And that is what we are faced with.
The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus
- Thread starter Runningman
- Start date
Greeks are not stupid. They know their own language. JWs weren't magically zapped with more knowledge than what Greeks already know about their language. That's so idiotic that it's flat out criminal. The Greek language is owned by Greeks and they will not be lectured to by those who are clearly blasphemous in their thoughts. There will be an accounting for the JW blasphemous thoughts.
Last edited:
Runningman
Well-known member
The topic I was discussing was the translation of John 1:1 that a multitude of Trinitarian Greek experts agree is a possible interpretation. While it's true that they don't necessarily agree with that translation, they nevertheless confirm it's plausible because the "the" definite article before God in John 1:1 shows distinction between the Word and God as not the same God. All you've done is simply deny it. You have not presented any sort of refutation of their material.
Runningman
Well-known member
The Lord God said that, not the Lord Jesus. This is referring to Lord God Almighty, which Jesus is not in Scripture (Matthew 11:25, Acts 4:24-27, Acts 17:24,25, Revelation 1:8, Revelation 21:22, etc). Aside from all of that, there aren't any examples of praying to Jesus in Scripture and the only teaching to pray to is to the Father in Matthew 6:6,9.
The power of Christ is mentioned in the subject, yes, but that doesn't presuppose he is praying to Jesus since the power of Christ is not a person, but the power of an anointing. Take off your Trinitarian goggles and point to us where it says that is Jesus talking and where it says he is praying to Jesus. Once again, you'll find it doesn't actually exist.
Runningman
Well-known member
It's simply in the Greek syntax, which is publicly available for anyone to look at. The Word is described without the definite article before it, which essentially makes the Word being theos qualitative, since there is only one God in Christianity. Therefore, the Word is better understood as godly, in my honest opinion, since the Word isn't an actual person in Scripture. It doesn't exist anywhere in the Bible, and in 1 John 1:1-3, John referred to the Word of life as "it." It's pretty easy to see, based on context and grammar, that the Word isn't actually God nor able to incarnate.
Compare this to Hebrews 1:8-9, where Jesus is referred to as God, but the God who anointed him is distinct from Jesus in the context. It's not the same God anointing the other God. This is because Jesus isn't actually God Almighty in Scripture, as numerous verses plainly show.
You can find similar constructs in the Greek syntax of John 1:1 in the New Testament. For example, John 10:34-36 refers to "gods" without the definite article, similar to how "god" appears in John 1:1. They have the quality of gods but are not the one true God and are distinct from the Father. That supports the view that the Word is not "The God" in the Bible because he is the Son of THE GOD in the Greek. This passage may as well be an admission on his part that he isn't The God, but rather a god in the same sense as the others the word of God came to.
Another example is Romans 9:5. While I disagree with the translation that calls Christ God, it uses a similar construct to John 1:1, in which Christ isn't "The God." Furthermore, it emphasizes the fact that Jesus has a human lineage, whereas God does not, drawing further distinction between himself and God. On that note, the KJV doesn't translate this verse to indicate Jesus is God anyway.
Last edited:
Here is John 1:1 in Koine Greek:
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
The transliteration of "θεος ην ο λογος" to English is "God was the Word".
ο λογος is the Word, a Person referred to multiple times as "He" or "Him" in verses 2 to 4.
θεος without the article functions as an attribute, in this case denoting the full attributes of Deity, of God. That arrives us to fact that the Word was God.
Therefore, the Word Person embodies the full attributes of God, of full Deity.
===================
Here is the JW (NWT) English version of John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Do tell us how in the world do you go from θεος ην ο λογος (God was the Word) to "the Word was a god"???
Where did the "a" come from? Did the JW God suddenly forget how to speak Greek?!?!Also, what does the NWT mean by "a god"? Goblins and Elf spirits?
CC: @Pancho Frijoles
Last edited:
No it is not understood as godly
but as
John 1:1 (NEB) — 1 WHEN ALL THINGS began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was.
The Logos of John is the real, personal God (1:1), the Word, who was originally before the creation with God, and was God, one in essence and nature, yet personally distinct (1:1, 18); the revealer and interpreter of the hidden being of God; the reflection and visible image of God, and the organ of all His manifestations to the world. Compare Heb. 1:3. He made all things, proceeding personally from God for the accomplishment of the act of creation (1:3), and became man in the person of Jesus Christ, accomplishing the redemption of the world. Compare Philip. 2:611 Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (vol. 2; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887), 32.
evangelical Christian scholars agree that theos in John 1:1 in reference to Christ is very likely qualitative, it is important to understand precisely what this means. Robert Bowman notes that “a noun is said to be ‘qualitative’ if its function in the sentence is primarily to indicate the essential qualities, characteristics, nature, or attributes of something.” Moreover, “the qualitative use of a noun does not alter its basic meaning, but simply gives it a particular nuance which emphasizes the subject’s characteristics or qualities as such.”40 Hence, even though theos in John 1:1 in reference to Christ is qualitative, that does not change the basic meaning of theos, which is “God.”
In referring to the qualitative use of theos in John 1:1, we are affirming that John is here “describing the nature of the Word, saying the Word is deity.” Or, as renowned scholar F.F. Bruce put it, John was saying that Jesus the Word “shared the nature and being of God,” and John 1:1 carries the idea, “what God was, the Word was.”
In view of this, categorizing theos in John 1:1 as qualitative does not in the slightest take away from the absolute deity of Jesus. Professor Daniel Wallace puts it this way:
Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NET), or “the Word was divine.”…In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity…. The idea of a qualitative theos here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God”…had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.
Greek expert James White likewise emphasizes that John worded things the way he did in order to (1) emphasize the absolute deity of Jesus Christ and (2) maintain triune distinctions in the Godhead:
If John had placed the article before theos [in reference to Christ], he would have been making “God” and the “Word” equal and interchangeable terms…. John is very careful to differentiate between these terms here, for He is careful to differentiate between the Father and the Son throughout the entire Gospel of John…. Had theos as well as logos [“Word”] been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also “with God.”
How, then, should we translate John 1:1 so that the absolute deity of Christ is maintained? Daniel Wallace makes the point that nowadays, many people tend to misunderstand the term divine, and some might wrongly take it to mean something less than absolute deity. He concludes that even though theos in John 1:1 in reference to Christ is qualitative in nature, the most accurate way to render it so it would not be misunderstood is “The Word was God.”
Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest is a little more forceful in his translation: “And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.” He then comments on John 1:1: “Here the word ‘God’ is without the article in the original. When it is used in this way, it refers to the divine essence. Emphasis is upon the quality or character. Thus, John teaches us here that our Lord is essentially Deity. He possesses the same essence as God the Father, is one with Him in nature and attributes.”
What all this means, then, is that the Watchtower Society has completely misrepresented what John is saying in John 1:1. Properly translated, this verse represents one of the strongest proofs of the deity of Christ in the Bible.
1
1 Ron Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah‘s Witnesses (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2009).
None of the scholars opted for godly
And according to your claims the word was an impersonal thing which obviously they rejected
Sorry you are ignoring the context and my argument as well and assuming your view
2 Corinthians 12:8–10 (UASV) — 8 Three times I implored the Lord about this, that it would depart from me. 9 And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me. 10 Therefore I take delight in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties for the sake of Christ, for whenever I am weak, then I am strong.
Notice in the denial of healing
the lord states
And he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness
and Paul interprets the power of the lord he entreated thusly
Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
You fail to consider context and have done so time after time as I have demonstrated over and over
Context refutes your denials
None of them agreed Christ was described as less than God
And what they differentiated is the person of the father from the person of Christ/the Word
they were not referring to a being less than God the father, but of one who was the same as he
runningman is playing a game against us. He thinks throwing a few weak arguments can turn us away from the knowledge of the Trinity. He is rather insistent despite knowing our faith. He does not have anything substantive but tries repeating the ideas though they are illogical and ineffective. It gets to be so odd that he does not listen to anything but repeats them despite being proved insufficient. Obviously also he is not doing this for his own learning either.
101G
Well-known member
maybe a repeat is the truth? for the, the, the, Word of God in John 1:1 is GOD, the SAME "ONE" Person in a G2758 κενόω kenoo (ke-no-ō') v. 1. to make empty... State.
101G.
i would think if repeating it caused it to be truth, he would have won.
101G
Well-known member
the truth doesn't CHANGE, if what the presenter is saying is true.
and John 1:1 is TRUE..... the WORD ..... "WAS" ... GOD. because the keyword is "WITH". the Word was "WITH" God is God.
101G.
Right. the heart of the problem is runningman is not running with the truth
101G
Well-known member
101G cannot answer for anyone, only witness to the truth. so 101G ask you, do you agree that the Word is God in FLESH?
101G
Runningman
Well-known member
No. For starters, it doesn’t actually say he prayed to Jesus. Two, it doesn’t say Jesus replied. Three, Grace coming from Christ isn’t a major biblical doctrine. Typically, it's stated that through Jesus there is grace, but he is not the originator. Four, there is nothing in the Bible about the power of Jesus, who himself received his power and authority from God, being made perfect in weakness, but rather God's power being made perfect in weakness according to 1 Cor. 2:5.
So there isn't any evidence that this was a prayer to Jesus. It doesn't even say that and the things that were said to Paul don't describe Jesus in Scripture.
I believe you have been fully refuted.
Runningman
Well-known member
This isn't a game. This is an apologetics forum isn't it. I hope you weren't thinking this is church where everyone is going to sit around, pat each other on the back, and agree with one another. No. I want to debate with you all and I believe I can either challenge, refute, or debunk Trinitarianism. I am under no impression anyone will ever publicly cede a single talking point or turn away from what they believe.
Runningman
Well-known member
Fine don't believe them. I'll just keep adding more experts to the pile who say "the word was a god" is plausible.
James Moffatt in The New Testament: A New Translation translates John 1:1 in way consistent with "the Word was a god."
In the James Moffatt New Testament, he translated John 1:1 like this:
"THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."
That's because when the word theos lacks the definite article before it then it can be qualitive. In other words, it can be meant to say godly or divine.
You rejected this idea in a different post above, so for conciseness I will address it here and prove it to be the case by simply using a more well-known bible.
See 1 Timothy 1:4, in the KJV and some others, that render the same root word as theos as a qualitative godly rather than as God. They even translated Theon in 2 Corinthians 7:11 as godly because it doesn't necessarily refer to a person in context.
1 Timothy 1
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Same deal in several verses like this:
2 Corinthians 7
10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
2 Corinthians 11
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Aside for theological reasons, there are good scholarly reasons to translate John 1:1 differently. The experts agree.
Runningman
Well-known member
I don't know about the NWT as I have scarcely come across it and I am not a JW. Your translations lacks consistently. Try out the below verses for proof that the Greek doesn't grammatically require the Word being God.Here is John 1:1 in Koine Greek:
1 εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
The transliteration of "θεος ην ο λογος" to English is "God was the Word".
ο λογος is the Word, a Person referred to multiple times as "He" or "Him" in verses 2 to 4.
θεος without the article functions as an attribute, in this case denoting the full attributes of Deity, of God. That arrives us to fact that the Word was God.
Therefore, the Word Person embodies the full attributes of God, of full Deity.
===================
Here is the JW (NWT) English version of John 1:1:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Do tell us how in the world do you go from θεος ην ο λογος (God was the Word) to "the Word was a god"???
Also, what does the NWT mean by "a god"? Goblins and Elf spirits?
CC: @Pancho Frijoles
1 Timothy 1
4Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
2 Corinthians 7
10For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. 11For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.
2 Corinthians 11
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
Aside for theological reasons, there are good scholarly reasons to translate John 1:1 differently. The experts agree.
The problem is you do not provide anything complete or sufficient to overcome the testimony of scriptures about the deity of Christ. That is why it appears as games. It is just scattered points rather than saying what you believe overall. Peterlag has done the same type of approach before finally showing more of his writings. The real task would be a thorough address of the Trinitarian's predominant evidence about the divinity of Christ in the Godhead.
