Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: c188-cb@volga.berkeley.edu (Boris Chen) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Is Jesus God!! Message-ID: Date: 28 Feb 91 08:38:16 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF) Lines: 158 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >Let's take the New World Translation (NWT) of John 1:1 and examine it >for content. The NWT renders John 1:1 as follows: > >"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the >Word was a god." > >First, who is the "God"? According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, God >is Jehovah of the Old Testament. No argument. > >Who is "a god"? That according to the Witnesses is Jesus. > >So what we have here are two gods. One Almighty God and one mighty god, >in other words, a big god and a little god. The big god created the >little god. So the proposition is that John 1:1 teaches two gods, based >upon the interpretation of the Society. 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.... >Then in 2 Corinthians 4:4 we find "ho theos" once again. But this time >it is talking about Satan as "the god [ho theos] of this world" (KJV). >Does this mean that Satan is Jehovah? is refered to as a god (as you have stated). You accept Satan being a god. So Jesus being much more powerful than Satan should be able to be addressed as such. So, when the Bible refers to someone or a group as being a god or gods, that does not imply a diety deserving of worship, it merely is a word ascribed to a powerful being, good or bad. > >However, Isaiah 43:10, the verse that the Society uses as the basis for >the name "Jehovah's Witnesses," says in full: > >"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. > >So Jehovah clearly states that there is no other God -- not even a >little one. So if you object to refering to Jesus as a god, since there is no other; then you must object to Satan being a god;thus, in your mind there is some contradiction as far as 2Cor.4:4 and Ish.43:10. Clearly, there is no contradiction or problem with refering to Jesus as a god, lest 2 Cor.4:4 and other scriptures are called into question as well. >"I, even I, am the LORD [YHWH]: and beside me there is no saviour." > >In other words, there is no one who can claim to be our Saviour but God. >Yet we know Jesus as our Saviour. This is a simple misunderstanding of the scriptures. Often times the Bible refers to both the servant and the master as doing the same thing. For instance, in Matt. 8:5,6 an army officer asked Jesus a favor, but in Luke representatives were sent to ask. Often times, Bible critics bring this out as a contradiction. But really it isn't, because the army officer did ask Jesus, but it was through his servants. If the army officer had said, "No one had asked Jesus a favor, except for me," we would not object and say, "Well, the servants asked." Both were in agreement, both were asking the same thing for the same person. Basically, you have to be careful not to quickly equate things as supporting the trinity, for no one would argue that the officer and his servants are the same entity. > >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. >The problem with the New World Translation is that it doesn't make sense >from several points. First is the issue of polytheism that I presented >above. Second is the reasoning behind the method of translating "ho >theos." > Again, we are not polytheists, nor does the NWT and other Bibles that render John 1:1 in the way in which you object support any type of polytheism or henotheism. 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. In the NWT, ho theos is not always translated "God" (meaning JHVH), and theos (w/o the definite article) does not necessitate translating the word "a god." Some scholars would say that there is a rule concerning the structure of the sentence (E.C. Colwell) that would show that John 1:1 should be redered "and God was the Word." This is obviously not the case for there are several scriptures that have similar stucturing (it has to do with the predicate noun following the verb, or not), that are unanimously agreed upon to read with an indefinite article. Ultimately, context has a lot to say in the renderings of translated verses, and neither you nor I are qualified to make such evaluations. We can only quote authorities: "The Logos was divine, not the divine being himself." (Thayer) "Jn. 1:1 should regorously be translated. . .'the word was a divine being.'" (John McKenzie, Jesuit, author of Dictionary of the Bible) >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. > >Using the Society's method, we arrive at a serious dilemma. If "ho >theos" is always a reference to Jehovah God, then it would appear that >they are saying that both Jesus and Satan are Jehovah. Again, context. >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, but not that he is equal. For Jesus was sent forth, anointed, given the kingdom, begotten, etc. all by the Father. >Jesus is God incarnate. He is God the Son. Jesus is Jesus incarnate. He is the Son of God. --Boris Chen (boris@ocf.berkeley.edu) [An accusastion of polytheism is not a common one. Technically speaking the classification of JW's from an orthodox position would be Arian, not polytheist. That is, they consider Christ to be supernatural, but not fully God. --clh]