Challenge, prove that Jesus is "God"

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:39 am

I have a challenge for Trinitarians. Prove that Jesus Christ is God from Scripture. But here's the rub, do so without using any references from the Gospel of John, or any of the Epistles or the Book of Revelation.

Can you do it?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Oct 03, 2018 2:56 pm

ACT 3:15.

Code: Select all

JERUSALEM BIBLE 

....while you killed the prince &#91;Greek&#58; ARCHEGOS&#93; of life. God, however, raised him from the dead - Acts 3&#58;15

Code: Select all

DOUAY-RHEIMS

But the author  &#91;Greek&#58; ARCHEGOS&#93; of life you killed, whom God hath raised from the dead Acts 3&#58;15

The CATHOLIC bibles quoted above render the same Greek word "archegos" as both "prince" and "author" with various other translations even going so far as to render the word as "source" or "originator". Referring to Christ as the "author" of life does indeed give the impression life originates with him, so we can ask, do such translation properly reflect the meaning of the original Greek?

CHRIST THE AUTHOR OR PRINCE OF LIFE?

Actually, neither "author" nor "Prince" accurately conveys the full meaning of the word. The word archegos is derived from the Greek word ARCHE which, according to Strongs Concordance: Greek dictionary p. 16 NÂ° 746-7 refers to being first in order of time or rank.

The Catholic Jerusalem Bible, for example, renders ARCHIereus "chief priests" (Luke 23:13). Thus the word conveys the idea of a chief/prince (first in order of rank) and a leader (first "in order of time"). In this regard, note that at Acts 3:15 the CATHOLIC NABRE clearly concedes that {quote} "other possible translations of the Greek title are â€œleader of lifeâ€� or â€œpioneer of life.â€�{end qoute}.

Indeed the well respected "Vine's Greek New Testment Dictionary states

Code: Select all

 "the word does not necessarily combine the idea of the source or originating cause with that of leader" .

CONCLUSION : Translating Greek word "archegos" as "author" (or originator) does not accurately reflect the meaning of the original Greek which carries the idea of being the chief or preeminent leader; the first or "The beginning", not in the sense of being the source but in the sense of being the first to forge the way for other so follow,. As the American Council of Catholic Bishops propose, a "pioneer". Jesus thus becomes the chief/principal leader or agent of life, the principle means by which others are conducted or lead to life.

RELATED POSTS

PHILIPPIANS 2:6a Jesus in God's FORM
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 984#935984

PHILIPPIANS 2:5-6 "he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 798#872798

INDEX: So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 772#935772

FURTHER READING

SFBT Full scripture index
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... index.html

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Oct 03, 2018 4:09 pm

WORSHIP

bjs wrote:
Jesus accepted worship (Matthew 14:33). The common response is that the Greek word for
â€œworshipâ€� doesnâ€™t mean â€œworship,â€�

QUESTION Does worship not mean worship?

It is a historical fact that language changes and evolves with time. This is true of English was well as other languages.

For example, gay used to simply mean "happy" so, does gay mean happy or does it mean homosexual? If you sleep with someone do you spend a period of unconsciousness with them or do you have sex with them?

Some trinitarians insist on ignoring the fact that a single word or expression can have several meanings depending on the context, so they can build what is essentially "a strawman" argument, claiming that critics of their ideology are arguing that the word "worship doesn't mean worship". This caricature of linguistics (which appeals to those that have but a sketchy idea of how language works) enables them to avoid dealing with the facts. The facts are as follows:

FACT #1 The Greek word translated as worship in most English bibles [proskyneo] can according to context, refer to an act of â€œObeisance, respect, submission, or reverenceâ€� [1]

FACT #2: The Greek word translated as worship in most English bibles [proskyneo] can legitimately be rendered to (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man [2]

For further discussion on the Greek word PROSKYNEO please see the links below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 727#935727
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 180#936180

WHICH PROSKYNEO DID JESUS ACCEPT?

Given the above two FACTS above any argument that Jesus accepted "proskyneo" so he must be Almighty God, becomes essentially circular. To settle what he was accepting (homage, obeisance, or worshipful devotion as can only legitimately be offered to Almighty God) we cannot simply say "Well Jesus accepted it but the angels didn't" we need to know what Jesus believed he was being offered and who he claimed to be. To do that we will need to go outside of the verse itself.

bjs wrote: ...the normal translation of the word is worship.

Most trinitarians I have spoken to are not aware that various translations render proskyneo in various different ways (depending on the context). While perhaps the majority use the English "worship" in connection with Jesus this is far from universal; for example the Catholic Bible NAB renders this word as follows...

Code: Select all

NABRE 


and on entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him HOMAGE. -  Matthew 2&#58;11

CAPs MINE

In any case, as we have seen, only an examination of the wider context can establish the significance of what Jesus accepted.

For a word analysis of how PROSKYNEO is used in scripture, see the LINKS below
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... pture.html

CONCLUSION: Those that point out the meaning of the Greek word PROSKYNEO are not arguing that "worship doesn't mean worship" they are pointing out that like "gay" "sleep with" and many other words and expressions, context matters.

[1] Websterâ€™s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.
[2] W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247

RELATED POSTS

The I AM texts: So called trinity "proof" texts
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 192#936192

Post by **The Tanager** » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:00 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:So are saying someone can be given the authority to forgive sins without that meaning the person is literally Almighty God?

I agree with that statement, but I'm saying more than just that. I'm saying that the authority to forgive sins obviously comes from the divine presence. The divine presence does not just give that authority, but must be present for the authority to be present.

In Jesus' disciples this is through them having the Holy Spirit. They aren't simply given the authority by Jesus, they can forgive sins directly because the divine Holy Spirit is now within them.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:44 am

The Tanager wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:So are saying someone can be given the authority to forgive sins without that meaning the person is literally Almighty God?
I agree with that statement

Well then we agree on the point I was making.

As for your point about the holy spirit, if you can explain how that relates to the teaching of the TRINITY and how that in turn relates to a specific scripture, then I will certainly consider responding.

JW

Why is the word "trinity" not in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 186#865186

TLIG · Post by **TLIG** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:47 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:
The Tanager wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:So are saying someone can be given the authority to forgive sins without that meaning the person is literally Almighty God?
I agree with that statement

Well then we agree on the point I was making.

As for your point about the holy spirit, if you can explain how that relates to the teaching of the TRINITY and how that in turn relates to a specific scripture, then I will certainly consider responding.

JW

Why is the word "trinity" not in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 186#865186

The real challenge would be to prove
that Jesus is the Archangel Michael.

I challenge you to one on one debate.

Do you accept?

Yes or no?

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:22 pm

[Replying to post 25 by TLIG]

No.

But feel free to read my earlier post on the topic (links below).

WHO IS MICHAEL?

An archangel is the head or chief or commander of the angels. There is noone else that can have that position. While revelation refers to Michael and "his" angels Matthew 25 (speaking of Jesus) says "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him..." Jesus is again identified as leading the angels in Revelation 19: 11.

So in short in Revelation Michael is the head of the angels, and in Matthew Jesus is the head of the angels. Either the angels have two bosses (in which case who would be the 'chief's) or they are both just different names for the same person.

Jesus being given the name (or position) above everyone else must also be king of the angels. And 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 speaks of Jesus with "an archangel's call". So if Jesus is head, of chief of the angels, and speaks with an "archangel's voice" then Jesus and Michel must be one and the same

RELATED POSTS

Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not believe Jesus is Almighty God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 72#p751572

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is "divine"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 96#p870896

Who is the "Lord of Lords " mentioned at Revelation 19?
viewtopic.php?p=1021861#p1021861

Who does LORD apply to in the Christians Greek Scriptures?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 52#p864252

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

JESUS , MICHAEL, and ....MESSIANIC PROPHECY

TLIG · Post by **TLIG** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:32 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 25 by TLIG]

No.

Feel free to read my earlier post on the topic.

Jesus being given the name (or position) above everyone else must also be king of the angels. And 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 speaks of Jesus with "an archangel's call". So if Jesus is head, of chief of the angels, and speaks with an "archangel's voice" then Jesus and Michel must be one and the same.

God created all angels.

True or false?

If you say true

I will reply

God created Jesus.

True or false?

TLIG · Post by **TLIG** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:37 pm

Your theology has errors within it.

And where there are errors there lies the devil.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:50 pm

TLIG wrote:

God created Jesus.

True or false?

TRUE. At least that is what I believe to be true as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

JW

RELATED POSTS

COLOSSIANS 1:15 Firstborn of Creation
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 885#934885

COLOSSIANS 1:15 "firstborn of all creation"" (prototokos)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 218#867218

FURTHER READING

SFBT Who created Jesus?
http://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.co ... jesus.html

tigger2 · Post by **tigger2** » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:43 pm

[Replying to post 25 by TLIG]

JWs were not the first to believe that Michael the Archangel is also the Messiah. In fact, it was known before Chrisianity, during the earliest Christian times, and still by many Christians today.

William L. Alexander, Doctor of Divinity, stated:
"There seems good reason for regarding Michael as the Messiah.Â Such was the opinion of the best among the ancient Jews" A Cyclopedia Of Biblical Literature, originally edited by John Kitto, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: A & C Black, 1886). vol. 3, p. 158.

In his Early Christian Doctrines, J.N.D. Kelly writes concerning 'The Shepherd of Hermas', of the 2nd or 3rd century:
Â
In a number of passages we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God's inner council, and who is regularly described as 'most venerable', 'holy' and 'glorious'. This angel is given the name of Michael, and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael. .... The Shepherd of Hermas was so near and dear to the ante-Nicene Fathers that many of them considered it canonical scripture.

(The Shepherd of Hermas, written in the early second century, is a series of apocalyptic visions meant to convey Christian teaching through parable. Like Barnabas, it was widely venerated in the early Church. Clement of Alexandria quotes it as Scripture (Stromata 2.9), as do St. Irenaeus (130â€“200), Against Heresies 4.34.2, and Origen, First Principles 2.1.5, 4.1.11. )

The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Revelation
â€œ12:7 And there was war in heaven: [14] Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels....

â€œ[14] Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rodâ€¦.â€�

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:
â€œThe earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the â€œchildâ€� and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Danielâ€� â€“ vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.

Fairbairnâ€™s Imperial Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Patrick Fairbairn, D.D., editor, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing, 1957, Vol. IV, pp. 238, 239; Revised 1997, Vol. Seven, p. 800. (originally published as The Imperial Bible Dictionary, 1891), states this:

â€œMIâ€™CHAEL â€¦ there have in general beenÂ two rival opinions, either that he is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or that he is one of the so-called seven archangels. We hold the former opinionâ€�

Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, â€œAngelsâ€�:
"The elect angels joined with him [Jesus], the glorious Michael, as their captain"

John Wesley on Daniel 10:21 "Michael - Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of the earth desert or oppose it." - Wesley's Explanatory Notes.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible.
Daniel 12:1

â€œVer. 1. And at that time shall Michael stand up,.... The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ;â€�

Butterworth, Cruden, and Taylor in their concordances, assert that Michael and Angel are both names of Christ.

Thomas Scott, in his Thomas Scottâ€™s Commentary on the Bible, .... asserts that Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ. .

Guyse in his Paraphrase on the New Testament, on Rev. xii. 7, acknowledges that many good expositors think that Christ is signified by Michael; and also gives it as his opinion.