Total Posts:218|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

John 1:1c - "God" or "a god"?

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

From the text above, which are the KJV renderings, we can gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. So if we were to plug John 1:1c into that equation, we see many contradictions. If the Word was God, then that means (1) God has only existed since a beginning (so he was created), (2) the Word was with himself (liken that to me saying "tstor was with tstor"), (3) and no man has seen God (the Word), yet the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us!

Now, let's examine the immediate context using the NWT renderings:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - So the Word became flesh and resided among us
John 1:18 - No man has seen God at any time

From the text above, which are NWT renderings, we gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. However, if we plug John 1:1c (NWT) into the equation we see that there are no contradictions.

Greek
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [ton theon'], and the Word was God [theos']." (KJV)
With the Greek transliterations added, we can see that there are two different forms of the noun theos' (god). One of the forms has ton (the) preceding it, which is a from of the Greek definite article. In the instance of theon', it refers to the Almighty God. Now, let's examine the tricky c portion of the verse.

The Gospel of John was written in common (or Koine) Greek. This language has very specific rules in regards to definite articles. A. T. Robertson has stated that if both the subject and the predicate have articles, "both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable." He goes on to give the example of Matthew 13:38, which reads: "The field [ho agros'] is the world [ho ko'smos]." (A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 1923. pp 768) The grammar enables us to understand that the world is also the field. However, you should be asking yourself what this means for John 1:1, which has a subject with a definite article and a predicate that lacks a definite article. James Allen Hewett states that "in such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical, or anything of the sort." He gives us the example of 1 John 1:5, which reads "God [ho theos']is light [phos]." He goes on to say: "One can always [...] say of God He is characterized by light; one cannot always say of light that it is God."

William Barclay, in regards to John 1:1, states: "Because [the apostle John] has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description [...] John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God." (William Barclay; Many Witnesses, One Lord, pp 23, 24) Jason David BeDuhn similarly says: "In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.' [...] Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as 'a god' is from 'God' in English." He goes on to add that "in John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being." Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version had this to say: "The Logos [or, Word] was divine, not the divine Being himself." (Joseph Henry Thayer: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, THEOS)

Finally, I will conclude by quoting Origen:
"We next notice John's use of the article ['the' or ho in the Greek in this case] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he [John] uses the article ['the' in English or ho in NT Greek] and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Logos [ho logos or 'the Word'], but to [theos: 'god' or 'God'] he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article [ho] when [theos] refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Logos [Word] is named [theos]. [...] the God who is over all is God with the article [ho theos] not without it [theos] and so the Saviour says in his prayer to the Father, 'That they may know thee the only true God [Jn 17:1, 3];' but that all beyond the Very God [ho theos] is made [theos] by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article [ho theos]), but rather [theos] (without the article). And thus the first-born of all creation [Jesus, Col. 1:15], who is the first to be with God, and to attract to himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods [angels] beside him, of whom God [ho theos, the Father only] is the God [Rev. 3:2, 12; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3, 17, etc.], as it is written, 'the God of gods...' [Ps. 49:1, Septuagint; Ps. 136:2; Deut. 10:17]. The true God [the Father alone, Jn 17:1, 3], then, is ['the god,' ho theos], and those who are formed after him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype." - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. X, p. 323, "Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John", Book 2, part 2, Eerdmans, 1990
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 2:05:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM, annanicole wrote:

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).
Thank you for bringing this up, because it shows the bias of the translators. Consider the interlinear text, which reads:
All (things) through him came to be, and apart from him came to be not-but one (thing).

Compare that text to your KJV reference and then compare it to the NWT:
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Which one captures the true meaning?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 2:07:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).

Since when is the Word a "Him" ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
*a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written
*a brief remark or conversation : something that a person says
* an order or command

Is the word that comes from your mouth a "Him" ?
Are you the word that comes from your mouth?

What can a word (combination of sounds ) create other than a noise?
Can it create a planet?

Even the Greek word Logos is not a "him" as referring to a person or human being.
Strong's G3056
Logos = word, saying, account, speech.
It is a masculine noun which means it has a grammatical gender in Greek, not a physical gender. It does not refer to a physical individual named Jesus or any other physical individual.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 2:54:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 2:05:13 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM, annanicole wrote:

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).
Thank you for bringing this up, because it shows the bias of the translators. Consider the interlinear text, which reads:
All (things) through him came to be, and apart from him came to be not-but one (thing).

The interlinear actually reads,

"All (things) through Him came to be, and apart from (the same) Him came to be not even one (thing) which has come to be."

It is available online here: http://www.scripture4all.org...

Compare that text to your KJV reference and then compare it to the NWT:
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Which one captures the true meaning?

Well, I used the KJV because you used it. As usual, I'll go with the ASV.

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

The verse is emphatic, even repetitive:

1. All things were made through the Word
2. There were and are no exceptions.
3. Any created thing that "hath been made" was not made without Him.

I think that pretty much captures the true meaning. I will, as a rule, stack up the 101 internationally recognized scholars, and committees of scholars, and committees of committees of scholars - including Philip Schaaf and J. H. Thayer - against any translation as far as accuracy based upon the Westcott/Hort text. Of course, the KJV is based upon the Received Text.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:04:07 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 2:54:54 AM, annanicole wrote:

Consider the interlinear text, which reads:
All (things) through him came to be, and apart from him came to be not-but one (thing).

The interlinear actually reads,

"All (things) through Him came to be, and apart from (the same) Him came to be not even one (thing) which has come to be."

It is available online here: http://www.scripture4all.org...

Compare that text to your KJV reference and then compare it to the NWT:
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Which one captures the true meaning?

Well, I used the KJV because you used it. As usual, I'll go with the ASV.
That is fine. I was simply using the KJV because it is one of the most recognized.

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

The verse is emphatic, even repetitive:

1. All things were made through the Word
2. There were and are no exceptions.
3. Any created thing that "hath been made" was not made without Him.

I think that pretty much captures the true meaning. I will, as a rule, stack up the 101 internationally recognized scholars, and committees of scholars, and committees of committees of scholars - including Philip Schaaf and J. H. Thayer - against any translation as far as accuracy based upon the Westcott/Hort text. Of course, the KJV is based upon the Received Text.
I do not really have a problem with the ASV rendering of the text at John 1:3.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:18:33 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Westcott & Hort FRAUD!

(Source: http://www.trends.net...)

&

The Jehovah Witnesses are a Satanic organization, based upon the occult of Freemasonry. Charles Taze Russell was a 33rd Degree Freemason; as was Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult. Carefully notice the Masonic cross at the upper left corner of the photo below...

&

Westcott and Hort took two waste Catholic Sources (the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus) to produce their waste version of the Bible, Nestle and the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, written by Senior Jesuits Jose Maria Bover and A. Merkz, followed Westcott and Hort.

From the Forward of the 1950 version NWT:

"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk..."

9. *The Jehovah's Witnesses used Jesuits and Roman Catholic manuscripts to aid in the translation of the New World Translation.

'GREEK TEXT: The Greek Text that we have used as the basis for the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott & Hort text (1881), by reason of its acknowledged excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including those prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle, the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover, and another Jesuit scholar, A Merck. The UBS text of 1875 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were cinsukted to update the critical apparatus of this edition." The Forward, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985, page 8.

"In the broad left-hand column of the pages will be found the Greek text edited by B F Westcott and F J a Hort, and published in 1881." By Way of Explanation, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures - 1985, page 5.

(Source: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:00:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:18:33 AM, Composer wrote:
Westcott & Hort FRAUD!

(Source: http://www.trends.net...)
Sorry, but I cannot access the website (it will not load). I will just leave you with a quote from Philip Comfort:
"The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. [...] In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. [...] Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort." (Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, pp 100.)

&

The Jehovah Witnesses are a Satanic organization, based upon the occult of Freemasonry. Charles Taze Russell was a 33rd Degree Freemason; as was Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult. Carefully notice the Masonic cross at the upper left corner of the photo below...
It is not a "masonic cross." I will quote Wikipedia:
"Cross and Crown (a cross passing through a crown), is seen by some to be a Christian symbol appearing in many churches, particularly Roman Catholic; and has also been used in heraldry. It is often interpreted as symbolizing the reward in heaven (the crown) coming after the trials in this life (the cross) (James 1:12)."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As well, there is no connection between the freemasons and Russell. In fact, the website that you put as your source outright lied when it said that Russell was buried in "The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery," which is not even a real cemetery. In reality, Russell was buried in The United Rosemont Cemetery.

&

Westcott and Hort took two waste Catholic Sources (the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus) to produce their waste version of the Bible, Nestle and the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, written by Senior Jesuits Jose Maria Bover and A. Merkz, followed Westcott and Hort.

From the Forward of the 1950 version NWT:

"The original writings of the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, were inspired. No translation of these Sacred writings into another language, is inspired... The Greek text that we have used as a basis of our NW translation is the widely accepted Westcott and Hort text (1881) by reason of its admitted excellence. But we have also taken in to consideration other texts including that prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle and that compiled by the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover and that by the other Jesuit scholar A. Merk..."

9. *The Jehovah's Witnesses used Jesuits and Roman Catholic manuscripts to aid in the translation of the New World Translation.

'GREEK TEXT: The Greek Text that we have used as the basis for the New World Translation is the widely accepted Westcott & Hort text (1881), by reason of its acknowledged excellence. But we have also taken into consideration other texts, including those prepared by D. Eberhard Nestle, the Spanish Jesuit scholar Jose Maria Bover, and another Jesuit scholar, A Merck. The UBS text of 1875 and the Nestle-Aland text of 1979 were cinsukted to update the critical apparatus of this edition." The Forward, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1985, page 8.

"In the broad left-hand column of the pages will be found the Greek text edited by B F Westcott and F J a Hort, and published in 1881." By Way of Explanation, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures - 1985, page 5.

(Source: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...)

You provide no real criticisms to the Westcott and Hort text other than baseless statements. I cannot refute something that is not real. To help you, I will provide the texts used by the NWT committee:
http://wol.jw.org...
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Evidence
Posts: 846
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:32:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word,
This is Gods son "Word" the first of all of Gods creation, not God, for God is Infinite and Eternal, no beginning nor end.

and the Word was with God
Remember we were created in Gods image: "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, .. male and female He created them" So Gods son Word represents Eve, and Adam represents the image of God. So as the Word was with God, Eve was with Adam.

, and the Word was God.
.. just as Eve was Adam before God took her out of Adam (rib, and formed woman) Perfect image.

2 He was in the beginning with God.
God has no beginning, so this beginning is Gods first creation, His son whom He named Word, as in the "Word of God".

3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
God the Infinite Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit in His infinite wisdom was able to create within Himself an image of himself, with a definable form, who, unlike our Invisible Spirit/God can be seen by other created beings (Angels, Heavenly Creatures and us) Now through the Son Word, God created all other created things.

"14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

When the Holy Spirit transported Gods son Word (as a DNA) into the egg of a virgin, 9 months later he was born and was then named Jesus.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

But sadly, even though the world was made through Him, .. the world did not know Him, or recognize Him, and from what I have seen after 1,700 years, right after the pagan god worshipping Emperor Constantine organized his Christian Religion and preached a perverted version of God (a demon, a Deity) who divines his will to his mediums, witches and warlocks, and making Gods only Son as Lucifer the sun-god, no one truly knows Him still.

Some think He is God, others that he is some Angel, a Cherubim. Yet still others see him as part of a trinity, a group of three individuals who together represent the idea 'God'. The Catholic church, and slowly all the Protestant churches now see the Son as Lucifer, who has set up his throne on the North as he swore he would sit "as the Most High", and unfortunately this is where the world worships him from (the North Pole), and give glory to him by claiming that it is he who brings all good tidings, and that it is he (Satan-clause) that has good will towards men instead of God our Creator. Men claim that it is he, Lucifer himself that brings presents to the world as he comes swooping down from the supernatural realm, down the wormhole (chimney), through the fires of hell/portal (fireplace) and into the homes of his awaiting worshipers an December 25th of every year.

Well, as a nothing, who has been brought up being treated lower than a dog, being fed bones from the family's table, often beaten unconscious, poisoned, kept from formal education, sick left to die, abandoned often in the wilderness where Angels came to guide me back home, .. so for all it's worth I'm here to tell whoever gives me ear that God is real, He is Spirit and we have that Spirit in us, it is our mind. It is who we are, the body gives us each a personality, and it is this tent that we use to give glory and thanks to God for creating us. We can use this tent as a temple glorifying God, or a party whore house allowing demons to reside in and rule us

God is Infinite and Eternal, not energy but the creator of it, God is Spirit just as our mind is spirit. It is that same Spirit that God breathed into the body made of dust Adam, where he then became a living, breathing individual soul.
As for Gods Son Word, who now is also called Jesus, our Savior, is not some sun-god, not an Angel, especially not some deity/demon, He does not reside in the demon possessed supernatural realm but is in Heaven next to the Power and Spirit, our Holy God who is His Father and our Father, for those who will accept Him.
I just pray that I see the Day when people will open their eyes, deny the Deity or deities (demons) they have worshipped, and stop being Diviners to these demons, instead become humble servants of the One True God, Infinite and Eternal, the Only One Possible:

23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.
24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."


In the newness of our mind/spirit, in truth not by the lies of Satan, but in faith built on evidence with substance and not the blind faith that religions require.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:45:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:04:07 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/5/2016 2:54:54 AM, annanicole wrote:

Consider the interlinear text, which reads:
All (things) through him came to be, and apart from him came to be not-but one (thing).

The interlinear actually reads,

"All (things) through Him came to be, and apart from (the same) Him came to be not even one (thing) which has come to be."

It is available online here: http://www.scripture4all.org...

Compare that text to your KJV reference and then compare it to the NWT:
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

Which one captures the true meaning?

Well, I used the KJV because you used it. As usual, I'll go with the ASV.
That is fine. I was simply using the KJV because it is one of the most recognized.

"All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made."

The verse is emphatic, even repetitive:

1. All things were made through the Word
2. There were and are no exceptions.
3. Any created thing that "hath been made" was not made without Him.

I think that pretty much captures the true meaning. I will, as a rule, stack up the 101 internationally recognized scholars, and committees of scholars, and committees of committees of scholars - including Philip Schaaf and J. H. Thayer - against any translation as far as accuracy based upon the Westcott/Hort text. Of course, the KJV is based upon the Received Text.
I do not really have a problem with the ASV rendering of the text at John 1:3.

You may not, but I think you will have a problem with the implication: not a single created thing, i. e. zero. zilch, nada, was created without or apart from the Word.

Typical WatchTower dogma speculates that not all created things, things that were made, were created through the Word, else they'd have the Word creating Himself. Most of them don't care for that idea much, so they simply assert, "Well, it means 'all things other than Himself'." That's the ... ummm ... "explanation."

I don't think I've seen you discuss it , though
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:00:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
The root to the word "BRAHMAN" originally meant "SPEECH", much the same as the "LOGOS" is said to mean "WORD," but both are in fact, the gathered genetic information of every universal body throughout all eternity. Both Brahman and Logos, should be seen as the essential divine reality of the universe the eternal spirit from which all being originates, and to which all must return.

You are body, soul and spirit. Your body is made up from the universal elements, and it is activated by the universal soul, which is the animating principle that pervades the entire universal body, activating everything within the universe, from the wave particles to the subatomic particles that make up the atoms which are the building blocks of the molecules from which the universal body is created. It is to the universal soul=LIFE-FORCE that all information = SPIRIT is gathered.

"YOU" the mind, are spirit. The body in which you, [The mind] are developing as the supreme head and controller of that body, is made up of the universal elements, which is activated by the soul [Animating life force] to which all the spirit [gathered information] of all your ancestors, human and prehuman, has been gathered in the evolution of whatever was in the beginning to become who you are, and that parental spirit dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of its earthly tabernacle=tent, which is your body.

If that body in which your parental spirit dwells, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, etc, then no information whatsoever could be taken into the brain, and "YOU" who are spirit [Gathered information] could never have begun to develop and the living body, in which the parental spirit dwells, would soon die, never having developed a personality = "CONTROLLING GODHEAD" to that body.

Then of the Thee in Me who works behind
The veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without__ "The Me within Thee is blind.".... By Omar Khayyam.

When the body in which you [the mind] are being formed, dies, [This is the first death] and your body: "skin, flesh, muscle, blood, bone, brain matter etc, etc," has returned to the universal elements from which it was created, all that remains, is a shadow or rather, a facsimile of YOU = the mind=spirit, that has been imprinted into the universal life force=soul, from which it will be resurrected in the next cycle of universal activity. Unless of course, the information=spirit that is "YOU" is divided from the universal life-force, which is the second death. For the spirit=information that is you, can be divided from the universal soul----------"For the word of God is alive and active, sharper than any two edged sword. It cuts all the way through to the division of the soul and spirit."
'
The term, "THE WORD OF GOD," pertains to the sense that is identical to the term "LOGOS" or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma, vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as being in the mind as a thought, not as the spoken word or speech.

We humans, may express in our spoken words, all the information that has been gathered through the senses of our bodies in the creation of the invisible minds=spirits that are "WE". Our word is the expression of "Who we are." Your words are the spirit that is "YOU" the mind.

But the "LOGOS=WORD" and BRAHMAN=SPEECH" are the gathered information=spirit of the aeons, and express the information that has been gathered to the universal soul as another universal body, which is in the image and likeness to the previous universe, [The Resurrection] in which the eternal Spirit=mind has and can continue to evolve.

In the Pseudigraphia of the Old Testament, The Lord God says to Adam, "Dust you are and to dust you must return, but when the resurrection comes around again, [The next cycle of universal activity] I will raise you and all of your seed etc. This is the reality of the resurrection.

The "LOGOS=BRAHMAN," is the essential divine reality of the Universe, the eternal spirit=mind from which all being originates and to which, all must return.

The LOGOS is today as it always was, and will be into all eternity. It is the only true constant in that it is constantly evolving. Show to me a mind that has ceased to evolve, and I will show to you a mind that has ceased to exist... At the close of each period of universal activity, the Godhead, which is the gathering of all the chosen minds of the Most High species to have evolved in that period, enters into Brahman or Logos, as the supreme personality of godhead (The Light Of Man=all the knowledge, wisdom and insight gathered by the body of mankind who is the most high on the ladder of evolution in the physical creation] the life or controlling personality in Brahman or Logos.

To the Hindu, it is Krishna, the eighth manifestation of "Vishnu the Saviour", who enters into Brahman at the close of this cycle of universal manifestation as the evolved mind in the eternal evolving Logos God.

To the astute biblical student, it is their indwelling Lord, the spiritual "SON OF MAN," the new species which evolves from man who is currently developing within the body of mankind to who is gathered all the spirits of the righteous, who will enter into the Logos as the supreme personality of Godhead, the LIGHT and Life within the eternal evolving Godhead.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:17:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 3:18:33 AM, Composer wrote:
Westcott & Hort FRAUD!

(Source: http://www.trends.net...)
Sorry, but I cannot access the website (it will not load). I will just leave you with a quote from Philip Comfort:
"The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. [...] In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. [...] Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort." (Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, pp 100.)

&

The Jehovah Witnesses are a Satanic organization, based upon the occult of Freemasonry. Charles Taze Russell was a 33rd Degree Freemason; as was Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult. Carefully notice the Masonic cross at the upper left corner of the photo below...
It is not a "masonic cross." I will quote Wikipedia:
"Cross and Crown (a cross passing through a crown), is seen by some to be a Christian symbol appearing in many churches, particularly Roman Catholic; and has also been used in heraldry. It is often interpreted as symbolizing the reward in heaven (the crown) coming after the trials in this life (the cross) (James 1:12)."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As well, there is no connection between the freemasons and Russell. In fact, the website that you put as your source outright lied when it said that Russell was buried in "The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery," which is not even a real cemetery. In reality, Russell was buried in The United Rosemont Cemetery.

The following refutes you! -

https://www.youtube.com...

Russell admits he was a Free and accepted Mason

& states he has been in conference with the Great Master Workman!


At 1/5/2016 4:00:08 AM, tstor wrote:
You provide no real criticisms to the Westcott and Hort text other than baseless statements. I cannot refute something that is not real. To help you, I will provide the texts used by the NWT committee:
http://wol.jw.org...

The NW version is a pretend translation!

We know that for certain because e.g., It has retained the Hebrew Term ' Satan ' and not translated it in to English, hence it is a corrupt & pretend translation.

Hence the NW Committee, despite being inept & lacking in translation scholarship, were also liars, frauds & deceivers!

There are NO original Greek NT manuscripts, so whatever W & Hort translated was based upon pretend/non-original documents.

Here's a sample that they didn't believe the content of the text either -

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Hence their ability to translate these non-original documents honestly, without bias, is also placed in doubt
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:39:39 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:17:26 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/5/2016 3:18:33 AM, Composer wrote:
Westcott & Hort FRAUD!

(Source: http://www.trends.net...)
Sorry, but I cannot access the website (it will not load). I will just leave you with a quote from Philip Comfort:
"The text produced by Westcott and Hort is still to this day, even with so many more manuscript discoveries, a very close reproduction of the primitive text of the New Testament. Of course, I think they gave too much weight to Codex Vaticanus alone, and this needs to be tempered. This criticism aside, the Westcott and Hort text is extremely reliable. [...] In many instances where I would disagree with the wording in the Nestle / UBS text in favor of a particular variant reading, I would later check with the Westcott and Hort text and realize that they had often come to the same decision. [...] Of course, the manuscript discoveries of the past one hundred years have changed things, but it is remarkable how often they have affirmed the decisions of Westcott and Hort." (Encountering the Manuscripts: An Introduction to New Testament Paleography & Textual Criticism, pp 100.)

&

The Jehovah Witnesses are a Satanic organization, based upon the occult of Freemasonry. Charles Taze Russell was a 33rd Degree Freemason; as was Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult. Carefully notice the Masonic cross at the upper left corner of the photo below...
It is not a "masonic cross." I will quote Wikipedia:
"Cross and Crown (a cross passing through a crown), is seen by some to be a Christian symbol appearing in many churches, particularly Roman Catholic; and has also been used in heraldry. It is often interpreted as symbolizing the reward in heaven (the crown) coming after the trials in this life (the cross) (James 1:12)."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As well, there is no connection between the freemasons and Russell. In fact, the website that you put as your source outright lied when it said that Russell was buried in "The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery," which is not even a real cemetery. In reality, Russell was buried in The United Rosemont Cemetery.

The following refutes you! -

https://www.youtube.com...

Russell admits he was a Free and accepted Mason

& states he has been in conference with the Great Master Workman!


At 1/5/2016 4:00:08 AM, tstor wrote:
You provide no real criticisms to the Westcott and Hort text other than baseless statements. I cannot refute something that is not real. To help you, I will provide the texts used by the NWT committee:
http://wol.jw.org...

The NW version is a pretend translation!

We know that for certain because e.g., It has retained the Hebrew Term ' Satan ' and not translated it in to English, hence it is a corrupt & pretend translation.

Hence the NW Committee, despite being inept & lacking in translation scholarship, were also liars, frauds & deceivers!

There are NO original Greek NT manuscripts, so whatever W & Hort translated was based upon pretend/non-original documents.

Here's a sample that they didn't believe the content of the text either -

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Hence their ability to translate these non-original documents honestly, without bias, is also placed in doubt

There are no original documents from Josephus the historian existing today either, but many historian quote from translations of later copies and believe them to be reasonably accurate.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:21:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 2:07:19 AM, Skyangel wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).

Since when is the Word a "Him" ?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
*a sound or combination of sounds that has a meaning and is spoken or written
*a brief remark or conversation : something that a person says
* an order or command

Is the word that comes from your mouth a "Him" ?
Are you the word that comes from your mouth?

What can a word (combination of sounds ) create other than a noise?
Can it create a planet?

Even the Greek word Logos is not a "him" as referring to a person or human being.
Strong's G3056
Logos = word, saying, account, speech.
It is a masculine noun which means it has a grammatical gender in Greek, not a physical gender. It does not refer to a physical individual named Jesus or any other physical individual.
You are extremely weird, but your argument isn't your fault....consider the following
In the beginning was the word. (Word meaning the entirety of Gods wisdom)
And the word was God (Gods wisdom defines who God is, represents whomGod is, etc.)
And the word was made flesh and dwelled among us (Jesus, upon becoming the Christ, as he said, did nothing lest he sees the father do it first. I.e. Jesus reflected how having gods wisdom would result in how an individual existed in this world , actions they would take, and what their views would be based on having Gods wisdom as their driving guide)
No man hath seen god..(we've seen Gods wisdom as reflected through the behavior of Christ, but seeing Christ wouldn't be seeing God)
No questions as to the trinity and Crap like that, not going into a non issue. Claiming the word means a spoken word is just flat out hilarious.If that's what you did, I don't really read the majority of what you're trying to say.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:33:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:39:39 AM, Gentorev wrote:
There are no original documents from Josephus the historian existing today either, but many historian quote from translations of later copies and believe them to be reasonably accurate.

Josephus wasn't around until about 30 years after the supposed jebus, so all he got was ' hearsay '.

Let's cut to your main fundamental impediment! -

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12) KJV Story book

So arrange a demonstration for us of your doing greater miracles & then we'll talk again!

Meanwhile you & Co. remain frauds, liars & deceivers!

Your Vindicated Mentor & Saviour, Benevolent Moi!
graceofgod
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 11:01:10 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:52:57 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

Why leave out the next two verses? I'll also use the KJV:

"The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made."

Therefore we conclude that each and every thing that was created, or made, was created by Him (the Word).

well said, they exclude those because the jw's need to say it was a god to somehow try and get michael involved...
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:08:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 4:45:32 AM, annanicole wrote:

I do not really have a problem with the ASV rendering of the text at John 1:3.

You may not, but I think you will have a problem with the implication: not a single created thing, i. e. zero. zilch, nada, was created without or apart from the Word.
I have no problem with what it says.

Typical WatchTower dogma speculates that not all created things, things that were made, were created through the Word, else they'd have the Word creating Himself. Most of them don't care for that idea much, so they simply assert, "Well, it means 'all things other than Himself'." That's the ... ummm ... "explanation."

I don't think I've seen you discuss it , though
This is actually quite amusing to be very honest. I do recall you saying that in Ezekiel 31:5 the word "other" (as in "all other trees") would not be needed because "certainly one would come to that conclusion based upon common sense." The conclusion being that the tree is not taller than itself, so it would be taller than all other trees. Yet when the NWT does not not add the word "other," you lack common sense. Funny.

John 1:3 can be linked with Colossians 1:15-17, which read:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

As well, it should be noted that John 1:10 reads:
"He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him."

No non-trinitarian ignores this verse.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:08:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 6:17:26 AM, Composer wrote:

It is not a "masonic cross." I will quote Wikipedia:
"Cross and Crown (a cross passing through a crown), is seen by some to be a Christian symbol appearing in many churches, particularly Roman Catholic; and has also been used in heraldry. It is often interpreted as symbolizing the reward in heaven (the crown) coming after the trials in this life (the cross) (James 1:12)."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As well, there is no connection between the freemasons and Russell. In fact, the website that you put as your source outright lied when it said that Russell was buried in "The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery," which is not even a real cemetery. In reality, Russell was buried in The United Rosemont Cemetery.

The following refutes you! -

https://www.youtube.com...
I am just looking at a dude play around on Google Earth. I need real documentation, not whatever that is.

Russell admits he was a Free and accepted Mason

& states he has been in conference with the Great Master Workman!
Document to show that? Source? Do not expect me to just take your word for it.

You provide no real criticisms to the Westcott and Hort text other than baseless statements. I cannot refute something that is not real. To help you, I will provide the texts used by the NWT committee:
http://wol.jw.org...

The NW version is a pretend translation!
I look forward to some strong evidence

We know that for certain because e.g., It has retained the Hebrew Term ' Satan ' and not translated it in to English, hence it is a corrupt & pretend translation.
Any particular verse? As far as I am concerned every Bible translation renders "Satan" in Job 1:6.

Hence the NW Committee, despite being inept & lacking in translation scholarship, were also liars, frauds & deceivers!
Prove that the NWT is not an accurate translation. It would be easy to do if you were telling the truth.

There are NO original Greek NT manuscripts, so whatever W & Hort translated was based upon pretend/non-original documents.
They did not go off of original manuscripts. I guess I should call you Sherlock for finding that one out!

Here's a sample that they didn't believe the content of the text either -

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Hence their ability to translate these non-original documents honestly, without bias, is also placed in doubt
"11th August. - James i. I do not recollect noticing the second verse ever before in the way I have. How sincerely do I wish that I could 'rejoice in temptation.' I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it. The day is extremely warm.

"31st August. - Hooker. V.S.D. Oh, the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so sceptical am I. I cannot yield. Lord, look on me ; teach me Thy truth, and let me care for nothing else in evil report and good. Let me uphold nothing as necessary, but only Thy truth."

Here Westcott, as a 22-year-old student, is lamenting his own weaknesses. He is not expressing his disbelief in miracles, but admitting a natural tendency to want an explanation - that he struggled with simply accepting them by faith. That doesn't mean he did not accept by faith the accounts of the miracles, but rather that his first reaction (which he did not let determine his view on miracles) was to desire some evidence of them. In later years, Westcott went on to write many books, and wrote many things specifically about the absolute truth of the miracles as recorded in Scripture. He even wrote a book solely on this subject about 12 years later, called "Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles" in 1859.

http://www.westcotthort.com...

Stop using that awful source.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Gentorev
Posts: 2,925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:20:43 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 8:33:46 AM, Composer wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:39:39 AM, Gentorev wrote:
There are no original documents from Josephus the historian existing today either, but many historian quote from translations of later copies and believe them to be reasonably accurate.

Josephus wasn't around until about 30 years after the supposed jebus, so all he got was ' hearsay '.

Let's cut to your main fundamental impediment! -

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. (John 14:12) KJV Story book

So arrange a demonstration for us of your doing greater miracles & then we'll talk again!

Meanwhile you & Co. remain frauds, liars & deceivers!

Your Vindicated Mentor & Saviour, Benevolent Moi!

I was referring to the copies of the writings of Josephus the historian, such as "The Jewish Wars" and "Antiquities of the Jews." etc. Are you suggesting that those works should be rejected as fraudulent?

As for the demonstration that you demand, are you truly aware of what you are asking for? The thing that you most fear might just occur.

So if you still demand the demonstration, let it occur that your greatest fear befalls you within a week. So think twice before agreeing to your demand.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:29:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
.... Now, let's examine the tricky c portion of the verse.


Or maybe there's nothing all that tricky about the passage. Have you ever honestly considered the option that it can be read simply, and taken for what it says?

It's an advanced subject, of course, for the nature of the divine must exceed the human capacity for understanding, but I don't think there's anything particularly tricky about the text.

I think the force of the text, which you JWs miss, is something like this: "In the beginning was relationship". "God is Love", but that doesn't mean God is the ultimate narcissist, you see. This JW idea, as expressed by the tracts I've been given, of a white haired old man sitting all by himself on a throne before he made anything else is as ridiculous as any other imagery of God that heretics have ever dreamed up.
This space for rent.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 2:46:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

From the text above, which are the KJV renderings, we can gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. So if we were to plug John 1:1c into that equation, we see many contradictions. If the Word was God, then that means (1) God has only existed since a beginning (so he was created), (2) the Word was with himself (liken that to me saying "tstor was with tstor"), (3) and no man has seen God (the Word), yet the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us!

Now, let's examine the immediate context using the NWT renderings:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - So the Word became flesh and resided among us
John 1:18 - No man has seen God at any time

From the text above, which are NWT renderings, we gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. However, if we plug John 1:1c (NWT) into the equation we see that there are no contradictions.

Snipped out all the commentary on John 1 because most of what is written in John 1 are not the actual words spoken by Jesus. It was commentary by the author just like the ones I snipped out were also nothing but commentary. Using a red letter bible will show you what was actually spoken by Jesus. This way you can skip what is being said about Jesus (personal opinions and hearsay).

So Jesus did not say he was tbe word, God or tbe beginning or the creator of all things if we ignore the commentary in John 1.

But we know what Jesus actually said in other verses.

John 14:6 Jesus answered "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And here is why he said it.

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify YOUR SON, that YOUR SON may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people THAT HE MIGHT GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN " For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me " All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come TO ME through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one " My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I IN THEM and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them AND THAT I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM."" John 17:1-5, 8, 10-11, 20-26.

One does not deal with God directly. God sent Jesus to be the mediator. He put Jesus in charge and gave Jesus all authority over heaven and earth and those that accepted him would be granted eternal life and salvation.
Trying to talk past or over Jesus isn't going to work because the only person God gave power to forgive sins and offer salvation was Jesus. That is what the whole bible is about. All roads lead to Jesus. Jesus is not only the sacrifice, he is also the saviour and the ONLY path to his Father.

Luke 10:16 "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 3:29:58 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time


Your presentation is deceptive John 1:1 KJV is 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.
And yes I know it's stated later in your posting, but that isn't what was said here was it? why? It would be to make it look like the text is the same, which it isn't, is it?

Your version and the KJV are different on purpose not by oops of languages. Translator are very aware of any meanings, hence the reason they had that job.

And you think without the rest of the text in mind:

3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Therefore the Word is God to everything made, also Jesus says that no one comes to the Father but through Him, hence again it is through God"s Word does anything in creation know God or God"s will.

A King"s word is the same power and presence as the King and is of the King and was only spoken in the King"s presence. So since Jesus is the Word of God then every time He spoke the Presence of God was in Him. Also you forget that Jesus also said if you see Him you see His Father.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,494
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:14:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 2:46:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
...

One does not deal with God directly. God sent Jesus to be the mediator.

But by your own standards of interpretation: In John 16, Jesus' own words: I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you ....

You can say one does not get to God directly but only through Jesus. But it is Jesus' mission to bring us into direct relationship to God. This is also spelled out in more detail in John 14 where Jesus tells them about the coming of the Spirit. This could be paraphrased as "it is necessary that I go away so you can have a direct relationship with God"
This space for rent.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:24:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 4:14:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/5/2016 2:46:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
...

One does not deal with God directly. God sent Jesus to be the mediator.

But by your own standards of interpretation: In John 16, Jesus' own words: I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you ....

You can say one does not get to God directly but only through Jesus. But it is Jesus' mission to bring us into direct relationship to God. This is also spelled out in more detail in John 14 where Jesus tells them about the coming of the Spirit. This could be paraphrased as "it is necessary that I go away so you can have a direct relationship with God"

Correct you are to ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, because being born of God"s Spirit you have received the Life that Christ has which is a Father Son relationship. Jesus gave us His Life with and in the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit one receives.

sorry had to chime in.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:24:46 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 4:14:09 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 1/5/2016 2:46:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
...

One does not deal with God directly. God sent Jesus to be the mediator.

But by your own standards of interpretation: In John 16, Jesus' own words: I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you ....

You can say one does not get to God directly but only through Jesus. But it is Jesus' mission to bring us into direct relationship to God. This is also spelled out in more detail in John 14 where Jesus tells them about the coming of the Spirit. This could be paraphrased as "it is necessary that I go away so you can have a direct relationship with God"
Jesus was sent to glorify God. How can you have a relationship with God or love God whom you have not seen and not accept Jesus who has come into the world that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 4:47:32 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 12:08:29 PM, tstor wrote:
At 1/5/2016 4:45:32 AM, annanicole wrote:

I do not really have a problem with the ASV rendering of the text at John 1:3.

You may not, but I think you will have a problem with the implication: not a single created thing, i. e. zero. zilch, nada, was created without or apart from the Word.
I have no problem with what it says.

Typical WatchTower dogma speculates that not all created things, things that were made, were created through the Word, else they'd have the Word creating Himself. Most of them don't care for that idea much, so they simply assert, "Well, it means 'all things other than Himself'." That's the ... ummm ... "explanation."

I don't think I've seen you discuss it , though
This is actually quite amusing to be very honest. I do recall you saying that in Ezekiel 31:5 the word "other" (as in "all other trees") would not be needed because "certainly one would come to that conclusion based upon common sense." The conclusion being that the tree is not taller than itself, so it would be taller than all other trees. Yet when the NWT does not not add the word "other," you lack common sense. Funny.

John 1:3 can be linked with Colossians 1:15-17, which read:
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him+ and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist,"

Col 1: 15-17 actually says,

"who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist."

So yeah, the passages would be at least complimentary to each other, and neither of them contain the word "other". Your explanation is actually no different than that of MadCornish.

As well, it should be noted that John 1:10 reads:
"He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him."

No non-trinitarian ignores this verse.

That verse has little or nothing to do with the subject.

Anyway, your "explanation" is that one should mentally insert the word "other" into John 1: 3 just as one should do in Col 1: 15-17, lest he find himself in the position of having the Son create Himself.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:07:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 12:08:29 PM, tstor wrote:
At 1/5/2016 4:45:32 AM, annanicole wrote:

Yet when the NWT does not not add the word "other," you lack common sense. Funny.

Believe me, whether or not I - or you - or anyone else has any common sense has nothing whatsoever to do with how the WatchTower "scholars" (those unnamed ones with no credentials, you know) "translate" a passage.

I do not object to them adding or taking away words in passages such as John 1: 3 and Col 1: 15-17. What I object to is: making such alterations and then calling the finished product a "translation." It's not. Translation is governed by certain rules, and when a so-called translator habitually bends and breaks those rules, he merely becomes a commentator.

Every translation contains some theological bias. It's inevitable, and is the nature of the beast. That's why the best, most accurate translations are not produced by individuals or small groups - and especially not small groups in which all the members have exactly the same theological view.

How to Produce a Flawed "Translation", i. e. a Commentary

1. Start out with small group of people who all have exactly the same theological views, down to the last jot and tittle. Make this one of the main qualifications.
2. Next, choose "translators" who are seen as extremely loyal to a certain organization.
3. As you sift through the prospects, make sure that the majority of your "translators" have no training and no expertise in the original language. In other words, if we want an essay translated from French to English, make darn sure that our "translators" can't write or speak French.
4. Maintain a high level of secrecy so that when the scholarship of the "translators" is questioned, the faithful can reply that we do not even know who the translators are!

I know of ONE so-called translation in which the preceding steps were adhered to fairly closely.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
graceofgod
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 6:15:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 12:08:31 PM, tstor wrote:
At 1/5/2016 6:17:26 AM, Composer wrote:

It is not a "masonic cross." I will quote Wikipedia:
"Cross and Crown (a cross passing through a crown), is seen by some to be a Christian symbol appearing in many churches, particularly Roman Catholic; and has also been used in heraldry. It is often interpreted as symbolizing the reward in heaven (the crown) coming after the trials in this life (the cross) (James 1:12)."

Read more here:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

As well, there is no connection between the freemasons and Russell. In fact, the website that you put as your source outright lied when it said that Russell was buried in "The Greatest Masonic Center Cemetery," which is not even a real cemetery. In reality, Russell was buried in The United Rosemont Cemetery.

The following refutes you! -

https://www.youtube.com...
I am just looking at a dude play around on Google Earth. I need real documentation, not whatever that is.

Russell admits he was a Free and accepted Mason

& states he has been in conference with the Great Master Workman!
Document to show that? Source? Do not expect me to just take your word for it.

You provide no real criticisms to the Westcott and Hort text other than baseless statements. I cannot refute something that is not real. To help you, I will provide the texts used by the NWT committee:
http://wol.jw.org...

The NW version is a pretend translation!
I look forward to some strong evidence

We know that for certain because e.g., It has retained the Hebrew Term ' Satan ' and not translated it in to English, hence it is a corrupt & pretend translation.
Any particular verse? As far as I am concerned every Bible translation renders "Satan" in Job 1:6.

Hence the NW Committee, despite being inept & lacking in translation scholarship, were also liars, frauds & deceivers!
Prove that the NWT is not an accurate translation. It would be easy to do if you were telling the truth.

There are NO original Greek NT manuscripts, so whatever W & Hort translated was based upon pretend/non-original documents.
They did not go off of original manuscripts. I guess I should call you Sherlock for finding that one out!

Here's a sample that they didn't believe the content of the text either -

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

https://www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Hence their ability to translate these non-original documents honestly, without bias, is also placed in doubt
"11th August. - James i. I do not recollect noticing the second verse ever before in the way I have. How sincerely do I wish that I could 'rejoice in temptation.' I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it. The day is extremely warm.

"31st August. - Hooker. V.S.D. Oh, the weakness of my faith compared with that of others! So wild, so sceptical am I. I cannot yield. Lord, look on me ; teach me Thy truth, and let me care for nothing else in evil report and good. Let me uphold nothing as necessary, but only Thy truth."

Here Westcott, as a 22-year-old student, is lamenting his own weaknesses. He is not expressing his disbelief in miracles, but admitting a natural tendency to want an explanation - that he struggled with simply accepting them by faith. That doesn't mean he did not accept by faith the accounts of the miracles, but rather that his first reaction (which he did not let determine his view on miracles) was to desire some evidence of them. In later years, Westcott went on to write many books, and wrote many things specifically about the absolute truth of the miracles as recorded in Scripture. He even wrote a book solely on this subject about 12 years later, called "Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles" in 1859.

http://www.westcotthort.com...

Stop using that awful source.

IV. Erroneous Translations

Besides refusing to take into account the evidence set forth above, the Jehovah"s Witnesses have incorporated in their translation of the New Testament several quite erroneous renderings of the Greek.
1. In the New World Translation the opening verse of the Gospel according to John is mistranslated as follows: "Originally the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." A footnote which is added to the first word, "Originally," reads, "Literally, In (At) a beginning." By using here the indefinite article "a" the translators have overlooked the well-known fact that in Greek grammar nouns may be definite for various reasons, whether or not the Greek definite article is present. A prepositional phrase, for example, where the definite article is not expressed, can be quite definite in Greek, 18 as in fact it is in John 1:1. The customary translation, "In the beginning was the Word," is therefore to be preferred to either alternative suggested by the New World translators.
Far more pernicious in this same verse is the rendering, "" and the Word was a god," with the following footnote: ""A god." In contrast with "the God."" It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah"s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall.
As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, "" and the Word was God." Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb. " The opening verse of John"s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun. The absence of the article [before _2;^9;_9;`2;] does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb; it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas [John 20:28, "My Lord and my God"]." 19
In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah"s Witnesses" translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. 20 These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that _2;^9;_9;`2; must be translated "a god." None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell"s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article.
Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, 21 in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell"s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 1:29:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:

.... Now, let's examine the tricky c portion of the verse.


Or maybe there's nothing all that tricky about the passage. Have you ever honestly considered the option that it can be read simply, and taken for what it says?
Yes, which is what I do. I do not personally find John 1:1c tricky, but trinitarians seem to struggle with it.

It's an advanced subject, of course, for the nature of the divine must exceed the human capacity for understanding, but I don't think there's anything particularly tricky about the text.

I think the force of the text, which you JWs miss, is something like this: "In the beginning was relationship". "God is Love", but that doesn't mean God is the ultimate narcissist, you see. This JW idea, as expressed by the tracts I've been given, of a white haired old man sitting all by himself on a throne before he made anything else is as ridiculous as any other imagery of God that heretics have ever dreamed up.
God is not a man, I agree. The Bible plainly tells us this in John 4:24, which reads:
"God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth."
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 8:59:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 2:46:15 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 1/5/2016 1:02:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This was a draft of an initial argument I was going to use for a debate, but I decided to just publish it on the forums for open discussion. Let me know what you think.

Context
The immediate context of John 1:1c is important to understanding the verse properly. For this breakdown of the context we will examine John 1:1a, John 1:1b, John 1:14, and John 1:18 in the KJV. They read as follows:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us
John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

From the text above, which are the KJV renderings, we can gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. So if we were to plug John 1:1c into that equation, we see many contradictions. If the Word was God, then that means (1) God has only existed since a beginning (so he was created), (2) the Word was with himself (liken that to me saying "tstor was with tstor"), (3) and no man has seen God (the Word), yet the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us!

Now, let's examine the immediate context using the NWT renderings:
John 1:1a - In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1b - and the Word was with God
John 1:14 - So the Word became flesh and resided among us
John 1:18 - No man has seen God at any time

From the text above, which are NWT renderings, we gather that (1) the Word has existed since the beginning, (2) the Word has been with God, (3) the Word was made into flesh and dwelt among us, and (4) no man has ever seen God at any time. However, if we plug John 1:1c (NWT) into the equation we see that there are no contradictions.

Snipped out all the commentary on John 1 because most of what is written in John 1 are not the actual words spoken by Jesus. It was commentary by the author just like the ones I snipped out were also nothing but commentary. Using a red letter bible will show you what was actually spoken by Jesus. This way you can skip what is being said about Jesus (personal opinions and hearsay).
Sorry, but you must have missed Galatians 1:10-12, which read:
"Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ's slave. For I want you to know, brothers, that the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ."

So Jesus did not say he was tbe word, God or tbe beginning or the creator of all things if we ignore the commentary in John 1.
I do not ignore any portion of the Bible.

But we know what Jesus actually said in other verses.

John 14:6 Jesus answered "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

And here is why he said it.

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify YOUR SON, that YOUR SON may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people THAT HE MIGHT GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN " For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me " All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come TO ME through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one " My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I IN THEM and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them AND THAT I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM."" John 17:1-5, 8, 10-11, 20-26.

One does not deal with God directly. God sent Jesus to be the mediator. He put Jesus in charge and gave Jesus all authority over heaven and earth and those that accepted him would be granted eternal life and salvation.
You seem like you are confused by Matthew 28:18. It seems to me, and correct me if I am wrong, that your understanding is Jesus being the ultimate authority (with no other authority that is higher). If that is so, then you are severely misunderstanding what Jesus meant. Consider the following verses:
Matthew 20:23 - "He said to them: 'You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit down at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.'"

John 20:17 - "Jesus said to her: 'Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.'"

Mark 13:32 - "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father."

1 Corinthians 15:27, 28 - "For God 'subjected all things under his feet.' But when he says that 'all things have been subjected,' it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

The Greek word in Matthew 28:18 for "all" is many times used in a limited or general way. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:24 says that Christ will "abolish all rule, authority and power." However, this obviously does not include the Kingdom of God or God's authority and power. Hence why some translation render it as "all other rule." (Phillips; Wey.; AT; Twentieth Century; Williams; Becks; Kleist and Lilly)

Trying to talk past or over Jesus isn't going to work because the only person God gave power to forgive sins and offer salvation was Jesus. That is what the whole bible is about. All roads lead to Jesus. Jesus is not only the sacrifice, he is also the saviour and the ONLY path to his Father.
No one is denying the important role that Jesus has.

Luke 10:16 "Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."
Exactly.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)