1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsbecause when we translate an indefinite construct from Greek to English, English
I don't see how you could add "a" here to make it "a god" or "a God".
However, "devine" or better "diety" seem possible, but "theos" is
usually translated "God" or 'god" with "god" referring to a false or
pagan god.
grammar dictates that we add an 'a', for we dont say 'the man has dog', we say 'the
man has a dog'. Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou don't have to be a Greek scholar robbie. Westcott and Hort did it all for you. You know, the two occultic Jesuit priest that translated a corrupt text upon which the New World Translation is based.
because when we translate an indefinite construct from Greek to English, English
grammar dictates that we add an 'a', for we dont say 'the man has dog', we say 'the
man has a dog'. Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic.
But don't feel left out. All other English translations are too. Except the KJV.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Capital "G". No "a".
Originally posted by josephwWhere is the Holy Spirit at this time? It's not mentioned at all.
You don't have to be a Greek scholar robbie. Westcott and Hort did it all for you. You know, the two occultic Jesuit priest that translated a corrupt text upon which the New World Translation is based.
But don't feel left out. All other English translations are too. Except the KJV.
[b]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Capital "G". No "a".[/b]
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
This may bring more confusion in to your discussions with
the JWs because that gives them more fuel to deny that
He is God. You will then have to explain How He contiuned
to be an uncreated being while becoming a created being.
I don't believe that being clothed in a human body to take
on the appearance of man makes Him a created being any
more than appearing as the angel of the Lord made Him a
created angel.
This may bring more confusion in to your discussions with
the JWs because that gives them more fuel to deny that
He is God.
It is also serious to deny that He is a genuine man. That is a denial of incarnation.
The Apostle John was so emphatic to point out that Christ has come in the flesh as a man that he says it is the spirit of antichrist to deny this:
"Every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, And every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, ..." ( 1 John 3:2b,3)
There is a principle of the spirit of antichrist. And that principle is to deny ANY aspect of what Christ is. It is not only to deny that He is God that we may say is an antichrist teaching. We may also say that to deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is likewise an antichrist teaching.
Again, the priniciple of the spirit of antichrist is to deny ANY aspect of the full Person of Christ on either side - on one side or the other.
In our zeal to maintain that Jesus Christ is God we should not undermine the revelation that He is also MAN. And MAN is an item of the creation of God.
So you should not allow JW to either manuevor you into a position that you deny that in being a MAN, Jesus Christ is a part of creation.
"Since therefore the childrn have shared in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the might of death, that is the devil" (Hebrews 2:14)
The created children partook of blood and flesh. And the Lord and Savior the Son of God partook of blood and flesh. In our zeal to maintain that Christ is God we should NEVER weaken the biblical truth that He partook of blood and flesh, in incarnation, to be like us.
You will then have to explain How He contiuned
to be an uncreated being while becoming a created being.
I do not have to explain it. I have to believe it and proclaim it.
I mean I do not have to explain HOW God was able to do this.
We are called to believe in His incarnation.
The gospel salvation is to whosoever BELIEVES. It is not to whosoever can explain.
God was manifest in the flesh. And this is mystery of godliness:
"And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness:
He who was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen of angels,
Preached among the nations,
Believed on in the world,
Taken up in glory." (1 Timothy 3:16)
That God is manifest in the flesh, in the human flesh - in humanity is the great mystery of godliness. We are called to become believers that the uncreated is mingled with the created in Christ and also in the church.
I don't believe that being clothed in a human body to take
on the appearance of man makes Him a created being any
more than appearing as the angel of the Lord made Him a
created angel.
He not only took on the appearance of a man. He became a man.
Christ is a Creature as well as the uncreated Creator.
Man is a creature (Gen. 1:27; Acts 17:26). Since Christ is man, surely he is also a creature. And to a certain extent Colossians 1:15 does prove this.
We should not shrink away from that truth of Colossians 1:15 just because it is abused by Arians and Watchtower teachers.
And we should not let them cause us to shy away from Revelation 3:14 which says that Christ is the beginning of the creation of God. In that case I believe John is talking about the new creation pertaining to resurrection.
Paul said Christ was "the beginning" in relation to resurrection:
"And He is the Head of the Body, the church; He is the BEGINNING, the Firstborn from the dead ..." (Col. 1:18)
So when John says that Christ is "the Amen, the faithful Witness, the BEGINNING of the creation of God" (Rev. 3:14) I believe John is saying the same thing that Paul taught. He is the beginning of the new creation which is in resurrection.
We Christians should not allow any aspect of who Christ is to be neglected. And He is the Creator as well as a creature. Becomming a MAN made Him a part of creation.
Originally posted by galveston75John 1:1 says nothing about "In our image". You must be thinking of
First God is speaking to someone when he says "In our image" Correct?
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and
over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that
creeps on the earth.”
If this is what you are referring to, then my answer is yes. I believe He
is speaking to another person in the Godhead because it goes on to say,
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them."
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou say, "Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic."
because when we translate an indefinite construct from Greek to English, English
grammar dictates that we add an 'a', for we dont say 'the man has dog', we say 'the
man has a dog'. Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic.
Haven't you ever heard of "the deity of Christ"?
http://www.gotquestions.org/deity-of-Christ.html
Dictionary.com
de·i·ty
[dee-i-tee]
noun, plural -ties.
1.
a god or goddess.
2.
divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3.
the estate or rank of a god: The king attained deity after his death.
4.
a person or thing revered as a god or goddess: a society in which money is the only deity.
5.
the Deity, God; Supreme Being.
Notice definition 2 includes "divinity"
P.S. I think the text is saying the Word has the same nature as God.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillSo are you going to tell the JW's that the Word ceased to be deity whenThis may bring more confusion in to your discussions with
the JWs because that gives them more fuel to deny that
He is God.
It is also serious to deny that He is a genuine man. That is a denial of incarnation.
The Apostle John was so emphatic to point out that Christ has come in the flesh as a man that he says it is the spiri is the Creator as well as a creature. Becomming a MAN made Him a part of creation.
He became man and a part of creation.
Originally posted by RJHindsshow the link!
You say, "Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic."
Haven't you ever heard of "the deity of Christ"?
Dictionary.com
de·i·ty
[dee-i-tee]
noun, plural -ties.
1.
a god or goddess.
2.
divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3.
the estate or rank of a god: The king attained dei ...[text shortened]... eity.
5.
the Deity, God; Supreme Being.
Notice definition 2 includes "divinity"
dictionary.com just shows a definition for the noun
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThey work that neighborhood but the place is a good Mexican food place. Yeah I thought it off the bright shirts LOL
Lol, yeah, underneath the lizard suits we are really humans after all. Chartreuse
coloured shirts, them young dudes need some counsel, ill send RJH over with his Bible
right away!
Manny
5 edits
Originally posted by josephwWestcott and Hort did nothing of the sort, all they did was to produce and compile,
You don't have to be a Greek scholar robbie. Westcott and Hort did it all for you. You know, the two occultic Jesuit priest that translated a corrupt text upon which the New World Translation is based.
But don't feel left out. All other English translations are too. Except the KJV.
[b]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Capital "G". No "a".[/b]
from all available sources a Greek base text, they did not produce a translation.
You do know the difference, dont you?
Rather interestingly, when the King James version was produced, manuscripts and
Greek references were scant in England at the time, when the translators found
discrepancies they relied upon a Latin translation, itself far removed from the
original autographs of the Greek authors, making your statement ludicrous on this
basis alone. Since its conception, we now have thousands of extant Greek
manuscripts, papyri and codices, meaning that later base texts such as Westcott
and Hort or Nestle-Aland are far superior to the texts available to the committee of
translators who complied the KJ version. To cite the KJ as an authoritative work is a
nonsense, yes, its a beautiful piece of literature, yes its accurately translated from
Latin, yes the translators did an admirable job with what was available to them, an
accurate translation of the original Greek text it is not, nor ever will be.
Suck it up Joey and study your Bible.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsP.S. I think the text is saying the Word has the same nature as God.
You say, "Deity is not a quality nor does it describe a characteristic."
Haven't you ever heard of "the deity of Christ"?
http://www.gotquestions.org/deity-of-Christ.html
Dictionary.com
de·i·ty
[dee-i-tee]
noun, plural -ties.
1.
a god or goddess.
2.
divine character or nature, especially that of the Supreme Being; divinity.
3. ...[text shortened]... ludes "divinity"
P.S. I think the text is saying the Word has the same nature as God.
well, progress at last.
divine, the same nature, a god, same thing, but as has been demonstrated, if one is to
stick rigidly to the text, 'a god', is the proper translation, you may make of that what
you will.
Originally posted by menace71we are actually counselled not to be so flamboyant, for we dont want people to be
They work that neighborhood but the place is a good Mexican food place. Yeah I thought it off the bright shirts LOL
Manny
checking out our suits or ties or shirts rather than paying attention to our message,
never the less, i seen some photographs of the brothers in the seventies, they had
those crazy 'kipper', ties and strawberry coloured suits with big bellbottom trousers. I
think if one turned up for the ministry with that getup on, one could be sent home.