Who are the Jehovah Witness?

[JohnD]

The fact of the matter is human understanding of what God is was in flux from Genesis 1 through John 1.

There were hints throughout the scriptures, but tangible theology truly began with the Apostle John's Gospel (validated by the rest of scripture). 

[JohnD]

John 10:27–38 (NASB95)

27 “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;

28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

29 “My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

30 “I and the Father are one.”

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.

32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?”

33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?

35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36 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’?

37 “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;

38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

Psalm 82:6–7 (NASB95)

6 I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.

7 “Nevertheless you will die like men And fall like any one of the princes.”

When did he say "you are gods?"

Exodus 4:16 (NASB95)

16 “Moreover, he shall speak for you to the people; and he will be as a mouth for you and you will be as God to him.

Exodus 7:1 (NASB95)

1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.

 

[JohnD]

21 hours ago, JohnD said:

I noted Tiger Two an anti-trinitarian bias in your two posts here.

If this is such a blindly trinitarian place (in your eyes) why do you come here?

 

If you answered this, somehow I missed it. Could you please respond?

[tigger two]

JohnD: “You'll notice I did not bite on what man says as an authoritative citation because only the Bible has that authority.”

JohnD: “Those who try to legitimize the false gods usually do so to bolster their attempt to undeify Christ by misusing the scriptures.

“If the Emphatic Diaglott (by Benjamin Wilson, adopted by Christadelphians and later by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) were legitimate in its (mis)translation of John 1:1, then John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too.”

JohnD: “Philippians 2:6 (AV)

6 Who, being in the form of God†, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

† Greek: "morphe theos huparchon" the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God

You’ll notice that John did not “bite on” what the many Trinitarian authorities admitted in my long referenced list concerning the obvious, that men and angels are sometimes called gods in scripture. (Even Jesus admitted this at John 10:34.) But he has “bitten” on the man who has defined huparchon as “never ceasing to be.”

 

Huparchon is never used for God because, although often translated as “existing” or “being,” it literally means:

“to make a beginning (hupo, ‘under’; arche, ‘a beginning’)” - W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as “to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE” - #5225.

And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us:

“[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun” - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

Here are a few of the instances of huparchon in the NT - Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19.

Please show me how these can possibly be understood as “never ceasing to be.”

And as for morphe:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

“John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too”

There are two things you should already know about the Greek of John 20:17 “the father of me and father of you and god of me and god of you.”

1. When you have a series of nouns and the first one in the series has the article, the article can also be understood to be with the following nouns.

2. When a noun is modified by a preposition (or a genitive), the article may be understood although not present. Only context can decide in such cases.

So John 20:17 certainly can be understood as using “[the] god” or “God.”

Edited January 21, 2016 by tigger two

[tigger two]

28 minutes ago, JohnD said:

If you answered this, somehow I missed it. Could you please respond?

I don't wish to be censored or banned because of your perception of me. 

 

[JohnD]

On 1/19/2016 at 11:08 PM, tigger two said:

JohnD: “You'll notice I did not bite on what man says as an authoritative citation because only the Bible has that authority.”

JohnD: “Those who try to legitimize the false gods usually do so to bolster their attempt to undeify Christ by misusing the scriptures.

“If the Emphatic Diaglott (by Benjamin Wilson, adopted by Christadelphians and later by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) were legitimate in its (mis)translation of John 1:1, then John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too.”

JohnD: “Philippians 2:6 (AV)

6 Who, being in the form of God†, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

† Greek: "morphe theos huparchon" the form of God subsisting / never ceasing to be God

You’ll notice that John did not “bite on” what the many Trinitarian authorities admitted in my long referenced list concerning the obvious, that men and angels are sometimes called gods. (Even Jesus admitted this at John 10:34.) But he has “bitten” on the man who has defined huparchon as “never ceasing to be.”

 

Huparchon is never used for God because, although often translated as “existing” or “being,” it literally means:

“to make a beginning (hupo, ‘under’; arche, ‘a beginning’)” - W. E. Vine’s An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 390.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance also defines huparcho as “to begin under (quietly), i.e. COME INTO EXISTENCE” - #5225.

And the authoritative (and trinitarian) An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott tells us:

“[huparcho] ... to begin, make a beginning ... 2. to make a beginning of ... 3. to begin doing ... 4. to begin [doing] kindness to one ... Pass. to be begun” - p. 831, Oxford University Press, 1994 printing.

Here are a few of the instances of huparchon in the NT - Luke 9:48; Acts 3:2; Ro. 4:19.

Please show me how these can possibly be understood as “never ceasing to be.”

And as for morphe:

“Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance.” - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.

Notice how the first Christian writers after the Apostolic fathers understood the meaning of morphe at Phil 2:6 itself:

“... who being in the shape of God, thought it not an object of desire to be treated like God” - Christian letter from 177 A.D. sometimes ascribed to Irenaeus, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF), p. 784, vol. 8.

“... who being in the image of God, ‘thought it not ...’” - Tertullian, about 200 A.D., ANF, p. 549, vol. 3.

“...who being appointed in the figure of God ...” - Cyprian, about 250 A.D., ANF, p. 545, vol. 5.

“John 20:17 would also undeify the Father as "a god" because the article is missing in the Greek there too”

There are two things you should already know about the Greek of John 20:17 “the father of me and father of you and god of me and god of you.”

1. When you have a series of nouns and the first one in the series has the article, the article can also be understood to be with the following nouns.

2. When a noun is modified by a preposition (or a genitive), the article may be understood although not present. Only context can decide in such cases.

So John 20:17 certainly can be understood as using “[the] god” or “God.”

God from the beginning... never ceasing to be God... the form of God from the beginning (any one of which denotes his eternal existence as the God who exists without beginning or end).  Your attempt to derail the biblical definition that Jesus is God in flesh reveals both your theological bias and your intentions here. 

Micah 5:2 (NASB95)

2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

Either way,  Jesus is eternal in his Spirit nature.

 

[JohnD]

Colossians 2:9 (NASB95)

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,

Colossians 1:13–15 (NASB95)

13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

He is the visible image of the invisible God,, positionally the firstborn in his body over creation and the firstborn from the dead in his body.

Colossians 1:17–18 (NASB95)

17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Oh, and he happens to be the Creator in Genesis 1:1...

Colossians 1:16 (NASB95)

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Isaiah 44:24 (NASB95)

24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,

Notice he Jesus is YHVH (Jehovah) the Creator of all things created... the kinsman redeemer (which neither the Father or the Holy Spirit could be)...

Thus says YHVH your Goel (Ga'al) kinsman redeemer kinsman!

 

[JohnD]

On 1/19/2016 at 11:15 PM, tigger two said:

I don't wish to be censored or banned because of your perception of me. 

 

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

[tigger two]

JohnD wrote concerning my lengthy list of Trinitarian sources admitting that "god" is used for angels, God-appointed judges, and kings:

Quote

You'll notice I did not bite on what man says as an authoritative citation because only the Bible has that authority.

and JohnD  also wrote:

Quote

 

John 1:1 (Greek)

en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theo† pros ton logos

† noun kai noun in Greek grammar a second article is not needed since there is no distinction between the two nouns

 

 

 

1. Your quote from the Greek is terrible! It should read “en arche een ho logos, kai ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos.”

This verse is composed of three different clauses, each separated by kai (‘and’). You have “bitten” on the misteaching of a man here. Apparently you are attempting to use Sharp’s Rule (a man’s rule which is also incorrect). But that rule was intended for ‘noun kai noun’ within the same clause and of nouns in the same case!

You, however, (or whoever gave you this misinformation) have taken an articular noun in the accusative case and followed it with a noun in a different clause and in the nominative case.

So we have a MAN giving you this erroneous interpretation of another MAN’s (Granville Sharp) incorrect ‘Rule.’ But you say you won’t accept any part of a long list of respected Trinitarian scholars’ verifying the scriptural use of ‘god’ for angels, kings, and judges.

　

JohnD wrote:

Micah 5:2 (NASB95)

2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

Either way, Jesus is eternal in his Spirit nature.

From my personal study (also on my blog):　

Micah 5:2

Look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:1, 2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

At the very least you should consider the ‘eternity’ translation as uncertain.  (See how the word olam is translated in Isaiah 63:11; Amos 9:11; Micah 7:14; Malachi 3:4)

…………………

I have quoted and cited TRINITARIAN sources in my posts. I am attempting to find truth and honesty in translation. Please stop implying that I am dishonestly trying to push an anti-Trinitarian belief here.

　

　

Edited January 21, 2016 by tigger two

[thereselittleflower]

43 minutes ago, tigger two said:

JohnD wrote:

1. Your quote from the Greek is terrible! It should read “en arche een ho logos, kai ho logos een pros ton theon, kai theos een ho logos.”

This verse is composed of three different clauses, each separated by kai (‘and’). You have “bitten” on the misteaching of a man here. Apparently you are attempting to use Sharp’s Rule (a man’s rule which is also incorrect). But that rule was intended for ‘noun kai noun’ within the same clause and of nouns in the same case!

You, however, (or whoever gave you this misinformation) have taken an articular noun in the accusative case and followed it with a noun in a different clause and in the nominative case.

So we have a MAN giving you this erroneous interpretation of another MAN’s (Granville Sharp) incorrect ‘Rule.’ But you can’t accept a long list of respected Trinitarian scholars’ verifying the scriptural use of ‘god’ for angels, kings, and judges.

　

JohnD wrote:

Micah 5:2 (NASB95)

2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.”

Either way, Jesus is eternal in his Spirit nature.

From my personal study (also on my blog):　

Micah 5:2

Look at other trinitarian translations of Micah 5:1, 2. (E.g., "O Bethlehem ..., from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days" - RSV, cf. JB, NEB, REB, NAB, NIV, AT, Mo, NRSV, NJB, CEB, CJB, ERV, ESV, God's Word, LEB, MEV, NCV, NET, NLT, WEB, Byington, and Young's.) Not only does this verse not teach that Jesus has always existed, it even speaks of his origin in very ancient times. (Origin: "a coming into existence" - Webster's New World Dictionary, 1973.)

Obviously for so many respected trinitarian translators to choose this meaning ("origin") they must feel there is no other honest choice! The only meanings given by Gesenius for this word in his highly-respected Lexicon are "origin, springing" - #4163, Gesenius - cf. Micah 5:1 in The Jewish Publication Society's Bible translation, Tanakh.

And A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament gives the only meaning for this word as used in Micah 5 as "origin." - p. 187, Eerdmans.

At the very least you should consider the ‘eternity’ translation as uncertain.

…………………

I have quoted and cited TRINITARIAN sources in my posts. I am attempting to find truth and honesty in translation. Please stop implying that I am dishonestly trying to push an anti-Trinitarian belief here.

　

　

Let's try

• Mic 5:2

  ¶ But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

This is not speaking of origination the way you are trying to make it appear.   For example:

• origin, place of going out from

• origin

• places of going out to or from

  1. privy

 

Let's look at the word "origin"

• noun
  1.

  something from which anything arises or is derived; source;fountainhead:

  to follow a stream to its origin.
  2.

  rise or derivation from a particular source:

  the origin of a word.
  3.

  the first stage of existence; beginning:

  the origin of Quakerism in America.
  4.

  ancestry; parentage; extraction:

  to be of Scottish origin.
  5.

  Anatomy.

  1. the point of derivation.
  2. the more fixed portion of a muscle.
  6.

  Mathematics.

  1. the point in a Cartesian coordinate system where the axes intersect.
  2. Also called pole. the point from which rays designating specificangles originate and are measured from in a polar coordinatesystem with no axes.

 

For instance, it can refer to

• The point of attachment of a muscle that remains relatively fixed during contraction.

 

 

The muscle didn't suddenly come into existence because the muscle moved.

 

The use of this word does not mandate a coming into existence.