Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: boris@tornado.Berkeley.EDU (Boris Chen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is Jesus God!! Message-ID: Date: 9 Mar 91 04:02:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: ucb Lines: 164 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >> In article c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) writes: I think the problem lies in talking about the word, "god"/"God." There is the use of the word in a descriptive sense, and a use of the word to describe the Almighty. >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) Yes, I agree that we should worship God (Jehovah) alone, and not to created beings. I agree. If you mean to imply that Jesus is worshiped, perhaps there is another point of misunderstanding, since I don't worship Jesus; I worship the Father just as Jesus did. In Isa. 42:8, Jehovah is speaking about not sharing his glory with false gods (i.e. idols of the nations). Jesus is of course spoken of as having glory, but obviously he would since he is in the image of God, and reflects His qualities. > >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 This transitive property is of course a valid method of logic, but you have to be careful in its application. As I said before, the term theos can be used in a descriptive sense, and thus you cannot say: There exists an x such that p(x) is true There exists a y such that p(y) is true Therefore, x = y; the function p being a predicate. You can only say p(x) = p(y) for they are both true. For example, bird(Tweety) = true bird(Daffy) = true You can only conclude that they are both birds, but not that Daffy is Tweety. If you have a statement (theos(x) and almighty(x) ==> Jehovah(x)), that would be something different, since the aspect of almighty is put in, which by definition can only be one person. Thus, theos(Jesus) and almighty(Jesus) ==> T and F ==> F. If there is a scripture showing Jesus to be almighty, then my arguement is blown to pieces, but as it stands, the qualitative adjective, mighty, can apply to more than one person. Caution also must be displayed in titles stemming from duties and actions. Ultimately, it is God that bears the credit for what he commands his servants to do. It is similar to the part in Matt. 8:5,6 and Luke 7:2,3. Often times this is cited as a contradiction in the Bible, because of this same misunderstanding. In Matt., the account shows an army officer asking Jesus a favor, while in Luke, representatives asked Jesus a favor. It was the army officer who was ultimately responsible for the question, and the representatives were through whom it was given. Another example is, if Joe Workman is called the builder of the new road, it would not imply that Jane Mayor is the same as Joe Workman if she too, was called the builder of the new road, for she was the ultimate head. She is Joe's head, just as God is Christ's head. >So we can clearly say that there is no separate god. But if Isa. 43:10 >isn't sufficient, read Isa. 45:21. Again, I think the problem arises in the use of the word God/god. It reads that there is no God besides Jehovah, and I agree. And because I realize that the Bible also calls other beings god in a descriptive sense, I don't find any contradiction in Satan, Judges, Angels, and Jesus being called gods. >>>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 "because it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily" "because in him is dwelling down all the fullness of the divinity bodily" Guess which on is in the NWT, and which is a literal word for word translation from the Greek. To me, they both seem equivalent. > >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. Please, Gene, I would appreciate it if you didn't spread untruths about Witnesses. I do not ever remeber any special Rule, that JWs "propound." The reason for the NWT translation of Jn.1:1 is as it is because of the context of the entire Bible. I also think that the second part is in set in contrast to the first because in the first instance of theos, a definite article was present, and in the second instance, it was not. This is a contrast that is absent from your example of Jn.1:6. >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. I don't know what do say, but that the feeling is mutual for those translations that render it "the Word was God." > >>"Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine > ^^^^^^^^^^| > | huh!? wanna try that word again, please. > Sorry for the typos, I didn't mean to offend. >>>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? All I can say is that I have said "Oh my God!" in reaction to others and have not meant it to mean that I think that person is God. Jesus never rebukes Thomas because Thomas didn't say anything wrong, he was simply astonished. (I'll excuse you calling me Brian, if you excuse my typos) >>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. Then we agree again. :) /----------------------------------------------------------\ | Boris Chen || Berkeley, CA || boris@ocf.berkeley.edu | \----------------------------------------------------------/