JW's mistaken claim...

[DeeDee]

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Jesus = Father, Husband...

Jesus is not yet a "Husband"...

His wedding is in the future.

[Witness]

2 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

No- one seed grows into tree [root and branch of Jesse] that will fill the whole earth.  

There was a covenant/promise made with the literal nation of Israel, for a seed, who was the Messiah.  That was the old covenant. Heb 8:7,13  He also came from Abraham as his seed; and from Jesus, all other families would be blessed... Acts 13:23,32; Gal 3:16

…through another promise, the New Covenant that Jesus made with his disciples on the night of his last meal with them.             

“In the same way he also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”  Luke 22:20

 The anointed ones are also Abraham’s seed that is produced once the New Covenant is fulfilled/given birth to the “new creation”. 2 Cor 5:17 To get there, they also sacrifice their lives as Jesus sacrificed his life, which was firstly for them, and for all the children of promise.  Gal 4:26; Rev 20:4-6  The “144,000” have followed Jesus’ example and given their life in order for the rest of God’s children to obtain life. John 12:24; Rev 6:9,11; Rom 8:19-21  As a “new creation” Kingdom promise/”mother”covenant, the rest of Abraham’s seed gains life.  Rom 4:13; Gen 28:13,14; Rev 22:1,2,17

Jesus, the Bride, the rest of God’s children are all Abraham’s promised seed; and in succession, all inherit the earth. 

 

 

[Witness]

19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

WHAT KINGS IS THIS SCRIPTURE REFERRING TO ACCORDING TO YOU?:

You must be referring to Christ and his ruling “kings”.  

1 Tim 6:15; Rev 5:9,10; 1:5;22:22-24

The first to be the recipient of Ps 37:11,29 is the second Adam – Jesus Christ.  1 Cor 15:45,47  This was according to the promise God made with Abraham. Gen 28:13,14; Rom 4:13

“Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance
and the ends of the earth your possession.”  Ps 2:8

“For everything was created by him,
in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities—
all things have been created through him and for him.” Col 1:16

And…Heb 1:2; 1 Cor 15:28; Eph 1:10,20,21; Matt 28:18 

The second who inherit the earth within the family line of God’s children are the “144,000” Gal 3:29,26  Jesus is the firstborn of God; the anointed within his body are the “firstborn” to receive life from him.  John 5:21

If there are firstborn children, they are more to come; in abundance. 1 Cor 5:23

The Bride is the fulfilled covenant/woman/promise – “Sarah” of Gal 4:24,26; 1 Pet 3:14; Acts 3:25; Rom 4:13,16; 9:8; Gal 3:22,24,26,28,29 

I think you are having difficulty in accepting the definition of “new creation”; that these “kings” can be both human and spirit.  Rev 5:9,10 says they will reign on the earth.  We also see scriptures showing them in a heavenly form; (Rev 20:6; 1:20; 8:2,6; Josh 6:4; Mal 2:7);and as I brought out to Arauna on another thread, there are many scriptures that verify their being on earth. 

The first resurrection is complete when the New Covenant/promise is fulfilled by the “144,000” reaching completion.  They are the first to receive life through Christ, and they are the first to be judged as worthy of life, which takes place now. Eph.2:5; Rev.20:6; John6:50,51,58; 1John3:14; 5:13   Those not anointed can be in line for a “resurrection” to life, now; but it is fulfilled when the  Kingdom arrives and all of Abraham’s seed are made “sons of God”.  Acts 24:15; 1 John 2:2

19 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

ARE EARTHLY KINGS ALLOWED TO BURN INCENSE "TO JEHOVAH" NOW ,OR IS THERE AN EARTHLY PRIESTHOOD NOW AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT ?  [maybe there is. I don't know. I don't know if it's forbidden like in Uzziah's or Korah's day, but doesn't strike me as a good idea]-

  https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/50063-the-role-of-the-anointed-ones-in-the-last-days/

 

[Space Merchant]

It is kinda funny how some who use John 1:1 and claim Jesus is God has no idea of the biblical, historical and scriptural context via manuscripts.

That being said, it is correctly translated to "a god" or "was a god", and such as been stated waaaaaaaay before Jehovah's Witnesses/Bible Students have been established.

I will not go into detail because when I tend to explain something, I go full on context, and I believe the Jehovah's Witnesses are in the write for correcting the wording in that text.

Other variations of rendering John 1:1 also exist (simple wiki search):

You see here most tend to go with "a god" or "was a god", in addition, ancient Greek differs from modern Greek. In ancient times, they rarely use uppercase letters.

 

NOTE: some translations tend to use Divine or divine, Deity or deity, vice versa. what is 100% true regardless of translation, "The Word was With God". Another thing to add, Jesus can't be God the Father because

A::: Shema Yisrael, something that Jesus had to do since he was a Jew born in the law and he included this in prayer to God

and

B::: When Jesus was a Baby, Zechariah thanked God, even giving God praise in Luke 1:68, 69, he began to speak due to Holy Spirit bestowed upon him for Zechariah spoke to God pretty much about Lord Jesus who was still in the womb of Mary. Jesus is refereed to as the Horn of Salvation, in English, The Savior (Born Powerful Savior).

Sahidic Coptic to English - In the beginning existed the word and the word existed with the god and a god was the word

14th century: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was at God, and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate)

1808: "and the Word was a god" – Thomas Belsham The New Testament, in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London.

1822: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament in Greek and English (A. Kneeland, 1822.)

1829: "and the Word was a god" – The Monotessaron; or, The Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists (J. S. Thompson, 1829)

1863: "and the Word was a god" – A Literal Translation of the New Testament (Herman Heinfetter [Pseudonym of Frederick Parker], 1863)

1864: "the LOGOS was God, This was in the Beginning with God" – A New Emphatic Version (right hand column)

1864: "and a god was the Word" – The Emphatic Diaglott by Benjamin Wilson, New York and London (left hand column interlinear reading)

1867: "In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God" – The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

1879: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (J. Becker, 1979)

1885: "and the Word was a god" – Concise Commentary on The Holy Bible (R. Young, 1885)

1911: "and the Word was a god" – The Coptic Version of the N.T. (G. W. Horner, 1911)

1935: "and the Word was divine" – The Bible: An American Translation, by John M. P. Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed, Chicago

1955: "so the Word was divine" – The Authentic New Testament, by Hugh J. Schonfield, Aberdeen.

1956: "In the beginning the Word was existing. And the Word was in fellowship with God the Father. And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity" – The Wuest Expanded Translation[16]

1958: "and the Word was a god" – The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Anointed" (J. L. Tomanec, 1958);

1962, 1979: "'the word was God.' Or, more literally, 'God was the word.'" – The Four Gospels and the Revelation (R. Lattimore, 1979)

1966, 2001: "...and he was the same as God" – The Good News Bible

1970, 1989: "...and what God was, the Word was" – The Revised English Bible 1975 "and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word" – Das Evangelium nach Johnnes, by Siegfried Schulz, Göttingen, Germany

1975: "and the Word was a god" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes (S. Schulz, 1975);

1978: "and godlike sort was the Logos" – Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider, Berlin

1993: "The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God, in readiness for God from day one." — The Message, by Eugene H. Peterson.[17]

 

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

[Witness]

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Thank you so much for the video.  I have felt and believed this; Jesus is the messenger – of life – the bread of life, through his teachings.  John 6:35

“Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.”  John 6:57

“Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways.

In these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son. God has appointed him heir of all things and made the universe through him.

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact expression of his nature, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Heb 1:1-3

Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and take up residence with him.  J0hn 14:23

[Cos]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, Space Merchant said:

I speak to defend the scriptures, and that is what I intend to do.

Space merchant,

 

Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter.

 

If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more!

 

In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1.

 

For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof!”, while ignoring everything else.

 

In the introduction to The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect by George Horner, he explains in his critical apparatus that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” (JW when quoting this tend to leave out the [ ]).

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. When examined carefully the Sahidic Coptic does not support the JW rendering…the claims made by some are unfounded and deceptive. <><

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, Cos said:

Space merchant,

 

Every time a JW wants to argue for their rendering of John 1:1 you cite a list of Bible version which you think support the JW rendering, as if that settles the matter.

 

If citing Bible versions were justifiable then many more translation CAN be cited that have “and the Word was God” many, many more!

 

In fact you JWs will cite anything that you think gives support to your wording from a false altered text to an Occultist rendering of John 1:1.

 

For example you guys quote for support the Sahidic Coptic translation, the problem is you JW’s narrowly look at John 1:1 and automatically think “aha proof!”, while ignoring everything else.

 

In the introduction to The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect by George Horner, he explains in his critical apparatus that, “Square brackets imply words used by the Coptic and not required by the English, while curved brackets supply words which are necessary to the English idiom.”

 

Horner translates John 1.1c into English as follows: “. . . and [a] God was the Word.” (JW when quoting this tend to leave out the [ ]).

 

Unlike English, the Sahidic indefinite article is used with nouns (e.g., water, bread, meat, truth, love, hate). Examples of these can be seen from where the Greek has no article but the Coptic does.

 

“because out of fullness we all of us took [a] life and [a] grace…” (Coptic version John 1:16)

 

“…I am baptizing you in [a] water’’ (Coptic version John 1:26)

 

“That which was begotton out of flesh is [a] flesh…” (Coptic version John 3:5)

 

“…ye say that ye have [a] life for ever in them…” (Coptic version John 5:39)

 

“. . . and immediately came out [a] blood and [a] water.” (Coptic version John 19:34)

 

Many more examples can be cited but this should be sufficient to make my point. None of the words in brackets are necessary in English but are still noted by Horner’s translation. When examined carefully the Sahidic Coptic does not support the JW rendering…the claims made by some are unfounded and deceptive. <><

For the record, I am a Unitarian Christian (I have respect for brothers and sisters in Christ who are aware of Trinity falsehood, as well as improve as Christians) and have stated this briefly before, we to believe that the translation of "God" when referring to Jesus should either be "a god" or "was god", especially in context with John 14:6. Not sure if you are aware, but even before the Jehovah's Witnesses existed, let alone Bible Students, "a god" was used, in addition, some don't always use "a god", some  use "was god (or was divine)", if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars.

I merely cited how other scholars have interpreted John 1:1, regardless, made mention to how these scholars had it to further prove that before the Witnesses took on this rendering just as the others have before them had done the same, and you can see most tend to use "a god" or "was god" (as well as divine in some translations), for this was no a JW only rendering.

For John 1:1 in question, since you brought up the Coptics, The Sahidic Coptic Translation used an indefinite article with the word "god" in the final part of John 1:1. Those ancient translators realized that John's words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God, thus, The Word "was god" or "a god", but not Almighty God.

I find it rather odd that some would have intended the first sentence in the gospel of John to imply the existence of a god other than Yahweh/Jehovah, and for me personally, as stated before, this is not the Jehovah's Witnesses  own interpretation either for others have translated that verse to what it truly is, but that just goes to show, it's all in how one interprets, whether not grammatical rules were in play or not. Also some use the Coptic john 1:1 in a sense has "divine" or "a god" for they see it that the grammar in the Sahidic Coptic strongly suggest "a god".

 

Here is an old blog-post, there is more with the same final conclusion on why "a god" or "was a god, etc fits perfectly compared to "was God": http://coptictruch.blogspot.com/

There is also information from a Hebraic point of view, but that may just be for another time.

That being said, The scriptures itself shows us that John's introductory words (1:1-5) refer to the beginning of the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Word proclaimed through the ministry of God's Anointed, Jesus of Nazareth. The Word of John 1:1 is the Word proclaimed through the ministry of Jesus.

Plus it would seem ridiculous that one who is a Bene Elohim is a creator of all things, when the root of Bene Elohim is that Bene Elohims came into existence because of God, who caused them to exist to begin with, hence, Son(s) of God and or Son(s) from God. This term also identifies Christians, since we are Sons of God.

Trying to prove Jesus is God through John 1:1 is like attempting to proving that El Gibbor is the same meaning as Almighty Father, or that teaching/and or Jesus doing The Shema is non-existent from a view of Trinitarianism, when it is clearly evident that Jesus did do such.

[DeeDee]

It is interesting to compare the similarities in Colossians 1:15-17 with John 1:1-3.

 

Colossians 1:15-17:

¹⁵ He is the image of the invisible God,

the FIRSTBORN of ALL creation;

 

¹⁶ because by means of him

ALL other things were CREATED

in the heavens AND on the earth,

the things visible and the things invisible…

 

ALL other things have been CREATED

THROUGH him and FOR him.

¹⁷ Also, he is BEFORE all other things,

and by means of him  ALL other things were made to EXIST,

 

John 1:1-3:

1 In the BEGINNING was the Word,

and the Word was WITH God,

and the Word was a god.

² This one was in the BEGINNING WITH God.

³ ALL things came into EXISTENCE THROUGH HIM,

and apart from him NOT EVEN ONE THING came into EXISTENCE…

[Cos]

Space merchant,

 

Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW.

 

28 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

 if you took the time to look up the history of John 1:1 translations by some scholars.

I have!

 

I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering.

 

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like?

 

Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do know that don’t you? <><

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

d

Here is what the recorded arguably smartest natural man who has EVER LIVED had to say about the Trinity. If I followed the teachings of any natural man ... I would follow THIS one. John Byl, in his article "Newton and the Trinity", paints a clear picture that Newton was non-trinitarian. Newton's published works do not contain clear statements of this nature. In his private notebooks however, some of which were not examined completely until the mid 20th century, Newton committed a significant amount of effort to criticizing the Church's trinitarian doctrines. Byl writes: In one notebook it is clear that, already in the early 1670's, Newton was absorbed by the doctrine of the Trinity. On this topic he studied extensively not only the Bible, but also much of the Church Fathers. Newton traced the doctrine of the trinity back to Athanasius (298- 373); he became convinced that before Athanasius the Church had no trinitarian doctrine. In the early 4th century Athanasius was opposed by Arius (256-336), who affirmed that God the Father had primacy over Christ. In 325 the Council of Nicea condemned as heretical the views of Arius. Thus, as viewed by Newton, Athanasius triumphed over Arius in imposing the false doctrine of the trinity on Christianity. Newton further asserted that, in order to support trinitarianism, the Church deliberately corrupted the Bible by modifying crucial texts. For example, Newton claimed that the well-known words of I John 5:7 (”there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) were not in the original, pre-4th century Bible (Newton, it seems, was not a King James only man). Newton writes that “the Fathers…preferred to desert the Scriptures than not to condemn Arius”. Soon thereafter a universal corruption of Christianity followed the central corruption of doctrine: in the 4th century trinitarianism fouled every element of Christianity. Newton's anti-trinitarianism is evident also in his interpretation of Revelation. According to Newton, the seventh seal began in the year 380, when trinitarianism was officially ratified at the Council of Constantinople. The great apostasy was not Romanism, but trinitarianism, “the false infernal religion”, to quote Newton's own words. Economist John Maynard Keynes obtained a significant amount of Newton's unpublished works in 1936 due to his interest in Newton's alchemical (occult) studies. Newton wrote vastly on alchemy, which should be considered a philosophy in it's own right and not merely a proto-science. As a proto-science, it is more akin to a proto-psychology than a proto-chemistry, as is the common opinion (I'm happy to elucidate in chat or in the comments), and Newton was interested in the considerable discussion in the alchemical corpus on God, the human soul, and matter, as Newton, even in his published works, considered his work on physics to be an expression of worship toward the Creator and a revelation of his divine arcitecture. Newton is considered by many biographers to have been a deist, and not necessarily Christian, and so Newton's writings on Christianity should be considered in alchemical or deist context and not primarily in that of Christianity. Indeed, his commentary on Christian doctrine appears to be predominantly critical. Among the previously unpublished work obtained by Keynes is a list of twelve points stated by Newton on the relation between the Father, Son, and Spirit. Chief differences of Newton's perspective in comparison with both Catholic and Protestant doctrine is that Christ is not human or endowed with a human soul (8), and that the relationship between the persons of the trinity is like that of the saints, that they are distinct beings in agreement with one another (12). In the list, Newton made an entry for a 13th point which he left blank. The word God is nowhere in the scriptures used to signify more than one of the three persons at once. The word God put absolutely without restriction to the Son or Holy Ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other. Whenever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant the Father. When, after some heretics had taken Christ for a mere man and others for the supreme God, St John in his Gospel endeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him and avoid those heresies and to that end calls him the word or logos: we must suppose that he intended that term in the sense that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term logos before St John wrote, was generally used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being and the Arians understood it in the same sense, and therefore theirs is the true sense of St John. The Son in several places confesseth his dependence on the will of the Father. The Son confesseth the Father greater, then calls him his God etc. The Son acknowledgeth the original prescience of all future things to be in the Father only. There is nowhere mention of a human soul in our Saviour besides the word, by the meditation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word itself was made flesh and took upon him the form of a servant. It was the son of God which He sent into the world and not a human soul that suffered for us. If there had been such a human soul in our Saviour, it would have been a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles. It is a proper epithet of the Father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. Yet this is not to limit the power of the Son. For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father do; but to acknowledge that all power is originally in the Father and that the Son hath power in him but what he derives from the Father, for he professes that of himself he can do nothing. The Son in all things submits his will to the will of the Father, which could be unreasonable if he were equal to the Father. The union between him and the Father he interprets to be like that of the saints with one another. That is in agreement of will and counsel.   Some points, esp. 5, 6, and 11, support the claim that Newton was a subordinationist, and the Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations strictly reject that teaching. Newton also names the Arians as having a proper notion of the Logos in point 4, while Arianism is also considered heretical by The Roman Catholic Church and many protestant denominations. Byl summarizes Newton's heretical points: He explicitly declares only the Father to be supreme; the Son is a separate being, different from the Father both in substance and in nature; Christ is not truly God but is the so-called Word and Wisdom made flesh, divine to be sure, but only so far as divinity is communicated by the Father.

[Cos]

If Newton were Unitarian so what? Even some of the brightest minds get things wrong! <><

[Space Merchant]

23 minutes ago, Cos said:

Space merchant,

 

Thank you for explaining a little be more, I apologize for assuming you are a JW.

 

I have!

 

I showed you that the correct way to use the Coptic translation is to do so in the way the translator intended not as some have done and misapply the translation to suit a false rendering.

 

I’d be more than happy to discuss this with you further if you like?

 

Let me ask you; you do know that from the writings of the early church that the Arianism/Unitarianism idea did not appear historically until the fourth century, you do know that don’t you? <><

No problem, apparently on another forum it is a meme if you are a non-Trinitarian they will assume your faith right off the bat, sometimes with negativity, but I am use to it.

I do know of the history, and the controversy behind it, even of what isn't mention.

Also, Biblical Unitarians are typically or some what Socinian in Christology, not Arian or Semi-Arian.

What you mentioned about writings, I invite you to check out these two videos on a clear analysis on the Nicea controversy, the things that has not been mentioned:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLqm4KYqQlU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBUbhN-4waE

As well as this book: https://books.google.com/books/about/When_Jesus_Became_God.html?id=CUxsmAEACAAJ&hl=en

Whereas Robert doesn't take sides, but clearly explains the things that went about prior to and during the Council, even afterwards.

 

That being said, what I mentioned about the blog-post, there is several who believe that "a god" is correct over "was God". There are more who speak on the rendering of John 1:1 then just the one guy you mentioned.

I remember seeing a guy who spoke in behalf of JWs on YouTube who has put together an excellent presentation regarding the Coptics and why the JWs as well as those who agree with the rendering of John 1:1. If I find that video I will post it, I will essentially have to go YouTube diving to find it, the video is that old, other videos also share the same information in regards to John 1:1.