Jesus is not God....part 2

[PersonaNonGrata]

who else is god if not you





my uncle once said "yer a *ucking idiot, you know that?" laughed )

[Mus Zibii]

I was sleepy last night when I last responded and kinda meandered around the topic, so I want to summarize for myself the discussion thus far.

Ben says that the use of the term proskuneo can be as benign as handshake or salute and so, borrowing from the statements of Jesus that one should 'worship only God' the instances of this term is relegated as something less than it might appear.

My contention is that in the context the world appears in within the gospels indicate the authors (be they divine or anonymous) intended 'proskuneo' to indeed reflect recognition and veneration of Jesus as something holy. Moreover, I say that simply because 'proskuneo' is used to describe worship of demons or any thing lesser than Yahweh, the term loses none of its impact. To pay homage or reverence or obeisance to any given thing does nothing to negate the definition of the root word. And its other biblical uses may even add significance.

As this relates to definite JW doctrine, the NWT declines to translate 'proskuneo' as worship in reference to Jesus, opting for a descriptive response from the one performing the action, while maintaining its translation as 'worship' in every other usage, i.e. altering the word and meaning to fit a perceived context, though the word itself in Greek never changes. Also, there is evidence of inconsistency with JW doctrine, found in Watchtower texts that early on (as far back as 1898) imply that worship of Jesus is acceptable.

Thus, I contend that the JW interpretation of 'proskuneo' is due to an arbitrarily set standard that seeks to justify itself after the fact, rather than an interpretation of the text itself.

These are the standpoints. Is there anything that can be added to it? If not, then we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Maybe Shannon or someone else can add something.

[Ben57]

I am not trying to be difficult here. Some one wrote in this forum (I can not place the area) that JWs are not open to reason. Well I think that applies to all of us when we see things from different points of view. Like you I do not belong to a sect either. By the way if you think about it the followers of Jesu were said to belong to a sect, because their teacings were readically different from the "norm" at that time. But I digress.

I personally feel that undersdtanding the original usage of the the Greek words is important. Back in the 1960s there was a very popular stone age TV cartoon show that had a very interesting last line in its theme song, well interesting, if that line was to be used today. If I memory serves me, the last line went like this

"We'll have a gay ole time"

If I said to someone today to some freinds, especially if they were male, 'lets go have a gay ole time', what do you think people will be thinking of?

In the context of the 1960s and that particular TV show that phrase neant we were going to have some fun, a happy time. Yes words do change their meaning, so that is why it is important to understand what the original writer was saying not necesarily what some translator has re writen their words into English. Personally I beleive ALL Bibles have a theological bias to them, some a lot more so than others.

Now when it comes to the word worship, as I pointed out earlier there were five words that today have been translated as "worship". Most of us understand this word to mean "a reverence or devotion to a diety". So when that word apears in the Bible it is generally assumed that that is the meaning attached to it. However the Greek language had 5 words to convey different ideas. The word that is used of Jesus NEVER meant "a reverence or devotion to a diety".


Bo back and re read what I had to say on Matt 4:10. The essece of that text is to say "You shall worship [we should bow before God (in order to show respect)]the LORD your God, and it is Him alone you shall serve [worship in a religous way (as one would to a diety) by rendering sacred service to God]. So when we read the word worship in English what was the intent. Is the English word 'worhip' appropriate in that contex?

So is it not wise to be careful as to the way we use the word worship and its general English meaning.

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

If its any consolation, the acceptance of Jesus as God wasn't immediate. It certainly didn't become the orthodox interpretation until Irenaeus attempted to bring untity to the various sects during Christian persecution. The different sects worshipped different gospels. Some wanted to combine many gospels into one, but Irenaeus allowed the four most similar ones to represent the 'true' Christendom. It was an olive branch to the sects that might otherwise have not joined in his 'universal church' which was later adapted into Catholicism. .

I fully agree with you that the Trinity doctrin was established after the Bible was written.

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I have no illusions that I'm going to change your mind, and even if you did concede any point of contention I don't know what exactly that'd accomplish (I don't belong to a sect). What Christian interpretation boils down to, is conflict between church history and the heavily embellished creeds of various denominations (all of whom demand to be worshiped as singular). If this were a debate between JW and a secular view of Christian history, the burden of proof would rest on you. And the evidence that the JW doctrine existed before 1881 (or lack thereof) trumps point by point scriptural analyisis.

Most JWs doctrine was around and taught by many groups since the death of Jesus. The none trinity no hell no imortal soul etc are not JW inventions. They were taughrt by many before hand but that is another story.

[Mus Zibii]

I know you're not being difficult. You've handled the argument perfectly. Like I said before, its unlikely there's going to be any changing of minds, so much as concession on points that simply don't have a landslide of undeniable proof in either direction (few discussions ever do). Now, Bruce, whether he meant to be or not, was somewhat difficult.

This discussion on the divinity of Jesus has really given me an excuse to look deeper at the actual texts. In all the gospels, there's a real REAL line that's only occasionly breached (especially in John) in distinguishing Jesus as holy or simply faithful. I consider it yet another nuance that endears the religious texts to me.

I can definitely agree that doctrines existed prior to Watchtower that ran parallel to JW doctrine. But not to be outdone, many other sects also have basis in extra-orthodox doctrines. For what its worth, I'll say again that if it were not for the Epistles and John, the argument for the divinity of Jesus would be near impossible. Still, in virtually every sect, there's extra-biblical 'revelation' that's determined the rules and wages of the denomination.

I feel that the secular take on the Jesus story is probably most accurate in that Jesus was developed as an intermediary, as apparently illustrated in the expectations of mystic Jews such as the one who collected and composed the Qumran scrolls. My own personal, preferred take revolves around Psalm 82, that Jesus through his logic and wisdom was a man indistinguishable from God, rendering him almost an atheist. I enjoy reconciling his words on evangelism, condemning the villages that refuse his truth to a fate worse than Sodom. As I look out to the Islamic world, the fundamentalist Christians, the ever-backward Jews, the frustrated Hindus, the decidely-vague Buddhists, the secularists, and the countless sects of all of the above, I can't help but feel this prophecy has come to pass.

But anyway, what other topics of JW doctrine could be discussed? I think we've both made the best arguments respecting the 'worship' of Jesus. Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

[Ben57]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

....... For what its worth, I'll say again that if it were not for the Epistles and John, the argument for the divinity of Jesus would be near impossible. Still, in virtually every sect, there's extra-biblical 'revelation' that's determined the rules and wages of the denomination.

Personally I disagree that the Writtings of John show Jesus to be God. If you are refering to John 1:1 that text is translated wrong in most Bibles and the context of Joh 1 supports that. Colwells rule was missused and missunderstood for many years utill the late 80s or so when scholars started examining it more closely. The NWT is correct when it says "and the Word was a god". But that is another topic, perhaps one you might loke to take up on a new thread.


In a nut shell (no deep discution here just an overview) the JW view of Jesus is that he was the very first act of creation by God and then was used to creat all other creation. Jeusus was not the instigator or promoter of creation but the one that did the work. Much in the same way as a builder.

If I approch a large building company to build me a home, (We have one here in Aust. with a mans name lets call the company A.J Brooks and Co) I contract to A.J.Brooks to build. Now A.J does not literally go out and build my house, he has workers do that. Both A.J and the workers that did the work can rightly say they built my house. God is like A. J Brooks, he organises the work Jesus is like the workers that do the work.

So we have Jesus as Gods first born of creation and his life force is tranfered to the womb of Mary and he is born a perfect human, but with God as his Father. Jesuus is now fully human but perfect and the Son of God. With the help of God Jesus teaches many things and performs miricals.

At death his life force is returned to the heavens and Jesus was granted to sit at the right hand of God and appointed as King of Gods Kingdom.

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

But anyway, what other topics of JW doctrine could be discussed? I think we've both made the best arguments respecting the 'worship' of Jesus. Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

Perhaps some of the information above could be a topic for discution, or perhaps the JW view of Gods purpose for the earth, or salvation, or hell. or imortality, or why they do not vote, or why they do not celebrate christmas or easter. What ever how about we start a new thread. You ask the question and I will attemopt to answer. Leave this thread for any one that wants to continue and I will check it again

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, MZ and Ben!

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Too bad no one else was reading what we've said.

You might be surprized. I have been following the conversation and learning a lot. I also have nothing to add but opinion, and I think we know what opinions are like...

So, rather than spoil the knowledgeable interchange between you both, it is better IMO to leave you to your discussion. It is being read, likely by many others. Thank you both!

[Mus Zibii]

Well, I'm glad it wasn't just me and Ben picking each others noses. LOL

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by Ben57

Personally I disagree that the Writtings of John show Jesus to be God. If you are refering to John 1:1 that text is translated wrong in most Bibles and the context of Joh 1 supports that. Colwells rule was missused and missunderstood for many years utill the late 80s or so when scholars started examining it more closely. The NWT is correct when it says "and the Word was a god". But that is another topic, perhaps one you might loke to take up on a new thread.

That is another interesting contention. The thing that I notice first is the new complication that would arise if that translation were true. What would that mean? The word was a god?

As for that translation, I see no basis for the downgraded god theory. The implication that the rendering of 'theos' as 'deity' or 'god' simply means... well, there's only one alternative. Polytheism or false God. Now if it had said 'kai aggelos en ho logos'... that would make sense. Either Jesus as 'word of God' is recognized as deification in John 1:1 or John was a liar (or heretic). The funny twist to the JW take on John 1:1 is that 'theos' translated as God is used many times without any possible ambiguity and yet only in this instance does it denote a lesser deity - see John 1:13 or Matthew 1:23. More evidence - as I see it - that JW interpretation of the Greek bible is convoluted at best and makes a habit of selectively exploiting altered text to suit their own needs.

However! If John 1:1 had said 'and YHWH was the word' it would make the implication undeniable. Which further proves my contention that doctrine-makers of that age still had to toe the line when in came to interpretation (probably in writing the gospel, while lifting influence from the epistles) of the gospel story and Jewish scripture. This also provides evidence for the gentile denial of YHWH as God, or at least a false rendering of the God the Christians adopted.

[Ben57]

Hi Mus Zibii

First I would like to say that I am glad others have been reading the posts. Please feel free to ask a question or put ypur point of view across. That is how we ALL learn by exchanging ideas.
The reaction you give below is the most common reaction that people have. It is most likely due to the English understanding of the word God. For the Hebrews (of which the apostles were and spoke, but wrote in the common language of the day Greek), the word god did not just mean a diety. So again this is a good example of

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

That is another interesting contention. The thing that I notice first is the new complication that would arise if that translation were true. What would that mean? The word was a god?

As for that translation, I see no basis for the downgraded god theory.

May I ask by what you mean by downgrading ther god theory

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

The implication that the rendering of 'theos' as 'deity' or 'god' simply means... well, there's only one alternative. Polytheism or false God. Now if it had said 'kai aggelos en ho logos'... that would make sense. Either Jesus as 'word of God' is recognized as deification in John 1:1 or John was a liar (or heretic).

Actually most think that way but again it is due to the English understanding of the word god.

I do not have the time right now, but I will get back ASAP with an explanation of the word god and the difference between John 1:1 and John 1:13 Matthew 1:23.

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

The funny twist to the JW take on John 1:1 is that 'theos' translated as God is used many times without any possible ambiguity and yet only in this instance does it denote a lesser deity - see John 1:13 or Matthew 1:23. More evidence - as I see it - that JW interpretation of the Greek bible is convoluted at best and makes a habit of selectively exploiting altered text to suit their own needs.

However! If John 1:1 had said 'and YHWH was the word' it would make the implication undeniable. Which further proves my contention that doctrine-makers of that age still had to toe the line when in came to interpretation (probably in writing the gospel, while lifting influence from the epistles) of the gospel story and Jewish scripture. This also provides evidence for the gentile denial of YHWH as God, or at least a false rendering of the God the Christians adopted.

See you soon

[Mus Zibii]

May I ask by what you mean by downgrading ther god theory

Reducing 'theos' in a context that implies capital G God to lower case G god.

I'll wait until you reply to add anything, but I gotta reiterate my position on John 1:1. As far as Hebrew/Jewish understanding, it would seem less likely for the title of deity to be used separate from the one and only in a positive light. The intro to John - as Abogado del Diablo said in another post - is a combination of Platonic wisdoms and the book of Genesis. Its a culmination of Philo's conception of an intermediary between God and man, manifest in 'words'. Then the author of John, turns to Genesis, and in Adam's role as truly the son of God, he places Jesus. Compare. The verses where 'John' mentions logos, run parallel to the Genesis account of God speaking.

I've looked through Watchtower literature on the net, hoping to anticipate points I need to address, but its hard to tell what's JW doctrine and what critics claim is JW doctrine. Watchtower itself seems to look at its interpretation as evident.

[Ben57]

Hi,
Back again already


May I ask, what you are trying to say by those 2 texts - John 1:13 and Matt. 1:23.?

From Matt. I gather that you are refering to the name Emanual and its meaning. Am I correct? Are you trying to say that because Imanual means "God with us." you are implying that means Jesus must be God?

But I am not sure exactly what it is you are saying by John 1:13. PLEASE, if you are going to quote a text, give some reason for using it so that others do not have to second guess what you are thinking. 1) It saves confution and 2) it save those that want to respnd spending unneccesary time prepraring an answer that does not get to the point.

[Mus Zibii]

I'm referring to the usage of 'theos' in passages other than John 1:1 that clearly refer to capital letter God as opposed to generic deity.

I edited this post. I was reading when I wrote it and it might've seemed garbled as a result.

[Ben57]

OK Thank you

BTW what time zone are you in I am in South Aistralia and it is now 4:55 pm. Generally when i talk on forums I do not get instant replies. I find this fasinating.

Must go Wife is calling for Dinner (yes we do have an early tea with 4 Kids)

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I'm referring to the usage of 'theos' in other passages that John 1:1 that clearly refer to capital letter God as opposed to generic deity.

[Mus Zibii]

I'm in America and its 3 AM. LOL If that blows my mind what right do I have discussing God?

There's no rush to reply. I stop by whenever I get a chance just to see if there's anything new. See you later.

[Ben57]

This is a long reply


The point has been raised about the legitimate use of the lower case ‘g’ for the word god in the second part of John 1:1. as in the JW’s NWT. Does this mean that there is more than one god or that John was a heretic if that is what is he meant? Those are good questions and deserve an answer, so I will attempt to answer those points as clearly as possible. I am aware that what I say will possible raise more questions so please do not be afraid to ask.



First I want to explore the use of the word ‘god’ in the Christian Greek Scriptures. I find it interesting when one looks into various lexicons that show how many times the word is used and the forms that it takes. For example in the ASV the word God appears 1343 times, in the following forms God 1320, god 13, godly 3, misc 7; . TheNew American Standard uses the word in the following ways divinely (1), God (1267), god (6), God’s (27), God-fearing (1), godly (3), gods (8), Lord (1) which is a total 1314 times. The point of this is to show that translators use their “discretion” in rendering common words into English in different places.



Second, I want to show what the word God meant to the people that wrote the Bible. Now the writers of the ‘New Testament’ may have written in the common language of the time Greek, they were Hebrews and spoke Hebrew in its various dialects, so I am going to examine the term God as it appeared in the ‘Old Testament’ to show how the apostles would have understood the word. Please take note the first two paragraphs as it gives the meaning of the word god. This is a portion of an article on the word God



Among the Hebrew words that are translated "God" is ´El, The New Strongs Concordance links EL (reference number 410) with ELOHEEM (Ref. Nu. 430) and ELOAH (Ref. Nu. 433). The base word El meaning "strength" and or "mighty one”…… The plural form, ´e·lim', is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 ("gods"). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: "Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·beneh' ´E·lim']?" That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ´E·lim' by the singular form The·os' in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.



The Hebrew word ´elo·him' (gods) appears to be from a root meaning "be strong." ´Elo·him' is the plural of ´eloh'ah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ´Elo·him' is used in the Scriptures with reference to YHWH himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.



When applying to the God of the Hebrews, ´Elo·him' is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence not to more then one. (Ge 1:1)



…..At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ´elo·him', as is confirmed by Paul's quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called beneh' ha·´Elo·him', "sons of God" (KJ); "sons of the true God" (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: "(individual) divine beings, gods." And page 51 says: "the (single) gods," and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ´elo·him' is rendered "angels" (LXX); "godlike ones" (NW).



The word ´elo·him' is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply "gods." (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.-1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 ("goddess" Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).



At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen The Almighty God YHWH. Similarly Moses was told that he .was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16



In many places in the Scriptures ´Elo·him' is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·´Elo·him', F. Zorell says: "In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . 'Jahve is the [one true] God' De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc."-Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.



The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ´El and ´Elo·him' in the Septuagint translation and the word for "God" or "god" in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·os'.





Now I wish to show the meaning given to the Greek word God as per the Online Bible Greek Lexicon



2316 yeov theos theh’-os



of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with the definite article) the supreme Divinity;



1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities

2) the Godhead, trinity

2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity

2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity

2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity

3) spoken of the only and true God

3a) refers to the things of God

3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him

4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way

4a) God’s representative or vice-regent

4a1) of magistrates and judges



Now back to John 1:1. The original word for word English translation of John looks like this



In Beginning was the Word and the Word was toward (with) The God and god was the word



Using the original meaning of the word (it was shown to mean “mighty one”) lets put it into John 1:1



In beginningwas the Word and the Word was withTHEmighty one (God)andmighty one (god)was the Word

The term mighty one does not put the Word in the same category as THE mighty one.”.



Lets put it in a none theological setting, using the grammar of the original Greek.



In beginning was the worker and the worker was with the Builder and builder was the worker. In this example, I would think that it is easy to see that the worker was also a builder but not The Builder. The second word builder with the lower case ‘b’ is describing a quality if the worker, it is telling us something about this one and not identity. Whereas, the first use of the word Builder, with the capital ‘B’, is identifying the one that the worker is with.



But if we are to use that as an analogy, does that not make Jesus as secondary ‘god’ and as the Bible says there is only ONE God, does that not make Jesus a false ‘god’?



Simply put NO. First it is telling us something about Jesus, a quality, not identity. Now go back and read the way that the word ‘god’ is used in the ‘Old Testament’ and in the New. Remember this passage…



“…At Psalm 82:1, 6, ´elo·him' is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for The Almighty God YHWH. Similarly Moses was told that he .was to serve as "God" to Aaron and to Pharaoh.-Ex 4:16…”



Also remember the way the lexicon says that the word god was used..



4a) God’s representative or vice-regent

4a1) of magistrates and judges





So to call the word “a god” or a “mighty one” does not make the word a false god but a god in the capacity as a representative of, and spokesmen for The God, hence his title “the Word.



This goes back and has a direct bearing on the issue of whether Jesus was worshiped in a religious way. The evidence shows Jesus was give due honor and respect as Gods “vice-regent”, or Word or as “a god in the capacity as a representative of, and spokesmen” ofThe God Almighty, the father and God of Jesus (John 20:17), but was never worshiped in a religious way



I hope I have explained the JW view here clearly. I have not made myself clear please ask.