Page 71 of 115 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 1144

Thread: The Blatantly Corrupt And Grievously Flawed NWT

  1. #701
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,838
    Thanks
    1,450
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 979 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    It helps to know what the word was. The word is what was preached, it is what was heard, it is what went forth in power, doing many mighty works. The word is what God sent to the children of Israel by the preaching of Yeshua. The word is what Yeshua received from God. He first received it, he then preached it.

    The word was what was in the beginning of the gospel, John was there from the beginning and was witness to this fact.

    So the word was a god, or it was god like in that it had all the power of God to accomplish all that God sent it to do. As John 1:3 says, All things were done by the word; and without the word was not any thing done that was done.
    I agree with all you said, with the inclusion that the Word is also one of the many titles of Jesus Christ. In John 1, the Word is in fact Jesus, as it attested by the fact that he became flesh and dwelled among us with the glory of one sent from the Father. It is also attested in 1 John 1:1 by the fact they saw this particular Word with their own eyes, and touched him with their own hands. Neither of those things can be said about spoken words received from God.
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  2. #702
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,309
    Thanks
    931
    Thanked 1,111 Times in 900 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Originally posted by Sojourning
    Thomas could call Yeshua "his god", but Thomas whould have never referred to the man Yeshua as "the god".
    http://forum.bible-discussion.com/sh...tius+DIOGNETUS
    My friend, no Jew who loves God would ever refer to someone as "a god" unless that Person was God.

    "How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods..." Jer.5:7

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jig For This Useful Post:

    Gideon (02-13-2017), JohnB (02-12-2017)

  4. #703
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    730
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked 244 Times in 168 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    Thomas was not calling Yeshua the god, but rather the god of himself. He referred to Yeshua as "the god of me", so he was showing recognition that Yeshua was a god to him, but he was not calling Yeshua "the god". Thomas was a Jew, he had an understanding of God, and he knew that God is not a man, but rather the Creator of men. Thomas would have never called a man "the god".
    John 20:28 (pt. 1) If John had, somehow, understood Thomas’ statement as trinitarians wish, he certainly would have provided some follow-up clarification and emphasis in his own comments.

    Surely John would have shown Thomas prostrating himself before “God” and worshiping him (but he doesn’t!). So how does John summarize this incident? - “But these were written that you may believe [Believe what? That Jesus is God? Here, then, is where it should have been written if John really believed such a thing] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” - John 20:31, RSV. (Be sure to compare 1 John 5:5)

    Or, as the trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985, states in a footnote for this scripture:

    “This whole Gospel [John] is written to show the truth of Jesus’ Messiahship and to present him as the Son of God, so that the readers may believe in him.”

    Obviously, neither Jesus’ response, nor Thomas’ responses (before and after his statement at John 20:28), nor John’s summation of the event at 20:31 recognizes Thomas’ statement to mean that Jesus is the only true God!

    So it is clear from context that neither Jesus, nor John, (nor Thomas) considered the statement at John 20:28 to mean that Jesus is equally God with the Father. (Remember this is the same Gospel account that also records Jesus’ last prayer to the Father at John 17:1, 3: “Father,.... This is eternal life: to know thee who alone art truly God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” - NEB. It is obvious from this scripture alone that Jesus and the writer of the Gospel of John do not believe Jesus is equally God with the Father!)

    As the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 14th ed., vol. 13, p. 25, puts it:

    "And it is not certain that even the words Thomas addressed to Jesus (Jn. 20:28) meant what they suggest in the English Version." - (Britannica article by Rev. Charles Anderson Scott, M.A., D.D. Dunn Professor of New Testament, Theological College of the Presbyterian Church of England, Cambridge.)

    And John M. Creed, as Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, wrote:

    “‘my Lord and my God’ (Joh.xx.28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself ... (v.17): ... ‘I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.’” - The Divinity of Jesus Christ, J. M. Creed, p. 123.

    Yes, think about that very carefully: After Jesus was resurrected, he continued to call the Father in heaven “my God”! (Even after he was fully restored to heaven and seated at the right hand of God - Rev. 3:2; 3:12.) So if we must insist, as many trinitarians do, that the single instance of Thomas’ saying “My God” in Jesus’ presence, with all its uncertainties, means that Jesus is superior in every way to Thomas (in essence, eternity, authority, etc.), what do Jesus’ even clearer statements that the Father is his God actually mean? -

    “He who conquers, ... I will write on him the name of MY God, and the name of the city of MY God, ... and my own name.” - Rev. 3:12, RSV (Compare Rev. 14:1).

    You can’t have it both ways. If Thomas’ statement (“my God”) can only mean that Jesus is ultimately superior to Thomas in all respects, then Jesus’ repeated and even clearer statements that the Father is his God can only mean that the Father is ultimately superior to Jesus in all respects. If Thomas really understood that Jesus was equally God with the Father, it is certainly blasphemous for John and other inspired Bible writers to turn around and call the Father the God of the Christ! - Micah 5:4; 1 Cor. 11:3; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17; 1 Peter 1:3.

    TBC

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tigger 2 For This Useful Post:

    mikeboll64 (02-13-2017), Sojourning (02-14-2017)

  6. #704
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    730
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked 244 Times in 168 Posts

    Default

    John 20:28 (continued)

    There is more than one honest interpretation of what Thomas (and John) meant. The following is just one of them.

    To understand what may have really been intended by Thomas, let’s first examine it as if the words were not directly applied to Jesus.

    Notice the parallel between 1 Samuel 20:12 (where Jonathan’s words appear to be directed to David: “... Jonathan saith unto David, ‘Jehovah, God of Israel - when I search my father, about this time tomorrow ....’” - Young’s Literal Translation, cf. KJV) and John 20:28 (where Thomas’ words appear to be directed to Jesus: “Thomas answered him, ‘My Lord and my God!’”).

    The significant point here is that, although the scripture shows Jonathan speaking to David, it apparently literally calls him (David) “O LORD God of Israel”!! (For a straightforward literal translation see 1 Samuel 20:12 in the King James Version.)

    You can bet that, if modern Bible translators wanted to find “evidence” that made King David also appear to be equally God (Quadrinarians?), they would continue to translate this scripture addressed to David just as literally as they do John 20:28 to “prove” that Jesus is equally God!

    Instead, we see many modern translations adding words to bring out what they believe may have been originally intended. There is absolutely no reason for this addition except the translators believe from the testimony of the rest of the Bible that David is not Jehovah God. So something else must have been intended here.

    A significant interpretation by the NIV is, “By the LORD God of Israel” which is an oath by Jonathan meaning, probably, “I swear by the LORD God....” (cf. Tanakh translation by JPS, 1985). Perhaps the most-used interpretation is: “Jehovah, the God of Israel, (be witness)....” - ASV (cf. NASB, RSV, AT, NKJV). The very trinitarian ETRV renders it: “Jonathan said to David, ‘I make this promise before the Lord [Jehovah], the God of Israel….’”

    Since the context of John 20 (indeed, the context and testimony of the entire Bible) does not confirm the trinitarian belief that the Messiah is equally God, John 20:28 could just as honestly be translated with some addition comparable to that of 1 Sam. 20:12.

    So, keeping in mind the interpretations for 1 Sam. 20:12 and the context of John 20:28 (where Jesus tells Thomas to believe, Thomas answers, and his answer convinces Jesus that Thomas finally, completely believes that Jesus has actually returned from the dead), let’s use an interpretation similar to that of 1 Samuel.

    27: “Then Jesus said to Thomas .... ‘Believe!’
    28: “Thomas answered, ‘My Lord and my God (be witness) [that I do believe now]!’ {Or,
    following the NIV example above, ‘(I swear by) my Lord and God [that I do believe]!’ or following the Septuagint example. “My Lord and my God (knows that I believe)}.”

    29: “Then Jesus told him, ‘You believe because you have seen me.’” - Based on the Living
    Bible
    translation of John 20:27-29.

    Another interpretation is that Thomas’ words might be a doxology, or praise, such as “My Lord and my God be praised.” Doxologies, like oaths, are frequently missing words that must be understood by the reader. In that sense the words would still be aimed directly at the only true God (the Father alone).

    This may be similar to the abbreviated doxology at Ro. 9:5 which some trinitarians also take advantage of (see the AO study). That doxology is also without a critical verb and is abruptly joined to a description of Jesus. Literally, in Greek it reads: “the being over all god blessed into the ages amen.”

    Even some trinitarian translators add the necessary words and punctuation to make this a clearly separated doxology to the Father:
    “[Jesus was born a Jew]. May God, who rules over all, be praised for ever” - GNB. (CEV: ‘I pray that God, who rules over all, will be praised forever! Amen.’ RSV: ‘God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.’ TLB: 'Praise God forever!' NABRE: 'God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.' NIVSB, fn.: 'God be forever praised forever' or, 'God who is over all be forever praised!' NLV: 'May God be honored and thanked forever. Let it be so.' RSV: 'God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen.' NEB: 'May God, supreme above all, be blessed forever!')

    If so many trinitarian translators can admit this possibility for Ro. 9:5, it is not unreasonable to apply the same interpretation to John 20:28.

    For my complete study see: http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/10/mygod.html

  7. #705
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,609
    Thanks
    999
    Thanked 412 Times in 332 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    No, it can not, as he himself said, he was/is a son of the god.
    Then you agree that the Greek Article makes the term Theo's an absolute when the article is incorporated and the term is "o Theo's"

    Finally, we have an answer.
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  8. #706
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    I live in the Pacific Northwest, but travel all over the western US.
    Posts
    4,123
    Thanks
    2,060
    Thanked 1,033 Times in 849 Posts
    Blog Entries
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojourning View Post
    Thomas was not calling Yeshua the god, but rather the god of himself. He referred to Yeshua as "the god of me", so he was showing recognition that Yeshua was a god to him, but he was not calling Yeshua "the god". Thomas was a Jew, he had an understanding of God, and he knew that God is not a man, but rather the Creator of men. Thomas would have never called a man "the god".
    Other references where a Jew uses the phrase My God'....

    Psalm 35:23
    Stir up thyself, and awake to my judgment, even unto my cause, my God and my Lord.

    Exodus 15:2
    The Lord is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.

    Deuteronomy 4:5
    Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.

    Habakkuk 1:12
    Art thou not from everlasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One? we shall not die. O Lord, thou hast ordained them for judgment; and, O mighty God, thou hast established them for correction.

    Joshua 14:8
    Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed the Lord my God.

    1 Kings 3:7
    And now, O Lord my God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David my father: and I am but a little child: I know not how to go out or come in.

    Psalm 5:2
    Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.

    Psalm 22:1
    My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

    John 20:17
    Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

    Romans 1:8
    First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

    Here is a reference where one is calling someone other than 'God' my god. It's a direct reference to idolatry...

    Isaiah 44:17
    And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

    136 verses in the KJV contain the phrase 'my God' every one of them refers to God.

    Only 1 verse contains the phrase 'my god', and it refers to the idolatry of the one saying it.

    Thomas calling Jesus My Lord and My God would be the only instance in the entire bible some one other than God was called My God.


    As it actually is, Thomas calling Jesus his Lord and his God falls within the context of the book of John, where Jesus is revealed to be the Word who was with God and was God. Where it said to Thomas and Philip that in knowing and seeing Jesus, they know and have seen God, and from that point were to know authoritatively that indeed they did know and have seen God.

    This information floating around in the head of doubting Thomas was fully realized in Thomas' exclamation...My Lord and My God. Thomas saying this to any lesser god would have been blasphemous.
    And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gideon For This Useful Post:

    jig (02-14-2017), JohnB (02-15-2017)

  10. #707
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,609
    Thanks
    999
    Thanked 412 Times in 332 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnB View Post
    Then you agree that the Greek Article makes the term Theo's an absolute when the article is incorporated and the term is "o Theo's"

    Finally, we have an answer.
    Sojourning acknowledges the impact of the article on the noun it precedes.

    The Ta in Ta Panta. Is an article in the nominative case and makes the statement "all" an absolute.
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to JohnB For This Useful Post:

    jig (02-14-2017)

  12. #708
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    7,883
    Thanks
    1,060
    Thanked 2,786 Times in 1,690 Posts

    Default

    I'm quite fascinated by the numerous speculative explanations of what John should have, could have added, meant to and of course, and, most certainly, what Thomas could have, should have, might have, REALLY did mean. Fascinating. Eisegesis is such an interesting way of coming to conclusions.
    Pastor2022- Moderator

    Faith is the confident obedience to the Word of God in spite of circumstances or consequences.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pastor2022 For This Useful Post:

    -Beowulf (02-14-2017), Gideon (02-15-2017), JohnB (02-14-2017)

  14. #709
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    8,838
    Thanks
    1,450
    Thanked 1,146 Times in 979 Posts

    Default

    Feel free to forego all the could haves and should haves, pastor. This is all you need to know...

    John 20:31
    But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


    Jesus is one of God's many sons, and one of God's many messiahs - and therefore not the Most High God himself. John knew this, and so did Thomas. I know it, and so should you.
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to mikeboll64 For This Useful Post:

    Sojourning (02-14-2017)

  16. #710
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Henrietta NY
    Posts
    1,609
    Thanks
    999
    Thanked 412 Times in 332 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Feel free to forego all the could haves and should haves, pastor. This is all you need to know...

    John 20:31
    But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.


    Jesus is one of God's many sons, and one of God's many messiahs - and therefore not the Most High God himself. John knew this, and so did Thomas. I know it, and so should you.
    It is all in the article

    The normal use of the Greek article has basically two kinds of functions, and often performs both functions at the same time. One is a semantic function. That is, a Greek article in front of a noun or substantive is often used to add additional meaning to that noun or substantive. (TA PANTA for example)
    Last edited by JohnB; 02-14-2017 at 08:43 PM.
    How far must someone fall before they hit their head? b

Page 71 of 115 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •