In The Beggining

No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
The him has to be God and not the Word at John 1:3 because as has been explained the him and the life in the him can not be the same entity.
 
No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
The Word was God's spoken word correct? Because like at Psalm 33:9 it says for he spoke and it was done.
 
With, a preposition. 1. accompanied by (another person or thing). " a nice steak WITH a bottle of red wine." Or, "and the Word was with God." If your "with" someone you can't be that someone. This common sense according to the rules of grammar.

Moreover, look at John 1:2. "He was in the beginning with God." How can the Word be God the Father according to vs2? "He/God the Father was in the beginning with God, or God the Father was with Himself. You need to go back to grammar school (pun intended) and learn grammar.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Exactly you said it with your definition if you are with that someone you can not be that someone . Since the Word was with God the Word can not be that someone being talked about. Like you say that is common sense according to the rules of grammar. Do you have anything else that needs to be explained using a definition you can find?
 
No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james

No one caused the action for the Word to create and I can prove it. Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Sinc this is true (God created ALL ALONE and BY HIMSELF please tell me who the "Him" is at John 1:3? "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being."

IN GOD THE SON,
james
God spoke through his word and it was done. Who caused the action to create through his spoken word?
 
It should be noted that in the NWT “God” is capitalized, therefore translated as articular [carrying the definite article] even though being anathrous [lacking the definite article]. In the original language “God” is anathrous in John 1:6, 12, 13, and verse 18 but is translated “God” capitalized in the NWT. Within the New Testament “God” appears 282 times anarthrous, of which it translates the anarhrous as articular 266 times as "God" and the remaining 16 times as anarhrous translating theos as either god, a god, gods, and godly. There is no question that from the context fifteen of the sixteen anarhrous theos were correctly translated, only John 1:1c is questionable.
Obvious that the idea of theos lacking the definite article translates to 'god' vs carrying the article translates to 'God'.

In the 2 spots where the true God is mentioned along with another who has godlike qualities-John 1:1-2Cor4:4--the true God gets-HoTheos while the godlike ones got plain Theos. In the other passages all knew the true God was being spoken of thus got plain Theos--Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god. its why Hotheos was given to the true God in both those passages. Its 100% fact.
 
First born is position of inheritance, entire creation is pictured as the state to which the Son is primary heir. In ancient times firstborn was the son of the family who was in preeminent position regardless of birth order.

Ps. 89:20-27 . David is made for born, compare to 1 Sam 16:11-13 where we read that David is the youngest of Jesse's sons.

Gen 41:50-51. Joseph son Ephraim was born after Manaseh Joseph's firstborn. Compare to Jeremiah 31:9 where God makes Ephraim firstborn.

Firstborn = “prototokos” from root “protos” = first in time, first in rank, influence, honor, chief, principal, not first made. Jesus is supreme over all things, then all things belong to Him. If made, then, should be “firstborn of Jehovah”, or “creation’s firstborn”, not “firstborn of creation”.

If Jesus is supreme over all things--Then why did God have to appoint him to a kingship?( Dan 7:13-15) Why does he have to hand back the kingdom to his God and Father and subject himself?( 1Cor 15:24-28)--Why did all authority have to given to him? Fact--one superior could only give that authority--The Father is greater than i--You need to rethink.
 
Read Jamesh's post again. Who is the Lord your Redeemer Isaiah 44:24? Lord translates from YHWH.

Let's go to Isaiah 44:6 and we see 2/3 of the Trinity.
Since explicit trumps implicit, I submit the following. Below is Isaiah 44:6 were two individuals are identified as YHWH, = YHWH the King of Israel and YHWH the Lord of Host, both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.

Isaiah 44:6 “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, And His Redeemer, the Lord of host, :I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God. {NKJV}

In the original “Lord” is translated from YHWH therefore this verse reads. “Thus says YHWH, the King of Israel, and His Redeemer, YHWH, Lord of host, I am the First and I am the Last, Besides Me the is no God.

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,

כה thus אמר he said יהוה: Yahweh מלך king of ישׂראל : Israel


And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:

ו: and הוא his/him גאל redeemer יהוה : Yahweh of-- צבא hosts


‘I am the First and I am the Last;

אני I-- ראשׁון first-- ו: and-- אני I-- אחרון: last—


Besides Me there is no God

בלעדי: without-- אני me-- אין does not exist-- אלהים : God

God alone has the power, that is why it is said he did it alone. In that sense. LORD does not belong in the OT--YHWH belongs--YHWH said to my Lord( Jesus) proves Jesus is not YHWH.
 
Jesus is Gods master worker of Prov 8--He was the one beside God during the creation process. He gives all credit to God in Prov 8 because God is the only power source. He tells all he was created at Prov 8, which goes along with Coll 1:15--Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation. All creation occurred at the beginning. Trinity religions say its talking about him being born on earth-They are in error. Many errors are translated in to trinity translations to fit false council teachings held centuries ago by the religion that came out of Rome. Those religions have become-a house divided they will not stand. They fail this true mark 100%-1Cor 1:10--Unity of thought( all of Gods 1 truth) no division.
Wait a minute there son! The following is an explicit and clear statement that needs no "eisegesis/reading" into the text to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. To wit: "Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Please tell me why God need a master worker to help Him out with the creation process and to make matters worse for you there would be no need for this master worker to give any credit to God since God clearly stated He created "By Himself and All Alone."

And to make matter even worser again, you saying Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation would still make him a helper which again as I stated God did not use or need a helper. Now what are going to say? I also find it interesting that quoting Proverbs 8:22, a typical JW go to verse to prove Jesus was a created being. I'm sure you've told that the subject of Provers 8 is "wisdom." Who btw is identified as a "she."

You would have been better off making your "go to verse" Revelation 3:14. It favors your position better than Proverbs 8. However, even that verse I can dismantle with my eyes closed! Oh yea, and one more tidbit, this discussion has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm only interested in "who is Jesus Christ."

Maybe this will help!

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
Wait a minute there son! The following is an explicit and clear statement that needs no "eisegesis/reading" into the text to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. To wit: "Isaiah 44:24, "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb. I, the Lord, am the maker of all things. Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."

Please tell me why God need a master worker to help Him out with the creation process and to make matters worse for you there would be no need for this master worker to give any credit to God since God clearly stated He created "By Himself and All Alone."

And to make matter even worser again, you saying Jesus is the Firstborn of all creation would still make him a helper which again as I stated God did not use or need a helper. Now what are going to say? I also find it interesting that quoting Proverbs 8:22, a typical JW go to verse to prove Jesus was a created being. I'm sure you've told that the subject of Provers 8 is "wisdom." Who btw is identified as a "she."

You would have been better off making your "go to verse" Revelation 3:14. It favors your position better than Proverbs 8. However, even that verse I can dismantle with my eyes closed! Oh yea, and one more tidbit, this discussion has nothing to do with the trinity. I'm only interested in "who is Jesus Christ."

Maybe this will help!

IN GOD THE SON,
james

Best to ask God that. You will find the master speaking at Prov 8 giving all credit to God.
Jesus is Gods son, not God.
 
I refuted your definitions by showing who the subject is when the verb is in the active form at "subject in grammar" on Google.

The question was who was the Word with in the beginning? I did not say "was in the beginning" as I know it says "in the beginning was the Word". You need to slow down and see a question was being asked.
Is this not your post.
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
My response.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.

I don't see a problem
 
In the 2 spots where the true God is mentioned along with another who has godlike qualities-John 1:1-2Cor4:4--the true God gets-HoTheos while the godlike ones got plain Theos. In the other passages all knew the true God was being spoken of thus got plain Theos--Theos is the only word in Greek for either God or god. its why Hotheos was given to the true God in both those passages. Its 100% fact.

2 Co 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Sorry, in the original text it reads 'the god of this age." The 'godlike one' carries the definite article 'ho' .
If Jesus is supreme over all things--Then why did God have to appoint him to a kingship?( Dan 7:13-15) Why does he have to hand back the kingdom to his God and Father and subject himself?( 1Cor 15:24-28)--Why did all authority have to given to him? Fact--one superior could only give that authority--The Father is greater than i--You need to rethink.
Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

The topic is first born.
God alone has the power, that is why it is said he did it alone. In that sense. LORD does not belong in the OT--YHWH belongs--YHWH said to my Lord( Jesus) proves Jesus is not YHWH.
You skipped the point. You have two individuals identifying as YHWH both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.
 
Is this not your post.
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
My response.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.

I don't see a problem
You are skipping the question and since the life in the him is the Word(Jesus later) then how can both the him and the life in the him be the same entity who you are saying is the one who would be Jesus later?
 
Is this not your post.
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
My response.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.

I don't see a problem
t
Is this not your post.
No vs 4 does not refer to Jesus and that has been proven because here is only one Jesus and since people agree the life in the him was Jesus then the him can not be Jesus too.
My response.
Grammar 101,
If He in vs 2 and Him in vs 3 refers to Jesus then Him in vs 4 does also, unless a new subject is introduced.

I don't see a problem
It is me who does not see a problem on the use of the word "with". On Google type in "use of with in a sentence" and one like the girl with red hair and the subject is red hair that the girl had. The subject follows the word "with".
 
Best to ask God that. You will find the master speaking at Prov 8 giving all credit to God.
Jesus is Gods son, not God.
No, I'm asking you? Is this your way of "copping" out because your understanding of Proverbs 8:22 does not conform orthodox Biblical theology. Now, you said, "Jesus is Gods son, not God." Why have you not noticed that Jesus on numerous occasions referred to Himself as (1) The Son of God and (2) the Son of Man.

What this means is Jesus is the Son of God by nature which is deity because His Father is God. Jesus is the Son of Man on His mother's side because she is human. This is why Jesus has two natures. You can easily prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME NATURE AS ITS FATHER. In fact this is a universal law.

The trinity teaches states that there is one God who manifested Himself as three distinct persons. Just like you are human like your father and mother but you are distinct person from them. Same with God, three distinct persons who share the same nature. This is not hard to understand. Please think about this?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
2 Co 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Sorry, in the original text it reads 'the god of this age." The 'godlike one' carries the definite article 'ho' .

Red Herring: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

The topic is first born.

You skipped the point. You have two individuals identifying as YHWH both claiming to be First and Last and claiming singularity by addressing themselves as “Me”.
No your twisting of what is being said blinds you to fact--Jesus is the first and last created direct, First and last sent to earth as a ransom, first and last appointed to a kingship, first and last given all authority( by one superior to him) etc,etc.

Small g god never got Ho.
 
No, I'm asking you? Is this your way of "copping" out because your understanding of Proverbs 8:22 does not conform orthodox Biblical theology. Now, you said, "Jesus is Gods son, not God." Why have you not noticed that Jesus on numerous occasions referred to Himself as (1) The Son of God and (2) the Son of Man.

What this means is Jesus is the Son of God by nature which is deity because His Father is God. Jesus is the Son of Man on His mother's side because she is human. This is why Jesus has two natures. You can easily prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME NATURE AS ITS FATHER. In fact this is a universal law.

The trinity teaches states that there is one God who manifested Himself as three distinct persons. Just like you are human like your father and mother but you are distinct person from them. Same with God, three distinct persons who share the same nature. This is not hard to understand. Please think about this?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Jesus had a mortal mother. God always was and always will be. Even the Israelites knew 100% God was not the one coming but one who has a God like we do( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, Psalm 45:7) was sent.
 
No, I'm asking you? Is this your way of "copping" out because your understanding of Proverbs 8:22 does not conform orthodox Biblical theology. Now, you said, "Jesus is Gods son, not God." Why have you not noticed that Jesus on numerous occasions referred to Himself as (1) The Son of God and (2) the Son of Man.

What this means is Jesus is the Son of God by nature which is deity because His Father is God. Jesus is the Son of Man on His mother's side because she is human. This is why Jesus has two natures. You can easily prove me wrong by giving me an example of a son that DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME NATURE AS ITS FATHER. In fact this is a universal law.

The trinity teaches states that there is one God who manifested Himself as three distinct persons. Just like you are human like your father and mother but you are distinct person from them. Same with God, three distinct persons who share the same nature. This is not hard to understand. Please think about this?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
Who doubts they share they same nature as you describe? But there is a reason the article is not used when Jesus is called God.
 
Jesus had a mortal mother. God always was and always will be. Even the Israelites knew 100% God was not the one coming but one who has a God like we do( John 20:17, Rev 3:12, Psalm 45:7) was sent.
Correct, Jesus had a mortal mother which makes Him human, but Jesus also had an immortal Father, tell me what is His nature? Please tell me, how do you interpret Matthew 1:20-23

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
Who doubts they share they same nature as you describe? But there is a reason the article is not used when Jesus is called God.
You do! You already believe that God the Father is Almighty God and Jesus is just "a god" so how can they both have the same nature as you say? You should read Matthew 1:20-23 as well.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
You do! You already believe that God the Father is Almighty God and Jesus is just "a god" so how can they both have the same nature as you say? You should read Matthew 1:20-23 as well.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
We are human and we have the same nature correct? Thus they have the same kind of spiritual nature.
 
Back
Top