From what I've studied of JW's, John 1:1 is interpreted as "and the Logos was (a) god". Therefore, because there is no definite article in John 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that Jesus is referred to as "the God". So my question for the JW is "what if Jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the NT"? Would this prove that Jesus is "the God", or the one true God?
Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?
by solafide 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Deputy Dog
Only if they saw it explained in a Watchtower.
-
Chalam
Hello solafide and welcome aboard!
Jesus cannot be "a god" because He and the Father (God) are one John 10:30
Anyhow, expect some JW apologists to appear in the there before too long.
All the best,
Stephen
-
solafide
Deputy Dog,
I'm sure you're right. Are there any JW's out there who could explain to me, with or without WT pamphlets, what it would mean if Jesus was referred to with a definite article as God in the NT?
-
reniaa
Isn't the point that the definitive article isn't there and never will be! however much trinitarians keep mistranslating it.
They bible gives ample evidense that Jesus is GOD'S SON not God himself, Jesus in John 17:3 acknowledging the father as the only true God.
chalam why is the holy spirit missing in the scripture you quote as proof?
Reniaa
-
Earnest
Nothing could prove that Jesus is the one true God because John 17:3 clearly makes a distinction between the only true God (monon alethinon theon) and Jesus Christ. Perhaps a related question to consider is whether the use of the definite article is specifically used to refer to God the Father.
-
carla
You have to understand that jw's believe in many, many gods, hence the reason they always predicate 'jehovah god' vs 'bob god' or 'tom, dick or harry god'. In dubland jehovah is God, Jesus is 'a' god (little g for Him) and then there are all the other 'gods' that they obviously must recognize as 'god's' or they would not need distinguish their jehovah god from all the all the others. And poor Jesus only gets to be a 'little god'. How many gods do jw's actually recognize?
-
solafide
Chalam,
Thank you, and I am on your "team" if you are a Christian. I don't mean to nit pick, but I think John 10 is more in reference to God and Jesus being one in the sense that God the Father is enabling Christ with Messianic abilitites, hence Christ making mention to his miracles in that passage. Also, I agree with many JW on this passage that the Jews do not refer to Christ as "the God", but "a god" here, since there is no definite article present when they say, "you a mere man are making yourself out to be (a) god". What they are saying is that Jesus is being more then human and they want to know by what authority He is doing miracles. Jesus's answer is that this isn't a foreign concept, hence judges in the OT were able to judge by God's authority. Thus, how much more Christ who is one with the Father?! However, in John 5, the Jews refer to Christ with a definite article, "you are making yourself equal with (the) God". Jesus never backs down from this, but says that He is to be honored JUST AS the Father in verse 23! :)
-
solafide
reniaa,
"Isn't the point that the definitive article isn't there"
To me this shows that the definite article is important in proving if Jesus is God. Otherwise, you would say "it doesn't matter because definite articles don't determine that". The definite article is there in reference to Jesus in Mat 1:23, John 20:28, Heb 1:8, Rev 22:6 (also consult v.16), and arguably 2 Pet 1:1, and Titus 2:13. Even the KINGDOM INTERLINEAR TRANSLATION (KIT) has these definite articles included.
Have you ever noticed this?
And John 17:3 perfectly comports with Trinitarian theology, not hinder it. If there are 3 distinct persons within the Godhead, and each person has a special role, then context would determine which persons would be mentioned, hence why not all three are mentioned together all the time. We do this even in our own language. If I add the color blue, I don't need to say I also added green and yellow (which together make up blue).
Earnest,
"Perhaps a related question to consider is whether the use of the definite article is specifically used to refer to God the Father."
There are many definite articles in reference to the Father. This is my point. If a definite article substantiates (given the context) that the Father is God, then it would be no different with the Son. And a Son in Hebrew understanding isn't referring to a biological order per se, but that one come forth from another or is part of another. This is why Jesus is our covenental head. He is able to represent us as a whole (as did Adam) by being man, and able to represent us before God, by also being God. In fact, even in Hebrew thought, a son and Father are very intricatlly connected, hence why Hebrews explains that Levi tithed to Melchizadek in a sence, because he did so through Abraham (as Levi came from Abraham's offspring many years later).
And Christ would be said to be the eternal logos who is eternally begotten by the Father in John 1. Hence why in John 1:1 it says "en arche". "En" is an imperfect verb without derivation to beginning, while "arche" does have a beginning in time.
-
Earnest
Earnest : Perhaps a related question to consider is whether the use of the definite article is specifically used to refer to God the Father.
solafide : There are many definite articles in reference to the Father.
My apologies that my question was a bit unclear. The question I intended to raise was whether the definite article in the expression "the God" (ho theos) is specifically used to refer to God the Father.
And while I do not wish to beat a dead horse I do not think you addressed the distinction between the "only true God" and Jesus Christ in John 17:3 by simply saying it perfectly comports with Trinitarian theology.
And if I were a more sensitive soul I would take umbrage at your implication that I am not a Christian because I do not share your theology, but as my skin is quite thick I will ignore it.