What's new

Trivia IF God is a trinity, then how is it that the Word (Jesus) was WITH God? (John 1:1)

Gentleman007

Elite
Joined
Sep 19, 2016
Posts
3,098
Reaction
5,479
John 1:1 says, "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God..."

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.

John 1:1 clearly phrases God as a separate person from the Word (Jesus). And since Jesus is written and identified in John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the Father), then that would positively exclude him as being God!

In agreement with this, the Journal of Biblical Literature, edited by Jesuit Joseph A. Fitzmyer, notes that if the latter part of John 1:1 were interpreted to mean "the" God, this "would then contradict the preceding clause," which says that the Word was with God. Yet John 1:1c is purposely mistranslated in most Trinitarian-produced Bibles without the indefinite article (a).
 

Pewdy

Elite
Pinalitan lang ng Jehova witnesses yang version nila ng new testament lalo na jan sa john 1:1 para pumabor sa turo nila na hindi diyos si cristo. Btw sa original na hebrew at greek bible ang word na ginamit sa paglalarawan sa "Salita" is theos=God ganoon din sa Ama. You will never understand yhe mystery of the trinity kung di mo pag aaralan ang early christians which is known as the Roman Catholic Church. Ang Jehovah's witnesses ay gawa lamang ng tao at hindi nangaling sa Diyos.

Only the Jehovah's witnesses ang nagdagdag jan sa word na was a god dapat yan is" The word was God ". Kahit saang translation ka pumunta mali ang translation ng new world translation ng Jws.
 
Pinalitan lang ng Jehova witnesses yang version nila ng new testament lalo na jan sa john 1:1 para pumabor sa turo nila na hindi diyos si cristo. Btw sa original na hebrew at greek bible ang word na ginamit sa paglalarawan sa "Salita" is theos=God ganoon din sa Ama. You will never understand yhe mystery of the trinity kung di mo pag aaralan ang early christians which is known as the Roman Catholic Church. Ang Jehovah's witnesses ay gawa lamang ng tao at hindi nangaling sa Diyos.

Only the Jehovah's witnesses ang nagdagdag jan sa word na was a god dapat yan is" The word was God ". Kahit saang translation ka pumunta mali ang translation ng new world translation ng Jws.
Pano po pag may naipakita ko na mga bible na hindi galing sa Jws na render John 1:1c "a god"
aaminin mo ba na wala ka talaga alam sa mga jws at puro paratang kalang?
 
Last edited:
Only the Jehovah's witnesses ang nagdagdag jan sa word na was a god dapat yan is" The word was God ". Kahit saang translation ka pumunta mali ang translation ng new world translation ng Jws.
What if .... gaya nga ng naitanong ni Gentleman007 , what if may maipakita sa iyo na ibang translation ng Bible na ang salin eh 'a god' sa John 1:1, aaminin mo bang mali ka at walang alam sa mga pinagsasasabi mo, at na sinungaling ka, at puro ka lang paratang sa mga Saksi, at ang translation lang na alam mo eh yang sang-ayon sa paniniwala ninyong si Jesus ang Diyos?

What if lang naman Pewdy .. Nood na lang muna ko mga video ni pewdiepie sa YT ....
 

Pewdy

Elite
What if .... gaya nga ng naitanong ni Gentleman007 , what if may maipakita sa iyo na ibang translation ng Bible na ang salin eh 'a god' sa John 1:1, aaminin mo bang mali ka at walang alam sa mga pinagsasasabi mo, at na sinungaling ka, at puro ka lang paratang sa mga Saksi, at ang translation lang na alam mo eh yang sang-ayon sa paniniwala ninyong si Jesus ang Diyos?

What if lang naman Pewdy .. Nood na lang muna ko mga video ni pewdiepie sa YT ....
Hahahaha 🤣, pero kidding aside bro sa new world translation lang ng jws makikita yan punta talaga tayo sa original na scripture ang nakalagay na pagkakaDescribe talaga sa word which is Si Jesus sa John 1:1 ay "The word was God". There is no denying it maski na si thomas na apostle din sinabi kay jesus nung nagpakita sa kanila after niyang mabuhay ulit nung ipinahawak ni jesus kay thimas ang kamay at tagiliran niya sinabi ni thomas "My Lord and my God. Take note theos din ginamit sa scripture sa word na God na sinabi ni thomas sa original na.scripture which is nung panahon na iyon pag sinabi mong Diyos/God ang isang tao it is blasphemy agad pero hindi siya.kinorek ni Christo dahil naiintindihan nila na Nagkatawang tao si jesus at Diyos din talaga siya. Baka di alam ni brother gentleman na ang mga apostol ni Jesus mismo ay Belong sa Catholic Church kahit punta siya ng jerusalem catholic church lang makikita niya roon na nakatayong simbahan ng Christiano kahit muslim tanungin niya pagtatawanan lang siya kasi peke ang mga saksi ni jehova kahit anong gawin nila ang sulpot ay sulpot.
Trivia alam mo ba ang unang santo papa ni Catholic Church ay si San Pedro na Apostol mismo ni Christo.
Mas maniniwala kaba kay Charles Taze Russel na nagtatag ng JW'S kaysa kay Jesus na mismong nagtayo ng simbahang Katoliko na Mga Apostol niya.mismo ang nagpalaganap neto at Simbahang Catholico din ang nagkompile ng bible without the Catholic Church wala ang biblya dahil mas nauna pa tumayo ang Catholic Church dahil sa mga early christians (Apostle's of Christ with its fellow followers) at kinompile nalang nila later para may magamit at maipasa ang simbahang Catholico sa mga miyembro neto.
 
Last edited:
Hahahaha 🤣, pero kidding aside bro sa new world translation lang ng jws makikita yan punta talaga tayo sa original na scripture ang nakalagay na pagkakaDescribe talaga sa word which is Si Jesus sa John 1:1 ay "The word was God". There is no denying it maski na si thomas na apostle din sinabi kay jesus nung nagpakita sa kanila after niyang mabuhay ulit nung ipinahawak ni jesus kay thimas ang kamay at tagiliran niya sinabi ni thomas "My Lord and my God. Take note theos din ginamit sa scripture sa word na God na sinabi ni tjimas sa original na.scripture which is nung oanahon na iyon pag sinabi mong Fiyos/God ang isang tao it is blasphemy agad pero hindi siya.kinorek ni Christo dahil naiintindihan nila na Nagkatawang tao si jesus at Diyos din talaga siya. Baka di alam ni brother gentleman na ang mga appstol ni Jesus mismo ay Belong sa Catholic Church kahit ounta siya ng jerusalem catholic church lang makikita niya roon na nakatayong simbahan ng Christiano kahit muslim tanungin niya pagtatawanan lang siya kasi peke ang saksi kahit anong gawin nila ang sulpot ay sulpot
Capital letter "G" ba ang ginamit sa word na theos para kay Jesus sa John 1:1 sa original greek?
 

Pewdy

Elite
Hahahaha 🤣, pero kidding aside bro sa new world translation lang ng jws makikita yan punta talaga tayo sa original na scripture ang nakalagay na pagkakareacribe talaga sa wors which is Jesus ay The word was God. There is no denying it maski na si thomas na apostle din sinabi kay jesus nung nagpakita sa kanila after niyang mabuhay ulit nung ipinahawak ni jesus kay thimas ang kamay at tagiliran niya sinabi ni thomas "My Lord and my God. Take note theos din ginamit sa scripture sa word na God na sinabi ni tjimas sa original na.scripture which is nung oanahon na iyon pag sinabi mong Fiyos/God ang isang tao it is blasphemy agad pero hindi siya.kinorek ni Christo dahil naiintindihan nila na Nagkatawang tao si jesus at Diyos din talaga siya. Baka di alam ni brother gentleman na ang mga appstol ni Jesus mismo ay Belong sa Catholic Church kahit ounta siya ng jerusalem catholic
Capital letter "G" ba ang ginamit sa word na theos para kay Jesus sa John 1:1 sa original greek?

lang makikita niya roon na nakatayong simbahan ng Christiano kahit muslim tanungin niya pagtatawanan lang siya kasi peke ang saksi kahit anong gawin nila ang sulpot ay sulpot
Oo Kapital G agad pag "Theos" =God not god lang

Trivia ulit ang pinakaunang.book na naiprint gamit ang.printing machine ay ang bible at ang inventor neto ay isang german na Catholic Devout na si Guttenburgh

Btw ang naglagay din ng Chapters at verses ay mga paring Catholico din
 
Hahahaha 🤣, pero kidding aside bro sa new world translation lang ng jws makikita yan punta talaga tayo sa original na scripture ang nakalagay na pagkakaDescribe talaga sa word which is Si Jesus sa John 1:1 ay "The word was God". There is no denying it maski na si thomas na apostle din sinabi kay jesus nung nagpakita sa kanila after niyang mabuhay ulit nung ipinahawak ni jesus kay thimas ang kamay at tagiliran niya sinabi ni thomas "My Lord and my God. Take note theos din ginamit sa scripture sa word na God na sinabi ni thomas sa original na.scripture which is nung panahon na iyon pag sinabi mong Diyos/God ang isang tao it is blasphemy agad pero hindi siya.kinorek ni Christo dahil naiintindihan nila na Nagkatawang tao si jesus at Diyos din talaga siya. Baka di alam ni brother gentleman na ang mga apostol ni Jesus mismo ay Belong sa Catholic Church kahit punta siya ng jerusalem catholic church lang makikita niya roon na nakatayong simbahan ng Christiano kahit muslim tanungin niya pagtatawanan lang siya kasi peke ang mga saksi ni jehova kahit anong gawin nila ang sulpot ay sulpot.
Trivia alam mo ba ang unang santo papa ni Catholic Church ay si San Pedro na Apostol mismo ni Christo.
Mas maniniwala kaba kay Charles Taze Russel na nagtatag ng JW'S kaysa kay Jesus na mismong nagtayo ng simbahang Katoliko na Mga Apostol niya.mismo ang nagpalaganap neto at Simbahang Catholico din ang nagkompile ng bible without the Catholic Church wala ang biblya dahil mas nauna pa tumayo ang Catholic Church dahil sa mga early christians (Apostle's of Christ with its fellow followers) at kinompile nalang nila later para may magamit at maipasa ang simbahang Catholico sa mga miyembro neto.
Pag nga po may naipakita ko na hindi sa nwt aaminin mo po ba na paratang lang po pinagsasasabi mo at misinformation ang pinapakalat mo po?
 

Pewdy

Elite
Kung gusto mo matuto punta ka sa yt may Channel din na tagalog magaling magpaliwanang about the history of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ search mo nalang yung "Punto por punto" meron din jan minister ng Jws na nagconvert to Catholic dahil nag depth study siya about history about early christian and the history of bible.
 
Oo Kapital G agad pag "Theos" =God not god lang

Trivia ulit ang pinakaunang.book na naiprint gamit ang.printing machine ay ang bible at ang inventor neto ay isang german na Catholic Devout na si Guttenburgh

Btw ang naglagay din ng Chapters at verses ay mga paring Catholico din
Pag may naipakita ako sa'yong Bible verse sa King James Bible na ang "theos" ay isinalin na maliit na "god", aaminin mong sinungaling ka at mali unawa mo sa stand mo na "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"?

Ano payag ka?
 

Pewdy

Elite
Pag nga po may naipakita ko na hindi sa nwt aaminin mo po ba na paratang lang po pinagsasasabi mo at misinformation ang pinapakalat mo po?
Well wala akong problema doon pero di ko iaaccept kung ang translation niyo is the word is a god lang dahil maling mali yan kahit pumunta pa tayo sa original scripture takot nga kayo sa debate kasi mabunbunyag kayo. Edit pa ng John 1:1 naku kayo. Ni ayaw nga gamitin ng saksi ibang translation kasi daw mali pero in truth di kasi sasaangayon sa turo niyo hahaha baka tawanan pa kayo ng early Church father baka pati kapatid naming nga Orthodox hampasin kayo ng greek bible eh

Take note brother Gentleman magising sana kayo fahil tatag lang kayo ng tao at hindi ni Christo.
 
Well wala akong problema doon pero di ko iaaccept kung ang translation niyo is the word is a god lang dahil maling mali yan kahit pumunta pa tayo sa original scripture takot nga kayo sa debate kasi mabunbunyag kayo. Edit pa ng John 1:1 naku kayo. Ni ayaw nga gamitin ng saksi ibang translation kasi daw mali pero in truth di kasi sasaangayon sa turo niyo hahaha baka tawanan pa kayo ng early Church father baka pati kapatid naming nga Orthodox hampasin kayo ng greek bible eh

Take note brother Gentleman magising sana kayo fahil tatag lang kayo ng tao at hindi ni Christo.
pakisagot yung tanong ko na 'to

Pag may naipakita ako sa'yong Bible verse sa King James Bible na ang "theos" ay isinalin na maliit na "god", aaminin mong sinungaling ka at mali unawa mo sa stand mo na "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"?

Ano payag ka?
 

Pewdy

Elite
Pag may naipakita ako sa'yong Bible verse sa King James Bible na ang "theos" ay isinalin na maliit na "god", aaminin mong sinungaling ka at mali unawa mo sa stand mo na "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"?

Ano payag ka?
H
Pag may naipakita ako sa'yong Bible verse sa King James Bible na ang "theos" ay isinalin na maliit na "god", aaminin mong sinungaling ka at mali unawa mo sa stand mo na "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"?

Ano payag ka?
Hahaha the RCC doesn't recommend the KJV as well kasi di kumpleto at gaw lang naman din ng protestant yan may kjv din na may ibat ibang version pare kaya di mo ako maloloko majority diyan The word is God padin iisa lang na kjv version yang ipapakita mo at nakita ko na yan and btw di na yan itinuloy na iprint na kjv version na sinasabi mo dahil maraming mali na translation according to bible scholars kaya wag ako. Di ako maniniwala sa turo ni Charles Taxe Russel hahaha God Bless

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Jesus Is God​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.11/1/2008
Share
Listen to the audio version of this content
The You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. is an essential teaching of the Catholic faith. Indeed, any community of faith that would deny Christ’s deity ceases to be Christian at all. Yet, not a few quasi-Christian sects do just that—vehemently reject this central teaching. So how can Catholics present a cogent defense steeped in Scripture and faithful to magisterial teaching?

Greater Than and Equal To​

In John 14:28, Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?
In Catholic theology, this text can be understood in two ways. First, being “greater” than another does not have to mean one is essentially different from the other, as when we say a man is essentially distinct from an animal. Greatness can refer to one person functioning in a greater way quantitatively, qualitatively, or even relationally in comparison to another without there being an essential distinction. For example, Matthew 11:11 tells us there has never “risen among [men] a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” John is not something other than human because he is said to be greater than certain other people. All human beings share the same nature; therefore, they are absolutely equal in dignity.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Similarly, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: “Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . .” (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.
Another—and perhaps simpler—way one can legitimately interpret this text is to point out that John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: “You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.”
Jesus was emphasizing here and in previous verses his impending death, resurrection, and departure from the apostles. This would apply to his humanity most particularly. Thus, the same Jesus who can say, “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30—as God—can say, “The Father is greater than I” in John 14:28—as man.

Was Jesus Created?​

Revelation 3:14 declares: “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.’” Using these words, You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. claim Jesus to be the first creation of Almighty God and therefore, not God. The only problem here is the actual text. The word translated “beginning” (Gk. arche) here actually means “source.” In other words, it means “beginning” as in the first cause, not in the sense of being the “first effect.” Arche is used as such elsewhere in the book of Revelation. In chapter 21, verse 6, Almighty God says: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end . . .” Do we want to say God was created because arche is used to describe him? By no means! Understood properly, Revelation 3:14 reveals Jesus to be the source of God’s creation—God himself. This fits perfectly with John’s christological declaration in John 1:1-3: the Word created “all things . . . and without him was made nothing that was made.” If the Word was created, he would have had to create himself, which is absurd.
Colossians 1:15-17 reveals Jesus as the “first-born of every creature. For in him were all things created . . . he is before all and by him all things consist.” Many make the mistake of concluding Jesus was created because he is called “first-born of every creature.” One obvious problem here is born and created have very different definitions. Even when considering natural childbirth, we know a child does not come into being when he is born, but nine months earlier. Neither would Christ have “come into being” when he was begotten of the Father. Indeed, when Jesus is called first-born in Colossians, he is referred to as such before creation and time even existed. He was begotten from all eternity. As such, he would have never “come into being.” Thus, we say in the Creed, Jesus was “begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.” A second, related problem arises when one considers the title first-born. Even in its Old Testament usage, this title was not restricted to a sense of time. The emphasis was on a place of pre-eminence given by a father to his son. Isaac, Jacob, and Ephraim received the blessing of the first-born though they were not first-born in time.
But perhaps most important of all is the fact that the text simply does not say Jesus was created. If St. Paul were teaching Christ to have been created, he would have then had to refer to Christ as creator of all other things in verse 16, but he did not. (Jehovah’s Witnesses did add the word “other” here in Colossians 1:16 in their New World Translation—to make the text fit their doctrine.) Paul calls Jesus Creator of all things. Jesus is God.

A Positive Outlook​

Some biblical texts positively demonstrate Christ’s divinity. John 1:1-3, mentioned above, first comes to mind: “In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.”
Jesus (the Word before his Incarnation) is revealed to be “God” and the Creator of all things that were created. Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created . . .” The conclusion is inescapable: Jesus is God!
Jehovah’s Witnesses respond by claiming the Greek text actually says “. . . the Word was a god.” They maintain Jesus is here revealed to be a god, not the God because the definite article (Gk. Ho, the) is not used before god (Gk. theos), when referring to Jesus. This line of reasoning has three main problems:
  1. The predicate nominative in Greek normally does not take the definite article. In this verse, then, the lack of the definite article is grammatically consistent. According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, we see another example of this convention in John 8:54, where the predicate nominative is “Father”—again without the definite article preceding (3:105).
  2. The JW’s are inconsistent. They translate the word theos as “Jehovah,” or the God numerous times in their New World Translation of the Bible when it does not have the article preceding it (see NWT: Matt. 5:9, 6:24; Luke 1:35, 2:40; John 1:6,12,13,18; Rom. 1:7,17,18; and Titus 1:1, just to name a few).
  3. Jesus is referred to as theos with the definite article multiple times elsewhere in Scripture. For example: “But of the Son he says, ‘Thy throne, O God (ho theos, the definite article plus theos), is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom’” (Heb. 1:8). Jesus is not a god here. He is the God: “Awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ ” (Titus 2:13, emphasis added—definite article appears in apposition to “great God”). Not only do we see the definite article before theos, but we see the article plus the adjective great. Jesus is not only the God, he is the great God and our Savior. The Bible is very clear that only Yahweh is both the great God and our Savior. (See Isaiah 41:4, 43:3,11, 44:6,8, 45:21; Hos. 13:4; and Luke 1:47.) Consider too: Thomas answered, and said to [Jesus]: “My Lord and My God” (John 20:28). The Greek text reads “the Lord of me and the God of me.” The definite article before Lord and God leaves no doubt that Thomas—directly addressing our Lord—calls Jesus both the Lord and the God.

What Only God Can Do​

“And the Lord God (Gk. ho kurios ho theos, the Lord the God) of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to show his servants the things which must be done shortly” (Rev. 22:6). Who is the Lord God who sent “his angel” in this verse? Some attempt to say this text is referring to the Father rather than Jesus. However, Revelation 22:16, just 10 verses later, reveals to us who “the Lord God” is who has “sent his angel:” ” I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches.” Jesus is clearly “the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets!”
In Luke 12:8-9, angels are called “angels of God”; in Matthew 13:41, angels are called “[Jesus’] angels.” Jesus and God are synonymous. Jesus does what only God can do. He forgives sins by his own authority (see Is. 43:25; Mark 2:5-9). He judges the world in Matthew 25:31-46. This is God’s prerogative according to Genesis 18:25 and Joel 3:12.
Jesus refers to himself with the divine name—I am —in several places. This “I am” formula is a reference back to the Divine Name revealed to Moses in Ex. 3:14. Not only does Jesus refer to himself as “I am” four times in John’s Gospel (see John 8:24; 58; 13:19 and 18:5-6), but when he does so in John 8:58, the Jews to whom he was speaking understood his meaning because they immediately wanted to stone him for blasphemy!
Jesus places his word on the same level as the word of God—the Old Testament. “You have heard it said . . . but I say to you . . .” (see Matt. 5:21-28). This is in sharp contrast to the prophets of old who always made clear the word they were speaking was not their own: “The word of the Lord came unto me, saying . . . ” (cf. Jer. 1:11; Ezek. 1:3, etc.). Only God possesses this kind of authority.
Jesus is referred to as “equal” with God by both John and Paul. In John 5:18, the author comments on why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus: “Because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God.” Paul refers to Jesus when he was “in the form (Gk. morphe; in Greek usage this word means the set of characteristics that makes a thing what it is) of God” thinking “his equality with God” not something to be grasped onto, but emptying himself and becoming man (cf. Phil. 2:6-10). Paul assumes his readers already knew Jesus to be equal with God, the Father.
Jesus is referred to in the New Testament with the title Lord as it is uniquely applied to Yahweh in the Old Testament. Jesus calls himself “the Lord of the Sabbath” in Mark 2:28. The Sabbath is referred to as the “Sabbath of Yahweh” in the Old Testament (cf. Ex. 20:10; see also Is. 8:13, referred to in 1 Peter 3:15; and Joel 2:31-32, quoted both in Acts 2:20-21 and in Rom. 10:13).

The First and Last Point​

The final proof of Jesus’ divinity we will consider can be found in the last two chapters of the book of Revelation. According to Revelation 21:6-7, Almighty God reveals himself to us in plain terms: “And he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the fountain of the water of life without payment. He who conquers shall have this heritage, and I will be his God and he shall be my son.’”
But then, in Revelation 22:6, 13, 16, we find Jesus revealing himself to be “the Alpha and the Omega . . . the beginning and the end”:
And he said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place . . . I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end . . . I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”
Jesus is God.

Related​



You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Enjoying this content? Please support our mission! You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

COMPANY​

SITES​

PUBLISHING​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Copyright © 1996-2022 Catholic Answers
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. | You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. | You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
By continuing to use this site you agree to our You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and that you have read our You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

Basahin mo nalang yan tinatamad ako makipag argue sa inyo. Ang sulpot ay sulpot period.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
H

Hahaha the RCC doesn't recommend the KJV as well kasi di kumpleto at gaw lang naman din ng protestant yan may kjv din na may ibat ibang version pare kaya di mo ako maloloko majority diyan The word is God padin iisa lang na kjv version yang ipapakita mo at nakita ko na yan and btw di na yan itinuloy na iprint na kjv version na sinasabi mo dahil maraming mali na translation according to bible scholars kaya wag ako. Di ako maniniwala sa turo ni Charles Taxe Russel hahaha God Bless
Same KING JAMES VERSION to boy ... capital God sa John 1:1 .. ang sinasabi ko eh eto:


Pag may naipakita ako sa'yong Bible verse sa King James Bible na ang "theos" ay isinalin na maliit na "god", aaminin mong sinungaling ka at mali unawa mo sa stand mo na "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"?

Ano payag ka?

HIndi ko sinabing Bible Verse na John 1:1 sa King James, kundi Bible Verse na ang salin sa "theos" ay small "god" ... at hindi "God" ..

payag ka bang aminin na mali ang unawa mo sa stand mong "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"????


yan po ang tanong ko eh .. hindi yung John 1:1
 
Well wala akong problema doon pero di ko iaaccept kung ang translation niyo is the word is a god lang dahil maling mali yan kahit pumunta pa tayo sa original scripture takot nga kayo sa debate kasi mabunbunyag kayo. Edit pa ng John 1:1 naku kayo. Ni ayaw nga gamitin ng saksi ibang translation kasi daw mali pero in truth di kasi sasaangayon sa turo niyo hahaha baka tawanan pa kayo ng early Church father baka pati kapatid naming nga Orthodox hampasin kayo ng greek bible eh

Take note brother Gentleman magising sana kayo fahil tatag lang kayo ng tao at hindi ni Christo.
Meron ka pong problema.. malaki po nagkakalat ka po ng mis info. sinabi mo po na sa only sa nwt lang makikita yung " a god" pano po pag may naipakita po ako na hindi galing sa jw?
 

Pewdy

Elite

Should John 1:1 read "a god"?​

I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
second John 1:1-3
  1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  2. The same was in the beginning with God.
  3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for writing. I'd like to examine your claim that Jesus was created. You cite John 1:1, but say that it is translated in error. According to your letter, you claim "The word was God should actually be the word was a God"(emphasis added). For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning?"
Many people, most notable the Jehovah's Witnesses, have tried to claim that John 1:1 has been misrepresented and the indefinite article "a" should be inserted into this verse. This is primarily because the verse, as it is currently rendered in English, makes Jesus God almighty.
Now, there are many scholarly works that can be cited to show why the Greek phrase Theos en ho logos is correctly translated "The Word was God", but it requires those discussing the issue have a mastery of koinie Greek to speak intelligently at this level. Therefore, whenever I discuss this verse and how it should properly read, I usually deal with what we do know and what is beyond debate.

Examining the Options of John 1:1​

First, the argument strikes me as giving only two choices - either Jesus is the one true God (YHWH) or He is "a god". There are no other options open when dealing with John 1:1. Since both Christianity and Judaism affirm monotheism (the belief that there is only one true God), then translating John 1:1 "a god" leaves the reader with a problem. What kind of god is Jesus?
If Jesus is God Almighty, then He cannot be created because God is eternal. Psalm 90:2 tells us "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." If Jesus is some other kind of god (or if something else is meant by using the term "god" for Jesus), then he would be a created being.
From this point, I think the best way to clarify John 1:1 is by looking at it in context. The most compelling verse I have found for Jesus being God Almighty is actually John 1:3. There we read "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."(NAS)
John 1:3 becomes crucial to our debate because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning.
Perhaps an easy way to think of it is as a piece of paper with a line drawn down the middle. On one side there are eternal things with no beginning and on the other there are created things. The created things section is completely empty until Jesus starts working and putting things there. That means that Jesus is already there - but He cannot be on the created side because we said it was empty. So He must be on the non-created side. If this is so, then Jesus is eternal. If Jesus is eternal, this makes Him God Almighty. As I said before, there is no other option available. If Jesus is God Almighty, then John 1:1 is properly rendered "The Word was God" instead of "a god" for that translation would set up a duality of gods.
You claim that God wouldn't "make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning" denies the idea of the persons of the Trinity being distinct. (For more on this see You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In many passages we see the Father speaking of the Son or even to the Son and the Son speaking to the Father so I don't see how this would be a problem.

The Use of "Son" in Reference to Jesus​

Your second point claims that because John 3:16 used the word "son," it is equivalent to the many other places in the Bible where the phrase. I'm assuming that you therefore infer Jesus is a created being because He shares the title "son" with other created beings. However, you are missing an important point in that John qualifies this statement. Jesus wasn't just one of the "sons of god" like the angels. He was the "only begotten son of God". There are many who are referred to as sons of God. We are even called sons of God (Gal. 3:26). However, we are not begotten as sons of God. Neither are the angels. They are created and perhaps given the title "sons" but not begotten as sons. Only Jesus fits this role, and therefore this title is not synonymous with other usages of "sons of God".
Hebrews 1:5-6 proves that Jesus could not have been an angel, as the author writes "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'and let all the angels of God worship him.'" The author then states that the Father declares the son to be God. "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever' (vs. 8)" thereby affirming both Jesus' deity and His everlastingness.
I hope this has helped clarify the issue of why John 1:1 should not be translated "a god" and how John 1:3 gives an inescapable proof of Jesus' everlastingness and therefore His deity. Please let me know what you think about this and I pray God will bring you into all truth as you honestly seek Him.

John 1:1 ang.pinaguusapan wag ung ano ano sinasabi mo para lang makalisot sulpot
Same KING JAMES VERSION to boy ... capital God sa John 1:1 .. ang sinasabi ko eh eto:




HIndi ko sinabing Bible Verse na John 1:1 sa King James, kundi Bible Verse na ang salin sa "theos" ay small "god" ... at hindi "God" ..

payag ka bang aminin na mali ang unawa mo sa stand mong "Kapital G agad pag "Theos"=God not god lang"????


yan po ang tanong ko eh .. hindi yung John 1:1
 

Should John 1:1 read "a god"?​

I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
second John 1:1-3
  1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  2. The same was in the beginning with God.
  3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for writing. I'd like to examine your claim that Jesus was created. You cite John 1:1, but say that it is translated in error. According to your letter, you claim "The word was God should actually be the word was a God"(emphasis added). For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning?"
Many people, most notable the Jehovah's Witnesses, have tried to claim that John 1:1 has been misrepresented and the indefinite article "a" should be inserted into this verse. This is primarily because the verse, as it is currently rendered in English, makes Jesus God almighty.
Now, there are many scholarly works that can be cited to show why the Greek phrase Theos en ho logos is correctly translated "The Word was God", but it requires those discussing the issue have a mastery of koinie Greek to speak intelligently at this level. Therefore, whenever I discuss this verse and how it should properly read, I usually deal with what we do know and what is beyond debate.

Examining the Options of John 1:1​

First, the argument strikes me as giving only two choices - either Jesus is the one true God (YHWH) or He is "a god". There are no other options open when dealing with John 1:1. Since both Christianity and Judaism affirm monotheism (the belief that there is only one true God), then translating John 1:1 "a god" leaves the reader with a problem. What kind of god is Jesus?
If Jesus is God Almighty, then He cannot be created because God is eternal. Psalm 90:2 tells us "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." If Jesus is some other kind of god (or if something else is meant by using the term "god" for Jesus), then he would be a created being.
From this point, I think the best way to clarify John 1:1 is by looking at it in context. The most compelling verse I have found for Jesus being God Almighty is actually John 1:3. There we read "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."(NAS)
John 1:3 becomes crucial to our debate because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning.
Perhaps an easy way to think of it is as a piece of paper with a line drawn down the middle. On one side there are eternal things with no beginning and on the other there are created things. The created things section is completely empty until Jesus starts working and putting things there. That means that Jesus is already there - but He cannot be on the created side because we said it was empty. So He must be on the non-created side. If this is so, then Jesus is eternal. If Jesus is eternal, this makes Him God Almighty. As I said before, there is no other option available. If Jesus is God Almighty, then John 1:1 is properly rendered "The Word was God" instead of "a god" for that translation would set up a duality of gods.
You claim that God wouldn't "make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning" denies the idea of the persons of the Trinity being distinct. (For more on this see You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In many passages we see the Father speaking of the Son or even to the Son and the Son speaking to the Father so I don't see how this would be a problem.

The Use of "Son" in Reference to Jesus​

Your second point claims that because John 3:16 used the word "son," it is equivalent to the many other places in the Bible where the phrase. I'm assuming that you therefore infer Jesus is a created being because He shares the title "son" with other created beings. However, you are missing an important point in that John qualifies this statement. Jesus wasn't just one of the "sons of god" like the angels. He was the "only begotten son of God". There are many who are referred to as sons of God. We are even called sons of God (Gal. 3:26). However, we are not begotten as sons of God. Neither are the angels. They are created and perhaps given the title "sons" but not begotten as sons. Only Jesus fits this role, and therefore this title is not synonymous with other usages of "sons of God".
Hebrews 1:5-6 proves that Jesus could not have been an angel, as the author writes "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'and let all the angels of God worship him.'" The author then states that the Father declares the son to be God. "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever' (vs. 8)" thereby affirming both Jesus' deity and His everlastingness.
I hope this has helped clarify the issue of why John 1:1 should not be translated "a god" and how John 1:3 gives an inescapable proof of Jesus' everlastingness and therefore His deity. Please let me know what you think about this and I pray God will bring you into all truth as you honestly seek Him.
Makipag usap kapo sa amin wag mo po kami daanin sa ganyan.. kung maaari po talakayan lang.. tutal tinawag moko brother.
 

Pewdy

Elite
Oh ito na sagot ko sa mistranslation niyo sa John1:1 niyo mga sulpot.
San basahin niyo

The God or a God?​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.10/1/1991
Share
Listen to the audio version of this content
John 1:1 is probably the most hotly contested verse in the Bible in discussions between Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Christians cite this passage in support of the divinity of Christ and of the Trinity, while Jehovah’s Witnesses argue the text upholds their view of Jesus as a lesser divinity created by God before anything else. Both sides claim to make a case for their position, although upon careful study the Witnesses’ argument collapses.
In the Watchtower version of the Bible, the New World Translation, John 1:1 reads: “In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.”
Although a few other translators follow this rendering, usually for theological reasons (they don’t accept the divinity of Christ either), the vast majority of contemporary scholars, whether Catholic, Protestant, or unbelieving, don’t. Most translate the third clause of the verse as “the Word was God” or its equivalent.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
How do the Witnesses justify their rendering of John 1:1? Before considering the arguments, let’s look at the passage again, this time in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) with the key Greek words included in parentheses: “In the beginning was the Word (ho logos), and the Word was with God (ton theon), and the Word was God (theos).”
The Witnesses argue that since in the last clause of John 1:1 (RSV: “the Word was God”) the Greek word for God, theos, isn’t preceded by the definite article (it’s theos rather than ho theos), it should be taken as an indefinite noun and translated into English with the indefinite article “a.” The clause should read “the Word was a god,” as in the JW translation, not “the Word was God,” as in the RSV and most other versions.
Jehovah’s Witnesses go on to say the indefinite rendering implies a lower case “g” should be used in English, to indicate the Word is a lesser divinity not to be identified with Almighty God, Jehovah, who is referred to in the middle clause (“the Word was with God”) as ton theon (literally, “the God”–the accusative form of ho theos).
Trinitarians pursue two lines of thought in response to the Witnesses’ arguments.
The first is to challenge the contention that theos, as used in the last clause (“the Word was God [theos]”), is an indefinite noun. If it can be shown that theos is a definite noun, even though the definite article is absent, then the JW case for their translation of John 1:1 falters. Let’s call this approach to the question the “definite noun argument.”
The second line of attack says that, even if theos in the last clause of John 1:1 is an indefinite noun, this doesn’t mean that the JW translation is correct or that the JW inference that Jesus must be a lesser divinity and not Jehovah God is correct. We’ll call this the “indefinite noun argument.”
Let’s take these arguments in order.
The definite article argument runs as follows: The mere absence of the definite article in front of a noun doesn’t prove the noun is indefinite. In the passage in question, many scholars argue the lack of the article indicates only that the Word (ho logos), rather than God (theos), is the subject of the sentence. This tells us how the clause should be translated: “the Word was God” rather than “God was the Word.” On this view, John’s phrasing of the clause actually upholds the idea that the Word (Christ) is God.
Additional evidence for the definiteness of theos in John 1:1c is sometimes sought in Colwell’s rule, a grammatical principle named for the man who formulated it, E. C. Colwell. This rule states that a definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. In other words, theos doesn’t have an article in John 1:1c because in the Greek it comes before the verb, not because it’s indefinite.
Some Trinitarians, especially the proponents of the indefinite noun position, find this argument unconvincing. While the argument upholds the divinity of the Word by identifying him with ho theos (“the God”), it also, contend the critics, undermines the distinction of persons in God and thereby succumbs to the heresy of modalism (the belief there aren’t really three distinct persons in God, merely three different modes of one person’s activity).
Proponents of the indefinite noun argument point out that ho theos usually refers to God the Father in the New Testament. If this is the case in John 1:1b, then the clause is saying the Word was with God the Father. If theos in the final clause of the passage (John 1:1c) is definite–if it means the same as ho theos and therefore refers to the same person as the second clause (God the Father), the one who’s with the Word–then the passage also means the Word was God the Father, something a Trinitarian must reject.
The second difficulty with the definite article argument is the way Colwell’s rule is at times employed. Although this rule is helpful as a general principle, there are exceptions to it. Furthermore, while the rule permits us to say theos in John1:1c may be a definite noun (and is without the article because it precedes the verb), it doesn’t force us to conclude it must be so. In fact, the rule can only be brought to bear on the text after it’s determined the noun in question is definite.
Defenders of the definite noun position respond by making two points: (1) Ho theos can be used of the Son as well as the Father and (2) it can also be used to designate the one true God.
Ho theos is used to refer to the Son in John 20:28, where Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God.” (Literally, “The Lord of me and the God [ho theos] of me.”) It’s used of the true God (including the Son and not merely the Father) in a slightly altered form in 1 John 5:20: “This is the true God and life eternal.”
Thus, while John may intend ton theon to refer to the Father in John1:1b (“the Word was with God” [i.e., God the Father]), he can also use theos in the definite sense (without the article, of course) in John 1:1c to refer to the one God. Paraphrasing, the passage would read: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God the Father, and the Word was the true God.”
The indefinite noun advocates find this argument not only unpersuasive, but also unnecessary. While acknowledging that theos is used as an indefinite noun in John 1:1c, they contend this neither supports the Watchtower’s rendering of the passage nor leads to the conclusions the Witnesses draw from it.
The lack of a definite article in the Greek can imply an indefinite article is needed in an English translation, but it doesn’t have to. It’s possible the word is being used in a qualitative sense, which can be indefinite–not referring to a specific person, “the God” (i.e., the Father), but to a quality, the Word’s “God-ness.” This has led many Scripture scholars to translate John 1:1c as “the Word was divine”–the Word possessed the same unique divine nature as ho theos (“the God”), usually identified as the Father.
Some Trinitarians are willing to concede even more. Robert M. Bowman, Jr., in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John, argues that including the indefinite article “a” in John 1:1c doesn’t disprove the divinity of the Word per se. He shows how in Mark 12:27 and Luke 20:38 Jehovah himself is refered to as “a God,” even in the Witnesses’ own New World Translation.
About such a usage Bowman writes:
“If this were the ‘qualitative’ or ‘indefinite’ sense to which the JWs attributed theos in John 1:1, there would be no problem. In that case, we would understand the expression ‘a God’ as we do in Luke 20:38 and Mark 12:27, not as implying one God in contrast to another God, or a deity of a lesser nature in comparison to another deity, but simply as speaking of the only true God from the standpoint of his nature–what kind of ‘a God’ he is.”
Bowman says that understanding theos in John 1:1c to be a qualitative-indefinite noun isn’t wrong so long as this isn’t taken to mean the Word is a separate, lesser divinity than ho theos (God the Father).
The witnesses’ whole case for denying Christ’s divinity rests on their belief that theos is employed as an indefinite and qualitative noun. If this is not the case, then the Watchtower’s argument about John 1:1 can’t get off the ground.
Even if it’s granted that theos is used as an indefinite and qualitative noun in John 1:1c (as the advocates of the indefinite noun position assert), the Witnesses’ contention that the Word must be a lesser divinity than God the Father won’t hold up. That idea isn’t implied in the indefinite and qualitative use of theos.
Whether theos is a definite or indefinite noun in John 1:1c, neither the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation of the passage nor the inferences they draw from it will stand.

Related​



You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Enjoying this content? Please support our mission! You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

COMPANY​

SITES​

PUBLISHING​

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Copyright © 1996-2022 Catholic Answers
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. | You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. | You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
By continuing to use this site you agree

Makipag usap kapo sa amin wag mo po kami daanin sa ganyan.. kung maaari po talakayan lang.. tutal tinawag moko brother.
Hahaha Kahit anong explanation ko di mo din naman papakinggan better nalang na basahin mo din sinend ko dahil binasa ko yang post mo then argue nalang about sa sinend ko, of course I will call you brother kaai we are all brother and sister through Christ our Lord and Savior who was the Son of the Living God Yahweh
 

Attachments

Should John 1:1 read "a god"?
I am not Jehovah's Witness, but if I can bring to your attention 2 scriptures other than Col 1:15.
First is john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
second John 1:1-3
  1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  2. The same was in the beginning with God.
  3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I will do this backwards. Second to First. If you find the word with God and the word was God
Who was with god in the beginning. The word was God Should actually be the word was a God
For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning.
And then later you actually find out that the word became flesh.
Now to the first (HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON). There are many references through out the old testament that there are many sons of God, "JOB 1" and Genesis 6. However there is only one that shows the only one created through God was in fact Jesus.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you for writing. I'd like to examine your claim that Jesus was created. You cite John 1:1, but say that it is translated in error. According to your letter, you claim "The word was God should actually be the word was a God"(emphasis added). For how could God make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning?"
Many people, most notable the Jehovah's Witnesses, have tried to claim that John 1:1 has been misrepresented and the indefinite article "a" should be inserted into this verse. This is primarily because the verse, as it is currently rendered in English, makes Jesus God almighty.
Now, there are many scholarly works that can be cited to show why the Greek phrase Theos en ho logos is correctly translated "The Word was God", but it requires those discussing the issue have a mastery of koinie Greek to speak intelligently at this level. Therefore, whenever I discuss this verse and how it should properly read, I usually deal with what we do know and what is beyond debate.

Examining the Options of John 1:1​

First, the argument strikes me as giving only two choices - either Jesus is the one true God (YHWH) or He is "a god". There are no other options open when dealing with John 1:1. Since both Christianity and Judaism affirm monotheism (the belief that there is only one true God), then translating John 1:1 "a god" leaves the reader with a problem. What kind of god is Jesus?
If Jesus is God Almighty, then He cannot be created because God is eternal. Psalm 90:2 tells us "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." If Jesus is some other kind of god (or if something else is meant by using the term "god" for Jesus), then he would be a created being.
From this point, I think the best way to clarify John 1:1 is by looking at it in context. The most compelling verse I have found for Jesus being God Almighty is actually John 1:3. There we read "All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."(NAS)
John 1:3 becomes crucial to our debate because it makes a very specific claim. If anything had any type of beginning at all, it was begun by Jesus. You cannot even infer the word "other" in the text because the last part of the verse says "apart from Him nothing has come into being that has come into being." In other words, John states there are two groups of things: all those things that have a beginning and all those things that are eternal, and Jesus is not one of those that have a beginning.
Perhaps an easy way to think of it is as a piece of paper with a line drawn down the middle. On one side there are eternal things with no beginning and on the other there are created things. The created things section is completely empty until Jesus starts working and putting things there. That means that Jesus is already there - but He cannot be on the created side because we said it was empty. So He must be on the non-created side. If this is so, then Jesus is eternal. If Jesus is eternal, this makes Him God Almighty. As I said before, there is no other option available. If Jesus is God Almighty, then John 1:1 is properly rendered "The Word was God" instead of "a god" for that translation would set up a duality of gods.
You claim that God wouldn't "make the mistake of saying he was with himself in the beginning" denies the idea of the persons of the Trinity being distinct. (For more on this see You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In many passages we see the Father speaking of the Son or even to the Son and the Son speaking to the Father so I don't see how this would be a problem.

The Use of "Son" in Reference to Jesus​

Your second point claims that because John 3:16 used the word "son," it is equivalent to the many other places in the Bible where the phrase. I'm assuming that you therefore infer Jesus is a created being because He shares the title "son" with other created beings. However, you are missing an important point in that John qualifies this statement. Jesus wasn't just one of the "sons of god" like the angels. He was the "only begotten son of God". There are many who are referred to as sons of God. We are even called sons of God (Gal. 3:26). However, we are not begotten as sons of God. Neither are the angels. They are created and perhaps given the title "sons" but not begotten as sons. Only Jesus fits this role, and therefore this title is not synonymous with other usages of "sons of God".
Hebrews 1:5-6 proves that Jesus could not have been an angel, as the author writes "And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'and let all the angels of God worship him.'" The author then states that the Father declares the son to be God. "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever' (vs. 8)" thereby affirming both Jesus' deity and His everlastingness.
I hope this has helped clarify the issue of why John 1:1 should not be translated "a god" and how John 1:3 gives an inescapable proof of Jesus' everlastingness and therefore His deity. Please let me know what you think about this and I pray God will bring you into all truth as you honestly seek Him.

John 1:1 ang.pinaguusapan wag ung ano ano sinasabi mo para lang makalisot sulpot
Ang sabi mo kasi, basta theos = kapital God agad ..

eh hindi lang naman sa John 1:1 nag-aappear yang theos sa Greek Scriptures eh ...

iyayabang mo samin na baka hampasin pa kami ng Greek Scriptures, ikaw etong tinatanong ko about sa mga nakasulat sa Greek Scriptures, lalo na sa word na "theos" eh ang tanging teksto lang pala na gusto mong kapital "God" is yung sa John 1:1 pero sa ibang teksto kung saan lumitaw yung word na "theos" ignore mo na lang?

Hahahaha .. What kind of Bible student you are? Gagamit gagamit ka ng greek scriptures pero di mo magawang tanggapin yung ibang word na 'theos' kung saan small 'god' lang ang nakasulat sa ibang part ng greek scriptures?

Hahaha .. Well, kitang-kita na naman namin ang mga mapaggiit na gustong sambahin si Jesus
 

Pewdy

Elite
Andiyan na rin basahin niyo yung pinaglalaban niyo na translation may explanation yung cathilic apologist na nag aral talaga ng maraming taon ng bible hindi yung self understanding niyo lang din.
 
Top