john1;1-2

[Dor]

Originally Posted by mee

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, London.

The title page reads "The New Testament in An Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with a Corrected Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Published by a Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by the Distribution of Books -- Unitarian." Yes, the key word above is "UNITARIAN". This is a cult teaching that Jesus was an extraordinarily good man only, nothing more. Mr. Thomas Belsham after Archbishop Newcome's death, altered Newcome's text! [See page 394, "Manual of Biblical Bibliography".] This altered text dishonoring Archbishop Newcome's careful scholarship also provided a basis for the New World Translation's "...and the Word was a god".(see also the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, page 1160, 1969 ed.) Archbishop Newcome certainly never said, the Word was "a god".

Originally Posted by mee

"and a god was the Word" The Emphatic Diaglott (J21, interlinear reading), by Benjamin Wilson, New York

Produced by a Christadelphian named Benjamin Wilson, with no credentials in Greek. Wilson denied the personal pre-existence of Christ before his birth, the entire incarnation doctrine, being anti-trinitarians himself. It is used widely by Jehovah's Witnesses because of its anti-trinitarian bias.

Originally Posted by mee

"and the Word was divine" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed, Chicago. 1950

The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Greek into English but a two man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Goodspeed was a liberal theologian. Smith regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth, His raising of the dead, and others as mere myth or legend.

Originally Posted by mee

"and the Word was a god" New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, Brooklyn 1975

Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase and not even a translation! The 4 paraphrasers were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz.

[Bandit]

Ding Ding Ding

Round two of the 1900 year old debates.

everyone in your corners, come out fighting.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Bandit

Ding Ding Ding

Round two of the 1900 year old debates.

everyone in your corners, come out fighting.

No, not this time Bandit buddy. As pointed out before, this is cause for a fundamental difference in Christian thought. Some can accept that Jesus is god like, while others consider Jesus like God.

Any faith, besides Christianity readily agrees that Jesus was a wonderful Man. But agreeing that He is GOD, brings many to a crossroad. Follow the Father, or follow the Son, or do as you please...

To put the Son in second place before the Father, brings on a rationale that following Him would be mute. Why go for second best? To emphasise worship of the Father over the Son, is the same as referring to the OT way of thinking. Jesus becomes no more than a glorified prophet (Muslims whole heartedly believe that), and the New Testament becomes a watered down version of Proverbs and Psalms...and hence is extranious or at worst, obsolete.

The other issue is the Bibles being used and their respective ages, apparently are causing significant rifts in the "Christ-ian" world as one member calls it.

The newer the version, the farther from the original content of the scrolls, Hebrew texts, and Greek versions, we get.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe ferverently in their way of perceiving God. However, 18,000,000-50,000,000 relative newcomer "Christians" of certain "sects", can not supercede the remaining 2.31 billion "Main stream Christian's " traditional view of Jesus' relationship with and to God the Father.

The Gospel of John, unlike any other Gospel provides a pivotal point, for the very concept of Christianity. In fact, the whole of the New Testament concept, depends entirely on John 1:1 through 1:5.

In engineer's terms, John 1:1-4 (or 5), is the shear pin, holding the "Christian" bridge in place. Lose this pin, and Christianity becomes just another religion...and those crossing the bridge find themselves sitting in a pile of rubble, they once thought was a Faith...

Jesus can become just another slob, like one of us...only more disciplined and more enlightened, but no man is perfect, so neither can the Jesus of certain "sect" faiths be...perfect. The OT made us quite aware of that FACT. No "Man" is perfect. Didn't state no man, but one born of a virgin...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

No, not this time Bandit buddy. As pointed out before, this is cause for a fundamental difference in Christian thought. Some can accept that Jesus is god like, while others consider Jesus like God.

Any faith, besides Christianity readily agrees that Jesus was a wonderful Man. But agreeing that He is GOD, brings many to a crossroad. Follow the Father, or follow the Son, or do as you please...

To put the Son in second place before the Father, brings on a rationale that following Him would be mute. Why go for second best? To emphasise worship of the Father over the Son, is the same as referring to the OT way of thinking. Jesus becomes no more than a glorified prophet (Muslims whole heartedly believe that), and the New Testament becomes a watered down version of Proverbs and Psalms...and hence is extranious or at worst, obsolete.

The other issue is the Bibles being used and their respective ages, apparently are causing significant rifts in the "Christ-ian" world as one member calls it.

The newer the version, the farther from the original content of the scrolls, Hebrew texts, and Greek versions, we get.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons believe ferverently in their way of perceiving God. However, 18,000,000-50,000,000 relative newcomer "Christians" of certain "sects", can not supercede the remaining 2.31 billion "Main stream Christian's " traditional view of Jesus' relationship with and to God the Father.

The Gospel of John, unlike any other Gospel provides a pivotal point, for the very concept of Christianity. In fact, the whole of the New Testament concept, depends entirely on John 1:1 through 1:5.

In engineer's terms, John 1:1-4 (or 5), is the shear pin, holding the "Christian" bridge in place. Lose this pin, and Christianity becomes just another religion...and those crossing the bridge find themselves sitting in a pile of rubble, they once thought was a Faith...

Jesus can become just another slob, like one of us...only more disciplined and more enlightened, but no man is perfect, so neither can the Jesus of certain "sect" faiths be...perfect. The OT made us quite aware of that FACT. No "Man" is perfect. Didn't state no man, but one born of a virgin...

my thoughts.

v/r

Q

Ok Q ,

it does not matter to me how people see & choose to see how Jesus fits into the Godhead & it does not matter to me what doctrine people choose to believe. ONE, TWO OR THREE...i love them all the same.

Father, Son, Holy Ghost is all the same to me.
it is not until someone takes Jesus out of the Godhead or condem others that i have a problem.
i see everyones POV very clearly & i am aware of all the different doctrines out there that try to establish over the years & as far as i am concerned it has no bearing on someones salvation, like many claim. most all these doctrines can be dated back to the same era & it was not until freedom of religion in the U.S. that allowed them to resurface.
i can argue every side equally & yet i do not follow any of the written doctrines out there concerning this.

no one is going to explain God or be able to capitalize on Him through dogma or even using the Bible, but people sure do try.

Do you see me debate John 1 or bring it up?
no i do not...i can certainly pour on the questions to keep everyone running, but i am not interested because i already know most of the dogmatic answers that i will get & they do not satisfy me.

MY POINT is, it is a reduntant blood bath battle that has been going on since Jesus ascended & the scriptures were written & i do not like to see people argue or debate very long over Jesus because it causes each other pain.
it is as if some who believe in Jesus (if not everyone) feels threatened & that is not a good thing.

IMO, it makes for a better one on one debate to knock down the wall of division & rhetoric & persuasion because that is exactly what John 1:1-14 & the Godhead is to some. A debate & a battlefield.

I pray that everyone will love each other who choose to discuss this & realize what I am saying is true & this is why I am dinging the bell.
thank you for listening.

[Quahom1]

Dear Bandit,

All well said and good. The simple problem is that there are those who refuse to agree to disagree. That too is human nature. What happens when those who refuse to agree to disagree, are left unchecked? Answer here at CR...intervention, mediated, moderated.

Like I said. There is no belittling of a personal perspective on how the Bible is interpreted, only a pointing out that a simple word or letter can change the whole perspective, the whole meaning of a sentence or a phrase. (a simple letter/word like "a" vs. "the").

This makes a big difference (HUGE DIFFERENCE), between two parties, claiming to be the same followers. The difference between the two happens to be so significant that a new "Christian" would be totally confused (if not disgusted and frustrated), by the end of reading John.

What is the truth? What does it boil down to?

IS JESUS GOD, OR NOT?

There, I guess I just made all this overly verbose crap simplified. Now, what is the answer?

BTW, it is a rhetorical question...one that must be answered privately, not here.

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Dear Bandit,



What is the truth? What does it boil down to?

IS JESUS GOD, OR NOT?

There, I guess I just made all this overly verbose crap simplified. Now, what is the answer?

BTW, it is a rhetorical question...one that must be answered privately, not here.

v/r

Q

well, what does the bible say?
JESUS is everything the bible says HE is (without the dogma & overly verbose crap attached)
peace to you my brother.

[seattlegal]

However you want to spin the translation, it is clear that the Logos is of the same essence as the Theos, was with the Theos in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt among us as the Icon of the living God, Jesus. The unity between the Theos and the Logos is clear. These are the truths we should focus on, rather than the spin. JMHO.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Dor

The title page reads "The New Testament in An Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation with a Corrected Text, and Notes Critical and Explanatory. Published by a Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and the Practice of Virtue, by the Distribution of Books -- Unitarian." Yes, the key word above is "UNITARIAN". This is a cult teaching that Jesus was an extraordinarily good man only, nothing more. Mr. Thomas Belsham after Archbishop Newcome's death, altered Newcome's text! [See page 394, "Manual of Biblical Bibliography".] This altered text dishonoring Archbishop Newcome's careful scholarship also provided a basis for the New World Translation's "...and the Word was a god".(see also the Kingdom Interlinear Translation, page 1160, 1969 ed.) Archbishop Newcome certainly never said, the Word was "a god".




Produced by a Christadelphian named Benjamin Wilson, with no credentials in Greek. Wilson denied the personal pre-existence of Christ before his birth, the entire incarnation doctrine, being anti-trinitarians himself. It is used widely by Jehovah's Witnesses because of its anti-trinitarian bias.

[/left]

The Complete Bible, an American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith. Greek into English but a two man translation, whereas all other major translations had between 40-100 different scholars involved in the translation. Goodspeed was a liberal theologian. Smith regards the miracles of the Bible, such as Jesus' virgin birth, His raising of the dead, and others as mere myth or legend.



Produced by Jehovah's Witnesses for Jehovah's Witnesses. Nothing more than a sectarian paraphrase and not even a translation! The 4 paraphrasers were: Nathan Knorr, Albert Schroeder, George Gangas, Fred Franz.

[/left]

yes its good to see that others also like to get back to the inspired word of God and its meaning.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

But that then flies in the face of the whole concept of the New Testament. And if it is suggested that the True GOD, has given power to a "man who is god-like", that makes no sense. The true God could have done that in the beginning, scratch Adam and Eve, start over, fix the bugs, make the perfect man.

Second, we are told to be godly in our lives. That is god-like, not like-a god, or like God. Satan himself aspires to be like God...that is to say the same as God, similar to God (in short, able to replace God).

Your view is a very peculiar version of Christianity, I must admit...

v/r

Q

Edit: John is describing the "Word" becoming flesh. That is to say that the "Word" was not flesh before, but became flesh. Which obviously excludes Jesus (the Word) from being a man previous to His birth. Yet He existed. I can not find one passage in any Bible that specifically states that Jesus was created by God...only that He was with God in the beginning. I must also point out that Jesus Himself declared that HE is the Alpha and Omega (beginning and the end), not that the FATHER is the beginning and the end...

Now why is that? Logic dictates that one declares themself to be one and the same with another, that they are the other as well.

The response(s) should prove interesting...

v/r

Q

yes we can become more God like if we listen and take on board the teachings of christ , and Jesus himself is the image of God , and he learned many things from his father Jehovah, so Jesus is the best teacher .but satan is not looking to the true God for guidance , he is an opposer of God and has set himself up in opposition to God, a false god indeed, but Jesus came down from heaven and was born of a woman so he became flesh ,but before he came down from heaven he had a pre-human life in the heavens with his father

Col. 1:15-17, RS: "He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation . . . All things were created through him and for him. He is before all things."

John 17:5, RS: "[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (Also John 8:23)

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by mee

but before he came down from heaven he had a pre-human life in the heavens with his father

the bible says spirit begets spirit & flesh begets flesh. i did not know spirits give birth to flesh & flesh gives birth to spirits.
the bible says to compare that which is spirit with spirit.

Jesus had a pre-human life in heaven? where does the bible say that?

never mind...it all sounds like more church dogma.
& i do mean...never mind because i know that is not in the bible & this is why things never add up because everyone has to add stuff to their case.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Bandit

the bible says spirit begets spirit & flesh begets flesh. i did not know spirits give birth to flesh & flesh gives birth to spirits.
the bible says to compare that which is spirit with spirit.

Jesus had a pre-human life in heaven? where does the bible say that?

never mind...it all sounds like more church dogma.
& i do mean...never mind because i know that is not in the bible & this is why things never add up because everyone has to add stuff to their case.

So he went on to say to them: "YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world john 8;23 yes he came from heaven where his father was, that is why he also said

(John 16:28) I came out from the Father and have come into the world. Further, I am leaving the world and am going my way to the Father

John 17:5, RS: "[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (Also John 8:23) yes he was there before

Jesus answered: "My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source john 18;36 he said this because he knew that his kingdom was not going to be on the earth ,it was going to be in a future time in the heavens and it is now established in the heavens since 1914

(John 13:3) he, knowing that the Father had given all things into [his] hands and that he came forth from God and was going to God

[Thomas]

Mee - you seem to constantly baffle others by presenting an argument, then confounding it, then stepping back and saying 'see, I am right!' so that no-one has any idea quoite what you are saying.

Either you propose ditheism (and thereby polytheism) - Jesus Christ is not God but 'a god' - then there is God the Father, and another God the Son, and another ... and another ... much like the Hindu pantheon, in which case your doctrine is not Christian, nor Jewish - both of whom would rather die than accept anything other than One God, or you accept what Seattlegal stated quite succinctly:

"However you want to spin the translation, it is clear that the Logos is of the same essence as the Theos, was with the Theos in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt among us as the Icon of the living God, Jesus. The unity between the Theos and the Logos is clear. These are the truths we should focus on, rather than the spin."

So the question for you is:
Are you a monotheist - yes or no?

Do you believe in the Divinity of Christ - yes or no?

And please, a simple 'yes' or 'no' in each case will suffice,

Thomas

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by mee

So he went on to say to them: "YOU are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. YOU are from this world; I am not from this world john 8;23 yes he came from heaven where his father was, that is why he also said

(John 16:28) I came out from the Father and have come into the world. Further, I am leaving the world and am going my way to the Father

John 17:5, RS: "[In prayer Jesus said:] Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (Also John 8:23) yes he was there before

Jesus answered: "My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source john 18;36 he said this because he knew that his kingdom was not going to be on the earth ,it was going to be in a future time in the heavens and it is now established in the heavens since 1914

(John 13:3) he, knowing that the Father had given all things into [his] hands and that he came forth from God and was going to God

you already know i dont believe in the 1914 thing so i dont even know why you would reply like that.

none of that says Jesus was pre-human in heaven. any way -ho hum- *hevy sigh*...arch enemies & what not - tooo da looo-
everytime i ever attempt to talk to you about anything, it is like you insist on putting peanut butter & jelly inside of all my shoes.

i dont think your answers are any better than anyone elses but i know you feel you need to prove something here.
i understand what Q means now...some people just do not know how to agree to disagree & we disagree.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

However you want to spin the translation, it is clear that the Logos is of the same essence as the Theos, was with the Theos in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt among us as the Icon of the living God, Jesus. The unity between the Theos and the Logos is clear. These are the truths we should focus on, rather than the spin. JMHO.

yah. i can see it that way also & it makes sense to me said that way & it does not come across dogmatic, which is nice for a change. very well put, seattlegal.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Bandit

yah. i can see it that way also & it makes sense to me said that way & it does not come across dogmatic, which is nice for a change. very well put, seattlegal.

Thank you, Bandit.