Equality between the Father and Son

[placebofactor]

Did the Father have the power to raise or elevate his Son Jesus to the same rank as himself? Let us call the highest rank in heaven "the rank of God."

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

[NeutralZone]

I will give you one corruption in the NWT that disqualifies it. In your 1984 edition of the NWT, Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him all (OTHER) things were created in the heavens and upon the earth,"

------------------------------------------------------------------------- In your 2013 edition of the NWT, Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him, all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth," Brackets have been removed, making other part of the verse.

Heres what I asked A.I. Of all the known old New Testament manuscripts, 5800 of them, regarding Colossians 1:16: can the following translation be found? Colossians 1:16, "because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth."

Answer: The translation of Colossians 1:16 as: "Because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth" is not found in any of the known ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This specific rendering appears only in the New World Translation (NWT) used by Jehovahs Witnesses.

What the Greek Text Actually Says The original Greek of Colossians 1:16 reads: - - ("because in him all things were created")

A.I. There is no Greek word for other (like allos or heteros) in this verse. The phrase means all things, without qualification.
Comparison of Translations
Translation Colossians 1:16
New International Version (NIV) "For in him all things were created..."
King James Version (KJV) "For by him were all things created..."
New World Translation (NWT) "Because by means of him all other things were created..."

The insertion of other in the NWT is not based on the Greek text, but rather reflects a theological interpretation, specifically, the belief that Jesus himself is a created being and therefore could not have created all things without exception.

Scholarly Discussion
This translation has been widely critiqued by scholars and theologians. Many argue that adding other distorts the meaning of the passage and is not linguistically justified. Even Jehovahs Witnesses acknowledge in their own commentary that a literal rendering of the Greek text would be all things

So go argue with the experts, you give the impression your smarter then 60 of Europe's greatest scholars, and translators, all documented concerning their education and qualifications. That's more than anyone can say about the unknowns who were most likely all Jehovah's Witnesses that had an agenda when they published the N.W.T. About your empty accusations concerning these other verses not having manuscript support. How do you know what the King James scholars had and were looking at in their work? You don't know, so stop complaining about things you have no knowledge of.

You Jehovah's witnesses used the King James up to 1961. You were teaching back then what you teach today, only out of the King James Bible. Problem: There is no way that for 75 years before 1961 they claimed Jesus was not God, there is no He, Holy Spirit, there is no Trinity, there is no hell. You cannot draw these conclusions from the King James, so that tells me, your NWT was founded on Taze Russell, his Lawyer Rutherford and the Watchtower's ruling class personal biases injected into God's word.

If you think I have the time to waste reading your wall of text, while you continue to dodge the issue regarding fabricated verses in the King James Bible and the fact that there are no scriptures within any version of the Bible in support of Christendom's Trinity god, dream on.

Where I'm concerned, this conversation is over. Don't waste your time clicking on anything else I post on this forum as I won't be able to read it. I'm adding you to my Ignore List since you are clearly not interested in being corrected by scripture.

Of course all those reading this thread have likely figured out by now that you're making an issue of the New World Translation so that you can dodge the real issue: that there is no such thing as a 3-prong god anywhere in any version of the Judeo-Christian Bible.

[Capbook]

[Replying to NeutralZone in post #112]

'Spirit' in the NT Greek is a neuter ('it', 'which', etc.) word. It (rarely) seems to be referred to as masculine ('he', 'him', etc.).

We find the pronouns in John 14:17 actually referring to the Spirit as their antecedent, and, therefore, they are the neuter auto (it) and (which)! Most trinitarian Bibles ignore this truth, however, and translate them as him anyway. I find it very ironic that The NIV Study Bible translates John 14:17 as the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him [ - neuter], because it neither sees him [ - neuter] nor knows him. But you know him [ - neuter], for he lives with you and will be in you.

To top off the irony, the NIVSB has this footnote for Jn 14:17 - the Spirit of truth. In essence and in action the Spirit is characterized by truth. He brings people to the truth of God. All three persons of the Trinity are linked with truth. But the inescapable truth is that Holy Spirit is neuter and its pronouns are neuter in the original Holy-Spirit-guided writings of the New Testament. And the translation of the very scripture that this footnote explains has lied against the Spirit of truth by rendering it as him three times! Surely the Spirit of truth has not brought these trinitarian translators to the truth of God.

It is important that we read, analyze, and meditate on this scripture (Jn 14:15-17) very carefully. Then do the same with Jn 4:23, 24 and Jn 17:3.

When we know the truth about pronouns and their antecedents, we are prepared for trinitarian evidence in both the OT and the NT Bible languages. In Micah 2:7, for example (Is the Spirit of Jehovah angry [or limited - KJIIV]; does he do such things?), the masculine pronoun certainly refers to Jehovah, not the Spirit as a few trinitarian apologists insist. Grammar tells us, for instance, that the feminine pronoun would have to be used in the Hebrew if Spirit were its antecedent. Since the masculine pronoun was used, it must refer to Jehovah. Also no trinitarian translation would pass up such an opportunity if the trinitarian translators thought there was any chance that the Spirit was really being called he! But these trinitarian Bibles translate it so that the Spirit is definitely not being called he, but Jehovah himself is: NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, BBE, ETRV, Byington, Moffatt, Beck, Darby. E.g., Is the LORDs [Jehovahs] patience exhausted? Are these his doings? - NRSV.

Bible Lexicons defined "blaspeme/blasphmey" in Greek "- blasph"me/- blasph"mia" as to speak against God.
If the Holy Spirit is the Father Himself, why the "blaspheme/blasphemy" against the Father can be forgiven while "blaspheme/blasphemy" to the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven?

That proves that the third person of the Trinity is a separate distinct person to the Father. (Rev 13:6, Mark 3:28,29)

G987 (Mounce)
- blasph"me
34x: to defame, revile, slander, Mat 27:39; to speak of God or divine things in terms of impious irreverence, to blaspheme, Mat 9:3; Mat 26:65.

G988 (Strong)
- blasph"mia
blas-fay-me'-ah
From G989; vilification (especially against God): - blasphemy, evil speaking, railing.

Rev 13:6 And he openedG455 his mouthG4750 in blasphemiesG988 againstG4314 GodG2316, to blasphemeG987 His nameG3686 and His tabernacleG4633, that is, R1thoseG3588 who N1dwellG4637 in heavenG3772.

Mrk 3:28 "R1TrulyG281 I sayG3004 to you, allG3956 sinsG265 shall be forgivenG863 the sonsG5207 of menG444, and whateverG3745 G1437 blasphemiesG988 they utterG987;
Mrk 3:29 but R1whoeverG3739 G302 blasphemesG987 againstG1519 the HolyG40 SpiritG4151 neverG3756 G1519 G165 hasG2192 forgivenessG859, but is guiltyG1777 of an eternalG166 sinG265""

[Capbook]

[Replying to NeutralZone in post #112]

'Spirit' in the NT Greek is a neuter ('it', 'which', etc.) word. It (rarely) seems to be referred to as masculine ('he', 'him', etc.).

We find the pronouns in John 14:17 actually referring to the Spirit as their antecedent, and, therefore, they are the neuter auto (it) and (which)! Most trinitarian Bibles ignore this truth, however, and translate them as him anyway. I find it very ironic that The NIV Study Bible translates John 14:17 as the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him [ - neuter], because it neither sees him [ - neuter] nor knows him. But you know him [ - neuter], for he lives with you and will be in you.

To top off the irony, the NIVSB has this footnote for Jn 14:17 - the Spirit of truth. In essence and in action the Spirit is characterized by truth. He brings people to the truth of God. All three persons of the Trinity are linked with truth. But the inescapable truth is that Holy Spirit is neuter and its pronouns are neuter in the original Holy-Spirit-guided writings of the New Testament. And the translation of the very scripture that this footnote explains has lied against the Spirit of truth by rendering it as him three times! Surely the Spirit of truth has not brought these trinitarian translators to the truth of God.

It is important that we read, analyze, and meditate on this scripture (Jn 14:15-17) very carefully. Then do the same with Jn 4:23, 24 and Jn 17:3.

When we know the truth about pronouns and their antecedents, we are prepared for trinitarian evidence in both the OT and the NT Bible languages. In Micah 2:7, for example (Is the Spirit of Jehovah angry [or limited - KJIIV]; does he do such things?), the masculine pronoun certainly refers to Jehovah, not the Spirit as a few trinitarian apologists insist. Grammar tells us, for instance, that the feminine pronoun would have to be used in the Hebrew if Spirit were its antecedent. Since the masculine pronoun was used, it must refer to Jehovah. Also no trinitarian translation would pass up such an opportunity if the trinitarian translators thought there was any chance that the Spirit was really being called he! But these trinitarian Bibles translate it so that the Spirit is definitely not being called he, but Jehovah himself is: NRSV, NEB, REB, NJB, NAB, GNB, BBE, ETRV, Byington, Moffatt, Beck, Darby. E.g., Is the LORDs [Jehovahs] patience exhausted? Are these his doings? - NRSV.

I have here the text from literal word for word Bible translation (NASB+) and New Testament in Greek (Westcott and Hort+) renders the same with NIV the phrase "Spirit of truth." That may substantiate the truthfulness of the version in question. And it may help understand what that verse speaks of compare to paraphrase Bible translations.
Bible lexicon defined "truth", in Greek " al"theia" as the love of truth, sincererity. etc.
Thus, this may prove that the Holy Spirit is a separate distinct person to the Father.

(NASB+) John 14:17 the Helper is R1the SpiritG4151 of truthG225, R2whomG3739 the worldG2889 cannotG1410 G3756 receiveG2983, becauseG3754 it does not seeG2334 Him orG3761 knowG1097 Him; but you knowG1097 Him becauseG3754 He remainsG3306 with you and will be in you.

(GREEK NT WH+) Joh 14:17 G3588 T-ASN G4151 N-ASN -G3588 T-GSF -G225 N-GSF G3739 R-ASN G3588 T-NSM G2889 N-NSM G3756 PRT-N G1410 V-PNI-3S G2983 V-2AAN G3754 CONJ G3756 PRT-N G2334 V-PAI-3S G846 P-ASN G3761 CONJ-N G1097 V-PAI-3S G4771 P-2NP G1097 V-PAI-2P G846 P-ASN G3754 CONJ G3844 PREP G4771 P-2DP G3306 V-PAI-3S G2532 CONJ G1722 PREP G4771 P-2DP | G1510 V-PAI-3S | G1510 V-FDI-3S |

Mounce
al"theia
109x: truth, Mrk_5:33; love of truth, sincerity, 1Co_5:8; divine truth revealed to man, Jhn_1:17; practice in accordance with Gospel truth, Jhn_3:21; 2Jn_1:4.

[Revelations won]

To all respondents,

The Father and the Son are certainly one in doctrine, unity and purpose. We could all make and present ideas ad infinitum with un-numbered private interpretation.

It is obvious that the Son has brought glory to his Father before he condescended to minister among man in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he brought further glory to the Father while in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he received glory from the Father prior to his mission in the flesh.

It is also obvious that he has also received more glory after his resurrection.

It is also obvious that he sought to do all the will of the Father before his mortal birth.

It is also self evident that he in his youth as a young boy, that he also sought to obey and be about his Fathers business assigned to him.

It is also obvious that he sought to do the will of the Father in his adult mission.

It is also obvious that no mortal man could teach him anything regarding the ATONEMENT.

It is also obvious that according to the four gospels that God our eternal Father did no send an angel to counsel and teach him details regarding the magnitude of what he would suffer in this process.

It should be observed that the angel referred to was none other than the Most High even God his Father for he alone was the only one with the capacity to have empathy and full understanding regarding the infinite agony which his dear Son was also about to experience for he himself had at some time eons of time ago what his dear Son was about to experience in Gesthemane.

It is obvious that in this sacred and solemn defining moment before his infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice that the one and only person he communed with was the most high God, his and our Father in heaven.

Perhaps the most clear and powerful testimony and witness regarding his position with his Father comes in his own most powerful declaration that "I of my self can do nothing, for I only do the works that I have seen my FATHER DO"

[tygger2]

[Replying to Capbook in post #123]

GREEK TEXTUS RECEPTUS of the NEW TESTAMENT John Chapter 14

This online bible shows chapter by chapter the Greek Textus Receptus (otherwise known as the Received Text) of the New Testament. This is the koine Greek (or common Greek) from which the King James Version of the bible was translated.
....

John Chapter 14

14:17 - , "

and are neuter gender pronouns and are honestly translated 'which' and 'it' respectively.

W&H, UBS, and The Trinitarian Bible Society texts have the same usage in John 14:17.


https://www.logosapostolic.org/bibles/t ... john14.htm

[OneJack]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

In the 4 gospel book of M-M-L & J, never did the Father [whose name is Jesus Christ according to the Son of God (John 17:3)] addressed the Son as God. Instead, the angel of the Lord said that the Son of God would be the holy thing (Luke 1:35) born of a woman, signifying a human son, like us.

[Capbook]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #1]

Hebrews 1:8, The Father said of his Son Jesus, "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of your kingdom." Verse 9, "Therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of Gladness above thy fellows." Verse 10, "And thou LORD (the Father calling his Son Jehovah), in the beginning has laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the works of your hands."

And is there the same degree of likeness, similarity, and dignity between the Father and Son? If so, then the Son can be called God because it's the Father's prerogative. And if it is the Father's privilege, who are we to deny it?

In the 4 gospel book of M-M-L & J, never did the Father [whose name is Jesus Christ according to the Son of God (John 17:3)] addressed the Son as God. Instead, the angel of the Lord said that the Son of God would be the holy thing (Luke 1:35) born of a woman, signifying a human son, like us.

If we dig deeper to the context of your quoted text, can we clarify two questions below?
1. Why there is an "and" if Jesus is the Almighty Father Himself?
2. If Someone being sent, Who is the other who sent Him?

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

[OneJack]

[Replying to Capbook in post #127]

If we dig deeper to the context of your quoted text, can we clarify two questions below?

1. Why there is an "and" if Jesus is the Almighty Father Himself?

Allow me to do this in a mathematical way presentation using the equality equation in Algebra.

Let the given details in John 17:3 be:

A = Eternal Life - to know two things about the Father, which are:

B = The Father is the true God, and

C = The Father is Jesus Christ whom He (Father) sent

Equating them now, we have,

A = B = C ; EL = Father = Jesus

Therefore, there is an and because there are two essential things about the Father that equal Eternal Life.

2. If Someone being sent, Who is the other who sent Him?

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

If conditional clause is not applicable in this context because this is a true-to-life event that transpired during the time of the apostles. The one who was sent here was the Son of God,
whose Spirit and Life in himself was the Father whose name is Jesus. And the One who sent him (the Son) was the Almighty God.

[tygger2]

[Replying to tygger2 in post #113]

John
14:17 - , "

This is from the Received Text, the Greek text used by the KJV translators.

Notice the pronouns I have bolded. (with the two tiny breathing marks above it) is in the neuter case and means "which."

is in the neuter case and is honestly translated "it."

The other popular Greek texts have the same Greek pronouns!

[Capbook]

[Replying to Capbook in post #127]

If we dig deeper to the context of your quoted text, can we clarify two questions below?

1. Why there is an "and" if Jesus is the Almighty Father Himself?

Allow me to do this in a mathematical way presentation using the equality equation in Algebra.

Let the given details in John 17:3 be:

A = Eternal Life - to know two things about the Father, which are:

B = The Father is the true God, and

C = The Father is Jesus Christ whom He (Father) sent

Equating them now, we have,

A = B = C ; EL = Father = Jesus

Therefore, there is an and because there are two essential things about the Father that equal Eternal Life.

2. If Someone being sent, Who is the other who sent Him?

Joh 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

If conditional clause is not applicable in this context because this is a true-to-life event that transpired during the time of the apostles. The one who was sent here was the Son of God,
whose Spirit and Life in himself was the Father whose name is Jesus. And the One who sent him (the Son) was the Almighty God.

Per your interpretation, may we know the answers of the following questions;
1. To where was Jesus sent?
2. And where was the Almighty God when He sent Jesus?