Posts by grzesiek32

New site devoted to the trinity

by grzesiek32 in

i have my own site devoted to the trinity:.

http://uk.geocities.com/trinitarians01/ .

a lot of aricles are going to be translated from my polish site:.

grzesiek32

I have my own site devoted to the trinity:

http://uk.geocities.com/trinitarians01/

A lot of aricles are going to be translated from my Polish site:

www.trynitarysci.republika.pl

Polish non-trinitarians cannot do anything about this :-)

Regards
Greg

ego eimi...

by grzesiek32 in

ego eimi - jn 8,24.28.58 .

one of the most controversial subjects is meaning of expression ego eimi, so i would like to touch on a topic of jn 8,24; 8,28 and 8,58. .

jn 8, 24 i said therefore to you, that ye shall die in your sins; for unless ye shall believe that i am [he] (ego eimi), ye shall die in your sins.

grzesiek32

Ego Eimi - Jn 8,24.28.58

One of the most controversial subjects is meaning of expression “ego eimi”, so I would like to touch on a topic of Jn 8,24; 8,28 and 8,58.

Jn 8, 24 I said therefore to you, that ye shall die in your sins; for unless ye shall believe that I am [he] (ego eimi), ye shall die in your sins. (Darby) In my opinion it isn't good idea to refer this verse to Ex 3,14. The much better verses are:

DBY Deuteronomy 32,39 "See now that I, I am HE (ego eimi - LXX), And there is no god with me; I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal, And there is none that delivereth out of my hand, " (Darby) and

DBY Isaiah 43,10 "Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] HE (ego eimi - LXX): before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Darby) Let's notice, that both JHVH and Jesus said ego eimi, but they didn't say who they are! Nobody in Bible uses such expresions. Until now people don't know what those words mean. Some say that ego eimi in this verse means “I am true God”, some say those words show us God's existence (He is) in contrast to false gods that don't exist. Some say, that those words summarize next words "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me". Some have other ideas that are as good as the previous ones. Very similar situation we have in Jesus words' case. Nobody knew what he meant. This mysticism is confirmed by the nearest context:

NIV John 8:25 "Who are you?" they asked. [...] It is seen that Jews didn't understand His words.

At this moment Jesus answers in a very mistical way:

ten archen ho ti kai lalo hymin Those words are mistic because there can be a few ways of translating this verse:

NLT John 8:25 "Tell us who you are," they demanded. Jesus replied, "I am the one I have always claimed to be.

NRS John 8:25 They said to him, "Who are you?" Jesus said to them, "Why do I speak to you at all? Both method are correct. it is possible to say (as one Polish Bible Biblia Poznanska says), that Jesus is JHVH about whom he just spoke (JHVH is a synonym for the word "God")

A few verses later we have a very similar words of Jesus:

NRS John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I am he (Greek ego eimi), and that I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things as the Father instructed me. Jesus again says ego eimi not saying who He is!

At the third time we have the climax:

Jn 8,56-58 (YLT)
56 Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.'
57 The Jews, therefore, said unto him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?'
58 Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' In verse 58 Jesus again says ego eimi that means "I am". Jesus Christ could have said ego emen to say that He was. JW say that Jews wanted to stone him because He said that He was older than Abraham. In their opinion that statement was a blasphemy. But they don't notice that that "blaspemy" was in verse 56!

56 Abraham, your father, was glad that he might see my day; and he saw, and did rejoice.' Why in that moment they didn't take stones to kill Him? The next verse doesn't show us that Jews were getting more angy. They did understand Jesus' words as shown in the next verse. In my opinion Jews said those words in a ironic/deriding tone of voice

57 The Jews, therefore, said unto him, 'Thou art not yet fifty years old, and Abraham hast thou seen?' And then:

58 Jesus said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, Before Abraham's coming -- I am;' At that moment when they for the third time heard those strange words that that time were't gramaticly correct they finaly understood what he meant saying ego eimi. They understood that He meant something more than His age. They reaction was immediate.

59 they took up, therefore, stones that they may cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went forth out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. We can see that it is the context which makes those words ego eimi mistical. Translating those words into "I was" or "I have been" translators show their misunderstanding of this fragment by narrowing their consideration down to only one verse. If they had though over this situation for a moment they wouldn't have stripped it of its mysticism. If John had wanted to mention that Jesus only was older than Abraham he would have used ego emen not ego eimi.

But non-trinitarians don't give up yet. What do they do to challenge that idea:

1. They show us, that those words ego eimi aren't mystical and don't mean "I am God". As examples they show us those verses:

NIV Luke 24,37-39
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.
38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself (ego eimi)! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Jn 9,8-9
8 His neighbors and those who had formerly seen him begging asked, "Isn't this the same man who used to sit and beg?"
9 Some claimed that he was. Others said, "No, he only looks like him." But he himself insisted, "I am the man (ego eimi)" There isn't any mysticism in those verses. It is seen that not always ego eimi must refer to calling oneself "God". But their argumentation isn't good, because these ego eimi differ from those in Jn 8,24.28.58. Meaning of these verses (Luke 24,37-39 and Jn 9,8-9) is explained by the context. In Luke 24,37 the disciples weren't sure if it was Jesus, so He dispeled their doubts by saying "It is I myself (ego eimi)". The same is in Jn 9,9 - People weren't sure if it was the same man, so he annouced that it was him (ego eimi). But in Jn 8,14.28 Jesus' words aren't explained by the context which is confirmed by Jews' question "Who are you?".Nobody else used such expression ego eimi not explained by the context exept Jesus and JHVH. But in Jn 8,58 although ego eimi is explained by the context there is something else that makes those words mystical - it is the incorrect grammatical form. It wasn't a mistake made by John, because John shows us the result of Jesus' statement.(Jn 8,59).

2. They want to show us that this verse is gramaticaly correct. In their opinion John used ego eimi, present tense, to say that Jesus existed before Abraham and continued to exist up to the moment of speaking and was still continuing to exist. But this argument is funny. Wouldn't Jews have guessed that Jesus existed at the time of speaking? Was this information necessary for Jews to know that? Nonsense. Have a look at the verse they give us as an example:

YLT John 15:27 and ye also do testify, because from the beginning ye are (present tense) with me.

NIV John 15:27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. They argue that a very similar situation in in verse Jn 8,58, where Jesus says that he existed before Abraham and continues his existence up to the moment of speaking. But to be sure they are wrong, because we have in verse Jn 8,58 construction with word "before" (Greek prin). When we use this word we have to use proper tenses that makes a correct chronology of events. When something happens before someting else which is expressed as the past it also has to be expressed as the past. Let's look at this fragment:

NIV John 1:15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was (Greek en - imperfectum - past tense) before me.'" In this verse, as we see, past tense is used although Jesus existed when John said those words. So we have here the same situation as in verse Jn 8,58, but other grammatical construction. John said that before he was Jesus was, but Jesus said that He is before Abraham was.

3. Non-trinitarians quote a verse which has the same grmmatical constriction as the verse in Jn 8,58:

NIV Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you But in LXX we have "know" not "knew".

pro tou me plasai se en koilia epistamai se the verb plasai is in past tense, but the verb epistamai is in present tense. But non-trinitarians showing us this verse trap themselves. Why? Because they show us next similarity between Jesus and JHVH. Such constrution was used in reference to both Jesus and JHVH only. It was used to show that their existence didn't have the begining.

4. Non-trinitarians quote two parallel verses, to show that ego eimi means "I am Christ":

NIV Mark 13:6 Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,(ego eimi)' and will deceive many.

NIV Luke 21:8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,(ego eimi)' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

NIV Matthew 24:5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ (ego eimi ho christos),' and will deceive many. But it isn't good idea to identify one thing with something else quoting parallel verses. If we look at some parallel fragment we will see something suprising:

Mt 8,5-13
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."
8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. And:

Luke 7,2-6
2 There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.
3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.
4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, "This man deserves to have you do this,
5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue."
6 So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: "Lord, don't trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. We can see that centurion isn't the same as elders of the Jews. If we looked at verses such as Mt 20:20-21 and Mk 10:35-37 we would say that mother of Zebedee's sons is the same as Zebedee's sons. If we looked at verses such as J 12,3 and Mt 26:7 we would say that "head" and "legs" are the same. Those verses say that the false prophets who will come in the name of Jesus will use His titles such us "I am he" and "I am the Christ".

Translated on 06-June-2004 form my Polish article:
http://www.trynitarysci.republika.pl/artykuly/gz/egoeimigz.html

This article is also here:

http://www.trinitarians.republika.pl/articles/gz/egoeimigz.html

Greg Zebrowski (Poland)

4

About the Colwell rule....

by grzesiek32 in

i would like to correct the colwell's rule.

i think that english speaking people should stop thinking in english while considering the greek bible.

greek article isn't the same as greek article.

grzesiek32

I am realy sorry my frinds. I realy didn't want to offend you. If i did, I am sorry. I am not better educated than you, and those people who translated the Bible into English, but I can't understand those translations. In my opinion it is a mistake (see the examples I gave). I is often presented to us that the greek article is based on the same grammar rule as the english article 'the'. I am able to give a lot of examples showing that it isn't true. I just want to show that we sometimes have to translate definite nouns in Greek into indefinite nouns in English. And in this way I want to show you that the rule I wrote before is true. In Polish there are no articles before nouns, so we don't have that problem. Most of polish people cannot understant the problem with J 1,1. This problem was made by english-speaking people who thought that it was possible to translate "theos en ho logos" into "The Word was a god", because the theos didn't have the article. They considered this problem from English gramar point of view. The apostoles knew nothing about this, and their grammar had nothing in common with English grammar.

Regards.

Greg

4

About the Colwell rule....

by grzesiek32 in

i would like to correct the colwell's rule.

i think that english speaking people should stop thinking in english while considering the greek bible.

greek article isn't the same as greek article.

grzesiek32

I would like to correct the Colwell's rule.

In Greek when subject of the sentence is definite (by the article), the predicate is also definite, although in English it isn't. I think that english speaking people should stop thinking in English while considering the Greek Bible. Greek article isn't the same as Greek article. Greek isn't English!!! You should start trying to think in foreign language!!!

A is the subject
B is the predicate

(B + verb + article + A) is exactly the same as (article B + verb + article + A) and there is no difference between them.

I will give some examples I have found in Bible (so far I have inspected ony one part of this book - from J 1,1 to J 10,42)

Jn 1,21 They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet (ho profetes)?" He answered, "No." (NIV)

There should be "a prophet", not "the prophet". All translations have the same mistake.

Jn 2,25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man (to anthropo). (NIV)

Jn 3,10 "You are Israel's teacher (ho didaskalos)," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? (NIV)

Jn 3,10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master (ho didaskalos) of Israel, and knowest not these things? (KJV)

Jn 3,29 He that has the bride (ten nymfen) is the bridegroom (nymfios); but the friend of the bridegroom (tou nymphios), who stands and hears him, rejoices in heart because of the voice of the bridegroom (tou nymfiou): this my joy then is fulfilled.

There also should be "a brigge" and "a bridegroom". It would sound more correct

Jn 7,40 Many from the multitude therefore, when they heard the saying, said, This is truly the prophet (ho profetes). (ACV)

It would be better to say "a prophet"

Jn 10:13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand (misthotos) (and cares nothing for the sheep. (NIV)

We could say, that this "hired hand" is indefinite. But if we look at the previous verse, we will see a very surprising thing:

Jn 10:12 The hired hand (ho misthotos) is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. (NIV)

The hired hand is definite!

Such examples we can find much more!!! I gave only a few of them. These examples show that english speaking people cannot free from thinking in English.

In Greek when subject of the sentence is definite (by the article), the predicate is also and always definite!!!

...and the Word was God...

Regards

Grzegorz Zebrowski (from Poland)
[email protected]

4

Who does the 'God' in 1 Jn 5:20 reffer to?

by grzesiek32 in

1 jn5:20 20 and we are certain that the son of god has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his son jesus christ.

besides, they also noticed that in verse jn 17:3 the father is called the only true god.

1 jn5:20 20 and we are certain that the son of god has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true,[*] in his son jesus christ.

grzesiek32

Hello everybody. it is very nice to meet you.

JWnomore wrote:

Which part of Poland are you from? Are you Evangelical? Why post this too at CARM.org. There's a JW and Trinity forum there.

1. From Warsaw 2. No. Catholic.

Why are you asking?

CARM.org??? Can you give me the link...

Leolaila wrote:

Greg.....see my post below from just a few days ago:

Very interesting... :-) I like it.

Regards...

Greg

4

Who does the 'God' in 1 Jn 5:20 reffer to?

by grzesiek32 in

1 jn5:20 20 and we are certain that the son of god has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his son jesus christ.

besides, they also noticed that in verse jn 17:3 the father is called the only true god.

1 jn5:20 20 and we are certain that the son of god has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true,[*] in his son jesus christ.

grzesiek32

Verse 1 Jn 5:20

One of the meaningful verses showing that Jesus is the true God is verse 1 Jn 5:20

1 Jn5:20 20 And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (BBE)

In this verse there is something special. Everybody who is reading this fragment doesn't have any doubts that apostle John calls Jesus true God. If anybody is told by non-trinitaries that this fragment refers to the Father, not to the Son he startes to think it over how this is possible. One has to want to see it in order to see that 'God' refers to the Father. Let me cite a fragment of Mr. Bednarski's book "W obronie wiary" that means "In defence of faith":

„(...)Ciekawe, że „Prowadzenie rozmów na podstawie pism” i „Czy wierzyć w Trójcę?” nie omawiają tego wersetu (w latach 1960-2000 wspomniano o nim tylko 2 razy). Czy ten tekst dot. Bóstwa Jezusa sprawia ŚJ tyle problemu, że wolą go przemilczać? (...)”

"(...) It is very interesting, that "Reasoning from The Scriptures" and "Should You Believe in the Trinity" don't discuss this verse (from 1960 to 2000 it was mentioned only 2 times). Does this verse showing that Jesus is God cause so many problems for them, that they prefer to leave it unsaid? (...)"

But let us stop that discussion and let us have a look at non-trinities' argumentation:

The whole problem boils down to the used pronoun 'houtos' which was translated in this verse into 'He'. In non-trinities opinion trinities think, that it refers to the Son, because the pronoun follows His name - Jesus Christ. And then they give us some verses showing that it doesn't have to be a sufficient reason:

2 Jn 1:7 Because a number of false teachers have gone out into the world, who do not give witness that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Such a one (Gr. houtos) is a false teacher and Antichrist. (BBE)

In this verse one can see that 'houtos' follows Jesus Christ who obviously cannot be the false teacher and Antichrist. Next example:

Act 4:10-11
10. Take note, all of you, and all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you put to death on the cross, whom God gave back from the dead, even through him is this man now before you completely well.
11. He (Gr. houtos) is the stone which you builders had no use for, but which has been made the chief stone of the building
(BBE)

It is obvoius that the healed man isn't the stone.

What is more they started to investigate the context. They noticed that this verse says that we are in the true one, and the word 'true' is used twice, so it means that the true God must refer to the true one. Besides, they also noticed that in verse Jn 17:3 The Father is called the only true God. But there are some matters they left unsaid. The first thing is what the pronoun refers to:

1. The main topic of the sentence (if only the context doesn't clearly deny it)
2. to him who is before the pronoun (if only the context doesn't deny it)
3. To him who is indicated by the context.

The third point is the most important and can deny the first and the second one.

But in verse 1 Jn 5:20 all of those conditions are fulfilled that the word 'God' reffers to Jesus. Below I will describe the first and the third point (the second one is obvious).

1. Jesus is the main topic of the sentence.

In this verse it is Jesus not the Father who comes to the fore. Have a look at this verse once again:

1 Jn 5:20 20 And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true [*] , and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ===. He is the true God and eternal life. (BBE)

There are neither such words like 'Father' nor 'God'. There are some words like "him who is true". The Father isn't clearly mentioned, but the name of Jesus Christ is. He is called here as "Son of God", "His Son" and "Jesus Christ". What's more some translations put word 'God' where the star in bracket is [*], but this word we don't find in the oldest manuscripts, so one has to admit, that translations without this word are more similar to tho original. Besides that, this verse begins and ends with Jesus Christus which makes Him come to the fore much more.

3. The context shows us that this 'God' both refers to Jesus and denies that it refers to the Father only.

What for would apostle John say that "the true one is the true God". Doesn't it sound strange? Besides, in this letter he called the Father "God" many times, so the fact that Father is true God was obvious for addressees. This whole letter was dedicated to Jesus Christ. We can see that at the beginning of the letter:

1 Jn 1:1-2
1. That which was from the first, which has come to our ears, and which we have seen with our eyes, looking on it and touching it with our hands, about the Word of life
2. (And the life was made clear to us, and we have seen it and are witnessing to it and giving you word of that eternal life which was with (Gr. pros) the Father and was seen by us);
(BBE)

Let's compare this verse to the beginning of the Gospel written by the same author:

Jn 1:1-2
1. From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
2. This Word was from the first in relation with (Gr. pros) God.
(BBE)

We can see a clear symilarity over here. Once he indentifies Jesus as a "Word" and once as "eternal life" saying that He was with Father.

1 Jn 5:11-12
11. And his witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12. He who has the Son has the life; he who has not the Son of God has not the life.
(BBE)

and some verses later is this verse:

1 Jn 5:20 And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (BBE)

He who is called 'God' is called also "eternal life".

There are some verses that seem very interesting:

Jn 11:25
11. Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;

(NIV)

Jn 14:6
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

(NIV)

I made some effort to check if there was writen anywhere that the Father was called "eternal life" or just simply "Life". I couldn't find! I am not going to prove that the Father isn't the life, but I just want to show that the apostles paid a great attontion that the life is in His Son, which shows us that this 'God' refers to the Son.

Going bact to non-trinities arguments, never mind that the Father is called the only true God. Son is callled the only Lord and Master (Jud 4) and it doesn't interfere with calling the Father 'Master' - Act 4:24 or 'Lord' - Mk 12:29.

Now I would like to pay attention to one detail that isn't seen with the naked eye. Let's look at this verse once again:

1 Jn5:20 20 And we are certain that the Son of God has come, and has given us a clear vision, so that we may see him who is true, and we are in him who is true,[*] in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. (BBE)

And the question is: So, at last who are we in? In Him who is true or in His Son? It is a verse confirming that Father and Son are one! Being in the Father is being in His Son. Where the star in brackets is there is no conjunction 'and' (Gr. kai). If there was the conjunction the Father would be separated from Son. This verse harmonizes with that verse:

Jn 10:30 I and my Father are one. (BBE)

Summary:
Showing, that all those arguments indicating that the Word 'God' refers to Jesus I didn't intend to prove that every of those arguments (such as "'houtos' refers to the subiect of sentence", "'houtos' refers to the one who is followed by this pronoun", and so on) is so strong, that it isn't possible to find any example which denies this rule. Obviously we can find some examples that deny those. But one cannot expect that in one verse there are 10 sensations which would deny all those rules. We cannot expect that in one verse there are a lot of strange cases that every of them occures 1 per 100.

Greg (From Poland)

1

Thomas' shout in Jn 20:28 against Ex 20:3 and in relation to Jn 13:19

by grzesiek32 in

jn 20:28 .

"my lord and my god" .

(niv).

grzesiek32

We all well know the verse, when seeing Jesus Thomas said to Him:

Jn 20:28
Thomas said to him. "My Lord and my God"
(NIV)I would like to pay attention to only two wodrs he said: "my God". In my life I have seen a lot of interpretations of this fragment, but in general all anniously consider those words to be said to Jesus (even Jehovas Witness's in their publication "Reasoning From the Scriptures", Brooklyn 1989). But so far I have never seen that verse contrasted to Ex 20:3

Ex 20:3
You shall have no other gods before me
(NIV)If Jesus weren't God, one could say, that this situation seems to be very strange. Everybody who has read the Gospel once at least, knows that Jesus knew the Scriptures in all the details. There is no space to show all the examples of His knowledge. Now I want to show Jesus' response to the young man, who knowing that Jesus was only a prophet (Mt 14:5, 16:14, 21:46) called Him "good":

Mr 10:17-18
17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.
(NIV)One can see, that Jesus rebuked him that he should call only God "good". The question is: Why didn't Jesus rebuke Thomas for calling him "his God". According to the law he was not allowed to have any other gods. If Jesus had given no answer, one would understand it, but no! Jesus did give an answer! What is more, it was a commending answer, making the whole sitation positive:

Jn 20:29
29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)I would like to show that problem with reference to another verse from John's Gospel - Jn 13:19

Jn 13:19
"I am telling you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe that I am He.
(NIV)

Let's compare to the discussing verse:

Jn 20:28-29
28. Thomas said to him. "My Lord and my God "
29. Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)

Surely Thomas was one of them, who when it happened (Jesus' rise from the dead) believed! He believed, that He was he, it means, that he believed, that He was God!

Answers to some accusations against this article

After placing this article on my www site some Jehova's Witnesses stared to argue with those arguments.

1. They argue, that it isn't sure that Thomas was saying about Jesus at that moment. Answer: No way! It is clearly written, that "Thomas said to him (gr. 'autO') (...) my God" - one can check it in the interlinear translation - "apekrithE thOmas kai eipen autO ho kutios mou kai ho theos mou". They have no grounds to claim that. The whole fragment say nothing about His Father - in this context He is copletely passed over.

2. Some of them claim, that we missunderstood verse Ex 20:3. As an example they give us fragment Ex 7:1, which says:

Ex 7:1
And Jehovah said to Moses, See, I have made thee God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
(Darby)And they say, that Moses is God to Pharaoh. But there is a fundamental difference. God made him God to Pharaoh not to let Pharaoh praise Moses as he was God, because it is obvious that it wasn't God's intention. God wanted to show His power which much more surpasses the power of his gods. Please pay attention to a verse, that is a bit earlier and sounds very symilar. There is written, that God made Moses somebody like God:

Ex 4:16
He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him.
(NIV)Let's notice, that Pharaoh never called Moses "God", but he many times asked him to beg his God for taking those plagues away from him. For example:

Ex 10:17
Now forgive my sin once more and pray to the LORD your God to take this deadly plague away from me."
(NIV)It is true, that Bible calls other people "gods" in positive meaning (Jn 10:35), but doesn't say, that they should be our gods. It is closely connected with giving honour (Ex 20:5) and about Jesus it is written, that we should honour Him as we honour the Father Jn 5:23.

3. Showing that verse:

Jn 20:25
So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
(NIV)they claim, that Thomas was praised by Jesus for having believed that he had risen from dead, not for having called him "God". Such argumentation has some weak points. Firstly, we can find nowhere in New Testament that good is shown as evil and evil shown as good. The Gospel was written a few dozen years after the Resurrection. The apostle John must have thought this situation over many times before he wrote the Gospel. They didn't have Dictaphone, and what is more, they didn't care about precisely expressing all the situations and dialogues word for word (for good examples compare parallel fragments such as Mt 8:5-13 - Lk 7:2-6 and Mt 20:20-21 - Mr 10:35-37). Apostles wanted to show the meaning of those situations, teach us how to live, show us what is good and what is evil, and make us believe in Jesus' name. Apostle John many times commented various behaviours especially when he wanted to show, that evil is evil so that reader shouldn't be misled. Good example is this:

Jn 12:4-6
4. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected,
5. "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages."
6. He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
(NIV)Apostole John many times commented various statements:

Jn 6:6
He asked this only to test him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
(NIV)

Jn 2:9
and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
(NIV)

Jn 13:11
For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.
(NIV)

Jn 5:18
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
(NIV)and so did other apostles:

Jn 9:5-6
5. Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
6. (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
(NIV)but about Thomas' statement John said nothing wrong.

4. Jehovah's Witnesses tried to contrast verse Jn 20:28 to Jn 20:31 Jn 20:31
31. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(NIV)and asked "Why doesn't John tell us to believe that Jesus is God but only a Son of God?"
Let us ask them a very similar question: "When Jesus called himself a «Son of Man» (Jn 1:51) didn't he mean that he was a man?" The Bible wants us to believe that He is the Son of God, but doesn't want us to believe that we are sons of God although we are them. The Bible wants us to believe in Him not in other sons of God! Everything in Bible has the absolute meaning and a relative one. For example - Jesus is called our only Lord (Jud 4), but some people are called "lord" as well (even in a positive meaning - Col 3:22, Tit 2:9). Jesus is the Lord in absolute meaning, but the others in relative. The same is with the word "God". We all are called both "gods" and "sons of God" (Ps 82:6, Jn 10:34-36), but Jesus is Son of God in absolute meaning, as He is the only-begotten Son of God. Being a son of God is being a god - for us in relative meaning for Him in absolute meaning.

Greg (Poland)

21

The article 'ho' in Jn 1:1c

by grzesiek32 in

one of the most inconvenient verses for non-trinitaries is this:.

jn 1:1.

1. in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god.. .

grzesiek32

One of the most inconvenient verses for non-trinitaries is this:

Jn 1:1
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

In order to call the fact, that Jesus is God into question, they noticed that there are two words "God", and the first one refering to the Father follows definite article, but the other one not.

en archE En ho logos kai ho logos En pros ton theon kai __ theos En ho logos
in original was the saying and the saying was toward the God and __ God was the saying To cut a very long story short, in this way they hold that the second 'theos' can be translated into 'god' beginning with lowercase letter as well and this construction was used just to distinguish the first 'theos' from the other one.

So let's inspect how being the true God depends on articles!

Let's divide kind of gods into four groups:

1. The Father - everybody agrees, that he is the true God.
2. The Son - for some people he is the true God, who is equal to His Father, and for some people He isn't.
3. Gods, that were considered by pagans to be true gods.
4. Gods, that aren't considered by anyone to be true gods.

Reading Greek Gospel one can see that:

1. The Father is called 'theos' with an article:

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
en archE En ho logos kai ho logos En pros ton theon kai theos En ho logos and without any article:

Mk 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"
ouk estin __ theos nekrOn alla zOntOn polu planasthe in this bracket should be the article 'ho'

2. The Son is called 'theos' with an article:

Jn 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (NIV)
apekrithE thOmas kai eipen autO ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou And without any article:

Jn 1:18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (NIV)
Theon ouvdeis heOraken pOpote monogenEs __ theos ho On eis ton kolpon tou patros ekeinos exEgEsato in this bracket should be the article 'ho'

3. The gods that were considered by pagans to be true gods are called 'theoi' with an article:

Act 19:37 You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess. (NIV)
Egagete gar tous andras toutous oute hierosulous oute blasphEmountas tEn theon hEmOn And without any article:

Act 19:26 (...) that man-made gods are no gods at all. (NIV)
hoti ouk eisin __ theoi hoi dia cheirOn ginomenoi in this bracket should be the article 'oi'

4. Gods, that aren't considered by anyone to be true gods are called 'theoi' with an article:

2kor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, (...) (NIV)
tou aiOnos toutou etuphlOsen ta noEmata tOn apistOn (...) And without any article:

Jn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? (NIV)
apekrithE autois ho iEsous ouk estin gegrammenon en tO nomO humOn hoti egO eipa __ theoi este in this bracket should be the article 'oi'

What is more in the Bible there are some verses where are both false gods and the true one. They seem to be very interesting, so have a look at them:

2Kor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (NIV)

There are two words 'theos' - the first one is false, but the other is true, and what is very interesting, both of them follow article! So, thinking like non-trinitaries one can say, that Satan is a greater god than Jesus, because he wasn't distinguished from God, but Jesus was!

Gal 4:8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. (NIV)

The situation is very similar to the previous one. There are no articles both before the 'God' and the 'gods'. In Mk 12:26-27 the true God is distinguished from himself! In this verse:

Mt 22:44 "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' (NIV)

the first 'Lord', that refers to Father, doesn't follow the article, but the second 'Lord', that refers to Son does. One could say, that Son is Greater 'Lord' than His Father! Considering the verse Rev 19:16 one can say, that Jesus is the Lord of his Father! It is nonsense, isn't it!

This article shows us that being true God or not is absolutely independent of articles! It depends on context only and nothing else. Even if the word 'theos' is indefinite it doesn't allow us to translate it into a 'god'. Only context can allow us to do that.

Grzegorz Zebrowski (from Poland)

This article is also here:

http://www.trinitarians.republika.pl/articles/gz/articlesgz.html

6

Jesus beside "the Only God"

by grzesiek32 in

there are some verses that non-trinitarians like most, because those verses say about both jesus and "the only god".

jn 17:3. now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true god, and jesus christ, whom you have sent.. (niv).

"sovereign lord," (gr.

grzesiek32

There are some verses that non-trinitarians like most, because those verses say about both Jesus and "The only God". Have a look at them:

Jn 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
(NIV)

Kor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
(NIV)

Tyt 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
(NIV)

But they haven't noticed, that one of them is against their interpretation. It is that:

Kor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
(NIV)

If they claim, that The Father is the only God and in this way Jesus isn't God, let them be consistent!!! If Jesus cannot be God then Father cannot be Lord, because Lord is only one, and Jesus is this Lord! Let's look at similar verses:

Jude 1:4
For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign (gr. 'despotEs') and Lord (gr. 'Lord').
(NIV)

In this verse Jesus is called only Sovereign and Lord although the Father is called both Sovereign and Lord as well:

Act 4:24-27
24. When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," (gr. despotEs) they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them.
25. You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: "'Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain?
26. The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord (gr. kurios) and against his Anointed One.'
27. Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.
(NIV)

Non-trinitarians seeing those verses:

Rev 19:13-16
13. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
14. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.
15. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. "He will rule them with an iron scepter." He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.
16. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
(NIV)

have to say that Jesus is the Lord of His Father, because He is a greater Lord than His Father!

If Jehovah's Witnesses insist that in verse Act 4:26 should be JHVH, let's show them that verse:

Ps 8:1
1. O Jehovah our Lord, how majestic your name is in all the earth, You whose dignity is recounted above the heavens!
(NWT)

What is more, seeing this verse:

Mr 12:29
29. "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
(NIV)

non-trinitarians have to say, that the Bible contradicts itself!

Grzegorz Zebrowski (Greg from Poland)

This article is also here : http://www.trinitarians.republika.pl

7

Jesus' omniscience

by grzesiek32 in

(niv).

grzesiek32

Jehovah’s witnesses trying to deny Jesus’ omniscience, quote the following verses:

Mat 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only (gr. monos) the Father. (NIV)

Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only (gr. monos) the Father. (NIV)

Considering that fragment of Bible they say that:

1. The Father knows the day and the hour of Jesus second coming to the earth.
2. The Son doesn’t know the time.
3. Nobody knows that except Father only, which excludes the Holy Spirit from those, who know
4. The knowledge of the Father is greater than anyone’s else in the universe (including the Holy Spirit)

In this way they claim that the Father is the only one, who knows everything. But saying that there is something that the Holy Spirit doesn’t know they trap themselves, because in the same way one can prove that there is something which Jehovah doesn’t know:

Rev 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it. (NIV)

- According to the verse is the new name known only to those who will receive it, and in this way isn’t it known to the Father?

Moreover, In Bible one can find some verses saying that there is something which is known to the Son only and something known to the Holy Spirit only:

Rev 19:12n His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. (NIV)

Some commentators say that the name “Word of God” is so mysterious, that only Jesus fully knows that. The question is very similar to the previous one. Doesn’t the Father know the meaning of the name?

1Kor 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (NIV)

So, one can say, that Jehovah doesn’t know the thoughts of God.

It is very interesting, that they have attacked the omniscience of Jesus Christ showing Mt 24:36 where they found the word ‘monos’, when they deny the Jesus’ omnipotence showing that Greek word ‘pas’ which means ‘all’, ‘everything’ and so on, doesn’t stand for “completely everything” – for good example see Mat 3:5.

Mat 28:18 “(...) All (Gr. pas) authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (NIV)

contrasted with
Mat 3:5 People went out to him from Jerusalem and all (Gr. pas) Judea and the whole region of the Jordan (NIV)

It is obvious that not everybody came to him to be baptized. So ‘pas’ doesn’t mean absolutely all.

So, let us look at some verses including the word ‘monos’:

Ga 1:23 They only (gr. ‘monos’) heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy. (NIV)

- Didn’t they hear anything else?

Mat 17:8 When they looked up, they saw no one except (Gr. ‘monos’) Jesus. (NIV)

- Didn’t they see each other?

Luke 24:12 But having risen, Peter ran to the sepulcher. And having stooped down, he sees the linen cloths laying alone (Gr. ‘monos’) . And he departed, wondering to himself at that which happened. (ACV)

- Didn’t he see soil, the cave, stones and so on?

Why did Jesus say that he didn’t know the hour of his coming?

Jesus Christ being a man disowned his divine attributes, but he had had a dignity of Son of God for all that time. We can see a very similar thought of St. Paul:

Gal 4:1-2
1 What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.
2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. (NIV)

In this fragment Jesus is shown as someone who is lower being in his body:

Herb 2:7 You made him a little lower than the angels (...)(NIV)

but having dignity of a child of King that surpasses everything:

Hebr 1:6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." (NIV)

If Jesus, being a man, had had his divine attributes, he wouldn’t have been a man, but only God steering his own body. This fact acknowledges that verse:

Luke 2:52 And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. (NIV)

It clearly shows that Jesus coming to earth divested himself of his omniscience to become one of us. From that come those verses indicating seemingly that Jesus didn’t know everything. Let us analyze the most frequently quoted verses:

John 7:16-18
16 Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.
17 If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
18 He who speaks on his own does so to gain honor for himself, but he who works for the honor of the one who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. (NIV)

In this verse we can see that Jesus was taught by Father what He was to teach. It harmonizes with Luk 2:52. But if we go into the context, we will see a greater sense of that statement. Jesus contrasts himself with false prophets who come in their own name and presumptuously speak their own teaching expecting honor for themselves. Very similar problem is shown in this verse:

John 8:28 So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.
29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." (NIV)

One of the most controversial fragments, which they quote, is that:

Rev 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, (NIV)

But does this verse really tell us that Jesus doesn’t have omniscience? Let’s look at this:

John 16:15 All things that the Father has are mine; on account of this I have said that he receives of mine and shall announce [it] to you. (Darby)

Moreover, in Act 2:36 it is said that God after Jesus’ resurrection made Him both Lord and Christ. It doesn’t mean that Jesus wasn’t Lord and Christ before (see John13:13 and Mat 16:16-17). So, when it is said, that God gives something to Jesus, it doesn’t mean that Jesus didn’t have it earlier. We can say exactly the same about the verse Rev 1:1 – as God gave Jesus the revelation, it doesn’t have to mean that Jesus didn’t have it earlier.

The Bible clearly teaches about Jesus’ omniscience. He is shown as somebody, who has 7 eyes (Rev 5:6), which is interpreted as a symbol of omniscience. What else Bible says about Jesus:

2:3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (NIV)

And about the Holy Spirit:

1Kor 2:10-11
10 but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (NIV)

At the end I will quote words of heavenly Jesus:

Rev 22:20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (NIV)

Regards

Grzesiek Z (Greg from Poland)