WTF, I didn't know JW were based.
WTF, I didn't know JW were based.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
WTF, I didn't know JW were based.
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
JW believe in two gods?
OH N-
Based and LDS-pilled.
Biblical monotheism is monolatrism, the consistent worship of only one divine person in the divine/supernatural realm inhabited by divine/supernatural persons. The one divine person who receives full devotion and worship is the ALMGHTY CREATOR !
For instance, Psalm 8:5 calls the angels elohim, literally “gods”
Angels are also described as gods in the rest of the Bible, before and after Psalm 8:5, from Genesis to Revelation.
Thus, you must be informed of the Biblical definitions of “god.”
One meaning is nature or being, the other is worshipful.
true Christians worship the ONE true God the Creator. Other competing objects of worship are FALSE !!!
But in terms of nature or being, there are many supernatural beings or gods.
the distinction is made by John in terms of theos, not Father, Son and these personal terms.
If that was allowable, then we might have an issue. The text is very CLEAR, the Word was with the God, the Word was God or a god. There's a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It's NOT meaningless !!
It's not that every time you have the word "theos" used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God, but there's a difference when you're trying to make a difference.
When there's TWO PERSONS there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant, and do you know what ? That's the only time in the entire Bible that's ever done. The ONLY TIME !!! So do you think it's significant ? (yes)
Yes JW are Judaizer pagans
It's OK to admit there's more than 1 god, btw. I don't see the big deal in all the cope.
So a god was with God,
And that god was also a word?
THE God in Greek is not the same as (a) God. When someone writes THE God what is meant is the creator of the universe, aka Yahweh.
>And that god was also a word?
BRUH
The statement “the Word was with God” indicates that two separate persons are discussed in the verse.
It is not possible for the Word to be “WITH God” and at the same time BE God Almighty !
The context also confirms that the Word is not Almighty God. John 1:18 states that “no man has seen God at any time.” However, people did see the Word, Jesus, for John 1:14 states that “the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory.”
So you don't believe in the trinity, got it.
look, jwanon, you still haven't produced a single instance of usage where "kai X en ho Y" ever means "and Y was a(n) X" instead of "and (the) Y was (the) X". "X", I mean "theos" is obviously used here as a reference to the one and only theos. remember, you base all this on the rantings of a fraud who did not know all the greek letters.
I literally cant find a translation that says 'a god'.
Do jws and mormons just change the bible to fit their views?
I didnt know they fell so low.
Consider the following, more accurate translations:
“The Word was in the beginning, and the word was with God, and the word was a god.”—The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808, edited by Thomas Belsham, based on a New Testament translation by William Newcome.
“In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. So the Word was divine.”—The Authentic New Testament, 1958, by Hugh J. Schonfield.
1808: “and the word was a god.” - The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” - The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1958: “and the Word was a God.” - The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” - Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
Even Origen, the most knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John," Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.
The phrase “the Word was a god” describes the divine or godlike nature that Jesus possessed before he came to earth.
He can be described in this way because of his role as God’s Spokesman and his unique position as the firstborn Son of God through whom God created all other things.
>The phrase “the Word was a god”
That's not what it is saying, though. It's not saying that the word is an entity called a "god", it's saying that the word bears the quality of "god", and the only referent to "god" present there in the text is the same "god" that the word is with. It is "with god" and it "is god (quality)."
Bible verses in the Greek language that have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the crowds shouted: ‘It is a god speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said: “He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6) It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.
Moreover, as recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.”
And toward the end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John 20:31)
Notice that Jesus is called, not God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god” in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.
The specific context of John 1:1 is that the Word bears the quality "theos" in reference to the "theos" that the Word is with. To get something else out of it, you have to compartmentalize the text, such that "with theos" is completely disjointed from and has no connection to "is theos", and rather read "is theos" contextually through other books entirely, when John 1:1 is rather the expression of a continuous thought.
What John is saying here is that Jesus is a god but is not the Almighty God. Only the Father ("whose name alone is Jehovah" Ps. 83:18; - KJV) is Almighty God..."the only true God". (John 17:3)
His point was to inform us of his divine origin, that Jesus is not a simple human. Jesus was a spirit creature in heaven before he was born as a human on earth. Jesus himself said: “I have come down from heaven.”—John 6:38; 8:23.
God created Jesus before he created anything else. Regarding Jesus, the Bible says:
“He is . . . the firstborn of all creation.”—Colossians 1:15.
He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.
Jesus fulfilled the prophecy about the one “whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago.”—Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:4-6
>is that Jesus is a god
That's not what he's saying, so you're wrong here immediately. He's stating that Jesus bears the quality "theos". He's not saying that Jesus is a "theos".
If Jesus has the attribute of "theos", in context regarding the actual "theos" (the Father), then that means Jesus is "theos" in the same sense as the Father.
I disagree, and early Christians also understood it the same way I do.
Hippolytus, “the most important 3rd century theologian of the Roman Church” (p. 652, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F. L. Cross, Oxford University Press, 1990 reprint) wrote:
"For if He [God] had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos ['The Word' of John 1:1]. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great." - Book X, Ch. XXIX, 'The Refutation of all Heresies' by Hippolytus as translated in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 151, vol. 5, Eerdmans. -
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050110.htm
The respected trinitarian Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church tells us that Origen himself taught that “the Son can be divine only in a lesser sense than the Father; the Son is [theos] (god), but only the Father is [autotheos] (absolute God, God in himself).” - p. 1009, 2nd ed., The Oxford University Press, 1990 printing.
Hippolytus here is making a primitive statement regarding the incarnation. If I were to read him as you are, then it would mean that he is stating that Jesus is "only" a man, which is not his intention.
Origen was a subordinationist, which is a trinitarian position. He's not agreeing with you in any sense, he's stating a variation of a view that is in agreement with me.
>Origen was the first Christian to speak of three “hypostases” in the Trinity and to use the term homoousios (though only by analogy) of the relation between the second of these hypostases and the first.
>I literally cant find a translation that says 'a god'.
let me guess, all the translations were made by Trinitarians
I haven't even shown my secret weapon yet
Literally rekt on line 2, of John as well, not even a fringe piece of the bible. R u ok bbz?
What do you mean ?
From what I understand, John 1:1 is not making a direct statement of equivalence, it's not saying "The Word = God (noun)", it's more like it's making a statement about the quality of Godness, so it's more like "The Word = God (adjective)". That sounds strange in English but it's still saying that the Word is God in the sense Christians understand it, because if the Word bears the quality of Godness then it is God. Perhaps it's being expressed this way because it would sound strange to say that something is "with X" but also "is" X.
>From what I understand, John 1:1 is not making a direct statement of equivalence, it's not saying "The Word = God (noun)", it's more like it's making a statement about the quality of Godness, so it's more like "The Word = God (adjective)".
So, basically, that the Word has God's ousia.
And JW's pretend to not understand the conclusions of Niceea, lol.
That is not what we believe. Jesus is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God’s “only-begotten” Son. (John 1:14)
Jesus served as God’s Spokesman, so he is also called “the Word.”
No, you don't believe that, even though even your translation heavily hints at the ousia/hypostasis difference.
You are mistaken. The true God is “The God,” and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.
But the archetypal image of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning.
Nigga, that's literally polytheism with a chief father god, or atleast the emanation-based aeons of gnostic though.
Seriously, your weird attempt at enforcing christian tawhid makes you recap all the heretical ideas of the past millenia.
Hi
This is indeed the most accurate translation 🙂
While many Bible translators render the verse to say that the word is God, others see the need to render it differently. In the original-language text, the two occurrences of “God” (Greek, the·osʹ) at John 1:1 are grammatically different.
In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.
For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)
Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.
Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.
I'm genuinely asking btw, I have developed an interest in early church stuff, and why certain texts are canon.
Some people believe that John had Gnostic views, and his work was edited. There's also the "apocryphon(?) Of John" which apparently is a key Gnostic text.
How likely is it that has work had been edited by later church fathers/when Constantine "standardised" the church? Also, why is it such a big issue if the different gospels all had different influences and approached Christianity from alternative backgrounds?
I really don't like the feeling of the bible being edited in it's early days. It seems as if there's a very high likelihood it was manipulated to serve the needs of the Roman Empire.
There's also the theory that Augustine used his Gnostic upbringing to influence early Christian teachings, which was later edited. Again, i don't understand why Gnostic teachings can't be embraced in the church. It's rigidness has created so much strife and petty disputes, which ultimately gives off the impression there's some teachings which are inherently flawed if it's to be the word of God.
Constantine didn't standardise shit.
By the time he came along, the main fight was arians vs niceans(and he sided with the losers in the end), not proto-orthodox vs gnostics.
And even if he did, it would have been retained in churches outside the roman empire.
Hi
Does this answer your question ?:
https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/books-of-bible-intros/book-of-john/
Yes. A god, not the God.
As per some notes (and translations such as the ASV) = "divine".
As per some other passages, of a similar nature, but not equal to the one God, his father and creator.
This distinction is quite evident in the Septuagint and any Interlinear edition, where the deliberate distinction in the use (or lack thereof) with regard to the determinant article (ho-theos) makes it clear when referring to God (The God) vs a god/divine (just god/divine one).
You don't have to learn Koine Greek or Hebrew, but a minimal amount of research will make this pretty clear - though I admit it might be an easier concept to understand for native or bilingual speakers of, say, romance languages which work the same way with the articles, as opposed to an English monolingual who has only "a/n" & "the", and reads their absence differently.
In short, however, this line is accurately translated (though I personally prefer the translation "divine"), and trinitarians are indeed BTFO.
Well said
The lack of the article in this construction indicates that "is god" is a statement of quality, not a statement of identification as a subordinate divine being.
I'm actually not sure if we are disagreeing here.
I agree that this verse speaks of Jesus' godlike attribute. And he is thus a separate entity as 'The God' (aka The Father aka Jehovah).
What is the point of contention between us ?
The inspired scriptures when speaking of faithful angels, prophets, God-appointed judges, kings, and magistrates clearly call them "gods" on occasion. These are called "gods" in the sense of faithful servants of God, representing the true God. (Ps. 8:5; 97:7; 138:1); Ps. 82:1, 6... and also John 10:34-36)
How is this any different from gnostic emanations?
Or the system in some pagan mythologies, where you have a chief god, and he spawned some children deities to rule certain domains?
Angels are basically lesser gods. I don't understand what the issue is
And this is different from the 2 examples i gave how?
I am not familiar with gnosticism, so all I'm saying is that all those who inhabit the spiritual realm are divine beings and therefore gods.
Those who live there are God Almighty, Jesus, the rest of the angels and Christians who have been resurrected to life in heaven.
I think I understand the issue.
The fact of the matter is that God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit.
But this obviously does not make them all equally God ! Man, mouse, and canary are certainly not all equally man simply because they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh.
Dude, if you reformed paganism to have one chief progenitor deity with veto power, that's literally how paganism works.
Am I supposed to deny the existence of angels according to you ?
No, i'm literally asking how is this not polytheism(assuming Jupiter was the father of the rest of gods, and could smack them around at will)?
Because in polytheism many gods are worshipped
In christianity, we only worship the one who is worthy of the highest honor, the Supreme Sovereign Lord of the universe who is above all existence
Congratulations, you just discovered henotheism.
this term has some shortcomings that the term monolatrism does not. For instance, regarding henotheism it is stated that:
>“‘a God’ may refer to one personality (among others) of the supreme God, and also the God may be said to have the power of assuming many personalities. Max Müller [who coined the term] encountered these subtleties in the Upanishads and Rig Veda [of Hinduism], and posited the idea of henotheism as a way of explaining them. ... Henotheism is based on the belief that a god may take any form at any time and still have the same essential nature. The central idea is that one name for a god may be used in a circumstance where a particular aspect of this god is being represented or worshiped while a different name may be given to or used to describe or worship a different aspect of the god in a different circumstance. This example does not imply the superiority of one over another, but simply that a god can exist in many forms at once and offering worship or praise using different names does not have to imply polytheism.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism
Thus, it appears that henotheism has some extra baggage that monolatrism lacks. The later expresses Biblical monotheism more succinctly.
As Jesus said in the clearest possible terms imaginable at John 17:1-5, the Father is God, and He is the only one to receive full worshipful devotion
>‘a God’ may refer to one personality (among others) of the supreme God, and also the God may be said to have the power of assuming many personalities.
May refer.
What you are doing is still polytheism, it doesnt matter if you just honor the chief deity.
I don't think it is polytheism simply because God decided to make spiritual creatures.
Jesus Christ said:
“It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Matthew 4:10)
The Bible states:
“For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”—1 Corinthians 8:5, 6.
The point is that the Scriptures do teach several things very clearly, that there are no gods on the same level as Jehovah God. The Father is the one God. There is a sense in which Jehovah the Father is different from everybody else. There's monotheism. He is unique. The one being in that class is the Father. Outside of that, it's safe to accept the existence of other divinities because that's what the Bible teaches. Jesus Christ is a divinity. It cannot be denied. But he's not the same God as the Father. He's not the one God.
>Outside of that, it's safe to accept the existence of other divinities
Dude, that's called polythetism.
What's fundamentally wrong with that, though; the supreme God having ownership of other gods or aspects of himself?
Religious belief since Mesopotamia has operate on that concept. Don't you think it's a bit iffy that Constantine - an Emperor of all people, lol - changed the rules to cement his power?
Constantine is the sole reason Christianity exists today. Therefore we must question his motives. I, for one, would prefer to look at the entirety of historical patterns to base my beliefs on.
You mentionned Jupiter before, but he does not have absolute control over everything. Sure he may be powerful, but other gods stronger or smarter than him in some aspects. For example, Neptune has control over the seas while Jupiter does not.
The Bible emphasizes Jehovah God is absolutely pure and free from likeness with other beings
God is never portrayed in any image. The Bible specifically forbade ascribing equals to share his singular sovereignty, as he is considered to be the absolute one without a second, indivisible, and incomparable being, who is similar to nothing and NOTHING is comparable to him.
Thus God is absolutely transcendent, unique and utterly other than anything in or of the world !!
Now if you still want to consider that polytheism, I can't stop you. But I really don't think it is appropriate at all.
That's why i said, if he was Jupiter that could smack around the other gods at will.
Well the only divine beings who don't submit to Jehovah are called demons, and God will soon destroy them for their rebellion
Again, godly deicide isnt unknown to pagan stories.
>The fact of the matter is that God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit.
I am not willing to state than an angel has the same nature as God.
Both God and the angels are spirits...
They are different from us, who are physical creatures
Angels are creatures, however. God is not a creature.
Yes I agree, I never implied the contrary
John 1 is not proof of anything, you guys are dumb for not realizing thats just the gospel of a certain sect
https://biblehub.com/hpbt/john/1.htm
John sees genesis talking in plural and adds into that by making a direct relation by starting the gospel associating jesus with god, man with light.
Gospel of thomas jesus doesnt act like that, he was more of a normal guy talking dangerous truths.
>that's just a certain sect bro you don't need to worry about it
>by the way look here in the gospel of thomas
Gospel of thomas jesus goes in line with the old testament scripture, new testament jesus is made to look as if he was modifying mosaic law instead of reinterpreting it and removing useless tradition (can you imagine if we were still bartering women for cattle?, sometimes society has to adapt and they reject change)
Obviously i wouldnt expect a dimwit to understand that jesus and others were interested in real life stuff instead of larping as spiritual warriors pretending theres an afterlife
Keep on arguing about shit you dont understand, im sure youll get it someday
>uh shellfish bro, okay? if you don't agree you are le dumb unlike the enlightened gnostics such as myself, keep larping bro maybe on day you'll be on my level .... heh....
almost 60 posts and none of you have any idea of what the old testament or the new testament are about, do you realize how sad and pathetic you guys are to devote all this time """arguing""" about things you clearly have no idea at all?
>11 I know every bird in the mountains,
and the insects in the fields are mine.
12 If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?
okay but """moses""" said
>16 The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the Lord. 2 The Lord said to Moses: “Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover.
3 “This is how Aaron is to enter the Most Holy Place: He must first bring a young bull for a sin offering[a] and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He is to put on the sacred linen tunic, with linen undergarments next to his body; he is to tie the linen sash around him and put on the linen turban. These are sacred garments; so he must bathe himself with water before he puts them on. 5 From the Israelite community he is to take two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering.
gee, i wonder which one should be more relevant to them... the psalms that talk about god or levitic law made by men for men
>The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
hurrrrrrr, le divine beingsssssssssssssss
JWanon I want to officially welcome you into pagang
Corrupt translation that only JW use. Without it, your "religion" does not exist, anything else is pure cope.
The NWT was published in the 50s. JWs existed decades before. So what you claim is factually wrong
You are correct
the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity:
“Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.”—Deuteronomy 6:4.
“God is only one.”—Galatians 3:20.
That's not true
We believe God gave his Law specifically to the ancient nation of Israel. (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3; Psalm 147:19, 20)
The Mosaic Law is NOT binding on Christians, and even israeli Christians were “released from the Law.” (Romans 7:6) The Mosaic Law was replaced by “the law of the Christ,” which includes all that Jesus instructed his followers to do.—Galatians 6:2; Matthew 28:19, 20.