>I hate Christians!. >becomes a Christian

>”I hate Christians!”
>becomes a Christian

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    JWanon

    This only proves Christanity is true.

    Seeing Jesus in a vision is the only explanation for such a radical change.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      He was a self-hating israelite who made up having a vision.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        But anyways, enough about Jesus..

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          you will never make it into heaven

      • 6 months ago
        JWanon

        He didn't hate israelites and he didn't make it up. Other Christians like Luke, Ananias, Barnabas and Peter confirmed his apostleship.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          According to books written by Paul's followers. That's like evaluating truthfulness of Joseph Smith based on the writings of Brigham Young.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Paul didn't have followers, all Christians follow Christ

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are all Christians also pedantic?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            I don't know what's that mean

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Saul is a israeli name and Paul is a Roman name. He changed his name from Saul to Paul because he wanted to be a gentile.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            It would make sense for the prophet Paul to use his Roman name as he traveled farther and farther into the Gentile world.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Hindus see their gods in visions. Does that prove Hinduism is true? If not, why not?

      • 6 months ago
        JWanon

        You answered your own question. Hindus see Hindu gods.

        Paul saw Jesus even though he was not a Christian, and he converted and completely changed. Only Christianity can change people's hearts like this, and we have examples today.

        Like this former Albanian mobster who became a JW

        https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/experiences/bible-changes-lives/crime-and-love-of-money-brought-pain/

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Only Christianity can change people's hearts like this,
          There are stories of atheists who became Catholic after a conversion experience. I doubt you consider Catholics Christian so you must be wrong.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            An apparition being authentic does not mean it is a message from God or a genuine appearance of Mary, an angel, or a saint. Scripture declares that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Satanic deception is just as possible an explanation for the apparitions.

            That's why Paul stayed two weeks with Peter to assert whether the vision truly was from Jesus. Moreover, his miracles prove his apostleship to be true.

            You recognize true Christians by their fruits. Paul preached to believe in Jehovah, have faith in Jesus' sacrifice and treat others with love.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            OK but you said only Christianity could change peoples hearts. Period.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Yes. No other religion can do that

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            But the atheist was changed into a Catholic. Catholics and atheists believe completely different things.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Catholics and atheists are the same, their hearts are not changed

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It seems to me you are making an argument using a meaning of a phrase that already assumes your view is correct, which makes your argument fallacious.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            I assume it's correct because it is

            >One believes in God
            >The other doesn't.

            moronic israelite as usual.

            Catholics don't believe in God. They believe in a trinitarian idol

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They believe in a trinitarian idol
            So the atheist and the Catholic still don't believe the same things, the point still stand.

            Thus, you're moronic.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            They both don't believe in God, they are the same

            Also you are changing the subject

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why did God allow Trinitarianism to triumph in the world?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Jesus said his true followers would be a minority

            Neither atheists or JW's believe in the trinity, they are the same.

            We're not the same because we believe in God

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            That doesn't answer my question.
            Why?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Free will

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What free will did all of those people throughout history who lived and died not knowing anything but the Trinity have?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            I don't understand your question

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Millions of people throughout history lived their entire lives believing in the Trinity, a heresy that God allowed to spread and prosper, according to you, they never even had a chance to know the truth, how is that fair?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            They will know the truth at the resurrection

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            What's the point of you proselityzing then?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            The end will come once everyone has heard the message. Those who accepted it will be saved, and those who don't will be destroyed at Armageddon

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            So why don't just let people live secure in ignorance and just let them know the truth in the resurrection?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            They can already know the truth right now. There are millions of people today who have put their faith in Jehovah, there is no reason why others cannot do the same. They have no excuse.

            Armageddon will purge those who rejected our preaching.

            Also, just because the ignorant will be resurrected doesn't mean they will be saved.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They can already know the truth right now.
            But it's better to let them know the truth at the end, otherwise you're putting people's souls at risk by giving them a chance to reject the truth now.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >But it's better to let them know the truth at the end,

            Why ?

            >otherwise you're putting people's souls at risk by giving them a chance to reject the truth now.

            The End will come once everyone has heard our message. It will happen no matter what

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is really hectic. So many denominations and religions say that I'll be punished for eternity if I don't convert, why should I put my faith in Jehovah's Witnesses?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            You are welcome to study with JWs and decide for yourself whether or not it's the truth

            >”I hate Christians!”
            >Start israeliteng on Jesus teaching
            >Preach Jesus claims to be the god himself
            >Make israelites mad

            This is biggest israelitery on earth

            Paul never said Jesus is God

            Why did you lie ?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Seems you have a lot in common to me. I mean since you set a precedent that two groups can be compared based on what they don't believe in.
            Hey, neither JW's or atheists think the pope's claims to authority are legitimate. No wonder you hang out on Oyish.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus said his true followers would be a minority
            Not really. He said they would be persecuted, not necesarrily a minority, but that like him, they would triumph over the world.

            Got a question for you, can you open your new world translation Bible to Isaiah 48?

            What does that say? Who's the First and the Last? What does it mean to be the First and the Last?

            Now open it to Revelations 1:17-18...can you tell me what that says?

            btw there is no "a" article in the koine greek, it's "ho" John 1:1-3 Interlinear Bible which is the Greek transcripts

            John 1:1: Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos"

            Ho means "the"

            John 1:3

            [...]

            And again, I'm not cherrypicking verses. I'm asking of all things came into being when created by Jehovah (for the sake of argument, let's let Jehovah take credit that he created through Christ)...if Jehovah created all things and not one thing came into being, and Jehovah has always been, then he can't be a thing, as he is a Being.

            The guy who uses a bible made by a guy who didn't know hebrew or latin. Dude uses the writings of a scam artist.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Jesus did say that his true followers would be a minority

            “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7: 13-14)

            This picture is from the slanderous tract "Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled "Pastor" Charles T. Russell" that that Ross published, and it has been proven to be defamatory.

            The “perjury” charge was not made in court, but in a tract written later by an irresponsible slanderer against whom Brother Russell had brought a libel case. The official record of the case in question (Police Court of the City of Hamilton, Ontario, March 17, 1913) says:

            “Q. You don’t profess, then, to be schooled in the Latin language?
            A. No, sir.
            Q. Or in Greek?
            A. No, sir.”

            After this he was asked if he knew individual Greek letters, and it was over this that the question of his knowledge of Greek arose. This false “perjury” claim has been repeated by many who never went to this Canadian city to check this old court record to see if they are spreading truth or a lie.

            Not only has the question they “quote” been reworded, but Brother Russell had specifically said that he did not know Greek.

            With such lies and perverted facts the critics condemn themselves. They would not like to be classed with the ultramodernists who accuse Jesus of being illegitimate, but they stoop equally low regarding other men whose lives were spent unselfishly in God’s service.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            But one other point can be made here. It is interesting to note how the earliest Church Fathers who commented onJohn 1:1interpreted it. This is especially noteworthy, since the earliest Church Fathers wrote in Greek. Therefore, their views on how it should be translated may reflect not only what the early Church thought of Jesus, but how the original readers of John understood his statement in the original Greek.[19]

            Irenaeus wrote around AD 185 and mentionsJohn 1:1five times.[20]In one reference he comments,“‘and the Word was God,’ of course, for that which is begotten of God is God.”[21]Irenaeus understood Jesus as more than“a god”or a divine being of a sort. He referred to Jesus as God.

            Origen is another Church Father who wrote in Greek around AD 200. In a reference regardingJohn 1:1he comments,“John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition to be the Word, ‘And God was the Word, and this was in the beginning with God.’ Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a Father, and had generated the Word ...”[22]Origen understood John to be saying that the Word was God and without a beginning. Elsewhere he refers to Jesus as“God the Word”a total of 18 times![23]

            Clement of Alexandria wrote in Greek around AD 200 as well. He alludes toJohn 1:1and Jesus as God when he says,“For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him– God the Word – who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us – “the Lamb of God” – Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.”[24]Thus, Clement also interprets John as referring to Jesus as God inJohn 1:1. Therefore, all of the earliest Church Fathers who comment onJohn 1:1interpret John as claiming it.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Why do you refuse to tell me how do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Because you already said it in Greek, and i agreed, because the 3rd clause literally said "the", weirdo. Calm down, stop being emotional.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Wait, so you are saying that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek is = "Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos" ?

            Is that what you are saying ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Dumbass, "ho" means "the"

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek is = "Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos"

            Yes or no ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            SayChristIsLord

            Yes, but learn case words please

            You can see near the end of John 1.1 that we have theos without an article, and logos throughout with the article. The reason is that, in any phrase where the main verb is ‘to be’, there will not be a subject and an object (as in ‘I pat my dog’ where ‘I’ am the subject and ‘my dog’ is the object of the action), but only subjects in ‘apposition’, that is, agreeing with one another. So when I say ‘My pet is a dog’ both ‘pet’ and ‘dog’ are subjects, and in Greek would be in the nominative case.

            The question is: how can I tell the difference in Greek between the sentences ‘My pet is a dog’ and ‘My dog is a pet’ which have quite different senses. (The first is telling you which animal I have as a pet, the second is telling what kind of relationship my dog has to me.) In English, we do it by word order, but you cannot do this in Greek since, as an inflected language (ie one with different cases), it is flexible in word order. And you cannot do it by the usual trick of different cases, since both are in the nominative as subjects of the verb ‘to be’.

            So Greek does it by making the word in apposition (the ‘dog’ in the first example) anarthrous, that is, without the definite article. In other words, theos en ho logos means ‘the word was God’, which tells us something about the nature of the word

            As this sounds rather technical, I always find it more fruitful to read with Jehovah’s Witness Romans 10.13, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ The Greek here uses the word kurios; in the Greek Old Testament that Paul is citing here, this refers to Yahweh, the god of Israel. But Paul here clearly means ‘The Lord Jesus.’ The NWT appears to be embarrassed by this, and substitutes the word ‘Jehovah’. But it is very clear that in doing so the NWT is changing the text of Scripture.

            Something similar happens in 1 Cor 10.9, where the word Christos in Greek is also substituted in the NWT by ‘Jehovah’.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >Yes

            Ok thanks !

            So JWs translated John 1:1 correctly.

            Why did you waste mine and yours time ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Again, your false prophet didn't understand Greek, and we have church fathers who were fluent/native in Greek not even 100 years after the death of christ clarifying this, one being in 185 AD...people who knew John passed this down to other saints not long after him, and even during his life.

            Even Greek scholar not in your cult, have said it doesn't mean there should be an "a". There's quite an issue that you guys believe the opposite of what the academic linguists say, you're reading it wrong

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            I ask you, friend! Are you scared to change your mind knowing you will be shunned as an outcast, by everyone you know? Come to the House of the Living God, who became flesh, we don't practice shunning for theological debates, nor would we shun you for even apostatizing and leaving the faith.

            I fear that you are scared to leave this cult, because you know they'll leave you isolated.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            If the Bible is so perfect, why are you two guys arguing about the fundamental basics of what it says?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Because readers are not perfect.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            >Yes

            Ok thanks !

            So JWs translated John 1:1 correctly.

            Why did you waste mine and yours time ?

            No you didn't translate correctly

            In John 1:1 there is no definite article in front of the word ‘God’ in the phrase, ‘and the Word was God’. However, in this instance, it cannot just be assumed that the word ‘God’ is meant to be ‘indefinite’, and therefore an indefinite article used in the English translation. Because the first use of the word ‘God’ in John 1:1 (‘the Word was with God’) clearly refers to the Only True God, the Eternal Pre-existent Creator, more than likely John would have used a different Greek construction than he did if he had meant for this next phrase (‘and the Word was God’) to refer to a ‘lesser’ god, and did not want us to confuse this with the True God he had just mentioned. If John meant to avoid confusion, when making such a definitive statement, he could have done so by using this ‘indefinite pronoun’ (‘tis’) as an adjective. This would have made it clear that the Word was ‘a certain god’, but not the one he was just referring to. For examples of this, see the verses Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1 (among many, many other examples). So, it seems that by the Greek grammatical structure in this statement, John is indicating that the Word (Jesus Christ - John 1:14) is the same essence and nature as God the Father.
            (For a more thorough explanation of the function and use of the Greek article (and meaning of its absence), see ‘Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics’, by Daniel Wallace. He includes fifty pages - entitled ‘The Article, Part I’ - which is a more complete treatment of the subject that many grammar books present and explains all the general uses of the article. He actually has a ‘Part II’ which discusses some special issues with the article. Fifteen pages of this second section apply directly to understanding this passage in John 1:1. It is highly recommended for those who really desire an honest and thorough understanding of this passage.)

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Bro,

            He couldn't read Greek.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            How is that relevant ? He never translated a Bible, he was just a Christian publishing magazines.

            The NWT was made in the 1950s, Russell died in 1916.

            And I asked: How do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            I don't know if you're a believer, friend, but I'm happy regardless since you equally think this guy is in a Mormony Cult.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            I'm in a cult because I follow the Bible ?

            When it's trinitarians who, throughout history, burned and hanged people simply for translating the Bible or for being epileptic ?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Neither atheists or JW's believe in the trinity, they are the same.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >One believes in God
            >The other doesn't.

            moronic israelite as usual.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          So if someone saw a Hindu god and converted that would prove Hinduism is true? If not, why not?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            The only way to determine whether an apparition is a "lying wonder" or a genuine message from God is to compare the message of the apparition with Scripture.

            If the teachings that are attached to these apparitions are contrary to the Word of God, the apparitions themselves are then satanic in nature.

            A study of the teachings of Our Lady Fatima with the "Miracle of the Sun" is a good example.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The only way to determine whether an apparition is a "lying wonder" or a genuine message from God is to compare the message of the apparition with Scripture.
            Is that not circular reasoning?

        • 6 months ago
          SayChristIsLord

          Got a question for you, can you open your new world translation Bible to Isaiah 48?

          What does that say? Who's the First and the Last? What does it mean to be the First and the Last?

          Now open it to Revelations 1:17-18...can you tell me what that says?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Deuteronomy 6:4-15.

            All your proving is that the Bible is contradictory, and that Jesus if he really claimed to be God was a heretic. No wondered the israelites almost stoned him.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            I'm talking to the JW, take a ticket and wait your turn

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            You're the anon who blasphemed yesterday on /misc/

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Blasphemy...

            What does Matthew 12:31-32 say about the Holy Spirit?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            That blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven. Which is why I suggest you cease insulting the Father by suggesting he has equals.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >the Bible is contradictory

            No it's not

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah it is. Thats why the New and Old Testaments are so different from one another. Thats why Jesus doesnt actually fulfill the criteria for the Messiah.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >the New and Old Testaments are so different from one another

            They are one complete book.

            >Jesus doesnt actually fulfill the criteria for the Messiah.

            He does

            [...]
            But why is the Lamb and Jehovah being worshipped as equals?

            Where ?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            He wasn't a king. He didn't bring about world peace. He didnt gather the israeli people from exile back to Israel.

            Why do you think so many israelites remained israelites and didnt follow him? Probably because they know what their own story says.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            The Bible applies the term “the first and the last” both to Jehovah God and to his Son, Jesus, but with different meanings.

            • At Isaiah 44:6, Jehovah says: “I am the first and I am the last. There is no God but me.” Here Jehovah highlights that he is the everlasting true God; besides him, there is no other. (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39) In this case, then, the expression “the first and the last” has the same meaning as “the Alpha and the Omega.”

            • As for the term “the First [pro’tos, not alpha] and the Last [e’skha·tos, not omega]” (Revelation 1:17, 18 and 2:8), in these verses, the context shows that the one referred to died and later returned to life. Thus, these verses cannot refer to God because he has never died. (Habakkuk 1:12)
            However, Jesus died and was resurrected. (Acts 3:13-15) He was the first human to be resurrected to immortal spirit life in heaven, where he now lives “forever and ever.” (Revelation 1:18; Colossians 1:18) Jesus is the one who performs all resurrections thereafter. (John 6:40, 44)
            Therefore, he was the last one to be resurrected directly by Jehovah. (Acts 10:40) In this sense, Jesus can properly be called “the First and the Last.”

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            I asked you what it said, and you being obtuse. Post what it says in your own bible.

            Okay, now go to Revelations 5:13? What does that say?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honory and the glory and the might forever and ever.”

            The Lamb (Jesus) is given honor by the angels and the anointed, as he is the anointed King of Heaven

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            But the lamb is a creature, right? It says ALL creatures. Not all OTHER creatures, right?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            That blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven. Which is why I suggest you cease insulting the Father by suggesting he has equals.

            But why is the Lamb and Jehovah being worshipped as equals?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            The Greek word pas (all) does not always necessarily mean every person, human or spirit, who is living, has ever lived in the past or will ever live in the future. Common sense must be applied.

            Take for example Luke 4:22 (ALL spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” they asked.) Does "all" involve the entire world?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            It does when it's a divine prophecy, are you telling me Jehovah gave him bad info? and Pas is not used in this verse. Much like the Greek word for other, is nowhere in the transcripts you claim are translated correctly in your bible

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Jesus is honored by every creature, that doesn't prevent him from being a creature. He is the most exalted of creatures.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Every creatures honored the Lamb, and the Lamb is also a creature. These are not contradictory.

            [...]
            The prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 describe a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but the israelites chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discuss His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

            How can EVERY creature honor the Lamb, if the Lamb is a creature?

            Turn to Isaiah 9:6, what does that say exactly? I will check if you are honest about what it says, to make sure we are working off what it actually says.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Well the Lamb can't honor itself.

            Likewise, when we say that God created everything we don't mean that he created himself.

            As for Isaiah 9:6 it says
            For a child has been born to us,
            A son has been given to us;
            And the rulership will rest on his shoulder.
            His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Who's Isaiah 9:6 talking about?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            It's a prophecy about the Messiah, so Jesus

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Have you noted "Mighty God, Eternal Father"?

            I thought Christ isn't God, how can Christ be the "Mighty God, Eternal Father"?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Jesus is a mighty god (el ghibbor). But he is not Almighty God (El Shaddai)

            As for the title "eternal father" it's because Jesus was executed as a sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins, becoming the "eternal father" to the human family.

            Btw, even you trinitarians are not supposed to confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. You do not say that the Son is the Father. You say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons.

            Hence, you can't use this verse to show that Jesus is God.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            >Jesus is a mighty god (el ghibbor). But he is not Almighty God (El Shaddai)

            Open your NWT Bible to Isaiah 10:20-21...what does that say?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Except God isn't a thing, things are created

            Your failure to translate correctly is pretty important, when you claim to be translating correctly...

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            A thing means something that exists in reality. God exists in reality.

            But God didn't create himself, he is naturally excluded from from his creation despite creating all things.

            Likewise, when all creatures in existence honor the Lamb, the Lamb is excluded from the hinir given to him because he cannot honor himself.

            But allow me to easily put on end to this argument by pointing out that Jesus constantly referred to Jehovah as "my God" (for example, Revelation 3:12)

            Do you believe that God Almighty can have a God above him ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            God is not a thing. Things are created. Things are created to exist in reality. God is not a thing. If Jehovah created ALL things, he can't be a thing.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            A thing means something that exists in reality. God exists in reality.

            But God didn't create himself, he is naturally excluded from from his creation despite creating all things.

            I have answered all of your questions but
            I can't help but notice that you have ignored all of mine

            Again, I ask you. Why are they calling Him less than he is?

            Is it proper to address the Lord as less than He is?

            Are you talking about Jesus or Jehovah ?

            The Son is indeed less than the Father, as the Father is greater than the Son.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.

            Here, Jehivah is called mighty god, which he is. Jesus is also a mighty god.

            But what differenciates Jesus from Jehivah is that, moreso than being a Mighty God, Jehovah is also the ALMIGHTY GOD.

            That is why Jesus could way that the Father is greater than him.

            Do you agree that none is greater than Jehovah ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Wrong, you just lied. I have your NWT Bible and that's not what it says, your own bible says "Mighty God", why are you lying to me? You're aware you are bearing false witness?

            If what you believe is true, you don't need to lie

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            So why are they disrespecting Jehovah by calling Him less than he is?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            You are elevating creatures to be God's equal. That is disrespecting the Almighty Creator.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Why are they worshiping the Lamb in the same way you'd worship God? It's not me it's the angels who seem to be worshipping Him as an equal next to God.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            In what verse are they worshiping the Lamb in the same way I'd worship God ?

            In what verse are the angels worshipping Him as an equal next to God ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Revelations 5:13-14

            And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth+and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne+and to the Lamb+be the blessing and the honor+and the glory and the might forever and ever.”+14The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.

            Worshipped who? And why is Jehovah and the Lamb being given the same exact honor? Angels are creatures in Heaven.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            At the very end, you have a general reference to worship.

            You will never find a reference in there to the Lamb being given the same kind of worship being given to the one seated on the throne back in Revelation 4:9-11.

            So let's no operate under a misunderstanding here.

            The Lamb is worthy to receive blessing, riches, glory and honor because he was slaughtered and bought persons for God out of every tribe, tongue, nation, people on earth.

            While God is worthy to receive worship because he created all things and because of his will they existed and were created. So there's nothing anywhere in here that suggests that the Lamb was ever given directly proskuneo. Not once. Not in that context.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Also, you never answered my question.

            Do you believe that God Almighty can have a God above himself ?

            Because Jesus does have a God above himself.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            You did not read my post correctly. I literally just said that Jehovah is called Mighty God.

            >In that day the remnant of Israel, the survivors of Jacob, will no longer rely on him who struck them down but will truly rely on JEHOVAH, the Holy One of Israel. A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God.

            What I pointed out was that, in addition to being a Mighty God, Jehovah is also ALMIGHTY GOD (El Shaddai), while Jesus is not.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Again, I ask you. Why are they calling Him less than he is?

            Is it proper to address the Lord as less than He is?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            The Lamb can't honor itself because it isn't a creature, you're avoiding the fact you were wrong about "Pas" proving you don't actually know the Greek, let alone your elders who you got that interpretation from.

            Praise be to Kyrios Theos, may the Holy Spirit reveal to you truth, I'd love to continue with you, because I want to see you in Heaven. May Satan's tricks be dispensed from this future servant, if the Lord wills.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            You are not being logical. Since the Lamb cannot honor itself, then there is no problem with John using the word "Pan" to refer to all other creatures that honor him.

            It's like when we say that God created EVERYTHING we don't mean that he created himself.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            >the New and Old Testaments are so different from one another

            They are one complete book.

            >Jesus doesnt actually fulfill the criteria for the Messiah.

            He does

            [...]
            Where ?

            For example, "Pan" was used not "Pas".

            What does "Pan" mean?

            Pan-, aprefixmeaning "all", "of everything", or "involving all members" of a group.

            Do your elders know you are contradicting the Greek texts?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Every creatures honored the Lamb, and the Lamb is also a creature. These are not contradictory.

            He wasn't a king. He didn't bring about world peace. He didnt gather the israeli people from exile back to Israel.

            Why do you think so many israelites remained israelites and didnt follow him? Probably because they know what their own story says.

            The prophecies in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 describe a suffering Messiah who would be persecuted and killed, but the israelites chose to focus instead on those prophecies that discuss His glorious victories, not His crucifixion.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like he had some sort of stroke and being mentally ill lol.

      • 6 months ago
        JWanon

        The mentally ill say incoherent things

        Paul was logical throughout his ministry

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Replying to JWgay
    > you’re Ngmi

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paul said resurrected bodies will "lose their stomachs" because there will be no need for food in an eternal state. First thing the resurrected Jesus did was wander around asking for food, lmao.

    • 6 months ago
      JWanon

      Paul wa stalking about the anointed who will go to heaven. They will have spritual bodies and thus will not need to eat.

      The resurrected Jesus didn't need to eat either since he was a spirit. But he materialized his body (just like the demons did in Genesis to have sex with women), and he ate to prove to his disciples that he wasn't an apparition.

      Before slandering the Saints, please inform yourself.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he materialized his body
        A resurrected body doesn't stop being material. According to church fathers such as Athenagoras, the soul merely lies dormant in a bod until resurrection. If Jesus Christ (Yeshua the Anointed) was meant to serve as an example of a resurrection, he didn't do a very good job of it by eating and then also showing his wounds to Thomas, both of these defy the understanding of a resurrected body. It's strange that Paul wrote that in 1 Corinthians before the gospels were written which have Jesus defying the concept of what a resurrection was supposed to be like.

        • 6 months ago
          JWanon

          Not all resurrected bodies are material. Jesus was reurected with a spiritual body. Anointed Christians will also be resurrected with spiritual bodies.

          Those who will live on earth will be resurrected with a material body.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Incoherent and no such distinction is made between the resurrected by Jesus nor Paul.

            >Paul wrote that in 1 Corinthians before the gospels were written

            The Gospel of Matthew was written before 1 Corinthians

            False, Mark is the earliest of the 4 gospels and doesn't even go past the discovery of the empty tomb.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no such distinction is made between the resurrected by Jesus nor Paul.

            You're supposed to read the entire Bible, not cherrypick verses.

            >Mark is the earliest

            No, Mark (60 AD) is the 3rd Gospel. It was written after Matthew (41 AD) and Luke (56 AD).

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mark was probably written circa 70 CE, around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Earliest Matthew manuscript dates from late 2nd or early 3rd century. It's also pretty evident from the text that the others expand on Mark.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            No, they don't expand on Mark since Mark is the 3rd Gospel.

            Matthew and Luke were the first.

            Galatians 3:28 shows an upending of the ethnocentrism of the old testament also hence that image of the fish and anchor which has pagan gentile origins and was adopted by early Christians. Paul's whole mission was making the case for a covenant including gentiles with no need for the whole Mosaic law.

            God gave his Law specifically to the ancient nation of Israel. (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3; Psalm 147:19, 20)

            The Mosaic Law is not binding on Christians, and even israeli Christians were “released from the Law.” (Romans 7:6)

            The Mosaic Law was replaced by “the law of the Christ,” which includes all that Jesus instructed his followers to do.—Galatians 6:2; Matthew 28:19, 20.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            t. zero proof
            Meanwhile literally the earliest of any gospel manuscripts are of Mark. Also, why would Mark stop at the discovery of the empty tomb while all the others go past that if Mark were not the first?
            >The Mosaic Law was replaced by “the law of the Christ,”
            Doesn't even contradict me. Point is there is no scriptural basis for le only 144,000 elect in heaven and no one else gets heaven. Revelations says they will be on Mount Zion, not heaven, and they are described as virgins who follow the Lamb and are "firstfruits" and will be composed of those from each tribe of Israel so unless JWs can prove all that criteria you're fricked in your own eschatology, lmao.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >Meanwhile literally the earliest of any gospel manuscripts are of Mark.

            The earliest Gospel manuscript is from John.
            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

            >Also, why would Mark stop at the discovery of the empty tomb

            It's intentionally open-ended

            >Point is there is no scriptural basis for le only 144,000 elect in heaven

            God selects a limited number of faithful Christians who, after their death, will be resurrected to life in heaven. (1 Peter 1:3, 4)

            They will serve alongside Jesus as KINGS and PRIESTS for 1,000 years. (Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) They will form the “new heavens,” that will rule over the “new earth"

            The Bible indicates that 144,000 people will be resurrected to heavenly life. (Revelation 7:4)

            God promises everlasting life on EARTH for MOST good people.—Psalm 37:11, 29, 34.

            Jesus said: “No man has ascended into heaven.” (John 3:13) He thus showed that good people who died before him, such as Abraham, Moses, Job, and David, did not go to heaven. (Acts 2:29, 34) Instead, they had the hope of being resurrected to life on earth.—Job 14:13-15.

            The resurrection to heavenly life is called “the first resurrection.” (Revelation 20:6) This indicates that there will be another resurrection. It will be an EARTHLY one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
            Revelation 7:4
            >tribes of isreal

            Sorry, it looks like only israelites are getting into heaven.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Israel isn't limited to ethnic israelites. Old and New Testament both make it clear.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            While that is true, the 12 tribes of Israel has a very distinct meaning separate from Isreal itself. It refers to the 12 tribes that God gave the promised land of Isreal to on the Old Testament.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Most of tribes were scattered into the nations. Bringing them back God brings nations in as well.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, Christians will be made one flock along with the 12 tribes, but they they are called and made so by Jesus, not the tribes. The Isrealites being scattered doesn't matter because seeking out gentiles to convert is do to the Great Commission, not from the tribes being scattered. Furthermore, it does not say those brought or gathered by the 12 tribes, it says the 12 tribes. "12 tribes" refer to distinct groups that require blood relation. For gentiles to fall into that category, they would have to be explicitly made part of a specific tribe.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >"12 tribes" refer to distinct groups that require blood relation
            Not in case of Israel, where kinship is replaced by the covenant. The same one that we have with Christ.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It sounds like a stretch to say 12 tribes goes from meaning 12 individual groups to being a catch-all term without some other proof to back it up. And I'm not taking it based off inference alone, like the apostles being appointed to judge the 12 tribes. JWs would have more of a leg to stand on it if said the "tribes of Israel" rather than the "12 tribes of Israel."

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not a JW.
            >12 individual groups to being a catch-all term
            They aren't 12 individual groups. They are one nation defined by a covenant broken up into 12 sections. And Christians are part of that nation. If it had only mentioned "tribes of Israel" one could take it as in that the survivors among Judah and Levi tribes will be the chosen one. But it says 12 precisely to point out that the entire nation - that all people of the covenant - are included.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sounds like a stretch to me.

            Those "12 sections" are to one of the tribes who are descended from Joseph's brothers. Furthermore, it says in Ezekiel 47:22 that foreigners are to be counted as children of Israel and given an allotment "among the tribes of Israel." The foreigners are grouped alongside the tribes of Israel, but they are not one of these tribes. Plus it just talks about the tribes of Israel, and not the 12 tribes. Thus, if it said "tribes of Israel," it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude foreigners are included. But since it is mentioning 12 tribes, that denotes specifically the descendants of Joseph's brothers.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Those "12 sections" are to one of the tribes who are descended from Joseph's brothers
            >since it is mentioning 12 tribes, that denotes specifically the descendants of Joseph's brothers.
            The same tribes that accepted volumes of people completely unrelated to Joseph or Jacob in any way besides the covenant. Sorry, there can be no biological kinship case be made for any single tribe since Exodus or Joshua.

            >[foreigners are] not one of these tribes
            Yeah, they are among the tribes. Not just among one.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            It just makes more sense for foreigners to be counted alongside them as children of Israel, but not as members of one of the tribes themselves.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Galatians 3:28 shows an upending of the ethnocentrism of the old testament also hence that image of the fish and anchor which has pagan gentile origins and was adopted by early Christians. Paul's whole mission was making the case for a covenant including gentiles with no need for the whole Mosaic law.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew was written in 41 AD? Are you sure? Sources point to 70 AD instead

        • 6 months ago
          JWanon

          >Paul wrote that in 1 Corinthians before the gospels were written

          The Gospel of Matthew was written before 1 Corinthians

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >”I hate Christians!”
    >Start israeliteng on Jesus teaching
    >Preach Jesus claims to be the god himself
    >Make israelites mad

    This is biggest israelitery on earth

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paul didn't exist, most of the bible was made in the 300's by Constantine

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Constantine was made up.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        He existed but it was actually just Augustus, 300+ years of history were made up by the jesuits to legittmate the catholic church

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you are blaspheming!
    >noooo you are blaspheming

  7. 6 months ago
    SayChristIsLord

    [...]

    But if God didn't create himself, and it was God that created ALL things, and only Christ according to you crested all other things, then Jehovah can't be a thing. If he created ALL OTHER things through Christ, and he didn't create himself, He is not a thing. Otherwise your Bible translation is wrong

    • 6 months ago
      JWanon

      A thing means something that exists in reality. God exists in reality.

      But God didn't create himself, he is naturally excluded from from his creation despite creating all things.

      We know that Jesus is created because Jesus is "The beginning of God's creation" (Revelation 3:14) God created his "only-begotten Son." (John 3:16)

      Thus indicating love, wisdom, father-son relationship, and at the same time highlighting "only-begotten", a most unique/one of a kind and well beloved only-begotten Son.

      Jesus is the "Firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15), thus he was born, being preeminent in rank.

      He was born, begotten, created: three words, in English or in Greek, that define finite/a coming into existence.

      No eternal past. All Scriptures show Jesus is a created being.

      • 6 months ago
        SayChristIsLord

        John 1:1-3

        In the beginning was the Word,+and the Word was with God,+and the Word was a god.+2This one was in the beginning with God.+3All things came into existence through him,+and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

        If Jehovah is a thing, when did he come into existence?

        • 6 months ago
          JWanon

          πάντα δἰ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
          (John 1:3)

          You use this verse to attempt to show that Jesus is on the creator side of the creator-creation divide.

          However there is a MIDDLE option which is excluded from the binary choice and that is that Jesus was created by God and everything else was created through Jesus/the Word. And that is exactly what the text says.

          You are not supposed to cherrypick verses, but to interpret each verse in light of each verse.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            I'm not using it to say that, you say that Christ is a created thing. Im saying if Jehovah created all things, including Christ, he cant be a thing. If not one thing can exist without Jehovah bringing it into existence, since Jehovah exists, he cant be a thing if things are all created.

            Calm down, you're being emotional.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            btw there is no "a" article in the koine greek, it's "ho" John 1:1-3 Interlinear Bible which is the Greek transcripts

            John 1:1: Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos"

            Ho means "the"

            John 1:3

            πάντα δἰ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν
            (John 1:3)

            You use this verse to attempt to show that Jesus is on the creator side of the creator-creation divide.

            However there is a MIDDLE option which is excluded from the binary choice and that is that Jesus was created by God and everything else was created through Jesus/the Word. And that is exactly what the text says.

            You are not supposed to cherrypick verses, but to interpret each verse in light of each verse.

            And again, I'm not cherrypicking verses. I'm asking of all things came into being when created by Jehovah (for the sake of argument, let's let Jehovah take credit that he created through Christ)...if Jehovah created all things and not one thing came into being, and Jehovah has always been, then he can't be a thing, as he is a Being.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            The use of the Greek preposition διά means “through” and in this context indicates agency. The Word was the agent God used to create all things.

            God is separate from his agent of course but God is the ultimate cause and so is the author of all things. Whereas the Word was the efficient cause, the one who did the actual work. So God created the Word and the Word fashioned all other things.

            btw there is no "a" article in the koine greek, it's "ho" John 1:1-3 Interlinear Bible which is the Greek transcripts

            John 1:1: Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos"

            Ho means "the"

            John 1:3

            [...]

            And again, I'm not cherrypicking verses. I'm asking of all things came into being when created by Jehovah (for the sake of argument, let's let Jehovah take credit that he created through Christ)...if Jehovah created all things and not one thing came into being, and Jehovah has always been, then he can't be a thing, as he is a Being.

            It says he's with God. So the distinction is made by John in terms of theos, not Father, Son and these personal terms.

            The text is very clear, the Word was with the God, so the Word is a distinct god. Not the same God.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Nowhere does it say it's a different God in the Greek, it doesn't say "a" God, it says "the God" indicating "One God".

            If the "Word was "the" (using a literal word meaning "the", nothing implied by omission) God", where are you getting this "a" from? Does "The A God" make sense, or does "A the God" make sense?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            And you didn't answer my question.

            Does your Bible carry a distinction between the Ha Theon and the Theos?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            John 1:1:
            Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos"

            Take a look at this. Kai theos en ho Logos. Why does the Greek say the word was "the" God. Where's the "a" prefix? Better yet, there seems to be no "a" prefix in koine greek, and that the language omitted its use, but specifically in John 1:1 they used the word "Ho" meaning "The". Where did you get this "a" that didn't exist?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Because the Greek koine says: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

            Literally, it makes a distinction between "THE GOD" (ha theon) and "god" (theos)

            So if a translator is honest, he will reproduce the distinction, which is what the NWT does by translating it "a god".

            Does your Bible carry a distinction between the Ha Theon and the Theos?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            The koine greek literally says Ho Theos

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Indeed! So if Ho Theos is THE GOD, then Theos isn't the same God. Hence roperly translated as "a god" to carry the same distinction made by John.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Wrong, if He is THE (ho) (The makes it mean "Emminent" and turning it into a Proper Noun) GOD, it means there is only one imminent proper noun God. If he is the imminent Proper Noun, capitalized God, it means he's a God above other gods?

            Greek scholars mostly agree that theos in John 1:1c is neither definite nor indefinite but qualitative, which means that John is telling us about an attribute or characteristic of the Word.[1] That may sound like it hurts the argument of orthodox Christians, but it actually strengthens the Christian position.

            We've already looked at how the Jehovah's Witnesses translate John 1:1 when theos is taken to be indefinite. They only thing they succeed in doing is introducing polytheism into the Bible, which is, of course, nonsensical. But there is no reason for orthodox Christians to argue for theos to be taken as a definite noun in 1:1c. We would end up with something like this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [that is, the Father], and the Word was God [that is, the Father]." John is not suggesting that the Word is identical with God the Father. That would be an ancient heresy called Modalism, which taught that there is only one God but there are not three distinct persons within God. Modalism holds that there is one God who sometimes acts in the role of the Father, other times acts in the role of the Son, and other times acts in the role of Spirit.

            Taking theos qualitatively, John is telling us that the Word is God in the same way that the Father is God. John's statement fits beautifully with the doctrine of the Trinity, because John is very subtly but very clearly describing the plurality of persons that exists within the one God. John is not telling us that the Word is identical with the Father, but he is telling us that the Word is God just as the Father is God. The Word is coeternal with the Father, but He is not the Father. He is coequal in divinity with the Father, but He is not the Father.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Your blog ( https://crpcliveoak.org/index.php/blog/and-the-word-was-a-god ) is wrong again.

            The article of theos is anarthrous, lacking a definite article, hence the verse refers to Jesus' pre-human existence as "a god" or a divine being as distinct from "the God".

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            The Masculine Noun, θεός (God, or god)
            CASE Singular Plural
            Nominative ὁ θεός (ho theos)
            [ 261 / 48 ] οἱ θεοὶ [5]
            (hoi theoi) [ 1 / 5 ]
            Accusative τὸν θεόν (ton theon)
            [ 112 / 35 ] [4] τοὺς θεούς [6]
            (tous theous) [ 0 / 2 ]
            Genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou)
            [ 501 / 190 ] τῶν θεῶν [7]
            (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
            Dative τῷ θεῷ (tō theō)
            [ 118 / 41 ] τοῖς θεοῖς [8]
            (tois theois) [ 0 / 1 ]
            Vocative θεέ (thee)
            [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46) N/A
            These give us a total of (309 + 147 + 691 + 159 + 8 + 2) = 1,316
            occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT.[4]

            Let’s take a quick look at all the plural forms for θεός (theos) in the NT before digging into John 1:1 and elsewhere: First, note that the plural forms, θεοὶ (theoi), θεούς (theous) and θεοῖς (theois) are never used of the one true God in the NT. In John 10:34, we find theoi ("gods") and in verse 35 theous ("gods"). But both of these occurrences are references to humans in the context, and it appears Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82:6 (81:6 in the LXX), which begins with the phrase, "ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε" (literally: "I said gods you are") where the word was figuratively applied to those acting as judges in Israel. Acts 7:40 contains the only other occurrence of theous in the NT, referring to idols ("gods") the people asked Aaron to make for them in Moses’ absence (see Exodus 32). We already dealt with hoi theoi (in Acts 14:11) in footnote 5. The last phrase of Acts 19:26, "that gods made with hands are no gods [theoi] at all. (NAU)" is another reference to idols by Paul. And 1 Corinthians 8:5 uses theoi twice: "so-called gods" and "many ‘gods’." Lastly, the only occurrence of the dative, masculine, plural form of theos in the NT is found in Galatians 4:8b, where Paul tells the Galatian Christians they were once enslaved to beings that "by nature are not gods" ("φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς; phusei mē ousin theois) and that they were acting as if they wanted to be enslaved again!

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            One particular usage of theos in the nominative, singular form shows how important the context of a passage can be: In Philippians 3:19, Paul actually uses ὁ θεός (ho theos) to speak of one’s hunger controlling them like a god: "whose god" (ὧν ὁ θεὸς; hōn ho theos) "is their appetite" (ἡ κοιλία; hē koilia). So here’s an example where theos even with the article is used only figuratively of the human appetite; calling it a god, and reminding us how important the context is rather than only a word form!
            Now looking at the Gospel of John, we find ὁ θεός (ho theos) 15 times in these 14 verses; all referring to the God of Israel: John 3:2, 16, 17, 33, 34; 4:24; 6:27; 8:42; 9:29, 31; 11:22; 13:31, 32(twice) and 20:28. And without the article only 3 times (in John 1:1, 18 and 8:54), so a total of 18 times for theos in John. And θεόν (theon) in: 1:1, 2, 18; 5:18; 8:41; 10:33; 11:22; 13:3; 14:1; 17:3; 20:17(twice) and 21:19, for a total of 13 occurrences.

            In the first two occurrences of "God" in the Gospel of John (1:1, 2) and in Jn 13:3, we find the phrase pros ton theon (πρὸς τὸν θεόν)[9] This speaks of the Word as being "with God" including the sense of facing towards Him (which we would assume is the person of the Father--or both the Father and the Spirit). In other verses, pros is often translated as "to" or "towards" as it is in John 13:3 ("going back to God" after having come from Him; "apo theou exElthen").

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Commenting on this, Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and religious philosopher, said:

            "If it says that in the beginning was the...Word, and that the Word was...WITH God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, p. 30.

            Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that the New World Translation rendering is correct and that “the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the verse.

            And BTW, it's not the onlj translation that aknowledge that.

            Consider the following, more accurate translations:

            1808: “and the word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.

            1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.

            1928: “and the Word was a divine being.” La Bible du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.

            1935: “and the Word was divine.” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.

            1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.

            1958: “and the Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.

            1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.

            1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.

            For some, upon seeing John 1:1 in the original Greek for the very first time, it is quite natural for them to wonder: "What is the difference between theon (θεόν) and theos (θεὸς)? Are these two different words with completely different meanings?" And they may have had someone pointing out the difference solely to try keeping them from learning the full truth, saying something like: ‘Obviously they have different meanings, you can see they are spelled differently’ (which certainly has some validity). But then they will likely try forcing us into the conclusion: "So the Word (in John 1:1) can not be of the same nature as the God that the Word was with!" Since few know Greek, that seems to make sense to some.

            But think about this simple sentence: "The catcher and I were doing some practice pitches, and I hit him with the ball." Although it’s obviously true that "him" is not the same word as "catcher," does that mean the "him" in the second phrase can not refer to "the catcher" in the first phrase? Of course not! And English grammar together with only the context of this sentence points directly to the opposite conclusion: That "him" and "the catcher" are highly likely the same person. The word him here is a pronoun and the direct object of the verb hit.

            Well, in Greek grammar, we’d say him was in the accusative case. And even though Greek does have pronouns (like 'he, she, it, him, her' etc.), there are also different ways to spell its nouns when they are the direct object or must be in the accusative case for some other reason. There are in fact many different ways to spell a Greek noun depending upon its grammatical case.

            So you're just going to copy paste without even reading what you're posting?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            However, John wanted to say something stronger about the Word, since he uses Clause B. Harner’s very next statement is cited by the Watchtower tract – yet not in its entirety and its commentary is deliberately misleading. According to the tract, “The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.’”

            Now here is what Harner actually said in the Journal. After stating that John wished to say something other than A and more than D and E, he continues, “Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos [emphasis mine].”[14] In other words, clauses B and C stress theos as the quality or character of the Word and indicate that the Word and God share the same nature! And this statement is omitted from the Watchtower tract, although it comes immediately after the statement they quote! Moreover, contrary to the tract, the Journal does not note that the Word “can be likened to a god.” Harner has clearly said in the statement immediately preceding that John wished to say something more than that! This is deception on the part of the Watchtower. They are deliberately misleading its followers and every reader of their tract.

            He continues that if theos in Clauses B and C was taken as definite instead of qualitative, then B and C would be the same as A and would be problematic as well given the context. Therefore, theos must be referring to the quality of the logos [Word].[15] But what is the quality John is wishing to emphasize?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            And btw it's θεόν, not θεὸς.

            Your pic shows the second θεὸς, I'm talking about the θεόν after the definite article.

            https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

            bruh

            Before looking at the Greek Grammar of John 1:1, it's important to see if the NWT is consistent with itself. When it comes to John 1:1, the JWs insist that a Greek word without an article (called "anarthrous") must be indefinite—that is, it must be translated with "a" or "an". But a quick scan of their translation of John 1 reveals that they do not follow their own translation principle in other places.

            The Greek word for god (theos) occurs eight times in John 1:1-18 and only has an article two of those times (1:1b and 1:2). According to the NWT "rule", the word "god" should be translated "a god" every time it occurs without an article. In blatant violation of their own rule, John 1:1c is the only time they translate the anarthrous theos indefinitely.

            1:1b (tov theov) -- "the Word was with God"

            1:1c (theos) -- "the Word was a god"

            1:2 (tov theov) -- "with God"

            1:6 (theou) -- "of God"

            1:12 (theou) -- "God's children" or "children of God"

            1:13 (theou) -- "but from God"

            1:18 (theov) -- "seen God"

            1:18 (theos) -- "the god"

            If that weren't enough, you can look at how "god" (theos) in used in the rest of the New Testament and find the same sort of translational tricks going on. The word theos occurs without an article 282 times in the Greek New Testament. Interestingly, there are only sixteen places where the NWT translates it as indefinite ("a god", "god", "gods", or "godly"). That means that they only followed their own rule 6% of the time.

            In other words, they dishonestly choose to apply their "rule" only when it helps their agenda. This is a sure sign of blind ideology, not an honest and humble quest for truth. By all appearance, they decided that Jesus can't be fully equal with God, and then made up a Bible translation to try to support their beliefs.

            That's not the argument I am making though. I never said that every time you have the word "theos" used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God.

            What I'm saying is there's a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It's not meaningless.

            There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference. When there's two persons there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant

            and do you know what ? That's the ONY TIME in the entire Bible that's ever done !

            THE ONLY TIME !

            So do you think it's significant ? (the answer is yes)

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >Nowhere does it say it's a different God in the Greek,

            It does. They are grammatically different.

            In the first occurrence, the word “God” is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence. Many scholars note that the absence of the definite article before the second the·osʹ is significant.

            For example, The Translator’s New Testament says regarding this absence of the article: “In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine.’” (The Translator’s New Testament, page 451.)

            Other scholars and Bible translations point to this same distinction.

            Scholar Jason David BeDuhn states that the absence of the definite article makes the two occurrences of “God” “as different as ‘a god’ is from ‘God’ in English.” He adds: “In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, pages 115, 122, and 123.

            >where are you getting this "a" from?

            Biblical Greek does not have indefinite articles.

            So are you saying that there should never be the article "a" in any translation of the NT?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            bruh

            Before looking at the Greek Grammar of John 1:1, it's important to see if the NWT is consistent with itself. When it comes to John 1:1, the JWs insist that a Greek word without an article (called "anarthrous") must be indefinite—that is, it must be translated with "a" or "an". But a quick scan of their translation of John 1 reveals that they do not follow their own translation principle in other places.

            The Greek word for god (theos) occurs eight times in John 1:1-18 and only has an article two of those times (1:1b and 1:2). According to the NWT "rule", the word "god" should be translated "a god" every time it occurs without an article. In blatant violation of their own rule, John 1:1c is the only time they translate the anarthrous theos indefinitely.

            1:1b (tov theov) -- "the Word was with God"

            1:1c (theos) -- "the Word was a god"

            1:2 (tov theov) -- "with God"

            1:6 (theou) -- "of God"

            1:12 (theou) -- "God's children" or "children of God"

            1:13 (theou) -- "but from God"

            1:18 (theov) -- "seen God"

            1:18 (theos) -- "the god"

            If that weren't enough, you can look at how "god" (theos) in used in the rest of the New Testament and find the same sort of translational tricks going on. The word theos occurs without an article 282 times in the Greek New Testament. Interestingly, there are only sixteen places where the NWT translates it as indefinite ("a god", "god", "gods", or "godly"). That means that they only followed their own rule 6% of the time.

            In other words, they dishonestly choose to apply their "rule" only when it helps their agenda. This is a sure sign of blind ideology, not an honest and humble quest for truth. By all appearance, they decided that Jesus can't be fully equal with God, and then made up a Bible translation to try to support their beliefs.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            And lol, you just copy pasted from that blog:

            https://crpcliveoak.org/index.php/blog/and-the-word-was-a-god

            That's why you're arguing against something I never even said.

            For shame. For shame.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Which you literally have been doing off the JW page,

            And btw it's θεόν, not θεὸς.

            Your pic shows the second θεὸς, I'm talking about the θεόν after the definite article.

            https://biblehub.com/text/john/1-1.htm

            [...]
            That's not the argument I am making though. I never said that every time you have the word "theos" used without the article or with the article it has to be a god or God.

            What I'm saying is there's a distinction made by John through the use of the article and that is a big distinction. It's not meaningless.

            There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference. When there's two persons there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant

            and do you know what ? That's the ONY TIME in the entire Bible that's ever done !

            THE ONLY TIME !

            So do you think it's significant ? (the answer is yes)

            >There's a difference when you're trying to make a difference. When there's two persons there, two beings, and one of them is ha theos and the other one is theos, that's significant
            >
            >and do you know what ? That's the ONY TIME in the entire Bible that's ever done !

            In John 1:1b, the Greek word theon (θεόν) is simply the accusative form (a different grammatical spelling) of the noun God. Why? Because in Greek, the preposition pros (πρὸς) requires its object(s) to be in the accusative case for it to have the meaning of "with" (as in being with someone). Various prepositions in Greek have different meanings depending upon which case the words following them are in. For example, if God here in John 1:1b had been in the genitive case, then pros (πρὸς) could have meant the Word was for or necessary for God, but not necessarily with God. The following paragraphs and the table will provide you with all the different word forms of the noun God in the New Testament, along with some notes on selected passages:

            The exact spelling of the nominative, singular form of the Greek word for God is: θεός (theos), and this exact form is used 309 times in 287 verses of the NT;[1] 261 of those occurrences (in 243 verses) have the article[2] immediately preceding it: ὁ θεός (ho theos).[*] θεόν (theon); the accusative, singular form for God, is used 148 times (in 142 verses), and with the article: τὸν θεόν (ton theon), 112 times (in 111 verses).

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Nope. John could have written kai ho theos ên ho logos ("and the Word was the God") if claiming that Jesus being the same as God was his intended meaning.

            The Masculine Noun, θεός (God, or god)
            CASE Singular Plural
            Nominative ὁ θεός (ho theos)
            [ 261 / 48 ] οἱ θεοὶ [5]
            (hoi theoi) [ 1 / 5 ]
            Accusative τὸν θεόν (ton theon)
            [ 112 / 35 ] [4] τοὺς θεούς [6]
            (tous theous) [ 0 / 2 ]
            Genitive τοῦ θεοῦ (tou theou)
            [ 501 / 190 ] τῶν θεῶν [7]
            (tōn theōn) [ 0 / 0 ]
            Dative τῷ θεῷ (tō theō)
            [ 118 / 41 ] τοῖς θεοῖς [8]
            (tois theois) [ 0 / 1 ]
            Vocative θεέ (thee)
            [ 2 ] (both in Mt. 27:46) N/A
            These give us a total of (309 + 147 + 691 + 159 + 8 + 2) = 1,316
            occurrences for the masculine Greek forms of theos in the NT.[4]

            Let’s take a quick look at all the plural forms for θεός (theos) in the NT before digging into John 1:1 and elsewhere: First, note that the plural forms, θεοὶ (theoi), θεούς (theous) and θεοῖς (theois) are never used of the one true God in the NT. In John 10:34, we find theoi ("gods") and in verse 35 theous ("gods"). But both of these occurrences are references to humans in the context, and it appears Jesus was quoting from Psalm 82:6 (81:6 in the LXX), which begins with the phrase, "ἐγὼ εἶπα θεοί ἐστε" (literally: "I said gods you are") where the word was figuratively applied to those acting as judges in Israel. Acts 7:40 contains the only other occurrence of theous in the NT, referring to idols ("gods") the people asked Aaron to make for them in Moses’ absence (see Exodus 32). We already dealt with hoi theoi (in Acts 14:11) in footnote 5. The last phrase of Acts 19:26, "that gods made with hands are no gods [theoi] at all. (NAU)" is another reference to idols by Paul. And 1 Corinthians 8:5 uses theoi twice: "so-called gods" and "many ‘gods’." Lastly, the only occurrence of the dative, masculine, plural form of theos in the NT is found in Galatians 4:8b, where Paul tells the Galatian Christians they were once enslaved to beings that "by nature are not gods" ("φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς; phusei mē ousin theois) and that they were acting as if they wanted to be enslaved again!

            I fail to see the point your are trying to make.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            For some, upon seeing John 1:1 in the original Greek for the very first time, it is quite natural for them to wonder: "What is the difference between theon (θεόν) and theos (θεὸς)? Are these two different words with completely different meanings?" And they may have had someone pointing out the difference solely to try keeping them from learning the full truth, saying something like: ‘Obviously they have different meanings, you can see they are spelled differently’ (which certainly has some validity). But then they will likely try forcing us into the conclusion: "So the Word (in John 1:1) can not be of the same nature as the God that the Word was with!" Since few know Greek, that seems to make sense to some.

            But think about this simple sentence: "The catcher and I were doing some practice pitches, and I hit him with the ball." Although it’s obviously true that "him" is not the same word as "catcher," does that mean the "him" in the second phrase can not refer to "the catcher" in the first phrase? Of course not! And English grammar together with only the context of this sentence points directly to the opposite conclusion: That "him" and "the catcher" are highly likely the same person. The word him here is a pronoun and the direct object of the verb hit.

            Well, in Greek grammar, we’d say him was in the accusative case. And even though Greek does have pronouns (like 'he, she, it, him, her' etc.), there are also different ways to spell its nouns when they are the direct object or must be in the accusative case for some other reason. There are in fact many different ways to spell a Greek noun depending upon its grammatical case.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >you literally have been doing off the JW page,

            Where ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Every single thing you say about Greek comes from the JW Page. Every single one, it's where you get your arguments from.

            A. The Word was the God.
            B. God was the Word. (This is what John wrote.)
            C. The Word God was.
            D. The Word was God.
            E. The Word was divine. (A different word,theios, is used.)

            Harner states that if the wordtheos[God] had the article [as in Clause A above], then Clause A“would contradict the preceding clause of 1:1, in which John writes that the Word was with God[translated from Greek].”This is because the two words (ie.logos,theos) would be equivalent to the point that there would be no differentiation between the two as persons and John’s statement that“the Word was with God”certainly indicates that two persons are involved. So the Watchtower tract is correct when it says that“if the latter part ofJohn 1:1were interpreted to mean ‘the’ God, this ‘would then contradict the preceding clause,’ which says that the Word was with God.”

            Harner continues,“Clause D, with the verb preceding an anarthrous[without the article]predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind[as the Watchtower translates it]... Clause E would be an attenuated form of D[ie. carrying a lesser force than D]. ... John evidently wished to say something about the logos that was other than A and more than D and E.”[13]In other words, Harner says that John wanted to say something other than that God and Jesus were the same person and that the proper way to say that the Word was“a god”or“divine”would be to use Clause D or E.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            However, John wanted to say something stronger about the Word, since he uses Clause B. Harner’s very next statement is cited by the Watchtower tract – yet not in its entirety and its commentary is deliberately misleading. According to the tract, “The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.’”

            Now here is what Harner actually said in the Journal. After stating that John wished to say something other than A and more than D and E, he continues, “Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos [emphasis mine].”[14] In other words, clauses B and C stress theos as the quality or character of the Word and indicate that the Word and God share the same nature! And this statement is omitted from the Watchtower tract, although it comes immediately after the statement they quote! Moreover, contrary to the tract, the Journal does not note that the Word “can be likened to a god.” Harner has clearly said in the statement immediately preceding that John wished to say something more than that! This is deception on the part of the Watchtower. They are deliberately misleading its followers and every reader of their tract.

            He continues that if theos in Clauses B and C was taken as definite instead of qualitative, then B and C would be the same as A and would be problematic as well given the context. Therefore, theos must be referring to the quality of the logos [Word].[15] But what is the quality John is wishing to emphasize?

            Didn't read but let me ask you a question.

            John 1:1 reads:
            "Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos."

            Correct?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Yes but they are both proper nouns, in different grammatical structures. It doesn't mean they are different nouns. Like so, are Jehovah and Yawheh different? If not, it's because they are the same proper noun for the same object.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            [...]

            Didn't read but let me ask you a question.

            John 1:1 reads:
            "Ēn archē en ho Logos, Kai ho logos en pro ton Theon, Kai Theos ēn ho Logos."

            Correct?

            The Watchtower tract says, “So John 1:1 highlights the quality of the Word, that he was ‘divine,’ ‘godlike,’ ‘a god,’[16] but not Almighty God.” Remember that the very article they cite states that John did not mean to say that, but more; that the Word has the nature of God. So what does Harner claim is the quality John wished to emphasize? At the end of the article, he states, “These examples [ie. Clauses A-E] illustrate the difficulty of translating the clause accurately into English. This does not mean that the translators were not aware of the issue involved ... Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’ This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos [the Word], no less than ho theos [the God], had the nature of theos [God].”[17] The Word, no less than God, has the nature of deity. Deity is the quality John wishes to ascribe to the Word.

            So to sum up the article, Harner states that if John had wished to say that the Word was “a god” or “divine,” he had two ways, even a different word, by which he could have done so. But it is evident that he wished to say something even stronger about Jesus. He did not wish to say that Jesus and God are the same person, since he has already stated that they are two persons and there was a way in Greek for him to have done so if he had wished. What John does say is that Jesus and God share the same nature; that Jesus, no less than God, has the nature of deity. This is an extremely strong statement, since it rules out any interpretation that Jesus was merely acting in God’s place, but was not God Himself. Rather, Jesus was God in his very nature and essence. John’s words echo Paul’s in Colossians 2:9 discussed above when he says that in Jesus, “all the fulness [nothing excepted] of deity dwells.”

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            How do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            >Yes

            Ok, so who do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            For the "And the Word was a god", you certainly wouldn't put "Ho" before theos, as there are no indefinite articles so it'd be implied by the context of previous grammar structures. otherwise, it's translated as the God, and when translated to English, we capitalize words for Proper Nouns, so don't need "the".

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Let's try again

            How do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Again heretic-

            A. The Word was the God.
            B. God was the Word. (This is what John wrote.)
            C. The Word God was.
            D. The Word was God.
            E. The Word was divine. (A different word,theios, is used.)

            However, John wanted to say something stronger about the Word, since he uses Clause B. Harner’s very next statement is cited by the Watchtower tract – yet not in its entirety and its commentary is deliberately misleading. According to the tract, “The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god. It also says of John 1:1: ‘The qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun [theos] cannot be regarded as definite.’”

            Now here is what Harner actually said in the Journal. After stating that John wished to say something other than A and more than D and E, he continues, “Clauses B and C, with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos [emphasis mine].”[14] In other words, clauses B and C stress theos as the quality or character of the Word and indicate that the Word and God share the same nature! And this statement is omitted from the Watchtower tract, although it comes immediately after the statement they quote! Moreover, contrary to the tract, the Journal does not note that the Word “can be likened to a god.” Harner has clearly said in the statement immediately preceding that John wished to say something more than that! This is deception on the part of the Watchtower. They are deliberately misleading its followers and every reader of their tract.

            if they wanted to lowercase it, they wouldn't use ho

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Too bad, read it heretic. Lest you depart from God's light after death. I'm positive that Taze who couldn't read Greek properly translated it.

            I'm asking a simple question here

            How do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

            Write it in Greek with Latin characters like you did earlier.

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            So we observe that the Watchtower has taken a few statements out of context to justify their translation, “the Word was a god,” from an article which states that their translation is wrong, and that Jesus possesses the nature of God. It is also interesting to note that the tract states that “[t]here are many other Bible verses in which almost all translators in other languages consistently insert the article ‘a’ when translating Greek sentences with the same structure.” What they do not say is that such does not take into account a simple Greek rule found in just about any Greek Grammar: proper names, places, and certain words such as “God,” “Lord,” and “Holy Spirit” appear numerous times throughout the New Testament with and without the article with no apparent change of meaning and are, therefore, exempt from the very general rule of when to insert the indefinite article ‘a’ when translating Greek.[18] Such a gross lack of scholarship is not a reflection on the JWs who come to your door with a sincere heart and are good students of Watchtower interpretations. However, it reflects a dangerously deceptive and intellectually naïve leadership at the Watchtower that should neither be followed nor trusted.

            Now let’s observe how consistent the Watchtower is with this rule concerning “an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb” throughout its own translation, the New World Translation. In the New Testament there are exactly four occurrences where theos (God) appears as a singular predicate noun, without the article, before the verb (Luke 20:38; John 1:1; 8:54; Philippians 2:13). Remember, the Watchtower said that this grammatical structure merited the translation, “a god.” Yet, in every instance, the New World Translation has rendered theos as “God,” contrary to the committee’s rule, except one – John 1:1! In other words, they made a rule and then broke it every time except one occurrence when convenient.

          • 6 months ago
            JWanon

            Your spamming will not work

            How do you say "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god" in biblical greek ?

            Don't evade the question

          • 6 months ago
            SayChristIsLord

            Too bad, read it heretic. Lest you depart from God's light after death. I'm positive that Taze who couldn't read Greek properly translated it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >and the Word was a god
          I find it hilarious that JWs had to badly translate the Bible to make their theology work.

  8. 6 months ago
    SayChristIsLord

    Another common confusion in John 1:1 comes from the fact that in Greek there is nodefinite articlein front of the word ‘God’ (‘theos’) in the phrase ‘and the Word was God’. The confusion arises from an assumption that if there is no definite article in the Greek, then it must have an indefinite meaning and thus should be translated with the indefinite article "a". Based on this understanding, some argue that this phrase in John 1:1 should be translated "the word was a god," rather than "the word was God." It is important at this point to understand that the Greek language has a definite article (‘the’), but does not have an indefinite article (‘a’ or ‘an’). In certain instances, when the Greek omits a definite article, it may be appropriate to insert an indefinite article for the sake of the English translation and understanding. But we cannot assume that this is always appropriate. Greek does not operate in the same way as English does in regard to the use of the words ‘the’ and ‘a’. In many instances in which English would not include the word ‘the’, the Greek text includes it. (We don’t see it in the English translations because it would sound non-sensible in our language.) (SeeNote 1, below.) And in many cases where the Greek omits the definite article, the English translation requires it to convey the correct meaning of the Greek. (SeeNote 2, below.) Therefore it cannot be assumed that if the definite article is absent, then an indefinite article should be inserted. (For a clear illustration of this, seean example of the use of the word ‘God’ and the definite article in John chapter one.) Furthermore, even though the Greek language does not have an ‘indefinite article’ like we think of in English, there is a way in Greek for the writer to indicate the indefinite idea and thus avoid confusion. This is done in Greek by using the Greek indefinite pronoun ‘tis’.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Greatest story ever told

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Make a thread about someone potentially interesting
    >Don't bother giving a name
    Sounds like bait rather than trying to inspire curiosity.

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Many such cases.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christians care more about a book than Jesus

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I might become a partner in it
    Proof that it's ok to lie when proselytising

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *