Biblical PROOF that Jesus Christ IS GOD

by Bibleboy 156 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Frenchy

  ...Ever notice how every trinity debate turns into a grammar debate?
  It appears that the trinity is based on Greek grammar alone and somehow when translated the mystery disappears and must be resurrected in Greek grammatical rules. Of course there is no end to the disagreement among 'scholars' as to what that Greek actually means. Everyone who has ever had a semester in Greek suddenly jumps up and begins spouting off the rules. It would appear that Greek grammar is almost as difficult to define as the mystery of the trinity it is purported to advocate.

  -Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
• 

  pomegranate

  John 1:1 teaches two.

  Not three.

  Not one.

  Two.
• 

  Bibleboy

  I am here. I am just seeing where this is going before I make my reply. Doesn't really matter who you are, God loves you anyway. And I am responding, just not as promptly as some of you demand. Funny how human nature works eh?

  Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of THE ROCK.
  Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of the PERSONAGE of the Holy Spirit.

  I used greek and hebrew in both.

  question: are you committing isagesis or exegesis?

  question: are you getting your arguements from God's Word, (the bible)
  or are you getting them from the watchtower?
  (or elsewhere for that matter?)
• 

  logical

  question: are you getting your arguements from God's Word, (the bible)

  Some scriptures for you:

  John 1:1
  Revelation 19:13

  And last but not least... John 5:39-40

  Have a nice day.
• 

  logical

  I would like to add... Im not getting my arguements from Christ / Holy Spirit because for some reason im lacking in faith and dont know how to open the door to let them in
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of THE ROCK.<<

  "In the image and likeness of God." That phrase is a key.

  Adam and Eve were spilt apart and dividied. (See Gen. 2:21,22) Out of the same body (male) came another "man" (female) complementary to the first. The same is true of the Rock.

  God is called the "Rock" because He is solid firm and unmoving. The Bible paints an interesting picture regarding the "Rock"

  Ex 17:6, "I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water (life) will come out of it for the people to drink." So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel."

  Num 20:11, "Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water (life) gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank." (NIV)

  Isa 48:21, "They did not thirst when He led them through the deserts; He made water flow (life) for them from the rock; He split the rock and water (life) gushed out."

  This prophecy of the rock splitting and giving LIFE (Water) to the people WAS SO important to God, that when Moses did this:

  Num 20:10-11
  Moses said to them, "Listen, you rebels, must WE (He and Aaron) bring you water out of this rock?"

  God said this

  Num 20:12
  12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."

  The penalty on Moses and Aaron was so severe on what seems to be such a small mistake. Why? Because what Moses and Aaron were taking credit for was the Holy symbolism for the Rock coming apart for the sake of the people and giving them the waters of life. Moses and Aaron had nothing to do with it and taking credit for themselves was a very punishable offense to God.

  1 Cor 10:2-5, "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ."

  That "Rock" (God) was split. The "man" was split. In the image and likeness of God.

  >>Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of the PERSONAGE of the Holy Spirit.<<

  Funny how most don't know that the Holy Spirit IS the Father and Son along with their power, and there is no other personage.

  John 14:25-26
  26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

  Do you see the "Counselor" defined as the Holy Spirit? Well, here is Isaiah defining who that "Counselor" above is:

  Isa 9:6
  6 For to us a child is born,
  to us a son is given,
  and the government will be on his shoulders.
  And he will be called
  Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
  Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  Isaiah just defined Jesus Christ as the Counselor. There is no third, except in the way Christ was speaking.

  Christ is speaking figuratively of himself in the third person. It's a common figure of speech, refering to oneself as somebody else. Christ even says he has been speaking figuratively to his disciples, in these very discussions about the Couselor/Holy Spirit.

  John 16:25
  25 "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language

  There is only TWO that are important for ANYONE'S eternal life as Christ plainly makes known:

  John 17:3
  3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

  Eternal life is dependent on TWO. Not one. Not three. Two.

  A pomegranate's view.
• 

  Hairdog1937

  Well, for this letter quoted below, the bigger mystery is who wrote it? Of course there are advantages to being anonymous………….

  He/she said: “...Ever notice how every trinity debate turns into a grammar debate? It appears that the trinity is based on Greek grammar alone and somehow when translated the mystery disappears and must be resurrected in Greek grammatical rules.”

  Me: Generally speaking, one must have an understanding of grammar when reading something. It kind of goes along with the task - - reading, that is. And generally, when one is reading something that is a translation, he can be further aided in comprehension if he knows the grammar of the original language. Doesn’t seem to make much difference what one is reading. But if one does not possess the skills connected with another language, he can still arrive at understanding through the application of good, interpretive skills – unless, of course, it contradicts his preconceived opinions, or faulty teaching. The response of - - whoever wrote the above quoted article – clearly indicates that the last two are active forces in his (forgive me if it was a woman who wrote this, remembering the contemporary “need” for political correctness)
  scholarly life, for I have made no mention of any doctrine of the trinity as I exegeted John 1:1.

  This morning, as I was reading in one of my favorite secular writings, Webster’s Dictionary, I thought that I might take a look at the word, “was.” It seems that “was” is indicated to be the English “past indicative” of the verb, “to be.” In layman’s language, it refers to the existence of someone, or -thing. The past indicative is used in the English translation of John 1:1, while in the Greek, the imperfect indicative is used. In both languages, the mood of the verb is identified as the “indicative.” This is the mood of certainty. So the action or state described by the particular indicative mood verb is one of certainty; in the case of the verb, “was,” it is certain that (in the case here in John 1:1), the Word’s state was one of being. The Greek language has several “past” tenses. The imperfect tense indicates durative action in the past. Therefore, the state of the Word is not only certain, but it is certain that He “continually” was; that He continually existed.

  There are different words that could be used in both languages to indicate other types, or states, of existence of the Word in John 1:1. If the Word had been created, yet existed before God created everything else (a ridiculous and logically absurd proposition; nevertheless a subject for future discussion), God, through John the apostle, could have said, “In the beginning, the Word had already been created,” or something similar; but that’s not what it says. It says that in the beginning, the Word already was in existence. Now, if this is all that this verse said, it would not indicate whether the Word had been created, or was an eternal being -- but there is more; and these other statements I have already covered in a previous post. Then………….

  He/she said: “Of course there is no end to the disagreement among 'scholars' as to what that Greek actually means. Everyone who has ever had a semester in Greek suddenly jumps up and begins spouting off the rules. It would appear that Greek grammar is almost as difficult to define as the mystery of the trinity it is purported to advocate.”

  Me: A couple of Mr. Anonymous’ points are discussed:

  1. “Of course there is no end to the disagreement among ‘scholars’ as to what that Greek actually means.”

  a. Yes, there is disagreement among scholars, but it is no 50-50 division. Through etymological deduction, one discovers accuracy. The one who claims to be a scholar, yet is proven wrong through etymological evidence, loses credibility.

  b. A good example of this is seen in the final phrase of John 1:1, “the Word was God.” Pseudo-scholars insert the indefinite article so that the reading makes the Word into a god but not God. For anyone who has studied Greek, even one such as Mr. Anonymous suggests above –

  “…Everyone who has ever had a semester in Greek suddenly jumps up and begins spouting off the rules…”

  - he knows the rules pertaining to the Greek article, that the indefinite article does not even exist in the Greek, and the rules of the predicate nominative (which, by the way, are identical in English).

  2. “It would appear that Greek grammar is almost as difficult to define as the mystery of the trinity it is purported to advocate.”

  a. This statement lacks any logical sense and is simply the cry of ignorance and the preconceived opinionated individual. It has no merit whatsoever. But let me at least say this. Any grammar is difficult to define if you don’t know it. This should be motivation to learn it – especially if you want to find out whether or not teachings such as the trinity are supported by grammatical evidence.

  I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being.

  Hairdog
• 

  dubla

  hairdog-

  lets start this response with what seems to me to be a couple of clear contradictions in your posts.......

  quote (in response to me): I never intended to say that the verb, “was,” proved the eternal existence of the Word (Jesus).

  -okay, now lets cross reference this with your last post.....

  quote (in response to frenchy, or the anonymous one): This morning, as I was reading in one of my favorite secular writings, Webster’s Dictionary, I thought that I might take a look at the word, “was.” It seems that “was” is indicated to be the English “past indicative” of the verb, “to be.” In layman’s language, it refers to the existence of someone, or -thing. The past indicative is used in the English translation of John 1:1, while in the Greek, the imperfect indicative is used. In both languages, the mood of the verb is identified as the “indicative.” This is the mood of certainty. So the action or state described by the particular indicative mood verb is one of certainty; in the case of the verb, “was,” it is certain that (in the case here in John 1:1), the Word’s state was one of being. The Greek language has several “past” tenses. The imperfect tense indicates durative action in the past. Therefore, the state of the Word is not only certain, but it is certain that He “continually” was; that He continually existed.

  -hmmmm....seems to me for not using the word "was" as proof he eternally existed, youre going way out of your way to say that the verb "was" proves he continually existed (or is continually and eternally two different ideas for you?)..........or is it that this verse is merely "evidence"......again ill quote you.......

  quote:If one can’t agree with the evidence (not “proof”) presented here in John 1:1, there is no sense in moving on.

  -lets check with one of your "favorite secular writings, the websters dictionary" for some insight on "evidence (not 'proof')", shall we?......

  evidence \Ev"i*dence\, n. [F. ['e]vidence, L. Evidentia. See Evident.] 1. That which makes evident or manifest; that which furnishes, or tends to furnish, PROOF; any mode of PROOF

  hmmmmm......so is this some new form of evidence hairdog, that doesnt furnish proof? or are you indeed trying to "prove" eternal existance through this verse? we are all confused im sure (which is usually the motive behind very long-winded answers filled with grammar lessons like yours).

  now, on too another one of your points....and again ill quote you....

  quote: The use of “was” in this verse simply lends information that points out that anything that existed before the beginning had no beginning. The heavens, earth, animals, angels and satan all are created beings. Therefore, they had a beginning.

  -does this one verb "was" really imply that hairdog? that ANYTHING that existed before "the beginning" (which we already have agreed in a past post is "the beginning" described in genesis chapter 1), had no beginning? so in this account of "the beginning" (genesis ch.1), why are there no mention of angels being created? were they created during "the beginning" then, or are they already present as it would seem? and what of jesus being one of the angels (michael)? of course, this is what i believe, and since youve already said all the angels were created, on this basis i guess we have already agreed that jesus was created. maybe until we agree on whether or not jesus is michael, we should go no further, for this no doubt is part of your preconceived opinions on jesus himself, also leading you in a certain direction with 1john1:1. do you see where this "preconceived opinions" idea can take a discussion?

  i realize you dont want to drop the "was" issue until i concede that your viewpoint on it is the correct one, so maybe we will not get past it (or maybe its the one thing you cling too, and you have no logical reasoning for any of the other arguments).

  one last thing......again a quote from you.....

  quote: aa, if you were to write John 1:1 according to your understanding of the meaning of the first phrase, “in the beginning was the Word,” what word would you choose instead of “was” to make your point more clear?

  -well hairdog (and is your name really hairdog, or are you just as anonymous as "frenchy")......if i say, "i wouldve written it this way", youll just say, "exactly, but it wasnt written that way"....so ill just say this. i think it stands fine the way its written, and i understand it the way it is written. "in the beginning was the word"....perfect, meaning...."in the beginning the word was", same thing to me, "in the beginning the word was [in existance]".....again, a point ive never argued.

  hope this helps,

  aa
• 

  dubla

  BIBLEBOY-

  ROFLMAO....you are a sorry excuse for a logical argument/discussion candidate, arent you?

  quote: Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of THE ROCK.
  Funny, EVERYONE has COMPLETELY avoided the topic of the PERSONAGE of the Holy Spirit.

  -lol......funny, you have COMPLETELY avoided ALL the arguments against your triune godhead, and have tried instead to throw some more wood on the fire. you have no reasoning to back up your side of any of these points that have been brought out, which does not surprise me, as ive already seen that you are one of the trinitarians that explain the trinity by saying its "unexplainable" or in your words "a mystery." gimme a break.

  to answer your question: (bibleboy): are you getting your arguements from God's Word, (the bible)
  or are you getting them from the watchtower?
  (or elsewhere for that matter?)

  i am not a jw, i do not read the watchtower, and yes i back up all my arguments with scripture. if youd like to challenge me to back up one of my points with scriptures from gods word the bible, just let me know which particular argument you like to address, and which version of the bible youd like me to quote from.

  thanks for the laugh bibleboy, your skills of debate impress me more and more each time you speak.

  aa
• 

  dubla

  Hairdog-

  i just had to respond to one more thing in your post to frenchy (or he/she as you refer to him/her). first ill again quote you:

  quote: ...he can still arrive at understanding through the application of good, interpretive skills – unless, of course, it contradicts his preconceived opinions, or faulty teaching. The response of - - whoever wrote the above quoted article – clearly indicates that the last two are active forces in his (forgive me if it was a woman who wrote this, remembering the contemporary “need” for political correctness)
  scholarly life, for I have made no mention of any doctrine of the trinity as I exegeted John 1:1.

  -um, come on hairdog, who do you think youre kidding with these constant references to "preconceived opinions"?? for one thing, frenchy didnt directly address YOU in the first place, so how do you know frenchy was speaking of YOUR insight of john 1:1? (which just for a side note, a quick check in "one of your favorite secular writings", websters dictionary, will show you that the word "exegete" is only used in noun form, not verb; you could not have "exegeted" anything, as "exegeted" is not even a word. funny that a man who loves to throw around his vast knowledge of diction like yourself wasnt already aware of this). and lets assume frenchy was speaking of you, which since frenchy is speaking on the topic of greek grammar in this discussion, (a topic you added), i think its a safe bet. wouldnt it be a perfectly normal assumption, (not a preconceived opinion), that your discussion of john 1:1, even though not specifically addressing the trinity, is relating to the trinity? considering the fact that your very first post was in reply to everyone else on this thread, which was started by bibleboy SPECIFICALLY speaking of the trinity, i think this was a very safe assumption on frenchys part, as well as the rest of the posters on this thread. yet you continue to hide behind technicalities such as whether or not you specifically mentioned the trinity doctrine, in order to discount everyone elses viewpoints/arguments on the matter. (and im sure if you really try hard, you can break down this very post grammatically and technically, therefore proving it in your mind unworthy of notice).

  also, id like to hear your reply to "accuracy" who said some interesting things on greek grammar as well. i am not and do not claim to be an expert on the subject as you do, so ill let you address that.

  hope this helps,

  aa

  p.s. im sure i speak for all of us when i say that we love the conclusive way you end all your posts, avoiding any doubt in our minds that youve achieved complete perfection in your proofs/evidences. example: "I appreciate the opportunity to give evidence, as provided by John 1:1, that the Word is the eternal Being."

  well, that says is all for me, im convinced, how about the rest of you?