Posts by Mondo1

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

I have to wonder if you think I don't know where you're going with this. I do. The answer is the Father. The Bible is very clear about this. Now, of course you'll jump to John 2:19 and say that Jesus raised himself, but of course we must consider how this happened. We know that the Bible tells us that the Father did it, and verses such as John 17:5 show that Jesus is not the Father. So, how did this come about? What role did Jesus take that was unique from that of the Father? For example, the Bible says that God made Solomon king, that David made Solomon king and that the people made Solomon king, but they all had a unique role in this coming about. What, Scripturally, was Jesus' role?

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Frank,

One thing to keep in mind is that the basic meaning of "angels" is messengers, so to say that God spoke by various messengers would not exclude the son. I do not think it was always the son, but one case that does come to mind for me is when the angel of Jehovah lead Israel away from Egypt. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 seems to indicate that the one that lead them was Jesus. I think you are mixing up God speaking by the prophets with the means that God used to speak by the prophets. The means he used was that of various messengers, and I do not see a problem with Jesus being one of those.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Frank,

Perhaps it is best understood that at times God made use of the son as his agent, to relay his message to the prophets who then delivered it to the prophets. This would not contradict Hebrews 1:1-2, for if the Son served as God's agent, it would be counted as not the Son doing it, but the Father himself doing it.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

BelieverInJesus,

You write:
-------------------------------------
If you deny the holy trinity..................you will lose your soul.
-------------------------------------

If this is the case, why can't I find any Bible writer that teaches the doctrine? Nobody does! It is an interpretation that no Bible writer ever writes about!

----------------------------------
The NWT is translated in error. Take a look at this regarding John 1:1 You will see that the article is translated incorrectly.
-----------------------------------

Yes, let us look at it, shall we?

----------------------------------
HO LOGOS EH HO THEOS.....would mean that LOGOS and THEOS were equivalent and interchangeable. There would be no HO THEOS which is not HO LOGOS. But this equation of the two would contradict the preceding clause of John 1:1.
----------------------------------------------

That is correct. Looks like you've read Harner. Though, it is HN, not EH. Eta Nu.

------------------------------------
HO LOGOS EN THEOS........would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind.....
-----------------------------

Yes it would... just like QEOS HN hO LOGOS.

--------------------------------------
HO LOGOS EN THEIOS.......would mean that the LOGOS was 'divine' without specifying further in what or to what extent...it could also imply that the LOGOS being only THEIOS was subordinate to THEOS....
--------------------------------

Well now you're jumping and bringing in an adjective.

---------------------------------------
HO LOGOS THEOS EN........means that the LOGOS (rather than something else) has the nature of THEOS.......
-------------------------------------

No, it means nothing different than QEOS HN hO LOGOS. The only difference is a change in word order.

----------------------------------------
THEOS EN HO LOGOS........means that the LOGOS has the nature of THEOS (rather than something else). In this clause, the form John actually uses, the word THEOS is placed at the beginning for emphasis.
------------------------------------- Actually, you are quite wrong. First, the word order is because of poetic structure. John had to use this word order. Note for yourself:

EN ARCH HN hO LOGOS
hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON
QEOS HN hO LOGOS

If John used any other word order, the poetic structure of the passage would have fallen apart. The same structure continues on within the prologue too. It would be pretty bad to mess it up in the very first verse! John 1:1c is not some special "nature" predicate nominative. It is a predicate nominative just like any other verse. I specifically mentioned Acts 28:4, which I notice you completely avoided. Notice the parallel in structure between it and John 1:1c.

QEOS hN hO LOGOS
FONEUS ESTIN hO ANQRWPOS

Predicate Noun
John 1:1c - QEOS
Acts 28:4 - FONEUS

Verb:
John 1:1c - HN - Imperfect of EIMI
Acts 28:4 - ESTIN - 3rd person of EIMI

Subject:
John 1:1c - hO LOGOS
Acts 28:4 - hO ANQRWPOS

How is Acts 28:4 universally translation? A murderer! Key letter is "a" there.

------------------------------------
If John had wanted us to understand that Jesus was only 'a god' he would have written HO LOGOS EN THEOS instead of THEOS EN HO LOGOS
-------------------------

The burden of proof rests upon you to prove that, and as there are so many preverbal anarthrous predicate nominatives that I can reference that prove such a hypothesis to be false, you will not be able to.

-----------------------------------
Furthermore, In John 20:21 Thomas says regarding Jesus....."My Lord and my God!"
----------------------

And what of it? I would make a similar confession, for Jesus is a god to me! So I could also say as Thomas did, hO QEOS MOU. That does not make God a Trinity or Jesus the Almighty.

--------------------------------
In Titus 2:13 Jesus is refered to in the same manner "God and Savior".
-----------------------------

Actually, no. That text, when rendered literally, reads: "the appearing of the glory of the great God and our savior Jesus Christ." Jesus is called "our Savior," but that is it.

------------------------------------
There is only 1 God, no other's. Look in Genesis, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Psalm. ONE GOD ONLY. All other God's are idols, worthless. Some people make their corvette a god! Some people make a hollywood movie star a god. And he is a "god" in hollywood. But as far as a real, true, everlasting God, there is only one.---------------------- Well let us see. Psalm 8:5 refers to the angels as "gods." Psa. 82:6 refers to the judges of Israel as "gods". Psa. 136:2 refers to God as the God of the gods. False idol gods??? I think not! Even the early Church recognized that others could be called gods. Ones such as Justin Martyr understood Psa. 82:6 to refer to Christians in the resurrection. Also, I almost forget, the LXX of Exodus 7:1 calls Moses "a god to Pharaoh. One of my favorites though comes from an early church writing, the Letter to Diognetus. In there it states: “He who, whatever things he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive [them].”

The fact that there is "one God" is no different than the fact that there is "one Lord," Jesus, and yet the Father is called our Lord and the apostle John called one of the 24 elders his Lord in Revelation 7:14. Or no different than one in John 8:41 the Jews confess: "We have ONE Father, God," when only 2 verses prior in verse 29 they stated: "Abraham is our Father." By your reasoning Abraham must be God and the elder must be Jesus!

-----------------------------
If you go to the original greek, you can see that the NWT is wrong. Whoever changed it doesn't follow the rules of translation, they are inconsistant in the "rules" such as in Luke 20:38 also. The so called translators are like John Kerry, they flip flop on issues, in this case to take away Jesus's Deity.
------------------------------

Let us look at Luke 20:38. QEOS DE OUK ESTIN NEKRWN ALLA ZWNTWN PANTES GAR AUTWi ZWSIN. What on earth does this have to do with anything? Nothing to do with John 1:1, that is for sure. Though the text is wonderful when we compare it back to Psa. 136:2, for it shows that the "gods" that Jehovah is the God of are real "living" gods, for he is the God of the living after all, not of ones without life!

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

ellderwho,

First, what does the fact that God does not give **his** glory to another have to do with another receiving glory that is not God's glory?

Second, your savior passage is entirely out of context, there contrasting God with the idol god's of the nations. You cannot remove a passage from its context and argue by that. It is an abuse of Scripture. I would suggest you read the book of Judges, where a number of "saviors" are refered to, and properly called such. For example, Ehud was "a savior." There is no issue with calling others saviors, but we recognize that God is always the source of the salvation.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

lilly,

I'm glad we agree that God is not Triune. I would say it is reasonable that at times within the OT Jesus might have appeared in the place of God. This fits into a concept known as agency, where the one who appears for a person as their agent is considered to be the person himself legally, though not physically. I would note though that in Acts 7 Stephen speaks of the law being delivered by angels, plural, so it seems that while Christ might have appeared at times for God, there were angels as well that did so when the law was being delivered.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

ellderwho,

Why wouldn't he? He is our savior. Glory isn't something exclusive to God.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Lilly,

There are a number of New Testament passages that make it clear that it is the "Father" that is the God within the Old Testament. Already Hebrews 1:1-2 has been discussed. We see that "the God" that "spoke by the prophets" was the Father, not the Son. For in Hebrews 1 we read of "the God" that did this and in verse 2 we read of the son of that God.

Let us consider Hebrews 3:4-5: "For every house is built by someone; but He who built all things is God. And "Moses" truly "was faithful in all his house" as a ministering servant, for a testimony of the things having been spoken; "

God built everything and Moses was "faithful in all his house." This text is quote from Numbers 12:7, where God states: "It is not so with My servant Moses! He is faithful in all My house." Going back to Hebrews 3, we can continue into verse 6: "but Christ as Son over His house, whose house we are, if truly we hold fast the boldness and rejoicing of the hope firm to the end." Christ was not the God who possessed the house, who was speaking in Num. 12:7, but the Son of that God.

Also, Acts 3:15, which quotes from Exodus 3:15, refering to the God that spoke in that text. We are there told that Jesus is "his servant," which is the servant of the God that spoke in Exodus 3:15, not that God himself or a person of that God.

Further, Acts 3:25-26, which quotes God speaking to Abraham in Genesis 22:18. We see that Jesus isn't that God or a person of that God, because we read of that God who spoke there, and again Jesus is said to be that one's servant. Acts 5:30-31 supports this too, also referencing that text.

Finally, we might consider Jesus' words of John 8:54. "Jesus answered, If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, whom you say is your God."

The God of the Jews, the God of the Old Testament, according to Jesus, was not a Trinity or Jesus himself, but that one was his Father. He is the God of the Old Testament, the Jehovah who alone is the most high. (Psa. 83:18)

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Lilly, Would it satisfy you if I could give you a couple of examples of where "God" appears and it can be shown conclusively in those specific cases that it is not Jesus? If so, I will be happy to do as much. Please let me know. Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

BelieverinJesus,

You wrote:

===============================
I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Son of God, and at the same time Jesus is God. By using the NIV, KJV, NAS, and NLT I am overly abundantly convinced that Jesus Christ is God. That's VERY important. Even using the NWT, which has been changed to take away the deity of christ, you can still see who Jesus is. There are many points I'd like to make. First being in Genesis 1:1-4...this explains that God created everything. Then in John 1:1-4 it explains that God is Jesus, and Jesus who is God created everything.
=========================

The NWT doesn't "change" anything simply because it doesn't agree with those other translations. Just about any passage of Greek can be translated in various ways. Context plays a role in how we choose to translate it. Even if we accept that though, that does not make Jesus Almighty God any more than the fact that the Jewish king is spoken of as "God" in Psalm 45:6. The Greek and Hebrew words translated as "god" carry with them different senses.

Further, John 1:4 does not tell us that Jesus created everything, but it tells us that God created "through" Jesus. There is a difference. It is clearly shown in the Greek.

================
Along with his attributes are identical to God, They both forgive sin, they both give life, they both control the water's with their word. Jesus say's "....I AM" when asked who he is. God is called " I AM" God is also called "The alpha and the omega." Jesus is also called that in the book of revelation. God also tells us to not worship anybody or any idol apart from him. Jesus accepts worship when he triumphantly enters Jeresulam and when he is resurrected and with the disciples. The disciples worship him. He doesn't stop him.
================

The words "I am" are nothing significant. Jesus uses those words in normal speech. Others use them as well, included the blind man in John 9:9 and others. Jesus is in fact not called "the alpha and the omega," though he is called "the first and the last," though he is called such as "the one who became dead and is alive forevermore." Which means that he is the first and the last in the resurrection.

As for worship, Jesus indeed receives it, but he receives it because God exalted him, not because he is God. This is explicitly defined in Phil. 2:9-11. It does not contradict God's command not to worship others, part of the Old Testament law that we are not under, because God is the one that commands that Jesus receives it. (Heb. 1:6)

=====================
God also say's all other god's are valueless in Isaiah. So wouldn't that make the watch towers NWT bible contradictory what they have written in the NWT John 1:1 saying "the word was "a" God." Wouldn't that make Jesus valueless? The NWT is pathetic! I've even learned some basic Greek and can see the flaws in the NWT. What a shame.
=====================

Actually, in the context of Isaiah's statement, he is speaking of idols. You cannot take texts out of context and get a proper meaning, and this is exactly what you have done with your claim about Isaiah It has nothing to do with Jesus. The NWT is not pathetic and obviously your "basic Greek" is failing you, for if you knew more than "basic Greek" you would know that the NWT is perfectly acceptable in rendering John 1:1c as "a god," which has a syntax that parallels Acts 28:4 with "a murderer."

Mondo