Send a Message
to Ra88itt

Comments

514

Joined

Sep 25, 2011

Ra88itt Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Jehovah's Witness

If the word TRINITY is not in the Bible - why worship a T...

Hi Matt Hope you are wellIt's like reading a manual on car repairs without finding the word "engine" in it. .  (Jan 7, 2013 | post #25)

Jehovah's Witness

Greek New Testament text

JWBNo, nearly all of your references are 9th Century or thereabouts, or later than the ancient 4th to 6th Century texts. In comparison to the earlier attestations it tends to tell us that Qeos (God) was an interpolation in 1 Timothy 3:16, or Qeos was at least an addition because of scribal error. The earliest texts with the “who and which”, “hos and ho” are well attested for. Textual criticism and eclecticism are generally methods that favour the earlier biblical texts as being those that are more reliable as a basis to form a translation, and not the sets of later texts, even if the later commentaries etc are numerous and repetitive. Very early texts: Codex B Vaticanus 300 C.E. 1 Timothy is not included. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) 350 C.E. Reads: “Who” (hOS) was manifest in flesh. Codex Alexandrinus (Al) 450 C.E. Reads: “Who” (hOS) was manifest in flesh (Scrivener attests to theos, but this is an error due to bleed through on the papyrus) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) 450 C.E. Reads: “Who” (hOS) was manifest in flesh. Codex Claromontanus (D) 550 C.E. “Which” (hO) was manifest in flesh Peshitta. Reads: “Which” (hO)was manifest in flesh Coptic. Reads: “Which” (hO)was manifest in flesh Ethiopic. Reads: “Which” (hO)was manifest in flesh Sahidic. Reads: “Which” (hO)was manifest in flesh Gothic. Reads: “Which” (hO) was manifest in flesh There was of course a problem regarding scribal transmission. As pointed out by Stanley: “The bottom line is that two horizontal strokes make all the difference between reading “who” and “God”.”” ...But it goes further than that... Here is a site that shows us how the scribal error, (or deliberate tamper with the text) came about and this site gives us the visual evidence too. http://www.natzray a.org/Articles/1Ti mothy3-16/1-Timoth y-3-16.html The &#927;C (omicron-sigma) became the (theta-sigma) "God" &#920;C, (an 'O' with a line through it) appearing as such because of what is known as bleed through. That is, the ink from the other side of the parchment bleeds through. In this case the Greek letter epsilon on the reverse side, reading in reverse like the number '3' bled through... its middle line of the reversed epsilon '3' bleeds through to appear on the other side within the omicron 'O' so that it appears to read as a (theta-sigma) "God”, an O with a horizontal line through it, but bleed through error is not "God inspired". They conclude: <<”It should be evidently clear that the original Greek text which was written as OC "who" was corrupted by ink bleeding through the parchment. It was further corrupted when a later scribe supplied a diacritical mark, a horizontal stroke, above the letters to indicate that they were an abbreviation 0&#1017; (with line above)(THS) for 0&#917;&#9 27;&#1017; (THEOS) both meaning "God". All other manuscripts clearly state that the messiah, "who" and not "God" was manifest in the flesh.”>> .  (Dec 13, 2012 | post #46)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

PatYou speculate ! I express biblical doctrines, not pagan based mistranslated ones as trinitarians doJesus was 'a god' one of the elohim, an angel made flesh, as a man, fully man with no almighty God infused within.  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #24)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

Some of the trinitarian bibles mistranslate the Greek word 'theotes' in Colossians 2:9 as if Paul was saying Theos (God)! (fully God) Thus a few translations read Jesus was "fully God"... But that is not the original sense that Paul was speaking of because we know that Greek words with the Greek suffix "tes" denotes a quality. Hence, 'tes' is equivalent to our suffix ship, head or ness. Friendship, Friendliness for example. So theo (God) preceding the suffix 'tes' as 'Theotes' defines that word as speaking of one attaining a quality of God, i.e. godliness, godhead, or godship and not the actual being of God as trinitarians like to make out. Colossians should not be translated as "fully God". That verse is about Jesus having the full qualities of God, but please note, verse 10 implies that man can attain that full quality of God too. So in no way is Colossians saying "Fully God", there is no verse that says that. It doesn't imply that Jesus with the full qualities of God has the full goodness of God too because we'd have to say that man with the full qualities of God has the full goodness of God too. Surely that is impossible as God alone is omnipotent.  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #23)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

PatCorrect translation in tandem with the biblical theme and context: ""In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. Jesus was 'a god' who was with His God Jehovah. Jesus, a lesser god, one of the elohim, gods, that Paul speaks of in Corinthians the "Many gods in Heaven" but not the same as the one true Almighty God who is one alone, the true one and only God that Isaiah spoke ofPhilippians 2:6 (amongst many other scriptures) puts the matter straight: “Who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave *NO consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God*. Important: He, Jesus, *didn’t consider himself equal to God*, yet he was supposedly fully God, but others wanted him dead made out that he was considering himself to be the same as God so as to lay the false claim that he was blaspheming. We have to watch this trinitarian spun translation though, trinitarians twist the meaning of the Greek seizure to mean “robbery” or "grasped " to suit their theologyHe came as only a man...But many trintarians say he was fully God, a make believe idea that somehow they can defy all known mathematical concepts and have two 100%... 100% God and 100% fully man still equalling 100Nice piece of adding of a concept in brackets that is not found in scripture "Incarnate (that was God) made flesh". No, the word, Jesus, a god was made flesh, not the almighty God the creator was made flesh. Colossians 2:9 is about attainment of a full quality of God and not about being GodAgain, trinitarians say that he is fully God, yet you say he was fully man, and you use another mistranslation to support a false theory. The correct translation from the Koine Greek: "But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." .  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #16)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

GotyouIt's in something called "the bible", you should get one... not a trintarian mistranslated one though. Here: Mark 10:18 Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? *No one* is good except one-God. Please note the words *No one is good* except God. Do you understand what is implied by no one except God ? It means no other is good except the one referred to, who is God. So Jesus is indicating that he is not good, only His God is.  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #11)

Jehovah's Witness

New discussion board on facebook slowly gaining ground!

JohanIt's laughable, you always say that about 'letusreason': "He's gawn quiet". The only reason he'd be quiet is to rest from spending a lot of energy throwing you and your flawed concepts around the room like so many dirty rags and dumping them where they belong... in the bin. Whatever, it is good to hear about letusreason still preaching and teaching the truth of the bible to those that have ended up slithering along the wide road. Please tell him, when I get time I'll join him on there soon. .  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #5)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

Gotyou It's another fine mess you've got yourself intoNo, I said Jesus said that he is not good and you quoted it in your opening post. Here: "if Jesus was God, why did He say 'No one is good but God alone'" Please answer, was Jesus lying when he implied that he is not good by saying that no one is good except God alone ? I'll take it that if you don't answer, you believe Jesus to be a liar.... It'll be no surprise though ! .  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #7)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiThank goodness ! So you realised you made a mess, but are honest enough to admit that you got your indefinite articles inside out and upside down. And the word union is impliedNo, because Titus 2:13 is speaking of two entities, God the Father and Jesus the son, which is about the Father and the one that he created. And how on earth can the son be the Father ! ? This is the same as saying that Japtheth is NoahI agree with your last part, the trinitarian has three Gods, not that the bible does. What you say will make some trinitarians squirm because they don't like to say three God's but three persons of God. I guess you've been living like a hermit for many years then. Revelation 1:8 reads:  “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says *Jehovah God*, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” It refers to God, in figurative speech. If it ever refers to the son of God it cannot be literal because if the trinitarian believes that Jesus is God, then he is infinite in existence, but alpha and omega refer to a finite existence, a beginning and an end. The two Jehovah's is that one is Jehovah God and one is an angel of destruction carrying the name Jehovah, as one of the shaliach, which was an ancient Hebraic and middle eastern concept, e.g. ambassadors visiting other countries were named the same as their king or lord that sent them.The same with the messenger angels. With regards to Jesus being called everlasting Father, His human birth was foretold this way: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son.” (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:20-23, NIV) Jesus did not have a human father, nor did Adam, the first man. In tracing Jesus’ lineage back to the beginning of human history, the Bible historian Luke shows that Adam came into existence as a “son of God.” (Luke 3:38) But, as we have learned, Adam lost that relationship as God’s son—for himself and for all of his offspring. So we all need, as it were, a new father who is perfect—one like Adam when he was created. You need to study scripture, the original languages and the surrounding ancient cultural concepts and meanings so as to get a better understanding of God's wordElohim is not always plural, Hebrew words with the 'im' suffix are not always plural 'etsyim' trees is used to mean one tree also. Okay. Elohim is singular in Genesis 1:1 but plural in Genesis 1:26 However, in the Septuagint etc, the word angel is translated from the Hebrew word elohim. Elohim means god/gods and also the angels. So Genesis 1:26 is God speaking to the angels about *making* man in their image, and then it is God alone in verse 27 who *creates* man. As you haven't studied in-depth, you haven't yet got to grips with the meaning of create and make in Hebrew, the difference means a lot.  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #1226)

Jehovah's Witness

Even Jesus, Himself, says that He is not God?

GotYouWe don't need to say it, in your literal view, Jesus said it himself... Jesus said that no one is good except God then if that is so, Jesus says that he cannot be good, or do you think that Jesus was lying ? But your false premise is to equate one who is good as being equal to God...So read this: 2 Samuel 18:27 And the watchman said, Me thinketh the running of the foremost is like the running of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok. And the king said, He is a good man, and cometh with good tidings. So by the meaning of your false concept; Ahimaaz is God because God's word says that he is good ! Now go and follow the WTS !  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #3)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiThe NWT correctly translate the Greek language of John 1:3 as : All things came into existence *through* him.(Jesus)... Other trinitarian bibles read "by" Him which is a perversion of the original word and it's sense. The trinitarian contrived translations do change the meaning. The trinitarian translators twist the Greek preposition 'di' to mean 'by' in John 1:3 whereas if it was the case of creating 'by' Jesus then the preposition 'ek' would have been used meaning "out of" or "by". Thus when they change the original sense it makes it appear in their mistranslated bibles that all creation was created directly by Jesus, and it is deliberately mistranslated so as to give the impression that Jesus is the almighty creator God who is the only one that directly creates... But John 1:3 is actually saying that all creation was created "through " Jesus and not directly by him. This is further backed up in other scriptures in Koine Greek that enforce the idea that Jesus never directly creates...Colossia ns 1:16 says that “by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth.” (By the means of is like the meaning of "through ", it is not implying direct creation.) John 1:4 says that “by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men.” So by means of the Word, all other forms of life were created; also by means of his Son, God makes it possible for sinful, dying mankind to gain everlasting life. John 1:10 says of Jesus that “the world [kosmos] came into existence through him.” Jesus shared in the production of all things, including the heavens and the planet Earth and all things in it, but Jesus did not originate, design or create it directly by himself. This truth makes your understanding of Genesis a farce. Creating through is not the same as creating directly byNot your picture I hope, which is opposite to the picture gleaned from a properly translated bible. Rudi, if you use your mistranslated bible that removes God's words, his name in this case, you will be easily mislead... The verse actually reads: "24 This is what *Jehovah|* has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, *Jehovah*, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?" Jehovah the *one* and only true God was on his own as the direct designer, and the writer of the blueprint of all creation, and he, Jehovah God included an agent in putting particulars of his creation together, which was performed through or by the means of his son Jesus. You see Rudi, trinitarian translators don't want you to come to a realistion of that fact, so they mistranslate the little Greek and Hebrew nuances to make you come do a different and false realisation.... Even the Greek suffix 'tes' on the end of the Greek word Theo (God) "Theotes is mistranslated in Colossians 2:9 to make you believe that it reads "fully" God instead of Full qualities of God, they disregard the meaning of the Greek suffix 'tes' which implies a quality (of God) in this case. (Genesis 1:1) In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.... It doesn't read as "In [the] beginning the persons of God created the heavens and the earth" ! Or the Gods created etc. The Hebrew language, broken down, emphasises only one thing, that it was a singular 'He' that created and not a they that created. Elohim is not plural in Genesis 1:1 the 'im' suffix does not always denote plurality. .  (Oct 26, 2012 | post #1225)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiThe feeling is mutual with regards to how thoroughly brainwashed members of Christendom areI did not claim that Colossians 1:16 said 'di' (through) I did not quote any scripture, I said that is what 'di' generally means, "through " or "by the means of" ...We take our word diameter from it, meaning "measuring "through " (the circle) and not measuring 'by' the circle. With that meaning in mind please look at John 1:3 in an interlinear an then compare it with various bibles, you will see that the Greek preposition 'di' is translated as 'by' in trinitarian bibles. That is yet another deliberate trinitarian mistranslation as they try to make it seem that all things were created 'by' Jesus rather than the true sense that all things were created 'through' Jesus... With regards to Colossians 1:16 it would be accurate to translate the Greek "en" as "by the means of" because the Greek preposition "en" is showing us the sense that it is not indicating something direct, outwards, but something inwards. If it was direct the Greek preposition 'ek' meaning 'out of' or better still, 'by' would have been used by Paul in Colossians 1:16 Can you get the picture now, the triniarian translators are the ones that are distorting the given sense found in the original texts and that it is not the NWT translators doing this ? .  (Oct 21, 2012 | post #1116)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiThe words "union with" are implied otherwise it reads oddly, and the definite article "the" is a valid insertion as that word is implied too just as much as Genesis 1:1 originally reads "in beginning God created..." but even though "the" is not found in the original, all bibles insert the word "the" before the word beginningWhy have you said that it reads as "TO THE CONGREGATION OF THE THESSALONIANS IN *A* GOD" when the indefinite article 'a' is not implied at all ? Surely, there is only one God the Father even in trinitarian understanding, and an indefinite sense using the 'a' is not valid. Can you not see that this verse is actually reading in the definite sense "The God the father" ? If you put an 'a' before God the Father it will indicate that we would all have to believe that there are many God Fathers, as it tends to say that "A God the Father" is one of many. This construct is totally different than that of John 1:1.... Acts 28:4 is of an identical construct, your verse and it's context isn't, so consistency is not an issue with regards to your misrepresentative idea. .  (Oct 21, 2012 | post #1113)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiNo, the reality of it all is that you are worshipping three gods, that you pretend are three persons of God. You are only assuming that if Thomas' words at John 20:28 is an expression "My God" it is taking the name of God in vain, it isn't. You are speculating that such as phrase was blasphemy 2000 years ago, just because our culture 2000 years later assumes "My God" to be blasphemy now ! But you have no evidence to show that the words "My God" is blasphemy 2000 years ago. The fact is, Thomas' words "My Lord and My God" is not a blasphemy because it is an expression, an idiom and it shows us that it was not a literal statement. The closest that it would have been to anything literal is that the Jews recognised that there were many gods in heaven, of which Jesus was one. So Jesus who is 'a god' as John 1:1 indicates, was a god to Thomas. We also know that Jesus said multiple times that His God is God the Father by saying "My God" which tells us that Jesus has The God as his God who is obviously a superior non-identical entity to he, Jesus. Those sayings clarify that Thomas' words are nothing more than an expression. .  (Oct 21, 2012 | post #1110)

Jehovah's Witness

Paul says Jesus is Jehovah

RudiBut the addition of 'a' does change the meaning in Acts 28:4 Here's how: If we make it read as good English and gain the indefinite sense that Luke is enforcing in Acts 28:4 then it is only ever correct to include the indefinite article 'a' to gain the full meaning. The same for John 1:1 for John was enforcing the indefinite sense of recognised Jewish thought that there are many gods in heaven. If the indefinite article 'a' is removed from Acts 28:4 it changes the meaning, it becomes "the man is murderer" making it appear definite because the only other reading as a valid English translation would be "The man is THE Murderer", which implies that of all of the murderers of the Christians there was only Paul. To indicate that Paul was one of many murderers the indefinite factor is sensed and an indefinite article is used in English. The same goes for John 1:1, the indefinite factor is sensed and the indefinite article is used in English if the biblical context allows it to be so. Whatever, your take on it is that John 1:1 "a god" *cannot* possibly be a valid rendering on grammatical matter. However, grammatically speaking, that is a lie because an indefinite article 'a' can be used after we observe the identical sentence construct of Acts 28:4 and how it uses it. .  (Oct 21, 2012 | post #1108)