08-11-2002 12:30									#61
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Thomas used the word "theos", which does not specifically refer to angels, nor specifically to the One True God. It is a word that can be used of any being of relative authority or might to the speaker. The One True God is the pinnacle of godliness, but not the only god around (in the biblical usage of the term).

Give me another biblical phrase in which 'theos' is used for someone else but the "One True God"

Or explain more detailed how the phrase "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou" can be applied to anyone but the One True God, since it's not only "ho theos" but even "ho theos mou"! Can anyone but The One True God be "ho theos mou"?

That would be against God's first commandment.

quote: You mean, the characteristics of a divine being? They are assigned to many creature, such as angels, in addition to God.

no, not the characteristics of a divine being, but the characteristics of the One True God.

compare:
A. Isa.44:6 Jehovah is the first and the last.
B. Rev.1:7-8, 22:13 Jesus is the first and the last.

Either God Jehovah is the first and the last, or Jesus is. The can only both be the First and the Last if they are one, and if Jesus is for that reason the One True God.

Jno.12:37-41 John says that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory.
Isa.6:5 Isaiah saw Jehovah of Hosts.

A. Jno.1:3 That’s a strong negative – no created thing that was ever created, was created without Jesus
creating it. If Jesus was created. Then how did he create himself?
B. Col.1:15-17 There isn’t anything that he didn’t create. All creation continues to be, by his authority and
creative power. (consist = hold together)

Lk.12:11 “rulers” in this verse is the same word as beginning. ARCHE.
Would this then be “synagogues and beginnings and authorities”?
“ARCHE means a beginning. The root “ARCH” primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb
ARCHO meant to be first; and ARCHON denoted ruler. So arose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether it be a person or a thing, e.g. (Col.1:18) “who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence.” [Vine’s Expository Dict. of N.T. Words]
So Jesus is the beginning, the origin, the active cause, the ruler of the creation of God.

A. Jno.8:58 Before Abraham became, I am. (not was) The only other person in all of scripture who said this and meant it was Jehovah. (Ex.3:14)
B. Mt.2:5-6
The prophecy concerning the place of his birth. But look at the whole verse. Cf. Micah.5:2 “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
C. Heb.7:1-3 The son of God is one who has no beginning of days nor end of life.

	08-11-2002 13:56									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by One_Brow Just for thoroughness, I check the Off-Topic and Off-Topic archive for "Jahve". Outside of this thread, no hits.

God's name is "I AM". You could have searched for that. I know for a fact that I have mentioned John 8:58 before. I think several times. The thread(s) might have been deleted.

quote: So, I look forward to your example of Yahoweh in the NT, when you have the time. That is, assuming you didn't think this was actually the first time I had seen John 8:58 in five years, and that is what you meant.

I've been through all the "Jesus is God" relevant scriptures with the JWs. We can't get passed them if we wanna discuss Jesus' deity.

quote: Tomaito, tomahto.

I wrote Jahve, you searched for Jehova, then you wrote Yahoweh, and I finished with YHWH.

"Jehova" is probably a wrong translation.

quote: Quite possibly guilty of arrogance as charaged. Yes, after five years discussion on the web, plus reading quite a few JW and anti-Jw books before that, I think I've seen pretty much every argument the Trinitarians use to bolster their doctrine

I'd say that JWs have heard it all...

I have a quite good anti-JW book "The dream about paradise lost". Too bad it's only in Scandinavian...

1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

Too bad your knowledge is considered heretic by the christian church.

quote: that I am arrogant does not make me incorrect.

That's right. But you're being both arrogant and incorrect

quote: Actually, I don't *want* to believe it, and never did *want* to believe it.

I actually think that ppl who have some knowledge and spiritual christian experience will be better handling the teachings of the JWs and others considered heretic. It's better to know something on which both the Christian Church and the Watchtower teaches instead of being a tabula rasa.

quote: For those not in the know, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society uses the phrase "I have been" instead of "I am".

And up to this point you pointed out that the other translations used by most christians were as good... Not good enough anymore, hey?

quote: Is this supposed to be the mistake? If so, then you were wrong. If this suppose to be the existence of the Divine Name? You are wrong again.

No, this wasn't the mistake. It was like the elder said a "small thing". It might have been a preposition or something that was translated wrong from NT Greek into English. I don't remember. I was correct and the elder agreed with me. I think he knows his JW translation. He brought his JW bible and we both saw it.

quote: I can approach this any number of ways. We can discuss the context of the passage, in which Jesus is comparing his age to Abraham's age. We can discuss the passage in Exodus 3:14, which no Jew of that era would take to mean "I am", not too mention that the Divine name does not even appear in 3:14.

"I have been" in like "I am no more" ? It just doesn't sound right.

Ex 3:14 (John 8:58):

And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,.... This signifies the real being of God, his self-existence, and that he is the Being of beings; as also it denotes his eternity and immutability, and his constancy and faithfulness in fulfilling his promises, for it includes all time, past, present, and to come; and the sense is, not only I am what I am at present, but I am what I have been, and I am what I shall be, and shall be what I am. The Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their to on from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being; and so the Septuagint version here is
o wn: it is said {z}, that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on it, "I am all that exists, is, and shall be." And on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written ei, the contraction of eimi, "I am" {a}. Our Lord seems to refer to this name, John 8:58, and indeed is the person that now appeared; and the words may be rendered, "I shall be what I shall be" {b} the incarnate God, God manifest in the flesh:

thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you; or as the Targum of Jonathan has it, "I am he that is, and that shall be." This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

{z} Phutarch. de Iside & Osir. {a} Plato in Timaeo. {b} hyha rva hyha "ero qui ero," Pagninus, Montanus, Fagius, Vatablus.

quote: We can discuss a variety of Trinitarian translations (a partial list includes Goodspeed and the Living Bible) that do not use "I am."

I know 13 bible versions who translate into "I am". Why don't we discuss the majority, not the minority?

quote: We can discuss how the general use of the "I am" phrases is to show Jesus is the Messiah, not God.

Go ahead.

quote: Any of of the above is enough to show that John 8:58 offers no support for Trinitarian dogma.

I beg to differ.

A Triune God:

Colossians 1:17 And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).

Refering to Jesus here.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

God the Father, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are eternal beings.

I know that the Watchtower hates Athanasius...

1 John 2: 23 No one who [habitually] denies (disowns) the Son even has the Father. Whoever confesses (acknowledges and has) the Son has the Father also.

quote: Well, I'll be gone all weekend, so take your time in getting your research together and gathering up your arguments. If you take this to a new thread, please email me so I'll see it on Monday. Have a great weekend.

Have a good un.

	08-11-2002 14:03									#63
	The deity of Christ/ A Triune God Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I couldn’t fit the following into the former post:

John 1:1 (Scandinavian translation...):

In Hebrew there is one word for “in the beginning” – bereshit. Be and Reshit. The preposition Be can be translated to:

1. In.
2. By (through).
3. To.

The main word Reshit can be translated in four ways:

1. Beginning, before all things.
2. The sum, the total.
3. The Head.
4. Firstborn (firstfruit)

In Col 1:16-18 we find a praise to Jesus, praise for creation and redemption. In Col 1:16 we again meet the three prepositions:

1. In him.
2. By him.
3. To him.

And in Col 1:17-18 we find the four expressions for the noun:

1. He is before all things [the beginning], v. 17a
2. In Him all things consist [the sum, the total], v. 17b
3. He is the head of the body, the church, v. 18a
4. He is the firstborn from the dead, v. 18b

IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1] Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2] Himself.(1)

Footnotes

In John's vision (Rev. 19), he sees Christ returning as Warrior-Messiah-King, and "the title by which He is called is The Word of God... and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:13, 16).
Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: "God" appears first in the Greek word order in this phrase, denoting emphasis--so "God Himself."

In the beginning was the word,.... That this is said not of the written word, but of the essential word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is clear, from all that is said from hence, to John 1:14 as that this word was in the beginning, was with God, and is God; from the creation of all things being ascribed to him, and his being said to be the life and light of men; from his coming into the world, and usage in it; from his bestowing the privilege of adoption on believers; and from his incarnation; and also there is a particular application of all this to Christ, John 1:15. And likewise from what this evangelist elsewhere says of him, when he calls him the word of life, and places him between the Father and the Holy Ghost; and speaks of the record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus, as the same thing; and represents him as a warrior and conqueror, 1 John 1:1. Moreover this appears to be spoken of Christ, from what other inspired writers have said of him, under the same character; as the Evangelist Luke, Luke 1:2, the Apostle Paul, Acts 20:32 and the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 3:5. And who is called the word, not as man; for as man he was not in the beginning with God, but became so in the fulness of time; nor is the man God; besides, as such, he is a creature, and not the Creator, nor is he the life and light of men; moreover, he was the word, before he was man, and therefore not as such: nor can any part of the human nature be so called; not the flesh, for the word was made flesh; nor his human soul, for self-subsistence, deity, eternity, and the creation of all things, can never be ascribed to that; but he is the word as the Son of God, as is evident from what is here attributed to him, and from the word being said to be so, as in John 1:14 and from those places, where the word is explained by the Son, compare 1 John 5:5.

And is so called from his nature, being begotten of the Father; for as the word, whether silent or expressed, is the birth of the mind, the image of it, equal to it, and distinct from it; so Christ is the only begotten of the Father, the express image of his person, in all things equal to him, and a distinct person from him: and he may be so called, from some action, or actions, said of him, or ascribed to him; as that he spoke for, and on the behalf of the elect of God, in the eternal council and covenant of grace and peace; and spoke all things out of nothing, in creation; for with regard to those words so often mentioned in the history of the creation, and God said, may Jehovah the Son be called the word; also he was spoken of as the promised Messiah, throughout the whole Old Testament dispensation; and is the interpreter of his Father's mind, as he was in Eden's garden, as well as in the days of his flesh; and now speaks in heaven for the saints. The phrase, yyd armym, "the word of the Lord," so frequently used by the Targumists, is well known: and it is to be observed, that the same things which John here says of the word, they say likewise, as will be observed on the several clauses; from whence it is more likely, that John should take this phrase, since the paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel were written before his time, than that he should borrow it from the writings of Plato, or his followers, as some have thought; with whose philosophy, Ebion and Cerinthus are said to be acquainted; wherefore John, the more easily to gain upon them, uses this phrase, when that of the Son of God would have been disagreeable to them: that there is some likeness between the Evangelist John and Plato in their sentiments concerning the word, will not be denied. Amelius {f}, a Platonic philosopher, who lived after the times of John, manifestly refers to these words of his, in agreement with his master's doctrine: his words are these;

"and this was truly "Logos," or the word, by whom always existing, the things that are made, were made, as also Heraclitus thought; and who, likewise that Barbarian (meaning the Evangelist John) reckons was in the order and dignity of the beginning, constituted with God, and was God, by whom all things are entirely made; in whom, whatsoever is made, lives, and has life, and being; and who entered into bodies, and was clothed with flesh, and appeared a man; so notwithstanding, that he showed forth the majesty of his nature; and after his dissolution, he was again deified, and was God, as he was before he descended into a body, flesh and man."

In which words it is easy to observe plain traces of what the evangelist says in the first four verses, and in the fourteenth verse of this chapter; yet it is much more probable, that Plato had his notion of the Logos, or word, out of the writings of the Old Testament, than that John should take this phrase, or what he says concerning the word, from him; since it is a matter of fact not disputed, that Plato went into Egypt to get knowledge: not only Clemens Alexandrinus a Christian writer says, that he was a philosopher of the Hebrews {g}, and understood prophecy {h}, and stirred up the fire of the Hebrew philosophy {i}; but it is affirmed by Heathen writers, that he went into Egypt to learn of the priests {k}, and to understand the rites of the prophets {l}; and Aristobulus, a Jew, affirms {m}, he studied their law; and Numenius, a Pythagoric philosopher {n}, charges him with stealing what he wrote, concerning God and the world, out of the books of Moses; and used to say to him, what is Plato, but Moses "Atticising?" or Moses speaking Greek: and Eusebius {o}, an ancient Christian writer, points at the very places, from whence Plato took his hints: wherefore it is more probable, that the evangelist received this phrase of the word, as a divine person, from the Targums, where there is such frequent mention made of it; or however, there is a very great agreement between what he and these ancient writings of the Jews say of the word, as will be hereafter shown. Moreover, the phrase is frequently used in like manner, in the writings of Philo the Jew; from whence it is manifest, that the name was well known to the Jews, and may be the reason of the evangelist's using it.

This word, he says, was in the beginning; by which is meant, not the Father of Christ; for he is never called the beginning, but the Son only; and was he, he must be such a beginning as is without one; nor can he be said to be so, with respect to the Son or Spirit, who are as eternal as himself; only with respect to the creatures, of whom he is the author and efficient cause: Christ is indeed in the Father, and the Father in him, but this cannot be meant here; nor is the beginning of the Gospel of Christ, by the preaching of John the Baptist, intended here: John's ministry was an evangelical one, and the Gospel was more clearly preached by him, and after him, by Christ and his apostles, than before; but it did not then begin; it was preached before by the angel to the shepherds, at the birth of Christ; and before that, by the prophets under the former dispensation, as by Isaiah, and others; it was preached before unto Abraham, and to our first parents, in the garden of Eden: nor did Christ begin to be, when John began to preach; for John's preaching and baptism were for the manifestation of him: yea, Christ existed as man, before John began to preach; and though he was born after him as man, yet as the Word and Son of God, he existed before John was born; he was in being in the times of the prophets, which were before John; and in the times of Moses, and before Abraham, and in the days of Noah: but by the beginning is here meant, the beginning of the world, or the creation of all things; and which is expressive of the eternity of Christ, he was in the beginning, as the Maker of all creatures, and therefore must be before them all: and it is to be observed, that it is said of him, that in the beginning he was; not made, as the heavens and earth, and the things in them were; nor was he merely in the purpose and predestination of God, but really existed as a divine person, as he did from all eternity; as appears from his being set up in office from everlasting; from all the elect being chosen in him, and given to him before the foundation of the world; from the covenant of grace, which is from eternity, being made with him; and from the blessings and promises of grace, being as early put into his hands; and from his nature as God, and his relation to his Father: so Philo the Jew often calls the Logos, or word, the eternal word, the most ancient word, and more ancient than any thing that is made {p}. The eternity of the Messiah is acknowledged by the ancient Jews: Micah 5:2 is a full proof of it; which by them {q} is thus paraphrased; "out of thee, before me, shall come forth the Messiah, that he may exercise dominion over Israel; whose name is said from eternity, from the days of old."

Jarchi upon it only mentions Psalm 72:17 which is rendered by the Targum on the place, before the sun his name was prepared; it may be translated, "before the sun his name was Yinnon"; that is, the Son, namely the Son of God; and Aben Ezra interprets it, Nb arqy, "he shall be called the son"; and to this agrees what the Talmudisis say {r}, that the name of the Messiah was before the world was created; in proof of which they produce the same passage.

And the word was with God; not with men or angels; for he was before either of these; but with God, not essentially, but personally considered; with God his Father: not in the Socinian sense, that he was only known to him, and to no other before the ministry of John the Baptist; for he was known and spoken of by the angel Gabriel before; and was known to Mary and to Joseph; and to Zacharias and Elisabeth; to the shepherds, and to the wise men; to Simeon and Anna, who saw him in the temple; and to the prophets and patriarchs in all ages, from the beginning of the world: but this phrase denotes the existence of the word with the Father, his relation and nearness to him, his equality with him, and particularly the distinction of his person from him, as well as his eternal being with him; for he was always with him, and is, and ever will be; he was with him in the council and covenant of grace, and in the creation of the universe, and is with him in the providential government of the world; he was with him as the word and Son of God in heaven, whilst he as man, was here on earth; and he is now with him, and ever will be: and as John here speaks of the word, as a distinct person from God the Father, so do the Targums, or Chaldee paraphrases; Psalm 110:1 "the Lord said to my Lord," is rendered, "the Lord said to his word"; where he is manifestly distinguished from Jehovah, that speaks to him; and in Hosea 1:7 the Lord promises to "have mercy on the house of Judah," and "save them by the Lord their God." The Targum is, "I will redeem them by the word of the Lord their God"; where the word of the Lord, who is spoken of as a Redeemer and Saviour, is distinguished from the Lord, who promises to save by him. This distinction of Jehovah and his word, may be observed in multitudes of places, in the Chaldee paraphrases, and in the writings of Philo the Jew; and this phrase, of "the word" being "with God," is in the Targums expressed by, Mdq Nm rmym, "the word from before the Lord," or "which is before the Lord": being always in his presence, and the angel of it; so Onkelos paraphrases Genesis 31:22 "and the word from before the Lord, came to Laban," &c. and Exodus 20:19 thus, "and let not the word from before the Lord speak with us, lest we die"; for so it is read in the King of Spain's Bible; and wisdom, which is the same with the word of God, is said to be by him, or with him, in Proverbs 8:1 agreeably to which John here speaks. John makes use of the word God, rather than Father, because the word is commonly called the word of God, and because of what follows;

and the word was God; not made a God, as he is said here after to be made flesh; nor constituted or appointed a God, or a God by office; but truly and properly God, in the highest sense of the word, as appears from the names by which he is called; as Jehovah, God, our, your, their, and my God, God with us, the mighty God, God over all, the great God, the living God, the true God, and eternal life; and from his perfections, and the whole fulness of the Godhead that dwells in him, as independence, eternity, immutability, omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence; and from his works of creation and providence, his miracles, the work of redemption, his forgiving sins, the resurrection of himself and others from the dead, and the administration of the last judgment; and from the worship given him, as prayer to him, faith in him, and the performance of baptism in his name: nor is it any objection to the proper deity of Christ, that the article is here wanting; since when the word is applied to the Father, it is not always used, and even in this chapter, John 1:6 and which shows, that the word "God," is not the subject, but the predicate of this proposition, as we render it: so the Jews often use the word of the Lord for Jehovah, and call him God. Thus the words in Genesis 28:20 are paraphrased by Onkelos; "if "the word of the Lord" will be my help, and will keep me, &c. then "the word of the Lord" shall be, ahlal yl, "my God":" again, Leviticus 26:12 is paraphrased, by the Targum ascribed to Jonathan Ben Uzziel, thus; "I will cause the glory of my Shekinah to dwell among you, and my word shall "be your God," the Redeemer;" once more, Deuteronomy 26:17 is rendered by the Jerusalem Targum after this manner; "ye have made "the word of the Lord" king over you this day, that he may be your God:" and this is frequent with Philo the Jew, who says, the name of God is his word, and calls him, my Lord, the divine word; and affirms, that the most ancient word is God {s}.

{f} Apud Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 19. {g} Stromat. l. 1. p. 274. {h} Ib. p. 303. {i} Ib. Paedagog. l. 2. c. 1. p. 150. {k} Valer. Maxim. l. 8. c. 7. {l} Apuleius de dogmate Platonis, l. 1. in principio. {m} Apud. Euseb. Prepar. Evangel. l. 13. c. 12. {n} Hesych. Miles. de Philosophis. p. 50. {o} Prepar. Evangel. l. 11. c. 9. {p} De Leg. Alleg. l. 2. p. 93. de Plant. Noe, p. 217. de Migrat. Abraham, p. 389. de Profugis, p. 466. quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. {q} Targum Jon. in loc. {r} T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 54. 1. & Nedarim, fol. 39. 2. Pirke Eliezer, c. 3. {s} De Allegor. l. 2. p. 99, 101. & de Somniis, p. 599.

When the Bible talks about God the word Elohim is sometimes used. This implies “more than one”. That God’s name is plural we also find in Gen 1:26: God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth.

That God is one and yet three is deep. This is difficult to understand, it has to be revealed.

Last edited by Lars-E on 08-11-2002 at 14:18

	11-11-2002 03:09									#64
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: Thomas used the word "theos", which does not specifically refer to angels, nor specifically to the One True God. It is a word that can be used of any being of relative authority or might to the speaker. The One True God is the pinnacle of godliness, but not the only god around (in the biblical usage of the term). Give me another biblical phrase in which 'theos' is used for someone else but the "One True God"

1Co 8:4-6 4
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (All quotes from the NASB and courtesy of Bible Gateway, unless otherwise stated).

Paul here does of the kindness of saying that 1) other gods and lords definately exist, and 2) explaining that "there is no God but one" means "yet for us there is but one God" despite the existence of other.

quote: Or explain more detailed how the phrase "ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou" can be applied to anyone but the One True God, since it's not only "ho theos" but even "ho theos mou"! Can anyone but The One True God be "ho theos mou"? That would be against God's first commandment.

The first commandment forbids the worship of other gods, it does not forbid recognizing the authority of gods in service to Jehovah. Jesus is indeed Thomas' god, as Jesus is a god in service to the Father with authority over Thomas.

quote: quote: You mean, the characteristics of a divine being? They are assigned to many creature, such as angels, in addition to God. no, not the characteristics of a divine being, but the characteristics of the One True God. compare: A. Isa.44:6 Jehovah is the first and the last. B. Rev.1:7-8, 22:13 Jesus is the first and the last. Either God Jehovah is the first and the last, or Jesus is. The can only both be the First and the Last if they are one, and if Jesus is for that reason the One True God.

First of all, Rev 1:7 and 1:8 have different speakers. Second, neither uses "first and last". Perhaps you meant Rev 1:17-18, which says "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades."

Indeed, Jesus was certainly the first and the last from the dead who was raised and given the keys to Hades. That doesn't make him God, anymore than my son Nathan, who is my first and last autistic child, is God.

quote: Jno.12:37-41 John says that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory. Isa.6:5 Isaiah saw Jehovah of Hosts.

John 1:18a "No one has seen God at any time;". Whatever Isaiah saw, it was not Jehovah of Hosts.

quote: A. Jno.1:3 That’s a strong negative – no created thing that was ever created, was created without Jesus creating it. If Jesus was created. Then how did he create himself?

That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

quote: B. Col.1:15-17 There isn’t anything that he didn’t create. All creation continues to be, by his authority and creative power. (consist = hold together)

Certainly, and completely in line with WTBTS teachings, and valueless for showing Jesus is God.

quote: Lk.12:11 “rulers” in this verse is the same word as beginning. ARCHE. Would this then be “synagogues and beginnings and authorities”? “ARCHE means a beginning. The root “ARCH” primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence the verb ARCHO meant to be first; and ARCHON denoted ruler. So arose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether it be a person or a thing, e.g. (Col.1:18) “who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence.” [Vine’s Expository Dict. of N.T. Words] So Jesus is the beginning, the origin, the active cause, the ruler of the creation of God.

Nothing in Scripture attaches the notion of "active cause" to "arche". Absent this phrase, there is nothing in that passage to show Jesus is God.

quote: A. Jno.8:58 Before Abraham became, I am. (not was) The only other person in all of scripture who said this and meant it was Jehovah. (Ex.3:14)

Ex. 3:14 is better translated "I will be", "I will cause to be", or "I shall prove to be", not "I am". John 8:58 is a declaration of being older than Abraham, not being God.

quote: B. Mt.2:5-6 The prophecy concerning the place of his birth. But look at the whole verse. Cf. Micah.5:2 “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

As appropriate for a being that existed "before" time, and lives outside of it.

quote: C. Heb.7:1-3 The son of God is one who has no beginning of days nor end of life.

Ditto.

	11-11-2002 03:50									#65
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E I wrote Jahve, you searched for Jehova, then you wrote Yahoweh, and I finished with YHWH. "Jehova" is probably a wrong translation.

Missing the final consanent, it would be.

As for "Yahweh", "Yahoweh", or "Jehovah", there are reasons for preferring each (essemtially meaning, combination names, colloquialism). "Jehovah" is no worse than "Jesus" as a "translation".

quote: I'd say that JWs have heard it all...

Those who have activley investigated the issue, certainly.

quote: I have a quite good anti-JW book "The dream about paradise lost". Too bad it's only in Scandinavian... 1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Too bad your knowledge is considered heretic by the christian church.

According to JWs, the Christian church strongly approves of their doctrine. So, there is no charge of heresy by the Christian church.

quote: That's right. But you're being both arrogant and incorrect

I'll concede the former, even though you offer no evidence. As for the latter, perhaps you could first demonstrate an actual inaccuracy. I won't hold my breath.

quote: I actually think that ppl who have some knowledge and spiritual christian experience will be better handling the teachings of the JWs and others considered heretic. It's better to know something on which both the Christian Church and the Watchtower teaches instead of being a tabula rasa.

Certainly those who have already been indoctrinated by Trinitarians are less likely to be indoctrinated by JWs, as you first would have to undo the current level of indoctrination. Similarly, JWs who were never indoctrinated are more likely to become Trinitarians.

quote: quote: For those not in the know, the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society uses the phrase "I have been" instead of "I am". And up to this point you pointed out that the other translations used by most christians were as good... Not good enough anymore, hey?

I was trying to clarify the dispute, for those who were not aware of the disagreement. In any case, my personal opinion of which translation is preferrable is beside the point, both concepts have their scholarly adherents.

quote: No, this wasn't the mistake. It was like the elder said a "small thing". It might have been a preposition or something that was translated wrong from NT Greek into English. I don't remember. I was correct and the elder agreed with me. I think he knows his JW translation. He brought his JW bible and we both saw it.

Prepositions can be tricky to translate, as I'm sure you know just from going between Swedish and English. Without more information, I don't think that the acknowledgement of some elder of unknown knowledge of Greek is sufficient to say the translation is definately improper.

quote: "I have been" in like "I am no more" ? It just doesn't sound right.

You are correct in that "I am no more" would be completely wrong. You may have confused "I have been", indicating a continuous condition from the past into the present, with "I had been", indicating a continuous condition that terminated at some point in the past. Far from implying "I am no more", "I have been" implies the opposite.

quote: Ex 3:14 (John 8:58): And God said unto Moses, I am that I am,....

I snipped most of the philosophical meandering, as it depended on the result you are still attempting to prove. I only snip the below for an observation:

quote: "I am he that is, and that shall be." This is the name Ehjeh, or Jehovah, Moses is empowered to make use of, and to declare, as the name of the Great God by whom he was sent; and which might serve both to encourage him, and strengthen the faith of the Israelites, that they should be delivered by him.

The author seems to have missed that "Jehovah" would be third person, not first person. The statments at Ex. 3:14 do not give the Name, the Name given in Ex. 3:15 is not "I am", but "He will be/shall be/causes to be/is".

quote: I know 13 bible versions who translate into "I am". Why don't we discuss the majority, not the minority?

If the text were unequivocal, there would be no minority. We need to discuss the majority and the minority, and why they see it differently, in order to separate the bias from the translation.

quote: quote: We can discuss how the general use of the "I am" phrases is to show Jesus is the Messiah, not God Go ahead.

Perhaps in a subsequent post. Just to clarify, do you agree that the "I am" verses are to highlight Jesus as the Messiah, or diagree?

quote: A Triune God: Colossians 1:17 And He Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together). Refering to Jesus here.

JWs agree, yet have no Trinity, so the verse obviously does not imply one.

quote: Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. God the Father, The Holy Spirit and Jesus are eternal beings. I know that the Watchtower hates Athanasius...

Genesis 1:2 doesn't say holy Spirit is any sort of being.

The WTBTS doesn't feel Athanasius was any sort of especially hateful person, he was simply wrong (they would say Arius was less wrong).

quote: 1 John 2: 23 No one who [habitually] denies (disowns) the Son even has the Father. Whoever confesses (acknowledges and has) the Son has the Father also.

Of course, JWs habitually recogize the Son.

I'll respond to the third post tomorrow (or much later). I want to make sure I digest it thoroughly.

	11-11-2002 09:56									#66
	Re: The deity of Christ/ A Triune God Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E I couldn’t fit the following into the former post:

You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence) and mixes Scriptural paraphrases with doctrine that is not Scripturally supported, all in a long blurb about what the Trinity means for this person, nothing that can validate its existence. I will cull out a pssage or two for quick comment.

quote: IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word ([1] Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [2] Himself.(1) Footnotes In John's vision (Rev. 19), he sees Christ returning as Warrior-Messiah-King, and "the title by which He is called is The Word of God... and Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:13, 16). Charles B. Williams, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People: "God" appears first in the Greek word order in this phrase, denoting emphasis--so "God Himself."

The emphasis denoted by the phrase "theos en ho logos" means that the "logos"/word is an ideal or typical version of a "theos"/god. While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god".

You can only strech John 1:1c into a Trinitarian translation if you assume that John would never refer to any separate being in the service of God as a god. The falsity of that assumption is quite plain at John 10:33.

quote: That God is one and yet three is deep. This is difficult to understand, it has to be revealed.

Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality.

	11-11-2002 13:20									#67
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality.

Your last sentence proves your first wrong and my quote right.

quote: You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence)

Same words can and do mean different things in all languages and is especially prolific in rich languages such as Hebrew.

quote: "While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god"."

And since it is one verse it’s not the Word of God? And/or doesn’t count?

Most words can be used in any context. This is certainly not an argument.

quote: and mixes Scriptural paraphrases with doctrine that is not Scripturally supported

If you say so...

quote: all in a long blurb about what the Trinity means for this person, nothing that can validate its existence.

Are you saying God's existance can be validated like in proven?

quote: I will cull out a pssage or two for quick comment.

This was clear and stood out from all the blur?

I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Both sides have arguments and believe in them. You have spent much time with JWs and studied their doctrines:

Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.
Romans 10:17

	11-11-2002 20:06									#68
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E quote: Actually, it's not all that deep or difficult to understand. Sybil was one woman and 16 different people, each distinct, yet of one substance. Basically, you believe in a God with a multiple personality. Your last sentence proves your first wrong and my quote right.

Well, I was not being completely serious about that, although you might have more trouble differentiating the Triniity from MPD than you realize.

quote: quote: You needn't have bothered. I took the time to give it a thorough reading. It has a few self-contradictions (such as "in the beginning" means alternately the beginning of the earth and throughout existence) Same words can and do mean different things in all languages and is especially prolific in rich languages such as Hebrew.

Since the passage was a discussion of John 1:1, the passage in question was 1) written in Greek, and 2) a single passage in a single context. While I agree that the phrase could indeed mean different things to different people in this context, it normally would not mean both things at the same time.

quote: quote: "While this construction does not appear elsewhere in the NT, it does apear in secular literture, with, for example, "market" instead of "god"." And since it is one verse it’s not the Word of God? And/or doesn’t count?

Of course is counts. However, we have to look at secular uses of the construction to understand for what it counts, that is, for what it really is saying. In this case, the usage is no more saying that Jesus is God than it would be saying some market is a part of tne One True Market.

quote: Are you saying God's existance can be validated like in proven?

For the sake of the discussion on the differences between Trinitaians and Unitarians (like the JWs), I normally accept the validity of the Bible as a premise. I think the existence of God is easily proven is you accept the Bible as valid.

quote: This was clear and stood out from all the blur?

The whole passage was clear, there was no blur. There was just very little relevant or noteworthy that applied to the discussion of the Scriptural support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

[/QUOTE]I don't think we're getting anywhere here. Both sides have arguments and believe in them. You have spent much time with JWs and studied their doctrines: [/QUOTE]

I don't know where you were trying to go. I made a claim that Scripture never referred to Jesus as being God, you claimed that you could provide Scriture showing he was. In my arrogance we have agreed to acknowledge for this discussion, I already knew that you would fail to provide such Scripture, so this discussion has already gone as far as I expected it would go.

If you expect to take it to a place where you can provide some actual Biblical proff Jesus is God, you'll be quite disappointed in the journey.

	11-11-2002 23:54									#69
	Support Apolyton

quote: Well, I was not being completely serious about that, although you might have more trouble differentiating the Triniity from MPD than you realize.

I view the trinity as three persons who have bound themselves in an eternal covenant to eachother.

quote: Since the passage was a discussion of John 1:1, the passage in question was 1) written in Greek

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth..."

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention... Too much coffee and too little sleep - can be fun sometimes. I thought you were referring to OT.

quote: I don't know where you were trying to go. I made a claim that Scripture never referred to Jesus as being God, you claimed that you could provide Scriture showing he was. In my arrogance we have agreed to acknowledge for this discussion, I already knew that you would fail to provide such Scripture, so this discussion has already gone as far as I expected it would go.

No I didn't use the word prove. When I read the bible it tells me Jesus is God.

quote: If you expect to take it to a place where you can provide some actual Biblical proff Jesus is God, you'll be quite disappointed in the journey.

Proof is not a word I take lightly. When I and the christian church read the Bible we understand that Jesus is God. As I said earlier Jehovas Witness denies the divinity of Christ and they are therefore not considered christians. This does not exclude the fact that they probably view themselves as christians. Mormons and JW are often put in the same "non-christian" bracket by the christian church.

Interesting note: I know there are JWs that believe Christ is God. They've decided to stay put in the JW-organization so that they'll be able to influence their fellow biblestudents and maybe save them from eternal hellfire.

quote: Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message Romans 10:17a

What I meant here is that your faith is a result of the preaching/teaching/guided studypath you've heard, followed, and paid serious attention to. If you had started to study with evangelical christians from the start instead - yes some visit homes, your opinion would be pro-trinity. I betcha.

Endnote: You seem to convey a thought that you've disproven the trinity to me. Well, you haven't. I tried to convince you or at least be a witness I suppose . When JW visited me I viewed it as an opportunity - the mission field coming home to you.

Now, pure logic is not sufficient. JWs are good at that - trying to understand God from a human perspective. This is not a good starting point. Understand God from a God perspective! You need the Holy Ghost to enlighten you - he is after all the author of the bible, yet Jehovas Witness go very far in their own thoughts to explain their view. Making up your mind and then saying God did it is a wrong practise. What JWs need is a revelation of the trinity and the divinity And try to relax their efforts. God has done all the effort.

I'm sure you know that christians feel and believe that Jehovas Witness and the Mormons and others need to be saved. There are probably a few individual JWs that are saved and perhaps Mormons and others too, but the teaching of those organizations...

Isn't God the only one who can forgive sins? Remember what the Jews thought when Jesus said "your sins are forgiven" and then healed the lame man coming through the roof? You used yourself "what the Jews" believed as an argument in another context.

There is a danger of secterianism or a sign thereof when a group of ppl claim to have the truth and the others don't. Don't tell me that JW view christians positively. Maybe when they talk to you, but when you read their writings... for ex their magazine.

Jehovas Witness put a lot of emphasis on theory and what they believe. When you tell them of experiences you've had with the Holy Spirit they denounce it as "feelings". And perhaps say "it is good to have feelings". This indicates that they don't experience the Holy Spirit in their life - it seems to boil down to faith and teachings (or even feelings). Where is the inntervening of the Almighty God in their life? I'm sure some have had experiences, but it doesn't seem to be an integral part of their life with God. Is the "life of God" lacking? - Not in their theory no. But I am not asking about what they think in their heads - where is the presence of God in their life ?

	12-11-2002 00:22									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E I view the trinity as three persons who have bound themselves in an eternal covenant to eachother.

Interesting. In English, when you say "who have bound themselves", you make it sound as if the process is one of will rather than nature. This would be highly unorthodox, I think.

quote: No I didn't use the word prove. When I read the bible it tells me Jesus is God.

It tells other people that Jesus is not God.

quote: Proof is not a word I take lightly. When I and the christian church read the Bible we understand that Jesus is God. As I said earlier Jehovas Witness denies the divinity of Christ and they are therefore not considered christians. This does not exclude the fact that they probably view themselves as christians. Mormons and JW are often put in the same "non-christian" bracket by the christian church.

JWs would say that those who try to elevate Jesus to a status only God has are not true Christians. For them, you are not a true Christian. this does not exclude the fact that you probably think you are a Christian.

quote: What I meant here is that your faith is a result of the preaching/teaching/guided studypath you've heard, followed, and paid serious attention to. If you had started to study with evangelical christians from the start instead - yes some visit homes, your opinion would be pro-trinity. I betcha.

Your statement is completely inaccurate. I had quite a bit of experience with both Catholoic and evangelical Christianity before I astarted studying with JWs. You would have lost your putative bet.

quote: Endnote: You seem to convey a thought that you've disproven the trinity to me.

No, I'm not so foolish as that. I know there is nothing in the Bible to directly contradict the idea of two, three, four, five, six, or twenty persons in one God. There is simply nopthing to support having more than one. You are determined to accept three, so for you there are three.

quote: Well, you haven't. I tried to convince you or at least be a witness I suppose . When JW visited me I viewed it as an opportunity - the mission field coming home to you. Now, pure logic is not sufficient. JWs are good at that - trying to understand God from a human perspective. This is not a good starting point. Understand God from a God perspective! You need the Holy Ghost to enlighten you - he is after all the author of the bible, yet Jehovas Witness go very far in their own thoughts to explain their view. Making up your mind and then saying God did it is a wrong practise.

Oddly, the JWs would agree with you that people can't understand God from a human perspective, and that people need Holy spirit to enlighten and guide them. This guidance from god seems to be as important to them as it does to you.

quote: What JWs need is a revelation of the trinity and the divinity And try to relax their efforts. God has done all the effort.

I think they believe they have received correct revelations regarding the Trinity and divinity.

quote: There is a danger of secterianism or a sign thereof when a group of ppl claim to have the truth and the others don't. Don't tell me that JW view christians positively. Maybe when they talk to you, but when you read their writings... for ex their magazine.

They view Christian quite positively, although you would not number in that group. As people, they view most Christians as people who may be hungry for truth. As organizations, they feel Christendom is an evil worked by Satan.

quote: Jehovas Witness put a lot of emphasis on theory and what they believe. When you tell them of experiences you've had with the Holy Spirit they denounce it as "feelings". And perhaps say "it is good to have feelings". This indicates that they don't experience the Holy Spirit in their life - it seems to boil down to faith and teachings (or even feelings). Where is the inntervening of the Almighty God in their life? I'm sure some have had experiences, but it doesn't seem to be an integral part of their life with God. Is the "life of God" lacking? - Not in their theory no. But I am not asking about what they think in their heads - where is the presence of God in their life ?

Their opinions is that you can see the evidence of a good/rotten vine in its fruit, and religions that rely too much on peoples subjective experience with God fall prey to division. Feelings come from the corrupted heart. They feel the heart must be guided by the mind in order to find truth. The mind finds the path to slavation, the heart can then choose to walk it.

	12-11-2002 03:29									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It seems both of you know quite a lot of religions,
Can I ask something about predestination and arminianism?
I have a doubt.

	12-11-2002 03:38									#72
	Tired of ads?

quote: Paul here does of the kindness of saying that 1) other gods and lords definately exist, and 2) explaining that "there is no God but one" means "yet for us there is but one God" despite the existence of other.

In this phrase Paul uses these names:
ÅÉÄÙËÏÍ,n {i'-do-lon} for the 'idols'
ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the 'idols'
ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the "One True God"

How can Paul claim right here there is only one theos for us, despite the existance of others, while at other places in the NT Jesus is clearly named theos as well. Even "the theos of me" by Thomas?

This either means that there are actually two theos for us, Jesus AND God, or it means that Jesus = God = the only theos for us, despite the existance of other gods.

quote: The first commandment forbids the worship of other gods, it does not forbid recognizing the authority of gods in service to Jehovah. Jesus is indeed Thomas' god, as Jesus is a god in service to the Father with authority over Thomas.

the first commandment clearly states: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.period."
Thomas clearly has a god (the god of me).
You can choise, it's either God Jehova, or it's indeed true that Thomas has another God, and Jesus aproves it.

quote: Indeed, Jesus was certainly the first and the last from the dead who was raised and given the keys to Hades. That doesn't make him God, anymore than my son Nathan, who is my first and last autistic child, is God.

According to the teachings of the JW Jesus is not the last who was raised from the dead. He's the first of many who'll be raised from dead.

besides that, the line "I am the first and the last" is clearcly a line on itself, between more things that are applied on on Jesus, followed directly by "the living one".
"I am the first and the last" is one of the many things that can be said about Jesus, and there is no reason to believe that in this case all these things stand on themselves, but the line "The First and The Last", which should be connected to a part that's located further in the line.

For sure since it makes no sence because Jesus is not the last who will ever be raised from dead.

quote: John 1:18a "No one has seen God at any time;". Whatever Isaiah saw, it was not Jehovah of Hosts.

this can only be applied to see with the bare eyes, not to see in a vision. Isaia is clearly explaining what he saw in a vision.

quote: That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

weak reasoning.

I'll leave the rest of my arguments, because I can't see how we can come to each other through those, besides that I think the arguments above are strong enough.

Thanks for returning after the weekend,
I appreciate this debate and your debating style very much. Thanks for that.

CyberShy

	12-11-2002 14:00									#73
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

forgot this:

quote: First of all, Rev 1:7 and 1:8 have different speakers. Second, neither uses "first and last".

Rev 1:8 says:
{eg-o'} {i-mee'} {ho} Alfa {kahee} {ho} Omega {leg'-o} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {er'-khom-ahee} {ho} {pan-tok-rat'-ore}

I am the Alpha and the Omega
Says Curios the God
The to be and the past and the to come the almighty.

The phrase: {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} is the same as sais by Thomas {ho} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os}

Right now it's not Thomas who claims Jesus is Ho Theos, but it's The Curios himself who claims it.
In this case not just The God of Thomas, but "The God" (ho theos).
The Curios is only applicable to Jesus.
For sure if you read the context, in which verse 17 comes with the same claim.

	12-11-2002 14:24									#74
	Tired of ads?

quote: It seems both of you know quite a lot of religions, Can I ask something about predestination and arminianism?

I hope I can answer, but those are difficult topics that tend to go beyond our (at least my) imagination.
Both are dogma's that try to catch the problem and bind it into words. I think a dogma is a good thing to explain these difficult things, but if you want to take a deeper look into it, it's a good thing to do further investigation.

said that, ask your question but don't expect too much from me.

	12-11-2002 18:41									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

Wow, very cool thread, debate between christians instead of the usual atheist-christian bashing. Keep it up sorry to interrupt.

	12-11-2002 19:23									#76
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: Paul here does of the kindness of saying that 1) other gods and lords definately exist, and 2) explaining that "there is no God but one" means "yet for us there is but one God" despite the existence of other. In this phrase Paul uses these names: ÅÉÄÙËÏÍ,n {i'-do-lon} for the 'idols' ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the 'idols' ÈÅÏÓ,n {theh'-os} for the "One True God" How can Paul claim right here there is only one theos for us, despite the existance of others, while at other places in the NT Jesus is clearly named theos as well. Even "the theos of me" by Thomas? This either means that there are actually two theos for us, Jesus AND God, or it means that Jesus = God = the only theos for us, despite the existance of other gods.

Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term. It was the gradual elimination of these broader meanings that forced 3rd and 4th century theologians to adopt the Trinity, inorder to reconcile Biblical passages with their new, more limited understanding of who could be a god.

Here is another example of how Scripture uses "god", in John 10:34-36 [all passages NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway, unless otherwise specified):
Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?"

Note Jesus is specifically referring to the men who wrote Scripture (in this case, the OT) as "gods". These are not idols or false gods, as they were servants to God. They were also not the One True God. Note also Jesus compares his being the Son of God to their being gods. If the men who wrote Scripture were gods, then so is Jesus. Also, Jesus has been given rulership over the world by the Father. Thomas statement is a declaration of fact, and his action is the same type of obeisance given to any earthly king. Neither recognizes Jesus as the One True God.

quote: quote: The first commandment forbids the worship of other gods, it does not forbid recognizing the authority of gods in service to Jehovah. Jesus is indeed Thomas' god, as Jesus is a god in service to the Father with authority over Thomas. the first commandment clearly states: "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.period." Thomas clearly has a god (the god of me). You can choise, it's either God Jehova, or it's indeed true that Thomas has another God, and Jesus aproves it.

Do you think there is a difference between (from Deut 5:7) "You shall have no other gods before Me" as opposed to "You shall have no other gods"? Does the "before Me" act in any way to qualify the command?

My answer would be yes, it means that any other gods recognized could not be placed in a psoition of equality or supremacy to Yahoweh. Thomas' proclamation does not ange that Thomas recognizes the Father as the One True God, and it does accurately descibed Jesus' role as God's vassal.

	12-11-2002 19:39									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: Indeed, Jesus was certainly the first and the last from the dead who was raised and given the keys to Hades. That doesn't make him God, anymore than my son Nathan, who is my first and last autistic child, is God. According to the teachings of the JW Jesus is not the last who was raised from the dead. He's the first of many who'll be raised from dead.

Yes, I did abbreviate their explanation. More accurate would have been, "Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades.

quote: besides that, the line "I am the first and the last" is clearcly a line on itself, between more things that are applied on on Jesus, followed directly by "the living one". "I am the first and the last" is one of the many things that can be said about Jesus, and there is no reason to believe that in this case all these things stand on themselves, but the line "The First and The Last", which should be connected to a part that's located further in the line.

I agree. Rev 1:17-18
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "(63) Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

quote: quote: John 1:18a "No one has seen God at any time;". Whatever Isaiah saw, it was not Jehovah of Hosts. this can only be applied to see with the bare eyes, not to see in a vision. Isaia is clearly explaining what he saw in a vision.

Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself.

quote: quote: That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus. weak reasoning.

On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

quote: Thanks for returning after the weekend, I appreciate this debate and your debating style very much. Thanks for that. CyberShy

Thank you. I look forward to further discussion.

	12-11-2002 19:55									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy forgot this: quote: First of all, Rev 1:7 and 1:8 have different speakers. Second, neither uses "first and last". Rev 1:8 says: {eg-o'} {i-mee'} {ho} Alfa {kahee} {ho} Omega {leg'-o} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {i-mee'} {kahee} {ho} {er'-khom-ahee} {ho} {pan-tok-rat'-ore} I am the Alpha and the Omega Says Curios the God The to be and the past and the to come the almighty. The phrase: {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} is the same as sais by Thomas {ho} {koo'-ree-os} {ho} {theh'-os} Right now it's not Thomas who claims Jesus is Ho Theos, but it's The Curios himself who claims it. In this case not just The God of Thomas, but "The God" (ho theos). The Curios is only applicable to Jesus. For sure if you read the context, in which verse 17 comes with the same claim.

Thomas says: "ho kurious mou kai ho theos mou", limiting the application of "lord" and "god". Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase.

Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus.

	12-11-2002 19:58									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Plan Austral It seems both of you know quite a lot of religions, Can I ask something about predestination and arminianism? I have a doubt.

I know a very little about them. I don't think the doctrine are very relevant, as the human condition is such that anyone could convince themselves they were of the elect, and no one else would be able to determine if they were right or wrong.

	14-11-2002 14:12									#80
	Tired of ads?

quote: Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term.

1. Thomas said "ho theos" which is only used for The One True God, in the Bible.
2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God for him"
3. If you doubt "ho theos" to be the title given to The One True God, you should doubt that "God Jehova" is "The One True God" as well, since he's titled that way all over the New Testament.
4. There is no indication at all that thomas is recognising other gods as "ho theos MOU".

5. back to 1 Cor 8:6, Paul clearly states that for us there is only one God (in opposition to all those other theos around). "yet for us there is but one God, the Father"

Paul uses the words "hice theh'-os" which clearly leaves no room left open for "another theos"

He uses the word " eg-o' " to make it personal.
How can Paul say "ego-o' hice theh'-os" and mean God the Father, the One True God,

while Thomas says "hos theh'-os mou" and means "another" God for him personally.

quote: Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?

Jesus names them just 'theos'
not 'ho theos' neither 'ho theos mou'
Thus you are right that there are more gods,
but those gods are not 'theos mou' because Paul clearly says that there is "for us no other god but God the Father".

Which is comparable with the first commandment,
"You should not have other God before me"

quote: Do you think there is a difference between (from Deut 5:7) "You shall have no other gods before Me" as opposed to "You shall have no other gods"? Does the "before Me" act in any way to qualify the command?

Yes and no,
without 'before me' it would have approved my position as much as it does right now.
Both make clear that we shall not recognise other gods as "The One True God" but as you made clear already, there are other gods. We are gods!

quote: Thomas' proclamation does not ange that Thomas recognizes the Father as the One True God, and it does accurately descibed Jesus' role as God's vassal.

Oh no, he names Jesus "ho theos"
None of the 'vassals' in the bible is named "ho theos"
Only The One True God is named that!

And no 'theos' in the bible is named 'ho theos MOU' in the bible like Jesus is right here, but God the Father.

quote: Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades.

I'm sorry, this really makes no sence.
Why not add "he's the first and the last to be born out of a virgin" or "he's the first and the last who lives" (that's the first phrase after "The First and The Last")

it makes no sence, Jesus says that He is "The First and The Last" - COMMA. He titles himself several titles, and "The First and The Last" is one of them.
If you think different you should clearly explain why "The First and The Last" is connected to "who has the keys of hades" and NOT to "The living One"
but it does connect again to "raised from death without reyling upon grace".

Besides that, didn't Pete god those keys as well?
And what about God The Father, I'm sure He has those keys as well.....

You really need to come with strong evidence that "The First and The Last" is not standing on it'self, despite the fact the phrase is seperated with a comma from the next phrase, and another comma seperates it from the phrase after that.

quote: I agree

now you contradict your earlier statement.
Does that mean that you agree that Jesus titles himself "The First and The Last.period."?

quote: Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself.

Still Isaiah claims he saw God Jehova,
pherhaps that means that Jesus = God Jehove,
and Isaiah did indeed see Jesus......

quote: On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

quote: That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus.

quote: Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being.

Can you give me some biblical evidence for the latter.

quote: Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus.

I didn't formulate that quiet well,
I meant that in the bible "kurious" is only said to Jesus. As in this case.

quote: Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase.

Jesus is speaking in Rev 1, but still you claim that these specific words are said by God the Father, how comes?

I'm sorry for the delay of one day,

greetings,

CyberShy

	14-11-2002 18:20									#81
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Edited by ming... If you want to join the discussion, do it in a civil way and say something besides a simple swearing rant.

Last edited by Ming on 14-11-2002 at 20:22

	15-11-2002 22:23									#82
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: Actually, there are any number of "theos"/gods for Thomas. In the first and early second century, Hebrew culture used "god" in a much wider variety of ways that we currently use the term. 1. Thomas said "ho theos" which is only used for The One True God, in the Bible.

Acknowledging that Thoms said “ho theos”, do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

quote: 2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God for him"

The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him"

quote: 3. If you doubt "ho theos" to be the title given to The One True God, you should doubt that "God Jehova" is "The One True God" as well, since he's titled that way all over the New Testament.

I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title.

quote: 4. There is no indication at all that thomas is recognising other gods as "ho theos MOU".

Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

quote: 5. back to 1 Cor 8:6, Paul clearly states that for us there is only one God (in opposition to all those other theos around). "yet for us there is but one God, the Father" Paul uses the words "hice theh'-os" which clearly leaves no room left open for "another theos" He uses the word " eg-o' " to make it personal. How can Paul say "ego-o' hice theh'-os" and mean God the Father, the One True God, while Thomas says "hos theh'-os mou" and means "another" God for him personally.

Lets look at the context of Paul’s statement, 1Co 8:4-6 (all unspecified quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway)
Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped.

quote: quote: Jesus is the first and last being to be rasied from the dead without relying upon grace". He is also the first and last to be given the keys to death and Hades. I'm sorry, this really makes no sence. Why not add "he's the first and the last to be born out of a virgin" or "he's the first and the last who lives" (that's the first phrase after "The First and The Last")

Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description.

quote: it makes no sence, Jesus says that He is "The First and The Last" - COMMA. He titles himself several titles, and "The First and The Last" is one of them.

Just in case you weren’t aware, there are no commas, periods, or any other punctuation marks in what John recorded. We shouldn’t read to much into where modern translators insert them.

quote: If you think different you should clearly explain why "The First and The Last" is connected to "who has the keys of hades" and NOT to "The living One" but it does connect again to "raised from death without reyling upon grace".

I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say.

quote: Besides that, didn't Pete god those keys as well?

Peter was given the key to open heaven to non-Jewish groups (Mat 16:17-19)
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

In Acts 8:14-17 we see Peter use one such key.

quote: And what about God The Father, I'm sure He has those keys as well.....

You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus.

quote: quote: I agree now you contradict your earlier statement. Does that mean that you agree that Jesus titles himself "The First and The Last.period."?

That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate.

quote: quote: Visions are brought by servants of Yahoweh, not by Yahoweh, and are symbolics pictures, not actual images. Isaiah was seeing an image brought to him by Jesus, not Yahoweh Himself. Still Isaiah claims he saw God Jehova, pherhaps that means that Jesus = God Jehove, and Isaiah did indeed see Jesus......

I don’t think you can apply the Name “Yahoweh” to Jesus. For example, in Psalm 110 we have Yahoweh speaking to Jesus. You also have phrases like Is. 63:16.

When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision.

quote: quote: On the contrary, it's the most natural understanding of the term "begotten". All the rest of the beings are created, made from nothing. Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being. quote: That which became Jesus was used by God to beget Jesus. quote: Only Jesus is begotten, formed from a part of God and brought into existence as a separate being. Can you give me some biblical evidence for the latter.

I can give you “some evidence”. I’ll happily acknowledge that it does not constitute anything like definitive proof, BTW. If you are determined to believe Jesus is a person in the God, there is no passage in the Bible that definitively contradicts this.

Some evidence:
Jesus is an image of God and a member of creation (Col 1:15, 4:4).
God is a god to Jesus (Heb 1:9, Rev 1:6).
Jesus is a radiant medium for God’s glory, and a representation of God’s nature (Heb 1:3)

quote: quote: Since th Father would be lord to Jesus (even under Trinitarian dogma), I'm not sure why you think kurious can only aplly to Jesus. I didn't formulate that quiet well, I meant that in the bible "kurious" is only said to Jesus. As in this case.

Even in Matt 9:35-38?
Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, " The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

Matt 11:25?
At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Need more?

quote: quote: Rev. 1:8, spoken by the Almighty (the Father), has no limiting phrase. Jesus is speaking in Rev 1, but still you claim that these specific words are said by God the Father, how comes?

Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff.

I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff.

	15-11-2002 23:35									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm leaving for the weekend in 2 minutes, I'll get back to you next week.

have a good weekend!

	19-11-2002 20:07									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos):
Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

the phrase "ho theos" appears on more places, but in those places the phrase is longer.

like 2Co 4:4
"-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, (..)"

or Mat 22:32
"I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

in these texts 'ho theos' does not stand on itself.
which God? - THE God of Abraham.
which God? - THE God of this world.
which God? - THE God.

in the first 2 examples there's room left over for other gods. The god of mohammed. The god of another world.
That matches with the 'other' gods (theos) in the bible.
But there is in the end only ONE TRUE GOD, THE GOD.

And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

quote: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

Please do.

quote: The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him"

Does that change anything for the argument?

2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God of him"

compare it with the first argument in this message,
Jesus is THE God of him. Which leaves no other room left over for other gods.

That's like:
Woman1 is the wife of me.
Woman2 is the other wife of me.

quote: I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title.

Which again changes nothing for the argument.
The One True God is named "ho theos" al over the new testament. If you doubt that Jesus is The One True God when named like that, how can you be sure that Jehova is the One True God, since he's named 'ho theos' as well all the time.

quote: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

quote: Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped.

John 9:38:
"And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him."
worshipped: (proskuneo)

even without this phrase your argument is still an argument ex nihilio.

And even if that was not the case you can clearly read that in opposite to the worshipping of idols christians are encouraged to seek no other but God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

quote: Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description.

Thus Jesus is the first and the last who lives,
that makes me wonder about The living God. If God the Father is the first and the last, how can Jesus be The first who lives and the last who lives, while he's not God the Father?

quote: Just in case you weren’t aware, there are no commas, periods, or any other punctuation marks in what John recorded. We shouldn’t read to much into where modern translators insert them.

My greek translations does add commas, periods etc.
But I can see your point, and accept it that these are obviously added later.

but it still keeps the argument open that there's no reason to connect "The First and The Last" to the other properties Jesus gives to himself, other than wishful thinking.

quote: I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say.

No, to make a gestalt of what Jesus IS.
He IS the first and the last.
He IS the living One
He IS......

notice that the word 'kai' seperates the properties as well, which must have been omitted if the properties "First and Last" and "was dead and behold I am alive for evermore" would be connected.

quote: Peter was given the key to open heaven to non-Jewish groups (Mat 16:17-19)

This argument is irelevant thus I leave it.

quote: You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus.

I think Jesus and God the Father are one, I think they both hold these keys. Or better: He holds these keys.

If Jesus is the first and the last who holds the keys, this means that The Father never had them...
How could The Father pass them to Jesus if he didn't own them?

quote: That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate.

We've talked much about this phrase, but I think you still not made clear how the way Jesus names himself "The First and The Last" is different than when God the Father does that.

You try to claim that in this case "The First and The Last" does not stand on itself but is connected to other phrases after it, which leads to new problems, because if God Jehova is THE First and THE Last in general, it's impossible that Jesus is the first and the last in specific things.

quote: When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision.

And in that vision he saw God Jehova, Jesus Christ.

quote: Even in Matt 9:35-38? Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd. Then He said to His disciples, " The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

In this Case kurios could very well apply to Himself.

quote: Matt 11:25? At that time Jesus said, "I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.

Jesus names his father his Kurios.
But no human names God the Father like that.

quote: Need more?

yes please.

quote: Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff. I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff

those similarity is there indeed because the speaker is the same, God Jehova Jesus Christ.

There is no indication that the first part is spoken by God the Father, while the 2nd part is spoken by Jesus Christ, besides that argument you just gave. But that argument shows for me that God and Jesus are the same.

If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ"
Jesus is revealed as being:
The Alpha and the Omega
The First and The Last
The One which is, which was and which is to come
The beginning and the ending.

These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons.

If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

	21-11-2002 03:41									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos): Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”.

quote: the phrase "ho theos" appears on more places, but in those places the phrase is longer. like 2Co 4:4 "-in whom the (ho) god (theos) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, (..)" or Mat 22:32 "I am the (ho) God (theos) of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." in these texts 'ho theos' does not stand on itself. which God? - THE God of Abraham. which God? - THE God of this world. which God? - THE God. in the first 2 examples there's room left over for other gods. The god of mohammed. The god of another world. That matches with the 'other' gods (theos) in the bible. But there is in the end only ONE TRUE GOD, THE GOD.

In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me).

quote: And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

quote: quote: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. Please do.

I did. Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular.

quote: quote: The genitive case is normally translated “of”, not “for”, so "the god of him" Does that change anything for the argument? 2. he said "ho theos mou", which indicates Jesus is not 'just one of the gods' but "The God of him" compare it with the first argument in this message, Jesus is THE God of him. Which leaves no other room left over for other gods. That's like: Woman1 is the wife of me. Woman2 is the other wife of me.

In NT times, men were allowed to have multiple wives. 

More to the point, you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory. In any case, the word does not convey a sense of uniqueness to “theos”, or a limitation in number.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...588&version=nas

quote: quote: I doubt6 “ho theos”, at least in John 20:28, is any form of title. Which again changes nothing for the argument. The One True God is named "ho theos" al over the new testament. If you doubt that Jesus is The One True God when named like that, how can you be sure that Jehova is the One True God, since he's named 'ho theos' as well all the time.

Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT. It is not difficult to show the God of Jesus is Yahowah.

quote: quote: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point. Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

More like “the greater God” of Thomas.

quote: quote: Paul is comparing the Father to other idols that were being worshipped. In this context of worship, Thomas has only one God, the Father. Note Thomas does not perform an act of worship to Jesus at John 20:28. Jesus is “the god of” Thomas, but not the God to be worshipped. John 9:38: "And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." worshipped: (proskuneo)

What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...352&version=nas

Some other acts of this sort of “worship”: Mt 18:26, Mar 15:19, Rev 3:9. Note in particular in Rev 3:9 that Jesus himself says he will cause other men to “worship” Christians in this manner.

Note that the two other words translated “worship” (“latreuo”, to render sacred service, and “sebomai”, to revere) are used of God and false gods, but never Jesus.

quote: even without this phrase your argument is still an argument ex nihilio.

Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped.

quote: And even if that was not the case you can clearly read that in opposite to the worshipping of idols christians are encouraged to seek no other but God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

Certainly. No other God but the Father and his viceroy, Jesus.

I’ll break the response here.

	21-11-2002 03:42									#86
	Got spare money?

Response continued.

quote: quote: Well, the first is not contextually relevant. However, I agree that the second should be added into the description. Thus Jesus is the first and the last who lives, that makes me wonder about The living God. If God the Father is the first and the last, how can Jesus be The first who lives and the last who lives, while he's not God the Father?

Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys.

God was never dead.

quote: quote: I agree that “the living one”, “I was dean, and I am alive”, and “I have the keys…” all should be combined to make a gestalt of what Jesus is trying to say. No, to make a gestalt of what Jesus IS. He IS the first and the last. He IS the living One He IS...... notice that the word 'kai' seperates the properties as well, which must have been omitted if the properties "First and Last" and "was dead and behold I am alive for evermore" would be connected.

I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above.

quote: quote: You don’t think Jesus is the sole judge of the living and the dead? The Father has entrusted the authority to Jesus. I think Jesus and God the Father are one, I think they both hold these keys. Or better: He holds these keys.

“Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism.

quote: If Jesus is the first and the last who holds the keys, this means that The Father never had them... How could The Father pass them to Jesus if he didn't own them?

God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18

quote: quote: That meant that I agree that you shouldnot exclude the middle phrases of Rev 1:17-18. None of them stand alone or are separate. We've talked much about this phrase, but I think you still not made clear how the way Jesus names himself "The First and The Last" is different than when God the Father does that. You try to claim that in this case "The First and The Last" does not stand on itself but is connected to other phrases after it, which leads to new problems, because if God Jehova is THE First and THE Last in general, it's impossible that Jesus is the first and the last in specific things.

I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is.

quote: quote: When you add in John 1:18, it’s pretty clear Isaiah saw a vision. And in that vision he saw God Jehova, Jesus Christ.

Saw the real Yahowah, with his own eyes? Moses could only see his “backside”, and his face glowed from that glory. There is no record of Isaiah glowing.

On the other hand, there are plenty of records where a speaker in the Bible is referred to as Yahoweh, only to be later revealed to be his messenger. I’d go with the standard Biblical pattern and trust the Biblical declarations, which indicate that Isaiah saw a vision of Yahoweh brought by Yahoweh’s messenger, Jesus.

quote: quote: Even in Matt 9:35-38? In this Case kurios could very well apply to Himself. quote: Matt 11:25? Jesus names his father his Kurios. But no human names God the Father like that. quote: Need more? yes please.

Acts 4:24-30 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, "O Lord, it is You who MADE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH AND THE SEA, AND ALL THAT IS IN THEM,
25 who (33) by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,
'WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS? THE KINGS OF THE EARTH TOOK THEIR STAND, AND THE RULERS WERE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST HIS CHRIST.' "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. "And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant Jesus.

Note this “Lord” has a holy servant, Jesus.

quote: quote: Rev 1 has a few different breaks in the speaker. John is the speaker from Rev. 1:7. Rev 1:8 identifies himself as, among other things, “the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come”. John again is the speaker, discounting a quote, from Rev. 1:9-17a. Finally, Jesus begins speaking in Rev. 9:17bff. I identify Rev. 1:8 as the Father/Yahoweh because of the similarity to Ex. 3:14ff those similarity is there indeed because the speaker is the same, God Jehova Jesus Christ. There is no indication that the first part is spoken by God the Father, while the 2nd part is spoken by Jesus Christ, besides that argument you just gave. But that argument shows for me that God and Jesus are the same.

As I said before, there is nothing of which I know in the Bible that disproves Trinitarianism. However, to be frank, it seems that your Trinitarianism is driving your reading that the speakers are the same, not the other way around.

quote: If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise? 

However, there are indications on who is peaking at which point: Rev 1:4a specifies John, Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location), Rev 1: 17b-18 (a person who died, and is therefore capable of death, thus not the Father).

quote: Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" Jesus is revealed as being: The Alpha and the Omega The First and The Last The One which is, which was and which is to come The beginning and the ending. These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons. If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar.

Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God?

	24-11-2002 20:49									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: One_Brow: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures.

quote: CyberShy: Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos): Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19.

quote: One_Brow: I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”.

These verses speak about the One True God.
This shows that "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" are directed at The One True God. If everytime God is named "ho theos" and Jesus is named "ho theos" as well, than we can conclude that Jesus = The One True God.

quote: One_Brow: In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me).

Indeed, God the Father is the God of me for all possible qualifications. You can split these verses into two categories, the category "God is The One True God", thus general speaking. And the category in which people confess that God is their God, thus a personal faith confession.

There can be only one "One True God" and you can only have one "God of me" because we know out of the first commandment that we can have no other gods but God the Father.

If in both categories there can be only one, and Jesus is named like that, we can only conclude that Jesus id The One True God.

quote: CyberShy: And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

quote: One_Brow: I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

Pherhaps the circular argument is sufficient.

quote: One_Brow: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. (...) Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular.

Give me a passage in which "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" is directed to someone who's not God the Father neither Jesus Christ.

quote: One_Brow: you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory.

let's take a look at what your links says about "ho" (3588) in combination with "theos" (2316):

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...316&version=nas

Theos:
of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with (3588)) the supreme Divinity

quote: One_Brow: Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT.

You'd rather remove the evidence that God the Father is The One True God from the new testament, than accepting that these same arguments can be aplied to Jesus.......

quote: One_Brow: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point.

quote: CyberShy: Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas?

quote: One_Brow: More like “the greater God” of Thomas.

Thus Thomas has two Gods, God the Father which is the great, and another god, which is Jesus Christ, while God the Father said "Thou shall have no other gods before me"

quote: One_Brow: What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols.

quote: One_Brow: Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped.

He is worshipped, but that's not described with words that aren't used for worshipping men.

God is One God, but God has 3 faces,
God the Creator, which is to be worshipped.
God the Salvator, who has been punished instead of us.
God the Holy Spirit, who leads our life.

quote: One_Brow: Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys. God was never dead. I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above.

ego eimi protos...kai...eschatos
I......am..the first and..the last

zao..............kai..ginomai nekros
(I am) alive.and was.......dead

kai...idou.....eimi..zao..eis aion aion amen
and behold I am alive for evermore! amen

If "The First and The Last" refer to all that comes after it (which can only be until "amen") it can only applied like:
1. I am the first and the last alive
2. I am the first and the last who was dead and lives forever more.

application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more)

application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above.

Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

Conclusion, Jesus is The First and The Last,
and since we know that God is The First and The last, we can only draw from this verse that Jesus is God Jehova.

quote: One_Brow: “Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism.

John 17:22: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: "

But I see that you mean that I did not mention the Holy Spirit, and yes, the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one.

quote: One_Brow: God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18

God the Father was not dead in person of The Father, but God, in person of the Son was dead.

quote: One_Brow: I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is.

It's said about God in the Old Testament.

quote: CyberShy: If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking.

quote: One_Brow: You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise?

The vision migh be not that clear all the time, but the vision did not start yet at this moment.

quote: One_Brow: Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location)

In fact it is given to Jesus at this location.
John tells that Jesus speaks to him.
In fact, as far as I can see, God the Father is not speaking at all in the whole book of revelations.

If God is not speaking through the entire book, while Jesus is the one who delivers the messsage, we can only conclude that Jesus is speaking that He is the almighty. Which makes this passage the passage in which we can read that Jesus is the Almighty, and thus is the One True God.

quote: CyberShy: Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" Jesus is revealed as being: The Alpha and the Omega The First and The Last The One which is, which was and which is to come The beginning and the ending. These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons. If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

quote: One_Brow: The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar.

How can anybody be simular to "The First and The Last"
How can anybody be simular to "The Almighty"

I'm sorry, but that sounds like very weak reasoning towards me.

quote: One_Brow: Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God?

I think being the first and the last is not to be confused with parables or symbols. And even *if* this would be a parable, what else but saying that Jesus and God are the same, if they are both described as "The First and The Last". What else could any symbol mean, if both God and Jesus receive the same symbols!

	25-11-2002 08:59									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: One_Brow: do you have a non-circular argument for the second assertion, that this is only used of the One True God? After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. quote: CyberShy: Used for The One True God. (The God, ho theos): Mat 4:10, Mat 22:37, Mark 12:30, Mark 15:34, Luke 1:16, Hebrews 12:29, Phi 4:19. quote: One_Brow: I checked all the verses you provided, and not once were they speaking of Jesus specifically. In a couple, there is even “ho theos mou”. These verses speak about the One True God. This shows that "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" are directed at The One True God. If everytime God is named "ho theos" and Jesus is named "ho theos" as well, than we can conclude that Jesus = The One True God.

As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions. There is nothing but your preferred assumption to sy this phrase is only used of God.

quote: quote: One_Brow: In John 20:28 (and a couple of the others above, there is also a qualification (of me). There can be only one "One True God" and you can only have one "God of me" because we know out of the first commandment that we can have no other gods but God the Father.

You have incorrectly paraphrased the first commandment, so it is no surprise you are confused here.

Deu 5:6-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.

Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh. You'll find other verses (for example, in Isaiah) that descibe Yahoweh's uniqueness, that say He has no equals, etc. I still haven't seen one that says there are no gods inHis service. Meanwhile, there are plenty of occurences where beings in His service are called gods.

quote: If in both categories there can be only one, and Jesus is named like that, we can only conclude that Jesus id The One True God.

Howver, since we have no directive that there can only be one, we have no evidence that Jesus is the One True God.

quote: CyberShy: And this phrase The (ho) God (theos) is only applied to The One True God, and to Jesus.

quote: One_Brow: I still don’t see a non-circular argument.

Pherhaps the circular argument is sufficient.[/QUOTE]

If it is sufficient for you, great. However, accepting that the argument is circular means that you need to abandon any pretense that the Unitarian position, in particular the JW version, is inferior.

quote: quote: One_Brow: After all, I can just as easily say the “ho theos” is used of any being who were not unbegotten creatures. (...) Can you disprove it? Of course not, since my assertion is equally circular. Give me a passage in which "ho theos" or "ho theos mou" is directed to someone who's not God the Father neither Jesus Christ.

They would be the only two beings who are not unbegotten creatures.

quote: quote: One_Brow: you seem to be under the impression that “ho”, Strong’s 3588, operates in the same way as the English “the”. If you check the link, you’ll notice that it is much closer to a declarative function than a restrictive one. It is more like “this god of me” than “the god of me”, although neither is really satisfactory. let's take a look at what your links says about "ho" (3588) in combination with "theos" (2316): http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons...316&version=nas Theos: of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with (3588)) the supreme Divinity

Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias.

quote: quote: One_Brow: Generally, the argument “Yahowah is the One True God” is better made from the OT. You'd rather remove the evidence that God the Father is The One True God from the new testament, than accepting that these same arguments can be aplied to Jesus.......

It's certainly true that I don't need to defend against non-existant evidence.

quote: quote: One_Brow: Of course not. Thomas has always reported directly to Jesus. That had not changed. Thomas would have had no other gods beside Jesus and the Father at this point. quote: CyberShy: Thus, The Father is "The other God" of thomas? quote: One_Brow: More like “the greater God” of Thomas. Thus Thomas has two Gods, God the Father which is the great, and another god, which is Jesus Christ, while God the Father said "Thou shall have no other gods before me"

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience).

quote: quote: One_Brow: What type of “worship” does this signify? It is a simple act of bowing down. It is done for human kings as well as Jesus and God. It is forbidden to idols. quote: One_Brow: Absence is all I require for my argument. In the NT, Jesus is never worshipped in the sense we mean the word today. Thus, he should not be worshipped. He is worshipped, but that's not described with words that aren't used for worshipping men.

It is not described with any word that means worship, unless you believe Rev 3:9 means Jesus will force non-believers to worship believers.

quote: quote: One_Brow: Jesus is the first and last and the living one and was dead and now lives forever and holds the keys. God was never dead. I’m not sure what you mean, since all of the statements are separated by “kai”, just as I wrote it above. ego eimi protos...kai...eschatos I......am..the first and..the last zao..............kai..ginomai nekros (I am) alive.and was.......dead kai...idou.....eimi..zao..eis aion aion amen and behold I am alive for evermore! amen

On Crosswalk (after deciphering their transliteration within my very limited abilities):

ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai ...

This is essentially what I presented above.

quote: If "The First and The Last" refer to all that comes after it (which can only be until "amen") it can only applied like: 1. I am the first and the last alive 2. I am the first and the last who was dead and lives forever more.

3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected).

quote: application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more) application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above. Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly.

quote: Conclusion, Jesus is The First and The Last, and since we know that God is The First and The last, we can only draw from this verse that Jesus is God Jehova.

God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless.

quote: quote: One_Brow: “Jesus and God the Father are one” would definitely be an unorthodox Trinitarianism. John 17:22: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: "

So, you meant one in purpose, just as his disciples became.

quote: But I see that you mean that I did not mention the Holy Spirit, and yes, the Father, the Word and the Spirit are one.

In the same way Jesus' desciples were, certainly.

quote: quote: One_Brow: God the Father was never dead. He’s not described by Rev. 1:17-18 God the Father was not dead in person of The Father, but God, in person of the Son was dead.

Certainly the Son was dead, but there is only circular reasoning to say the Son was God.

On another note, what exactly would it mean for God to be dead?

quote: quote: One_Brow: I think “THE First and THE Last in general” is a meaningless phrase. “First” and “last” imply a comparison about something. Anytime God or Jesus is described this way, it is fairly clear from the context what the “something” is. It's said about God in the Old Testament.

Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself.

quote: quote: CyberShy: If would be highly confusing (and it apparently is already) if the first part consists of God revealing himself, and the 2nd part is Jesus who reveals himself, while there is no clear indication who's speaking. quote: One_Brow: You mean, as opposed to the clear, concise, succinct book that revelation is otherwise? The vision migh be not that clear all the time, but the vision did not start yet at this moment.

The vision starts in Rev 1:10
I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet,

To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking.

quote: quote: One_Brow: Rev 1:8b the Almighty (a title not given to Jesus specifically at any location) In fact it is given to Jesus at this location. John tells that Jesus speaks to him. In fact, as far as I can see, God the Father is not speaking at all in the whole book of revelations.

Circular reasoning.

quote: If God is not speaking through the entire book, while Jesus is the one who delivers the messsage, we can only conclude that Jesus is speaking that He is the almighty. Which makes this passage the passage in which we can read that Jesus is the Almighty, and thus is the One True God.

Circular reasoning.

quote: quote: CyberShy: Notice that it is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" Jesus is revealed as being: The Alpha and the Omega The First and The Last The One which is, which was and which is to come The beginning and the ending. The third is never definitively applied to Jesus. The others are all perfectly compatible with Unitarianism. quote: These phrases are spread all over the first part of this book. It would be highly confusing if these so obviously connected phrases would be given to different persons. If God is that clear about the being of only One True God, which is not Jesus Christ, all over the bible, than why does the last book start this unclear way?

If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this.

quote: quote: One_Brow: The book is about Jesus, the only-begotten Son, receiving the Kingdom from the Father and ruling as the Father’s viceroy/vassal. Naturally some of the titles/descriptions will look similar. How can anybody be simular to "The First and The Last" How can anybody be simular to "The Almighty" I'm sorry, but that sounds like very weak reasoning towards me.

As the only-begotten Son, Jesus is more like God than any other being.

quote: quote: One_Brow: Do you think Jesus was the last man to be given symbols and parables by God? I think being the first and the last is not to be confused with parables or symbols. And even *if* this would be a parable, what else but saying that Jesus and God are the same, if they are both described as "The First and The Last". What else could any symbol mean, if both God and Jesus receive the same symbols!

That Jesus rules as God's viceroy, of course.

	25-11-2002 15:02									#89
	Suffering from ads?

quote: As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions.

That's true, but without conditions it can only be directed at the One True God.

as you have pointed out, 'ho' usually means "this"
"This god of the underworld"
"This God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel"

Without conditions "ho" is generally translated as "the", like in the NWT (ho theos mou, the god of me)

We take difference conclusions out of this.
You say that since "ho theos" has been directed not only to the One True God, but to Jesus as well, it cannot be read as the unique title to the One True God.

I say that since "ho theos" has only been directed to Jesus Christ and The One True God, they are one being (2 persons).

The only conclusion I can make is that your first assumption that "theos" is directed to more than just "God the Father" in the new testament is true, but this is not the case with "ho theos".

quote: There is nothing but your preferred assumption to sy this phrase is only used of God.

Without conditions? If we keep out the verses about Jesus, can you give others? Or do you agree with me that it's directed only to God and to Jesus Christ?

quote: Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh.

Exodus 20:3: the word translated with "before me" is paniym (06440)

The dutch translation (I'm dutch) says (literal translated into english) "thou shall have no other god in front of my face"

other verses that use this word:

Gen 1:2 And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 1:2 And the earth [0776] was [01961] (8804) without form [08414], and void [0922]; and darkness [02822] [was] upon the face [06440] of the deep [08415].

And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325].

Gen 3:8: and Adam [0120] and his wife [0802] hid themselves [02244] (8691) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068] God [0430] amongst [08432] the trees [06086] of the garden [01588].

Gen 4:16: And Cain [07014] went out [03318] (8799) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068]

all these phrases show that "before me" has not to be translated in any hierarchical way, as "Not before me, but after me"
It morely means "God does not want to see his followers to have other gods"

quote: you need to abandon any pretense that the Unitarian position, in particular the JW version, is inferior.

I would say it is wrong in my opinion. not inferior.
It's up to God to decide the latter.

quote: Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias.

Thus you only quote from a source if it backs one of your opinions, but you deny the same source if it's against it?

quote: Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience).

I do not say that Jesus is greater than God.

quote: ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai

to be honest my source does not put 'ho' in front of 'protos', 'eschatos'. But this proves again the ussage of 'ho' as 'the' in several verses.

"the first and the last" is the usual translation of this phrase.

quote: 3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected).

the 2nd assumption is self-made and cannot be extracted out of the phrase.

"I am alive for evermore" does indeed imply "immortality" but Jesus is certainly not the last who will live for evermore after being dead and raised. That counts for all christians.

quote: CyberShy: application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more) application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above. Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse.

quote: One_Brow: Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly.

in that case it cannot be difficult to counter my arguments with counter-arguments.

quote: God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless.

Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God."

it appears to be a title.
The blanc appearantly doesn't need to be filled out.
Pherhaps we can say "The first and the last who is God" since that can be get out of the phrase that follows.

Rev 22:13 Jesus says:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last."

ego eimi a kai omega arche kai telos protos kai eschatos.

If you claim that Rev 1:8 is said by Jehova,
than Rev 22:13 shows that Jesus and Jehova are said to be both the first and the last. Both be the alpha and the omega. Both to be the Beginning and the Ending.

quote: On another note, what exactly would it mean for God to be dead?

Something I cannot understand neither explain.
God was dead in Jesus while being alive in the Father.

quote: Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself.

I just quoted Isa 44:6 and rev 22.
Both 'hang by itself'.

quote: To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking.

Verse 11 is clearly Jesus who's speaking.

Thus we have verse 8, in which the speaker clearly is the highest divinity, the One True God, the almighty.
Verse 11 claims the same titles, verse 17 claims the same titles.

I very admit that in verse 8 God is speaking,
God the being. And after that in 11 and 17, Jesus, God in person, is speaking.

Both claim to be 'the alpha' and 'the omega'
The NWT translates both as 'the' and not as 'this alpha' and 'this omega'.

What other purpose but showing that in the vision the same person is speaking as the one speaking before the vision could this repeating of titles be?

Do you imply that John heard God speaking straight in verse 8, and by a vision in verse 11?
I would say both are either a vision or reality.

quote: If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this.

No prince will be called "King" as long as his father is living or gave up the title.
Jesus is titled "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"

If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.

I would like to sidestep to Romand 9:5,
obviously a known phrase for you as well.

"Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

I might add that the greek version of the JW puts a comma (,) at the same places, eventhough the NWT (TRANSLATION) puts a dot before "God blessed forever"

I assume we'd rather use the greek bible than any translation when speaking about this very important phrase.

Paul clearly states that Jesus is both flesh and God, blessed forever.

	27-11-2002 22:33									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy quote: As you have pointed out, "ho theos" can also be directed at other beings in certain conditions. That's true, but without conditions it can only be directed at the One True God. as you have pointed out, 'ho' usually means "this" "This god of the underworld" "This God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel" Without conditions "ho" is generally translated as "the", like in the NWT (ho theos mou, the god of me) We take difference conclusions out of this. You say that since "ho theos" has been directed not only to the One True God, but to Jesus as well, it cannot be read as the unique title to the One True God. I say that since "ho theos" has only been directed to Jesus Christ and The One True God, they are one being (2 persons). The only conclusion I can make is that your first assumption that "theos" is directed to more than just "God the Father" in the new testament is true, but this is not the case with "ho theos".

I think we've wrangled about all we're going to on this point. We have pretty much each acknowledge that our reasoning here is theologically based, rather than textually based. No need to quibble of minor details.

quote: quote: Note the verse only prohibits other gods who take pecedence over Yahoweh. Exodus 20:3: the word translated with "before me" is paniym (06440) The dutch translation (I'm dutch) says (literal translated into english) "thou shall have no other god in front of my face" other verses that use this word: Gen 1:2 And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325]. Gen 1:2 And the earth [0776] was [01961] (8804) without form [08414], and void [0922]; and darkness [02822] [was] upon the face [06440] of the deep [08415]. And the Spirit [07307] of God [0430] moved [07363] (8764) upon [05921] the face [06440] of the waters [04325]. Gen 3:8: and Adam [0120] and his wife [0802] hid themselves [02244] (8691) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068] God [0430] amongst [08432] the trees [06086] of the garden [01588]. Gen 4:16: And Cain [07014] went out [03318] (8799) from the presence [06440] of the LORD [03068] all these phrases show that "before me" has not to be translated in any hierarchical way, as "Not before me, but after me" It morely means "God does not want to see his followers to have other gods"

Other gods that they worship, certainly. Since Scripture itself refers to some of God's servants as being gods, the commandment does not mean that there can be no being who are called gods.

Either "before me" or "in my presence" still implies that this commandment is about the primacy and exclusivity of worship, not exclusivity of category.

quote: quote: Crosswalk is an excellent resource, but still suffers from some Trinitarian bias. Thus you only quote from a source if it backs one of your opinions, but you deny the same source if it's against it?

Using a Trinitarian source removes one area from a claim of bias when discussing the meaning and usage of words like "proskuneo". No source will be unflawed for free from bias.

In this case, identifying "ho theos" as it did seems to be a clearly theologically motivated addition. I do not think any intent to deceive or alther the truth was intended by this, it simply a result of bias.

quote: quote: Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never before Him (in a place of greater promience). I do not say that Jesus is greater than God.

I am sorry I was not more clear.

Jesus occupies many positions, including at the right hand of God, but is never "before Him" (in a place of greater promience), so there is no concern about violating the first commandment.

quote: quote: ego eimi ho protos kai ho eschatos kai ho zao kai ginomai nekros kai idou zao eimi eis ho aion ho aion kai to be honest my source does not put 'ho' in front of 'protos', 'eschatos'. But this proves again the ussage of 'ho' as 'the' in several verses.

They are there in Crosswalk. I didn't find which version of the Greek text Crosswalk uses.

quote: "the first and the last" is the usual translation of this phrase.

As a translation it is acceptable.

quote: quote: 3. I am the first and last living one who was dead and is now alive (the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected). the 2nd assumption is self-made and cannot be extracted out of the phrase. "I am alive for evermore" does indeed imply "immortality" but Jesus is certainly not the last who will live for evermore after being dead and raised. That counts for all christians.

Yes, if you take just those for properties of the five, Jesus is not unique.

The five properties:
1. First
2. Last
3. Living One
4. Died
5. Made alive

1,2,4 and 5 are any Christian. However, humans are not the among the "living ones", because we are mortal. Take a good look at "zao" and how it is used for #3 and #5, it means two different things.

quote: quote: CyberShy: application 1 is not true, since Jesus is neither the first who is alive (God is the first who is alive) nor the last who is alive (God's chosen ones will live forever more) application 2 is not true either for the same reason as the 2nd part of the above. Conclusion, it is *impossible* that "I am the First and the Last" cannot be read seperately from the rest of the verse, since it can't be read as an application to the rest of the verse. quote: One_Brow: Actually, the reading I gave happens to fit perfectly. in that case it cannot be difficult to counter my arguments with counter-arguments.

I have already supplied them. When you say "impossible", that implies my argument that Jesus is the first and last immortal to be killed and resurrected does not agree with the text. It does agree with the text.

Again, I'm not trying to say your interpretaion is plainly wrong. I'm just pointing out that there are alternate ways of understanding this text.

quote: quote: God is the First and Last what? Until you fill in the blank, the statement is meaningless. Isa 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God." it appears to be a title. The blanc appearantly doesn't need to be filled out. Pherhaps we can say "The first and the last who is God" since that can be get out of the phrase that follows.

Perhaps instead of filling in the blank for ourselves, we can allow Scripture to do so.

Is 44: 5-7 (all quotes NASB, courtesy of Bible Gateway):
This one will say, 'I am the LORD'S';
And that one will call on the name of Jacob;
And another will write on his hand, 'Belonging to the LORD,'
And will name Israel's name with honor.
"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.

Here, He is the First and the Last upon whom His followers will call.

quote: Rev 22:13 Jesus says: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." ego eimi a kai omega arche kai telos protos kai eschatos. If you claim that Rev 1:8 is said by Jehova, than Rev 22:13 shows that Jesus and Jehova are said to be both the first and the last. Both be the alpha and the omega. Both to be the Beginning and the Ending.

Rev 22:12-13:
Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

In the position of rendering to every man according to what he has done, Jesus is indeed First and Last.

quote: quote: Yes, and always in a context of existence, power, etc. It never just hangs by itself. I just quoted Isa 44:6 and rev 22. Both 'hang by itself'.

As I just demonstrated, neither does.

I will grant you that in Rev. 1:8, the phrase hangs by itself, without qualification. I haven’t seen this in any other location.

quote: quote: To say that the being who speaks before the vision must be the same who speaks during the vision seems to be wishful thinking. Verse 11 is clearly Jesus who's speaking. Thus we have verse 8, in which the speaker clearly is the highest divinity, the One True God, the almighty. Verse 11 claims the same titles, verse 17 claims the same titles. I very admit that in verse 8 God is speaking, God the being. And after that in 11 and 17, Jesus, God in person, is speaking. Both claim to be 'the alpha' and 'the omega' The NWT translates both as 'the' and not as 'this alpha' and 'this omega'. What other purpose but showing that in the vision the same person is speaking as the one speaking before the vision could this repeating of titles be?

While the titles/descriptions are not actually the same, the purpose of the similarity of the titles is to emphasize that Jesus is serving as the vassal of the Almighty.

quote: Do you imply that John heard God speaking straight in verse 8, and by a vision in verse 11? I would say both are either a vision or reality.

You can say this, but the text does nothing to support your saying this. There is definitely a vision that starts in vs. 10. At the very least, it seems likely that any putative vision in verse 8 would therefore be a different vision.

quote: quote: If God has been clear about being the One True God all over the Bible, why is it suddenly so confusing that his only-begotten Son has a few of god's titles, just as the sons of earthly kings receive some of their father's titles? There is no reason to be confused by this. No prince will be called "King" as long as his father is living or gave up the title. Jesus is titled "King of Kings and Lord of Lords"

The Bible says, in many ways and places, that the Father does give up the title to the Son, with the expectation of it being returned to the Father.

quote: If Jesus is claiming to be "The beginning" and "The ending" he cannot be that while his Father, who begotted him, is that as well. Either both are the beginning, or one of them is the beginning, or they are one being, two persons.

Here you have two beings from beyond time, one having been begotten from the other. They are both from the beginning (one as a self-aware being, the other as a yet-to-be-begotten part of the self-aware being), and now two beings.

quote: I would like to sidestep to Romand 9:5, obviously a known phrase for you as well. "Whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." I might add that the greek version of the JW puts a comma (,) at the same places, eventhough the NWT (TRANSLATION) puts a dot before "God blessed forever" I assume we'd rather use the greek bible than any translation when speaking about this very important phrase. Paul clearly states that Jesus is both flesh and God, blessed forever.

First of all, we don't even have the definitive "ho" preceding "theos" here, so I don't see why you assume the "theos" of this verse is Yahowah (outside of theological preference).

Second, many of the commentaries on Crosswalk seem to feel that the phrase is better understood as “who is ‘theos’ overall, blessed forever”. While they also equate “theos” to “God”, the point that Jesus is “theos” to all creation, as well as forever blessed, is central to JW theology, not in opposition to it.

Lastly, since this thread is ostensibly about JWs, I feel obligated to bring up a common JW argument: “God blessed forever” is some sort of interjection after the sentence. The JWs do occasionally give out explanations that seem to designed for people who don’t, and never will, learn the Greek text, in order to give them easy-to-understand responses in their door-to-door work. In this case this particular JW argument seems to be a very unlikely understanding of the verse.