tHIS VERSE ,i THINK IS WHERE `jesus christ is lord' IS WRITTEN,the word kyrios is used,same as is used for JEHOVAH.
how do jws explain roman;10;8?
by badboy 15 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
greendawn
I think they argue that the Greek word kyrios which means Lord is applied to God the Father in that verse. However there are other verses that tell us indisputably that the apostles thought of Jesus as Lord. Eg Paul refers to God as "the God of our Lord Jesus".
So why do the dubs get so freaked out if someone says: "our Lord Jesus". I thought they imitate in all things the early church. -
badboy
IF SO,THEY ARE SAYING JESUS IS GOD THE FATHER!
HALLELUJAH!
-
The Lone Ranger
Whatever your point is, there is no way I'm ever gonna believe the Trinity Doctrine. Verse's against far out weight the verse's for it, and common sense too also tells me the Jesus the son of God is not God.
-
Shazard
Long Ranger, like Jesus son of man is not man?
-
Honesty
Son of Man = Fully human, born of woman.
Son of God = Fully God who took up residence among us.
Therefore the holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. Luke 1:35
-
-
Sad emo
IF SO,THEY ARE SAYING JESUS IS GOD THE FATHER!
But that would be modalism/Sabellian wouldn't it?
-
moggy lover
If you read the OT section of the NWT, nine time you will find the expression: "The [True] Lord" [See Ex 23:17, 34:23, Isa 1:24, 3:1, 10:16, 10:33' 19:4, Mic 4:13, Mal 3:1]
This represents the Heb "Ha A'dhohn" Interestingly, this is what the NWT "translators" say about this: "The title A'dhohn meaning Lord, Master, when preceeded by the definite article "Ha" gives the expression "Ha' A'dhohn" The use of the definite article limits the application of this title exclusively to Jehovah God" [See NWT Bible with references pg 1568]
At Rom 10:9, where the expression "Jesus is Lord" is found, six of the "J" documents, which the NWT uses to "prove" that the word "Jehovah" needs to be replaced in the NWT, have the expression, "Jesus is Ha' A'dhohn" Indicating that this title which according to the NWT, belongs exclusively to Jehovah, is also a right belonging to Jesus.[J 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18]
Hoping no one connects this with the statement in the Bible with Refs, the NWT blandly states, without amplification: "Not [referring to] Jehovah" !!! [KIT pg 722, 1st ed]
Go figure.....
Cheers
-
Narkissos
Son of Man = Fully human, born of woman.
Not so simple. While some Synoptic texts do play on the basic meaning of "son of man" = human (e.g. Matthew 8:20, as opposed to foxes or birds), this NT expression is clearly dependent on the apocalyptical "Son of Man" (especially from Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch) which is a heavenly character.
Back to the topic, I guess JWs have no problem explaining kurios in the simple sense of "Lord," implying God-given authority, in Romans 10:8. On the other hand, substituting "Jehovah" to the same kurios in v. 13 destroys the scriptural basis of the Pauline argument. Paul says (fwiw) that confessing Jesus as "Lord" implies salvation because it is written (in the Septuagint of Joel) that "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved". As it stands in the NWT, the quotation of Joel is simply meaningless, and Paul's assertion rests on nothing (but JWs quote "verses," they don't care about the line of reasoning, do they?).
A more difficult issue is whether Paul actually reads theology into the Septuagint substitution and equates the "Lord" Jesus with Yahweh, or is simply using the Greek text of Joel as it stands, as a formal proof-text, not caring about the Hebrew Vorlage. I personally incline to the latter view because (1) there is little evidence that Paul was familiar with the Hebrew text, hence aware of the Septuagint substitution of kurios for Yahweh and (2) he never really equates his "Christ Jesus," even as the heavenly "Son of God," with "God" in the strictest sense (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24 etc.). To him kurios works essentially as a title for Christ, not God (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:6).