JESUS IS NOT GOD

[onewithhim]

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


Jesus' words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Do these quotations show that Jesus was NOT God?

Do YOU believe that he claimed to be God?

[Difflugia]

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

First, if he were relying on their knowledge of it, he wouldn't have had to explain his point using an apologetic interpretation of an unrelated verse.

Second, the point that Jesus was making wasn't that they weren't gods, but rather that, god or not, it was Yahweh specifically that called them such. His point was that he didn't make himself a god, but that the Father had ordained him as such. The wording of their blasphemy charge was that Jesus made himself God. Jesus rebuttal was that his divinity was ordained by God.

In any case, it was apparently not common enough knowledge that Jesus could let it go without explanation. When the crux of your argument is that it's common enough to use "god" to mean someone merely important that it doesn't need to be explained in the text, your argument is a bit diminished by pointing to a text where Jesus has to explain a similar use. This is especially true in John where Jesus is particularly fond of ironic word games.

[Capbook]

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

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

That's Clarke interpretation of the verse...

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

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

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

Heb 1:8,9 the Father did addressed Jesus as God. And according to classical Jewish sources, Psalm 45 refers to the Jewish Messiah.
That is God's text interpreted by another God's text no human contribution.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb 1:9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

HEBREWS 1:8



source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... sion=RSVCE

As can be seen above there should be no contention as to the translation of this verse as their own bibles approve the reading "God is thy throne". The Greek for Hebrews 1:8 literally reads as follows

Toward [but] the SON the throne of you the GOD into the age of the age

Source: http://www.abarim-publications.com/Inte ... 63in-S-if0


According to expert Greek scholars, the original Greek construction of Heb. 1:8 is somewhat ambiguous and can legitimately be rendered in various ways.

• It is not certain whether ho theos is here the vocative ["your throne, O God"] ... or ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: God is thy throne" or "Thy throne is God" Either makes good sense." - Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 339
  
  "Both translations ["Your throne is God" and "Your throne, O God"] are possible, so none of the translations we are comparing can be rejected as inaccurate" - Dr. Jason Beduhn in his book Truth in Translation,

Although the Greek allows for various renditions, we have a clue as to the most likely in Psalms 45 verse 7.

PSALMS 45: A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING HEBREWS 1:8

• Hebrews 1:8 is a direct qoute from Psalms 45. The footnote [ *] to Psalms 45:7 in the Catholic NABRE states that {quote} "Heb 1:8 applies Ps 45v7 to Christ." {end quote} . With this in mind, note how the the Catholic Jerusalem Bible renders Psalms 45:7.
  

  Code: Select all

  JERUSALEM BIBLE 
   
   Your throne is from God, for ever and ever - Psalms 45:7

  Taking the Catholic reasoning to its natural conclusion then, if Psalms "applies to Christ" and Hebrews quotes Psalms, then Hebrews must mean that Jesus throne is from God.

CONCLUSION Catholic Bibles recognise that the Hebrew and Greek of Hebrews 1:8 can indeed be rendered "thy throne is from God". Based on Psalms 45:7 it seems reasonable to conclude that this translation, which is grammatically sound, better reflects the writer's implied intention.

[*] The footnotes to the NAB were authorized by the American Council of Bishops
http://www.usccb.org/bible/psalms/45:7#23045007-1



JW




For further reading on the grammatical construction of Hebrews 1:8 see LINK below
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... eb-18.html

New Jerusalem Bible
https://www.catholic.org/bible/books_bible.php

To learn more please go to to other posts related to ...

GOD, JESUS and ...THE "TRINITY TEXTS" DEBUNKED

[Capbook]

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

I am talking about Frederick Franz ...

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

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

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

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

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

Then who has the authority and credentials to supply "a" where that word was not in the original Greek?

(Greek NT TR) εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος

(Greek NT TR+) εν G1722 PREP  αρχη G746 N-DSF  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  και G2532 CONJ  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  προς G4314 PREP  τον G3588 T-ASM  θεον G2316 N-ASM  και G2532 CONJ  θεος G2316 N-NSM  ην G1510 V-IAI-3S  ο G3588 T-NSM  λογος G3056 N-NSM 

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Then who has the authority and credentials to supply "a" where that word was not in the original Greek?

Obviouly the translator decides if they want to and the indefinite article or not and where.

[Capbook]

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

Then who has the authority and credentials to supply "a" where that word was not in the original Greek?

Obviouly the translator decides if they want to and the indefinite article or not and where.

How about the credentials of such translators?

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Then who has the authority and credentials to supply "a" where that word was not in the original Greek?

Obviouly the translator decides if they want to and the indefinite article or not and where.

How about the credentials of such translators?

Who cares as long as they get it right?!

[Capbook]

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

Then who has the authority and credentials to supply "a" where that word was not in the original Greek?

Obviouly the translator decides if they want to and the indefinite article or not and where.

How about the credentials of such translators?

Who cares as long as they get it right?!

That is the result of many denominations, suiting the translations to their belief.

[JehovahsWitness]

Who cares as long as they get it right?!

That is the result of many denominations, suiting the translations to their belief.
[/quote]


The denominations come as a result of faulty interpretation and application of bible verses. For the most part bible most bible translators have been diligent and largely accurate in their translations. In any case squabnling over credentials is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the work.

[Capbook]

Who cares as long as they get it right?!

That is the result of many denominations, suiting the translations to their belief.

The denominations come as a result of faulty interpretation and application of bible verses. For the most part bible most bible translators have been diligent and largely accurate in their translations. In any case squabnling over credentials is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the work.
[/quote]

I just don't believe that low credentials could create quality works.
It's just about less education equates to the works of the PhDs.
Unless moved by the Holy Spirit just like Mark.