JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

I would very much like to get opinions on this subject. I'll provide several verses from the King James Version of the Bible, and I ask you to give me feed-back.


Jesus' words:

1) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19)

2) "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)

3) "Neither came I of myself, but he sent me." (John 8:42)

He replied, after the Pharisees accused him of making himself God:
4) "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the SON of God?" (John 10:36)

5) "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say....Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:49,50)

6) To his Father in prayer: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God , and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3)

7) "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17)

To John in the Revelation:
8) "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God..." (Revelation 3:12)



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[Capbook]

I am not here to debate a link and I see no verse nor any GREEK in your post. Which verse are you contesting?

I am talking about Frederick Franz ...

I'm not here to debate any human, if you believe there is a bible verse in the NWT that has been mistranslated provide the bible verseand the Greek.

So, the author is correct.
Here's one from online, do NWT have the same correct translation below of John 1:1?

What is the correct translation of John 1:1?
The traditional rendering in English is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist: 14th century: "and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1# ... %20Vulgate)

[onewithhim]

What our understanding of the text is our interpretation, and it mostly differs just like yours and Clarke.

But where in the Bible that says that? The verse doesn't even say "counterpart of God Almighty"

That's Clarke interpretation of the verse...

Well I don't agree with his interpretation of the verse.

Man's interpretation of God's word always differs that's why there are many denominations.
Even as the Father addressed Jesus as God, interpreted God's word in the contrary.

The Father never addressed Jesus as God. Where do you find that?

[onewithhim]

I agree. Clarke interpretation is manmade interpretation not based on the bible truth but rather on denominational bias.

... and mine also.

Yes, you are correct... yours is also a manmade interpretation. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES on the other hand always let the bible interpret itself.

Yes yours also, could this means that the primary translator of the NWT was inadequately trained to perform the task of Bible translation also, as he had only twenty-one hours of formal classical Greek training at the University of Cincinnati? Instead of two years or four semesters?

Other versions of the Bible are referred to here on these threads. The NWT is not the only version that is consulted. I consistently refer to other versions, but you don't see that and you just want to slam the NWT. That's not very nice.

[onewithhim]

Yes ....

If you would like to prove there NWT contains a mistranslation please cite the veres and the Greek and state your case.


JW

I found this online ...

I am not here to debate a link and I see no verse nor and GREEK in your post. Which verse are you contesting?

I am talking about Frederick Franz that the author of the link found in him.
If you find it as not true then correct it.

We don't need to talk about any man here. Let us just stick to reasoning on the Scriptures.

[onewithhim]

I am not here to debate a link and I see no verse nor any GREEK in your post. Which verse are you contesting?

I am talking about Frederick Franz ...

I'm not here to debate any human, if you believe there is a bible verse in the NWT that has been mistranslated provide the bible verseand the Greek.

So, the author is correct.
Here's one from online, do NWT have the same correct translation below of John 1:1?

What is the correct translation of John 1:1?
The traditional rendering in English is: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Other variations of rendering, both in translation or paraphrase, John 1:1c also exist: 14th century: "and God was the word" – Wycliffe's Bible (translated from the 4th-century Latin Vulgate) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_1:1# ... %20Vulgate)

The correct translation from Greek to English is "and the Word was a god." There is no article before "god" in that phrase. That is in complete difference with the "God" at the beginning of the verse. "The Word was with the God" is how it is translated taking into consideration the way Greek is translated, which is different than the way English is treated. The article "the" is before the word for "God." It is the article that defines who is being referred to. "The" God is the one and only true God. The god that is written about at the end of the sentence does not have the article "the," so that means that this god is not the true God Almighty. To make a correct translation to the English, "a" must be written there to have it make sense in English. Saying that "the Word was a god" simply means that the Word is an important, powerful individual. This is what Greeks of that day understood it to mean.

Look it up in your Interlinear version. You can see there is an article "the" in front of God, and no article in front of "god" as in the Word was god.

[Difflugia]

Saying that "the Word was a god" simply means that the Word is an important, powerful individual. This is what Greeks of that day understood it to mean.

Do you have any examples of literature written by the "Greeks of that day" where calling someone a god just means that they're important and powerful?

Perhaps it wasn't the "Greeks of that day," but only the "Jehovah's Witnesses of this day" that understand the text that way. Do you have any evidence that it's the former rather than the latter?

[onewithhim]

Saying that "the Word was a god" simply means that the Word is an important, powerful individual. This is what Greeks of that day understood it to mean.

Do you have any examples of literature written by the "Greeks of that day" where calling someone a god just means that they're important and powerful?

Perhaps it wasn't the "Greeks of that day," but only the "Jehovah's Witnesses of this day" that understand the text that way. Do you have any evidence that it's the former rather than the latter?

See John 10:34,35 where Jesus referred to the common knowledge of the day that men are called gods. He said to the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said "You are gods [Psalm 82:6]?'" If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified..."

Jesus knew that the Greeks-speaking people of his day would know that "god" meant a person with a high position, and he referred to judges, as seen in the Psalms.

[Difflugia]

Do you have any examples of literature written by the "Greeks of that day" where calling someone a god just means that they're important and powerful?

See John 10:34,35 where Jesus referred to the common knowledge of the day that men are called gods. He said to the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said "You are gods [Psalm 82:6]?'" If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified..."

Your own example refutes your assertion. If it were really "the common knowledge of the day that men are called gods," Jesus wouldn't have to use the verse from Psalms to play word games with the Pharisees. When the Pharisees said that Jesus "[made] himself God/a god," (depending on your favorite translation) they certainly didn't mean that Jesus was just making himself seem important and they pretty obviously weren't expecting even the Jewish bystanders, let alone any Greeks, to understand it that way. It looks to me that you're showing that you know this by truncating your quotation. If the quotation actually meant what you want me to think it does, you'd have included the next verse to finish the quotation:

If he called “gods” those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

The quotation isn't referring to any common Greek idiom of calling important people gods, but rather an unusual case in which Yahweh Himself was understood by contemporary Jewish teachers to refer to people as gods. It's then the verse that you omitted that is the punchline: Jesus didn't make himself anything, but it was the Father Himself that sanctified Jesus as "a god" (or "God") in the same way that He Himself is allowed to declare that others are "gods." If there were such a common Greek idiom, Jesus wouldn't have had to go to such trouble to turn the words of the Pharisees back on themselves.

Jesus knew that the Greeks-speaking people of his day would know that "god" meant a person with a high position, and he referred to judges, as seen in the Psalms.

To the contrary, Jesus knew of a specific place in Jewish Scripture that referred to people as "gods" and used it to challenge their definition of blasphemy. There's no indication there that any speakers or listeners understood "gods" to commonly refer to important people.

As a footnote, there's a bit of irony for Jehovah's Witnesses in Jesus quoting that psalm in the way that he did. The psalm itself isn't actually referring to people, but a council of divine beings (literally "Sons of Elyon"), over whom Yahweh has apparently taken dominion and sentenced to death "like men." Jewish tradition has considered that psalm to be about "judges" because they didn't like the polytheistic implication of such a divine council. Since Jehovah's Witnesses see Jesus as divine ("a god"), but separate from the rest of the Trinity, they are, in effect, creating the same sort of "council" that Jesus denies, assuming that he agrees with the contemporary Jewish interpretation that he, himself, invokes.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1708]
Very well. Your opinion is appreciated.

[onewithhim]

Do you have any examples of literature written by the "Greeks of that day" where calling someone a god just means that they're important and powerful?

See John 10:34,35 where Jesus referred to the common knowledge of the day that men are called gods. He said to the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said "You are gods [Psalm 82:6]?'" If he called 'gods' those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified..."

Your own example refutes your assertion. If it were really "the common knowledge of the day that men are called gods," Jesus wouldn't have to use the verse from Psalms to play word games with the Pharisees. When the Pharisees said that Jesus "[made] himself God/a god," (depending on your favorite translation) they certainly didn't mean that Jesus was just making himself seem important and they pretty obviously weren't expecting even the Jewish bystanders, let alone any Greeks, to understand it that way. It looks to me that you're showing that you know this by truncating your quotation. If the quotation actually meant what you want me to think it does, you'd have included the next verse to finish the quotation:

If he called “gods” those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

The quotation isn't referring to any common Greek idiom of calling important people gods, but rather an unusual case in which Yahweh Himself was understood by contemporary Jewish teachers to refer to people as gods. It's then the verse that you omitted that is the punchline: Jesus didn't make himself anything, but it was the Father Himself that sanctified Jesus as "a god" (or "God") in the same way that He Himself is allowed to declare that others are "gods." If there were such a common Greek idiom, Jesus wouldn't have had to go to such trouble to turn the words of the Pharisees back on themselves.

Jesus knew that the Greeks-speaking people of his day would know that "god" meant a person with a high position, and he referred to judges, as seen in the Psalms.

To the contrary, Jesus knew of a specific place in Jewish Scripture that referred to people as "gods" and used it to challenge their definition of blasphemy. There's no indication there that any speakers or listeners understood "gods" to commonly refer to important people.

Whatever he used to challenge the Pharisees' definition of blasphemy, he was still relying on their knowledge of the Greek word for "god" that meant a powerful individual, like the judges in Psalm 82.