Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: The Deity of Jesus Christ Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 08:54:29 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 146 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Please note the change in subject line. This is in response to Boris Chen's response to me on "Is Jesus God?" I wrote: >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. Boris responds, in part: #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." Boris, my friend, I'm not spreading untruths. If you have a copy of _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures_ (1969, pages 1158, 1159), you can verify what I say. The definite article is ommitted in the Greek of John 1:6. Thus, according to what is said in the explanation of the KIT, we should render this passage as "There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of a god." The KIT gives us a rule that essentially says that since there is no indefinite article "a" in Greek, and where there is no definite article "the," then the article "a" is to be inferred. Thus, we get some really interesting constructions following this rule. ;-) So, maybe the context is really important. So what about the context of John 1:1 shows that it should be rendered "a 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. No offense taken. I merely forgot the smiley. I was just curious which word you meant. And I didn't want to assume a word that you might not have meant. 8-) >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. Boris, please look at the context of this verse with those surrounding it. I seriously doubt that Thomas would come even this close to taking God's name in vain. This is essentially what your tentative interpretation would imply. Had Thomas come that close, I doubt that Jesus would have responded as He did. Check this passage out in the KIT. I clearly reveals that what Thomas said was "The Lord of me and the God of me!" He was not making a near blasphemous exclamation. He was acknowledging who Jesus is. Now, I'd like to take you to several other passages that I believe help establish not only the deity of Jesus as God the Son, but also help to establish the Trinity. First, turn to Genesis 18:1-2. I will be using the KJV simply because I left my NIV at home today (the problems of having several Bible studies during the week -- I take it out of my pack for a Bible study and sometimes forget to put it back later. 8-( ). In this passage, we see the LORD (YHWH) coming to visit Abraham. Even in the NWT God appears to Abraham as three men. Abraham addresses all three as YHWH. When the three respond, the episode is described interchangeably as "they" speaking and "Jehovah" speaking. When two of the three men depart to visit with Lot, Abraham continues to address the remaining man as "Jehovah," but Lot addresses the other two as "Jehovah." (Gen. 18:22, 30; 19:1, 18) By itself, this account does not prove the Trinity doctrine. Still, at the very least, it clearly demonstrates that it is possible for God to manifest Himself as three-in-one. The mere fact that this concept is beyond the *full* grasp of human intellect should not cause Jehovah's Witnesses to rule it out. Remember what Paul says, we see through a dark glass right now, but someday, when Christ has returned, we will see with perfect clarity. As you and several other Witnesses have so clearly stated, Jehovah's Witnesses are fervently monotheistic. And in this we are in agreement. However, I think that sometimes the way in which you interpret certain passages causes serious problems. Let's look at Isa. 9:6. As a Witness, you believe that this passage is talking about Jesus Christ. Notice that one of the descriptions of Jesus is "Mighty God." And Witnesses admit that this "Mighty God" is Jesus. But is He the True God? And you and others have answered a resounding "NO!" And this means that He is not "Almighty." Now, refer to Hebrews 1:3. Here we read that Jesus is "upholding all things by the word of his power." How could anyone be more almighty than that? Next, turn to Matt. 28:18. Here we find out that Jesus Christ has *all* authority (KJV -- "all power") in heaven and in earth. By definition, this is what the word "almighty" means. I submit, therefore, that Jesus is Almighty. Back to Isa. 9:6 for a moment longer. Since Isaiah was a Jew and therefore fiercely monotheistic, believing in one God -- YHWH, who did Isaiah understand the Mighty God to be? Check Isa. 10:20-21. Note that Isaiah calls Jehovah "Mighty God." Isaiah isn't the only one who understood this. Turn to Jeremiah 32:18. Now remember that the Society teaches that the Mighty God and the Almighty God are different -- Jesus being the Mighty one and Jehovah being the Almighty one. In both the NWT and the KJV, Jeremiah calls Jehovah the "mighty" God. So, since Jesus is the Mighty God and Jehovah is the Mighty God, who must Jesus be? (I'll excuse you calling me Brian, if you excuse my typos) Boris, I am sorry for using the wrong name. Trying to type while also trying to do other things can lead to some embarrassing moments -- not to mentions typos. I didn't realize that I had typed the wrong name until you pointed it out. And I wasn't hitting you about typos -- I just didn't understand what you meant. And it is bad form to assume what the other person meant sometimes. ;-) En Agape, Gene