Christian but I don’t celebrate Christmas or Easter!

[sysint]

Well, if you're confused with that, then maybe you should put it back in its context with its prepositional phrase that qualifies which god "the god" is in that context---The god of this age...

See what happens when you start quoting scripture out of context, you get confused.

Do you mean as confused as you get with mighty god? I'm using your logic and now you don't like it. The Greek states THE GOD with a definite article. Just like in John 1:1 talking about the Father (God). For some reason you have a double standard as your bible takes out the capital "G" in 2 cor 4:4 now doesn't it..... However, in John 1:1 you insist on making the indefinite "god" capitalized for no good grammatical reason. Switching capitalization where it suits your doctrine.

[sysint]

Clueless. Freakin' cluleless. (Not a name....a state of being.)

Do you say "the Jesus"? No, you say simply"Jesus". The word Jesus is a name and requires no article, definite or indefinite. God also can be used as a name, as it is in John 1. No article is used for that reason.

Where I said and you say there is a definite article is with "Word".

As to taking the "whole thing" as truth, you are quite incorrect. Satan himself mixes lies with the truth.

Apparently you are clueless because in John 1:1 the Father is called THE GOD with a definite article and THE WORD is called simply a god with no definite article. THE WORD is simply a god.

[sysint]

And they were pretty close to the original meaning of the word logos, but not quite. One problem is the word logos carries with it the meaning "to reason," and that is not reflected in the word "divine". The other problem is the word "divine" was at one time used exclusively for God, but that is not true anymore. Now days the word divine has been so watered down that the phrase as they translated it, no longer communicates accurately what was meant by the original Gk.

Proverbs 8 comes back to you now calling Jesus "wisdom".

Show me whereby divine was only used for God.

[sysint]

.....a place only God should be

This is speculation.

If God invites somebody to sit on HIS throne as he does that's his choice. However, he states the sprout sits on his (as in his own) throne. Additionally, the sprout builds the temple of Jehovah but where does it indicate the throne might be in the temple?

Solomon built a temple to Jehovah and his throne wasn't in the temple.

[sysint]

Then let's look at it all.

The diaglott in the interlinear part, renders the first "theos" as simply "God", yet the second "theos" as "a god" That is inconsistent. Theos was simply a genaric word for God, just like our word "god".

Then the Diaglott uses an english version that renders 1:1c as "...and the word was God", thus defeating its own attempt at perverting the translation as "...a god."

So, you either have to take the whole diaglott, or leave it. I will leave it, since it can't even get its own story straight on the same page, with the same verse.

No doubt you will leave it since it shows a grammatically correct version on the left hand side and merely states a doctrinal version on the right not to upset you Trinitarians. The only real "perversion" is on the right side because it's a doctrinal preference. Sorry you don't like the facts but it's in Greek and directly translated. Now you know why I keep telling you really educated Trinitarians don't settle on 1:1 to base discussions.

[sysint]

In fact the palo Hebrew the original language of Yahweh, uses the name Yahweh 7000 times never does he use Jehovah as his name. He is refered to as Elowhim, which is a plural denoting his character as Yahweh, Yahushua, and the Spirit....

If you take the time to look this up the plural is used to create what grammararians call "plural of majesty".

The New Advent (Catholic) states: Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). Grammarians call it a plural of majesty or rank, or of abstraction, or of magnitude (Gesenius, Grammatik, 27th ed., nn. 124 g, 132 h).

and further:
If we have recourse to the use of the word Elohim in the study of its meaning, we find that in its proper sense it denotes either the true God or false gods, and metaphorically it is applied to judges, angels, and kings; and even accompanies other nouns, giving them a superlative meaning. The presence of the article, the singular construction of the word, and its context show with sufficient clearness whether it must be taken in its proper or its metaphorical sense, and what is its precise meaning in each case. Kautzsch (Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, 3324, n. 2) endeavours to do away with the metaphorical sense of Elohim. Instead of the rendering "judges" he suggests the translation "God", as witness of a lawsuit, as giver of decisions on points of law, or as dispenser of oracles; for the rendering "angels" he substitutes "the gods of the heathen", which, in later post-exilic times, fell to a lower rank. But this interpretation is not supported by solid proof.

On using "J" instead of "Y" it's likely it is from German. However, it is commonly accepted to say Jesus, so it is generally accepted to say Jehovah. Really, anyone arguing for Yahweh should be saying Yeshua too.

[sysint]

Then lets work it out.....That raises the question for you (and sysint), if you are not JW's, then why, since your belief system closely resembles their own, is it offensive to you to be identified with them?

I am perfectly able to make commentary on my own.

I have stated I'd defend the NWT as accurate, so I guess JW's aren't offensive to me. Regarding the concept of the Trinity, I think the JW doctrine against that notion is supported in scripture. I actually don't know where JW's have a written doctrine on this so I can only go by the general posting.

There would be other JW doctrine that I could simply not defend. Actually I'd state it indefensible. That doesn't make it offensive either, but makes it indefensible. Almost like the doctrine of the Trinity. Typically, doctrines pile up on themselves. The doctrine of the Trinity actually has supporting doctrine to help explain it. By contrast, the Bible has no such requirement, and if you peel away man written doctrines like the Trinity God is easily understood.

What puzzles me is why you would like to put me in some category. I can only conclude it may be for angles of personal attack, however subtle it may be. What other reason would there be?

I much prefer concentrating on the grammar and scripture and leaving the doctrine behind, because it encourages others to attempt to do the same.

[bootlen]

Apparently you are clueless because in John 1:1 the Father is called THE GOD with a definite article and THE WORD is called simply a god with no definite article. THE WORD is simply a god.

Okay, now you are arguing with yourself. Took longer this time.

[sysint]

....Apparently so as you are unable. The last couple pages make that self evident. However, I'll let others decide.

[sysint]

Here is a written letter from BeDuhn on John 1:1--

"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word
is "a god was the word."

Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an
indefeinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the
definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the
phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply
logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as
"a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we
translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are
simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say
"Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in
Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of
the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say
"The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who beleives there
is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The
God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament
normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1,
then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule:
Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form
depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of
God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative
case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying
Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and
humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to
tell his readers that the Word(which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh)
belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was
the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek.
The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the
opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has
shown that when ancient Greek writers put a object-noun first in a
sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the
definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the
class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In
English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call
predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we
would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a
god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is
more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises
more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word
was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it
is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has
just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is
with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word.
The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is
the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He
starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How
does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into
existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It
is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God
either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist
like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without
becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own,
however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh
brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes

Jason Beduhn
Northern Arizona University
Department of Humanities Arts and Religion

[bootlen]

What BeDuhn overlooks is the word "Logos" in its early 1st century "meaning" as used by John. "Logos" was a word referring to the Spiritual Being that had created all that was. It did not refer to a generic being, particularly in John's gospel. It referred to a specific Being whom we call God.

Either BeDuhn is ignorant OR he refuses to acknowledge the truth that Jesus is God in the Person of the Son.

[sysint]

What BeDuhn overlooks is the word "Logos" in its early 1st century "meaning" as used by John. "Logos" was a word referring to the Spiritual Being that had created all that was. It did not refer to a generic being, particularly in John's gospel. It referred to a specific Being whom we call God.

Either BeDuhn is ignorant OR he refuses to acknowledge the truth that Jesus is God in the Person of the Son.

What BeDuhn would be is significantly more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. What are your qualifications in comparison to him? What do you base your commentary on? This is simply one of many instances he talks about 1:1. Perhaps rather than running your mouth you should consider a little more research.

If you need to see ignorance, all you need to do is look in the mirror. Again, I'll wait for others to respond that are capable.

[bootlen]

What BeDuhn would be is significantly more knowledgeable on the subject than you are. What are your qualifications in comparison to him? What do you base your commentary on? This is simply one of many instances he talks about 1:1. Perhaps rather than running your mouth you should consider a little more research.

If you need to see ignorance, all you need to do is look in the mirror. Again, I'll wait for others to respond that are capable.

Yeah, and architects are significantly more knowledgable on the subject of building houses than I am. But you can bet yer sweet donkey that I would never build a house AROUND and air handler in such a way that the only way to change it out is to dismantle the old and the new. And this is just a very insignificant example of "significantly more knowledgable".

So much for "significantly more knowledgable".