[savedsinner7]

King James Version
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Nice try, but using a faulty Bible translation and purposely misquoting the scriptures doesn't make the trinity teaching any less ridiculous and incorrect than it already is. All it does is continue to make you look foolish.

[silentrascal]

I asked you before - give me the name of a single member of the NWT translation committee who was qualified to translate Biblical Greek and Hebrew.You make all sorts of statements, but I see that you are very slow to actually validate any of your claims.

Your accusations are only as good as the validation.

What you ask for is irrelevant. The translators of the NWT remain anonymous for reasons of not taking any credit for the translating work that was done; the holy scriptures stand on their own merits. You likewise make all sorts of statements, and never really validate what you claim, you just offer all sorts of illogical blustering in a futile attempt to help yourself.

[silentrascal]

King James Version
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

John 1:1

“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.

“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

“and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

“and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed

“and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme

“and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek

“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz

“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him′],” that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things” at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.” Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not “Mighty God” with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty,” there can be only one who is “Almighty.” To call Jehovah God “Almighty” would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os′ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.” And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?”

But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

[Clough]

John 1:1

“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.

“and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

“and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

“and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed

“and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme

“and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures

“and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek

“and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz

“and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him′],” that is, angels. In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6) Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things” at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.” Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not “Mighty God” with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God? Not at all. Isaiah merely prophesied this to be one of four names that Jesus would be called, and in the English language such names are capitalized. Still, even though Jesus was called “Mighty,” there can be only one who is “Almighty.” To call Jehovah God “Almighty” would have little significance unless there existed others who were also called gods but who occupied a lesser or inferior position.

The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library in England notes that according to Catholic theologian Karl Rahner, while the·os′ is used in scriptures such as John 1:1 in reference to Christ, “in none of these instances is ‘theos’ used in such a manner as to identify Jesus with him who elsewhere in the New Testament figures as ‘ho Theos,’ that is, the Supreme God.” And the Bulletin adds: “If the New Testament writers believed it vital that the faithful should confess Jesus as ‘God’, is the almost complete absence of just this form of confession in the New Testament explicable?”

But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God. In either case, Thomas did not think that Jesus was Almighty God, for he and all the other apostles knew that Jesus never claimed to be God but taught that Jehovah alone is “the only true God.”—John 17:3.

Again, the context helps us to understand this. A few days earlier the resurrected Jesus had told Mary Magdalene to tell the disciples: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.” (John 20:17) Even though Jesus was already resurrected as a mighty spirit, Jehovah was still his God. And Jesus continued to refer to Him as such even in the last book of the Bible, after he was glorified.—Revelation 1:5, 6; 3:2, 12.

Just three verses after Thomas’ exclamation, at John 20:31, the Bible further clarifies the matter by stating: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God,” not that he was Almighty God. And it meant “Son” in a literal way, as with a natural father and son, not as some mysterious part of a Trinity Godhead.

That's nice and all. Good work, I guess.. :confused:

I think that the arguments on this post probably started with deist stating what he or she did on September 20th, 2007. From then on, this post has degenerated into a bundle of arguments with certain individuals trying to prove who's something is bigger and better than the other persons.

But really, what does all you or anyone else at this juncture, trying to prove a point or points, have to do with answering the question of the original poster, please? People are going to go looking for an answer to the original poster's question based upon the title of it, nothing more than that. Not for some diatribe that really veers from the original intent as to the very simple question as to what Jesus is to you and why you feel the way you do? The original poster's question was the following.

Just wanted to get people's opinion of who Jesus is to you and why you feel the way you do? No trick, just want to discuss...

It would seem that a simple answer as to one's opinion as to what Jesus is to you and why you feel that way would suffice, rather than an argument ensuing because of the egos of the individuals answering trying to push what they believe to be true, getting into the way of the legitimate purpose as to what an answer might be based upon simple logic and faith of the individual answering.

So, what is your intent in posting the way that you have, please? What are you trying to prove? No one dies with anyone else. We all die alone. What we believe about Jesus or anything, anyone else that we might hold onto and believe about the purpose of life and also what happens to us after we die is something that is a matter of individual faith based upon what we have been taught, accept to be true, and also believe because we think that it is true and correct for our lives because we think that it is true.

You seem to be spending a lot of time and energy on nothing.

It is my hope that this thread will be closed.

[Tj3]

What you ask for is irrelevant. The translators of the NWT remain anonymous for reasons of not taking any credit for the translating work that was done; the holy scriptures stand on their own merits. You likewise make all sorts of statements, and never really validate what you claim, you just offer all sorts of illogical blustering in a futile attempt to help yourself.

But the truth is that the translators are NOT anonymous. We know who all are, and only one has any training whatsoever in Greek or Hebrew (and that was extremely minimal - inadequate to take on translating the Bible). When that one person (Fred Franz) was asked to do a simple translation in court, he was unable to do so. I have a copy of the court record if you wish to challenge that statement, and will provide the quote of that part of the questioning.

The translators are:

Frederick William Franz
George Gangas
Karl Klein
Nathan Knorr
Albert Schroeder
(Source: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I have other sources, including a book written by a former member of the governing body, Raymon Franz.

Now, I will ask again - which one of these gents had the qualifications to translate from Biblical Greek and Hebrew?

[Tj3]

John 1:1

“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.

Again, I could go through each of these claims, and it is interesting the translations that you chose to use (the list was copied from the CD I see), and I could provide a much longer list which show that Jesus is God. But you have still not dealt with the facts of Biblical Greek grammar. The original passage in Greek reads:

kai theos en ho logos.

The definite article applies to the subject, which is this case is the Word. The Word is the subject, not God. The second thing to understand about Greek is that the word order may vary, but is important for the purposes of emphasis. In the original Greek, theos is the first person or item mentioned, and though the words may be in any order, the word which is put first is placed in that position for emphasis. The "word" comes later in the sentence. Thus, in Greek, it would read, "What God was, the Word was". In English, we translate this to "The Word was God".

The Jehovah witnesses translate this to read "the Word was a god" based upon a mis-translation of the Greek, making the assumption that "ho" translates to "a" in English as definite article while when "theos" does not have an definite article, it should be assumed to have an indefinite article (Greek does not have an indefinite article). Without trying to get into details of Greek translation, we can demonstrate that this is not correct by simply showing that in Greek, the one true God is referred to elsewhere in the New Testament by the term "theos" without the definite article. Examples:

Matt 1:23
23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us."
NKJV

Matt 15:4
4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
NKJV

Mark 2:7
7 Why does this Man speak blasphemies like this? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
NKJV

Luke 20:38
38 "For He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for all live to Him."
NKJV

There are many more examples throughout the New Testament which could be given. In each example given, the Watchtower Society New World Translation translates the word "God" with the exception of Luke 20:38 where they translate it as "a God" (note the capital "G").

The problems with this are numerous. First and foremost, this creates two gods and yet scripture is abundantly clear throughout that there is only one true God (Deut 6:4, Zech 14:9 and many others). Secondly, they are inconsistent in their translation of passages which lack the definite article. Indeed, to claim that there is more than one god mentioned in this passage from John 1:1, then the Greek would have to read as follows:

kai ho logos en theos.

Note how logos now becomes the emphatic and God is demoted? This teaching is a heresy which is known as Arianism, and when you mis-translate the Greek in this manner, you end up with two gods, instead of the one that scripture says exists. Another mistake would have been to word it as:

kai ho logos en ho theos.

Which reads "..and the Word was the God", which in Greek would say that the Word was God the Father, rather than simply God. This is another heresy. But John was quite specific in his wording to be clear that Jesus is God, but not God the Father. Thus John 1:1 says that the Word (Jesus) is God, and though He is God, the one true God, He is not God the Father. John 1:1 is thus presenting the doctrine of the trinity nicely.

DOES saying that Jesus Christ is “a god” conflict with the Bible’s teaching that there is only one God? No, for at times the Bible employs that term to refer to mighty creatures. Psalm 8:5 reads: “You also proceeded to make him [man] a little less than godlike ones [Hebrew, ’elo·him′],” that is, angels.

Elohim means many things, including leaders, gods, judges, or angels. To tranmslate this as "godlike ones is inappropriate. Let's look at a better translation:

Ps 8:5
5 For You have made him a little lower than the angels,
And You have crowned him with glory and honor.
NKJV

In Jesus’ defense against the charge of the Jews, that he claimed to be God, he noted that “the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed,” that is, human judges. (John 10:34, 35, JB; Psalm 82:1-6)

Did you notice that the term is used in a judgmental sense? In John 10:34, he calls them "gods". In John 10:26 we are told that they are unsaved, and in Psalm 82, we are told that these men who call themselves gods are unjust judges who lack knowledge and understading and walk in darkness. Do you really think that this is an appriopriate comparison for Jesus?

Even Satan is called “the god of this system of things” at 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Did you see what else Paul calls these false gods?

1 Cor 8:5-7
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.
NKJV

Notice that they are not real gods, neither is Satan who tried to make himself a god, but rather for us Jesus is the One God! Even God says that He does not know any other gods:

Isa 44:8
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Are you claiming that God does not know what he is talking about?

Jesus has a position far higher than angels, imperfect men, or Satan. Since these are referred to as “gods,” mighty ones, surely Jesus can be and is “a god.” Because of his unique position in relation to Jehovah, Jesus is a “Mighty God.”—John 1:1; Isaiah 9:6.

But does not “Mighty God” with its capital letters indicate that Jesus is in some way equal to Jehovah God?

The term “Mighty God” is indeed used in scripture to refer to Jehovah:

Jer 32:17-18
18 You show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them--the Great, the Mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts.
NKJV

Isa 10:21-23
21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob,
To the Mighty God.
22 For though your people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea,
A remnant of them will return;
The destruction decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
23 For the Lord GOD of hosts
Will make a determined end
In the midst of all the land.
NKJV

Gen 49:24
24 But his bow remained in strength,
And the arms of his hands were made strong
By the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob
(From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel),
NKJV

It is interesting to note that the term “Mighty God” is used in scripture 4 times, 3 times clearly referring to Jehovah, and the fourth is prophetic of Jesus. This Therefore this is a clear reference equating Jesus with God.

But what about the apostle Thomas’ saying, “My Lord and my God!” to Jesus at John 20:28? To Thomas, Jesus was like “a god,” especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation. Some scholars suggest that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God

Thomas did not call Jesus "a god". He said "My Lord" and "My God". That would have been blasphemous is Jesus were not the one and only true God, just as Paul rebuked men for calling him and others gods:

Acts 14:11-15
11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!" 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, "Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
NKJV

And yet Jesus did not rebuke him, but rather said:

John 20:28-29
29 Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
NKJV

Jesus is God.

[silentrascal]

But the truth is that the translators are NOT anonymous. We know who all are, and only one has any training whatsoever in Greek or Hebrew (and that was extremely minimal - inadequate to take on translating the Bible). When that one person (Fred Franz) was asked to do a simple translation in court, he was unable to do so. I have a copy of the court record if you wish to challenge that statement, and will provide the quote of that part of the questioning.

The translators are:

Frederick William Franz
George Gangas
Karl Klein
Nathan Knorr
Albert Schroeder
(Source: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I have other sources, including a book written by a former member of the governing body, Raymon Franz.

Now, I will ask again - which one of these gents had the qualifications to translate from Biblical Greek and Hebrew?

No, the truth is the translating committee is anonymous. And even if they did decide to openly state who was on that body, anything you have to say about their training is utterly meaningless.

You can ask until your dying day. You have no position to question anyone's credentials, especially when you continue to admit to your biased position.

[silentrascal]

Sorry, but Jesus is NOT God. Never was, never will be. The ultimate source on that? The Bible. Not the faulty translation you use, which twists and changes things to fit a ridiculous trinity theory.

[savedsinner7]

referenced from eSword, KJV with Strongs Concordance numbers:


Php 2:9 Wherefore1352 God2316 also2532 hath highly exalted5251 him,846 and2532 given5483 him846 a name3686 which3588 is above5228 every3956 name:3686
Php 2:10 That2443 at1722 the3588 name3686 of Jesus2424 every3956 knee1119 should bow,2578 of things in heaven,2032 and2532 things in earth,1919 and2532 things under the earth;2709
Php 2:11 And2532 that every3956 tongue1100 should confess1843 that3754 Jesus2424 Christ5547 is Lord,2962 to1519 the glory1391 of God2316 the Father.3962


κύριος
kurios
koo'-ree-os
From κῦρος kuros (supremacy); supreme in authority, that is, (as noun) controller; by implication Mr. (as a respectful title): - God, Lord, master, Sir.

Sorry, but Jesus is NOT God. Never was, never will be. The ultimate source on that? The Bible. Not the faulty translation you use, which twists and changes things to fit a ridiculous trinity theory.

[Tj3]

No, the truth is the translating committee is anonymous. And even if they did decide to openly state who was on that body, anything you have to say about their training is utterly meaningless.

You can ask til your dying day. You have no position to question anyone's credentials, especially when you continue to admit to your biased position.

All you do is deny. We know who the translating committee is, and we know their qualifications. And yes, I am biased in favour of the truth. Those who love truth have nothing to fear from the truth. Do you want to use a translation created by people who had no qualifications?

Even if you don't agree with me, that does not change what their training or qualifications were. They are no more or no less qualified just because you disagree with me, so why don't we examine the facts?

[Tj3]

Sorry, but Jesus is NOT God. Never was, never will be. The ultimate source on that? The Bible. Not the faulty translation you use, which twists and changes things to fit a ridiculous trinity theory.

I have shown that the NWT was translated by those who had no qualifications. What is your valdiation for your claim that the NKJV is faulty?

Just denying everything is not acceptable.

[savedsinner7]

And from Matthew Henry:

Php 2:5-11 -
The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is set before us. We must resemble him in his life, if we would have the benefit of his death. Notice the two natures of Christ; his Divine nature, and human nature. Who being in the form of God, partaking the Divine nature, as the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, Joh_1:1, had not thought it a robbery to be equal with God, and to receive Divine worship from men. His human nature; herein he became like us in all things except sin. Thus low, of his own will, he stooped from the glory he had with the Father before the world was. Christ's two states, of humiliation and exaltation, are noticed. Christ not only took upon him the likeness and fashion, or form of a man, but of one in a low state; not appearing in splendour. His whole life was a life of poverty and suffering. But the lowest step was his dying the death of the cross, the death of a malefactor and a slave; exposed to public hatred and scorn. The exaltation was of Christ's human nature, in union with the Divine. At the name of Jesus, not the mere sound of the word, but the authority of Jesus, all should pay solemn homage. It is to the glory of God the Father, to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord; for it is his will, that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father, Joh_5:23. Here we see such motives to self-denying love as nothing else can supply. Do we thus love and obey the Son of God?

[superwario99]

Just wanted to get people's opinion of who Jesus is to you and why you feel the way you do? no trick, just want to discuss...

I think he is the messenger of god, allah suphana wata alla

[superwario99]

He is not a god

[silentrascal]

All you do is deny. We know who the translating committe is, and we know their qualifications. And yes, I am biased in favour of the truth. Those who love truth have nothing to fear from the truth. Do you want to use a translation created by people who had no qualifications?

Even if you don't agree with me, that does not chnage what their training or qualifications were. they are no more or no less qualified just because you disagree with me, so why don't we examine the facts?

You THINK you know who the committee is and/or their qualifications, but you forget or conveniently ignore the fact that nothing you say can be considered credible. That's just how it goes with people who have admitted biases. Your bias is in favor of the lies that your father, Satan, has been blinding people's minds with for centuries.

Whoever they are, or were, you're about to have this thread closed for skewing way off-topic. Take your discussions elsewhere.

[silentrascal]

I have shown that the NWT was translated by those who had no qualifications. What is your valdiation for your claim that the NKJV is faulty?

Just denying everything is not acceptable.

And your just simply say "they're not qualified" is not acceptable either, especially so when it comes from bias.

[Tj3]

And your just simply say "they're not qualified" is not acceptable either, especially so when it comes from bias.

I have looked into it - Prove me wrong, show me that any of these were qualified.

Simply denying everything is proof of nothing, silentrascal.

[Tj3]

he is not a god

John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NKJV

[Tj3]

You THINK you know who the committee is and/or their qualifications, but you forget or conveniently ignore the fact that nothing you say can be considered credible. That's just how it goes with people who have admitted biases. Your bias is in favor of the lies that your father, Satan, has been blinding people's minds with for centuries.

Now I see that you are exapnding into ad hominem arguments.

[silentrascal]

I have looked into it - Prove me wrong, show me that any of these were qualified.

Simply denying everything is proof of nothing, silentrascal.

And your saying anything about it in any respect is, likewise, proof of nothing.