Did Jesus pray to himself ?

by hooberus 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  Unitarians, which use Bibles with the phrase "the One" in Hebrews 5:7 (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses)

  What could possibly be your point? Unitarians like JWs aren't the only ones who use translations that say "the One" in Hebrews 5:7. Such translations are widely circulated and preferred among churchgoers who belong to trinitarian denominations. In fact, the translations that say "the One" were produced by trinitarians, not unitarians, except for the JW translation.

  will say that Jesus prayed to "the One."

  And isn't that exactly what Hebrews 5:7 says? So how are unitarians wrong in saying that Jesus prayed to "the One"?

  In Hebrews 5:7 they will say that "the One" refers to God.

  Are you now saying you don't believe "the One" refers to God?

  However, when it comes to John 19:37 Unitarians will change their story and say that "the One" (NWT) who is pierced does not refer to God, but a to a creature.

  Isn't your point more than a bit ridiculous? The Bible often uses the phrase "the one." Whether "one" begins with a capital "O" is determined by translators, not the original Hebrew or Greek writers. So, you seem to be saying that unitarians are inconsistent because they say "the one" does not always mean God. According to your reasoning, unitarians are inconsistent for not believing that the mother of James and John viewed one of her sons as God himself when she said to Jesus, "Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom." (Matthew 20:21) Further, according to your thinking, unitarians should believe that God is a woman in view of Matthew 24:41: "Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left." If this isn't what you are saying, what is your point?

  The inconsistent ones are trinitarians who say that "One" when applied to God really means "Three." Your inconsistency is demonstrated at Hebrews 5:7 where you all of a sudden claim that "One" really is "One" and not "Three." Please give a concrete example where unitarians engage in such inconsistency!

  John 19:37 is a quote from the original Hebrew of Zechariah 12:10. Some manuscripts of Zechariah, including the ones upon which the KJV is based, say "me" instead of "him." However, we know "him" is correct and "me" is wrong since we have the word of John on it. John does not say "me" as the KJV does in Zechariah. John says "him." The Jews understood "him" to be the Messiah, not God. Sadly, because they are so eager to pounce upon something that might build evidence for their theory, trinitarians think they see the Trinity in Zechariah 12:10. But the apostle John takes the foundation out from under them.

  So, hooberus, do you see what you've done? You didn't deny that trinitarians arbitrarily change their story about the meaning of "One." Instead, you tried to justify what trinitarians do by accusing unitarians of doing the same thing. But the fact of the matter is that unitarians have not done the same thing. It's only in the minds of trinitarians that Zechariah and John meant God when they spoke of "the one" who is pierced. Anyone who reads the texts carefully, even in the KJV, will see clearly that the human Messiah is meant, and not God.

  Not all additions of the NASB read the same. My 1971 edition reads "to Him."

  So, do you think the translators decided to become unitarians by replacing "Him" with "the One"? I see the change they made as simply an improvement based upon better knowledge of the manuscripts, not as a step backward.

  I don't even know if the Greek text even has a word in Hebrews 5:7 which should be translated as a title such as "the One."

  The Greek word is the relative pronoun hos:

  • "Be afraid of the One [hos] who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28, NIV)
  • "Fear the One [hos] who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5, NASB)
  • "He who is seeking the glory of the One [hos] who sent him" (John 7:18, NASB)
  • "The One [hos] who sent me" (John 12:45, NASB)
  • "They do not know the One [hos] who sent me" (John 15:21, NASB, NIV)
  • "The Son himself also will be subjected to the One [hos] who subjected all things to him" (1 Corinthians 15:28, NASB)
  • "Address as Father the One [hos] who impartially judges" (1 Peter 1:17, NASB)

  This is a fallacy of making God exist in mans image. It is like saying: "The fact that we were created in God's image shows plainly that God is not able to be in more than one place at a time (multi-present). If he were, then we also would each be able to be in more than one place at a time, not just one."

  The fallacy is yours, hooberus, in comparing what God is like with what he can accomplish. The image of a car is not how fast it can go, but what it looks like. A house cat might be said to be in the image of a lion, not because it lives in a den but because it has the characteristics of a lion. The chief characteristic of the trinitarian God is that "he" is three persons. Thus, to be in the image of a three-minded, three-wills god is to personally also have three minds and three wills.

  herk
• 

  hooberus

  Herk, the Bible that I use (the KJV) contains the words "unto him" in Hebrews 5:7. This is also the way that many other Bibles transalete the word in Hebrews 5:7.

  "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;" Hebrews 5:7 KJV
  

  Some Bibles such as the NIV translate the word in Hebrews 5:7 as "the one" (small case). It seems to me that in these translations the word "one" simply means the generic term "one" as in the hypothetical phrase "the one soldier said to the other"

  "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." Hebrews 5:7 KJV

  Other Bibles such as some versions of the NASB as well as the NWT translate the word in Hebrews 5:7 as "the One" (capitailized). This seems to turn the pronoun used in Hebrews 5:7 into some sort of title. I do not myself follow this practice. I see no need for the word to be made into the capitalized phrase "the One" (as in some sort of title), instead of the simple uncapitalized "the one" as the above NIV version uses it.

  "In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety." Hebrews 5:7 NASB (some versions)

  Summary:

  The Bible that I use contains the phrase "unto him." (I prefer this)

  I think that if translators wish to use the word "one" that they should place it in small caps as in "the one soldier said to the other soldier"

  As for some versions of the NASB (and others such as the NWT) that translate it a "the One." : I see no need for the word "one" to be capitalized into some sort of title in the Bibles that use it. (I think that these Bibles that use the word "one" should do like the above NIV version does).

  Since it is not my position that the word used in Hebrews 5:7 should be translated as "the One" (capitalized into some sort of title). I see no need to defend myself againist arguments based on this. If you wish to discuss with those Trinitrians who argue that the word in Hebrews 5:7 should be translated as "the One" ( capitalized into some sort of title), the fact that you feel that they are being inconsistent in their interpretation of the phrase "the One" (capitalized) you should contact them.
• 

  hooberus

  My earlier point about the NWT, was not to argue at this time for a specific translation of Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37, but instead to make the point that the NWT has Jesus praying to "the One" (capitalized into some sort of title) in Hebrews 5:7, and that the NWT also calls Jesus "the One" (capitalized) in John 19:37. Thus, the JWs must interpret the capitalized phrase "the One" differently in these place.

  While it is true that the JW's interpret "the One" as refering to one individual in both Hebrews 5:7 (NWT "the One") as well as John 19:37 (NWT "the One") the fact remains that they interpret the capitalized phrase "the One" NWT in one instance as refering to God and in another as refering to a creature.
• 

  hooberus

  The inconsistent ones are trinitarians who say that "One" when applied to God really means "Three." Your inconsistency is demonstrated at Hebrews 5:7 where you all of a sudden claim that "One" really is "One" and not "Three."

  When Trinitarians such as myself say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. We are saying that they are one God. Hense, I do not claim that the phrase "one" means "three."

  Those Trinitarians who advocate the use of the capitalized phrase "the One" in places such as Hebrews 5:7 (such as the translators of the the NASB) probably believe that their phrase "the One" there means God (specifically refering to the person of the Father alone). Elsewhere when they use the phrase "the One" and If they then say that there refers to the complete trinity, I don't think that they are saying that in those places that the word "One" itself means three, but that it refers to the complete Trinity, or perhaps they believe in these other places that it is simply a title that they chose for God. You may wish to ask them for clarification.

  Anyway as I said before, I do not use a Bible that uses the phrase "the One" in Hebrews 5:7 (mine says "unto him"), and I think that the bibles that use the word "one" in Hebrews 5:7 should leave it small case, thus translating it as "the one" as in the hypothetical phrase: "the Father is the one to whom Jesus prayed." This way the word "one" simply means one as in the hypothtical phrase "the one soldier talked to the other."
• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  With all due respect, your last three posts appear to be a lot of gibberish.

  It seems to me that in these translations the word "one" simply means the generic term "one" as in the hypothetical phrase "the one soldier said to the other"

  On what basis do you disagree with translators who are being guided by the latest advances in knowledge of Bible languages? Are you capable of reading NT Greek to the extent you are qualified to present such a challenge?

  Hebrews 5:7 is but one example, as I've shown, where hos is translated in the NASB, NIV and other recent versions as "the One." You seem to be saying you just don't care what others say who are far wiser than you.

  This seems to turn the pronoun used in Hebrews 5:7 into some sort of title. I do not myself follow this practice. I see no need for the word to be made into the capitalized phrase "the One" (as in some sort of title), instead of the simple uncapitalized "the one" as the above NIV version uses it.

  Due to the antecedent of the relative pronoun, "the One" is the only correct way to translate hos in the examples I gave above, including Hebrews 5:7.

  I see no need to defend myself againist arguments based on this. If you wish to discuss with those Trinitrians who argue that the word in Hebrews 5:7 should be translated as "the One" ( capitalized into some sort of title), the fact that you feel that they are being inconsistent in their interpretation of the phrase "the One" (capitalized) you should contact them.

  Do you realize how silly your paragraph is? You are saying, in other words, "I don't choose to go by an accurate translation of the Bible. I prefer a Bible that is based upon outdated knowledge of ancient manuscripts. So your argument, herk, is with those who prefer to use more accurate translations."

  While it is true that the JW's interpret "the One" as refering to one individual in both Hebrews 5:7 (NWT "the One") as well as John 19:37 (NWT "the One") the fact remains that they interpret the capitalized phrase "the One" NWT in one instance as refering to God and in another as refering to a creature.

  The NWT is not the only Bible that does this. At Matthew 11:3, for example, several translations use a capital "O" for "One" as applied to Jesus. The context makes clear that the ones speaking did not expect Jesus to be God. Instead, they were expecting a Prophet, a Messiah born as a human and sent by God. (Compare Amplified Bible, NASB, NKJV, New Life Version, New Living Translation, The Message and others.) You seem to be under the impression that "One" with a capital "O" can only refer to God, but that is not the point of translators in using the capital "O". Their emphasis is on the fact that the individual "One" is special and that he is the only "One" in his category.

  When Trinitarians such as myself say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. We are saying that they are one God. Hense, I do not claim that the phrase "one" means "three."

  First you say that the three--Father, Son and Spirit--are "one," and then you say "I do not claim that the phrase 'one' means 'three'." Hello!!!

  herk