfilled in the "new covenant" (or "new testament"), of which Christ is the mediator. From the OT itself, Christ is shown to be superior to the ancient prophets, to angels, to Moses (the mediator of the former covenant) and to Aaron and the priestly succession descended from him. Hebrews could be called "the book of better things" since the two Greek words for "better" and "superior" occur 15 times in the letter.
The readers are told that there can be no turning back to or continuation in the old Jewish system, which has been superseded by the unique priesthood of Christ. God's people now must look only to him, whose atoning death, resurrection and ascension have opened the way into the true, heavenly sanctuary of God's presence.
Hebrews 1:3 says that Jesus, the Son, is radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of the Father's being. Jesus is the mirror image of the Father. Now, the Bible says that Adam was created in God's image, though that doesn't mean that Adam was exactly like God, because I can do a pencil drawing, which could be the image of a palm tree. But the pencil drawing is only lead on paper, whereas the palm tree is a living thing. But I can't say that the pencil drawing is the exact representation of the palm tree. And, if I drew or painted a picture of the sun, there would be no way I could honestly say my drawing or painting was the radiance of the sun's glory. Neither would I say that the angels are the radiance of God's glory, nor are they the exact representation of God. The only One Who could be the exact representation of God, is God. The only One Who could be the radiance of God's glory, is God.
The same verse also says that Jesus the Son sustains all things by his powerful words. And yet, Psalms 54:4 says that God is the One Who sustains: "Surely God is my help; the Lord is the one who sustains me." And Job 12:10 says that God sustains Creation: "In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind." In the New Testament, Acts 17:24-25 also says that God sustains everything: "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else." Verse 28a says the same: "For in him we live and move and have our being."
Nick,
And even if they had originally believed that Jesus was God, but were now in doubt, the Bible writer certainly wouldn’t waste any time trying to prove Jesus’ superiority to Moses and the angels.
They had no doubt that Jesus was and is God Almighty/Jehovah/Yahweh. The problem was the temptation to Judaize the gospel---in other words, to continue following all the Jewish customs, laws, feasts, etc., instead of seeing that Christ had already fulfilled all those things, and that those things were merely a shadow of the fulfilled prophecy to come. There are some Messianic Jews who do the same thing today. So again, it had nothing to do with them doubting that Jesus is God Himself.
BTW, while I'm thinking about it:
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:5-8)
Jesus is God: "being in very nature God."
The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament gives as a literal translation of verse 6:
"who in [the] form of God subsisting not robbery deemed [it] the to be equal with God,"
So, Jesus subsisted (existed, remained, continued) in the form of God, and he was equal with God. Now, when Lucifer tried to overthrow God's throne (along with 1/3 of the angels), he tried to do it forcefully, which would have been robbery [i.e., in the sense of the definition of robbery: the crime of seizing property through violence or intimidation, as opposed to stealth or fraud (which is theft).] But with Jesus, He didn't have to forcefully try to take God's place in order to be called God, because He already was God.
"He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped": in other words, He was God, but He did not consider that He had to hang on to that, because, out of His unconditional love for us, He became a man, and died in our place, taking our punishment for us, so that we can live with Him forever. If He had said, "I'm God! I'm not going to humiliate myself be becoming a man!" then He never would have come to earth as a man, and we would not have had a Savior to save us from our sins.
The verse is saying that we should have that same attitude of humility.
This verse is saying that Jesus shares the very nature of God. So, remembering Hebrews 1:3, not only does Jesus sustain all things, and is the radiance of God's glory, and the exact representation of Jehovah's being, but Jesus also has the same nature as Jehovah. In other words, both Jesus the Son and God the Father are Yahweh/Jehovah/Almighty God. They are different Persons with distinctions and different roles, but they are of the same nature, of the same Being, and are co-equal. They are three Persons (including the Holy Spirit), yet one and the same God.
Concerning Hebrews 1:8, "But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last forever," I just want to mention that the NIV footnote says, "The author selects a passage that intimates the deity of the Messianic (and Davidic) King, further demonstrating the Son's superiority over angels."
So, Jesus is not an angel. He is above all the angels. And Jesus is far more than a man. This leaves only one option: Jesus is God. Because, if you believe that Jesus is another god, or a lesser god, then you believe in multiple gods, and that is polytheism. Or, if you believe that Jesus is some kind of created creature that is not man nor angel, then you are believing something that is not mentioned nor supported in Scripture.
Nick,
But first, can you read Daniel 4:30? How can we legitimately understand this text?
"he said, "Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?" (Daniel 4:30)
King Nebuchadnezzar is being prideful and taking credit for the greatness of Babylon, and God punishes him for this.
How may it possibly help us understand Jehovah’s words in Isaiah 44:24?
"This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself," (Isaiah 44:24)
God is their Redeemer, in this case because He is their Deliverer from Babylonian exile. God is the Creator. God made all things, not just some things: He did not leave other things for someone else to create. God alone stretched out the heavens and spread out the earth by Himself, with no help from anyone.
The two verses are really not related, so the only connection I can see is that God created all things, with no help from anyone, and God even created man, including man's mind, etc. Yet Nebuchadnezzar takes credit for building an earthly city, and talks about his own power and majesty, which brings down God's wrath upon Him, because only God has all power, and only God is truly worthy of majesty. And yet, 2 Peter 1:16 says, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty," showing that Jesus is worthy of majesty; so, whereas Nebuchadnezzar was punished by God's wrath for claiming to have such majesty, Jesus rightfully deserves it, because He is God Almighty.
Nick,
Why is is that one thing that every cult and false religion have in common is that they all deny or distort the Trinity?
Why is it that every cult and false religion denies that Jesus is God Almighty?
Why is it that every cult and false religion denies that the Holy Spirit is a Person and is God?
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus, and every false religion has this in common.
This is one way that Christianity stands apart from every cult and every false religion.
True Christianity also stands apart from every cult, every sect teaching false doctrine, and every false religion in that salvation comes by faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus alone, and not by works or by faith plus works.
All who teach that Jesus is not God Almighty, the Second Person of the Trinity, or that the Holy Spirit is not a Person, or that salvation is not by faith alone, are teaching false doctrines and lies that were spawned by the deceptions of Satan. Those who continue to follow such false deceptions, unless at some point in this lifetime they repent and come to know the true Jesus and receive new life from Him, will spend all the rest of eternity in the everlasting Hell, and will be damned forever. But thanks be to God that, while any person still lives on this earth, there is still a chance to accept the free grace and forgiveness and salvation that is only available through Jesus Christ the Messiah, the Son of God, the only way to the Father. Nick, I pray that you will one day see the truth, and will see that you are being deceived by the hellish Watchtower and the damnable New World Translation. Following after their lies will only lead you to Hell. God's wrath is on the Watchtower, and, unless it's members come to Christ, they will pay for their lies and deceptions. I pray that you will heed my warning, Nick, for you are in grave danger. May your eyes be opened by the power of the Holy Spirit. All of those you are going door-to-door to 'witness' to, you are deceiving them, and one day you will regret that you ever did that, and you will be extremely sorry that you ever misled people in such a manner. I know you are currently doing so in ignorance, but one day you will see that you are only spreading lies and deceptions. I am only being honest with you, Nick.
Hi Jeff,
Many well-meaning people seem to think that God has somehow imposed on Himself stipulations or restrictions in his creating. I know the Bible testifies to the Son’s involvement in creation. To dispute such a thing would be to go beyond Scripture.
Nevertheless, an involvement does not necessarily make him the Creator any more than an architect would be deemed “the builder” of a building.
If I said, "Steven Spielburg made that movie, that he is the filmmaker." George Lucas didn't make it, Ron Howard didn't make it, Spielburg did. Would this mean that Spielburg made the movie all by himself or perhaps could others have been involved in making the movie?
Would they take away an Oscar he won if Spielburg really didn't make the movie “by himself?” True, he wrote the script, produced it and directed it but he used others to make the movie, would this somehow disqualify him as being the movie maker?
I asked you to consider a Bible text that brings home this point. In Daniel 4:30 it says, “The king reflected and said, ‘Is this not Babylon the great, which I myself have built.’” (NASB)
Can we see, in our mind’s eye, Nebuchadnezzar being the only person in Babylon, with construction tools in his hand, building the whole city by himself? Or, was the construction during his time, accomplished by his authority, his word and no others?
Isaiah 63:3 proclaims: “I (Jehovah) have trodden the wine press alone of the peoples there was no man with me.” (ASV) Did Jehovah personally punish the peoples and nations that had offended Him? Who was it that actually destroyed 185,000 men in Sennacherib’s army? Was it Jehovah personally or His angel? It was His angel acting on the word of Jehovah. (2 Kings 19:35, 36)
Did Jehovah personally chastise the Babylonians or did He use the Medes and Persians to accomplish His will? (Daniel 5:26-28, 30-31) All these acts were done by Jehovah’s permission; and by His alone. (Ezekiel. 36:33, 36)
Jehovah alone is the reason for creation. Everything exists by his permission, will and authority. This does not mean that his first-born creation, “the beginning of the creation of God” could not have been used in a very vital role to bring all things we know in heaven and earth into existence. The Son clearly and obvious in the Scriptures is the intermediate agency, the one “through” whom God used to make all things.
-continued
-continuing
Even critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses like Dana and Mantey noted regarding Hebrews 1:2: “Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the λογος as the intermediate agent.” Vincent further explains: “The preposition διά is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as διὰ του προφήτου, through the prophet.”
The Scriptures speak of many being used by God to accomplish his will in several capacities, but Jehovah the Father takes FULL credit. For example, Daniel interpreted and revealed dreams for kings and was honored but where did the praise belong? From the source! (Daniel 2:26-30)
If I plant and you water, like Paul and Apollos, when it comes to spiritual cultivation in the harvest, who do you think ultimately should get the credit? Isn’t it God himself alone that makes it grow? (1 Corinthians 3:7) Yes, we may have both shared in the process but all praise goes to God right? At least it should.
So when you point out a Scripture like Isaiah 44:24 where God is spoken of as doing something by Himself we consider the context. Jehovah was contrasting Himself from false gods and other materials that the people had formed into their gods. In this proper context the point of God's statement is that he was the one that created the heavens and the earth, not these false gods who the nations claimed were on par or superior to him.
Recognizing the context, when we consider the thought of the creation of the universe and earth, along with other planets, it is easy to see how God's statement holds true without presenting any issue for Jesus' role as intermediate agent.
As I mentioned recently, God created the universe by himself, for he himself is “the source” of all that is. (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6) Yet, this did not prohibit him from making use of his own creation to bring about other creation.
It is not because he has to but because he wanted to. As God's intermediate agent Jesus cannot be counted as the source of creation. He is God's means of bringing creation about.
It may be beneficial to review the full context of Isaiah 44. Rremember that the text is dealing with competing gods that were placed on the same level as Jehovah by the nations. These were gods that were not created by Jehovah, but they were in opposition to him. Their involvement in any sort would be contrary to Jehovah's statement, and so his point is proper and correct in that he does it by himself, without the help of any who people claimed that were co-equal and co-eternal with him.
With creation originating in Jehovah the Father alone, it does not matter whether or not he made use of his own creation to bring about further creation, for even that creation originates within him. This text presents a classic example of Trinitarian “proof-texting,” where a text is taken entirely out of context in order to make the text mean something that it was never intended. This is an abuse of Scripture.
In the case of Isaiah 44:24, the context clarifies what the text means, it is clear that there is no contradiction between this passage and what we have already discussed.
So while the Son definitely had a role in creation, Scripture never articulates him as “the Creator.” In fact, he is distinguished repeatedly from the Creator, shown to have served an intermediate role, next to the creator.
It is as Dana and Mantey acknowledge that it is the Father that is the ONE who served as the “source of all things,” while Jesus the Son is the one that ONE, his God and Father, used to bring everything else about, including the angels. Personally, I don’t think it is a good idea to take credit from the one Jesus gave credit to in Creation. (Matthew 19:4-6)
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
The Son clearly and obvious in the Scriptures is the intermediate agency, the one “through” whom God used to make all things.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
"It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host." (Isaiah 45:12)
Both of these passages tell us that God created everything.
But Scripture also tells us that Jesus created everything:
"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created by Him and for Him." (Colossians 1:16)
The pronoun "Him" refers to Jesus. This can be determined by reading verse 13. And, if we look at verses 13-18, we can see the entire context:
"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,
14in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything."
Not only did Jesus create everything, but He continues to hold everything together too:
"...Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (1 Corinthians 8:6)
"All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (John 1:3 )
"But of the Son He says, "THY THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER ...And, "THOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING DIDST LAY THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF THY HANDS..." (Hebrews 1:1-2, 8-10)
So, the Bible tells us that God made the heavens and the earth, including man. And yet, the Son, Jesus Christ, made the heavens and the earth. In fact, the Bible says that the Son created everything. Jehovah/Yahweh made everything. God the Son made everything. The only way that this cannot be a contradiction is that if Jesus is God.
Jesus voluntarily "emptied Himself" before He came to earth.
"but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men." (Philippians 2:7)
"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." (John 17:5)
While on earth, Jesus was submissive to the Father in the role as His God (largely as an example to us, as to how we should live; also, the fact that Jesus came to be the prophetic fulfillment of the ultimate sacrifice for sin meant that Jesus would become sin itself, and would be separated from the Father, on the cross).
Hebrews 1:9 shows multiple senses of the word "God" when it says "Therefore God, your God, has anointed you":
"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions." (Hebrews 1:9)
...his first-born creation, “the beginning of the creation of God”...
The Greek word here, prototokos, means the pre-eminent one. Christians are brothers and sisters of Christ, but Christ is the pre-eminent firstborn.
In Bible times, firstborn did not only mean the first one born, but the inheritance and birthright of the firstborn. As an example of "firstborn" not meaning the first one born, Psalm 89:27 says that David will be appointed as his firstborn, even though David was the last-born of Jesse.
Christ is not the firstborn in creation, but the firstborn over creation. Christ was the first one to be raised from the dead; therefore, Christ is the ‘firstborn’ of the resurrection and as the heir of all.
This question was answered by Athanasius in 330 A.D. He said that since Christ is both the Only-Begotten as well as firstborn, these refer to different senses of Christ. After differentiating between "created" and "born", Athanasius showed that Only-Begotten refers to Jesus being from the Father, while firstborn refers to both his preeminence over humanity and his preeminence among all who are born again.
Jehovah’s Witnesses rightly assert that there can only be two types of entities in existence: a Creator and creatures. But then, following a line of reasoning first made popular in the fourth century A.D. by the heretic Arius of Alexandra, they presuppose (a priori) that any one being cannot be more than one person, and therefore, that God cannot exist as more than one person. Since Jesus identified God as His Father---another Person---Watchtower reasoning declares Jesus Christ cannot be God and must therefore be a creature.
For example: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Colossians 1:15)
Proper understanding of Colossians 1:15 is primarily an issue of context, both literary and historical. One must begin by understanding how words derive and convey meaning. Most words in any language are not isolated, mechanical entities with a singular meaning. They usually have at least two levels of meaning. The first level is the pool of associated meanings that may attach to any given word. For instance, in English, the word "love" has a wide variety of meanings that range anywhere from emotional bliss to preference in what one eats. The meaning of, "I love my wife" is quite different from, "I love tuna fish sandwiches." Consider also such words as "state," "pen," "truth," or "home." Like "love," these words carry multiple nuances of meaning, depending on their usage.
This suggests the second level of the meaning of words, which is the precise meaning determined by context. Many words are somewhat nebulous in meaning until they stand in relationship to other words. When one fills out a job application and comes to the part that asks him what state he lives in, he knows to answer, for example, "Florida," but not "Solid" (a state of matter). Words in literary context (i.e., their relationship to words around them) are what deliver meaning.
Naturally, this analysis of word meanings holds true for Scripture as well. Finding truth in God's Word depends on first finding the intention of the inspired author, based upon his word usage and its syntax (relationship to the other words in the context).
The Watchtower neglects this understanding and basis of all language, and opts for what some call an "absurd literalism," which unnecessarily forces literal and singular meanings upon words regardless of context (Anthony Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, p. 249). This drives the meaning of some words to absurdity. Such is the fate of the word "firstborn" in the hands of Watchtower dogma.
Nick,
The argument that "firstborn" means "firstcreated" in Col. 1:15 can seem true when one considers the pool of meaning for the word (although "first offspring" would better reflect the meaning of the Greek word used here:
prototokos).
"First created" is one of the many, and even more literal meanings, of the word. The problem is that the context clearly shows that "first created" was not Paul's intended meaning in Colossians. Paul uses the same basic word for "all things" in verses 16-17 as he used in his expression "every creature" (all creation) in verse 15. Syntactically then, Paul says Jesus existed before (v. 17), created (v.16) and sustains (v.17) that set of things of which he is the "first born" (v.15), i.e., the set of "all creation." This agrees with John, who says, "In the beginning was the Word (literal Greek, "...was existing the Word." John's use of the imperfect tense shows continuous duration of existence in the past). "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1,3).
If Paul had meant "first created" when he wrote prototokos, at Col. 1:15, then his following statements make Christ Himself a part of those very things which Paul says Christ created and sustains, and before which He existed.
Watchtower leaders themselves evidently understand this fact and have felt the need to resolve the logical conflict. To justify their position, the Watchtower, in its New World Translation of the Scriptures, does violence to the verses that follow. The word "other" is inserted four times, to alter their meaning: "Because by means of him all (other) things were created....he is before all (other) things" etc. (Colossians 1:16, 17, NWT). This is notably different from what the Apostle Paul actually wrote, an "all" inclusive of everything ever created. There is no "other" in verses 16 and 17 in the Greek text, either latent or explicit, and there is no way to justify its insertion. It is scholastic dishonesty.
So then what does prototokos mean if not "first created?" The best way to determine this is to choose from the word's pool of meaning the idea that flows best with what Paul is saying. He uses the word again in verse 18, where he also provides forceful evidence of his intended meaning with the words, "that in all things He might have the preeminence." The literary context shows Paul's usage of prototokos in Colossians 1 refers to Christ's supremacy.
The historical context bears out this conclusion as well. There is a strong association of the firstborn child with preeminence and inheritance in Hebrew culture (W.E. Vine, Merril Unger, Wm. Whice, Jr., eds., Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, p. 240-1). The firstborn male inherited a double portion of his father's estate and became the new leader at his father's death (Deuteronomy 21:15-17). His right of primogeniture made him preeminent in his family.
The term gradually came to refer to the one who was the heir and had the right to rule whether or not he was literally the first one born ("first created"). The most striking example of this is in the Old Testament from where the idea originally derived. Genesis 41:51-52 says, "And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Mannasseh:...and the name of the second called he Ephraim..." Yet in contrast to this, speaking in Jeremiah God says, "For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." Evidently, there is more to the term "firstborn" than the first offspring.
Additional support is found in the fact that the Greek word prototokos occurs nine times in the New Testament---ten times if you include the related word for "birthright" (prototokia). Seven of these nine times the word refers to Christ. Out of these seven, only two refer to Christ as one who is firstborn in a physically literal sense, and these refer to Him being Mary's firstborn son (Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7). Otherwise, the use is obviously one of preeminence, and cannot refer to some presupposed creation (e.g. Romans 8:29; Revelation 1:5). One time this word even refers to believers as belonging to "the church of the firstborn ones" (literal Greek, Hebrews 12:23). Again, the emphasis here is on preeminence and privilege, not order of creation.
In verse 18, if we replace “firstborn” with “first created,” let’s see what that would look like: “He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the first created from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.” This is obviously meaningless, so there must be more to the idea of "firstbornness."
(most of this information is from watchman.org)
Nick,
Regarding the idea of “firstborn,” take a look at these:
“Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, "For," he said, "God has made me forget all my trouble and all my father's household." He named the second Ephraim, "For," he said, "God has made me fruitful in the land of my affliction." (Genesis 41:51-52)
“With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)
This is from God’s Word, correct? So did God make a mistake here, or is He using 'firstborn' in the sense of 'preeminence'? Obviously, the latter is true.
This coordinates exactly with the context and obviously intended meaning of Paul in Colossians. Paul spoke in the same manner as God had spoken in the Old Testament, making Christ the Heir of all creation, the One not only by whom, but for whom everything was made (Col. 1:16). He is the head, the ruler, the Creator, the preeminent One over all creation. Indeed, the central thrust of Paul's argument throughout the doctrinal portion of Colossians is the preeminence, superiority and sufficiency of Christ. In no way does he reduce Christ to anything less than God Almighty Himself.
Nick,
Zechariah 2:10-12 says, “Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for here I am coming, and I will reside in the midst of you”, is the utterance of Jehovah…And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you. And Jehovah will certainly take possession of Judah…and he must yet choose Jerusalem.”
Who is "I" ("I am coming" and "I will reside in the midst of you") and who is "Me" ("Jehovah...has sent me")?
If Jesus and Jehovah are not one and the same God, then how do you explain the fact that Christ is the one who is “coming” and “will reside in the midst of you”, but in this passage, Jehovah claims that he is the one who is coming and will reside in their midst? How do you explain the fact that “Jehovah of armies” is sending him (Jehovah) to reside in their midst?
Nick,
Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory..." Similarly, Isaiah 48:11 says, "...And to no one else shall I give my own glory." If Christ is not God, then how could he say in John 17:5, "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the GLORY that I HAD alongside you before the world was"? Since God stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how could Christ have the same "glory" as God, unless Christ is God in the flesh?
Nick,
In Matthew 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "people of all the nations ...in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Why would the disciples be instructed to baptize in the name of anybody or anything who was not Almighty God?
And do Jehovah's Witnesses follow the command of Jesus and baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?
Nick,
Think about this:
There is nothing you can do to save yourself (from everlasting damnation), because any current 'good deed' will only be the right thing for that moment, and won't pay for anything (i.e., any sins) in the past. You are spiritually bankrupt. Only a sinless person can pay your debt.
Hi Jeff,
There are so many comments you made I have yet to address but wanted to make a few expressions on something you said. First I said:
“Appreciate your comments on the "church Fathers." They certainly were not in agreement with themselves quite often. Although I do not believe that many of them understood the Trinity as modern Trinitarians do today.”
You then told me: “It is false to imply or declare that the early Church Fathers did not believe in the concept of the Trinity. Tertullian, for example, was the one to establish a clear definition of it and even used the Latin term trinitas to define it! Further, the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. established a working definition as well, in order to provide a standard of measurement against the rivaling heresy of that time. The Athanasian Creed, written by early Church Fathers, identified Jesus as "very God of very God" and used Hebrews 1:3 to prove that Jesus was of the same "substance" (Greek: upostasews) as the Father! This is a far cry from the early Church Fathers denying such a doctrine. Lastly, why then was there a need for the Watchtower Society to detach itself from orthodox Christianity if it has rejected the doctrine of the Trinity all along?”
The truth is many of these “church fathers,” were at odds with one another and many did not have in mind the same Trinity doctrine you embrace. Theophilus’ triad was made up of “God, and His Word, and His wisdom.” But this is hardly Christendom’s Trinity. Even though Tertullian first applied the Latin form of the word “trinity” to the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit just HOW was Tertullian able to devise the theory of “one substance in three persons”?
The answer lies in a paradox about the man, his view of philosophy. Tertullian called philosophy “‘the doctrines’ of men and ‘of demons.’” He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths. He himself said, “Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition.”
Yet, Tertullian himself made liberal use of secular philosophy when it harmonized with his own ideas. (Colossians 2:8)
One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book “The Theology of Tertullian “notes: “It was a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.”
-continued
-continuing
It is plain to see that Tertullian’s formula, three persons in one divine substance, played a major role in the spreading of religious error throughout all of Christendom. Tertullian accused others of destroying the truth while they were trying to defend it.
Ironically, however, by mixing divinely inspired Bible truth and human philosophy, he fell into the same trap. But the word “Trinity,” based on pagan concepts, crept into the literature of the churches and after the fourth century became part of their dogma.
How much faith do you really put in Tertullian’s beliefs? He did not believe that the Son always existed. He said, “There was a time when the Son was not…Before all things, God was alone.”
Tertullian on another occasion said, "We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."
Any objective reading of these early church authorities will show that Christendom’s Trinity doctrine was not in existence in their time. As ‘The Church of the First Three Centuries’ says:
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. But the word “trinity” stuck, and later theologians gradually “constructed the doctrine” as we know it today. Did they, however, build it on the foundation of Scripture? No, but on theology or philosophy.”
The Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’” Their problem was to make “God the Father,” “God the Son” and “God the Holy Spirit” not three Gods but one. For years, they quarreled over whether the persons of the Trinity were of similar substance (Greek, homoiousia) or of the same substance (homoousia). This controversy was settled in favor of homoousia at the Councils of Nicaea in 325 C.E. and Constantinople in 381 C.E."
The Britannica adds: “From the outset, the controversy between both parties [at Nicaea] took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament.”
It is apparent to any honest person that the very concept of a God in three persons of one substance is founded on mixing theology with philosophy, but not on the Scriptures.
Respectfully,
Nick
Even in the Old Testament, the Trinity is found.
The Father:
* "Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. (Deuteronomy 32:6)
* "He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.' (Psalms 89:26)
* For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
* For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)
* But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, We are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
* "Have you not just now called to Me, 'My Father, Thou art the friend of my youth? (Jeremiah 3:4)
* "Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons, And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.' (Jeremiah 3:19)
The Son:
* "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. (Psalms 2:7)
* Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalms 2:12)
* Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His Son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)
* "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)
The Holy Spirit:
Genesis 1:2
1 Samuel 11:6
Psalms 106:33
Ezekiel 3:24
Genesis 6:3
1 Samuel 16:13
Psalms 139:7
Ezekiel 8:3
Exodus 31:3
1 Samuel 16:14
Psalms 143:10
Ezekiel 11:1
Exodus 35:31
1 Samuel 19:20
Isaiah 11:2
Ezekiel 11:5
Numbers 11:17
1 Samuel 19:23
Isaiah 30:1
Ezekiel 11:24
Numbers 11:25
2 Samuel 23:2
Isaiah 32:15
Ezekiel 36:27
Numbers 11:26
1 Kings 18:12
Isaiah 34:16
Ezekiel 37:1
Numbers 11:29
1 Kings 22:24
Isaiah 40:13
Ezekiel 37:14
Numbers 24:2
2 Kings 2:16
Isaiah 42:1
Ezekiel 39:29
Numbers 27:18
1 Chronicles 12:18
Isaiah 44:3
Ezekiel 43:5
Judges 3:10
2 Chronicles 15:1
Isaiah 48:16
Joel 2:28
Judges 6:34
2 Chronicles 18:23
Isaiah 59:21
Joel 2:29
Judges 11:29
2 Chronicles 20:14
Isaiah 61:1
Micah 2:7
Judges 13:25
2 Chronicles 24:20
Isaiah 63:10
Micah 3:8
Judges 14:6
Nehemiah 9:20
Isaiah 63:11
Haggai 2:5
Judges 14:19
Nehemiah 9:30
Isaiah 63:14
Zechariah 4:6
Judges 15:14
Job 33:4
Ezekiel 2:2
Zechariah 7:12
1 Samuel 10:6
Psalms 51:11
Ezekiel 3:12
Zechariah 12:10
1 Samuel 10:10
Psalms 104:30
Ezekiel 3:14
Malachi 2:15
Members of the Trinity are mentioned in these verses as well:
* Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His Son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)
* Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. (Isaiah 11:1-2)
* "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
* "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." (Isaiah 48:16)
* The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives, And freedom to prisoners; (Isaiah 61:1)
* In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them; And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore, He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them. (Isaiah 63:9-10)
So even the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three Persons. How can God simultaneously exist as both singular and plural? It is a logical impossibility if God were restricted to the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of our physical universe. However, the attributes of God, given by the Bible, provide a reasonable explanation of how this paradox can be resolved.
Theophilus, sixth bishop of Antioch, Syria, used the word “Trinity” in his work, Refutation of Autolycus (A.D. 168).
The following early church leaders and/or writings all defended the doctrine of the Trinity (the following dates are approximate):
A.D. 96 Clement, the third bishop of Rome
A.D. 90-100 The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, the “Didache”
A.D. 90? Ignatius, bishop of Antioch
A.D. 155 Justin Martyr, great Christian writer
A.D. 168 Theophilus, the sixth bishop of Antioch
A.D. 177 Athenagoras, theologian
A.D. 180 Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons
A.D. 197 Tertullian, early church leader
A.D. 264 Gregory Thaumaturgus, early church leader
More than 60 Bible passages mention the three Persons together.
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17)
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (Matt. 28:19)
“May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” (2 Cor. 13:14)
“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph. 4:4-6)
“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.” (Titus 3:4-6)
Some other verses:
John 3:34-35
John 14:26
John 15:26
John 16:13-15
Romans 14:17-18
Romans 15:13-17
Romans 15:30
1 Corinthians 6:11
1 Corinthians 6:17-19
1 Corinthians 12:4-6
2 Corinthians 1:21-22
2 Corinthians 3:4-6
Galatians 2:21-3:2
Galatians 4:6
Ephesians 2:18
Ephesians 3:11-17
Ephesians 5:18-20
Colossians 1:6-8
1 Thessalonians 1:1-5
1 Thessalonians 4:2, 8
1 Thessalonians 5:18-19
2 Thessalonians 3:5
Hebrews 9:14
1 Peter 1:2
1 John 3:23-24
1 John 4:13-14
Jude 20-21
Nick,
Going back to something we talked about before:
In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells his disciples: "I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He" (13:19). The phrase "I am He" is translated from the Greek ego eimi. The phrase occurs 24 times in John’s Gospel. At least seven of these are said to be "absolute" in that they are not followed by a predicate, such as in John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." In the seven absolute cases, no predicate follows, and the "I AM" phrase comes at the end of the clause. This indicates that Jesus is using this phrase as a name to identify who he is. The seven places are John 8:24, 28, 58; 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8.
If we go back to Isaiah 41:4, 43:10 and 46:4, we can see the background for Jesus’ reference to himself in John’s Gospel as ego eimi ("I AM"). In Isaiah 41:4, God or Yahweh says: "I, the Lord…I am he." In Isaiah 43:10 he says "I am he," and later says, "‘You are my witnesses,’ declares the Lord, ‘that I am God’" (verse 12). In 46:4, God (Yahweh) again refers to himself as "I am he."
The Hebrew phrase "I am he" is translated in the Greek version of the Holy Scriptures, the Septuagint (which the apostles used), by the phrase ego eimi in Isaiah 41:4; 43:10; and 46:4. It seems clear that Jesus’ made the "I am he" statements as references to himself because they directly connected to God’s (Yahweh’s) statements about himself in Isaiah. John said, in effect, that Jesus was saying he was God in the flesh (John 1:1, 14, which introduces the Gospel and speaks of the Word’s divinity and incarnation, prepares us for this fact.)
John’s ego eimi ("I Am") identification of Jesus can also be carried back to Exodus 3, in which God identifies himself as the "I Am." Here we read: "God [Hebrew, elohim] said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: "I AM has sent me to you"’" (verse 14).
John repeats Jesus’ identification of himself as the "I AM" of the Old Testament. Since there is but one God, and John would have understood that, then we are left with the proposition that there must be two persons sharing the one nature that is God. With the Holy Spirit, also discussed by John in chapters 14-17, we have the basis of the Trinity.
To put aside all doubt about John’s identification of Jesus with Yahweh, we may quote John 12:37-41, which says:
Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet: "Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" For this reason they could not believe, because as Isaiah says elsewhere: "He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
The quotes above that John used come from Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10. The prophet originally spoke his words in regards to Yahweh. John says that what Isaiah actually saw was "Jesus’ glory" and that he "spoke of him." For John the apostle, then, Jesus was Yahweh in the flesh; before his human birth he was known as Yahweh.
Nick,
To reiterate something I said before:
“Firstborn” cannot mean that Christ was created, because Paul says that all of creation was made in and for Christ, and that He exists before all creation and holds it together (Colossians 1:16,17). The “Firstborn” traditionally was the main heir. In context, Paul is saying that Christ, as God’s Son, is the main heir of all creation (Colossians 1:12-14).
Nick,
Many theologians admit that the term "person" is not a perfect word to describe the three individual aspects/foci found in God. When we normally use the word person, we understand it to mean physical individuals who exist as separate beings from other individuals. But in God there are not three entities, nor three beings. God, is a trinity of persons consisting of one substance and one essence. God is numerically one. Yet, within the single divine essence are three individual subsistences that we call persons.
* Each of the three persons is completely divine in nature though each is not the totality of the Godhead.
* Each of the three persons is not the other two persons.
* Each of the three persons is related to the other two, but are distinct from them.
Nick,
There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity in regard to order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 5:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).
This subordination of order does not mean that each of the members of the Godhead are not equal or divine. For example, we see that the Father sent the Son. But this does not mean that the Son is not equal to the Father in essence and divine nature. The Son is equal to the Father in his divinity, but inferior in his humanity. A wife is to be subject to her husband but this does not negate her humanity, essence, or equality. By further analogy, a king and his servant both share human nature. Yet, the king sends the servant to do his will. Jesus said, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me" (John 6:38). Of course Jesus already is King, but the analogy shows that because someone is sent, it doesn't mean they are different than the one who sent him.
Critics of the Trinity will see this subordination as proof that the Trinity is false. They reason that if Jesus were truly God, then He would be completely equal to God the Father in all areas and would not, therefore, be subordinate to the Father in any way. But this objection is not logical. If we look at the analogy of the king and in the servant we certainly would not say that the servant was not human because he was sent. Being sent does not negate sameness in essence. Therefore, the fact that the Son is sent does not mean that He is not divine any more than when a man's wife sends him to get bread, he is not human.
Nick,
Another important point about the Trinity is that it can be a difficult concept to grasp. But this does not necessitate an argument against its validity. On the contrary, the fact that it is difficult is an argument for its truth. The Bible is the self revelation of an infinite God. Therefore, we are bound to encounter concepts which are difficult to understand -- especially when dealing with an incomprehensible God who exists in all places at all times. So, when we view descriptions and attributes of God manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we discover that a completely comprehensible and understandable explanation of God's essence and nature is not possible. What we have, however, done is derive from the Scripture the truths that we can grasp and combine them into the doctrine we call The Trinity. The Trinity is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, we are dealing with God Himself.
It is the way of the cults to reduce biblical truth to make God comprehensible and understandable by their minds. To this end, they subject God's word to their own reasoning and end in error. The following verses are often used to demonstrate that in the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed biblical.
* Matt. 28:18, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
* 1 Cor. 12:4-6, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.
* 2 Cor. 13:14, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.
* Eph. 4:4-7, There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift.
* 1 Pet. 1:2, "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure."
* Jude 20-21, "But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit; 21keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."
Nick,
God is complex in His unity.
In Genesis 18, Yahweh appears in physical form with 2 others to Abraham after his circumcision. Yahweh stays and talks to Abraham, and the other 2 (who are angels) go on to Sodom (verse 22 says, "The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD"). In verse 1, 'LORD' is in all caps (i.e., in the NIV), for example, which signifies that the word is YHWH. In verse 17, He talks in the first person: "Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" The same with verse 26: "The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake." So does God remain in Heaven, enthroned and invisible, as a spirit? Yes. Does it say in Exodus 33 that no one can see him and live? Yes. It also says in John 1:18 that no man has seen God. And Paul says in 1 Timothy 6 that God dwells in unapproachable light, and that no one can see Him. So even the New Testament affirms this. Yet, Yahweh appears in physical form in Genesis 18, Exodus 24, and Isaiah 6. Whenever God revealed Himself in such a manner, it was God the Son making Himself known. Also, God the Holy Spirit was on the prophets, and they were filled with God the Holy Spirit.
If God is truly God, then it would only make sense that the nature of God would be a very deep and complex subject, and that He would be a complex unity. If God is omnipresent, and if He exists as unique and above all of His creation, then it would only make sense that He would exist as different than we exist. Sometimes I think of it as us and the universe existing as one-dimensional, in comparison to God, who exists as multi-dimensional.
If we could fully understand God, then He would not be God. But in fact, He is one, single, complex, triune Being Who exists as three "Persons" (and, as mentioned before, we use the word "Persons" only because that is probably the closest word we have to describe each member of the Triune God).
Nick,
The Britannica adds: “From the outset, the controversy between both parties [at Nicaea] took place upon the common basis of the Neoplatonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament.”
Arius taught the heresy that Christ was different in essence from the Father, that He was created by the Father and before that, He did not exist. Athanasius rose to meet the challenge and asserted that Christ and the Father were the same in essence and that the Son was eternal. If Christ were a mere creature, faith in Him could not bring salvation to humanity. He could, of course, suffer the penalty for the sin of another human being, but that substitutionary suffering could not have value for all mankind unless the quality of infinity was linked to humanity in the God-man. The controversy raged. The fact that a synod at Alexandria deposed Arius in 321 did not end the struggle. Finally, in 325, Constantine stepped in and called an ecumenical council at Nicea, where over 300 bishops and a number of lesser dignitaries gathered for the occasion. The creed drawn up declared that the Son was the same in essence with the Father, and very God of very God.
In the process of asserting the full deity of Christ, some theologians had done so at the expense of His humanity. They taught that a complete humanity could not be sinless and that the divine nature, while assuming a human body, took the place of the higher rational principle in man. Several synodical meetings condemned the idea of the defective humanity of Christ, and in 381 the ecumenical council of Constantinople finally asserted His true and full humanity. In addition, this council also addressed the further heresy of Arius, who not only held that Christ was different in essence from the Father and a creature of the Father, but also that the Holy Spirit was different in essence. The Council of Constantinople in 381 formulated a creed with phrases asserting that the Holy Spirit was to be worshiped and glorified as was the Father, that He proceeded from the Father, and that He was responsible for revelation.
Then a third issue arose. If Christ was both fully divine and fully human, how were the two natures related in one person? The Nestorian controversy led to the calling of a third ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431. The result of the council was to demonstrate that the majority of bishops were in favor of the doctrines of Cyril (who argued for a true union of the two natures), but clarification of the matter was left to a later council. Interestingly, Nestorius argued that he himself did not hold to the error of Nestorianism. Possibly he was the victim of smear tactics and a power struggle in the early church.
At length a new general council was called at Chaldedon in 451. Its decision was that Christ was both truly God and truly man, and that the two natures were united in one Person without confusion, change, division, or separation.
A fifth ecumenical council in 553, which was the second one held at Constantinople, ratified the Chalcedonian Creed but made changes that tended to favor the Eutychians.
Another council met in 681, again at Constantinople, to ratify the Chalcedonian Creed with the addition that Christ had two wills, the human and divine, the human will being subject to the divine.
While these great ecumenical councils did not settle for all time discussion concerning the nature of the person of Christ, they did set forth the chief elements that have characterized an orthodox Christology down through the ages: His true and full deity, His true and full humanity, and the true union of the two natures in one person, without fusion or confusion.
(from "Exploring Church History.")
Nick,
How much faith do you really put in Tertullian’s beliefs? He did not believe that the Son always existed. He said, “There was a time when the Son was not…Before all things, God was alone.”
Tertullian on another occasion said, "We should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. . . . How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? . . . That [God] which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."
Tertullian loudly proclaims, “Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other…("Against Praxeus," Ch. 8, 9)
and that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other.” He continues, “All are of One, by unity of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.” (ibid, Ch. 2)
He finishes, “All the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, the Persons of the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith,” (ibid, Ch. 11)
and, “I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable Persons.” (ibid, Ch. 12)
To reproduce here all that Tertullian says in support of the Trinity would probably take up another page or two. Suffice it to say that in his declaration, “The Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God,” we have a nice, simply-rendered summary of the Trinity doctrine.
Nick,
“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin:
Justin writes that “God begat before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself… which was truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him.” ("Dialogue with Trypho," Ch. 61, 62)
This squares precisely with the Nicene Creed, which declares God the Son to be “begotten, not made.” Justin explains further that “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father,”
(ibid, Ch. 128)
and that the Son was “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,”
(ibid, Ch. 128)
which means that the Son is begotten from the very same essence which the Father himself possesses – not dividing the Godhead into parts, but rather allowing each divine person a full sharing in the Godhead – which is exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity maintains.
To summarize what I stated before:
The Nicean Creed was created in response to the Arian false doctrine which said that Jesus was created by God, instead of the biblically-supported fact that Jesus has existed from eternity past. 50 years after the first ecumenical council, they asserted that Christ was also human at the same time as being God. 50 years after the second ecumenical council, they asserted that Christ was one person with two natures. 20 years later, a fourth ecumenical council asserted that Christ was both truly God and truly man.
Any objective reading of these early church authorities will show that Christendom’s Trinity doctrine was not in existence in their time.
Completely incorrect, as I have already shown.
It is apparent to any honest person that the very concept of a God in three persons of one substance is founded on mixing theology with philosophy, but not on the Scriptures.
Completely and totally false, and a lie from Satan.
Hi Jeff,
Last week you shared:
“"But Moffatt's version was controversial in several respects. His preface put forth skeptical views concerning the truthfulness of the Bible. In the Old Testament he indicated by the use of different type fonts the hypothetical source documents of the Pentateuch (J, E, P, D), and frequently rearranged passages according to his idea of how they might have originally stood. For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, and he often substituted conjectural emendations for the text of both Testaments. In the New Testament alone he adopts some thirty conjectures which have no support at all in the manuscripts. The translation throughout was highly readable, but often embodied interpretations that were objectionable to some."
Your comments are typical when there is something in a particular translation that someone objects to. What about all the other respected Trinitarian translations and "scholars" that understood the passage the same way Moffatt did? You didn’t bash them. Why?
To be sure, there is no perfect translation. So if one is bent on finding faults, faults can be found with all of them.
When the King James Version was translated, that now-popular version was condemned by some scholars at the time.
What matters is correspondence with the best Greek and Hebrew texts, not the particular credentials of the translator. Many Bible verses do not take a "scholar" to translate them. Remember, the Bible was written, in large part, by ordinary people, not "scholars." And God's Word is for all people, not just "scholars."
Besides, "scholars" often disagree with one another. Not one of them is infallible. But the overall theme of the Bible is right there for any reader, and the truth will not be found in just one or a few verses, but in the many that correspond and agree with the Bible's overall theme.
In other words, the question should be, "How accurate is this verse (or these verses) translated according to the original texts?' not "Who was the translator."
For all their scholarship, the translators of Christendom consistently translate some verses incorrectly, because they try to translate them according to their particular theology, not according to what the texts actually say.
Tonight is the most important event of the year, the memorial of Jesus’ death. Over hundred thousand Christian congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses will commemorate this most special event honoring his dying wish worldwide. (Luke 22:19, 20) It is Nisan fourteen on the Jewish calendar. Look out for the full moon.
Nick
Nick,
What about all the other respected Trinitarian translations and "scholars" that understood the passage the same way Moffatt did? You didn’t bash them. Why?
Well, for one thing, as I told you, I was trying not to comment on every single thing you said.
I've already made a bunch of comments and asked a bunch of questions that you have not yet addressed, as you pointed out. As I stated a while back, if I address every single point you make, my comments are going to become much more numerous than they already are.
Nick,
To be sure, there is no perfect translation.
I would probably tend to agree. But that does not mean all translations are equal.
Many Bible verses do not take a "scholar" to translate them.
I disagree completely. According to bible.ca:
"Translation of the Greek New Testament is a very precise science.
The New American Standard Bible, for example, was translated over 10 years, by over 45 scholars and was first published in 1962 AD. Similar painstaking work was applied to the production of the New International (1978 AD), and King James (1611AD) and the New King James (1982AD). These translations and others like them were the products of many years of work from scholars from many denominations.
Each translation has its own strengths and weaknesses. The King James Version (KJV) is excellent, but you must use a dictionary as you read because it uses language typical of the time it was translated (1611). I recommend you purchase a more recent translation. The New American Standard Version (NASV) is believed by many to be one of the most accurate translations and is an excellent study Bible. The American Standard Version (ASV) is also excellent and highy accurate. The New King James Version (NKJV) is high on the recommended list. The New International Version (NIV) tries to make the text as easy to understand as possible and is an excellent reading Bible, but not a good study Bible. The New World Translation (1950, the Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) should be avoided because its is actually corrupt, being a sectarian paraphrase rather than a true translation of the Holy Scriptures."
I would not rely on a Bible that was translated by just anyone. For example, the Living Bible is fine for a child's reading Bible, or for someone to merely become generally familiar with the stories in the Bible. It is very reader-friendly. In fact, it is so reader-friendly that its accuracy suffers for it. I would never use it as a study Bible, because it is a paraphrase.
For all their scholarship, the translators of Christendom consistently translate some verses incorrectly, because they try to translate them according to their particular theology, not according to what the texts actually say.
I would say that the two most extreme examples of this, as far as the ones I have heard of, are the New World Translation, which is a doctrinally-adjusted Bible, and also The Inspired Version, which, I've read, was claimed to be a revelation from Latter-day Saints founder Joseph Smith. The text was published in 1867 and a "corrected edition" in 1944. Unless you believe that Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, then his lack of knowledge of Greek and Hebrew would exclude him as a translator.
From my research, the New World Translation is not a true translation of the Bible. Rather, it is an intentional editing of the Bible in order to promote the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses. The differences arise when something was stated in the Bible with which the Jehovah's Witnesses disagree. Verses and passages in the Bible that did not agree with the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses were edited or removed. The New World Translation is the ultimate example of a religious group altering the Bible in order to promote a particular sect. Attempts were made to keep the names of the "translators" of the New World Translation secret. However, it has been revealed that those responsible for the New World Translation had no knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and no experience in the field of Bible translation.
Nick,
Tonight is the most important event of the year, the memorial of Jesus’ death. Over hundred thousand Christian congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses will commemorate this most special event honoring his dying wish worldwide. (Luke 22:19, 20) It is Nisan fourteen on the Jewish calendar. Look out for the full moon.
Interesting. I was not familiar with that practice of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:19-20)
This is usually referred to as "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper." Some churches practice it every 3 months, some every month, some every week, etc.
In doing a very quick search just to get briefly familiar with it, I just now saw this online, which seems interesting:
"The Watchtower 1/1/69 page 26:
“It was observed that only 10,619 individuals partook of the Memorial emblems of wine and unleavened bread, indicating that they were of the anointed class, the remnant of the bride of Christ yet on earth. This number of partakers continues to get smaller and smaller each year.”
Hi Jeff,
Looking at another comment you made:
“The Watchtower Society presents the New World Translation as the anonymous work of the New World Bible Translation Committee and resists all efforts to identify the members of the committee. They claim this is in order that all credit for the work will go to God.”
Did you know all published material by Jehovah’s Witnesses is done so anonymously? Even our art work in our publications have no signatures or credit. Only when life stories or experiences are related would obviously the person be identified.
The translators of the NWT were not seeking prominence for themselves but only to honor the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures. Why is that so hard to respect?
Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition of the “New American Standard Bible” states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”
Why is no one ridiculing these translators? Other Bible translators have actually asked the reader of their translation to judge their work of translating the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures on its own merits, not on who they are or what academic credentials they have from men’s institutions.
Did you know “the Twentieth Century New Testament’s (1904)” translators were unknown until 1953 when an American scholar Dr Kenneth W. Clark studied the TCNT's secretary's records which were deposited in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England by the last survivor of the translation group back in 1933. Even though the names and credentials were not known this translation received much praise for its’ scholarly translation.
Like the TCNT’s translators, the NWT translators did not want to drawn any attention to them personally. They made this known public on September 15th, 1950 and said: "The men who compose the translation committee have indicated their desire....to remain anonymous, and specifically do not want their names to be published while they are in this life or after death. The purpose of the translation is to exalt the name of the living, true God."
Why can’t anyone honor or respect their wishes?
Check out “Number 4” of the fourfold aim of the Lockman Foundation regarding the New American Standard Bible, it says speaking of the translators: "They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him, NO WORK WILL EVER BE PERSONALIZED." (CAPS and bold mine)
Did they hold to their own principles? Actually, they lied. When at one time the translators claimed anonymity, you can know view the list of translators at Lockman's own website.
These translators did not hold to their own principles. A close examination of their work should direct the reader, not to the translators, but to the Bible’s Author, Every Bible reader needs to realize what the New World Translator’s expressed:
"...No translation of these sacred writings[the New Testament]into another language, except by the original writers, is inspired....No uninspired translator or committee of translators can claim any direct command from the Most High God to engage in translating the divine Word into another language....So, to do the work of translating is an opportunity and a privilege. In presenting this translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures[NT] our confidence has been in the help of the great Author of The Book. Our primary desire has been to seek, not the approval of men, but that of God, by rendering the truth of his inspired Word as purely and as consistently as our consecrated powers make possible."
-continued
-continuing
"I have no reason to question the integrity of any of these gentlemen. On the contrary, I am sure they have perfect integrity in their primary commitment, namely their religious beliefs. Isn't it fair to presume that their affiliations already testify to their theological commitments? I would imagine that these gentlemen read the bible in line with those commitments, and I would not fault them for that; that is their prerogative, and I am sure they are supported in this by their institutions. Anyone who wants the Presbyterian or Catholic or Evangelical reading of the bible, I would urge you to consult with such experts. If, however, you want an objective assessment of bible translation, don't ask theologians, ask secular bible scholars at public universities. Our jobs are not on the line if we seem to contradict church dogma, and we are not in the business of apologetics or polemics. We are historians and linguists trying to find out what was said and what was meant in ancient texts. I wouldn't expect you to turn to us for spiritual guidance. But if you want to know what the original Greek of the NT can and cannot mean, we have the training and self-discipline to provide it without special pleading. That's no proud boast; that's a comment on the kind of education we value in a nation committed to the separation of church and state (for the protection of both), and on a profession which will let no unexamined claim stand unchallenged."
"Believe me, I am sure of my facts; and I suggest that you check yours. None of the major modern translations have been accomplished by groups of linguists working with the same methods employed in the translation of Homer or Plato. Instead, every translation committee has consisted of denominationally-affiliated bible scholars, most of whom had theological commitments which, when push came to shove, superseded a strictly linguistic approach. The kinds of considerations that are made by these committees concerning the meaning and proper translation of a verse simply do not occur in secular translation work. There is always a concern for the theological implications of the words. The Lockman foundation and the NIV committee openly avowed their primarily theological concerns in their translation work. The RSV/NRSV editors have gone so far as to modify translations to please specific denominational groups. The RSV/NRSV committee has, over the years, included a handful of "non-trinitarian" scholars, but this was simply part of the RSV editors' goal to make the RSV THE Bible of the English speaking world, and the tiny minority of dissenting voices within the committee could have little impact on the finished product. The "broad spectrum" (of scholars) you refer to is in fact very safely in the mainstream of modern Christianity. Now I think it safe to say that you assume modern mainstream Christianity to be correct and "true" Christianity, and a tiny minority like the JWs to be in error. But imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that your "true" Christianity was the minority, and the huge majority to have followed a wrong turn somewhere down the road to "error." This is just a hypothetical situation. In such a situation, any claim based on numbers, on majority rule, would have no meaning for you. It's pretty nice to speak with the confidence that you are in the majority isn't it? But has it ever occurred to you that in attacking the JWs and insisting that they give up their "different" beliefs and conform to your "true" beliefs and "correct" translations that you are pressuring them to do precisely what you would never do: yield in your faith, your truth, to the pressure of the outside world? I have often been struck by this irony."
-continuing
Despite your criticism of Biblical Koine Greek Professor Jason BeDuhn I says something that all parties should keep in mind fro the book, “Truth In Translation:
Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.
by Jason David Beduhn.(2003, 200 pages)
"I would have to prefer the NWT to both the NIV and the NRSV. The reason is simple. Both the NIV and the NRSV are more paraphrastic than the NWT. By that I mean that in both cases the translators work out what an entire passage "means" and then render the whole passage into English that conveys that meaning. The problem is that there are many passages of which we are not sure of the meaning. It is better to stick very close to the Greek, rendering it as literally as possible without torturing English grammar. Both the NIV and the NRSV indulge in glossing--that is, they both cover up difficulties in the text by producing smooth, apparently clear passages which when compared with the Greek depart quite away from the literal problematic Greek says. These glosses often follow traditional renderings (deriving from the King James tradition) and conform to readings consistent with the dogma of the mainstream denominations (the NIV is more guilty of this than the NRSV).”
"The Greek New Testament is full of riches--nuances of meaning, subtle references, all sorts of cultural methaphors--that are often lost in translation. The NWT is very literal, which is a step in the right direction, because at least I can point out a passage to my class and they can see words which may not make perfect sense in themselves, but provide the clues to the meaning I can elaborate for them by reference to other passages of the Bible, or to details about Jewish, Greek, or Roman society and culture. I find it very difficult to do this with the more commonly used translations.”
"It is incorrect, however, to take "hyper-literal" as a sharp condemnation. I support the literal end of the translation spectrum against the paraphrastic and interpretive because it is less conducive to the intrusion of biased understandings and leading interpretation. Of course, I work in a world where I stand right beside the student and help decipher the peculiar expressions and idioms, and most Bible readers don't have that kind of help. So for them a "hyper-literal" translation will pose some difficulties. But those sorts of difficulties lead people to go out and find what they mean, whereas a nice, comfortable, contemporary idiom paraphrase deludes people into thinking that the Bible is perfectly understood and that it offers no challenges to our ordinary modern ways of thinking. That is terribly misleading."
"Be careful whom you trust for information. My expertise is in Koine Greek. Speaking of information, your much tauted list is just a list of names: how do we know what any of these individuals have actually said? And does anyone besides me see the common denominator of all of these scholars? They are all members of religious schools attached to specific denominations of Christianity."
-continuing
Nick,
Over the years other translation committees have taken a similar view. For example, the jacket of the Reference Edition of the “New American Standard Bible” states: “We have not used any scholar’s name for reference or recommendations because it is our belief God’s Word should stand on its merits.”
Why is no one ridiculing these translators?
Anonymity is not the real issue. The issue is why are they anonymous? Yes, those who worked on the NWT claim to remain anonymous for the glory of God. But could there be another reason?
Let's do a comparison of the New American Standard Bible with the New World Translation.
The New American Standard Bible is widely regarded as the most literally translated of 20th-century English Bible translations. The translators represent a wide spectrum of denominations and Christian traditions: Presbyterian, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, American Baptist, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist, Free Methodist, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Free, Independent Baptist, Independent Menomite, Assembly of God, North American Baptist, and other religious groups. The sponsor, the Lockman Foundation of La Habra, California, states that the majority of the translators held doctorates in biblical literature and languages. It was said that of the New Testament alone, 25,000 hours of research were dedicated. The NASB has often been noted for its reliability to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, as well as its extreme literalness. Geisler and Nix have said that the NASB is to date the best relatively literal translation done by a committee of conservative scholars. Although the NASB is based on early and reliable texts it still makes reference to later traditions in its footnotes, such as the longer reading of 1 John 5:7-8 as it is found in the KJV. Similar footnotes are included for the account of the adulterous woman in John Ch.8; the angel at the waters of Bethesda in John Ch. 5. In 1995 the Lockman Foundation published the 'NASB Update'. As the name suggests, this is not actually a new version but rather a revision. The Foundation felt that because 25 years had passed since the appearance of the NASB it was in need of bringing more up to date. Updating included the following: removing the words thee and thou, consulting the newest scholarly editions of ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and removing some of the idiosyncrasies found in the ancient languages that do not conform to English grammar. Some of these words were replaced with more modern equivalents and some sentences were rearranged to make them more understandable in English. Although the NASB Update is more fluid than its predecessor, it still remains as literal as possible, and while not good for public reading it is a good Bible for serious Bible study.
(cont.)
(cont.)
The New World Translation was produced by the anonymous New World Bible Translation Committee. The publishers believe that the particulars of the New World Bible Translation Committee's members university or other educational training are not the important thing. The 'translators' of the New World Translation use the terms "Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures" rather than "Old Testament" and "New Testament", stating that the use of "testament" was based on a misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 3:14. Square brackets [ ] are added around words that were inserted editorially, and double brackets are used to indicate sources considered doubtful. The translation uses the name Jehovah 6,973 times in the Old Testament. Additionally, it inserts the name 237 times in the New Testament where the original texts refer to God. The New Testament has some peculiar non-literal renderings. These are the result of the committee's efforts to conform the version to the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses. "Jehovah" is given as a translation for kurios (Lord) in the New Testament whenever the Father is meant, but not when it refers to Christ, the Son. "Torture stake" is put instead of "cross" because the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the cross is an idolatrous symbol introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. And because this sect teaches that Jesus Christ was merely an angel, the version reflects a Unitarian bias in several places.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Examples of Unitarian bias:
* Gen. 1:1-2. "In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." The ruach elohim ("Spirit of God") of the Hebrew is interpreted "God's active force" in order to avoid the Trinitarian understanding of the "Spirit."
* Zech. 12:10. "...they will look upon the one whom they have pierced..." Here the Hebrew "look upon me whom they have pierced," in which God is the speaker, has been altered in order to avoid the implication that the one who is to be pierced (on the cross) is God.
* John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Instead of the literal "the Word was God," we have "a god," which the sect interprets as "an angelic being."
* Col. 1:15-17. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist." Because the sect teaches that Christ was a created being rather than eternal God, the word "other" is inserted several times. The first edition of the translation did this without brackets.
* Heb. 1:8. "God is your throne forever" (a nonsensical statement) is put intead of "your throne, O God, is forever," because this statement refers to Christ.
Because the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that men exercise "free will" in accepting or rejecting Christ, the version also has such forced interpretations as:
* Acts 13:48. "When those of the nations heard this, they began to rejoice and to glorify the word of Jehovah, and all those who were rightly disposed for everlasting life became believers." Here "rightly disposed" (a human inclination) replaces "ordained" (a divine appointment).
So, with the New World Translation, at least two things stand out to me: (1) Education, scholarship and degrees were not considered important; and (2) There was quite a bit of altering and editorial work in order to conform the Scriptures to fit with the Jehovah's Witness doctrine.
In reality, the New World Translation is the work of a Bible Translation Committee with no working knowledge of biblical languages. Their bias is so blatant that Dr Bruce Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton, not only characterized the New World Translation as a “frightful mistranslation” but as “erroneous,” “pernicious,” and “reprehensible.”
As mentioned before, in well over two hundred cases, the name Jehovah has been gratuitously inserted into the New Testament text. In passages such as Romans 10:13, this is done to obscure the unique deity of Christ. In other passages, it is done under the pretext that referring to God as 'Lord,' rather than 'Jehovah,' is patently pagan. Ironically, in "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," Watchtower translators themselves fall into this “pagan” practice by translating the Greek word kurios as Lord, even in cases where it specifically refers to the Father.
The Watchtower Society claims that the Christian Scriptures have “been tampered with” in order to eliminate the name Jehovah from the text. In reality, it is the Translation Committee of the NWT that can rightly be accused of tampering.
For these and a host of other reasons, Greek scholars across the board denounce the New World Translation. Dr. Julius Mantey, author of "A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament," called the NWT a “shocking mistranslation,” and Dr. William Barclay characterized the translators themselves as “intellectually dishonest.”
Regarding the New World Translation, British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible
should not be translated."
The following words are from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation" (Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation):
"Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation."
"I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey , Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)
"The translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
The NWT translators were Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz, M. Henschel
"Fred Franz however, was the only one with sufficient knowledge of the Bible languages to attempt translation of this kind. He had studied Greek for two years in the University of Cincinnati but was only self-taught in Hebrew." ("Crisis of Conscience"; by Raymond Franz; Commentary Press, Atlanta; 1983 edition; footnote 15; page 50.)
Four out of the five men on the committee had no Hebrew or Greek training at all. They had only a high school education. Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, but dropped out after his sophomore year. When asked in a Scotland courtroom if he could translate Genesis 2:4 into Hebrew, Franz replied that he could not. The truth is that Franz was unable to translate Hebrew or Greek.
What we are left with is a very inexperienced translating committee that twisted Scripture to make it fit the Society's doctrine.
Now I think it safe to say that you assume modern mainstream Christianity to be correct and "true" Christianity, and a tiny minority like the JWs to be in error. But imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine that your "true" Christianity was the minority, and the huge majority to have followed a wrong turn somewhere down the road to "error." This is just a hypothetical situation. In such a situation, any claim based on numbers, on majority rule, would have no meaning for you. It's pretty nice to speak with the confidence that you are in the majority isn't it? But has it ever occurred to you that in attacking the JWs and insisting that they give up their "different" beliefs and conform to your "true" beliefs and "correct" translations that you are pressuring them to do precisely what you would never do: yield in your faith, your truth, to the pressure of the outside world? I have often been struck by this irony."
It sounds to me like Jason BeDuhn is apparently no Christian.
Even Jason BeDuhn makes note, concerning the New World Translation, "I am sure you are aware of historical objections to the (re)insertion of `Jehovah' into the translation. Of course, no Greek Gospel manuscripts support this, but I will not quibble with you about that."
(Jason D. BeDuhn, in a letter to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 12 May 1997)
Again, a lack of credentials plague the New World Bible Translation Committee's translators. Bill Cetnar explained that of the supposed translators, only F. W. Franz, fourth president of the Watchtower, had any schooling in this area, and his abilities to translate were proven inadequate in a Scottish Court in November 1954.
In 1954, in a Scotland trial, Fred Franz, then head of the Watchtower Editorial Board, admitted that he himself was the one who had checked the accuracy of the translation and recommended its publication. (Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde, M.P., P.C., etc., Scotland, 1954, (1958 ed.).p.88.)
From its inception, there has been no biblical language scholar residing at Watchtower headquarters. Many who claim to have the ability to translate Greek in fact could not and were caught in their lie. Russell perjured himself under oath in the Russell vs. Ross "defamatory libel" case of March 17, 1913 by first claiming to understand the Greek alphabet. He later admitted he did not know the Greek language in which the Bible was originally written when he was confronted with translating the language.
The facts speak for themselves. The real reason for the secrecy surrounding the names of the men on the Translation Committee would be so that the translators could not be checked, since they had no qualifications, and anyone investigating this could not find anyone to assume responsibility for the translation.
Not one of the men had ever studied Greek. Only three of the five had even finished high school. Of those three only one went on to College. And that was Fredrick Franz, the same man who became the President of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did begin at the University of Cincinnati, but only completed two years. He then dropped out of College after the first semester in 1913, because he believed what Russell told him, that Christ was returning in 1914. He does not have even the most basic college degree, and certainly does not possess a degree for advanced study of the Bible. In fact, outside of the Watchtower circle, Franz is not recognized by anyone as a scholar.
As M. James Penton, a former Jehovah's Witness and historian, has written, "to all intents and purposes the New World Translation is the work of one man-Frederick Franz." M. James Penton, Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985), 174.
The men who make up the "translation committee" were self-appointed men lacking any adequate schooling or background in biblical languages unable to function as Bible Translators. Their purpose was not to translate the Scripture into a modern version of the Bible but to justify their theology to their people and have ammunition against Christianity as it is practiced today.
Nick,
A few additional thoughts on a few things you said previously.
What matters is correspondence with the best Greek and Hebrew texts, not the particular credentials of the translator.
This is a half-truth. Even with the best texts, one needs a translator that knows what they are doing. This requires education and objectivity.
Besides, "scholars" often disagree with one another. Not one of them is infallible.
True, and the same can be stated for non-scholars. So, I will go with the scholars and take my chances...my educated chances.
But the overall theme of the Bible is right there for any reader, and the truth will not be found in just one or a few verses, but in the many that correspond and agree with the Bible's overall theme.
Scripture, of course, had to be correctly translated by a scholar, to some degree, in a language for one to understand.
In other words, the question should be, "How accurate is this verse (or these verses) translated according to the original texts?' not "Who was the translator."
False. The credentials and objectivity of the translator(s) reflect upon interpretation.
For all their scholarship, the translators of Christendom consistently translate some verses incorrectly, because they try to translate them according to their particular theology, not according to what the texts actually say.
This is a sweeping statement lacking support. Some scholars are more objective than others. Certainly, non-scholars could be guilty of mistranslation and would be more likely to do so, and they are less likely to know what they are doing at a high level.
Hi Jeff,
For some reason I didn't even see your other comments until now. I only was looking at your front page until today I hit the "newest" button. No wonder. I have to say that you have gotton carried away. You are just cutting and pasting and trying to avalanche me with so many completely topics which never accomplishes much. I could do the very same thing but why?
I am going into the country for 2 days and then I will fly to San Fran and then back to Hawaii with my wife. I may or may not have internet service. When I can I will write you back on comments you made I am still getting to and then eventually will address each recent seperate topic one at a time.
Take good care,
Nick
Nick,
For some reason I didn't even see your other comments until now. I only was looking at your front page until today I hit the "newest" button. No wonder. I have to say that you have gotton carried away. You are just cutting and pasting and trying to avalanche me with so many completely topics which never accomplishes much. I could do the very same thing but why?
First, if you have not seen my newest comments for a while, and are only now seeing them all at once, it probably does seem like an "avalanche" to you.
Second, I am not "just cutting and pasting." There are some things that I have cut and pasted, yes, but much of it I have typed out myself. With some of the comments you make, I have seen that same information on other sites, so I know that many of your comments, and maybe none of them, are original. Much, if not all, of what you say seems to be standard Jehovah's Witness arguments. So, if I use Internet research or books or various Bibles to find out information, or to word something better than I might be able to say it, instead of just always typing whatever pops into my head at the time, then I consider that good, because I am learning more through it; and I don't think I'm doing anything that you are not doing yourself.
Third, most of your comments are long, even when they are replies to one brief question or comment of mine, so why do you complain when mine are as well?
Fourth, you have asked me several questions in your comments, so I feel obliged to answer them. When I do that, plus ask questions that I want to ask, plus comment on blatantly false statements that you make, then of course my comments are going to get numerous. If your comments were brief, then mine would be shorter and less numerous as well; but when you say a lot of things, then you should expect to get a lot of feedback.
Fifth, if I think of something or read something or come across something that I want to include, then I include it, because otherwise I'll forget about it.
Sixth, you are the one who came onto my blog site and challenged my article. If I went on someone else's blog site, and they replied to me with a lot of comments, I would not complain about their numerous comments, because I would consider myself a guest there, and I would realize it was not my blog site.
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am not trying to blast you for making any of your comments just letting you know that you are bringing up so many different subjects and I want to bring things back on track.
I have seen this so many times where we discuss a topic like the Trinity and it turns into to trying to tear down Jehovah's Witnesses from info you find on anti-JW website. There are answers to each one of your questions if you will be patient.
I don't mind long replies if there is good research to be shared. This is good and fair. And I don't care where you get your info from. I have done research throughout the years from all kinds of sources, books,internet,encyclopedias,lexicons, etc. But if I start sending you what I dislike about the Evangelical theology from A to Z do you really think anything will ever be resolved? I promise to do my best to answer all of your inquiries.
Back to where I left off. You shared: “The most widespread change in the Watchtower Bible is the insertion of the name 'JEHOVAH,' 237 times in the New Testament. Of course, it is appropriate for a translator to choose to use the divine name JEHOVAH or YAHWEH in the Old Testament (though, in my studies, 'Yahweh' is the correct pronunciation) where the Tetragrammaton 'YHWH' actually appears in the Hebrew text. However, the Watchtower has gone beyond this by inserting the name JEHOVAH in the New Testament, where it does not appear in Greek manuscripts. One need only look at the word-by-word English that appears under the Greek text in the Society's own Kingdom Interlinear Translation to see that the name JEHOVAH is not there in the Greek.”
It can not be proved, at this point in time, that the divine Name was or was not in the original New Testament manuscripts, because those manuscripts are absent. No one has the original New Testament manuscripts. So an argument that the Name was not there is no more solid than that it was there, if concrete evidence is demanded.
But an argument for inclusion of the Name in the New Testament can be made on the "preponderance of evidence" solidly presented by the "Old Testament." In the Hebrew, God's unique Name appears nearly 7,000 times. The God of the Old Testament is the same God Who is found in the New Testament, and He did not suddenly become nameless between the two Testaments. If He is YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah) in the Old Testament, He is still YHWH in the New.
We can accept both "Testaments" as the inspired word of God and still see understandable differences occurring between the two, but not basic contradictory differences. For example, we know how and why animal sacrifices to God have been done away with. It has been carefully, logically explained in the NT and, therefore, does not contradict the OT teachings where such sacrifices were required (essential). But where is the careful, logical explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT?
-continued
-continuing
It's not there! How can it be that God reveals his personal name and commands that it be publicly acknowledged and used forever by his servants (and they respectfully do so for over a thousand years) and then, for no scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin refusing to use that name and even hide it?
It is also a fact that Greek Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts of the first Christian centuries DID have the Name in Old Hebrew letters. It can be conjectured that the New Testament writers did not have copies of such manuscripts with the Name in them, but it cannot be proved that they did not.
It is also just a matter of conjecture that "Yahweh" is a better guess than "Jehovah," despite what your source has came up with in his studies. Yahweh is found in NO ancient Hebrew manuscript, and is really based on Greek transliterations of what early Greek church fathers said that they heard. (Iaoue, IaBe, etc.) Greek transliterations of Hebrew names in the Septuagint often do not accurately represent the same sounds of the names in Hebrew.
But this is a major point: For those who argue that "Yahweh" is more accurate, why don't they then use "Yahweh" in their Bible translations, instead of just "Lord"? Why don't they "put their money where their mouth is"?
Also, for all those who object to using the divine Name in the New Testament, where they claim it does not exist in the Greek, why do they remove God's Name from their translations of the Old Testament, where it clearly does exist?
In other words, they hypocritically cry and moan about the "addition" of God's Name to the New Testament, but gleefully and unlawfully keep silent about its removal in their translations from where God Himself put it, in the Old Testament.
Such double-speaking hypocrisy is unworthy of true scholars. Most of the translators you have been quoting from such as the NIV and NASB NEVER used the Divine name plucking it out. Why doesn’t your source write a book about them? Even though you personally feel Jehovah or Yahweh’s name should not have been taken out of the OT you need to be equally or just as critically forceful of your own Trinitarian violators of Scripture. 6,973 times God’s name is removed!
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong 237 times, this would make the NWT right 93% over most of the Bible translations you have been including in your discussions with me.
-continued
-continuing
And of course, in the Kingdom Greek Interlinear it shows “Lord” in the Greek. Your critic does not bring out that in the New World Translation Reference Bible every time Jehovah is used in the footnote it informs the reader that “Lord” is what appears in the Greek.
The truth is that are many Trinitarian translators of Christendom that have used the Divine Name in the NT to aid the reader in determining which "Lord" was meant. There are many, at least 43 NT scholarly translators who have thought it theologically correct to use the name ‘Jehovah.’
A few translators have used the name in too free a manner, even bordering on the irresponsible. Some have only used it once, but this has demonstrated that in principle it is right to use the name in the NT or Christian Greek Scriptures. Where just a few references have been included, they have generally been connected with quotations from the OT or Hebrew Scriptures.
Consider also other Trinitarian-respected Bibles if they are being accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, etc. if they added a personal name to their translation for clarity or to make some other point, when it wasn't actually in the NT text to begin with?
We see the same thing, probably just to make it clear to the readers what was probably intended, at Mark 1:41, 45.
Mark 1:41 says in the Greek text: "And being moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him".
But look what these respected Trinitarian Bibles write here instead:
“Jesus , moved with compassion, put forth his hand..” (KJV)
“Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand.. (NIV)
So, have these respected Trinitarian translations been accused of terrible crimes against God, misuse of God's inspired word, deliberate mistranslation, done something “inappropriate,” etc. because they have INSERTED a personal name to their translation which was not in the original Greek text?
Let's do one more that's nearby, Mark 1:45 (and there are plenty more). The Greek says: "… the man started to proclaim it … so that he was not able to enter openly into the city".
“to such an extent that Jesus could no longer publicly enter a city.” (NASB)
“until Jesus could no longer show himself in any town,” (NEB)
Was anything terrible, dishonest, or fraudulent done here? Should these translators be criticized for the sake of clarity inserting a name that was NOT in the actual Greek text?
I believe the NWT Bible Committee was not only correct to include the name Jehovah in their Hebrew Scriptures, but wise to also use it conservatively in the NT or Christian Greek Scriptures. It clearly identifies Jehovah as the same God, and removes any ambiguity about which ‘Lord’ is intended, one of the first aims of Bible translators.
The NWT translators were fully justified from a scholarly viewpoint in honoring God’s Name and in clarifying to the reader where YHWH definitely was. They show no bias in so doing, but only seek to follow the evidence in the Bible itself concerning the sanctification of Jehovah’s great name. “Jehovah, …this is my name forever.” (ASV)
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You said: "We have mentioned this before, but let's look at it again.
Jesus is worshiped many times in the New Testament; the worshipers are never rebuked. An angel is worshiped twice in the New Testament [Rev 19:10, 22:8-9]; the worshiper is rebuked both times. Peter is worshiped once [Acts 10:25]; the worshiper is rebuked.
Why was there rebuke when angels and Peter were worshiped, but not when Jesus was worshiped?"
Answer: Because Peter and others made TOO MUCH of them. Can “proskuneo” worship, be given to an angel of Jehovah in a proper way without getting rebuked???
Joshua 5:13-15 (King James Version)
13And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? 15And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so."
Feel free to make as long a comment as you like.
Take care,
Nick
Nick,
But this is a major point: For those who argue that "Yahweh" is more accurate, why don't they then use "Yahweh" in their Bible translations, instead of just "Lord"? Why don't they "put their money where their mouth is"?
Well, the only "they" that I specifically know of offhand is the author of a book that I own called "Recovering And Hallowing God's Name." He uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible, mainly because it does use Yahweh when a text emphasizes Yahweh as a name: for example, "His name is Yahweh" (Ps 68:4).
...why do they remove God's Name from their translations of the Old Testament, where it clearly does exist?
Assuming I understand your point correctly, the author of the book I mentioned in my last comment has the same objection, and I think that is part of the reason he wrote the book.
One website I found pointed out that:
Most Jewish people won’t say Yahweh. Instead, they say HASHEM—a Hebrew word that means “The Name”, or they say Adonai—the Hebrew word for Lord.
But the same website also said that:
“LORD” and “GOD” are titles—not names, and Yahweh never even hinted that we should declare His titles to the world. These two titles can be applied appropriately to wood, rock, or metal, and Yahweh Himself refers to anything fashioned into an idol for worship as either a “god” or a “lord.” It is a simple fact that “lord“ and “god“ don’t distinguish between Yahweh and inanimate objects and false deities so it makes no sense to believe they are appropriate substitutes for His Name. In truth, there is no substitute for the Name “Yahweh.“
If Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong 237 times, this would make the NWT right 93% over most of the Bible translations you have been including in your discussions with me.
Even if that is correct concerning
God's Name (which I don't know that it is), there are far more serious issues with the New World Translation.
Even though you personally feel Jehovah or Yahweh’s name should not have been taken out of the OT you need to be equally or just as critically forceful of your own Trinitarian violators of Scripture.
That book that I mentioned before addresses this issue, but I have only begun reading it, since I read several or more books at a time. Since I prefer to read a book slowly, underlining and taking notes (unless it's fiction, but most of the books I read are for study, instead of being fictional stories), it takes me a while to get through each book. But once I get more involved with that book, I'm sure I'll have more of a passion about the issue of God's Name in Scripture.
Nick,
BTW, even the Watchtower admits that "Yahweh" is the most likely pronunciation of YHWH:
“Hebrew scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation. …Since certainty of pronunciation is not now attainable, there seems to be no reason for abandoning in English the well-known form ‘Jehovah’ in favor of some other suggested pronunciation.” —Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 2. p. 7
So, since scholars generally agree that “Jehovah” is not the most correct translation for God’s name, why, then, does the Watchtower Society choose to use a name for God that is not "the most likely pronunciation?" Not only in the Bible, but, since "scholars generally favor ‘Yahweh’ as the most likely pronunciation," then why don't they also change their name to "Yahweh's Witnesses?" Why use an erroneous name?
Nick,
But this is a major point: For those who argue that "Yahweh" is more accurate, why don't they then use "Yahweh" in their Bible translations, instead of just "Lord"? Why don't they "put their money where their mouth is"?
Also, for all those who object to using the divine Name in the New Testament, where they claim it does not exist in the Greek, why do they remove God's Name from their translations of the Old Testament, where it clearly does exist?
In other words, they hypocritically cry and moan about the "addition" of God's Name to the New Testament, but gleefully and unlawfully keep silent about its removal in their translations from where God Himself put it, in the Old Testament.
Consider this quote:
“The normal word for Master is Lord, a rendering of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH (Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it was consistently pronounced and translated LORD. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion.”
(“Principles of Translation,” The New American Standard Bible)
So, then, here is something else to consider: If “Jehovah,” a “well-known form” of God’s name in English, is to be preferred over a more accurate translation simply because we do not know the official “pronunciation” of God’s name, how is this argument any different from my Bible’s argument that the translators chose “LORD” for God’s name because of the ambiguity surrounding its pronunciation and the fact that “LORD” is the “well-known” rendering of God’s name used by the Jews for centuries?
Nick,
Thanks for your thoughts. I am not trying to blast you for making any of your comments just letting you know that you are bringing up so many different subjects and I want to bring things back on track.
I have seen this so many times where we discuss a topic like the Trinity and it turns into to trying to tear down Jehovah's Witnesses from info you find on anti-JW website. There are answers to each one of your questions if you will be patient.
Remember that I said previously that you can take your time. But also realize that I'm not just going to sit here quietly while you write 30 or 40 comments to catch up on things I have asked or said previously, or while you make comments for the next several weeks until you finally "catch up." While I am making an attempt not to comment on every point you make, I am finding it hard to do, because I like to write. So, the fact is, I am going to reply to your replies, and I am going to ask new questions as I think of them, or as I come across them in my reading or research. And just because something doesn't fit precisely under the exact subject we are currently talking about doesn't mean that I'm not going to bring it up. I get the feeling that Jehovah's Witnesses like to talk about one specific point at a time, and like to cover it extensively and completely before they go on to the next subject. But I am not like that. I like variety. I get bored with staying with one thing too long. As I mentioned before, I like reading several or more books at a time. I will read part of one, and then go on to another one. I have taken 16 different styles of martial arts, though I never got a black belt, because I never stayed in one style long enough to get a black belt. Again, I like variety. In addition, as I'm sure you can tell, I also like to write, and I tend to be verbose in my writing (though I am learning to be less so than I used to be). You have been making continuous comments on my blog site now for something like 2 weeks or so. If you're going to continue to make comments on my blog site, and especially since you make multiple comments each time, you're just going to have to deal with my multiple comments in reply. Even though you try to basically stick to one subject at a time, you bring up many different quotes and points, so that means there are at least that same number of points that I could comment on. I have a blogger friend who usually makes very brief comments, and with him, my replies are often very brief. But when you talk about a lot of things, then that leaves it open for me to reply to at least some of those things, even if I don't reply to every point.
Nick,
But an argument for inclusion of the Name in the New Testament can be made on the "preponderance of evidence" solidly presented by the "Old Testament." In the Hebrew, God's unique Name appears nearly 7,000 times. The God of the Old Testament is the same God Who is found in the New Testament, and He did not suddenly become nameless between the two Testaments. If He is YHWH (Yahweh or Jehovah) in the Old Testament, He is still YHWH in the New.
Yet, think about this: While it is true that God’s name appears throughout the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures, this says nothing of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures. If it is important for Christians today to use God’s name, why is there NO EVIDENCE for God’s name being used by the early Christian writers of the New Testament?
Nick,
But where is the careful, logical explanation that shows that the necessary knowledge and use of God's name (as clearly acknowledged by word and example throughout the OT) was done away with in the NT?
And I could ask this: In spite of the evidence that we have for the accuracy of our New Testament Christian Greek manuscripts, what “facts” does the Watchtower Society appeal to in order to prove that God’s name was removed from these manuscripts?
Nick,
How can it be that God reveals his personal name and commands that it be publicly acknowledged and used forever by his servants (and they respectfully do so for over a thousand years) and then, for no scriptural reason, His worshipers suddenly begin refusing to use that name and even hide it?
Well, let me ask you this: If the early Christians used God’s name, why is it missing in ALL of the 5,000+ Greek manuscripts we possess of the Christian Scriptures, some dating back as far as the 2nd century? Why is it missing from ALL of the 36,000+ quotations of the Scriptures made by the early church fathers before the 4th century?
If something as important as God’s name was lost from the Christian Greek Scriptures, did God fail to keep His promise to preserve His word from corruption?
Nick,
It is also a fact that Greek Septuagint (LXX) manuscripts of the first Christian centuries DID have the Name in Old Hebrew letters. It can be conjectured that the New Testament writers did not have copies of such manuscripts with the Name in them, but it cannot be proved that they did not.
Since the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures does not contain any of the books of the New Testament Christian Greek Scriptures, how can the Septuagint’s inclusion of God’s name prove that God’s name was in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament?
Nick,
Why was there rebuke when angels and Peter were worshiped, but not when Jesus was worshiped?"
Answer: Because Peter and others made TOO MUCH of them.
So are you saying that Peter and the angels were wrong to rebuke people for worshiping them?
Nick,
Why was there rebuke when angels and Peter were worshiped, but not when Jesus was worshiped?"
Answer: Because Peter and others made TOO MUCH of them. Can “proskuneo” worship, be given to an angel of Jehovah in a proper way without getting rebuked???
Joshua 5:13-15 (King James Version)
13And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant? 15And the captain of the LORD's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so."
In the Old Testament, there are Christophanies, which may include instances where no expressly Messianic title is given to a figure; for example, "the Angel of the LORD" is construed by some as a Christophany. Of course, identification of a given incident as a Christophany, as opposed to a vision of an angel, is a matter of debate among biblical commentators. For example, the Hebrew word "malach" means "one sent" or "messenger". So, in that case, it would not necessarily be referring to some winged creature.
One example is the "Man" who appears to Joshua, and identifies Himself as "the commander of the army of the LORD." (Joshua 5:13-15). The standard argument that this was in fact Christ is that He accepted Joshua's prostrate worship, whereas angels refuse such worship (for example, see Revelation 19:9-10). Additionally, He declared the ground to be holy; elsewhere in the Bible, only things or places set aside for God or claimed by Him are called holy (for example, see Exodus 3:5).
In two places in the book of Revelation, John was so awed by the revelation he had received from God through an angel, a very glorious creature, that he bowed down to worship the angel. Revelation 19:10: "And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” And then again in Revelation 22:8-9 we are told, "And I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. And he said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book; worship God.”
(cont.)
(cont.)
Do we have the right to worship angels? No. Worship must only be given to the Eternal God. The definition of idolatry is to worship created things instead of the Creator, as Romans 1:25 states.
If Abraham, Lot, Joshua and others had worshiped the heavenly messengers, they would have been committing idolatry. Worship of a messenger as though he were the sender is a deceitful form of idolatry.
Some of these verses could be a reference to a theophany, a manifestation of God in the Bible that is tangible to the human senses. In its most restrictive sense, it is a visible appearance of God in the Old Testament period, often, but not always, in human form. Some of the theophanies are found in these passages:
1. Genesis 12:7-9–The Lord appeared to Abraham on his arrival in the land God had promised to him and his descendants.
2. Genesis 18:1-33–One day, Abraham had some visitors: two angels and God Himself. He invited them to come to his home, and he and Sarah entertained them. Many commentators believe this could also be a Christophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
3. Genesis 32:22-30–Jacob wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but was actually God (vv. 28-30). This may also have been a Christophany.
4. Exodus 3:2 - 4:17–God appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush, telling him exactly what He wanted him to do.
5. Exodus 24:9-11–God appeared to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders.
6. Deuteronomy 31:14-15–God appeared to Moses and Joshuah in the transfer of leadership to Joshua.
7. Job 38–42–God answered Job out of the tempest and spoke at great length in answer to Job’s questions.
Frequently, the term “glory of the Lord” reflects a theophany, as in Exodus 24:16-18; the “pillar of cloud” has a similar function in Exodus 33:9. A frequent introduction for theophanies may be seen in the words “the Lord came down,” as in Genesis 11:5; Exodus 34:5; Numbers 11:5; and 12:5.
Some Bible commentators believe that whenever someone received a visit from “the angel of the Lord,” this was in fact the pre-incarnate Christ. These appearances can be seen in Genesis 16:7-14; Genesis 22:11-18; Judges 5:23; 2 Kings 19:35; and other passages. Other commentators believe these were in fact angelophanies, or appearances of angels. While there are no indisputable Christophanies in the Old Testament, every theophany wherein God takes on human form foreshadows the incarnation, where God took the form of a man to live among us as Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23).
Nick,
I believe the NWT Bible Committee was not only correct to include the name Jehovah in their Hebrew Scriptures, but wise to also use it conservatively in the NT or Christian Greek Scriptures. It clearly identifies Jehovah as the same God, and removes any ambiguity about which ‘Lord’ is intended, one of the first aims of Bible translators.
Did you know that the name “Jehovah” was derived by inserting the vowels of the Hebrew word Adonai which means “Lord” into the YHWH consonants of God’s name, making YA-HO-WA or JA-HO-VA?
Here is a quote from a Watchtower publication:
“The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ’Adho-nai’ (Sovereign Lord)or ’Elo-him’ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]. …the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ’Adho-nai’or ’Elo-him’ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. …In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ’Adho-nai’ (meaning ‘Sovereign Lord’) or ’Elo-him’ (meaning ‘God’).”
-Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 2. pp. 6-7
That brings up an interesting question. Since the Hebrew vowels for “Lord” are part of the name “Jehovah” used by your translation, what’s the difference between my Bible’s use of the capital letters “LORD” to denote God’s name and your Bible’s rendering of “Jehovah,” derived from the Hebrew vowels for “Lord”?
Nick,
Among the many e-mails a friend constantly sends me (a friend who knows nothing of the conversation between you and me), I just now received this, which I thought I might as well share:
Beyond the Watchtower
By Shannon Woodland
"Daniel Morales grew up in Columbia, South America. It was there he became a Jehovah’s Witness.
“Being in an organization such as Jehovah’s Witness really made you feel safe,” Daniel says. “You felt like you were a part of something.”
He later moved to the United States with his family. Like all Jehovah’s Witnesses, Daniel answered to their governing body – the Watchtower Society. Members were taught that God only accepts those who follow the rules of the Watchtower.
“That’s the only kind of Christianity that I knew – to practice nothing individual – because in fact the Jehovah’s Witnesses discourage individual thinking completely.”
Daniel started having his doubts.
“I saw these evangelical Christians, how on fire they were for God. These people are going around saying they love Jesus, they are doing good works, they have these charities, yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses are telling us this is a false religion. It didn’t quite make sense.”
By the time Daniel graduated from high school, he began to explore Christianity. He got hooked on some books about the end times called the Left Behind series. He started seeing things that didn’t match up with what he learned as a Jehovah’s Witness.
“I didn’t know what to do. The Jehovah’s Witnesses were telling me these things. I’m feeling compelled right there at my kitchen table to pray to Jesus. The Jehovah’s Witnesses say, ‘You have to pray to Jehovah. Jesus is completely separate. He’s just an angel.’”
Meanwhile, he fell into a relationship with a woman that ended in a bad break up. Broken hearted, he went to the leadership for counsel. Instead of giving Daniel words of comfort and wisdom, the community ostracized him.
“’We’re going to reprove you,’ which is a way of saying, ‘We’re going to set you aside.’ You’re going to be marked. You cannot participate in the meetings. You cannot associate freely with all the other brothers and sisters. What kind of help is that? What kind of feeling is that? I felt just completely rejected, like a slap in the face.”
(cont.)
(cont.)
That’s when Daniel joined the Marines, but that also went against the Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs and Daniel struggled with his decision. So he wrote the Watch tower Society, again looking for guidance. They advised him to begin the process of a conscientious objector discharge. Daniel began to see the writing on the wall.
“What am I doing here? Why am I struggling? These people aren’t going to accept me. The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t accept me. The organization is definitely not going to take me in until I leave the military. But if I leave the military like this, I’ll probably get a dishonorable discharge. I didn’t join like that. They are telling me in order for God to accept me I have to lie to say that I’m a conscientious objector even though I came willingly and I wanted to bear arms.”
Daniel felt trapped, but he was holding out hope that God could accept him. Then a friend in the Marine Corps invited him to church. Daniel said yes.
“I went there. They made the altar call. I just surrendered. I basically went to the altar and said, ‘Lord, I don’t know what to do. I’m lost. I don’t know what to believe in. This doesn’t make sense to me, but whatever I can do, here I am. Help me out. It was one of those moments that I just felt that God heard my cry.”
In time, Daniel saw the truth – that God’s love is not something he could earn by following rules and regulations. It’s a gift.
“These things were starting to move me from that type of organization to a different kind of love. To a God who loves me, who wants to come into a personal relationship with me, who basically wants to meet me where I am. [He] doesn’t require me to leave behind the Marine Corps and the core values of honor, courage and commitment.”
Daniel served honorably in the Marine Corps for eight years. He also married Jackie and is now working on a Master degree online with Regent University. Instead of going to the Watchtower for answers, he turns to Jesus Christ daily for advice and encouragement.
“Now I don’t have anyone telling me this is how you’re suppose to believe, this is how you’re suppose to think. Now I can pray. I can have access to the Holy Spirit. I can open the Bible. I can consult with dear Christian friends who are wiser than me, and then I can make my own decisions.”
I did a quick search to make sure that Snopes didn't say it was a hoax, and in doing so, I found THIS VIDEO, where the guy tells his story.
Hi Jeff,
I have been traveling these last few days Germany, California and now back in Hawaii. I will take one or two of your questions and comments today. You said:
“Isaiah 42:8 says, "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory..." Similarly, Isaiah 48:11 says, "...And to no one else shall I give my own glory." If Christ is not God, then how could he say in John 17:5, "So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the GLORY that I HAD alongside you before the world was"? Since God stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how could Christ have the same "glory" as God, unless Christ is God in the flesh?”
No one would argue that Jehovah should receive glory. Afterall, He is “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” (Ephesians 1:17 King James Version)
We can, and should glorify him. Let’s go over a few Scriptures (and as usual, not using the NWT).
John 15:8 (King James Version)
“Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.”
Matthew 5:16 (New American Standard Bible)
"Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”
But, “Does not the glory belong to Jehovah only?”
The Scriptural answer is “No.” Jehovah, obviously, does not share his glory with anyone undeserving. (Isaiah 48:11) Again, when one reads the content and context of what he was saying he made clear he would not share such glory with false idols and images. (See Isaiah 42:8)
However, he can and does give glory to whomever he chooses.
I believe John 17 should settle any misconceptions you have.
Verses 4 and 5 Jesus prays:
John 17:4-5 (New International Version) “I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses whole-heartedly believe that the Son of God had a pre-human existence in heaven as a glorified, mighty spirit before coming to earth and becoming a man in the flesh. We believe he literally was “the first-born of creation,” which we can talk about another time. (Colossians 1:15)
When we look at John 17:4-5, it is apparent that Jesus is given, “glory,” make no mistake about it.
-continued
-continuing
Let’s let Jesus Christ himself answer this directly.
John 17:22 (King James Version)
“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”
"The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are
one" (Revised Standard Version)
No inference is needed. There is no way around it. Others can be given glory by God and Christ without making them God themselves! Really Jeff, this is Bible 101.
Romans 8:17 (King James Version)
“And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
To conclude, please know I give Christ all the glory he deserves. He is worthy in everyway to receive it! He is my Lord and King! I gladly bend my knee in acknowledgment of his God-appointed position. All my prayers to His God and Father are in his name. I gladly subject myself to his kingship and joyfully accept him as God’s means of salvation.
Because of his love and obedience to His Father he sits at God’s right hand. I am proud of who he is and what he accomplished. What an example he set! That is why I am a Christian. Christ has my love, honor, obedience, and respect and always will.
Sincerely,
Nick
-continuing
It must be recognized, though, that whatever glory Jesus has was “GIVEN him by his Father.” That means at one time he did not have it.
John 17:24 (New International Version) "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.”
Because Jesus never sought to glorify himself, His Father gladly saw fit to give him glory. Hebrews 5:5 (King James Version)
“So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.”
And his Father wants others to recognize this and give glory, honor and praise to His deserving Son.
Philippians 2:9-11 (New International Version) 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Again, we see that “God” exalted him (Jesus). And when we give Jesus glory it is always “to the glory of God the Father.” (Notice it does not say “God” which some may say equals the Triune God, but it tells us, “God the Father.”
But didn’t you say, “Since God stated that no one else would have the glory that alone belonged to God, how could Christ have the same "glory" as God, unless Christ is God in the flesh?” Since Christ receives “glory” does not the glory belong to Jehovah only making Christ Jehovah!
-continued
Hello Jeff,
It appears you continue to completely miss how "worship or proskuneo" can be used in Scripture. In the LXX or Greek Septuagint "proskuneo" is given Jehovah and also men.
1 Chronicles 29:20 according to the King James Version, "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king."
LXX:
καὶ εἶπεν Δαυιδ πάσῃ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ εὐλογήσατε κύριον τὸν θεὸν ὑμῶν καὶ εὐλόγησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἐκκλησία κύριον τὸν θεὸν τῶν πατέρων αὐτῶν καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ όνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ
προσεκύνησαν = PROSKUNEO
This passage helped a Trinitarian I spoke with last year finally get it. He changed his dogmatic remarks about "proskuneo" on his pro-trinity website and emailed me letting me know this.
He finally conceded that humans and angels can properly receive "proskuneo" to a lesser degree and lower sense than God.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I have heard the critics voice their opinions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures you shared with me many times before. Will address some of them in a minute. I also often times come across others who are not so willing to examine other Bible translations besides their favorite.
For instance, I know many people who are under the spell of the King James Version. Nothing any other Bible translation conveys will have any bearing to their understanding of Scripture. On the other hand, I do not rely solely on the NWT and as I told you I usually use other TRINITARIAN Bibles in discussions I engage in to prove that I do not have to rely on the NWT to prove the Trinity doctrine is false. Although I do maintain that the NWT is among the most accurate Bible translations out there.
I have many Bible translations since I collect Bibles and use them in my studies. Our Bible-base publications we publish encourage others to study other Bible versions and translations in their language.
Here is one quote published, “We have always both recognized and encouraged the use of a variety of Bible translations … Jehovah's witnesses use whatever Bibles are available in the local languages. Whether it be the clear, modern-language New World Translation or another, we encourage all to use the lamp of God's Word to light life's roadway.” (Psalm 119:105)
Critics can say what they will about how “unscholarly” the NWT is but I think what one “scholar” Alan S. Duthie said who wrote a book on comparing Bible translations should be taken to heart. He said: "If we know who the translators or the publishers of a particular Bible translation are, does it help us to decide whether that translation is good or bad? Not directly. There is no substitute for examining the characteristics of each translation itself."
But what about critics like Bruce M. Metzger and how he has promoted that the NWT is an “insult to the Word of God?” What do you think of Bruce’s ‘scholarly’ ideas? He believes the Bible to be full of myths and errors? He questions many of the Bible miracles, authorship, as thinks much of the history found within the Scriptures is fantasy. Doesn’t he sound like Moffatt to you? Remember how you treated him after I quoted from him? Look at some of his comments:
NOTES ON JOB: "The ancient folktale of a patient Job (1.1-2.13; 42.7-17; Jas. 5.11) circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)."
NOTES ON JONAH: "The book is didactic narrative which has taken older material from the realm of popular legend and put it to a new, more consequential use."
NOTES ON 2 PETER: "The tradition that this letter is the work of the apostle Peter was questioned in early times, and internal indications are almost decisive against it. ... Most scholars therefore regard the letter as the work of one who was deeply indebted to Peter and who published it under his master’s name early in the second century."
NOTES FROM "HOW TO READ THE BIBLE WITH UNDERSTANDING": When we come to the books of Samuel and Kings ... Not all in these books is of the same historical value, and especially in the stories of Elijah and Elisha there are legendary elements.
These are typical expressions you will find from Bruce. This reminds me of 1 Timothy 1:6, 7 which says: “By deviating from these things certain ones have been turned aside into idle talk, wanting to be teachers of law, but not perceiving either the things they are saying or the things about which they are making strong assertions.”
The same is true of other outspoken critics like Julius Mantey. His teacher was Charles B. Williams. Mr. Mantey said his teacher's translation "has succeeded in surpassing all other translators of the New Testament in bringing out the tense significance of the Greek verbs."
-Continued
-continuing
Remember you bringing up to me John 8:58 as proof of Jesus being the "I AM"? Mr. Williams renders John 8:58 this way: "I existed before Abraham was born." Do you intend to publicly condemn Mr. Williams and Mr. Julius Mantey for supporting him for this rendering of John 8:58?
Actually, there have been many who are considered “scholars” who have high praise for the New World Translation and do not believe it to be a “frightful translation” at all. Consider just a few examples:
J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the original tongues). "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text). "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament (1950)." (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26)
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands heologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)
FREDERICK DANKER (from BAGD fame) "Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc, 1950-63). The translation of the New Testament appeared first (1950) and was then combined with the
various volumes of the Old Testament (1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1960). The 'orthodox' do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to 'test the spirits'" (Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, p. 194).
-continued
-continuing
The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary calls it one of the "major translations of the Bible into English," along with the Knox translation, the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible and the New English Bible. p. 292
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
"Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation par excellence. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an
NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text."
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear", April-May 1974, pages 375, 376)
-continuing
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister schooled in the original tongues). "Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges.. "Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times" (The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of "The Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was "an interesting and scholarly work")
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)
JASON BEDUHN: (Jason Beduhn teaches at the University of Indiana). "I have just recently completed teaching a course for the Religious Studies Department of Indiana University, Bloomington, ...This is primarily a course in the Gospels. Your help came in the form of copies of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures which my students used as one of the textbooks for the class. These small volumes were invaluable to the course and very popular with my students...Simply put, it is the best interlinear New Testament available. I am a trained scholar of the Bible, familiar with the texts and tools in use in modern biblical studies, and by the way, not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses. But I know a quality publication when I see one, and your 'New World Bible Translation Committee' has done its job well. Your interlinear English
rendering is accurate and consistent to an extreme that forces the reader to
come to terms with the linguistic, cultural, and conceptual gaps between the
Greek-speaking world and our own. Your 'New World Translation' is a high quality, literal translation that avoids traditional glosses in its faithfulness to the Greek. It is, in many ways, superior to the most successful translations
in use today."
-continued
Hi Jeff,
Let’s take one example to show who is “frightfully translating” a text with great bias. As you know Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that Jesus has been appointed by God over his creation.
This does not mean that he himself was not a part of creation. Trintarians don’t want that so how have some translated Colossians 1:15?
Let’s take a look:
Colossians 1:15 (New International Version)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn OVER all creation.
Colossians 1:15 (Today's New International Version)
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn OVER all creation.
Some go even further:
Colossians 1:15 (New Living Translation)
15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.He existed before anything was created and is SUPREME OVER all creation,
That translation though in a footnote said this:
Footnotes: Colossians 1:15 Or He is the firstborn of all creation.
The New World Translation I believe more accurately conveys what the actual inspired Bible writer penned:
Colossians 1:15 (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
-continued
-continuing
The following other Bible Translations agree:
Colossians 1:15 (New American Standard Bible)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:15
(King James Version)
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Colossians 1:15 (English Standard Version)
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Colossians 1:15 (21st Century King James Version)
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
Colossians 1:15 (American Standard Version)
15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:15 (Young's Literal Translation)
15who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation,
Colossians 1:15 (Darby Translation)
15 who is image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation;
Colossians 1:15
(Wycliffe New Testament)
15 Which is the image of God invisible, the first begotten of each creature.
How can you and I be sure?
Let’s check out the Greek text:
ΠΡΟΣ ΚΟΛΟΣΣΑΕΙΣ 1:15 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)
15 ος εστιν εικων του θεου του αορατου πρωτοτοκος πασης κτισεως
The word "over" or "Supreme" is not there???
Instead of letting the Bible text say what it was intended to, some Bible translators have taken it upon themselves to manipulate what the text plainly says. They can’t have the Son, the firstborn, to be part of creation or to appear that way.
We know that Jesus has been appointed over all created things- creatures, by his Father from other Bible texts but in this passage it is certainly placing the Son as part of creation and as the first one brought forth into existence. It is the most natural reading. Will discuss this topic of “firstborn” with you more shortly.
Respectfully,
Nick
Nick,
But, “Does not the glory belong to Jehovah only?”
The Scriptural answer is “No.” Jehovah, obviously, does not share his glory with anyone undeserving. (Isaiah 48:11) Again, when one reads the content and context of what he was saying he made clear he would not share such glory with false idols and images. (See Isaiah 42:8)
However, he can and does give glory to whomever he chooses.
so, then, if glory does not only belong to Jehovah, and He only limits it to those who are deserving, then do you also worship and glorify Jesus to the same degree that you worship and glorify Jehovah (i.e., equally)? If not, why not, since you say that Jehovah shares His glory?
It must be recognized, though, that whatever glory Jesus has was “GIVEN him by his Father.” That means at one time he did not have it.
When was that time?
Where in the Bible does it state that at one time, Jesus did not have such glory?
And why, then, does the verse state that He indeed did have glory before?:
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (John 17:5)
Also, why, in verse 11, does it say, "...protect them by the power of your name---the name you gave me..." (NIV)? How can the Father and the Son have the same name, unless they are both Almighty God?
Philippians 2:9-11 (New International Version) 9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,in heaven and on earth and under the earth,11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Again, we see that “God” exalted him (Jesus). And when we give Jesus glory it is always “to the glory of God the Father.”
Again, how can God glorify another god, or someone else, when He has stated that He will not share His glory? You have tried to show that God allows glory to go to others, yet God specifically stated that He will not share His glory with another. So was God lying?
(Notice it does not say “God” which some may say equals the Triune God, but it tells us, “God the Father.”
Yes, and since the Son is voluntarily submissive to the Father, as the Holy Spirit is voluntarily submissive to the Son, then this would make sense. Although both the Son and the Father are God Almighty, the Son is not the Father, though they are co-equal. Again, similar to the fact that the Bible says the wife is to submit to the husband, yet the wife is not less than the husband.
Nick,
John 17:22 (King James Version)
“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one”
"The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are
one" (Revised Standard Version)
No inference is needed. There is no way around it. Others can be given glory by God and Christ without making them God themselves! Really Jeff, this is Bible 101.
So are you implying, Nick, that believers are to have the same glory as God Almighty? Or even the same glory as the Son? Do you not see that there must be a difference that is meant? If this is indeed "Bible 101," as you say, then surely you must see this.
To conclude, please know I give Christ all the glory he deserves.
Do you honor Jesus the same way the Father is honored?:
"Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." (John 5:22,23)
Do you sing songs of worship and praise to Jesus?
Do you venerate Jesus, which is a synonym for worship?
All my prayers to His God and Father are in his name.
Do you pray to Jesus, as the early Christians did?
I am proud of who he is and what he accomplished. What an example he set! That is why I am a Christian. Christ has my love, honor, obedience, and respect and always will.
But do you know Him personally?
It appears you continue to completely miss how "worship or proskuneo" can be used in Scripture. In the LXX or Greek Septuagint "proskuneo" is given Jehovah and also men.
So then, why did the New World Translation, from 1950 through about 1971, translate “proskuneo” uniformly, as “worship”, whether for the Father or the Son, but in later editions, began to arbitrarily translate proskuneo as “obeisance” where a passage has reference to the Son, while continuing to translate proskuneo as “worship”, where it has reference to the Father?
Why does the NWT never translate the same Greek word, "proskuneo," into "worship" when it references Jesus, even though it does render the word as "worship" in regard to the devil, the dragon, the beast, the image, demons, idols, and an angel?
I have heard the critics voice their opinions of the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures you shared with me many times before.
So, if there is so much criticism of it, then do you not think it could be possible that they might be right?
But what about critics like Bruce M. Metzger and how he has promoted that the NWT is an “insult to the Word of God?” What do you think of Bruce’s ‘scholarly’ ideas? He believes the Bible to be full of myths and errors? He questions many of the Bible miracles, authorship, as thinks much of the history found within the Scriptures is fantasy.
Even if Bruce Metzger does not believe the miracles in the Bible...even if Bruce Metzger is not even a Christian...that does not mean he cannot be a scholar when it comes to Bible translation, and therefore able to recognize horrible and incorrect translations when he sees them.
Do you intend to publicly condemn Mr. Williams and Mr. Julius Mantey for supporting him for this rendering of John 8:58?
Why should I? They are not extremely well-known. Most people I know have never even heard of them, so therefore most people I know have never been influenced by them. In the past, I have at times publicly condemned some extremely popular and extremly well-known televangelists for teaching false doctrine, but that's because they are on TV, and are nationally and internationally known to millions, and they have incredible influence.
J.D. PHILLIPS: (J.D. Phillips was a Church of Christ Minister, schooled in the original tongues). "Last week I purchased a copy of your New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures of which I take pride in being an owner. You have done a marvelous work...I was happy, indeed, to see the name Jehovah in it. But you have made a marvelous step in the right direction, and I pray God that your Version will be used to His glory. What you have done for the Name alone is worth all the effort and cost!"
From my research,it does not appear that Mr. Phillips was formally "schooled" in the original languages, and had no particular skill in them beyond his use of standard lexical works. His endorsement of the NWT is therefore hardly that of a noted Biblical scholar.
ALLEN WIKGREN: (Allen Wikgren was on the New Revised Standard Version committee, as well as on the committee which produced the UBS Greek text). "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as...the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament (1950)." (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99)
Yet he does not go on to define which "independent readings" of the New World Translation he finds to be "of merit." From the same source, referring to all of the modern English versions he has been discussing, he says: "A free, idiomatic rendering is not concerned about literal meanings." Therefore, his endorsement may be less than Jehovah's Witnesses would like. In fact, here is the full quote of what you quoted to me: "Independent readings of merit often occur in other modern speech versions, such as Verkyl's New Testament (1945) and the Jehovah's Witnesses edition of the New Testament (1950)" (The Interpreter's Bible, 1952 Vol. 1 page 99). Interestingly, Verkyl's New Testament (also known as the New Berkley Version) reads "and the Word was God" for John 1:1c, and does not insert "other" into the text of Colossian 1:16. None of the dozen or so other modern English versions Dr. Wikgren discusses render these verses as does the New World Translation. It is therefore unlikely that Wikgren would include the NWT readings of these verses among those he considers meritorious.
BENJAMIN KEDAR: (Benjamin Kedar is a professor at Hebrew University in Israel). "In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew...Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translation. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."
I found that Benjamin Kedar received his PhD from Yale in 1969, but not in Hebrew. He is professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. No doubt, he is knowledgeable about Hebrew, but he is not a recognized scholar in Biblical Languages. In a form letter written to those asking for clarification of his apparent endorsement of the New World Translation, Professor Kedar writes:
"A translation is bound to be a compromise, and as such it's details are open to criticism; this applies to the NWT too. In the portion corresponding to the Hebrew Bible, however, I have never come upon an obviously erroneous rendition which would find it's explanation in a dogmatic bias."
Note that Professor Kedar limits his comments to the Hebrew Bible. Few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures. Since the Old Testament contains far fewer explicit Scriptures teaching the orthodox doctrines that the Watchtower denies - Christ's deity; the existence of the soul; and hellfire - it is not surprising that the New World Translation Hebrew Scriptures are relatively bias-free.
Professor Kedar, of course, says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures.
His preference for the NWT Hebrew Scriptures is not shared by other scholars. H. H. Rowley, an eminent Old Testament scholar from England, wrote regarding the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures:
"The translation is marked by a wooden literalism which will only exasperate any intelligent reader - if such it finds - and instead of showing reverence for the Bible which the translators profess, it is an insult to the Word of God" (Rowley, H.H., "Jehovah's Witnesses' Translation of the Bible," The Expository Times, 67:107, Jan. 1956).
S. MACLEAN GILMORE: "In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation of the New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament is now far advanced. The New Testament edition was made by a committee...that possessed an unusual competence in Greek." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966, Vol 7, #1 page 25, 26)
Here are his comments in full:
"In 1950 the Jehovah's Witnesses published their New World Translation Of The New Testament, and the preparation of the New World Old Testament translation is now far advanced. The New Testament translation was made by a committee whose membership has never been revealed -a committee that possessed an unusual competence in Greek and that made the Westcott and Hort Greek text basic to their translation. It is clear that doctrinal considerations influenced many turns of phrase, but the work is no crack-pot or pseudo-historical fraud" ("The Use and Abuse of the Book of Revelation," Andover Newton Quarterly, September 1966).
Aside from the negative portrayal of "doctrinal considerations," Mr. Gilmour made several factual errors in his comments about the NWT, indicating that he may not have been particularly familiar with the work he was reviewing.
Dr. Gilmour's comments are to be found in an article entitled "The Use And Misuse of The Book of Revelation." Lest it should be thought that Dr. Gilmour is sympathetic to the Jehovah's Witness religion, his reason for referring to them is made clear in the following quote (the article is the text of a lecture by Dr. Gilmour in 1966):
"Later in the lecture I spoke of the misuse of the Book of Revelation by millennial sects over the centuries, and in particular of its misuse by the Jehovah's Witnesses during the last one hundred years." (p. 26)
(cont.)
(cont.)
His statement regarding the New World Translation is incorrect. The Jehovah's Witnesses did not publish, in 1950, or for that matter at any time, a book entitled "New World Translation Of The New Testament." Rather, they published a book entitled "New World Translation Of The Christian Greek Scriptures." Perhaps Dr. Gilmour simply failed to notice that the name was unusual. A more serious error, however, is his statement that "The New World Old Testament is now far advanced." He wrote that article, as earlier stated, in 1966. In fact, the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures was published in five volumes over the period 1953 to 1960. It was completed some six years before Dr. Gilmour made his statement---a one volume edition of the whole Bible was published in 1961. Dr. Gilmour could have checked this out easily, simply by picking up a copy of the Bible, which leads one to wonder whether he had actually seen a copy. A footnote to the article shows that the information regarding the New World Translation came from McCoy's earlier article. Gilmour's article does not quote the New World Translation nor does it gain a mention in his Bibliography. The only book which is noted relating to the Jehovah's Witnesses is Horton Davies' "The Challenge Of The Sects," concerning which Dr. Gilmour comments, "Overmuch concerned with attacking the beliefs of the sect." If Dr. Gilmour has not even seen a copy of the New World Translation, then he is surely in no position to make a value judgment on it. The article certainly gives no evidence that he has read it, the only comment about it being the paragraph quoted above. His comments are based on the review done by another man, and there is no suggestion that Dr. Gilmour is bringing his knowledge of the Greek language to bear on his statement. In summary, Dr Gilmour's comment is not worthy of being quoted in support of a book which (a) he does not appear to have read, and (b) he can't get the name of the title correct, and (c) he is not aware that it had been completed some six years earlier. For the Jehovah's Witnesses to use such a comment in this context reveals dishonest scholarship.
C. HOUTMAN: Mr. Houtman notes that on the point of translator bias "the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses can survive the scrutiny of criticism." (Nederlands heologisch Tijdschrift, [Dutch Theological Magazines] 38 1984, page 279-280)
Professor Houtman's article is not about the NWT, but a recent Dutch translation of the Bible. His digressive reference to the NWT occurs in a portion of his review in which Houtman expresses his view that while some doctrinal bias may be present in a variety of translations, it is not as great as some might suppose. Here is the fuller quote:
"The translator must know the subject. As we have seen in the past, people expressed distrust of translations by those belonging to another denomination or religious community, fearing that theological points of view would affect the translation. When translations are assessed in a professional manner it must be concluded that only in exceptional circumstances can one point to passages in which the doctrinal (or political and social) point of view of the translators can be traced. Even the New World translation of the Jehovah Witnesses can withstand criticism on this point" ("De Kritiek op de Groot Nieuws Bijbel," Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 38, 1984, pp. 279-280).
Houtman says that the NWT may withstand criticism on the point that "only in exceptional circumstances" can one identify bias. He does not claim the NWT is bias-free.
Professor Houtman has actually written two articles that specifically evaluate the NWT - and in his own words, those articles are "very critical." Houtman assesses the NWT as follows:
"In my view, the New World Translation is an inadequate translation. The Watchtower Society misuses my articles by quoting sentences without their context." (C. Houtman to George Medina, February 18, 1995)
Therefore, it is certainly incorrect to claim that Professor Houtman endorses the New World Translation.
FREDERICK DANKER (from BAGD fame) "Not to be snubbed is the New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, Rendered from the Original by the New World Bible Translation Committee (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc, 1950-63). The translation of the New Testament appeared first (1950) and was then combined with the
various volumes of the Old Testament (1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1960). The 'orthodox' do not possess all the truth, yet one does well to 'test the spirits'" (Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, p. 194).
Note that his lukewarm comments about the NWT are with regard to the Old Testament. As stated before, few scholars have complained about the Watchtower inserting its dogma into the Hebrew Scriptures. So the same issue arises as with Benjamin Kedar. Danker says nothing of the relative merits of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures - he simply notes that the NT appeared prior to the Hebrew Scriptures. And again, as noted with Kedar, Dr. Danker's estimation that the NWT Old Testament should not be "snubbed" is not shared by other scholars.
OK, I'm tired, so, for now at least, instead of laboriously addressing every one of those other no-names, I'll just point out that all the other names you have quoted have similar problems.
Nick,
OK, I took a break, so I'll see if I can make a few more replies. Even though addressing each one of those names is tedious, I'll give it a shot.
WILLIAM CAREY TAYLOR: (William C. Taylor was a Southern Baptist Minister schooled in the original tongues). "Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very name Jehovah, up...surges.. "Jehovah's Witnesses". ...And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times...It ought to be there [in the entire Bible] many times" (The New Bible Pro and Con, 1955 Page 75)
The New Bible: Pro and Con is a controversial analysis of the Revised Standard Version, in which the Baptist Taylor finds many more "cons" than "pros." The section from which this quote appears is entitled: "Jehovah - The Completely Banished Word." Taylor laments the RSV's complete removal of JEHOVAH from its text, in favor of LORD or GOD. Taylor's overall tone can be surmised from the conclusion he draws just prior to the quoted passage: "This blackout [of the Divine Name], a vindictive intolerance of God himself as revealed, is a scandal before the bar of the American conscience" (Taylor, p. 75).
Taylor continues:
"Sometimes God chastens his people with pagans. Just when the infidel universities of this land thought they had laughed out of court the very Name Jehovah, up surges that plebeian and outrageous movement the Name as their name, 'Jehovah's Witnesses.' And they gather in assemblies under the very shadow of Columbia University, one hundred and twenty thousand strong. And they baptize (real meaning of the word, too) over three thousand converts to their Jehovah one day, and next year over four thousand in a day. And one of their lawyers goes before our august Supreme Court and defies the Catholic judge on it to hold back their liberties, and that judge votes for him. And with considerable scholarship they get out their own New Testament and, lo and behold, they put Jehovah into the New Testament two or three hundred times. And then our curious America says: 'What's it all about? I bought a copy of the new Bible [the RSV]. But I didn't find that word even in it. How come, professor? Weren't you on that committee of translators?' Then will the professor-translator have to confess: 'We are guilty of suppression of that Name. It ought to be there many times. We banished it, from professorial pride and self-sufficiency. And God has judged us with these pagan barbarians and brought it back into the thought of all people. We ought not to have made that wrong and arbitrary decision. The next Bible, I assure you, will not repeat our folly.' God said: 'This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations' (Ex. 3:15). No. Not to the generation of readers of the RSV. But wait a minute. Enter Jehovah's Witnesses. He is remembered, in judgment if not in grace" (Taylor, pp. 75-76).
(cont.)
(cont.)
Taylor, quite clearly, is not endorsing the scholarship of the NWT, beyond its inclusion of the Divine Name. Even here, it cannot be said that he approved of the use of the Divine Name in the NWT "Christian Greek Scriptures" - beyond the fact that it raised the issue of the Divine Name in Bible translation to the public's attention. Indeed his "it ought to have been there many times" refers to the "the new Bible" as a whole, not the New Testament.
Taylor's work is more polemical than scholarly; for example, his complaint that Paul's salutation to the saints "at Ephesus" has been placed in a footnote: "Can you beat this?...This address, I say, has been dropped down to the margin and put on the same level with so much spurious stuff" (IBID, p. 76). Taylor seems unaware that three early MSS of Ephesians lack this phrase. Thus, Taylor's credentials as a Bible scholar are questionable, at best. Be that as it may, with the numerous attacks Taylor levels at far less offensive translations in the RSV, one can only speculate what Taylor would have said about the more controversial translations in the NWT.
CHARLES FRANCIS POTTER: "the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures...the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts...with scholarly ability and acumen." (The Faith Men Live By, 1954, Page 239)
Here are Potter's comments in full:
"Apart from a few semantic peculiarities like translating the Greek word stauros as "stake" instead of "cross", and the often startling use of the colloquial and the vernacular, the anonymous translators have certainly rendered the best manuscript texts both Greek and Hebrew with scholarly ability and acumen" (The Faiths Men Live By, 1954 [fourth printing, 1955] (NY: Prentice Hall), p. 300).
In the Preface to his book, Potter writes the following:
"This book is written to help people appreciate the good in religions other than their own....It is true to some extent that 'every man grows in error,' but too much stress has been put on that point by captious critics of religion. In this book the emphasis is rather on the more inspiring fact that 'every man glimpses a truth" (Ibid, p. v).
Thus, it does not appear that Potter's intention is to render a critical evaluation of the NWT. His words must be taken in the context of his attempt to emphasize the "good" he finds in all religions. We must also consider what criteria Potter uses to consider the merits he finds in the NWT.
Reflecting the continual development of his personal religious thought away from orthodoxy toward more liberalism, Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York in 1929. The organization stated as its philosophy a "faith in the supreme value and self-perfectibility of human personality, conceived socially as well as individually."
In founding the Humanist Society, Potter left the Unitarian ministry behind and declared that the Society would have no creed, clergy, baptisms or prayers. "I had given up my fast dwindling belief in the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity," he wrote. "Now, fifteen years later, I was leaving not only Christianity—if Unitarianism is Christianity—but Theism as well."
With his Humanist philosophy serving as a platform, Potter now became a vocal advocate for social reform, campaigning vigorously against capital punishment, promoting "civil divorce laws," and supporting birth control and women's rights. In 1938 Potter formed the Euthanasia Society of America, which eventually boasted a membership of 40,000 and raised the issue of euthanasia before the American public.
Potter also developed an interest in extrasensory perception and telepathy, subjects that were an anathema to other humanists but which Potter believed were of prime concern to Humanism
Potter's education does not reflect that of a trained Biblical scholar, and he has not been recognized within the scholarly community as such. We may judge to what degree Potter's theological "development" influenced his favorable opinion of the NWT, which (as the full quote indicates) is not entirely without criticism, despite the stated intention of his book.
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED: (Edgar J. Goodspeed was a Professor of Greek at the University of Chicago, and also translated the New Testament portion of "The Bible an American Translation"). "I am...much pleased with the free, frank and vigorous translation. It exhibits a vast array of sound serious learning, as I can testify." (Personal Letter to Arthur Goux of Brooklyn Bethel, December 8, 1950; See also Watchtower September 1, 1952 page 541, where Goodspeed is quoted as stating that the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was "an interesting and scholarly work")
Bill Cetnar, who worked at Watchtower Headquarters in New York during the period when the New World Translation was being prepared, was sent to interview Dr. Goodspeed in March, 1954 to seek his comments on the first volume of the New World Translation Of The Hebrew Scriptures. Cetnar writes:
"During the two-hour long visit with him it was obvious that he knew the volume well, because he could cite the pages where the readings he objected to were found. One reading he pointed out as especially awkward and grammatically poor was in Judges 14:3 where Samson is made to say: `Her get for me....' As I left, Dr. Goodspeed was asked if he would recommend the translation for the general public He answered, `No, I'm afraid I could not do that. The grammar is regrettable. Be careful on the grammar. Be sure you have that right" (Cetnar, W.I. & J., Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses Who Love The Truth [Kunkletown, Pennsylvania: W.I. Cetnar, 1983], p. 64).
Dr. Goodspeed was, of course, not speaking here about the Greek (New Testament) Scriptures, but about the Hebrew (Old Testament) Scriptures, while his earlier, favorable comments related to the Greek Scriptures. However, as Robert Bowman notes in his book, Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker Books, 1991), there is some doubt as to the authenticity of Goodspeed's letter. The letter does not bear a written signature and appears to be a copy of the original, if such ever existed (to date, the Society has not produced a signed original). Second, though the letter was dated 1950, it was not used by the Society as an endorsement of the NWT until 1982. Third, the letter contains several very minor criticisms of the NWT, but none relating to the more controversial translations - which would seem odd, in that Goodspeed's own translation differed dramatically with the NWT in several key texts. Finally, Dr. Walter Martin, whom Bowman knew, reported that Goodspeed forthrightly criticized the NWT rendering of John 1:1 in a personal conversation in 1958. Thus, there is no sure evidence that Goodspeed actually endorsed the NWT; there is solid evidence that he refused to endorse the NWT Hebrews Scriptures, and suggestive circumstantial evidence that he did not approve of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures, either.
ROBERT M. MCCOY: "The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation." (The Andover Newton Quarterly, January 1963, Vol. 3, #3, Page 31)
Here are McCoy's comments in full:
"The translation of the New Testament is evidence of the presence in the movement of scholars qualified to deal intelligently with the many problems of Biblical translation. This translation, as J. Carter Swain observes, has its peculiarities and its excellences. All in all, it would seem that a reconsideration of the challenge of this movement to the historical churches is in order (Andover Newton Quarterly, January, 1963).
McCoy, though generally well-disposed towards the NWT, is not above offering some criticism, which is not generally included when Jehovah's Witnesses cite McCoy as an endorsement.
For example, he chides the NWT for rendering Matthew 5:9 as "Happy are the peaceable" rather than "the peacemakers:" "One could question why the translators have not stayed closer to the original meaning, as do most translators" (Ibid).
McCoy continues with a more general assessment of the presence of theological bias in the NWT: "In not a few instances the New World Translation contains passages which must be considered as `theological translations.' This fact is particularly evident in those passages which express or imply the deity of Jesus Christ." (Ibid).
Mr. McCoy was a graduate of Andover Newton Seminary. He held degrees of Bachelor of Divinity (1955) from the Boston University School of Theology, and Master of Sacred Theology from Andover Newton. Though well-educated, he does not have the academic or professional credentials of a Biblical scholar, nor is he recognized as one by those who are. His opinion, of course, is worth hearing, particularly when all of it is heard.
STEVEN T. BYINGTON: (Steven T. Byington translated the version known as "The Bible in Living English"). "If you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings this is among the richer mines." (Christian Century, "Review of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, November 1, 1950 page 1296)
When read in context, Mr. Byington's comments are rather less than enthusiastic about the merits of the NWT:
"The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines."
Reading Mr. Byington's full review of the NWT Christian Greek Scriptures actually reveals the many flaws he found it contained.
For example:
"JEHOVAH'S Witnesses have made their own translation of the book for which they consider "New Testament" an illegitimate name. It is well supplied with faults and merits.
In accordance with human nature, the reader will first notice faults. The first to catch his eye will be the unwise typographical trick of distinguishing the second person plural from the singular by printing the word in small capitals when the meaning is plural. Possibly he may notice next that instead of "cross" we have everywhere "torture stake," in favor of which translation something can be said, and instead of "crucify" always "impale," in favor of which nothing can be said, for "impale" has in English the settled meaning of thrusting the stake through the vitals, not of fastening the body to a stake outside the body. An appendix says very positively that Jesus was fastened to a simple upright pole, not to a pole with a crosspiece. This agrees with Fulda's book Das Kreuz but is against the weight of evidence, though the appendix says there is no evidence at all for the crosspiece.
The specialty which the book itself most emphasizes is the use of the name Jehovah instead of "the lord" in 237 places, besides 72 more in the margin. Fifteen pages of the preface present the arguments to justify this. I think the justification insufficient; but the "Jehovah" does not shock a reader.
The version purports to be modern in idiom. Actually this is the most uneven thing about it. Archaic expressions like "minister" (usually as verb) and "tribulation" are not rare in it. Along with them we find homely current idiom which sometimes comes with a Moffatt-like vividness. Luke 14: 18, ". . . they all in common started to beg off." Acts 16: 15, "And she just made us come." Rev. 18: 16, "Too bad, too bad, as great a city as she was." The verb "resurrect" is used freely.
Conjunctions are treated loosely; de in particular is commonly rendered as an adverb, and becomes a surprisingly wide variety of adverbs.
The main fault is overtranslation. I mean that, where a Greek word may he found to carry an implication in addition to its rough meaning, this implication is made explicit, frequently by an added word. This fault is common to various translators, who usually claim it as a merit, but the New World Translation goes rather far. The tenses of verbs are rendered not only by such forms as "would say" or "was saying" but also by inserting "begin to" or "continue to" where the tense is deemed to be inceptive or continuative. Other words have an extra word added to "bring out the meaning"; a bad case is the regular insertion of "undeserved" or the like before whatever translation is given for "grace." Compound verbs suffer especially by overtranslation of the prefix, in which (as in other distinctions of synonyms) an imaginary meaning is sometimes brought in. The translators trusted their dictionary too much, not realizing that dictionaries are uninspired."
JASON BEDUHN:
We have talked about him before. I probably mentioned before that BeDuhn's PhD from the University of Indiana is in Comparative Religious Studies, not in Biblical languages. He is not recognized in the scholarly community as an expert in Biblical Greek.
ALEXANDER THOMPSON: "The translation is evidently the work of skilled and clever scholars, who have sought to bring out as much of the true sense of the Greek text as the English language is capable of expressing." (The Differentiator, April 1952, Page 52)
Thomson had no formal training in Greek or Hebrew. He published several articles on the NWT in The Differentiator, apparently a privately published journal that appeared briefly in the 1950's. The Differentiator is not considered a scholarly journal and there is no evidence that it was so considered during its publication.
Thomson later wrote that while he generally endorsed the NWT, he found it to be "padded with many English words which had no equivalent in the Greek or Hebrew" (The Differentiator [June 1959], cited in Ian Croft, "The New World Translation and Its Critics").
Thus, Thomson does not appear to have been a recognized scholar in Biblical Languages, his review of the NWT was not published in a scholarly journal, and his endorsement is not quite as positive as the Watchtower might hope.
EDGAR FOSTER: (Classics Major, Lenoir-Rhyne College)
"Before I formally began to study Greek, I simply compared the NWT with lexicons, commentaries, and other translations to try and determine it's accuracy. It passed the litmus test then and it also passes the test now for me...The NWT is a fine translation. In my mind, it is the translation par excellence. But I feel just as confortable with an RSV or an
NASB. Mostly I prefer my UBS Greek text."
Edgar Foster is a Jehovah's Witness, so of course he is going to say positive things about the NWT.
THOMAS N. WINTER: (Thomas N. Winter taught Greek at the University of Nebraska). "I think it is a legitimate and highly useful aid toward the mastery of koine (and classical) Greek. After examining a copy, I equipped several interested second-year Greek students with it as an auxiliary test. After learning the proper pronunciations, a motivated student could probably learn koine from this source alone. ...the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up to date and consistently accurate. ...In sum, when a witness comes to the door, the classicist, Greek student, or Bible student alike would do well to place an order." (The Classical Journal, "The Kingdom Interlinear", April-May 1974, pages 375, 376)
Mr. Winter's positive comments are almost all directed towards the literal translation in the "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" - very little is said of the NWT. Mr. Winter also liked the layout of "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures," with the English word appearing below the Greek word, rather than in a side column - which is how the classical Greek interlinears to which Mr. Winter compares "The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures" are laid out. The fact that Mr. Winter seems unaware of identically laid out Interlinear Bibles, such as those published by Zondervan, featuring the literal translation of Alfred Marshall, would seem to indicate that he was more familiar with classical Greek resources than those for Biblical Greek. His familiarity with Biblical Greek is unknown, and he is not recognized as an authority on the subject by Biblical Greek scholars.
Mr. Winter later wrote, "I am not happy with the use now being made of the review," and he went on to note a few problems, such as Jesus' words in John 8:58 (which NWT translates as "I have been"). Winter commented, "No way to go here but 'I am'" (Thomas N. Winter, in a letter to M. Kurt Goedelman of Personal Freedom Outreach, dated 3 October 1980).
Nick,
A while back you said:
He openly criticized the practice of using philosophy to support Christian truths.
...
One reference work states: “Trinitarian theology required the aid of Hellenistic concepts and categories for its development and expression.” And the book “The Theology of Tertullian “notes: “It was a curious blend of juristic and philosophic ideas and terms, which enabled Tertullian to set out the trinitarian doctrine in a form which, despite its limitations and imperfections, supplied the framework for the later presentation of the doctrine at the Council of Nicaea.”
Interestingly, the Jehovah’s Witnesses view is essentially Arianism, which was far more dependent on Greek philosophical categories that had problems ascribing divinity to anything material.
Nick,
This does not mean that he himself was not a part of creation.
...but in this passage it is certainly placing the Son as part of creation and as the first one brought forth into existence.
From the Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Colossians 1:16-17 says, "because in him were created - all things in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; - all things through him and for him have been created; and he is before all things and - all things in him consisted,"
How could Jesus create all things, and be before all things, and have all things consist in him, if he is a creation himself? Would not he be included in "all things"? How could all things consist in a creature?
Verse 19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." For Paul, "fullness" meant the totality of God with all his powers and attributes. In other words, total equality with Jehovah.
Colossians 1:15
From the NIV footnote:
image. Christ is called the "image of God" here and in 2 Corinthians 4:4. In Hebrews 1:3, he is described as the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being." This figure of the image suggests two truths: (1) God is invisible ("no one has ever seen God," Jn. 1:18); (2) Christ, who is the eternal Son of God and who became the God-man, reflects and reveals him (see also Jn 1:18; 14:9).
firstborn over all creation. Just as the firstborn son had certain privileges and rights in the Biblical world, so also Christ has certain rights in relation to all creation---priority, preeminence and sovereignty (vv. 16-18).
This is talking about the preeminent one, who has all the rights and privileges of the firstborn.
It does not mean that Jesus was the first created being.
For example:
"I have found David My servant; With My holy oil I have anointed him," (Psalm 89:20)
"I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth." (Psalm 89:27)
David is also called the firstborn, even though he was the youngest. Yet, he was the ranking son. This is the sense in which "firstborn" is meant.
Nick,
Are you truly honoring God? It’s possible to sincerely aim to honor God, and actually be dishonoring Him. Paul thought he was serving God before he understood who Jesus really was, but later he realized that he had actually been “…a blasphemer.” (1 Timothy 1:13, NWT)
I know that you claim to honor both God the Father and Jesus, His Son, but read again Jesus’ words about that:
“For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.” (John 5:22)
The way Jesus talked about His unique relationship to His Father makes it clear that He eternally submits to His Father, yet is EQUALLY divine:
“But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:17)
Jesus saw Himself as having the divine right to grant forgiveness of sins.
“Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?" Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, "Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? "Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? "But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home." And he got up and immediately picked up the pallet and went out in the sight of everyone, so that they were all amazed and were glorifying God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this." (Mark 2:4-12, NASB).
And Jesus received Thomas’ worship of Him after He was resurrected from the dead:
“In answer Thomas said to him: ‘My Lord and my God!’” [Read the verses nearby---he’s clearly talking to Jesus.] (John 20:28)
How serious is it to understand that God’s Son has ETERNALLY existed, so that He was sufficient to bear the full measure of God’s infinite wrath on behalf of sinners that trust in Him? Listen to Jesus’ own words, spoken to very sincere (but sincerely wrong) people who were trying hard to please God (as you are):
“Therefore I said to YOU, YOU will die in YOUR sins. For if YOU do not believe that I am [he], YOU will die in YOUR sins. [NOTE THE BRACKETS AROUND “he,” INDICATING THE WORD IS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK.] (John 8:24)
The second concern is that you are not trusting in Jesus alone, but also looking to your own good works to rescue you. The six chapters of Galatians are a strong warning about the subtle danger of trusting our own efforts to be right with God and/or adding requirements that are from human religion and not from God (even as careful a spiritual leader as Peter started to fall into this trap---see Galatians 2:11-16). Here’s an excerpt:
“knowing as we do that a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus, even we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be declared righteous due to faith toward Christ, and not due to works of law, because due to works of law no flesh will be declared righteous.” (Galatians 2:16)
Do you realize that the only Mediator between you and God is Jesus Himself, and not any other person or organization?
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,” (1 Timothy 2:5, NASB)
Hi Jeff,
You said:
“But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:17)
In the past, I have heard some Trinitarians, like yourself, assert that John 5:18 proves the Trinity since it shows that Jesus is equal to God-- and therefore must be an aspect of God, one of the 3 persons of the Trinity.
But we should ask, 'Who is making the assertion that Jesus was making himself equal to God? And what other thing did they assert about Jesus?' Would a Trinitarian agree with both of the assertions made about Christ at John 5:18?
Wasn't it those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that. Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." (Matthew 12:10-12)
The fact is, the Jews were not always accurate in their portrayal of him, as it shows in Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20.
The Jews accused him of sedition on occasion. Were they correct?
The Jews often said that Jesus was a Blasphemer? Were they right?
They have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic at Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. They were way off.
And if we take a closer look at John 5:18 what was his response back? As to John 5:18, the Interpreter's Bible says, "To this charge Jesus makes a formal reply. His words had been misinterpreted..."p.545
J.A.T. Robinson in his 'Twelve More New Testament Studies' says, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33) or in any way to usurp the position of the Father...Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling God his own Father he is claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the Son of God (10:36), while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being God or his substitute." p. 175,176
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You said:
“Verse 19 says, "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." For Paul, "fullness" meant the totality of God with all his powers and attributes. In other words, total equality with Jehovah.”
The Trinitarian argument that Colosians 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.
And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says: "Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." (Vol. 1, p. 734)
Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God! Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ! In fact it clearly shows that he is NOT the person with whom he is "filled"!
So, when we read Ephesians 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:
"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person; he is the head, the Church is his body."
The noted trinitarian NT Greek scholar, W. E. Vine, explains:
"Fill, Fill Up": "... (a) of the members of the Church, the Body of Christ, as filled by Him", Eph. 1:23 (`all things in all the members'); ... in 3:19, of their being filled ... `with' all the fulness of God; of their being 'made full' in Him, Col. 2:10." - p. 426, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
-continued
-continuing
Yes, at Ephesians 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" (RSV) And at Ephesians 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (RSV)
Even the trinitarian reference work, the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, commenting about the word "fullness" at Col. 2:9 ("In his [Jesus'] body lives the fullness of divinity" - JB), tells us:
"this fullness which is described in Col. 1:15-18 is entirely related to Christ's cross (v. 20), death (v. 22), and resurrection (v. 18). For this reason believers also have this fullness in him (2:10)." - Vol. 1, p. 740, Zondervan, 1986. - See AT, CBW, NAB (especially 1991 ed.).
"Outside the NT the word occurs in Ignatius in a sense which is clearly influenced by the NT, and apparently in the meaning of the Divine fulness, as going forth and blessing and residing ["dwelling"] in the Church [the congregation]" - p. 1, Vol. 4, A Dictionary of the Bible, James Hastings, ed., Hendrickson Publ., 1988.
For exactly the same reasons that we don't allow such figurative language to persuade us that all true Christians actually are (or may become) God or Christ, we should not let it persuade us that Christ is actually God!
The Bible tells us how essential to eternal life it is to know God and Jesus (John 17:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 9). Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!
And as we saw above, if Christians can be "filled with" God and receive the "fulness of" God, we know by this very wording that they are not God! And we know that those Christians who had the "fulness of" Christ could not actually be Christ! The very wording itself shows that someone else is "filling" (or influencing) the person who is being "filled" (influenced). In fact it clearly shows that he CANNOT be the person (or thing) with whom he is "filled"!
So those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of God are not God! Those Christians who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of Christ are not Christ! Those men and women who are "filled with" or have the "fulness" of the Holy Spirit are not the Holy Spirit! And even if we interpret Colossians 2:9 as meaning that Christ has the fullness of "Godhood" in him, it still cannot mean Christ is God!
Paul did not think what you are insisting. You may think it, but Paul did not have to.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
You seem to think like some critics of the New World Translation that the NWT "tragically altered" the Scriptures and have used an example like Colossians 1:16.
Is your argument the same as some Trinitarians who say the word "other" cannot be added into this text since it was not there in the original Greek? This is what you state correct?
There are many Bible translations using the word "other" in the Bible when it appears justified to convey the correct sense.
Have time to go over just one today. There are quite a few. But let's take one example of Luke 13:2.
Here’s how 2 Bible translations render this verse:
Luke 13:2 (Young's Literal Translation)
2and Jesus answering said to them, `Think ye that these Galileans became sinners beyond all the Galileans, because they have suffered such things?
The (WNT) reads similar:
Luke 13:2 (Wycliffe New Testament)
2 and he answered, and said to them, Ween ye, that these men of Galilee were sinners more than all Galilaeans, for they suffered such things? [And he answering said to them, Ween ye, that these men of Galilee were sinners before all Galilaeans, for they suffered such things?
But now notice what the next few Bible translations do. What do they have in common?
Luke 13:2 (New King James Version)
2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things?
Luke 13:2 (New International Version)
2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
Luke 13:2 (New American Standard Bible)
2And Jesus said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?
Luke 13:2 (Amplified Bible)
2And He replied by saying to them, Do you think that these Galileans were greater sinners than all the other Galileans because they have suffered in this way?
Luke 13:2 (Today's New International Version)
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
Luke 13:2 (English Standard Version)
2 And he answered them, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way?
Here is how it looks in Greek:
ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 13:2 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)
2και αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις δοκειτε οτι οι γαλιλαιοι ουτοι αμαρτωλοι παρα παντας τους γαλιλαιους εγενοντο οτι ταυτα πεπονθασιν
If you check your Greek Interlinear like I did you will see there is NO "other" there at all. None, nada, zippo.
Do you feel that most of these translations, including the KJV and NIV are in error for adding "other?" This would be a good place to start.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
Thanks for sharing with me the commentary of Matthew Henry regarding 1 Timothy 3:16.
As a Trinitarian he believes in the Trinity but there is absolutely nothing in the text or context that proves Jesus is God or God became or was made manifest in the flesh. Nothing. Not even Philippians 2:6 which I will go over with you later. Incidentally does the word in Greek "nature" appear in that text? Please answer. I know what many Bible translations say but what does the actual text say?
Anyway, when discussing last year this text with a Trinitarian friend of mine Gary Manning who teaches in Hawaii at the Pacific Rim Bible College and is the associate Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages and Interim Academic Dean, wrote this:
“Interesting coincidence - I happened to be teaching textual criticism today, and used 1 Tim 3:16 as an example of a scribal error of sight. In Greek, the most likely original reading was OS, which normally means "who", but in poems of praise often stands in for "he" (autos). And as you correctly point out (good work relying on Metzger), this looks a lot like theta sigma, the standard abbreviation for God in early mss. I and most other NT scholars (of various theological stripes) would agree that OS is most likely the original reading.”
All the text says is “Who” or “He.” No scripture in the Bible tells us that God became flesh. Just the Word, or Logos/Spokesman the Son, who was WITH God.
I read your other recent comments and will eventually get to them. Thanks.
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Nick,
“But he answered them: “My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working.” On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.” (John 5:17)
...
But we should ask, 'Who is making the assertion that Jesus was making himself equal to God?
Actually, the apostle John is the one making the assertion that Jesus was making himself equal to God, because he did not say, "...thinking that he meant he was making himself equal to God," or, "...mistakenly assuming that he was saying that he was equal to God." John asserts that Jesus was indeed "making himself equal to God."
And, as far as the Jews were concerned, they were right there with Jesus, and they were completely familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures, and they spoke the same language that Jesus was speaking, and they could see his body language. They knew exactly what Jesus meant.
As far as Jesus was concerned, other Scriptures assert that Jesus could read people's thoughts, so if they were misunderstanding them, he would have immediately pointed it out and corrected their misunderstanding, just as he did with his disciples on various occasions. But he did not correct them, because he knew they were understanding him correctly.
Nick,
And what other thing did they assert about Jesus?
They accused him of breaking the Sabbath, and he in fact did address them concerning this. (i.e., Matt. 12:11-12, Mark 3:1-6, etc.)
Would a Trinitarian agree with both of the assertions made about Christ at John 5:18?
And thank you for pointing out that it is verse 18, not verse 17. I agree that Jesus made himself equal with God. As far as breaking the Sabbath, he did break the many and extensive Sabbath laws that the Pharisees had added on, but those were man-made laws. So those were the laws he was breaking, and, as I said, Jesus addressed them concerning this on more than one occasion, to correct their wrong thinking; whereas he never corrected them about their (correct) understanding that he was making himself equal with God.
BTW, one of the places where it says Jesus knew what they were thinking is Matt. 12:25: "Jesus knew their thoughts."
Nick,
The Jews accused him of sedition on occasion. Were they correct?
You would have to be more specific. I don't think they ever specifically accused Jesus of rebellion, though I think some were afraid that Jesus might cause a rebellion. They specifically accused him of blasphemy. They would have been correct in their accusation of blasphemy, except for one thing: Jesus was God. So, if you are pointing out that the Jews were incorrect in their assumption, you are right, as far as accusing Jesus of blasphemy, because making those claims was not blasphemy, since He was/is God Almighty.
The Jews often said that Jesus was a Blasphemer? Were they right?
See my comments above.
They have wrongfully assumed Jesus to be demonic at Matt 12:24, John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20. They were way off.
They saw that Jesus had real power over demons. So that only left two options: either (1) he was demonic himself, or (2) He was God Almighty. Since they refused to believe that he was God Almighty, the only option left was to assume he was demonic, or demon-controlled.
And if we take a closer look at John 5:18 what was his response back? As to John 5:18, the Interpreter's Bible says, "To this charge Jesus makes a formal reply. His words had been misinterpreted..."p.545
Actually, John 5:18 contains no response from Jesus. But in verse 19, Jesus was not saying that he could not, but that he would not do anything by himself. There is a huge difference. He would not do it of his own initiative, which was a deliberate choice, because the Trinity is in unison, and one part of the Triune God does not work independently of the rest, just as one part of our body does not work independently of the rest of the body.
J.A.T. Robinson in his 'Twelve More New Testament Studies' says, "Jesus refuses the claim to be God (John 10:33)
John 10:33 does not include a response by Jesus, but says that the Jews tell him they are stoning him for blasphemy because he is claiming to be God. In fact, in verse 36b, Jesus admits to being the Son of God. And in verse 38, he tells them that, even if they don't believe his claim (that he is equal to God), then believe him because of his miracles. So, he was presenting his case that he indeed was equal to God Almighty by using his miracles as proof.
Jesus is prepared to ignore the charge that by calling God his own Father he is claiming equality with God (John 5:18) and accepts that of being the Son of God (10:36)
Incorrect. As I pointed out, claiming equality with God and claiming to be the Son of God were/are synonymous, and the Jews did not argue this point, but agreed with them being synonymous, because in John 10:39, after he stated specifically that he was claiming to be God's Son, they still tried to seize him...but he escaped.
while vigorously denying the blasphemy of being God or his substitute." p. 175,176
It's not blasphemy if it's true.
The Trinitarian argument that Colosians 2:9 proves that Jesus is God overlooks the common understanding of "fulness of ..." and "filled with ..." by those who used those common phrases in New Testament times. For example, the person who became "filled with Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18) was greatly influenced by that spirit, but he certainly did not become the Holy Spirit.
"All his fullness" and "filled with" are two completely different things. I believe that I have been filled with the Holy Spirit on several occasions, and those were such incredible moments that I cannot fully or adequately describe them in words, because they were unearthly experiences that no earthly experience can equal. But I have never had all the fullness of God, because that would make me God.
The "Parallel New Testament in Greek and English" shows the word-for-word literal translation of Colossians 2:9 as, "because in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily". It says nothing about "being filled with." Besides, the places in the Bible that talk about "being filled with," limit it to the Holy Spirit, which is only one Person of the Triune God. "Being filled with" means that a human being is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit; it has nothing to do with being God Himself.
And having "the fulness" of someone or something could similarly mean being greatly influenced by that person or thing.
Incorrect, as I explained above.
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology says: "Just as a person can be full of pain, joy, love, and virtue, he can also be said to be filled with God ..., i.e. possessed and inspired by God." (Vol. 1, p. 734)
Only in the sense that the person is filled with the Holy Spirit, which is not the same as having the fullness of God in him, which, again, would make that person God. Only the Holy Spirit can possess someone, and that is when they become filled with the Holy Spirit. If you want to be specific, the Father never fills anyone.
Surely we wouldn't expect anyone who is "filled with" God or who receives the "fulness of" God to actually be God!
Again, two different things.
Nor would we expect anyone who has the "fulness of" Christ to actually be Christ!
If you want to be literal and specific, no one on this earth has the "fullness" of Christ, because that would mean they would be an exact duplicate of Christ, and no one is exactly like Christ. If they were, that would mean that they would be sinless and morally perfect...and it would also mean that they would be the Son of God.
So, when we read Ephesians 1:22, 23 - "the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all" - we do not think that all real Christians are actually Christ. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (1977) tells us in a footnote for this scripture:
"the Church, as the fulness of Christ, is the complement of his mystic [figurative] person; he is the head, the Church is his body."
Unlike Colossians 2:9, Ephesians 1:23 is not talking about one person. It is talking about the Church. The (invisible) Church consists of all true, born-again Christians, and, as far as those who are currently on the earth, the Church is (mystically speaking) the body of Christ. In other words, Christ is no longer physically on the earth, so therefore, the Church as a whole is the replacement of Christ on the earth, in a manner of speaking, because the gospel is spread by the Church, and good deeds that are to glorify God are done by the Church. So, I think this is the sense in which it is meant. However, all true Christians have been called "little Christs," though this should not be taken literally, but rather, in the same sense as I described the Church as being the body of Christ. All true Christians are, however, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 4:13 points out the goal of the Christian, which is to be completely Christ-like: "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Of course, this Christ-likeness will never be fully attained on earth. It will only become a reality in heaven, when Christians are perfect and sinless, and in that sense will be truly Christ-like.
BTW, according to Colossians 2:9, "For in him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form": The verb "dwells" in the Greek is katoikei, and is in the present tense. In other words, Jesus has a glorified body in heaven, the one that was resurrected.
So, again, regarding Ephesians 1:23, the (invisible) Church on earth (and it is called "invisible" because it consists of all true believers, not just a single denomination. Neither does it consist of all who call themselves "Christian," because not all Catholics are born again/regenerated, and not all Presbyterians are born again/regenerated. Neither are all members of any one denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, etc.) regenerated/born again.)...the "invisible" Church on earth, which is the body of Christ, is Christ's representative on this earth. Each true Christian is an ambassador for Christ. As a whole, the true Church represents Christ on this earth, so that may be part of what it means when it talks about "his body, the fullness of him..." So, in that sense, you could say that the true Church is Christ on earth, because the Church is Christ's representative.
For example, the Church is called the body of Christ. But if I make the claim that I alone am the body of Christ, then that would mean that I have Christ's actual body, which would be the same as me saying I am Christ. Christians can accept someone saying that the Church is the body of Christ, but if I said that I alone (i.e., not just as a part of the Church being the body of Christ, but only I myself) am the body of Christ, then people would call me a false prophet or a religious nut, etc. So there is a difference.
BTW, just so you can see the literal word-for-word translation, Ephesians 1:23, in the Interlinear Greek-English, says, "which is the body of him, the fulness of the [one] - all things with all things filling."
Yes, at Ephesians 3:19 we actually see Paul expressing the thought "that you [Ephesian Christians] may be filled with all the fulness of God" (RSV) And at Ephesians 4:13 we find - "until we all attain ... to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (RSV)
Yes, these are goals. It does not say that Christians have already attained that. It is called becoming more and more Christ-like. In sharp contrast, about Jesus, it says he already had and has the fullness of God in him. Big difference.
OK, once again I can see that if I comment on every point you make, and you continue to comment on things I've said or asked, this conversation is going to take forever, and each group of comments is going to be very time-consuming, tedious and very long. So, at this point, I am once again going to try to make myself not reply to everything you've said, but just try to wait, as much as I can, for you to post your comments, and then try to only say a few brief things, or, ideally, only ask one or two questions. I know I won't be able to reach this goal, especially when you state things so dogmatically, but I am going to make another concerted effort at the moment to see how close I can come, even though it goes against my nature to do so. Let's see how long I can read your comments without responding this time (probably not long).
OK, I am trying not to comment on everything, and many of the things you are saying are redundant of what you've already said, which may make it easier not to comment on every point. But I can see that there are still a few things that I can't resist commenting on. For example:
You seem to think like some critics of the New World Translation that the NWT "tragically altered" the Scriptures and have used an example like Colossians 1:16.
...
Is your argument the same as some Trinitarians who say the word "other" cannot be added into this text since it was not there in the original Greek?
...
Do you feel that most of these translations, including the KJV and NIV are in error for adding "other?"
The New World Translation renders Colossians 1:16 as, "because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him."
Does your argument still stand if I plug in "Jehovah" instead of the words that are talking about Jesus?
"because by means of Jehovah all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through Jehovah and for Jehovah."
Not even Philippians 2:6 which I will go over with you later. Incidentally does the word in Greek "nature" appear in that text? Please answer.
No. The Greek-English Interlinear says, "who in [the] form of God subsisting not robbery deemed [it] the to be equal with God."
So it is saying that Jesus was the (human) form of God Almighty, and that he was/is equal with God, and that he did not consider it robbery of his being Almighty God to become a man (for our sake).
All the text says is “Who” or “He.” No scripture in the Bible tells us that God became flesh. Just the Word, or Logos/Spokesman the Son, who was WITH God.
If I start at the end of verse 5 in the Interlinear, it says, "Christ Jesus, who in [the] form of God...equal with God."
Again, it says that Jesus was God Almighty in human flesh, and is equal with God.
Nick,
Paul did not think what you are insisting. You may think it, but Paul did not have to.
So you are the authority on what Paul thought?
Therefore, if one "knows" Jesus as God and "knows" God as three (or two) persons and such "knowledge" turns out to be false, then he is certainly not on the road to eternal life!
I already know that I am not merely on the road to eternal life, but I already have eternal life. This has been verified in many ways since I got saved, through many experiences, through much study, through seeing a change in my life and in the lives of others, and also through the Holy Spirit, Who lives inside me. This is not just an intellectual idea I have, or an intellectual conclusion I have come to. I know it by experience. It is a fact.
Don't worry; I'm not threatened by what you said, any more than I would be if you had insisted that I was born in the year 1632. I already know they are completely incorrect and false assumptions. I am merely trying to point out to you that your assertions are totally wrong.
Hello to you Jeff,
After telling you that I have a relationship with God and Christ, you stated:
“I hope you are sincere about that, and I hope that you really do come to meet and know God personally as I do. He is my Lord, and I will live with Him forever, and my prayer is that you will, too. I pray that you will come to know the Truth, which is only found in Jesus Christ, the Messiah. He said there is no other way to the Father, except through Him. Only through Jesus will you ever be free of all the legalistic works that you are currently bound to, which works will never save you or get you to Heaven.”
There is no need to prove my love for God and Christ to you. When you tell me, “I hope that you really do come to meet and know God personally as I do,” you act as if you have something that I don’t. You know already that I believe Jesus is God’s means of salvation and that I have full faith in the blood of his incomparable sacrifice.
I am not saved by “legalistic works,” who told you that? However, I do have an active faith and heed the command to go and make disciples. Where God’s spirit is there is activity. We will keep making disciples while the rest of nominal Christianity makes excuses.
And I am sorry but the Bible was not written so that you can get to heaven. There is so much more to the Bible than being saved and getting to heaven. I wonder if you understand what God’s Kingdom will accomplish, not just in heaven but also right here on earth? (2 Peter 3:13) Those who go to heaven go there with a purpose, to rule as kings and judge with Christ over the earth. (Revelation 5:10; Revelation 20:4) What do they rule over, an empty planet??? (Isaiah 45:18; Matthew 5:5)
You brought up again “Elohim” and said:
"The word Elohim is a masculine plural noun, which usually takes a singlular verb. We see this notion of plurality in Genesis 1:26a, where "God {Elohim} said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness."
God was simply talking to His firstborn Son who all things were made through. “Church father,” Origen (185-254 C.E.) seemed to correctly understand this when he said, “For the Son of God, “the First-born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation; for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Against Celsus, Book V, chapter XXVI (26); ANF, Vol. IV (4), p. 560, reprinting of April, 1982)
As we talked about earlier, Elohim does not mean a multiple personality God. I did appreciate your honesty here when you said: “I readily admit along with Ken Hemphill that, "the plural use of Elohim does not in and of itself confirm the existence of the Trinity…”
No doubt one of the reasons he has to make this confession is because of texts like 1 Samuel 5:7 where it uses the expression “elohehnu” which is “Our god,” referring to Dagon. It does not have to mean in anyway the Dagon had many personalities in him or that it must read “Our gods.”
-continued
-continuing
You also shared something that we can agree on:
“(p. 15, "Recovering and Hallowing God's Name," by Rev. Michael E. Hampton, ThD) At the time of the writing, Michael was an adjunct professor of theology at the Baptist Seminary of Jakarta, Indonesia. BTW, in the book, he goes on to say that "Elohim" is not a proper name (for God), just like "El" and "Elohe" are not proper names. He believes that "YHWH" is God's Name.”
Very true! This reference work also said something similar:
“The Imperial Bible-Dictionary (Volume 1, page 856) describes the
difference between "God" (Elohim) and "Jehovah," stating: "[Jehovah]
is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only;whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun,
denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the
Supreme.”
You also asked:
“ 1) Is there anything about Jehovah that has ever been created? 2) Has the Watchtower ever said that there is some part of Jehovah that has been created? 3) If no part of Jehovah has been created, and Jesus is God's Word, then how could Jesus be created?”
Answer: 1) No. 2) No. 3) As to the exact way in which the Son was produced by the Father, Jehovah, Irenaeus goes on to relate: “Should anyone then say to us, How then was the Son produced of the Father? We tell him, that this production, or generation or utterance, or manifestation, or by what name so-ever one may denote His generation, which cannot be declared – no man knoweth –...but the Father only who begat, and the Son who, was born...the Only-Begotten Word of God;” (ibid., p. 91, chapter 28.5-7; ANF, ibid., p. 401 (translation is somewhat different).
I think Hippolytus (170-236 C.E.) got it right when he said: “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all had nothing coeval [co-age] with Himself...But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are not, which antecedently had no existence...Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos [the Word, the Son] first...He [the Son] is this Progeneitor’s first-born ...And so it was when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus, pleasing God.”(The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapters XXVIII (28) and XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 67, reprinting of December 1981.)
Latantius (230-340 C.E) also had something noteworthy to consider: “God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first begotten, however was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name [of Son] ... For we especially testify that He was twice born, first in the spirit, and afterwards in the flesh....For though He was the Son of God from the beginning, He was born again a second time according to the flesh.”(The Divine Institutes, Book IV (4), chapters VI (6) and VIII (8); ANF, reprinting of October, 1982, Vol. VII (7), pp. 105-6.)
However, I disagree with Latantius that God created some other things like angels by himself. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that AFTER he created his first-born Son, who obviously is preeminent over all things, he began to make all things (including angels) through this special, unique Son.
-continuing
-continuing
Because they do not believe in the Trinity dogma, it has been said of Jehovah’s Witnesses that we practice “a form of Arianism.” But the fact that we are not Trinitarians does not make us Arians. In one of the few writings of Arius that has survived, he claims that God is beyond comprehension, even for the Son. In line with this, historian H. M. Gwatkin states in his book “The Arian Controversy”: “The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him, and he cannot reveal himself.”
Jehovah’s Witnesses worship neither the “incomprehensible” God of the Trinitarians nor the “unknown God” of Arius. There is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Although Arius did not accept Athanasius theory that the holy spirit was of the same substance as the Father, he did consider the spirit to be a person. This provides further proof that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Arians, for we share the Biblical view of the early Christians, namely, that the holy spirit is God’s active force or power in action, which he uses in many ways to accomplish his will. (Acts 5:32) (Please hold off on the topic of “the holy spirit” until after we covered the relationship between the Father and the Son if you can.)
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as we disagree with Arius’ views in many other respects. For example, Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18)
Arius claimed that the Word became God’s Son “by adoption” because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his “only-begotten son.” (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14) Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says. Hope this clarified that.
After I said, “That "God," sent forth "His Son," (John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:9;) Not himself.”
You told me: “And again I want to ask you a question which I asked earlier. What does "His Son" mean? I know that Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus was Jehovah's first creation, but what does that mean? Who or what is Jesus Christ? Is He God Almighty/Jehovah? Is He a lesser god? Is He a false god? Is He an angel? Is He nothing more than merely a human being who was born and who died? What is He? I would not expect you to say that Jesus is Jehovah, or that Jesus is nothing more than merely a human being, but then, what is Jesus?”
-continued
-continuing
I believe already answered all of these questions but don’t think I got to answering your one what does being “God’s Son” mean? Can I first ask, what does being “a son of God” means when applied to the other spirit sons of God in the Bible mean to you? (Job 38:7)
You may be able to answer your own question. Jesus was special in that he was “the only-begotton” unique Son of God. He would leave his glorious position in heaven and come down to be a human who was perfectly equivalent to our first father Adam.
Jesus, the Son, was the Messiah, the anointed one, who would keep perfect integrity to God until he expired becoming our Redeemer. He would be exalted for his integrity and obedience and would serve in many capacities on our behalf including Judge, King and High Priest.
Previously, I said:
“Not true. We just saw that Jesus was granted life so he is not the source.”
After you made this remark: “No, I never saw where Jesus was granted life. You have not shown me anywhere that it says that.”
Didn’t I submit Jesus own words to you already? Thought I did. Here it is: Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has GRANTED the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26 NIV
You also made this comment:
”And my next question would be this: I have heard that Jehovah's Witnesses say that they "give honor" to Jesus, but what does that mean? If Jehovah God, God Almighty, says that only He is to be worshiped, then what are we supposed to do with Jesus? What exactly does it mean to 'honor' Him? I know of nothing that says we are to 'honor' angels, so what exactly does 'honoring' Jesus entail, if it is not the same as worshiping Jehovah, yet is apparently something more than what we are to show to angels?”
We are to honor God and also honor others such as our parents as even the 10 commandments tells us to do. If we dishonor our parents we dishonor God. This does not mean that we honor them to the same level. We honor God and Christ but it only makes sense that more honor would be given to the "Most High" Jehovah. (Psalms 83:18)
Jesus’ God and Father receives the highest honor. The word “honor” is often used in the Bible to indicate the respect, esteem, and consideration that we should show to others. “In showing honor to one another take the lead.” (Romans 12:10) I did read your comments and will discuss John 5:23 with you more extensively shortly. I'm acquainted with the Trinitarian line of reasoning on that text so hang tight.
-continued
-continuing
It appears you are still in denial that others cannot receive “proskuneo” in a proper, acceptable way. They can. We must understand that it is a “proskuneo” with a particular attitude of heart and mind that should be directed only toward God. This doesn’t mean that others cannot be given it in a lower sense.
Can you tell me what you think of 1 Chronicles 29:20 exactly? It might help you to understand in what sense the great King Jesus can receive “worship.” Please be as specific as possible so I can fully understand you. Maybe I didn’t catch it but you seemed to bypass an explanation of this verse.
I’ll take one more today. You shared:
“Zechariah 2:10-12 says, “Cry out loudly and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for here I am coming, and I will reside in the midst of you”, is the utterance of Jehovah…And you will have to know that Jehovah of armies himself has sent me to you. And Jehovah will certainly take possession of Judah…and he must yet choose Jerusalem.”
Who is "I" ("I am coming" and "I will reside in the midst of you") and who is "Me" ("Jehovah...has sent me")?If Jesus and Jehovah are not one and the same God, then how do you explain the fact that Christ is the one who is “coming” and “will reside in the midst of you”, but in this passage, Jehovah claims that he is the one who is coming and will reside in their midst? How do you explain the fact that “Jehovah of armies” is sending him (Jehovah) to reside in their midst?”
This passage is seldom used by Trinitarians and many I have come across hesitate to use it. I have heard others say it is not a very strong argument and should be “placed on hold for now.”
-continued
-continuing
First off, all verses should be read in their context, not pulled out, isolated, and bent to a certain doctrine. Nowhere does Zechariah mention Christ in this context. The full context of Zechariah chapter 2 shows that “an angel” is speaking, in Jehovah's name. “Jehovah has sent me” is the angel speaking. When the prophecy is fulfilled, people will know that the angel was truly Jehovah's representative, and that Jehovah sent him.
I took a look at Zechariah 4:9 and compared Zechariah 6:15 and suggest you do the same. Looks very similar to the expression “to know that Jehovah of armies has sent me to you” we find in Zechariah 2:11. Do you think there is a possibility that in the context that it could be the angel of Jehovah speaking? We obviously know Jehovah's “name was in him.” (Exodus 23:21) This doesn't make him Jehovah but his representative as we see throughout scripture whoever you think that distinct representative would be.
Nothing in these verses indicates that “Jesus and Jehovah are “one and the same God.” Nothing. That concept is foreign to the whole Bible and foreign to these verses. I believe you are guilty of reading something into the verses that is simply not there.
Jesus is Jehovah's Chief Representative and while on earth, Jesus spoke in Jehovah's name. That did not make him God, only the one “sent” by God.
I must mention that some Trinitarian Bible students feel “me” is better understood to them to refer to the prophet Zechariah himself, whose statements would finally prove true when they were fulfilled. I suppose this is a possibility. But there is no Trinity here, no matter how you slice and dice it.
To me this just comes across as more bizarre Trinitarian argumentation. The logic is forced. Simply because Jehovah will dwell in the midst of Zion and the one Jehovah "sent" will dwell in the midst of the Gentiles, does not, by any logical or necessary means, result in them being “one and the same God.”
You also asked me to comment on an expression on how Jehovah would be “in the midst of you”? Many scriptures show that Jehovah can be with his people by turning his attention to them, not by being physically present among them in some bodily form, but by having his will and his Law clearly carried out for their benefit and or discipline.
Nothing in the text suggests or supports equality of anyone else with Jehovah God. But only that he would act in a specific way toward his people. Psalm 15 in no way, for example, requires any of God's servants to enter his “tent” physically in order to be his guests, but instead clearly describes a spiritual relationship. Jehovah God was always “in the midst” of his obedient people Israel. At least when they were loyal.
Psalm 46:5, “God is in the midst of her, she will not be moved; God will help her when morning dawns.” (NASB)
Isaiah 12:6, “Cry aloud and shout for joy, O inhabitant of Zion, For great in your midst is the Holy One of Israel.” (NASB)
Respectfully,
Nick
Hello Jeff,
I know you are allowing me to catch up to the many expression and directions that this discussion has turned. Actually, I have quite a few topics to see go over but bare with me.
One thing you did state I thought was interesting was this:
"Ephesians 4:13 points out the goal of the Christian, which is to be completely Christ-like: "until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ." Of course, this Christ-likeness will never be fully attained on earth. It will only become a reality in heaven, when Christians are perfect and sinless, and in that sense will be truly Christ-like."
Here's the thing, when Christian eventually attain in heaven, in the future, "the fullness of the Christ," will this demand that they have achieved or attained Godship??? Even when they are perfect and sinsless? Yes, I too believe they will be truly Christ-LIKE.
In the same way, when Jesus experiences the "fullness of God" this does not make him the same individual or God himself but simply God-LIKE. And this he experiences because it pleased his God and Father.
Food for thought,
Nick
Hi Jeff,
I said,
"All the text says is “Who” or “He.” No scripture in the Bible tells us that God became flesh. Just the Word, or Logos/Spokesman the Son, who was WITH God."
Then you misunderstand me. You said: "If I start at the end of verse 5 in the Interlinear, it says, "Christ Jesus, who in [the] form of God...equal with God."
My comment above had to do with a completely different text, that is 1 Timothy 3:16. "God" is not the correct rendering but "He" or "Who."
Regarding Philippians 2:5 you told me:
"Again, it says that Jesus was God Almighty in human flesh, and is equal with God."
It DOES NOT say he was God in that text. Check your Greek Interlinear closer, it says Jesus was in "God's form." We will talk about what being in "God's form," means. It does not mean he was God, or the Trinity, at all.
Take care,
Nick
Hi Nick,
You know already that I believe Jesus is God’s means of salvation and that I have full faith in the blood of his incomparable sacrifice.
Nick, have all your sins been removed?
When you tell me, “I hope that you really do come to meet and know God personally as I do,” you act as if you have something that I don’t.
Have you been born again, Nick?
I am not saved by “legalistic works,” who told you that?
OK, let me ask you this. Can you become righteous by attending five meetings a week, not wearing beards, counting your time in preaching on a slip of paper or distributing Watchtower literature? Where in the Bible does it say that any of these things, or being assigned record cards of activity, are a gauge of your spirituality?
God was simply talking to His firstborn Son who all things were made through.
Why do you assume that Christ is first created, when the meaning of "firstborn" ("prototokos") means "pre-eminent" or "ruler"? David (Psalm 89:27), Ephraim (Genesis 41:50-52, Jeremiah 31:9), Jacob (Exodus 4:22) and Solomon (1 Chronicles 3:2) were all called "firstborn," but none of them were born first. Why? Because "firstborn" can mean "chief," as with Christ, and not first created.
The Greek word prototokos can also mean "first-begetter" or "original bringer forth". If Christ created all things (Col 1:16) then He couldn't have created Himself. He was also the first-born in the sense of first to rise in a glorified body.
“Church father,” Origen (185-254 C.E.) seemed to correctly understand this when he said, “For the Son of God, “the First-born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation; for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.” (Against Celsus, Book V, chapter XXVI (26); ANF, Vol. IV (4), p. 560, reprinting of April, 1982)
First, Origen, although a fine scholar and theologian, held to many beliefs that almost all Christians today (whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant) would consider unorthodox or heretical.
"The disputes known as the Origenist controversies, in respect to the orthodoxy of his doctrine, arose never during his life, but three times after his death: c. A.D. 300, c. A.D. 400, and c. A.D. 550. He was a great scholar and a great theologian, and strove always to be Catholic in his faith. Yet, he came finally to be regarded as a heretic, which accounts largely for the fact that so many of his writings have perished entirely....It is generally stated that Origen's heresies are nowhere clearer than in his work on 'The Fundamental Doctrines' [De principiis]. Nevertheless, it should be noted that he is generally very careful to distinguish between Catholic doctrine and his own speculations, which latter he presents as no more than possibilities which would have to stand the test of acceptance or rejection in the teaching Church. The work undoubtedly suffers from an overly active Platonic influence, and from allegorical interpretation of Scripture; yet, it stands firmly and immovably and without pretence as neither more nor less than a theological monument of absolutely epic proportions." (THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS by William A. Jurgens (Liturgical Press, 1970, 1979) volume 1, p. 189-190)
Still, it seems that Origen did not believe what you imply. Here is another statement that Origen made (from "The Fundamental Doctrines"):
"For we do NOT hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that THERE WERE A TIME WHEN HE DID NOT EXIST" [i.e. the Son ALWAYS existed according to Origen].
As we talked about earlier, Elohim does not mean a multiple personality God. I did appreciate your honesty here when you said: “I readily admit along with Ken Hemphill that, "the plural use of Elohim does not in and of itself confirm the existence of the Trinity…”
Yes, in other words, I would never base my belief in the Trinity on the word "Elohim" alone. Just like, when I posted a blog article on Laminin, and an Atheist said that Laminin is poor proof of God's existence, I told him that I would never base my belief in God on Laminin alone.
No doubt one of the reasons he has to make this confession is because of texts like 1 Samuel 5:7 where it uses the expression “elohehnu” which is “Our god,” referring to Dagon. It does not have to mean in anyway the Dagon had many personalities in him or that it must read “Our gods.”
I should probably skip replying to this, because we are basically starting at the beginning of our conversation again. Ah, well, I'll go ahead and comment on it.
First, the OT Scriptures clearly and emphatically teach that there is only one God.
Eloheinu is the 1st person plural declension of Elohim, and can therefore be translated as “our Gods.”
Going back to the subject of the original blog article (and the same ground that we covered before), the Hebrew word for “one,” echad, functions much like the English word in that it can refer to a solitary oneness or to a complex unity as in the following example:
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh (basar echad).” Genesis 2:24
Two separate and distinct flesh and blood human beings become echad or one flesh through sexual consummation. The Greek word for one also functions the same way:
“He [Jesus] answered, ‘Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (sarka mian)”? So they are no longer two but one flesh (sarx mia). What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.’" Matthew 19:4-6
“He who plants and he who waters are one (hen), and each will receive his wages according to his labor.” 1 Corinthians 3:8
In light of this, one might translate the Shema in the following way, since it brings out more clearly the revelation that God is multi-Personal:
“Hear O Israel: Yahweh our Godhead, Yahweh is a complex unity.”
When the inspired Bible writers use plurals such as Eloheinu, it is obviously not because they were trying to argue for the existence of multiple Gods. Rather, the authors of Holy Scripture employed the thought patterns and categories of the Hebrew language to communicate the fact that there is more than one eternal Person of God. They did this by using plural nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, participles etc. Therefore, the use of such plurals is actually what we would expect to find if the Holy Bible does present a Triune God.
In other words, if the inspired Scriptures do affirm that there is more than one Divine Person that exists as the one God, then it should not come as a surprise to find the Bible speaking of God in the plural; in fact we would actually expect to find plural nouns, verbs, and adjectives being used for God to denote the fact that he is a multi-Personal Being.
I am becoming busier, Nick, so I may not have time to reply to your comments as I did previously. I am going to try to Publish your comments as I get to them, so that I can keep track of which ones I have read and replied to, but I may get backed up.
Hi Nick,
When you tell me, “I hope that you really do come to meet and know God personally as I do,” you act as if you have something that I don’t.
Not to sound condescending, but I do have something that you don't. It's called eternal life. In God's eyes, I am holy. I am a saint. I am clean. I am righteous. I do not need to win God's favor, because I already have God's favor.
Just as God looked down at the ark of the covenant and saw the broken commandments covered with the mercy seat, and the blood sprinkled over the mercy seat, so He sees my sins washed by the blood of the Lamb. My past, present and future sins have been washed away, as far as the East is from the West, and, from the time I was born again, I have been made white as snow. Just as Paul said, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." When I die, I will be in Heaven, living with God forever in His Paradise.
Hi Jeff,
You just told me I don't have everlasting life. What nerve,what audacity. Where in the Bible am I suppose to believe in a Trinity to have everlasting life? Where???
All the Bible tells us is this: "And this is the witness given, that God gave us everlasting life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has this life; he that does not have the Son of God does not have this life." (1 John 5:10, 11; NASB)
1 John 4:15 tells me, "I must confess that Jesus is the Son of God.."
I do Jeff. I just don't believe he was the same being as God which is not taught in the Bible.
Let's leave that judgment to God and Christ.
Sincerely,
Nick
Hi Ed,
Relating to our discussion on the Divine Name you quote one our publications:
“The time did come, however, when in reading the Hebrew Scriptures in the original language, the Jewish reader substituted either ’Adho-nai’ (Sovereign Lord)or ’Elo-him’ (God) rather than pronounce the divine name represented by the Tetragrammaton [YHWH]. …the Jewish copyists inserted the vowel points for either ’Adho-nai’or ’Elo-him’ into the Tetragrammaton, evidently to warn the reader to say those words in place of pronouncing the divine name. …In the second half of the first millennium C.E., Jewish scholars introduced a system of points to represent the missing vowels in the consonantal Hebrew text. When it came to God’s name, instead of inserting the proper vowel signs for it, they put other vowel signs to remind the reader that he should say ’Adho-nai’ (meaning ‘Sovereign Lord’) or ’Elo-him’ (meaning ‘God’).”
-Insight on the Scriptures, 1988, vol. 2. pp. 6-7
Then you state: “That brings up an interesting question. Since the Hebrew vowels for “Lord” are part of the name “Jehovah” used by your translation, what’s the difference between my Bible’s use of the capital letters “LORD” to denote God’s name and your Bible’s rendering of “Jehovah,” derived from the Hebrew vowels for “Lord”?”
Could I ask what Bible are you talking about specifically when you say, “my Bible”? “Your Bible’s” use of the capital letters of "LORD" to denote God's name is based on a Jewish superstition that developed centuries after the Old Testament was written.
Even the Encyclopaedia Judaica admits that "the avoidance of pronouncing the name YHWH . . . was caused by a misunderstanding of the Third Commandment." The “Insight on the Scriptures” correctly reports what happened.
The substituted vowels for "Lord" were NOT part of the Bible as originally written and were not added until about 900 AD by the Masoretes. This over a thousand years after the Old Testament was written. This is discussed in great deal in that on page 5 of the same source you referred me to.
"LORD" does not translate YHWH and does not mean the same thing as YHWH.
Hebrew Professor Gerard Gertoux ably demonstrates that the use of the form "Jehovah" is not based on the Hebrew vowels for "Lord" --"adonai" -- which would give us Jahovai, not Jehovah. Rather, he shows how, historically, "Jehovah" developed according to the statements of the ancient Jewish historian Josephus and the later Jewish theologian Maimonides that the Name was to be pronounced "as written," as if "four {Hebrew] vowels."
-continued
-continuing
LORD is not a name and does not properly denote YHWH in either meaning or spelling. "Jehovah," on the other hand, is a historical attempt to pronounce the NAME that is found abundantly in the Hebrew Bible.
"Jehovah" may not be exactly like the Hebrews pronounced it, but neither are any other of the Hebrew names found in the Bible, including the name Jesus. We pronounce all Biblical names in the English Bible according to the historical way they have come down to us in the English language.
“Jehovah, the special and significant name (not merely an appellative title such as Lord) by which God revealed himself to the ancient Hebrews" (p. 330, Today's Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House Publishers., 1982.)
`Jehovah' - The name most distinctive of God as the God of Israel is Jehovah.... The meaning may with some confidence be inferred ... to be that of the simple fut[ure], yahweh, `he will be.' It does not express causation, nor existence in a metaphysical sense, but the covenant promise of the Divine presence, both at the immediate time and in the Messianic age of the future.... It is the personal name of God.... Characteristic of the OT is its insistence on the possible knowledge of God as a person; and Jehovah is His name as a person. It is illogical, certainly, that the later Hebrews should have shrunk from its pronunciation, in view of the appropriateness of the name and of the OT insistence on the personality of God, who as a person has this name. [ASV] quite correctly adopts the transliteration `Jehovah' to emphasize its significance and purpose as a personal name of God revealed." (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, p. 1266, Vol. 2, Eerdmans, 1984)
J. A. Motyer, principal of Trinity College, England, adds: “Much is lost in Bible reading if we forget to look beyond the substitute word [Lord or God] to the personal, intimate name of God himself. By telling his people his name, God intended to reveal to them his inmost character.” (Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible, page 157.)
The American Standard Version did justice to the Divine Name by rendering it “Jehovah” in every one of its 6,823 occurrences. They translators stated in their preface:
“The translators were brought to the unanimous conviction that a Jewish superstition, which regarded the Divine Name as too sacred to be uttered, ought no longer to dominate in the English or any other version of the Old Testament . . . This Memorial Name, explained in Ex. iii. 14, 15, and emphasized as such over and over in the original text of the Old Testament, designates God as the personal God, as the covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, the Friend of his people . . . This personal name, with its wealth of sacred associations, is now restored to the place in the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable claim.”
Respectfully,
Nick
Hi Nick,
As to the exact way in which the Son was produced by the Father, Jehovah, Irenaeus goes on to relate: “Should anyone then say to us, How then was the Son produced of the Father? We tell him, that this production, or generation or utterance, or manifestation, or by what name so-ever one may denote His generation, which cannot be declared – no man knoweth –...but the Father only who begat, and the Son who, was born...the Only-Begotten Word of God;” (ibid., p. 91, chapter 28.5-7; ANF, ibid., p. 401 (translation is somewhat different).
Actually, Irenaeus’ teaching that “the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, since he who is born of God is God, and in this way, according to His being and power and essence, one God is demonstrated: but according to the economy of our salvation, there is both Father and Son,” [On Apostolic Preaching 2:1:47] couldn’t be more Trinitarian. Moreover, Irenaeus distinguishes the Son and the Holy Spirit from created beings when he says, “The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with Him, anterior to all creation.” [Against Heresies 4:20:3] So, according to Irenaeus, the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, just like the doctrine of the Trinity says.
I think Hippolytus (170-236 C.E.) got it right when he said: “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all had nothing coeval [co-age] with Himself...But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are not, which antecedently had no existence...Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos [the Word, the Son] first...He [the Son] is this Progeneitor’s first-born ...And so it was when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus, pleasing God.”(The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapters XXVIII (28) and XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 67, reprinting of December 1981.)
Hippolytus said, “The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God.” [Refutation of all Heresies Bk. 10, Ch. 29] So Hippolytus, too, sets the Logos of God, a.k.a. Jesus, apart from all creation and all created beings. He further declares of Jesus that “by nature He is God,” [On Genesis, Gen 49:16-20] and that Jesus, “who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead.” [ibid, Gen 49:26] According to Hippolytus, Jesus “was in essential being with His Father” [On Luke Ch. 23] and “is co-eternal with His Father,” just as the doctrine of the Trinity says. And, with regard to the Trinity as a whole, Hippolytus says, “We cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” [Against the Heresy of One Noetus Section 14]and, “Whosoever omits any one of these, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.” [ibid section 14] Clearly, Hippolytus was a Trinitarian.
Nick,
It seems to me that the Watchtower is notorious for taking bits and pieces of quotes from the Church Fathers, and making it sound like they are saying the exact opposite of what they actually said.
I hate to do this, but since you posted the following quote, I am going to post the full quote:
Here is what you said:
I think Hippolytus (170-236 C.E.) got it right when he said: “The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all had nothing coeval [co-age] with Himself...But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are not, which antecedently had no existence...Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos [the Word, the Son] first...He [the Son] is this Progeneitor’s first-born ...And so it was when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus, pleasing God.”(The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapters XXVIII (28) and XXIX (29); ANF, Vol. V (5), p. 67, reprinting of December 1981.)
My next few comments will be the entire actual quote from that source.
Excerpts from Book X
Refutation of All Heresies
Hippolytus
"XVII. Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt, determined that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain angelic power. And this power was far separated and distant from that sovereignty which is above the entire circle of existence, and it knows not the God (that is) above all things. And he says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind. And Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus' baptism, Christ came down in the form of a dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence, and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles. And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus, but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.
XVIII. But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God, and they speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus. They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified.
XIX. But Theodotus of Byzantium introduced a heresy of the following description, alleging that all things were created by the true God; whereas that Christ, he states, in a manner similar to that advocated by the Gnostics already mentioned, made His appearance according to some mode of this description. And Theodotus affirms that Christ is a man of a kindred nature with all men, but that He surpasses them in this respect, that, according to the counsel of God, He had been born of a virgin, and the Holy Ghost had overshadowed His mother. This heretic, however, maintained that Jesus had not assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin, but that afterwards Christ descended upon Jesus at His baptism in form of a dove. And from this circumstance, the followers of Theodotus affirm that at first miraculous powers did not acquire operating energy in Savior Himself. Theodotus, however, determines to deny the divinity of Christ. Now, opinions of this description were advanced by Theodotus.
XX. And others also make all their assertions similarly with those which have been already specified, introducing one only alteration, viz., in respect of regarding Melchisedec as a certain power. But they allege that Melchisedec himself is superior to all powers; and according to his image, they are desirous of maintaining that Christ likewise is generated.
XXI. The Phrygians, however, derive the principles of their heresy from a certain Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, and regard these wretched women as prophetesses, and Montanus as a prophet. In respect, however, of what appertains to the origin and creation of the universe, the Phrygians are supposed to express themselves correctly; while in the tenets which they enunciate respecting Christ, they have not irrelevantly formed their opinions. But they are seduced into error in common with the heretics previously alluded to, and devote their attention to the discourses of these above the Gospels, thus laying down regulations concerning novel and strange fasts.
XXII. But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians, entertain similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of the Phrygians, and to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining to the Father of the entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"XXIII. But in like manner, also, Noetus, being by birth a native of Smyrna, and a fellow addicted to reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced (among us) this heresy which originated from one Epigonus. It reached Rome, and was adopted by Cleomenes, and so has continued to this day among his successors. Noetus asserts that there is one Father and God of the universe, and that He made all things, and was imperceptible to those that exist when He might so desire. Noetus maintained that the Father then appeared when He wished; and He is invisible when He is not seen, but visible when He is seen. And this heretic also alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion came upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.
Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already carefully explained the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced likewise a heresy, and derived its starting-points from these Noetians, -- namely, so far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son, yet that in substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed to maintain, that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into the opinion of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine. These, then, are the opinions of Callistus."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"XXIV. But one Hermogenes himself also being desirous of saying something, asserted that God made all things out of matter coeval with Himself, and subject to His design. For Hermogenes held it to be an impossibility that God should make the things that were made, except out of existent things.
XXV. But certain others, introducing as it were some novel tenet, appropriated parts of their system from all heresies, and procured a strange volume, which bore on the title page the name of one Elchasai. These, in like manner, acknowledge that the principles of the universe were originated by the Deity. They do not, however, confess that there is but one Christ, but that there is one that is superior to the rest, and that He is transfused into many bodies frequently, and was now in Jesus. And, in like manner, these heretics maintain that at one time Christ was begotten of God, and at another time became the Spirit, and at another time was born of a virgin, and at another time not so. And they affirm that likewise this Jesus afterwards was continually being transfused into bodies, and was manifested in many different bodies at different times. And they resort to incantations and baptisms in their confession of elements. And they occupy themselves with bustling activity in regard of astrological and mathematical science, and of the arts of sorcery. But also they allege themselves to have powers of prescience.
[...]
XXVIII. The first and only one God, both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised under the title, Concerning the Substance of the Universe. I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"XXIX. Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor's first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. And some things which multiply by generation He formed male and female; but whatsoever beings were designed for service and ministration He made either male, or not requiring females, or neither male nor female. For even the primary substances of these, which were formed out of nonentities, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, are neither male nor female; nor could male or female proceed from any one of these, were it not that God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance in accomplishing a production of this kind. I confess that angels are of fire, and I maintain that female spirits are not present with them. And I am of opinion that sun and moon and stars, in like manner, are produced from fire and spirit, and are neither male nor female. And the will of the Creator is, that swimming and winged animals are from water, male and female. For so God, whose will it was, ordered that there should exist a moist substance, endued with productive power. And in like manner God commanded, that from earth should arise reptiles and beasts, as well males and females of all sorts of animals; for so the nature of the things produced admitted. For as many things as He willed, God made from time to time. These things He created through the Logos, it not being possible for things to be generated otherwise than as they were produced. But when, according as He willed, He also formed objects, He called them by names, and thus notified His creative effort. And making these, He formed the ruler of all, and fashioned him out of all composite substances. The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, -- be not deceived, -- but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it. But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good. Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity of self-determination, yet not possessing a sovereign intellect, nor holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil, that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently. Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God.
Now the Logos of God controls all these; the first begotten Child of the Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star. Afterwards just men were born, friends of God; and these have been styled prophets, on account of their foreshowing future events. And the word of prophecy was committed unto them, not for one age only; but also the utterances of events predicted throughout all generations, were vouchsafed in perfect clearness. And this, too, not at the time merely when seers furnished a reply to those present; but also events that would happen throughout all ages, have been manifested beforehand; because, in speaking of incidents gone by, the prophets brought them back to the recollection of humanity; whereas, in showing forth present occurrences, they endeavoured to persuade men not to be remiss; while, by foretelling future events, they have rendered each one of us terrified on beholding events that had been predicted long before, and on expecting likewise those events predicted as still future. Such is our faith, O all ye men, -- ours, I say, who are not persuaded by empty expressions, nor caught away by sudden impulses of the heart, nor beguiled by the plausibility of eloquent discourses, yet who do not refuse to obey words that have been uttered by divine power. And these injunctions has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes. This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth, in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an angel, but who was Himself -- He that had spoken -- corporally present amongst us. This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, and that, by being present (amongst) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both. This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is good and just? In order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different from us, He even underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger, and did not refuse to feel thirst, and sunk into the quietude of slumber. He did not protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer), mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son."
(cont.)
(cont.)
"XXX. Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O ye men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye Latins, who lead armies, and all ye that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya. And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics, but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!
You shall escape the boiling flood of hell's eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum has bred it. Now such torments as these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, "Know thyself;" i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God's knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"
(Again, this is from "Refutation of All Heresies")
I posted that (the several comments before this one), not because I agree or don't agree with it, but just to show you what the original source actually says.
Nick,
Latantius (230-340 C.E) also had something noteworthy to consider: “God, therefore, the contriver and founder of all things, as we have said in the second book, before He commenced this excellent work, begat a pure and incorruptible Spirit, whom He called His Son. And although He had afterwards created by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first begotten, however was the only one whom He considered worthy of being called by the divine name [of Son] ... For we especially testify that He was twice born, first in the spirit, and afterwards in the flesh....For though He was the Son of God from the beginning, He was born again a second time according to the flesh.”(The Divine Institutes, Book IV (4), chapters VI (6) and VIII (8); ANF, reprinting of October, 1982, Vol. VII (7), pp. 105-6.)
Here is another portion of the same book you quoted from:
307 AD Lactantius "When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of 'Father' cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. . . . [T]hey both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [the Father] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [the Son] as a stream flowing forth from it. The former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [of light] extended from the sun" ... "We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Some one may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son--which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that He is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (Divine Institutes , 4:28-29).
Nick,
I have been very busy, but I have a little time at the moment to reply to more of your comments.
You said:
Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be accused of Arianism, inasmuch as we disagree with Arius’ views in many other respects. For example, Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. The Bible teaches that the Son ‘fully knows’ the Father and that the Son is “the one that has explained him.” (Matthew 11:27; John 1:14, 18)
Arius claimed that the Word became God’s Son “by adoption” because of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible says that he was created by Jehovah as his “only-begotten son.” (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:2; Revelation 3:14) Arius taught that Christians could hope to become equal to Christ, whereas the Bible states that God gave him “the name that is above every other name.” (Philippians 2:9-11) Far from being modern-day Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the Bible says. Hope this clarified that.
I agree that there are some differences between what Arius taught and that of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
However, Jehovah's Witnesses, like Arians, believe that Jesus was created.
Arius said: "We must either suppose two divine original essences, without beginning and independent of each other, we must substitute a dyarchy for a monarchy, or we must not shrink from asserting that the logos had a beginning of his existence - that there was when he was not (Albert Newman, A Manual of Church History, p. 326).
AT the Nicene Council, Athanasius, one of the greatest thinkers in Church history, championed Orthodoxy and the Nicene Creed was drafted.
This creed says in part, "We believe ...in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of the Father... begotten not made, of one substance with the Father..." (Hoekema, The Four Major Cults, p. 328).
There is no doubt that the closing statement of the creed had Arius in mind as it reads:
"But as for those who say, there was when He was not, and, before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different... substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic [that is, Universal] Church anathematizes," (Ibid).
A summary of the Arian view follows:
1. The son was created out of nothing; hence, he is different in essence from the Father; that he is Logos, Wisdom, Son of God, is only of grace. He is not so in himself.
2. There was, when he was not; i.e., he is a finite being.
3. He was created before everything else, and through him the universe was created and is administered.
4. In the historical Christ the human element is merely the material; the soul is the Logos. The historical Christ, therefore, had no human soul....
5. The Arians held, that although the incarnate Logos is finite, and hence not God, he is to be worshiped, as being unspeakably exalted above all other Creatures, the immediate Creator and Governor of the universe, and the Redeemer of man.
6. The Arians adhered to the Scriptures, and were willing to employ as their own any scriptural statements of doctrine. (A Manual for Church History, p. 327).
From the foregoing, who, then, would be the modern-day counterparts to Arius?
It is the organization which claims that Abel was the first of their number and then proceeds to claim the rest of the men of God mentioned in the Bible were ancestors to their organization.
Then, beginning with Jesus, they give the remaining line of their ancestors as follows:
(1) Jesus to Paul, (2) Paul to Arius, (3) Arius to Waldo, (4) Waldo to Wycliffe, (5) Wycliffe to Luther, and (6) Luther to Charles Taze Russell (Gruss, Apostles of Denialo, p. 9).
Who are they?
The modern-day Arians are none other than the Jehovah's Witnesses.
With the exception of Arius, there is no relationship between the Witness and the line of ancestors claimed by them.
Concerning Waldo, Wycliffe and Luther, the only similarity is that they worked outside the Church of their day. These men were all Christian leaders.
Arius, however, is truly an ancestor of the Witnesses. Note the similarity of the Watchtower Christology to that of Arius in the following:
1. The only-begotten Son of God, the only Son produced (created) by Jehovah alone.
2. This Son is the firstborn [to the Watchtower, it means first created] of all creation.
3. By means of him (Jesus) all other things in heaven and on earth were created.
4. He is the second-greatest personage in the universe (Reasoning From The Scriptures, p. 209).
5. The Bible is Jehovah God's written Word to humankind. He used some 40 human secretaries over a period of 16 centuries to record it, but God himself actively directed the writing by his spirit. Thus it is inspired by God (Reasoning, p. 58).
6. But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, this "faithful and discreet slave," made up of spirit-anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives.
"Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do" (The Watchtower, 1 Dec. 1981, p. 27).
Satan can take the same old lie that he used over 1600 years ago, take some of the dents out, do a little updating, add a new coat of paint, put it in a brand new package and then sell it as the Truth.
The Apostle Paul, in describing those who would come along and preach another Jesus said:
"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore, it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servant of righteousness; whose ends shall be according to their deeds," (2 Cor. 11:13-15).
Nick,
Jesus was special in that he was “the only-begotton” unique Son of God. He would leave his glorious position in heaven and come down to be a human who was perfectly equivalent to our first father Adam.
Romans 5:15-17 says, "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."
Read it again: "The gift is not like the trespass." Jesus' gift of His life is worth infinitely more than the value of the original sin of Adam.
The good new is that Jesus' sacrifice is more than enough to pay for Adam's sin and your sin and my sin and the entire world's sin. Jesus willing gave himself to die a horrible death in order that his death be given in exchange for many, not just the value of one man's sin. Matthew 20:28 says, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." The Watchtower has misrepresented the ransom sacrifice of Jesus by putting his sacrifice on a balance with the one man Adam. Jesus is worth so much more.
Nick,
Didn’t I submit Jesus own words to you already? Thought I did. Here it is: Jesus said, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has GRANTED the Son to have life in himself.” (John 5:26 NIV
This is not saying that the Son was created, or that there was a time when the Son did not exist. John 5 has to do with the relation of the Father and the Son. And again, it has to do with voluntary submission, as I have been talking about all along, as well as the complex relationship of the Trinity, and the distinct 'Persons' and roles of each member of the Trinity. The Father sent the Son. Jesus says the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing (v. 19). He is completely dependent upon the Father. In this expression of humility, obedience and dependence, we see the Jewish version of the ideal son, since a son is to reproduce his father's thought and action. He does nothing by himself, or more literally, "from himself" (aph heautou); his source of being and activity is not himself but his Father. He cannot act from himself, for to do so would be to exist autonomously from God. There is one who is autonomous, and that is the devil (i.e., John 8:44). The Son is distinct from the Father (or he would not be the Son), but he is not autonomous.
Jesus is not simply the ideal son, but the unique Son, "the One and Only" (John 1:14, 18). Therefore, when Jesus says the Son sees what his Father is doing, he is not saying that he makes rational deductions regarding God's activity from what he can observe in Scripture or history or nature. Rather, since Jesus is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18, NASB), totally at one with the Father (John 10:30), he sees God differently than anyone else ever has (John 1:18; 6:46). While he is referring to his human experience (i.e., John 1:14, etc.), he has a sensitivity beyond human experience to God's voice, because his intimacy with God is unclouded by sin. This sight, then, refers to his constant communion with his Father.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Jesus himself, who is the unique Son and who alone has seen God, is nevertheless the model of true humanity in that he is thoroughly open to God, humble, doing nothing of his own. The birth from above (being born again, or regenerated) makes Christians God's children, sharing in something of the same sort of relationship with God through the Spirit as we see in the Son (cf. chaps. 13-17).
Jesus explains his relationship with the Father through a series of four explanatory clauses (5:19-23), each headed by the conjunction gar (variously translated in the NIV). He begins by saying he can only do what he sees the Father doing because [gar] whatever the Father does the Son also does (v. 19). Here the same unity of action is stated, yet it is not in terms of limitation (the Son can only do what he sees the Father doing), but through a mind-boggling claim of completeness. He does everything (ha gar an, translated whatever) the Father does. That is, not only is everything in Jesus' life reflective of God the Father, but also everything the Father does is reflected in Jesus' life. Jesus is claiming to be the full revelation of the Father (cf. 15:15; 16:13, 15; 17:10).
The Son's complete revelation of the Father is grounded in the Father's own love for the Son and the fact that the Father has not held anything back from the Son. For [gar] the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does (5:20). The Father's love is the heart of everything. God's love for the world (3:16) leads him to send the Son so we may be able to share through the Spirit in the Father's love for the Son (16:27; 17:23). This eternal relationship is the source of Jesus' activity for it leads the Father to show the Son all he does. We see again in verse 20 that the Father takes the initiative; he is in control, and he is the source of all. This passage also emphasizes that the Father has held back nothing of his activity from the Son. All that God does is revealed to Jesus, and Jesus passes everything on to us (15:15).
With Jesus' healing on the sabbath and his other deeds, the miracles actually reveal the identity of Jesus and the character of the Father, that help us to recognize the Father in the Son. If we are not amazed by Jesus, then we, like His opponents, have not yet really seen him.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Jesus then explains that these greater works ("works," erga, 5:20) have to do with giving life and judging. For [gar] just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son (5:21-22). The Father has put everything into the Son's hands (3:35), including the most fundamental realities of human existence, the giving of life and judgment. These two activities are at the heart of everything Jesus does in this Gospel, and these verses spell out his right to such responsibility and power.
He has been commissioned by God as his agent, but he transcends that role. He does not simply commit to the Father's plan and faithfully execute it, as a good agent would do according to Jewish ideals (cf. Rengstorf 1964a:415). He is to give life to whom he is pleased [thelei] to give it (5:21). Jesus' own will is involved. While Jesus can do nothing by himself (5:19), he does have a will of his own, and the Father authorizes Jesus to act according to that will. His human will, however, is completely in harmony with the Father's will. So, again, we see the distinctness and the oneness of the Father and the Son. An agent might bring life in the name of God, but no agent could say "I am the resurrection and the life" (11:25). This statement, spoken by Jesus at the raising of Lazarus, helps us perceive the significance of his staggering claims made here in chapter 5.
The last explanatory clause (5:22) states emphatically that the Father judges no one [oude . . . ouden], but has entrusted all judgment to the Son. Jesus is given this authority because of who he is; it is part of his identity (5:27). Jesus is the light of the world (8:12) and the truth itself (14:6), and his very presence is a judgment on all that is evil and false.
(cont.)
(cont.)
In these verses Jesus' equality with God is revealed with the result (v. 23, hina) that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Here their complete equality is expressed in terms of people's proper attitude toward Jesus: the very same honor given to the Father is to be given to the Son. Again the Jewish idea of agent is used and transcended. An agent was to be received as the one who sent him would be received. But here God is the one sending, and no one sent by God in the Old Testament ever claimed equal honor with God! Unless Jesus is wholly and completely God this verse promotes blasphemy. Indeed, the last part of the verse makes the point even more strongly: failure to honor the Son is failure to honor the Father. Honoring God, which was at the heart of the Jewish religion, is said to be dependent on honoring Jesus as the Son of God.
The complex language of these verses shows the struggle to guard the truth of monotheism while claiming that Jesus is God. The concerns of monotheists such as Jews and Muslims are legitimate, and this Gospel reveals that God is indeed One, though not in the way these other religions understand. This Gospel encourages monotheists to understand their truth in light of what has now been revealed by the Son of God about himself and the Holy Spirit. This Gospel, however, offers no encouragement to Christians who wish to say that Jesus is not the unique Son of God with exclusive and ultimate authority over every person on earth. All judgment has been given to him, and all are to honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John allows for no syncretism, for that would deny the uniqueness and exclusivity of Jesus.
(cont.)
(cont.)
The next section of the keynote address (5:24-29) deals with how the Son exercises these two divine prerogatives. The first two verses (vv. 24-25) mention a present experience of life and judgment; the second two verses (vv. 26-27) return to the relationship between the Father and Son, which lies behind this activity of the Son; and finally, the Son's divine activity in the future is referred to (vv. 28-29).
To give life and to judge are interrelated, for to have life is to escape condemnation (v. 24). The great events of the last day are already taking place (v. 25). The judge they were expecting has come surprisingly, before the final end of this age; the life of the age to come is already available. All of this is accomplished, Jesus says, in the one who hears my word and believes him who sent me. This phrasing again points to the unity of the Father and the Son. Those who recognize Jesus as the unique Son receive his words as having come from God and, accordingly, believe the Father who sent him. To know God is to have eternal life (17:3). Until we receive life from the Son we are dead (5:24), under God's wrath (3:36).
Jesus' grounds for such audacious claims is the Father's authorization of the Son (5:26-27). The earlier thought (5:19-23) is repeated with two new developments. First, the deity of Christ is clear from the fact that the Father has granted the Son to have life in himself (v. 26). That is, the Son himself is the source of life and not just an agent of God's power of life. Yet this possession of life was given by the Father (edoken). So again we have glimpses into the mystery of the relations within the Godhead and an emphasis on the gracious giving of the Father, who is the source of all.
(cont.)
(cont.)
Second, the Son's authority to judge, which also comes from the Father, is bound up with his identity as the Son of Man (5:27). Jesus' use of the term picks up Daniel 7:13-14 (C. F. D. Moule 1977:11-22; 1995:278; cf. J. Collins 1995:173-94), where the Son of Man is an eschatological figure who is given "authority, glory and sovereign power" and whom "all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped." There is no explicit mention of judgment in Daniel, but there is in 1 Enoch (for example, 48; 62:7-16; 63; 69:27-29, material from the first century A.D.), where the Son of Man is also associated with giving life. The Son of Man as judge is common in Christian literature (for example, Mt 13:41; 25:31-46; cf. Schnackenburg 1980b:466 n. 82). So Jesus is saying that if they recognized him as the eschatological Son of Man and if they understood this identity aright, they would know they were facing their judge. In passing judgment on Jesus they were condemning their ultimate judge and thus passing judgment on themselves. The irony of this situation comes up over and over in the story.
In the future there will be a universal judgment by the Son of Man (all who are in their graves, v. 28), since all judgment has been given to him (v. 22). This judgment is connected with life-giving (as in v. 24), which is described here as two resurrections. Verse 29 reads literally, "and they will come forth, those who did good things unto a resurrection of life and those who committed evil things unto a resurrection of judgment." This seems to suggest that judgment will be made on the basis of works. But the context has already made it clear that the issue is whether one hears the Son and believes the Father (v. 24, to be emphasized in the next chapter; 6:29, 40, 54). Thus we see again (cf. 3:19-21) that evil deeds are those which prevent us from coming to the light or, as here, from hearing the Son and believing the one who sent him. If we wish to share in the resurrection of life we should make sure we do those deeds that enable us to have faith in Jesus. We see in chapters 3 and 4 that an immoral lifestyle might not prevent a person from being open to Jesus and neither might a moral lifestyle make a person receptive. Nevertheless, once one is walking in the light it is clear that actions in keeping with God's commands keep us open toward God. That is why God commands them. That is, they are in keeping with his very nature, so to live according to their pattern is to open oneself to God. We are to walk as Jesus walked (1 Jn 2:6), obeying his commands (Jn 15:9-17). The first step of spiritual life is recognizing our need, which some immoral people may do and some moral people may not. The lifestyle we are called to in the Son is one of moral purity, in constant consciousness of absolute and utter dependence on God. "Apart from me you can do nothing" (15:5).
(cont.)
Post a Comment