The Bible does not teach to pray to Jesus

[synergy]

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.

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.​

You possess a dirt poor understanding of Greek.

John 1:1 contains the word "θεος" within the phrase "θεος ην ο λογος". θεος is God, pure and simple.

1 Tim 1:4 contains θεου which translates to Godly.
2 Cor 7:10 contains θεον which translates to Godly.
2 Cor 11:2 contains θεου which translates to Godly.

Any human can have Godly sentiments but only the Word (Jesus) is God.

Conclusion: the Word Person is God.

 

[TomL]

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.

Once again

I do believe them you however do not understand them as none of them imagine as you do the Word was an impersonal thing

I do not know how you imagine quoting them supports your position in the least

Do you know what Moffatt means by divine or did you just assume it

But no one states it means godly. And that translation is absurd in the context.

Nothing existed when all things were created by the word

John 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

Theos does not mean godly

Godly is not a translation of the word Theos but of a compound phrase after or toward or of God

look at Young literal word for word translation

1 Timothy 1:4 (YLT) — 4 nor to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, that cause questions rather than the building up of God that is in faith:—

2 Corinthians 7:10 (YLT) — 10 for the sorrow toward God reformation to salvation not to be repented of doth work, and the sorrow of the world doth work death,

2 Corinthians 11:2 (YLT) — 2 for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Further both divine and godly are adjectives while Theos is a noun

and the word for divine is not theos but theios

another word

 

[TomL]

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.

The text

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.

He prayed to the lord

the same Paul stated

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.




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
The lord who denied him appealed to the sufficiency of his power

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.

not the power of God but of Christ

for you to say there is nothing in the bible about the power of Jesus is absurd

Matthew 28:18 (KJV 1900) — 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

and of course our text

2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.



You fail to consider context and have done so time after time as I have demonstrated over and over

Context refutes your denials

 

[TomL]

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.

Yes

None of them support his view, and he is desperately trying to weaken the case for Christ's deity. The Greek exegetes he quotes however are affirming the deity of Christ while carefully avoiding conflating the person of the father and Jesus, which would be modalism

 

[TomL]

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.

What scholars really say (it is addressed to the JW translation a god but it makes the point this is a gross mistranslation)

The dispute on Jn.1:1​

Jn.1:1 En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos


"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in the flesh they must change John 1:1 NWT. The NWT renders John 1:1 as: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That is NOT what the Greek text actually says! It states "the word was God." Let's take a look at what authentic New Testament Greek scholars say about this verse.

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it! "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."( Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

The title page of the Watchtower Bible states, "Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony D.D. (1948 Reprint). They considered him to be scholar but he was not out of reach of their tampering.

The Watchtower misrepresented Dr. Westcott using his credentials and the reprinted Greek text of Dr. Westcott. Westcott identified the Word in John 1:1 with...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12).

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

end pt1

 

[TomL]

end pt1

WHAT DO GREEK SCHOLARS THINK ABOUT JEHOVAH'S WITNESS TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

Dr. J. J. Griesback: "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage John 1:1 is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida (Head of the Translation Department of the American Bible Society Translators of the GOOD NEWS BIBLE): "With regard to John 1:1 there is, of course, a complication simply because the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek". ( Bill and Joan Cetnar Questions for Jehovah's Witnesses "who love the truth" p..55

Dr. William Barclay (University of Glasgow, Scotland): "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New Testament translations. John 1:1 translated:'. . . the Word was a god'.a translation which is grammatically impossible. it is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest. THE EXPOSITORY TIMES Nov, 1985

Dr. B. F. Westcott (Whose Greek text is used in JW KINGDOM INTERLINEAR): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in 4:24. It is necessarily without the article . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true Deity of the Word . . . in the third clause `the Word' is declared to be `God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." The Gospel According to St. John (Eerdmans,1953- reprint) p. 3, (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12.)

Dr. Anthony Hoekema, commented: Their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into Modern English, but is a biased translation in which many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself (The Four Major Cults, pp. 238, 239].

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell (University of Chicago): "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb; . . .this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. `My Lord and my God.' " John 20:28

Dr. F. F. Bruce (University of Manchester, England): "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with `God' in the phrase `And the Word was God'. Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicate construction. `a god' would be totally indefensible."

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman (Portland OR.): "The Jehovah's Witness people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg (La Mirada CA.): "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. Robert Countess, who wrote a doctoral dissertation on the Greek text of the New World Translation, concluded that the The Christ of the New World Translation "has been sharply unsuccessful in keeping doctrinal considerations from influencing the actual translation .... It must be viewed as a radically biased piece of work. At some points it is actually dishonest. At others it is neither modern nor scholarly "78 No wonder British scholar H.H. Rowley asserted, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."79 Indeed, Rowley said, this translation is "an insult to the Word of God."

Dr. Harry A. Sturz: (Dr. Sturz is Chairman of the Language Department and Professor of Greek at Biola College) "Therefore, the NWT rendering: "the Word was a god" is not a "literal" but an ungrammatical and tendential translation. A literal translation in English can be nothing other than: "the word was God." THE BIBLE COLLECTOR July - December, 1971 p. 12

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach. When asked to comment on the Greek, said, "No justification whatsoever for translating theos en ho logos as 'the Word was a god'. There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 23:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse. Jn.1:1 is direct.. I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian.

DO ANY REPUTABLE GREEK SCHOLARS AGREE WITH THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF JOHN 1:1?

A. T. Robertson: "So in John 1:1 theos en ho logos the meaning has to be the Logos was God, -not God was the Logos." A New short Grammar of the Greek Testament, AT. Robertson and W. Hersey Davis (Baker Book House, p. 279.

E. M. Sidebottom:"...the tendency to write 'the Word was divine' for theos en ho Iogos springs from a reticence to attribute the full Christian position to john. The Christ of the Fourth Gospel (S.P.C.K., 1961), p. 461.

C. K. Barrett: "The absence of the article indicates that the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have implied that no divine being existed outside the second person of the Trinity." The Gospel According to St. John (S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 76.

C. H. Dodd: "On this analogy, the meaning of _theos en ho logos will be that the ousia of ho logos, that which it truly is, is rightly denominated theos... That is the ousia of ho theos (the personal God of Abraham,) the Father goes without saying. In fact, the Nicene homoousios to patri is a perfect paraphrase." "New Testament Translation Problems the bible Translator, 28, 1 (Jan. 1977), P. 104.

Randolph 0. Yeager: "Only sophomores in Greek grammar are going to translate ..and the Word was a God.' The article with logos, shows that to logos is thesubject of the verb en and the fact that theos is without the article designates it as the predicate nominative. The emphatic position of theos demands that we translate '...and the Word was God.' John is not saying as Jehovah's Witnesses are fond of teaching that Jesus was only one of many Gods. He is saying precisely the opposite." The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 4 (Renaissance Press, 1980), P. 4.

Henry Alford: "Theos must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,--not ho theos, 'the Father,' in person. It noes not = theios; nor is it to be rendered a God--but, as in sarx engeneto, sarx expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a-definite act, so in theos en, theos expresses that essence which was His en arche:--that He was very God . So that this first verse must be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,--was with God (the Father),--and was Himself God." (Alford's Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary, Vol. I, Part II Guardian 'press 1976 ; originally published 1871). p. 681.

end pt2

 

[TomL]

end pt2

Donald Guthrie: "The absence of the article with Theos has misled some into t inking teat the correct understanding of the statement would be that 'the word was a God' (or divine), but this is grammatically indefensible since Theos is a predicate." New Testament Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1981), p. 327.

Bruce M. Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary said: "Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, . . . `and the Word was a god,' with the following footnotes: " `A god,' In contrast with `the God' ". It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation." "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (April 1953), p. 75.

James Moffatt: "'The Word was God . . .And the Word became flesh,' simply means he Word was divine . . . . And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man ...." Jesus Christ the Same (Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1945), p. 61.


E. C. Colwell: "...predicate nouns preceding the verb cannot be regarded as indefinite -or qualitative simply because they lack the article; it could be regarded as indefinite or qualitative only if this is demanded by the context,and in the case of John l:l this is not so." A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament," Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), p. 20.

Philip B. Harner: "Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it,"that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.""(Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973), p. 87.

Philip Harner states in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 92, 1 (March 1973) on Jn.1:1 "In vs. 1c the Johannine hymn is bordering on the usage of 'God' for the Son, but by omitting the article it avoids any suggestion of personal identification of the Word with the Father. And for Gentile readers the line also avoids any suggestion that the Word was a second God in any Hellenistic sense." (pg. 86. Harner notes the source of this quote: Brown, John I-XII, 24)

Julius R. Mantey; "Since Colwell's and Harner's article in JBL, especially that of Harner, it is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.' Word-order has made obsolete and incorrect such a rendering .... In view of the preceding facts, especially because you have been quoting me out of context, I herewith request you not to quote the Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament again, which you have been doing for 24 years." Letter from Mantey to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. "A Grossly Misleading Translation .... John 1:1, which reads 'In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,' is shockingly mistranslated, 'Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god,' in a New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, published under the auspices o Jehovah's Witnesses." Statement JR Mantey, published in various sources.

 

[Complete]

Hi Complete. I am curious how you are reading this. Do you see the request that is being made known to God as the same subject as the peace of God?

'Be careful for nothing;
but in every thing by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving
let your requests be made known unto God.
And the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus.
(Php 4:6-7)

Hello @Runningman,

We are told elsewhere in Scripture that the Lord would have us be without carefulness, and I believe that this verse is telling the believer to cast their care upon the Lord for He cares for us. Our requests and supplication being made known unto God, His peace will be with us, and will keep our hearts and minds THROUGH Christ Jesus.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Our risen and glorified
Saviour, Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[Runningman]

'Be careful for nothing;
but in every thing by prayer and supplication
with thanksgiving
let your requests be made known unto God.
And the peace of God,
which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds
through Christ Jesus.
(Php 4:6-7)

Hello @Runningman,

We are told elsewhere in Scripture that the Lord would have us be without carefulness, and I believe that this verse is telling the believer to cast their care upon the Lord for He cares for us. Our requests and supplication being made known unto God, His peace will be with us, and will keep our hearts and minds THROUGH Christ Jesus.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Our risen and glorified
Saviour, Lord and Head.
Chris

For sure. Jesus taught us to not asking him for anything, but rather make our requests known to the Father, in Jesus' name, and the Father would do it. that must be what Paul was referring to.

John 16
23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

 

[Runningman]

What scholars really say (it is addressed to the JW translation a god but it makes the point this is a gross mistranslation)

The dispute on Jn.1:1​

Jn.1:1 En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos


"In the beginning (origin) was the Word and the Word was with God (face to face -toward) and the word was God."

Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God in the flesh they must change John 1:1 NWT. The NWT renders John 1:1 as: "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." That is NOT what the Greek text actually says! It states "the word was God." Let's take a look at what authentic New Testament Greek scholars say about this verse.

Dr. Julius R. Mantey (who is even recognized by the Watchtower as a Greek scholar since they quote his book on page 1158 of their Kingdom Interlinear Translation): calls the Watchtower translation of John 1:1 "A grossly misleading translation. It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John l:1 'the Word was a god. 'But of all the scholars in the world, so far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah's Witnesses have done." "I was disturbed because they (the Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified--yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of pagan concept . . .1 believe it's a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture!. . . Ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the Jehovah's Witnesses. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the Jehovah's Witnesses and end up in hell." (Ron Rhodes "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses" p.103-105)

In order to present the appearance of scholarly backing for their translation of this verse, the Society had to intentionally misquote Dr. Julius R. Mantey and H.E. Dana's Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Both Dana and Mantey firmly held to the historic Christian belief in the Triune God as is evident throughout their Grammar. The late Dr. Mantey had on several occasions issued statements concerning the misquotation of his statements by the Witnesses, even writing a letter to the Watchtower headquarters in Brooklyn demanding references and quotes from his book to be removed from their publications. They ignored his request!

They have also misquoted Philip B. Harner: Not only does Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature not support the Watchtower's rendering of John 1:1, he emphatically argues against it! "Because of the word order used by John, the verse can only be interpreted to mean that the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."( Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

Misquoting John L. McKenzie: Still another scholar quoted out of context by the translators of the New World Translation is John L. McKenzie. By citing McKenzie out of context and by quoting only a portion of his article, he is made to appear to teach that the Word (Jesus) is less than Jehovah because he said "the word was a divine personal being'." He is less than Jehovah. However, as apologist Robert M. Bowman correctly notes, "On the same page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal thing'; McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28 and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:1-18 expresses 'an identity between God and Jesus Christ.; So McKenzie's words actually argue against the Watchtower position."(Ron Rhodes Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses p.103-105)

The title page of the Watchtower Bible states, "Presenting a literal word-for-word translation into English under the Greek text as set out in 'The New Testament in the Original Greek--The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott D.D. and Fenton John Anthony D.D. (1948 Reprint). They considered him to be scholar but he was not out of reach of their tampering.

The Watchtower misrepresented Dr. Westcott using his credentials and the reprinted Greek text of Dr. Westcott. Westcott identified the Word in John 1:1 with...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word... in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead." (The Bible Collector, July-December, 1971, p. 12).

Dr. Robert H. Countess (Univ. of Tenn. and author of an excellent critical analysis of the NWT called The Jehovah's Witnesses' New Testament): "There are 282 places in the New Testament where, according to the NWT translation principle, the NWT should have translated 'a god' but in fact they follow their own rules of 'a god' translation only 6% of the time. To be ninety-four percent unfaithful hardly commends a translation to careful readers!"

Omission of the article with "Theos" does not mean the word is "a god." If we examine the passages where the article is not used with "Theos" we see the rendering "a god" makes no sense (Mt 5:9, 6:24; Lk 1:35, 78; 2:40; Jn 1:6, 12, 13, 18; 3:2, 21; 9:16, 33; Ro 1:7, 17, 18; 1 Co 1:30; 15:10; Phil 2:11, 13; Titus 1:1). The "a god" position would have the Jehovah's Witnesses translate every instance where the article is absent. As "a god (nominative), of a god (genitive), to or for a god (dative)." But they do not! "Theou" is the genitive case of the SAME noun "Theos" which they translate as "a god" in John 1:1. But they do not change "Theou" "of God" (Jehovah), in Matthew 5:9, Luke 1:35, 78; and John 1:6. The J.W.’s are not consistent in their biblical hermeneutics they have a bias which is clearly seen throughout their bible.

Other examples-In Jn.4:24 "God is Spirit, not a spirit. In 1 Jn .4:16 "God is love, we don’t translate this a love. In 1 Jn.1:5 "God is light" he is not a light or a lesser light.

end pt1

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is no shortage of theologians that deny that John 1:1 can be translated as the "Word was a god" in spite of the fact that the same exact kind of Greek grammar constructs exist around the New Testament.

My favorite is John 10:34-36 where Jesus said they are gods which would make them elohim. Of course, not in the literal sense because they are humans, but rather god(s) in their qualities because the word of God came to them. After that, Jesus describes himself as godly, asking "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

See that? Jesus described he and the others as a god/godly and then said he is the Son of The God in the Greek text. Understand how a god and The God are not the same now? This is supported by many Greek experts as well. I have a feeling we will continue to choose our experts and theologians. The funny thing is, I haven't even mentioned any Unitarian theologians yet. I have been using intellectually honest and scholarly Trinitarians, mostly, who agree with me.

 

[Complete]

For sure. Jesus taught us to not asking him for anything, but rather make our requests known to the Father, in Jesus' name, and the Father would do it. that must be what Paul was referring to.

John 16
23And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

'But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus,
Who of God is made unto us
wisdom, and righteousness,
and sanctification, and redemption:
That, according as it is written,
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.'
(1Cor. 1:30)

Hello @Runningman,

The believer is reckoned by God to be 'in' Christ Jesus by faith: All that we receive is received 'through' Him,

After reading the way you refer to the Lord Jesus Christ, I do not wish to engage with you further, so please do not respond to this final reply of mine.

'Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine,
receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.'
(2Jn 1:9-11)

Complete in Christ Jesus
God's only begotten Son
Now risen and glorified
and seated at God's right hand.

 

[TomL]

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that there is no shortage of theologians that deny that John 1:1 can be translated as the "Word was a god" in spite of the fact that the same exact kind of Greek grammar constructs exist around the New Testament.

My favorite is John 10:34-36 where Jesus said they are gods which would make them elohim. Of course, not in the literal sense because they are humans, but rather god(s) in their qualities because the word of God came to them. After that, Jesus describes himself as godly, asking "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

See that? Jesus described he and the others as a god/godly and then said he is the Son of The God in the Greek text. Understand how a god and The God are not the same now? This is supported by many Greek experts as well. I have a feeling we will continue to choose our experts and theologians. The funny thing is, I haven't even mentioned any Unitarian theologians yet. I have been using intellectually honest and scholarly Trinitarians, mostly, who agree with me.

Sorry you are just ignoring context

John quotes from

Psalm 82:1–8 (KJV 1900) — 1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, And accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend the poor and fatherless: Do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: Rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; They walk on in darkness: All the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; And all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: For thou shalt inherit all nations.

where the false gods will die like the men they are and fall under the judgment of God

While all judgment has been given to Christ

BTW Not even a Jehovah's witness will claim The word was a false god

Also BTW It is rather disengenous of you argue such when your position is the word was an impersonal thing

And your doubts are og no authority

You have been shown none of the experts you quoted were trying to make Christ a lesser secondary god rather they were defending against modalism

 

[Runningman]

The text

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.

He prayed to the lord

the same Paul stated

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.




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
The lord who denied him appealed to the sufficiency of his power

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.

not the power of God but of Christ

for you to say there is nothing in the bible about the power of Jesus is absurd

Matthew 28:18 (KJV 1900) — 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

and of course our text

2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.



You fail to consider context and have done so time after time as I have demonstrated over and over

Context refutes your denials

You're mixing and matching contexts in which Jesus is Lord and getting the wrong idea. I admit it can be confusing when the Father and Jesus are both called Lord in various contexts without one person being the other. I think we agree that, in Trinitarianism, the Son is not the Father; therefore, they are not the same person; therefore, they are not the same Lord.

In the context of the Bible, Jesus was not always inherently Lord, but, rather, was made to be Lord by God in Acts 2:36, which says "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Which shows there was a beginning point in which Jesus was made Lord. So what was Jesus given Lordship over? According to Scripture, Jesus is the Lord of the church, that's it.

Ephesians 1​

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,​

​

Colossians 1​

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

While it's true that, in the church there is indeed One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Father is also called Lord in Scripture.

​

Matthew 11​

25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.​

​

Acts 17:24​

24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;​

​

Acts 4​

23And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. 24And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:​

Kindly note, that the Father is called the Lord of heaven and earth in Matthew 11:25 and Jesus is never called the "Lord of heaven and earth" in Scripture because he isn't. Therefore, the God mentioned in Acts 17:24 is the Father and Creator, the Lord of heaven and earth.

This is more plain in the following passage that the Father is the one Lord and God overall in the broadest context possible, while Jesus' Lordship is limited to the church. (Eph. 1:22, Col. 1:18)

Ephesians 4​

4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

We can test the logic of this. If Jesus is the One Lord and there are no other possible Lords then the Father is the One God and there are no other possible Gods. Therefore Jesus isn't God using this argument. I bring this up because someone else here tried to use it already and I wanted to point it out again.

It's also evidence that Jesus is not the one Lord overall since he isn't overall according to Scripture. Jesus is the Lord "overall" in the church, yes, but over Jesus is the Father as his Lord.

​

1 Corinthians 11​

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.​

​

1 Corinthians 3​

23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.​

So it's pretty clear that, in various contexts, there are Lords over specific domains. Jesus' domain is the church, but Jesus' teachings and words come from God, which makes Jesus our mediator or spokesman to God, but not God himself. You can think of Jesus as a messenger or prophet in this regard. Hence, God speaks through the Son in these Last Days, but didn't do so in times long ago, according to Hebrews 1:1-2. Most of the rank-and-file Trinitarians' theology comes from a misunderstanding of context, but it's all completely fixable if one has their eyes and ears open.

With all of that being said, there aren't actually any directives to pray to Jesus in Scripture. In Scripture, Jesus taught others to pray to the Father in Matt 6:6,9; others said to pray to God, yet Jesus said the Father is the only true God. Ipso facto, whenever God is mentioned anywhere in Scripture, we believe that it's a reference to the Father. We take the entire Old Testament and New Testament as Scripture in support of Unitarianism. We're confident, too, and can prove this easily.

Therefore, there is no precedent that Paul would have been praying to Jesus in 2 Corinthians 12:8-10. The weakness of your argument is that you don't have any clear examples of this happening, nor does the verse plainly state what you're proposing. However, I have provided examples of prayer being directed to the Father. You'll reject it all, I know, but in a court of law, I would theoretically have just won based on the evidence.

 

[TomL]

You're mixing and matching contexts in which Jesus is Lord and getting the wrong idea. I admit it can be confusing when the Father and Jesus are both called Lord in various context without one person being the other. I think we agree that in Trinitarianism, the Son is not the Father, therefore the are not the same person, therefore they are not the same Lord.

In the context of the Bible, Jesus was not always inherently Lord, but, rather, was made to be Lord by God in Acts 2:36, which says "God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." Which shows there was a beginning point in which Jesus was made Lord. So what was Jesus given Lordship over? According to Scripture, Jesus is the Lord of the church, that's it.

Ephesians 1​

22And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,​

​

Colossians 1​

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.​

While it's true that, in the church there is indeed One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Father is also called Lord in Scripture.

​

Matthew 11​

25At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.​

​

Acts 17:24​

24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;​

​

Acts 4​

23And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them. 24And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:​

Kindly note, that the Father is called the Lord of heaven and earth in Matthew 11:25 and Jesus is never called the "Lord of heaven and earth in scripture" because he isn't. Therefore, the God mentioned in Acts 17:24 is the Father and Creator, the Lord of heaven and earth.

This is more plain in the following verse that the Father is the one Lord and God overall in the broadest context possible, while Jesus' Lordship is limited to the church.

Ephesians 4​

4There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.​

We can test the logic of this. If Jesus is the One Lord and there are no other possible Lords then the Father is the One God and there are no other possible Gods. Therefore Jesus isn't God using this argument. I bring this up because someone else here tried to use it already and I wanted to point it out again.

It's also evidence that Jesus is not the one Lord overall since he isn't overall according to Scripture. Jesus is the Lord "overall" in the church, yes, but over Jesus is the Father as his Lord.

​

1 Corinthians 11​

3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.​

​

1 Corinthians 3​

23And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.​

So it's pretty clear, in various contexts, there are Lords over specific domains. Jesus' domain is the church, but Jesus' teachings and words come from God, which makes Jesus our mediator or spokesman to God, but not God himself. You can think of Jesus as a messenger or prophet in this regard. Hence, God speaks through the Son in these Last Days, but didn't do so in times long ago according to Hebrews 1:1,2. Most of the rank-and-file Trinitarians' theology comes from a misunderstanding of context, but it's all completely fixable if one has eyes and ears open.

So with all of that being said, once again, there aren't actually any directives to pray to Jesus in Scripture. In Scripture, Jesus taught others to pray to the Father, others said pray to God, yet Jesus said the Father is the only true God. Ipso facto, the whenever The God is mentioned anywhere in Scripture, we believe that it's a reference to the Father. We take the entire Old Testament and New Testament as Scripture in support of Unitarianism. We're confident, too, and can prove this easily.

Therefore, there is no precedent that Paul would have been praying to Jesus in 2 Cor. 12:8-10. The weakness of your argument is you don't have any clear examples of this happening nor does the verse plainly state what you're proposing. However, I have made examples of prayer being to the Father. You'll reject it all, I know, but in a court of law I would theoretically have just won based on evidence.

What a joke

I appealed to context which you ignored

The text

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.

He prayed to the lord

the same Paul stated

1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV 1900) — 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.




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
The lord who denied him appealed to the sufficiency of his power

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.

not the power of God but of Christ

for you to say there is nothing in the bible about the power of Jesus is absurd

Matthew 28:18 (KJV 1900) — 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV 1900) — 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

and of course our text

2 Corinthians 12:9 (KJV 1900) — 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.



You fail to consider context and have done so time after time as I have demonstrated over and over

Context refutes your denials

Now you say there is no context of praying to the Christ but that idea has already been refuted

Acts 7:59–60 (KJV 1900) — 59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. 60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

1 Corinthians 1:2 (KJV 1900) — 2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

1 John 5:13–15 (KJV 1900) — 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 14 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: 15 And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him.

John 14:13–14 (KJV 1900) — 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.


and of course the present text

2 Corinthians 12:8–9 (KJV 1900) — 8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Do you not tire of making false pronouncements?