Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is Jesus God!! Message-ID: Date: 8 Mar 91 05:33:18 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 179 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Boris, let me start off by apologizing to you and other Witnesses, like Steve P. I read your response to my post and then went back to my original posting. I can see that I did not make myself clear. I do not consider Jehovah's Witnesses polytheists. In fact, I know a great number of Witnesses and know them to be fiercely monotheistic. The polytheism comes in from my reading of the way in which the Society renders John 1:1. The analysis of the passage in the NWT yields this conclusion, especially in light of the answers that I've gotten before >From other Witnesses, which I gave in brief detail in my original post. Now on to your response. > In article c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) writes: > > >It is a common mistake to conclude the Jehovah's witnesses are polytheists > >or henotheists. The problem lies in our two understandings of what god > >means. The Bible uses the word god to mean a powerful being, angels are > >refered to as gods, the judges of Israel were refered to as gods, AND > >EVEN SATAN.... Well said, Boris, but you haven't gone far enough with this analysis. Even though literally speaking there is only one true God and the "gods" of the heathen are nothing but manmade idols (Psa. 115:1-8), the word "god" was at times used in a figurative manner or sense to describe someone or something which had a godlike function. Thus, Moses was to function as a godlike judge over Pharaoh (Ex. 4:16). Satan is figuratively called "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4). The judges over Israel were called Elohim, that is, "gods" in Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9, etc., because like God, they held the power of life and death over men. While Moses, the judges, angels, and even Satan himself are, at times, called "god" in a figurative sense, are they ever said to be God by nature? Are we ever told to bow before them and give them divine worship? Are we told to pray to them? Are we ever told to place our ultimate faith, hope, trust, and love in them? Are the divine characteristics such as eternity or omnipresence ever atrributed to them? While they may have been called Elohim, were they ever called YHWH? We agree that there is only one true and living God. Since there is only one true God, will this God chare His glory and worship with anyone else? (Isa. 42:8) Can we worship any created being or thing; or does the Bible teach that we are to worship God alone? (Deut. 6:13) In Hebrew of Isa. 9:6, "Mighty God" appears without the definite article. But this is also true in such places as Isa. 10:21; 49:26. Since YHWH is called "Mighty God" without the definite article in Isa. 10:20-21, the absence of the article cannot be interpreted to show that YHWH is just "a god." But the comparison between Isa. 9:6 and Isa. 10:20-21 demonstrates that Jesus is the YHWH who is the "Mighty God." After all, there cannot be two "Mighty Gods," for there is only one God (Isa. 43:10). There is also an irrefutable Scriptural logic behind the proposition that Jesus is YHWH. In logic, the following syllogism is *always valid*: A > B a = b B > C or b = c ---------------- A > C a = c In the same way, the teaching of Scripture can be arranged in conformity to the above syllogism. Jesus is "Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6) "Mighty God" is YHWH (Isa. 10:20-21) ------------------------------------ Jesus is YHWH The logical sequence cannot be shown to be invalid. The conclusion is automatic and irrefutable. All throughout the various texts that we use as proof texts, there is this consistent fact, Jesus is ascribed with having the very nature of God. I have a rather complete list of these verses. The listing shows what is said about YHWH and then shows verses that ascribe the same nature to Jesus. Now, you and other Witnesses can choose to ignore these verses or try to reinterpret them, as you please. But the logic still stands. Another example: YHWH is the Rock of Israel (Deut. 32:1-4) The Rock of Israel is Jesus (1 Cor. 10:1-4) ------------------------------------------- Jesus is YHWH >>"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD [YHWH], and my servant whom I have >>chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: >>before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." > >From the context it would seem that when it refers to God, it is in >the sense of a being deserving worship and servitude, since you >yourself are in agreement of the KJV's transtlation of 2 Cor. 4:4. In context, YHWH is saying very clearly that there is no other god. This passage has nothing to do with worship. YHWH relates the history to which the Israelites can bear witness that YHWH alone is the one and true God. So we can clearly say that there is no separate god. But if Isa. 43:10 isn't sufficient, read Isa. 45:21. >>Jesus is God incarnate. Paul tells us that in Jesus dwelt the fullness >>of the Godhead bodily. And quoting the NWT on this passage is not a >>good thing to do, because even the Society's interlinear shows that the >>NWT version of this Colossians passage is poorly rendered. > >I am not sure off hand, what scripture you are refering to. Col. 2:9 > Basically, neither you nor I are greek scholars. But let me just >make this comment. In the NWT, the translators are not claiming some >sacred law of translation. As in most cases, context comes into play. While I'm just learning Greek, I have done considerable homework on the way in which some of the key verses are translated. A verse that matches the stucture of the Greek grammar of John 1:1 is John 1:6. If you'll look in the NWT, you'll find it reads: "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God." Now based upon the rule that the Witnesses have been propounding as the way in which to come up with "... and the Word was a god" should cause this passage to read: "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." Doesn't make much sense, does it? The verse is talking about *the* God. You keep saying that context is so important, but about the context of John 1:1 forces "a god"? The problem with the NWT is that it is attempting to force a doctrinal view on the text that the text itself simply will not support in context. >"The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." (Thayer) No argument with that. ;-) >"Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine ^^^^^^^^^^| | huh!? wanna try that word again, please. >>Essentially, the Society says that because the Greek noun theos has the >>definite article preceding it (ho theos) it is clearly speaking of >>Jehovah God. However, in John 20:28 we have the same construction of ho >>theos in Thomas' words, which literally rendered are: "The Lord of me >>and the God [ho theos] of me!" Does this mean Jesus is Jehovah!? > >Again, context. I think that the context is quite clear, Brian. Thomas falls to his knees in worship and calls Jesus Christ his Lord (kyrios) and God (theos). Yet Jesus never rebukes Thomas for this. How come? >>But here is something to consider. In the Aramaic, the word for Logos >>is Memra. It is also the designation for YHWH God in the Targums, i.e., >>the Aramaic translations of the Old Testament. >> >>A. Plummer in his book "The Gospel According to St. John" (Cambridge: >>University Press, 1892, p. 62) says, "The Logos existed from all >>eternity, distinct from the Father, and equal to the Father...neither >>confounding the Persons nore dividing the Substance." Thus, Christians >>do not believe that Jesus and the Father are the same Person. We see >>Jesus and the Father as two Persons, but the same God. > >We agree that Jesus is distinct from the Father, Then we agree on this also. >but not that he is >equal. For Jesus was sent forth, anointed, given the kingdom, begotten, >etc. all by the Father. And this is the center of the storm of the debate. En Christo, Gene