Bible John 1:1

by ArtfulDodger 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Leolaia

  Here is my recent post on the subject:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/89493/1497237/post.ashx#1497237
• 

  zen nudist

  My point is that I think there are probably some pretty better arguments for the trinitarian position then you are letting on.

  as far as I know there is no jew alive who believes that the god of the hebrew bible is a trinity and there is no historical evidence that

  any such view was every seriously held by any jews outside perhaps the kaballah which is heavily influenced by the mystery schools.

  so with that as a given... the followers of Paul and Jesus were originally jews who presumably believed that there was one God, the father of all humans and that all other pagan gods were either demons or simply delusions.... the jews as a whole also held that besides God, on his side of the equation, there existed the heavenly court which consisted of divine beings [Beni-elohim = those of the guild of god[s]] of which Jehovah was the EL Elohim or the God of gods as it is written in the Torah....to the Jews this in no way made them poly-theistic in their own minds as their one God, Jehovah was the supreme being, the father and maker of all, the source of all, etc. When they contrasted Jehovah as the sole God, it was not in reference to his own family of divine beings, but in contrast to the pagan god[s] which are denegrated as mere delusions of wood and stone representing nothing. when it says Jehovah is the only God and there is no other, it is also speaking against these pagan gods... Jehovah's divine family is not mentioned in this context and is not implied either.

  The bible often uses Elohim as a positional title as when Jehovah tells Moses that he would make Aaron the mouth peice and Moses would become his El or God...the one making the promises. Moses was informed that Abraham Isaac and Jacob only knew Jehovah in this capacity as El Shaddai -- the maker of great promises, the source of all things... but that Moses and his followers would learn the true meaning of the name Jehovah - I am becoming what I have promised... the fulfiller of the promises.

  The promise of the seed, the savior of the fallen mankind, was never equated with Jehovah becoming a man.... Psalms 110:1 shows that David recognized Jehovah telling his LORD, the one who would become lord over all mankind as the annointed savior, the king of all men...that in this one the promises would be fulfilled.

  Daniel, in Vision sees the ONE ancient of days attended by his court, his divine family...and from a source described as the moutain and made without hands, comes the chosen one, as one from among mankind, but not from any human governmental source... he is Given the power and authority over mankind that he was destined to receive...but did not by nature possess.

  this distinction is key because it is never altered one bit in the greek bible.--- Jesus often speaks of being Given, Granted, receiving-- from God, his father and having authority to distribute as he pleases and sees fit.... Things like healing the sick and forgiving sins are seen by trinitarians as proof of his God-hood, however he gives these same things to all his followers and he gives them the right to become as he is, son's of God and he as their older brother.--- heirs of God, joint heirs With christ.

  I go to MY father and YOUR father, my GOD and YOUR GOD.

  which matches what Paul states as well.... to US there is but ONE GOD, the FATHER, and one lord Jesus Christ.

  and, there is ONE mediator between man and GOD, the MAN, Jesus christ.

  ****************and also makes sense of the passage which says that God subjected all things to Jesus, with of course the exception of himself....and when all these other things are finally subjected to Jesus, he will turn over all authority back to his God and Father so that God can be all things to everyone. which really makes no sense if Jesus is God.
• 

  JW Ben

  The NWT of the Bible follows rules of Greek into English gramma and syntax. Other Bibles tranlate John 1:1 as thw Word was God on theologicla grounds.

  You have to ask should I follow a theological translation that is biassed to the belifes of the translator or to one that translateds on grammar
• 

  Narkissos

  My regards to English Gramma.
• 

  Oroborus21

  (sorry folks, don't know what is up with the formatting?)
  
  this old saw?
  
  the verse neither proves or disproves the trinity as in the first part it is at most talking about the unity of TWO entities/persons and secondly it isn't discussing the trinity at all.....
  
  
  the koine greek there and the verse means to speak entirely of the DIVINITY of Jesus (aka "the Word") as is the point of all of John's Gospel.
  
  
  
  
  
  In addition to the NWT....
  
  
  Today's English Version renders the verse: "...and he was the same as God."
  New English Bible renders it: "...and what God was, the Word was."
  and others...
  
  
  Here's what the Essential Guide to English Translations (Phillip W. Comfort, Ph.D) says:
  
  
  "The Greek clause underlying these translations stipulates, according to a rule of grammar, that logos (the Word) is the subject and theos (God) is the predicate. Another particularity of Greek is that the definite article ("the" in English) is often used in Greek for defining individual identity and is thus absent when the purpose is to ascribe quality or characteristic. In the previous clause ("the Word was with God"), there is an article before God (ton theon) - pointing to God the Father. Inthe present clause, there is no article before "God." The distinciton may indicate that John did not want the reader to think the Son was the Father - but the same as teh Father: that is, both are "God." The NEB reads,"and what God was, the Word was,"(fn1) and the TEV reads, "and he was the same as God." It can be argued, however, that the grammar simply indicates that "God" is the object of the verb rather than the subject, and the clause should be translated as in most of the versions: "the Word was God.""
  
  
  (The Footnote reads)
  "Bruce says this: 'The last clause of John 1:1 (in the NEB) reads: 'what God was, the Word was.' Is this what the clause really means? Or have the translators perhaps been moved by an unconscious desire to give a rather different rendering from the Authorized Version? On reflection, this is probably excellent exegesis of the words literally rendered in the older versions as 'the Word was God'' (English Bible, 245)"
  
  
  ---------
  
  So as you can see there is much debate and absolutely no agreement on the issue, even the scholar above is equivocal on the point.
  
  
  The clearest meaning of the scripture as both Comfort and Bruce admit is that it is in reference to the divine nature of Jesus and not to be taken as indicating that Jesus was the same person as God, the Father.
  
  
  So there is no giant conspiracy and all of the folks that are always moaning about how the Society supposedly is all alone out there, just mistranslating the verse in accord with their agenda, are entirely WRONG.
  
  
  It is true, that the Society has translated the verse in accord with their view of the meaning of the scripture. It just so happens that others have felt the same way and it further stands that the view about this scripture is more likely than not to be the CORRECT one.
  
  
  What must be kept in mind is that MOST if not all translations reflect the theological views of their respective translators. THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATON AND THERE IS NO DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION of the Bible.
  
  
  With regard to the Trinity, those who would argue that their translation supports this need to research and examine the history and development of Christianity a bit more closely.
  
  
  This is because there were MANY different views about the nature of Jesus during the first 100 years or so after his lifetime. The minority views or the views which were ultimately suppressed came to be called the various "heresies" while the view that ultimately became the "orthodox" view is considered the "right" (literally orthodox) view ONLY because it was the "WINNER". The concept of the "Trinity" (although rooted in pre-Christian and non-Christian sources) developed considerably "late" in the history of the Church and it was certainly the ORTHODOX view when the first translations from the Greek manuscripts that were extant at that time were being made.
  
  
  So remember that by the time a translation got around to ENGLISH it was more likely that THOSE translators were more relatively BIASED in translating in accordance with their theological perspective THAN later, modern translators have been. It is these later modern translators that have both benefited from a deeper understanding of the history and scholarship of both Christianity and the Bible and from the discovery of better and older manuscripts and copies of the scriptures since the late 1800s.
  
  
  So my point is that just because the tradition has been and because the majority of these older pedigree translations have rendered John 1:1 "was God" it does not make then unquestionably correct. If anything the more modern translations that seek to render for the reader a "meaning for meaning" translation ought to be preferred by the bible student who wants to understand what the writer was trying to convey to the reader.
  
  
  -Eduardo
• 

  zen nudist

  10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
  11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
  12 And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

  if you are bias by the trinity already it seems like 3 people...but without such bias there are two people and a "thing" which flutters like a dove...no mention of a third person and not need to see one.... spirit is from pneuma in greek which is an active energy where we get the word pneumatic etc... it is often used for immaterial thoughts and impulses which drive our activities... the latin word spiritus means breath-- invisible moving energy.