“...in the name of our Lord Jesus” explanation please?

by Jules Saturn 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Jules Saturn

  I am looking for someone to please clear this up. There are scriptures like in the 1 Corinthians chapter 5 that refer to Jesus as “our Lord Jesus”. The Lord is Jehovah, why does that scripture in 1 Corinthians refer to the Lord as Jesus?

  The JW perspective of this is that Jesus is a god. The same way that Satan is also a god. But Jehovah is the God. It is a bit confusing because I thought it was monotheism not polytheism, where you believe in more than one god.

  John 1:1-3 reads: 1

  In the beginning was the Word,+ and the Word was with God,+ and the Word was a god.*+ 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him,+ and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

  Can someone explain this scripture? Is the NWT the only translation of the Bible to be translated as “Word was a god” instead of “the Word was God”.

  Which is right?

  -Jules
• 

  Doug Mason

  I understand that Paul would apply "Lord" to Jesus for the same reason that he used expressions such as "Son of God".

  These were titles that belonged to the Emperor of the Roman Empire. It is thus clear what Paul was telling his Gentile hearers. The word Yahweh (YHWH) had no meaning at all to his Gentile hearers.

  It is not valid to associate 1 Corinthians with the Gospel According to John. The Gospel was written several decades after Paul's death by a community of Jesus-followers who were much later and different to Paul's followers.

  Their Christology is designated as "High Christology" whereas the Christological model employed by Paul saw Jesus as subjected to the Father.

  It is of interest to note that whereas Paul remained a faithful Jew throughout the whole of his life, and he remained subject to the jurisdiction of the Jewish hierarchy, the Johannine community, which was responsible for the Gospel, was evicted, presumably because of their High Christology.

  Doug
• 

  pomo6780

  People trying to explain the Trinity using the Bible are using the same cult methods as when jws use the Bible to explain the Paradise. Both teachings don't exist there, they're what I call cultural interpretations. If you aren't jw, you believe a range of variations of the trinity doctrine. As an example: Catholics say that The Son is not The Father, The Father is not The Son... etc. But the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet there are not 3 gods but one God." A variation is this: The Son is not the same as the Father, etc etc. But the Son is God, The Father is God... they are all divine. There have been more interpretations I've heard. Even as an exjw I've challenged Trinitarians by asking them why they hold on to a teaching that was publicly recognised as a Christian doctrine by a Romans Emperor during a political meeting when thereafter those who refused to believe it were executed? I've messed with a few minds and have made atheists out of a few Trinitarians. I managed to disband a small evangelical group by telling them why they are a cult, just like jws.

  That being said, I can't be bothered trying to explain something that isn't real.
• 

  Ruby456

  Great explanations Doug. When we recognise that Lord is a title and that it was in use at the time it is easy to see how its application could be applied.

  Another point is that Paul was Syrian and Syria had many eastern influences. In the east it seems that people were more ready to admit divinity (even very high forms of divinity) to humans and one can see this struggle going on in Paul,s writings. Although in the west too people used divine images to represent themselves.

  edit: if one was looking at these two men - Jesus and Paul - from a purely secular pov then it is easy to note their outstanding entrepreneurial qualities and see why they became symbols and icons in their own time as well as in our own.
• 

  Doug Mason

  Thanks Ruby,

  In talking about divine humans, check the idea of Theosis ("Deification") as taught by the Orthodox Churches.

  Simply put Theosis Orthodox into a search engine.

  Syrian Christianity is unlike the Protestant version. And check the Syriac Bible:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_versions_of_the_Bible
  

  Doug
• 

  slimboyfat

  Aactually "lord" is the common designation for Jesus in the NT. The Father is God. (See 1 Cor 8:6). Originally the NT also used the divine name for God, but this was replaced with "lord" which complicated matters, as both Jesus and God were then called "lord".

  There are many Bible versions that read "a god" and similar in John 1:1.
• 

  waton

  "The Lord said to my lord."
• 

  The Fall Guy

  It's interesting to note that before he was born and after he died, the Bible informs its readers that Jesus actually has a God and Father in heaven.

  Micah 5:4 - “And he will certainly stand and do shepherding in the strength of Jehovah, in the superiority of the name of Jehovah HIS GOD."

  John 20:17 - Jesus said to her: “......But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY Father and YOUR Father and to MY God and YOUR God.’

  Romans 15:6 - That with one accord YOU may with one mouth glorify the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ.
  

  2 Corinthians 1:3 - Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ...................
  

  2 Corinthians 11:31 - The GOD and FATHER of the Lord Jesus...."
  

  Ephesians 1:3 - "Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ..."

  Hebrews 1:9 - "You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, YOUR GOD, anointed you...”

  1 Peter 1:3 - Blessed be the GOD and FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ.............................

  Revelation 1:6 - And he made us to be a kingdom, priests to his GOD and FATHER.......................

  Revelation 3:2 - "....for I have not found your deeds fully performed before MY GOD."

  Revelation 3:12 - “The one that conquers - I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of MY God and the name of the city of MY God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from MY God...."
  

  How does this scenario work out if Jesus is God Almighty himself? How can God in heaven have a God in heaven?
  

  Also, if the Athanasian creed regarding the trinity is true - when it says that the Father, son, and holy ghost are co-equal, co-eternal, and none has superiority over the other - then 1 Corinthians 15:27,28 must be a patent lie when it says that Jesus will subject himself to his Father.

  The New English Bible says that Jesus will be subordinate to the Father.

  The language used by the Catholic Encyclopaedia to summarise the trinity dogma says it all:

  “Our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect.”
• 

  Earnest

  The Greek word for 'lord' is a term of respect and can apply to God, to Christ and to humans. Even today judges are addressed as 'My Lord' but you do not understand that they are thought to be God. The fact that both God and Jesus are referred to as 'Lord' does not mean they are the same Lord.
  
• 

  wolfman85

  You can read the whole article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1

  John 1:1 in English versions[edit]

  The traditional rendering in English is:

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

  Translations by James Moffatt, Hugh J. Schonfield and Edgar Goodspeed render part of the verse as "...and the Word was divine". Murray J. Harris writes,

  [It] is clear that in the translation "the Word was God", the term God is being used to denote his nature or essence, and not his person. But in normal English usage "God" is a proper noun, referring to the person of the Father or corporately to the three persons of the Godhead. Moreover, "the Word was God" suggests that "the Word" and "God" are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating. But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity … The rendering cannot stand without explanation."[14]

  An Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible commentary notes:

  This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theosmentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."[15]