John 1:1- ignored by context, as well as the rest of John!

Does it read God was with God?

«1

Comments

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    If Jesus was put every where God is, and the word means Jesus, of course, then it would read:

    In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with Jesus, and Jesus was Jesus.

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Why would you say that? Anti-Jesus.


  • reformedreformed Posts: 3,132

    I see you are not a Christian, rather you are JW. Why are you here? Just to start trouble?

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Awwww! I thought this forum would be free of snide talking church-goers.

    But I'm used to that! What denomination do you belong to, Bible Ignorer?

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Let's continue with the book of John!

    John 1:18- No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

    Many thousands saw Jesus!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 1:33- And I myself did not know him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, "The man on whom you see the spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the holy spirit." 34 -I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One.


    Not God.

    Not 'God-the-Son'.

    God's Chosen one!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 1:35- The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 -When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

    Not, "Look! It's GOD!" , nor, "Look! It's God-the Lamb!", not 'God-the-Son'!

    The Lamb >>> OF <<< God.

  • @theMadJW Does it read God was with God? (refering to John 1:1)

    Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1 SBLGNT)

    In beginning was being The Word, and The Word was being with The God, and God was being The Word (John 1:1 my literal translation)

    Verb ἦν is imperfect: continuous action in past time (was being). My Greek grammatical understanding is The Word quality was being God. All God includes The Word plus more. Hence, question 'Does it read God was with God?' => No because The Word is not All God. To me, One God is a single spirit having more than one voice: The Father (Will), The Son (Word), & Breath The Holy => One Plural (voice) Unified God.

    Chapter 6 of 'Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar', 3rd Edition by William D. Mounce begins with:

    Exegetical Insight

    The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case—the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

    As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,


    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

    and God was the Word.


    We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

    In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find. As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

    To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:


    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός

    “and the Word was the God”

    (i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)


    καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός

    “and the Word was a god”

    (Arianism)


    καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

    “and the Word was God”

    (Orthodoxy).


    Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Daniel B. Wallace


     William D. Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar, ed. Verlyn D. Verbrugge, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 27–28.

    'Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: NT Exegetical Syntax' by Daniel B Wallace includes:

    6. Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1

    John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN (Predicate Nominative). It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

    a. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?

    If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

    The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:

    In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…

    The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.”

    If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.

    According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

    b. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?

    Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

    Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism. The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

    c. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

    The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

    Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.


     Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.


    @theMadJW John 1:33- And I myself did not know him, but the One who sent me to baptize with water told me, "The man on whom you see the spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the holy spirit." 34 -I have seen and I testify that this is God's Chosen One.

    @theMadJW Not God.

    @theMadJW Not 'God-the-Son'.

    @theMadJW God's Chosen one!

    Τῇ ἐπαύριον βλέπει τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐρχόμενον πρὸς αὐτόν, καὶ λέγει· Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου. οὗτός ἐστιν ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εἶπον· Ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν· κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραὴλ διὰ τοῦτο ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων. καὶ ἐμαρτύρησεν Ἰωάννης λέγων ὅτι Τεθέαμαι τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον ὡς περιστερὰν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἔμεινεν ἐπʼ αὐτόν· κἀγὼ οὐκ ᾔδειν αὐτόν, ἀλλʼ ὁ πέμψας με βαπτίζειν ἐν ὕδατι ἐκεῖνός μοι εἶπεν· Ἐφʼ ὃν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπʼ αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βαπτίζων ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ· κἀγὼ ἑώρακα, καὶ μεμαρτύρηκα ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (John 1:29-34 SBLGNT)

    ὅτι => that (conjunction)

    οὗτός => this one (pronoun: demonstrative, nominative, singular, masculine) {agrees with ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς plus previous pronouns for Jesus}

    ἐστιν => is being (verb: present {continuous action in present time}, active, indicative, third person, singular)

    ὁ => The (definite article: nominative, singular, masculine)

    ἐκλεκτὸς => chosen; elect (noun: nominative, singular, masculine)

    τοῦ => The (definite article: genitive, singular, masculine)

    θεοῦ => God (noun: : genitive, singular, masculine)

    English translation of τοῦ θεοῦ can use "of" as a way to convey genitive case. Caveat: genitive case can also mean "from" or "belonging to"

    ἐκλεκτὸς is a compound word: preposition ἐκ (out of) with λεγω "to say" verb derivative => out "to say" (from The God)


    @theMadJW John 1:35- The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. 36 -When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, "Look, the Lamb of God!"

    @theMadJW Not, "Look! It's GOD!" , nor, "Look! It's God-the Lamb!", not 'God-the-Son'!

    @theMadJW The Lamb >>> OF <<< God.

    καὶ ἐμβλέψας τῷ Ἰησοῦ περιπατοῦντι λέγει· Ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. (John 1:36 SBLGNT)

    Ἴδε => Look (verb: aorist, active, imperative, second person, singular)

    ὁ => The (definite article: nominative, singular, masculine)

    ἀμνὸς => Lamb (noun: nominative, singular, masculine)

    τοῦ => The (definite article: genitive, singular, masculine)

    θεοῦ => God (noun: : genitive, singular, masculine)

    English translation of τοῦ θεοῦ can use "OF" as a way to convey genitive case. Caveat: genitive case can also mean "FROM" or "BELONGING TO"


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Theologians for 2,000 years have been tying to explain to explain the Triune Polytheism in Greek, but you either believe Jesus, or you can twist the words of others; he said only his Father was the True God.


  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 1:49- Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel." 

    NOT "Rabbi, you are God-the-Son; you are the king of Israel." 

    NOT "Rabbi, you are God; you are the king of Israel!" 


    EVERY Jew knew what a "son" was!

    (Note that translators play "Caps Games". There is none in the biblical languages)

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 2:13- When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14- In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15- So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16- To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father's house into a market!" 

    Not "MY House!" 

    And EVERY Jew knew what a father is!

    He was FURIOUS over how they had defiled his God's TEMPLE!

    True WORSHIP!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 3:1- Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2- He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him."

    Jesus didn't correct him- how COULD he, when it was true!

    God Himself ('Themselves' in the Trinity Dogma) didn't come- but God had SENT him.

  • reformedreformed Posts: 3,132

    Jehovah's Witnesses are not witnesses of Jehovah. They are a cult, a false religion and should be treated as such.

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Hmmm! What cult are YOU from?

  • Thankful to be a follower of "The Way":

    λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή· οὐδεὶς ἔρχεται πρὸς τὸν πατέρα εἰ μὴ διʼ ἐμοῦ. (John 14:6 SBLGNT)

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 LEB)

    Thankful Logos Bible Software Bible Search of SBLGNT for <Root = lbs/el/μονος> found 18 results in John (includes 5:44 & 17:3).

    What is special about Jesus ? Lemma μονογενής (one & only) is found in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, & 3:18

    Why was the original Jewish audience wanting to kill Jesus ? John 5:14-18 (please provide Jewish scripture reason for wanting to kill Jesus)

    Context for John 5:44 includes John 5:14-47. Do you believe prophetic words of Moses about Jesus ? Do you believe Jesus ?

    Context for John 17:3 is John 17:1-26, which includes Jesus experiencing God's Glory (John 17:5) and Love (John 17:24) before God created anything. How can Jesus not be One יהוה (YHWH) God being in The Father ? (only One God existed when physical realm had not been created)

    ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν. (John 10:30 SBLGNT)

    I and The Father one are being (John 10:30 literal translation).

    Jewish audience understood John 10:30 as I and The Father are being one יהוה (YHWH) => Jews picked up stones to kill Jesus (like John 5:14-18)

    If Jesus is truly יהוה (YHWH), would Jesus be Righteously angry with one teaching Jesus is not יהוה ? (reason for Jesus to justly say depart from me)


    WHAT ABOUT “JEHOVAH” AND “YAHWEH”?

    The word “Jehovah” does not appear in Hebrew. The personal name for God, which God revealed to Moses is “Yahweh”. It means, “The One who is always present”. This word was so holy that the Israelites never said it aloud. To remind them, they wrote the consonants YHWH (for Yahweh), and the vowels of Adonai, which means “Lord”. When they spoke of God they said, “Adonai”, meaning Lord.

    YHWH + Adonai = Jehovah

    J • From “YHWH” translators took the letter Y, (which was often read as “J’),

    E • with the first vowel of Adonai (which was often read as “e”).

    H • They took the second consonant from “YHWH”, “H”,

    O • with the second vowel from Adonai, “O”.

    V • They took the third consonant from “YHWH”, “W”, (often read as “V”),

    A • with the third vowel from Adonai, “a.”

    H • Finally, they took the last consonant from “YHWH” “H.”

    So the resulting hybrid word is “Jehovah.” Some translations now use Yahweh. Others translations insert Lord, using small capitals.


     Mark Water, The Book of Genesis Made Easy, The Made Easy Series (Alresford, Hampshire: John Hunt Publishers Ltd, 2000), 63.


    Jehovah. Name for God formed by adding the vowels of the Hebrew word Adonai to the consonants of the Hebrew divine name, YHWH. Out of their respect for God and their fear of defiling his name, the postexilic Jews refused to pronounce the divine name when reading Scripture. Instead they substituted Adonai, a word meaning “my Lord.” Prior to the 6th century ad, the Hebrew text had no vowels. These were supplied during the reading of the Scripture by one who was familiar with the language. When vowel points were added to the text (ad 600–700), the vowels of Adonai were placed below the consonants of YHWH to indicate that Adonai should be read.

    It is thought that in about ad 1520 Petrus Galatinus conceived the idea of combining the two names, thus creating the new form YeHoWaH from which the English term Jehovah comes. Although this form was foreign to the Hebrew language, it gained wide acceptance and was included as the translation for God’s name in the kjv and asv. Biblical scholars now agree that the original pronunciation of the divine name was Yahweh or Jahveh.

     Walter A. Elwell and Barry J. Beitzel, “Jehovah,” Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1988), 1106.

    Introduction to The Scriptures includes: (disagrees a bit about original pronunciation)

    THE RESTORATION OF THE NAME

    The Scriptures” differs radically from most other translations in that it does not continue in the tradition of substituting the Name of the Father and of the Son with names ascribed to gentile (pagan) deities. All the names of deities which in the past have been ascribed to the Father, the Son, and even used when engaged in worship, have been avoided.

    One of the post-exilic-apostasies of Orthodox Judaism was the avoidance of the Name of the Almighty, the so-called Tetragrammaton, (the four lettered Name, יהוה). Because of this and a similar and continued suppression and substitution of the Name by the Church, much harm was done to the True Worship. When anyone enquires about this he is told: “The Name has been translated into English as LORD, as was similarly done in other languages.” This argument does not hold water. Guiseppe in Italian corresponds to Joseph in English; however, Guiseppe Verdi cannot be translated as Joseph Green in English, even if that is what it means in English! The proper name of any individual is not translated; it is always transliterated or transcribed in order to approximate its original pronunciation. We repeat: the proper name of any individual is simply not translated, more especially when we are dealing with the most important Beings in all the universe: the Most High (יהוה) and His Son (יהושׁע)!

    We thought of rendering the Father’s Name (יהוה) as Yahuweh (pronounced with the accent on the “u”). On the other hand, John H. Skilton, The Law and the Prophets, pp. 223, 224, prefers “Yahoweh”. The Assyrians transcribed the Name as “Ya-u-a”, so Mowinckle and other scholars prefer “Yahowah”. Some scholars prefer “Yehowah”, because that is the way the Massoretes vowel-pointed it. (Whether this vowel-pointing of the Name was done in truth, or whether it was done to “disguise” the Name, in accordance with the instruction given in the Mishnaic text of Tamid vii.2 (=Sota vii.6), we do not know for certain. There is also the Rabbinical interpretation of the Massoretic text saying that the vowels e, o and a were added to the Name as a Qerě perpetuum which means that the reading of Adonai or Elohim is to be used instead. However, there is no definite proof that the Massoretes originally did it for this reason). Then again, many scholars favour the rendering “Yahweh”. In any event, we decided to avoid controversy over the precise pronunciation and to render it in Hebrew characters as יהוה.

    Such a rendering has solid historical precedent in the earliest copies of the Septuagint (LXX), and has the merit of being true to the text, neither adding nor subtracting by means of substitutions (however well-intended). It has also the additional merit of allowing the individual reader to progress in his own quest for accuracy of pronunciation, as he seeks to obey the scriptural injunctions to call on the Name (Shemoth / Ex. 3:15; Yeshayahu / Is. 12:4; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 10:25; Tehillim / Ps. 105:1, 3;), to make it known (Shemoth / Ex. 9:16; Yeshayahu / Is. 64:1, 2; Ye-ezqěl / Ez. 39:7;), and to not obliterate or forget it (Deḇarim / Dt. 12:3, 4; Yeshayahu / Is. 65:11; Yirmeyahu / Jer. 23:27; Tehillim / Ps. 44:20)! In the same way the Messiah’s Name in Hebrew, יהושׁע, was chosen in order to avoid controversy. All the available authoritative sources and references are in agreement and clearly admit that our Messiah’s Name was יהושׁע (see for instance even Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, under Iesous). However, while some believe that this spelling should be pronounced in the traditional way, i.e. “Yehoshua” others influenced by the Murashu Text suggest the pronunciation “Yahushua”. So we decided to print the Name of the Messiah (יהושׁע) in Hebrew characters as we have done with the Name יהוה.

    While the short post-exilic form “Yeshua” (ישׁוע) is popular with many (indeed the Shem Toḇ Hebrew text of Mattithyahu renders it as such, as also the Hebrew translation of the “New Testament” by F. Delitzch), Dr. Solomon Zeitlin refutes this form as the Name of our Messiah, favouring instead the form יהושׁע (see The Jewish Quarterly Review, Jan. 1970, p. 195). Also see Post-exilic Apostasy in the Explanatory Notes at the back.

    At this stage we need to explain the word “Elohim” used in this translation. English translations have traditionally rendered it as “God” or as “god(s)” in most instances. However, the Hebrew word “elohim” is the plural form of “eloah”, which has the basic meaning of “mighty one”. This word is not only used for deity, but is used in Scripture for judges, angels and idols (Shemoth / Ex. 7:1; 9:28; 12:12; 22:8, 9; Tehillim / Ps. 8:5; 82:1, 6) besides being used frequently for the Almighty. The shorter forms, “el” and “elim” have the same basic meaning and similar usage. (Needless to say, the same applies to the Aramaic equivalents, such as “elah” and “elahin”). By transliterating these expressions instead of translating them as “Mighty One” we discovered a richness in them, and therefore retained them, with the exception of a few instances (noted in footnotes), where the translation of “mighty one” or “mighty ones” seemed more appropriate.

     Institute for Scripture Research, The Scriptures (South Africa: Institute for Scripture Research (Pty) Ltd, 2000), xi–xiii.

    Correctly pronounced, יהוה, is immensely Holy. My theory for Jews saying Adonai (Lord) instead of יהוה during scripture reading was avoiding Holiness pauses (worship). My description of One plural unified God reflects singular & plural words used in Deuteronomy 6:4

    שְׁמַ֖ע => Shema (Hear & Obey is an imperative singular verb)

    יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל => Israel (singular noun)

    יְהוָ֥ה => Adonai (singular noun)

    אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ => Eloheinu (plural God of us)

    יְהוָ֥ה => Adonai (singular noun)

    אֶחָֽד => echad (singular noun: Unique)


    Keep Smiling 😊

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Jesus and his Father are one just as hid disciplines were: John 17:21- that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in me, and in You; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that You sent me. 22- And the glory which You gave me I have given them, that they may be one just as we are one.

       

    The Jews not pronouncing God's Name is another sign of their apostasy, since He gave it to them!


  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 3:16- For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17- For God did not send his son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18- Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only son. 


    Always quoted by the churches- never believed- for they believe God HIMSELF came to Earth!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 3:34- For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the spirit without limit. 35- The Father loves the son and has placed everything in his hands. 36- Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them. 

    Notice how, as ALWAYS God is spoken of as someone ELSE- NOT JESUS?

    Notice how, as ALWAYS God is spoken of as GIVING spirit?

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 5:16- So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17- In his defense Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at His work to this very day, and I too am working." 18- For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God  his own Father, making himself equal with God. 

    (That is how they took his words- JUST as Churchianity does ; did he confirm or deny it? Pay attention to his answer!)

    19- Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do NOTHING by himself; he can do ONLY what he sees his Father doing,  because whatever the Father does the son also does. 

    [Does that sound like Jesus is Supreme? Almighty?  JESUS illustrates how he had to follow the direction of his God and Father]

    20- For the Father loves the son and shows him all he does.   Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21- For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22- Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son.

    [Notice Christ said he was ENTRUSTED with judgement? It is NOT something he HAD- it was GIVEN to him.]

    23- that all may honor the son even as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the son does not honor the Father, who sent him. 26- For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the son also to have life in himself. 

    Notice Christ said he was GRANTED to have life in himself? It. too, is something he did NOT have, the Trinity Dogma states the three 'Persons' are 'co-equal'; we  not only never SEE such a group of Supreme Beings, but are shown that the son is NOT equal with the Father!

    27- And he has given him authority to judge because he is the son of man. 


    [The Jewish clergy well knew Daniel's Prophecy of the son of man- one CHOSEN by God to be the King of Kings!- Dan 7) 

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 5: 30 - By myself I can do nothing; judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but Him who sent me. 31- If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. 36 - "I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to finish the very  works that I am doing testify that the Father has sent me. 37- And the Father who sent me has Himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form.

    Even JESUS confirms God HASN'T been SEEN (as he once was), and refers to God as a separate entity, ad that God (not Three) gave him that authority.

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 5:38- nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one He sent. 39- You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you possess eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that  testify about me,

    [WAIT! The scriptures "TESTIFY?" why that must mean they are a Person, too, since the holy spirit "testifies"!]

    42- but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. 44- How CAN you believe since you accept glory from one another but do NOT seek the glory that comes from the only God? 

    "The ONLY God!" yet Churchianity claims there are THREE!

     Jesus denied being God IN DETAIL, so that there would be no REAL question about it- but the Jewish clergy continued with their false  accusations, and demented clergy with their false dogma that insults God and Christ!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 6:27- Don’t work for food that spoils. Work for food that gives eternal life. The son of man will give you this food, because God the Father has given him the right to do so.


    No one can give God the "right" to do anything...

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 6:28- Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29- Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." 

    "The one He has sent". So easy to understand- if you WANT to.

    God SENT someone.

    He did NOT come Himself!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 6:36- It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

    The spirit is never taught as a God, or even as a being. Here he even refers to his words as "spirit' ("breath").

    (Isa 42:5- Thus saith God Jehovah, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; He that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein.-ASV)

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 6:37- All whom the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38- For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of Him who sent me. 39- And this is the will of Him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those He has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40- For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day." 41- At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42- They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43 -"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44- "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45- It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him comes to me. 46- No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 


    Can the Supreme Being be "sent" by someone else? Of COURSE not!

     NO ONE commands the Supreme Being; HE is the One who does the sending!

     Thousands saw Jesus- NO ONE has seen God!

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 6:67- Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also wish to go away?” 68- Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;69- and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the holy one of God.”

    "That you are GOD"? Never may that be said.

    The Apostles didn't think Jesus was God....

  • C McC Mc Posts: 4,050

    @theMadJW,

    Are you a Christian? Please explain. CM

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    Yes- I actually believe the words of Christ.

    And you- still believe he said he was part of a 'Triune God"?

  • theMadJWtheMadJW Posts: 168

    John 7: 16- Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from the One who sent me. 17- Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. 18- Whoever speaks on their own does so to gain personal glory, but he who seeks the glory of the One who sent him is a man of truth; there is nothing false about him. 19- Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?" 

    Does this sound like the Almighty God with all Authority and Power to YOU?

Sign In or Register to comment.