Jesus is God -Joshua 5 - who was this man?

[Wootah]

Hi all,

Here is a good talk on Joshua 5:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

Would Joshua bow down to not God? Don't angels say hey stop worshipping me if they are not God? Why was Joshua commanded to take off his sandals (think back to Moses)?

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus as a man, (Phil 2:7) makes the Father greater than Jesus.

Did Jeus say: " The Father is greater than me but only while I am a man"?

[Capbook]

Jesus as a man, (Phil 2:7) makes the Father greater than Jesus.

Did Jeus say: " The Father is greater than me but only while I am a man"?

God's Word translation said so. From equal with God, he emptied Himself on the form of servant by becoming like other humans.

Php 2:6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
Php 2:7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance

[1213]

...
The verse that says, "The Father is greater than I", doesn't says Jesus is not God?
Jesus as a man, (Phil 2:7) makes the Father greater than Jesus.
The pre-existence of Jesus with glory which He had with God before the world was. This proves Jesus is God.

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jesus tells there is only one true God. If the God is greater than Jesus, how can Jesus then be the God?

[JehovahsWitness]

Php 2:6 Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
Php 2:7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance

I cannot see the words equal to Almighty God in this passage.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #54]

It's written right there.

https://biblehub.com/philippians/2-6.htm

[onewithhim]

Most versions of the Bible do not say, at I John 5:20, that "Jesus is the real God." The wording is confusing at best in other versions.

That's because it's confusing and ambiguous in Greek. Any translation that makes it "clear" has done so by adding something to or taking something away from the text.

But it can be ascertained that it is speaking of God, the Father. Look at the verse in any other version of the Bible. Jesus is not the true God.

That's not clear in Greek.

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν
"We thus know that the Son of God is come and has given us understanding"

ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν
"that we would know the true one"

καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ,
"and we are in the true one,"

ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ.
"in his son Jesus Christ."

οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
"He is the true God and life eternal."

"We are in union with the true one, by means of His Son, Jesus Christ."

That's not what it says. It says that "we are in the true one, in his son." The NWT translators have added to the text to make sure its readers don't get the wrong idea (or maybe the right one?).

Who does that pronoun refer to---"His" Son? It is directly pointing out that the true one is the Father whose Son is Jesus Christ.

It could be read that way. It could also, just as correctly, be read as a parallel clause in which "the true one" and "his son Jesus Christ" are identically equal. The NWT translators don't want us to entertain that reading, though, so they improperly changed the text to exclude it.

The verse is the same in other versions, not just the NWT. "He is the true God and life eternal" refers to God, the Father. The rest of the verse is focusing on the Father, so why switch to the Son? Who is meant when it says "we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ"? Who do the pronouns "Him and His" refer to. "His Son." Whose Son? That is the answer to "This is the true God."

[onewithhim]

If a translation doesn't allow the ambiguity to stand then it is not being faithful perhaps? That might cut both ways.

That is definitely a concern in Bible translation.

For my money, i want a Bible that aspires to be exactly as ambiguous as the Bible text. That's not always possible, but I expect it when it is. If a Bible is primarily for liturgical use (like reading in church), I'm OK with clarifying paraphrase. The NIV is more readable and understandable than some other translations, but often at the expense of accuracy. That's fine if you're already a Calvinist and aren't looking to challenge that while reading, but that's not how everyone wants to read and even the same person can have different goals at different times.

My beef with the NWT is that the translators claim to avoid paraphrase whenever possible, but when so many verses end up like this one, that obviously can't be true.

Explain how the NWT is paraphrasing in IJohn 5:20. Their version is the same as other Bible versions.

[Difflugia]

The verse is the same in other versions, not just the NWT.

What "is the same in other versions?" What are you even saying?

"He is the true God and life eternal" refers to God, the Father.

Maybe. Just insisting on it doesn't remove the ambiguity in the text itself.

The rest of the verse is focusing on the Father, so why switch to the Son?

How did you determine that? The only person unambiguously referred to in that verse is "the son of God." It's like you're just saying things.

Who is meant when it says "we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ"?

It's ambiguous.

Who do the pronouns "Him and His" refer to.

Some refer to God. Some are ambiguous.

"His Son." Whose Son?

God's son.

That is the answer to "This is the true God."

Exactly. "God's son" is one possible answer to "This is the true god."

Explain how the NWT is paraphrasing in IJohn 5:20.

I did already, but I will again. The preposition ἐν is used multiple times and each has a broad range of possible meanings. The pronouns are also ambiguous. The NWT tries to resolve the ambiguity for us, which by its very nature requires paraphrase. In the following, I've marked each nonliteral paraphrase in red:

And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Each of those phrases is a paraphrastic replacement for the single Greek word ἐν. Using the English "in" in both places would preserve that broad range of possible meanings inherent in original. The NWT paraphrases each of those to match its own theological bent.

Remember, the fact that you happen to agree with a choice of paraphrase doesn't mean that it isn't one.

Their version is the same as other Bible versions.

I don't know what you mean by that. No other version is as clunky, confusing, or hamhanded as the NWT, so you must mean something else. In what way is the NWT "the same as other Bible versions?"

[onewithhim]

The verse is the same in other versions, not just the NWT.

What "is the same in other versions?" What are you even saying?

"He is the true God and life eternal" refers to God, the Father.

Maybe. Just insisting on it doesn't remove the ambiguity in the text itself.

The rest of the verse is focusing on the Father, so why switch to the Son?

How did you determine that? The only person unambiguously referred to in that verse is "the son of God." It's like you're just saying things.

Who is meant when it says "we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ"?

It's ambiguous.

Who do the pronouns "Him and His" refer to.

Some refer to God. Some are ambiguous.

"His Son." Whose Son?

God's son.

That is the answer to "This is the true God."

Exactly. "God's son" is one possible answer to "This is the true god."

Explain how the NWT is paraphrasing in IJohn 5:20.

I did already, but I will again. The preposition ἐν is used multiple times and each has a broad range of possible meanings. The pronouns are also ambiguous. The NWT tries to resolve the ambiguity for us, which by its very nature requires paraphrase. In the following, I've marked each nonliteral paraphrase in red:

And we are in union with the one who is true, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting.

Each of those phrases is a paraphrastic replacement for the single Greek word ἐν. Using the English "in" in both places would preserve that broad range of possible meanings inherent in original. The NWT paraphrases each of those to match its own theological bent.

Remember, the fact that you happen to agree with a choice of paraphrase doesn't mean that it isn't one.

Their version is the same as other Bible versions.

I don't know what you mean by that. No other version is as clunky, confusing, or hamhanded as the NWT, so you must mean something else. In what way is the NWT "the same as other Bible versions?"

Compare them and see for yourself.

[Difflugia]

Compare them and see for yourself.

I did and I told you why your analysis is wrong. I was offering you the chance to explain your reasoning.