Jesus is God

Jesus is God


  • Total voters
    121

God's Truth

New member
You are "funny", you claim everything God said or did before your IMAGINARY BATHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST is null and void.

The only thing that means anything to you is YOUR IMAGINARY BATHING IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

You have missed the point of Christ.

Christ is the FULFILLMENT not the obliteration.
Good grief: it wasn't all fulfilled until it was finished.


John 19:30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
You can think of Fulfillment as paying off the Mortgage on your house.

That was on the CROSS where his blood was shed.


Do you then destroy your house?
Or do you spend the money no longer going into the Mortgage payments to Remodel an enlarge your house?
For that matter you could could buy 2 new cars and put someone through college once you have FULFILLED your mortgage payment.

You think once my Mortgage payment is FULFILLED I should Burn down or Bull Doze MY house,

You are mistaken.

Hell, I got enough credit to buy 2 MORE HOUSES, both with Mortgages that WILL BE FULFILLED.

You want to be a teacher, but you don't understand even the most simple things, such as trust God the Almighty preserved His words for us in the Bible, and do not judge a chosen of His, like Paul. You distrust the Bible and you call Paul a liar.
 

NWL

Active member
You have noticed that the NWT is the only one to translate John 1:1 as a god? Why would that be so? So that the translation will fit the theology.

Did you not notice the post where I showed you how many scholars, even trinitarian ones, clearly state and show that "a god" is a grammatically correct rendering of John 1:1. Here they are again, try not to ignore it this time.

"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
"The Word was a god" C. H. Dodd - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.
"the Word was a god" Murray J. Harris - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
"and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" Robert Young - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)
“and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808).
“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek (1958)
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz (1975)
“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider (1978)
"As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured." Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College
"Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God."-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, "Lesson 3," p.23
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Did you not notice the post where I showed you how many scholars, even trinitarian ones, clearly state and show that "a god" is a grammatically correct rendering of John 1:1. Here they are again, try not to ignore it this time.

"a god was the Word" - W. E. Vine - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
"The Word was a god" C. H. Dodd - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.
"the Word was a god" Murray J. Harris - p. 60, Jesus as God, Baker Book House, 1992.
"and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" Robert Young - Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary.
“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson (1864)
“and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text (1808).
“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek (1958)
“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz (1975)
“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider (1978)
"As to the translation of John 1:1,"and the Word was a god" is grammatically possible but not grammatically favoured." Robert H. Gundry of Westmont College
"Although it has to be acknowledged that [theos hn ho logos] could be translated The Word was a god, there is no doubt whatever, according to the rules of Greek grammar, that the phrase can also mean The Word was(the)God."-Introduction to New Testament Greek Using John's Gospel, 1999 Hodder and Stoughton publishers, "Lesson 3," p.23

Did you not read what I said to you? Your's is the only translation that uses the article before God. Why is that? It makes Jesus another god.
 

God's Truth

New member
I am fully comprehending what you're saying hence why I've previously addressed your point. Jesus does NOT have all of the Fathers names.
Jesus has the names God has. Jesus is called the Holy One, Shepherd, King of kings, God, Savior, the Alpha and the Omega, the Redeemer, etc.

No other 'god' or 'savior' is called all of God's names.

Jesus only says what God the Father says.

Jesus only does what God the Father does.

All the things the Father says and does, it is what Jesus says and does.

You can't say that about the 'gods', 'kings', and 'saviors' you mentioned.

So stop using them as proof Jesus isn't God.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
You have noticed that the NWT is the only one to translate John 1:1 as a god? Why would that be so? So that the translation will fit the theology.

Even then, the devil-led, Arian Russellites (the false witnesses against Jehovah--the Botchtower Society folk) still fail! Here's what they say:

John’s words recorded at John 1:1 did not mean that Jesus was to be identified as Almighty God. The Word was a god, not Almighty God.

Here, the Russellites are telling us that whatever it is they call "Almighty God" is not a god. Whatever is not a god is a non-god, and it is wholly irrational for one to call something he/she considers to be a non-god, "Almighty God", but that's what the Russellites are doing, here. Yet, in their non-Bible--their "New World Translation"--the Russellites say:

“Do you not know? Have you not heard? Jehovah, the Creator of the ends of the earth, is a God for all eternity”! (Isaiah 40:28)

Here, the Russellites are saying that Jehovah is a god; and, as Jesus' being a god debars (in their view) them from calling Jesus, "Almighty God", it's interesting that they do not say that Jehovah's being a god debars them from calling Jehovah, "Almighty God". Of course, such hypocritical self-inconsistency is of the warp and woof of Russellism.

Trinitarians--in other words, Christians--have no problem with acknowledging that Jesus, the Word, is a god, and that God the Father is a god; submitting to Bible truth, we Christians (unlike the Russellites, and all other anti-Trinitarians) love the truth that Jesus (the Word, God the Son) is that same god (aka, God, YHWH, Jehovah, God Almighty) that God the Father is.
 

God's Truth

New member
I'm aware it was a type hence why I said "I think you were meant to quote Rev 1:8", I was only trying to help others in case they read it and looked up the verse. I know its easy to be defensive in this type of setting but believe it or not, I'm not trying to use every opportunity to put you down as many have the custom in this forum friend.
Thanks that is good to know. You should know though that it would be easy for anyone to figure out, so no, no one needs your help with that.

I see a common theme starting with you GT. You make a claim and attempt to show supporting scripture regarding the said claim, I make counter-arguments against your claim, you then do not address my counter-arguments and simply repeat in the same or different way why your claim is correct. I made two points as to why Jesus cannot be the one who sits on the throne, namely:
You describe what you do.

  1. Jesus is the lamb who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, If Jesus takes the scroll from the one who sits on the throne then he cannot possibly be that one. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
  2. The A&O is the same person as the "one who is, who was, and is coming" according to Rev 1:8,

  1. They are the same.

    Jesus is the one to come.

    You want to keep saying Jesus isn't the one to come?

    You don't believe Jesus is sitting on the Father's throne.

    Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5. If Jesus is mentioned as separate from him then he clearly is not that one or the one speaking in Rev 1:8. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
Regarding your point in Rev 1:7 that Jesus was pierced. The one speaking in Rev 1:7 is the angel mentioned in v1, this angel is no doubt speaking about Jesus in v7, in v8 the speaker is speaking in a first-person narrative, this is obvious by the words "I am the", nothing in v7 or the preceding verses show anything as to who the speaker in v8 is (apart from that is can't be Jesus of course by v4,5), it is merely you're assumption that Jesus is the one being spoken about. Just because it mentions Jesus in the verse prior to v8, it is NOT evidenced that the verse is about Jesus.
Just believe what is written instead of all these acrobatics.
Does Jesus take the scroll from the one "sitting on the throne" according to Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if you answer is yes (and it can only be a yes unless you want to deny scripture) then how do you say Jesus is the one "sitting on the throne"?
There are three, and the three are one; one means 'the same'. God came as a man, and the man Jesus is God.
Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Jesus is the one coming with the reward. The one coming with the reward is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
SO WHAT! Again, Jesus is a King of kings and the Father is also a King of kings, the Father is a King over Jesus and all other kings and Jesus is king over all kings of the earth. The same way there can be two kings in earth and they can both be called King of kings is the same way both Jesus and the Father are kings of kings without one needing to assume they are the same person. As you keep ignoring my point I will pose it in a question so you stop ignoring my points over and over. Also, the Father isn't called the only king of kings, he's called the "only ruler", compare other translations and you will see the "only" is referring to God's sovereignty by the verse.
Pay better attention: there is ONLY ONE KING of kings. That is God and Jesus. One and the same.

Answer me please, can two human kings on earth both simultaneously be called "king of kings" without the need to assume they are the same person?

There might be a king of kings on the earth, but God is the ONE AND ONLY King of kings over the earth---and Jesus is, because he is God.

The Bible says there is only one King of kings over the kings of the earth.

You don't trust the scriptures. That must come from the kind of spirit that has over taken the JW's and is why they made another Bible.
 

God's Truth

New member
You said "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" say who, you?

Don't be illogical.

Of course you're going to say that, you NEED Jesus to be those things for your doctrine to make any sense, but just because you in your head think "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" does not prove what you're saying is correct. You still miss the point, you say "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not", he wasn't called those things, hence why the verse says "he will be called", he was only called those things when upon coming to earth, dying for us, and being given all authority by the Father who is not Jesus. When you say "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" you're imagining and presupposing the things he was called, for example, "mighty God" and "eternal Father" are the very and only titles of the Father when they are not. Anyone can be called Father of something if they are the founders of something. Who is the "father of the lie", Jesus said it was Satan, again, Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45), "Adam" was our first Father but of course, fell into sin, Jesus replaced Adam and took away Adamic sin, Jesus became the Father Adam was meant to be, since Jesus also lives forever he is called the "Eternal Father". You assume Jesus being the "eternal Father" means he is the Father, this cannot be true since again, at the time of Isaiah writing Isaiah 9:6 he was not the "eternal Father" hence the reason why Isaiah wrote "he will be called the eternal Father" and not "he is the eternal Father", no one called Jesus the Father when Jesus was on earth, he WAS called the "last Adam" though.
Again you use Satan to try to say Jesus isn't God.


If what you say above is true then why are Ar·ta·xerxʹes and Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar called kings if there is only one King of kings, an answer of "because they are on the earth" will not suffice as the Bible makes no such distinction. The Bible doesn't say "there is only one king of kings in heaven", therefore to claim anything otherwise is an assumption. Deal with the question, if there is only one king of kings why does the Bible state there are more?
The Bible SAYS there is only ONE KING of kings over the earth.


Your evidence is riddled in assumptions. Jesus is called many things the Father is called yes, this is because Jesus acts on behalf of the Father with all the things the Father wants. Imagine, the Father see's the world and wants to save manking, Jesus seeing this offers to do the Fathers bidding and saves mankind on behalf of the Father, both the Father is savior and Jesus is savior despite their being only one source of the salvation, only one savior, God.
The Bible says who Jesus is, and you deny it.


The Father wants to judge the world, instead of doing it himself directly he ordains Jesus to do it on his behalf, God, in turn, is judging the world through Jesus, Jesus and the Father both then act as judge. "[God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (Acts 17:21)

The Father wants to send a message, instead of giving it directly he gets Jesus to deliver the message verbally himself, both the Father is the one giving the message and Jesus is the one giving the message, I could go on and on. ".For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)

The Father wants to create the universe, instead of doing it himself he gets Jesus to do it, thereby creating the world through Jesus, both Jesus can state he created the world as can the Father. "..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things areand we through him.." (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Do you seriously think its a massive coincidence that everything Jesus is, the message he preached, him being savior, judge, redeemer and everything else is always as described as the Father being the source of it all and always speaks in a sense which any everyday reader would interpret as the Father and Jesus being separate people without having to play lingual gymnastics?

You haven't proved or disproved anything.
 

God's Truth

New member
As I said many post ago you above points are made up waffle.

You say "We are no longer to do certain things", according to who? You? Show me the verse that supports this statement that no one can bow to anyone other than God, not simply in the worship form of bowing but in any form.
I gave you scriptures.

You said "The Bible plainly says don’t bow to men and angles. We are to bow only to God when it comes to that which is spiritual", let me remind you of what I said to this already, "You misunderstand the occurrences angels and when people such as Peter told others not to bow to them. The angel told John in Revelation not to bow as John was giving the Angel an act of worship, Peter told Cornelius not to bow to him out of humility, there is NOTHING in the Bible that states we cannot bow to another man to show respect and honour, bowing out of respect is completely different to bowing in an act of worship, this is the very reason why the Bible has multiple accounts of faithful servant bowing to others with no backlash, as it isn't a sin." To show me how I'm incorrect you would need to reference the passages you refer to and show me how I'm wrong.

Your denial is no defense of the truth.

Do not bow to angels or any man of God.

It isn't that hard to understand to people who love God and want to please Him by obeying Him.
 

God's Truth

New member
I highlight that your previous response did nothing in explaining how the 11 verses you quoted meant anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense or by the giving of the HS, your response to this? You again regurgitate the same point of "Jesus SAYS he himself will live in the saved. And, Jesus is the Spirit" without any explanation as to why the 11 verses you quoted showed anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense. You're running around in circles my friend, surely this is clear evidence you cannot prove what you claim in this matter.



You truly are mad if you believe Jesus himself is living inside of you right now my friend. Again, Jesus may be with you symbolically the same way "Paul was with the Corinthians" (1 Cor 5:4) symbolically and not literally with the corinthians, but he is not inside of you literally.



Believe it or not but Jesus stated many things that weren't meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said “you must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53) was he being literal? No, it was symbolic. When he said “pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble” (Matt 5:30) was Jesus being literal? No, it was figurative. When Jesus said to Peter “"Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23)was he literally claiming Peter was Satan? No, it was figurative.

Likewise, when Jesus said he was in and with people he wasn't literally in or with them in some symbiotic manner, rather Jesus was simply with his followers figuratively.



You have much to learn, do not deny something just for the sake of denying it. The Bible tells us, “The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.” (Jeremiah 17:9) Jesus himself said, “From inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasonings issue forth: fornications, thieveries, murders, adulteries, covetings, acts of wickedness.” (Mark 7:20-22). The heart many times in the Bible refers to what I said it does "the inner person, the source of a person’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings" as the two listed verses show. When it states God or Jesus is with, in, or in our hearts it's speaking in a figurative sense, not literal.



Why? Because you say it's not the same? Again, your word does not equate truth. Take scripture for what it says, not for what you want it to say, there is no verse that states "Paul's being with people despite him not being there is different when Jesus says it", therefore how can you simply claim it's different just on a whim, unless you show me otherwise using the Bible my point stands.

You deny what is plainly written. You have a spirit that is shared among many like you, and it is why the JW's wrote another Bible, because they did not accept what God says.
 

NWL

Active member
Did you not read what I said to you? Your's is the only translation that uses the article before God. Why is that? It makes Jesus another god.

Firstly the NWT is not "my" translation, I did not claim anyone Bible translation of the Bible is the correct one, you keep saying this, stop. Secondly, it does not matter is the NWT is the only translation of the New Testament that renders John 1:1, what only matters is if the translation is grammatically and contextually correct. The type of argument you are using is an"argument from majority", just because the majority of Bible translations of the NT translate John 1:1c "the God" is NOT evidence its correct, especially when scholars -even Trinitarians ones- state "a god" is a correct translation of John 1:1c.

So again, are all the translators I showed, even the Trinitarians ones, who state John 1:1c can be translated "a god" also changing the Bible?
 

NWL

Active member

You don't even believe in the same thing as GT and yet you're answering for him, give me a break. Stop trying to get a piece of GT and my debate, you don't speak to cultist remember, have some self-control and follow your own rules.
 

NWL

Active member
Jesus has the names God has. Jesus is called the Holy One, Shepherd, King of kings, God, Savior, the Alpha and the Omega, the Redeemer, etc.

No, Jesus has some names of God, not all of them. As I said in one of my earlier posts he is never called "Sovereign Lord" (Deut 3:23), "Almighty God" (Exo 6:3), "God of Gods" (Joshua 22:22), the "True God" (1 Kings 8:60), the "One God" (1 Cor 8:6), the "only true God" (John 17:3), only the Father is called these things. All these titles share something in common, they are all "ultimate" titles, meaning there is no title above that title, and Jesus coincidently is NEVER called by any of these titles, only the Father is, stop ignoring this.

No other 'god' or 'savior' is called all of God's names.

So what, this does not prove anything, again you're making an argument from silence. There is no other "god" or "savior" called by some of the same titles as God because there is no one more esteemed by the Father as his firstborn son Jesus is, if God used a different spirit son other than Jesus then that spirit son would be the one referred to as savior, redeemer, Christ, King of kings etc. Just because it was Jesus and thus Jesus who was given the names is not prove that he is God, but simply, he was the one who earned some of the titles of God as it was God working through him.

Jesus only says what God the Father says.

So if my biological father tell me to go out and read his letter to a group of people from memory and I do it and say "all the words I say are not mine but from my Father" does that make me my Father? No. In like manner, Jesus was sent by the Father and was given instruction by the Father what to say, hence the reason why he said "all the words I say are not mine but from my Father", this does not make him the Father any more than it makes me my biological father.

Jesus only does what God the Father does.

Just as my above paragraph states, this is because he was instructed by the Father what to do, it does not imply he is the Father.

You can't say that about the 'gods', 'kings', and 'saviors' you mentioned.

It doesn't matter, how does Jesus having some of the same names as the Father somehow change/nullify the fact that others were called "savior" and "king of kings" when the scripture states "there is no savior besides God" and "there is only one king of kings", stating over and over "these other saviors and king of kings though" doesn't explain why the Bible states there is only one savior, god, or king of kings.
 

NWL

Active member
NWL said:
I make counter-arguments against your claim, you then do not address my counter-arguments and simply repeat in the same or different way why your claim is correct. I made two points as to why Jesus cannot be the one who sits on the throne, namely:
  1. Jesus is the lamb who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, If Jesus takes the scroll from the one who sits on the throne then he cannot possibly be that one. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
  2. The A&O is the same person as the "one who is, who was, and is coming" according to Rev 1:8, Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5. If Jesus is mentioned as separate from him then he clearly is not that one or the one speaking in Rev 1:8. You have completely ignored this point despite it clearly contradicting your understanding.
They are the same.

Jesus is the one to come.

I literally highlighted to you in my last reply about this that "do not address my counter-arguments and simply repeat in the same or different way why your claim is correct", now again, instead of actually responding to my counter-arguments that I again asked you you simply repeat your position of "They are the same. Jesus is the one to come", I already know you believe Jesus and the Father are the same and is the one to come, this is the very reason I raised the two points in the first place!
  1. Again, how is Jesus is the lamb who takes the scroll from the A&O who is the "one who is, who was, and is coming" and who sits on the throne when comparing Rev 1:4, Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if he is the A&O the one "sitting on the throne". Either Jesus is sitting on the throne or he is the one taking the scroll from the one sitting on the throne, he cannot be both, so which is he?
  2. Again, how is Jesus the A&O the "one who is, who was and is coming" if Jesus is clearly mentioned as separate from this one when reading Rev 1:4,5?
You do not need to repeat for the third time that "They are the same, Jesus is the one to come", I already know you believe this, explain your way around my two points, do notreiterate your position as I already understand it.

You want to keep saying Jesus isn't the one to come?

As I have already explained the "coming" refers to the judging of mankind, remember the Father is the one who "entrusted all the judging to the Son" (John 5:22), we also know the Father "has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man [Jesus] whom he has appointed", according to these verses the Father Judges and so son does the Son, the Father, however, is judging the world by means and through Jesus. Thus the Father, who is the A&O in Rev 1:8 mentioned as the "one who is, was, and is coming" is coming, but does so through Jesus Christ who is described as "coming".

So I do not deny that Jesus is coming, he simply is the one mention as "the one who is, was, and is coming" in Rev 1:8 or any other passage as he is clearly separate from this one in Rev 1:4,5.

You don't believe Jesus is sitting on the Father's throne.

He does sit on his father throne, but as the Bible makes mention he sits at the right hand of the Father, not in the Father seat himself, the Father is the one who sits on his own seat and is the one whom "the lamb" takes the scroll from in Rev 5:6,7. Remember, sitting on the throne does not equate being God, followers of Christ also sit on the throne, this hardly makes them God, Jesus or the Father, therefore Jesus sitting on the Father's throne does not imply he is God or the Father. (Revelation 3:21) "..To the one who conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, just as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.."

NWL said:
Regarding your point in Rev 1:7 that Jesus was pierced. The one speaking in Rev 1:7 is the angel mentioned in v1, this angel is no doubt speaking about Jesus in v7, in v8 the speaker is speaking in a first-person narrative, this is obvious by the words "I am the", nothing in v7 or the preceding verses show anything as to who the speaker in v8 is (apart from that is can't be Jesus of course by v4,5), it is merely you're assumption that Jesus is the one being spoken about. Just because it mentions Jesus in the verse prior to v8, it is NOT evidenced that the verse is about Jesus.
Just believe what is written instead of all these acrobatics.

Lol you're calling good contextual reading acrobatics, no wonder you believe in the things you do. Instead of actually refuting what I say you claim I'm simply wrong as I'm wrong, nice. Unless you can refute what I've said above I can only assume you cannot refute what I say is sound.

NWL said:
Does Jesus take the scroll from the one "sitting on the throne" according to Rev 5:1 and Rev 5:6,7, if you answer is yes (and it can only be a yes unless you want to deny scripture) then how do you say Jesus is the one "sitting on the throne"?
There are three, and the three are one; one means 'the same'. God came as a man, and the man Jesus is God.

If this isn't another clear display that someone does not know how to answer a question I do not know what is. I already know you believe "There are three, and the three are one; one means 'the same", how does this answer if you believe Jesus was the one taking the scroll from the "one sitting on the throne" or if you believe Jesus was the one "sitting on the throne" whom the lamb took the scroll from. Are you trying to say Jesus was both the one "sitting on the throne" and "the lamb who took the scroll" and therefore Jesus took the scroll from his own hand? (please answer)

You state "There are three, and the three are one", where does it say this in the Bible? Please don't tell me you're using the text and verse what all scholars today call "spurious", namely 1 John 5:7 lool.

Jesus is the one coming with the reward. The one coming with the reward is the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

I've already touched on this in the above. The reward is regarding "judgment", Jesus was appointed as judge by the Father with the Father judging the world through Jesus. Therefore both are coming and both are giving a judgment/reward. Your literal reading of the text misses this point.

NWL said:
SO WHAT! Again, Jesus is a King of kings and the Father is also a King of kings, the Father is a King over Jesus and all other kings and Jesus is king over all kings of the earth. The same way there can be two kings in earth and they can both be called King of kings is the same way both Jesus and the Father are kings of kings without one needing to assume they are the same person. As you keep ignoring my point I will pose it in a question so you stop ignoring my points over and over. Also, the Father isn't called the only king of kings, he's called the "only ruler", compare other translations and you will see the "only" is referring to God's sovereignty by the verse.
Pay better attention: there is ONLY ONE KING of kings. That is God and Jesus. One and the same

As I said in my last reply to you the verse you use to say "there is ONLY ONE KING of kings" does not say "there is ONLY ONE KING of kings". I clearly explained this in my above quote in red. Here is a list of parallel bibles so you can clearly see the "only" in the verse is regarding the sovereignty of God, its not in reference to the other epithet listed after it. The translation you used (NIV) translates it in such a way it makes it easy for the reader to misapply the term only to all the epithets listed.

NLT: For, At just the right time Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only almighty God, the King of all kings and Lord of all lords.
ESV: which he will display at the proper time—
he who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
DBT: which in its own time the blessed and
only Ruler shall shew, the King of those that reign, and Lord of those that exercise lordship;
BSB: which God will bring about in His own time—He who is blessed and
the only Sovereign One, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
BLB: which
He will display in the own seasons, blessed and alone Sovereign, the King of those being kings, and the Lord of those being lords
KJV: Which in his times
he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
ECV:
The glorious God is the only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords. At the time that God has already decided, he will send Jesus Christ back again.
ABPE: He who is going to reveal himself in his time,
The Blessed God and Only Mighty One, The King of Kings and the Lord of Power

Once again, Jesus is a King of kings separate from the Father who is a King of kings, the same way two persons on earth can simultaneously be "king of kings" without it having to imply they are the same person, you have not yet refuted this, all you've done is repeated 1 Tim 6:15 in a vain attempt to show there is only one King of kings in heaven.

There might be a king of kings on the earth, but God is the ONE AND ONLY King of kings over the earth---and Jesus is, because he is God.

The Bible says there is only one King of kings over the kings of the earth.[/QUOTE]

No he is not, God is the sovereign king and therefore a king of kings, Jesus is NOT sovereign king as he is under the father in position but was made king of kings by the Father. Jesus is NOT a king forever as 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 states:

Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)

As the verse above states, "he [Jesus] must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet...then the Son himself will also subject himself to [the Father] the One who subjected all things to him.." (italics added according to John 17:1,2 "Father...Glorify your son... just as you have given him authority over all flesh"). Jesus is beneath the Father.


You don't trust the scriptures. That must come from the kind of spirit that has over taken the JW's and is why they made another Bible.

How can you say this when you haven't disagreed with the wording of any passage I've shown and when I've been using any bible translation to back up all my claims? Mindboggling.
 

NWL

Active member
NWL said:
You said "Jesus isn’t going to be called things he is not" say who, you?
Don't be illogical.

I wasn't being illogical, I was simply highlighting just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Again you use Satan to try to say Jesus isn't God.

Instead of trying to reason against anything I say you focus on a single point that adds nothing to the discussion. Again, I will assume that by your lack of proper reply you are unable to refute what I say, so can only assume that what I said is sound. I will again highlight the two points you failed to address.
  1. In Isaiah 9:6 it is stated Jesus "will be called" and not Jesus "is called", the context shows Jesus at that time was not the things he was due to prophetically be called.
  2. You can refer to people who are the founder or start as something as "father", Adam was the father of us all, Satan was the Father of the lie, the Father is the Father as he created all things, and Jesus is the "eternal Father" in the sense he replaced Adam our Father and now lives forever.
The Bible SAYS there is only ONE KING of kings over the earth.

No, you just couldn't read 1 Tim 6:15 and understand it properly.


The Bible says who Jesus is, and you deny it.

It certainly does, it states Jesus "lives because of the Father" (6:57) something not possible if Jesus is God and that he is the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) implying that he is part of creation, it also states he is God and has a God over him.

NWL said:
The Father wants to judge the world, instead of doing it himself directly he ordains Jesus to do it on his behalf, God, in turn, is judging the world through Jesus, Jesus and the Father both then act as judge. "[God] has set a day on which he purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed" (Acts 17:21)

The Father wants to send a message, instead of giving it directly he gets Jesus to deliver the message verbally himself, both the Father is the one giving the message and Jesus is the one giving the message, I could go on and on. ".For I have not spoken of my own initiative, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. (John 12:49)

The Father wants to create the universe, instead of doing it himself he gets Jesus to do it, thereby creating the world through Jesus, both Jesus can state he created the world as can the Father. "..there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.." (1 Corinthians 8:6)
You haven't proved or disproved anything

I've shown that God acts through someone and by him doing so both he, and the person whom he works through can be called the relevant titles of those actions. This gives an alternative understanding of the common misconception that when two people are referred by the same title they are the same person. To claim that I didn't show this by what I said is a blatant ignoring of text.
 

NWL

Active member
NWL said:
I highlight that your previous response did nothing in explaining how the 11 verses you quoted meant anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense or by the giving of the HS, your response to this? You again regurgitate the same point of "Jesus SAYS he himself will live in the saved. And, Jesus is the Spirit" without any explanation as to why the 11 verses you quoted showed anything other than Jesus and God "being with us" either in a symbolic sense. You're running around in circles my friend, surely this is clear evidence you cannot prove what you claim in this matter.

You truly are mad if you believe Jesus himself is living inside of you right now my friend. Again, Jesus may be with you symbolically the same way "Paul was with the Corinthians" (1 Cor 5:4) symbolically and not literally with the corinthians, but he is not inside of you literally.

Believe it or not but Jesus stated many things that weren't meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said “you must eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood” (John 6:53) was he being literal? No, it was symbolic. When he said “pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble” (Matt 5:30) was Jesus being literal? No, it was figurative. When Jesus said to Peter “"Get behind me, Satan!” (Matt 16:23)was he literally claiming Peter was Satan? No, it was figurative.

Likewise, when Jesus said he was in and with people he wasn't literally in or with them in some symbiotic manner, rather Jesus was simply with his followers figuratively.

You have much to learn, do not deny something just for the sake of denying it. The Bible tells us, “The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.” (Jeremiah 17:9) Jesus himself said, “From inside, out of the heart of men, injurious reasonings issue forth: fornications, thieveries, murders, adulteries, covetings, acts of wickedness.” (Mark 7:20-22). The heart many times in the Bible refers to what I said it does "the inner person, the source of a person’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings" as the two listed verses show. When it states God or Jesus is with, in, or in our hearts it's speaking in a figurative sense, not literal.

Why? Because you say it's not the same? Again, your word does not equate truth. Take scripture for what it says, not for what you want it to say, there is no verse that states "Paul's being with people despite him not being there is different when Jesus says it", therefore how can you simply claim it's different just on a whim, unless you show me otherwise using the Bible my point stands.
You deny what is plainly written. You have a spirit that is shared among many like you, and it is why the JW's wrote another Bible, because they did not accept what God says.

Another example of you being unable reason against the things I say. When Jesus said "pluck out your eye or cut off you hand if it makes you stumble” and you do not accept the face-value reading of the text and believe Jesus literally meant to cut off your hand does that too mean you are denying what is plainly written? (please answer)
 

NWL

Active member
God's Truth 's please reply to the following points I made that you were silent on with your last replies

I asked you "I understand you believe Jesus lived in his spirit, what I'm trying to ask is, is it correct in saying "only Jesus humanity died" when it states he [Jesus] died?"

You say "No angel could do what Jesus did", why not? Simply stating "No angel could do what Jesus did" is not proof no angel could do what Jesus did, where are the scriptural passages and reasoning that support your claim?
 

Bright Raven

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Firstly the NWT is not "my" translation, I did not claim anyone Bible translation of the Bible is the correct one, you keep saying this, stop. Secondly, it does not matter is the NWT is the only translation of the New Testament that renders John 1:1, what only matters is if the translation is grammatically and contextually correct. The type of argument you are using is an"argument from majority", just because the majority of Bible translations of the NT translate John 1:1c "the God" is NOT evidence its correct, especially when scholars -even Trinitarians ones- state "a god" is a correct translation of John 1:1c.

So again, are all the translators I showed, even the Trinitarians ones, who state John 1:1c can be translated "a god" also changing the Bible?

From gotquestions.org

​​​​​​The New World Translation (NWT) is defined by the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ parent organization (the Watchtower Society) as "a translation of the Holy Scriptures made directly from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern-day English by a committee of anointed witnesses of Jehovah." The NWT is the anonymous work of the “New World Bible Translation Committee.” Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the anonymity is in place so that the credit for the work will go to God. Of course, this has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability for their errors and prevents real scholars from checking their academic credentials.

The New World Translation is unique in one thing – it is the first intentional, systematic effort at producing a complete version of the Bible that is edited and revised for the specific purpose of agreeing with a group’s doctrine. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society realized that their beliefs contradicted Scripture. So, rather than conforming their beliefs to Scripture, they altered Scripture to agree with their beliefs. The “New World Bible Translation Committee” went through the Bible and changed any Scripture that did not agree with Jehovah’s Witness theology. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that, as new editions of the New World Translation were published, additional changes were made to the biblical text. As biblical Christians continued to point out Scriptures that clearly argue for the deity of Christ (for example), the Watchtower Society would publish new editions of the New World Translation with those Scriptures changed. Here are some of the more prominent examples of intentional revisions:

The New World Translation renders the Greek term word staurós ("cross") as "torture stake" because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross. The New World Translation does not translate the words sheol, hades, gehenna, and tartarus as "hell” because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe in hell. The NWT gives the translation "presence" instead of “coming” for the Greek word parousia because Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ has already returned in the early 1900s. In Colossians 1:16, the NWT inserts the word “other” despite its being completely absent from the original Greek text. It does this to give the view that “all other things” were created by Christ, instead of what the text says, “all things were created by Christ.” This is to go along with their belief that Christ is a created being, which they believe because they deny the Trinity.

The most well-known of all the New World Translation perversions is John 1:1. The original Greek text reads, “the Word was God.” The NWT renders it as “the word was a god.” This is not a matter of correct translation, but of reading one’s preconceived theology into the text, rather than allowing the text to speak for itself. There is no indefinite article in Greek (in English, "a" or "an"), so any use of an indefinite article in English must be added by the translator. This is grammatically acceptable, so long as it does not change the meaning of the text.

There is a good reason why theos has no definite article in John 1:1 and why the New World Translation rendering is in error. There are three general rules we need to understand to see why.

1. In Greek, word order does not determine word usage like it does in English. In English, a sentence is structured according to word order: Subject - Verb - Object. Thus, "Harry called the dog" is not equivalent to "the dog called Harry." But in Greek, a word’s function is determined by the case ending found attached to the word’s root. There are two case endings for the root theo: one is -s (theos), the other is -n (theon). The -s ending normally identifies a noun as being the subject of a sentence, while the -n ending normally identifies a noun as the direct object.

2. When a noun functions as a predicate nominative (in English, a noun that follows a being verb such as "is"), its case ending must match the noun’s case that it renames, so that the reader will know which noun it is defining. Therefore, theo must take the -s ending because it is renaming logos. Therefore, John 1:1 transliterates to "kai theos en ho logos." Is theos the subject, or is logos? Both have the -s ending. The answer is found in the next rule.

3. In cases where two nouns appear, and both take the same case ending, the author will often add the definite article to the word that is the subject in order to avoid confusion. John put the definite article on logos (“the Word”) instead of on theos. So, logos is the subject, and theos is the predicate nominative. In English, this results in John 1:1 being read as "and the Word was God" (instead of "and God was the word").

The most revealing evidence of the Watchtower’s bias is their inconsistent translation technique. Throughout the Gospel of John, the Greek word theon occurs without a definite article. The New World Translation renders none of these as “a god.” Even more inconsistent, in John 1:18, the NWT translates the same term as both "God" and "god" in the very same sentence.

The Watchtower, therefore, has no hard textual grounds for their translation—only their own theological bias. While New World Translation defenders might succeed in showing that John 1:1 can be translated as they have done, they cannot show that it is the proper translation. Nor can they explain the fact that that the NWT does not translate the same Greek phrases elsewhere in the Gospel of John the same way. It is only the pre-conceived heretical rejection of the deity of Christ that forces the Watchtower Society to inconsistently translate the Greek text, thus allowing their error to gain some semblance of legitimacy in the minds of those ignorant of the facts.

It is only the Watchtower’s pre-conceived heretical beliefs that are behind the dishonest and inconsistent translation that is the New World Translation. The New World Translation is most definitely not a valid version of God’s Word. There are minor differences among all the major English translations of the Bible. No English translation is perfect. However, while other Bible translators make minor mistakes in the rendering of the Hebrew and Greek text into English, the NWT intentionally changes the rendering of the text to conform to Jehovah’s Witness theology. The New World Translation is a perversion, not a version, of the Bible.
Emphasis in red is mine.
 

God's Truth

New member
God's Truth 's please reply to the following points I made that you were silent on with your last replies

I asked you "I understand you believe Jesus lived in his spirit, what I'm trying to ask is, is it correct in saying "only Jesus humanity died" when it states he [Jesus] died?"

You say "No angel could do what Jesus did", why not? Simply stating "No angel could do what Jesus did" is not proof no angel could do what Jesus did, where are the scriptural passages and reasoning that support your claim?

You aren't paying attention.

Angels can sin too.

God can't sin, and , Jesus is God come as a man.

Jesus was sinless because he chose the way that God his Father taught and not the way of his flesh.

You are a JW, so you don't believe that spirits don't die, so you won't understand a lot of things that are spoke of concerning the spirit.
 
Top