PLEASE NOTE: Black and White Text is from Pastor Barry Howdeshell and the reply from this Blog Author is in Blue Color.
Hello,
Hello,
A warm Hi and
Hello to you Sir Howdeshell too
After reading your analysis of my response to your initial
presentation, it seems to me that you take exception to our understanding that
the two beings mentioned in John 1:1 are God. But, that is precisely what John
wrote; “the Word was God” and “the Word was with God.” Clearly, John is writing
of two separate beings that he referred to as “God.”
As I have
earlier discussed and made sufficiently clear, all
translations and versions of the Original Word of God from the Original
languages of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are NOT
DIVINELY INSPIRED and hence can be prone to Human error and Mistakes in
Translation.
I repeat the
words of the ancient, Saint Augustine written below in points:
1. The Translation
of the Bible in English language CAN & MAY be faulty.
2. The copied
manuscripts CAN & MAY have in it mistakes.
3. The reader
CAN & MAY be mis-interpreting the scripture text.
INTERESTINGLY
YOUR UNITED CHURCH OF GOD – An International Association is using the
King James Version of the English language translation. Today we have the
luxury of ensuring or checking that what is in the KJV English Bible
translation of 21st Century, is it 100% accurately translated to the
literal words or dynamic thought or the exact idea that the Divinely inspired
Author John was writing on behalf of our Heavenly Creator Yahweh?. Let’s see.
In the King
James Version, this Scripture reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God [Greek, tonthe·on′], and the Word was God [the·os′].”
This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun the·os′
(god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite
article, and in this case the word the·on′ refers to Almighty God. In the
second instance, however, the·os′ has no
definite article.
John 1:1Moffatt 1 THE Logos existed
in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.
Majority of the English Bible Translations follow the
mainstream, as translated here in my personal favorite translation of NIV of
John 1:1: “And the Word was God.”—The
Holy Bible—New International Version;
Many other English Translations DARE to be, among the
minority or on the narrow road so to say, sticking to their scholarly
conclusion and rendering the ending of John 1:1c as "a God" or its equivalent:
1808: “and the
word was a god.” The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of
Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: With a Corrected Text.
1864: “and a god was the word.” The Emphatic
Diaglott, interlinear reading, by Benjamin Wilson.
1928: “and the
Word was a divine being.” La Bible
du Centenaire, L’Evangile selon Jean, by Maurice Goguel.
1935: “and the
Word was divine.” The Bible—An
American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1946: “and of a divine kind was the Word.” Das Neue
Testament, by Ludwig Thimme.
1958: “and the
Word was a God.” The New Testament, by James L. Tomanek.
1960: “In the
beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures
by Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania.
1975: “and a god (or, of a divine kind) was the
Word.” Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz.
1978: “and godlike kind was the Logos.” Das
Evangelium nach Johannes, by Johannes Schneider.
SO WHICH IS
THE CORRECT VERSE? The Majority of Christendom (main stream line Churches
including the whole Protestant Reformation Churches widely use the King James
Version of 1616 henceforth also known as the King James Bible or the Authorized
Version and also including all of the present day wide variety of United
Churches of God (United, Living, Reformed etc.).
Greek Grammar
and Context Provide the Answer
Greek grammar and the context strongly indicate that
“the Word” should not be identified as the “God” referred to earlier in the
verse.
Bible verses
in the Greek languages that have a construction similar to that of John 1:1 use
the expression “a god.” For example, when referring to Herod Agrippa I, the
crowds shouted: ‘It is a god
speaking.’ And when Paul survived a bite by a poisonous snake, the people said:
“He is a god.” (Acts 12:22; 28:3-6)
It is in harmony with both Greek grammar and Bible teaching to speak of the
Word as, not God, but “a god.”—John 1:1.
For instance, consider that John states that the Word
was “with God.” But how can an
individual be with someone and at the same time be or is that person? John
1:1 clearly phrases God as a separate person from the Word (Jesus). And since Jesus is written and identified in
John 1:1 as a separate person from God (not just the Father), then that would positively exclude him as
being God!
Commenting on
this, Count Leo Tolstoy, the famous Russian novelist and
religious philosopher, said:
"If it says that in the beginning was the...Word,
and that the Word was...WITH God, it is impossible to go on and say that it was
God. If it was God, it could stand in no relation to God." - The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated,
p. 30.
Moreover, as
recorded at John 17:3, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself and
his heavenly Father. He calls his Father “the only true God.” And toward the
end of his Gospel, John sums up matters by saying: “These have been written
down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” (John
20:31) Notice that Jesus is called, not
God, but the Son of God. This additional information provided in the Gospel of
John shows how John 1:1 should be understood. Jesus, the Word, is “a god”
in the sense that he has a high position but is not the same as Almighty God.
Trinitarian Scholars Have Even Admitted That "the
Word was *a* god". Even a number of respected Trinitarian scholars have
admitted that "the Word was *a* god" is the literal translation at
John 1:1c.
In addition
to their comments below, W. E. Vine, Prof. C. H. Dodd (Director of the New
English Bible project), and Murray J. Harris admit that this ("the Word
was a god") is the literal translation, but, being Trinitarians, they
insist that it be interpreted and translated as "and the Word was
God." Why? Because of a Trinitarian
bias only!
W. E. Vine - "a god
was the Word" - p. 490, An Expository Dictionary of the New Testament.
C. H. Dodd - "The
Word was a god" - Technical Papers for the Bible Translator, Jan., 1977.
Murray J.
Harris - "the Word was a god" - p. 60, Jesus as God,
Baker Book House, 1992.
Robert Young
-
"and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word" - Young's Concise
Critical Bible Commentary.
Even Origen, the most
knowledgeable of the early Christian Greek-speaking scholars, tells us that
John 1:1c actually means "the Word [logos] was a god". - "Origen's Commentary on John,"
Book I, ch. 42 - Bk II, ch.3.
Origen's Commentary on John is "the first great
work of Christian interpretation." Origen was certainly the most
knowledgeable about NT (koine) Greek of any scholar. He studied it from early
childhood and even taught it professionally from his teens onward. And this was
during a time when it was a living language and, of course, well understood. - The Ante-Nicene Fathers, pp. 291-294, vol.
X, Eerdmans Publ., 1990 printing.
You took exception to my statement about John 1:1, when I
referred to God and the Word as “God beings.” No, John did not use those exact
words “God beings,” but what else would you call one whom John called God and
the other whom John called the Word? Especially since John also called each of
them “God.” They were both God “from the beginning” according to John.
THANKS FOR
ADMITTING THAT JOHN THE GOSPEL WRITER DID NOT USE THOSE EXACT WORDS, “God
Beings”. Does not that itself throw lot of light and weight by
Almighty God. If your terminology of “God Beings” was so very important, then
the Almighty God Yahweh would have divinely inspired its usage into his Word of
God.
You referred to our understanding of the “Word” who became
“Jesus Christ” (John 1:14) as “half-human half-God form or God being.” But John
wrote “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” (same
verse).
Exactly I
still stick to my above statement. “Half-human half-God form or God being.”
But John
wrote “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”
Yes. The Word or
Logos or a god surely became flesh. Yehoshua (Jesus) was surely in heaven as a
Spirit Being and this Word became flesh and dwelt amount as.
Yes. From a
Spirit Being in Heaven, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us on Planet
Earth as a HUMAN BEING.
You are
making new DOTS. John 1:1 is speaking about the WORD, the LOGOS, the
SPIRIT BEING, the, a god, which later in John 20:31 Jesus is always mentioned
as Son of God, never as GOD or a god OR GOD BEING.
Since your
PARENT Worldwide Church of God has SPLINTERED and broken off and got more
divided into a wide variety of United Churches of God. This
happened post the death of Sir Herbert W. Armstrong somewhere in the early
1990’s and his Son taking over the management of World Wide Church of God and having
started accepting many pagan practices and teachings into your parent church. They
accepted the false pagan teaching of TRINITARIANISM. You and your church have
further advanced in your NEW JESUS TEACHING AND THEOLOGY of BINATARIANISM of 2
God Beings in 2 Gods.
The Word was God, but He was willing to temporarily give up
His glory to become a flesh-and-blood human who gave His life so that our sins
could be forgiven and we could have an opportunity for eternal life. As Paul
wrote, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in
the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself
of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness
of men” (Philippians 2:5-7).
PHILLIPPIANS
2:5-7
PRIESTS &
PASTORS, YOU TEACH US ALL AND THEN YOU FORGET TO APPLY THE SAME
PRINCIPLE WHILE READING OR STUDYING THE WORD OF GOD. CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.
Check the full Scripture in its full Verse, Sentence, Paragraph, Chapter and
full Cannon of 66 Books of the Bible.
How Philippians 2 is: 5-7 Meant to Be
Understood?
"Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God". -
Phil. 2:6; KJV
To begin with, the context of Phil. 2:3-9indicates how Phil. 2:6 should be understood. The context stresses the concept of humility and obedience, and Phil. 2:6 itself is clearly meant as the prime example of this for all Christians. Even The Amplified Bible, for example, translates Phil. 2:3, 5 this way:
"Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself.... Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. - Let Him be your example in humility."
Then that very example of Jesus (Phil. 2:6-8) is given. - Cf. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 547.
Most Trinitarian and Binatarians interpretations of Phil. 2:6, however, do not show Jesus as regarding God as "better than and superior to himself" in the beginning (as the context demands for this example). Most of them, instead, twist that proper example of humility into just the opposite: an example of a person who regards himself already as equal to the Most High, Almighty God ("thought it not robbery to be equal to God"). Such an interpretation destroys the very purpose (Phil. 2:3) of Jesus' "example in humility" here.
Paul is not telling us to regard ourselves as equal to others. He is clearly using Jesus as his example to teach that each Christian must, as the very Trinitarian Amplified Bible above puts it, "regard others as better than and superior to himself". And yet most Trinitarian translations show Jesus doing the very opposite in this "example in humility" for all Christians.
Something, then, is very wrong with the translation of Phil. 2:6 in most Trinitarian Bibles. Consider the following:
CONCERNING THE WORD "FORM" [morphe]:
Many Trinitarian Bible scholars attempt to force an interpretation of "form" [morphe] that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." However, even many Trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Therefore, God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit.Not some new GOD BEING THEORY. This obviously does not make them all equally God! Man, mouse, and canary are certainly not all equally man simply because they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh.
If Paul had intended `nature,' `very essence,' etc., he certainly would not have used a word which means only external appearance (morphe). He would have used one of the words which really mean absolute nature.
CONCERNING THE WORD "HARPAGMOS":
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (by Trinitarian writer and Trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means "plunder" and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." - #725; 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by Trinitarians) tells us: "harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized." And, "harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away." Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725; #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
But, in spite of some Trinitarians’reasoning’s and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in Scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't "robbery" (KJV) for him to be equal with the Most High. Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility. Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul's example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won't give even a moment's thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
When even a number of the best Trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God.
To begin with, the context of Phil. 2:3-9indicates how Phil. 2:6 should be understood. The context stresses the concept of humility and obedience, and Phil. 2:6 itself is clearly meant as the prime example of this for all Christians. Even The Amplified Bible, for example, translates Phil. 2:3, 5 this way:
"Instead, in the true spirit of humility (lowliness of mind) let each regard the others as better than and superior to himself.... Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus. - Let Him be your example in humility."
Then that very example of Jesus (Phil. 2:6-8) is given. - Cf. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 1, p. 547.
Most Trinitarian and Binatarians interpretations of Phil. 2:6, however, do not show Jesus as regarding God as "better than and superior to himself" in the beginning (as the context demands for this example). Most of them, instead, twist that proper example of humility into just the opposite: an example of a person who regards himself already as equal to the Most High, Almighty God ("thought it not robbery to be equal to God"). Such an interpretation destroys the very purpose (Phil. 2:3) of Jesus' "example in humility" here.
Paul is not telling us to regard ourselves as equal to others. He is clearly using Jesus as his example to teach that each Christian must, as the very Trinitarian Amplified Bible above puts it, "regard others as better than and superior to himself". And yet most Trinitarian translations show Jesus doing the very opposite in this "example in humility" for all Christians.
Something, then, is very wrong with the translation of Phil. 2:6 in most Trinitarian Bibles. Consider the following:
CONCERNING THE WORD "FORM" [morphe]:
Many Trinitarian Bible scholars attempt to force an interpretation of "form" [morphe] that includes the idea of "essence" or "nature." However, even many Trinitarian Bible scholars admit:
"Morphe is instanced from Homer onwards and means form in the sense of outward appearance." - The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 1986, Zondervan, p. 705, vol. 1.
Therefore, God, Jesus, and the angels all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit.Not some new GOD BEING THEORY. This obviously does not make them all equally God! Man, mouse, and canary are certainly not all equally man simply because they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh.
If Paul had intended `nature,' `very essence,' etc., he certainly would not have used a word which means only external appearance (morphe). He would have used one of the words which really mean absolute nature.
CONCERNING THE WORD "HARPAGMOS":
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (by Trinitarian writer and Trinitarian publisher) tells us that harpagmos means "plunder" and that it comes from the source word harpazo which means: "to seize ... catch away, pluck, take (by force)." - #725; 726, Abingdon Press, 1974 printing.
And the New American Standard Concordance of the Bible (also by Trinitarians) tells us: "harpagmos; from [harpazo]; the act of seizing or the thing seized." And, "harpazo ... to seize, catch up, snatch away." Notice that all have to do with taking something away by force. - # 725; #726, Holman Bible Publ., 1981.
But, in spite of some Trinitarians’reasoning’s and euphemistic renderings, it is clear from the way it was always used in Scripture that harpagmos means either taking something away by force (a verb), or something which has been taken by force (a noun).
Paul certainly wouldn't destroy this example of humility for fellow Christians by saying that Jesus is thinking that it isn't "robbery" (KJV) for him to be equal with the Most High. Besides being a nonsensical statement, it is just the opposite of humility. Instead, to be in harmony with the purpose of Paul's example, we must find a Jesus who regards God as superior to himself and won't give even a moment's thought about attempting to take that most high position himself, but, instead, humbles himself even further.
When even a number of the best Trinitarian scholars are willing to admit the actual meaning (or even an equivalent compromise) of harpagmos at Phil. 2:6, it becomes necessary for honest-hearted, truth-seeking individuals to admit that Phil. 2:6 not only does not identify Jesus as God, but that it clearly shows Jesus is not Almighty God.
As His arrest came near, Jesus prayed, “And now, O Father,
glorify me together with yourself with the glory which I had with you before
the world was” (John 17:5). This agrees with John’s previous statements in John
1:1-14. Scripture clearly shows that “the Word” who John said “was God” became
flesh known as Jesus Christ; and after His resurrection, He returned to heaven
where He remains. We look forward to His return to save mankind from genocide.
“Perhaps
this is what you meant by writing that I have “created a New Jesus Christ.”
THANKS FOR
ASKING. No. Not at all. Please let me clarify.
You and your
Church have created a NEW CHRIST. This Christ in the understanding of the
English language as, GOD BEING has been developed post the World Wide Church of
God break up into splinter groups.
·
The EXPLICIT Teaching of GOD BEING did not exist during
the Apostles and Disciples time on Planet Earth.
·
Did a word search in many English Translations of the
Bible and NOT A SINGLE place does the twin combination of GOD BEING pop up in
scripture. GOD BEING is your Church’s creation. Not found in the entire Bible.
·
The combined twin words of, “GOD BEING” is not found in
any Translation of the English language so far.
·
This teaching of Jesus being a GOD BEING is not seen in
the first 3 Centuries after Christ.
·
This new teaching of GOD BEING is not developed and
presented even after the Council of Nicea (AD 325)
· In the past 2000 years since Christ’s Resurrection and
Ascension to Heaven, the first time ever this new teaching or doctrine of GOD
BEINGS arises somewhere in the EARLY 1990’s of the past 20th
Century.
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday
and today and forever.New International
Version
This NEW JESUS CHRIST, presented and
promoted by you and your specific United Church of God – An International
Association is definitely NOT THE SAME JESUS of the Divinely Inspired
Scriptures known today as the Holy Bible.
Jesus Christ had to be GOD BEING yesterday, too. History with all its resources open for inspection does not show that
Jesus Christ was ever some GOD BEING teaching of any Christian Organization or
Church of Christendom. This Christ as a GOD BEING is a magnificent man-made
creation of your 21st Century, Modern Church called as United Church
of God – An International Association.
To differentiate your so CONFUSING Identifying Church name from the
other dozens of Local Churches in and around America, hence you had to add an extended tagline, “An International
Association” to separate your church and yourself from other similar sounding
churches such as Living Church of God, Reformed Church of God, Church of God
Worldwide, Church of God, THE Church of God, THE Church of God International,
Church of God in Christ, First Church of God, The Restored Church of God,
General Assembly of the Church of God AND SO MANY MORE.
In the same Manner & Fashion, you have created or rather FASHIONED a new modern Christ as a GOD BEING. This was never before
existing in the history of Christianity, until your Church of God – An
International Association came on the scene.
This Sub-Topic I would like end with this beautiful Scripture:
2 Corinthians 11:4“For if someone comes to
you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached,or if you receive a
different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the
one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.” New International Version
I
do not easily or happily enough accept un Christian teachings in the name of a
new Jesus being preached here.
You said that God and the Word were two “spirit beings”
rather than God beings. But John called both of these beings “God.”
BIBLICAL SCHOLARS BELIEVE THAT 8747 FALSE GODS are
recorded or mentioned in the full bible
Any gods other
than the LORD & GOD YAHWEH himself.Even Yehoshua
(Jesus) is given the TITLE of Mighty God at Isaiah, mentioning it as one of his
future prophesied names. Isaiah 9:6 and event at John 1; 1 (a god). Some of these divinities took the form of
images, others were mythical. Some Israelites became involved in idolatrous
worship of such gods. The book of Acts records attempts to deify human beings
too.
·
Biblical scholars have compiled a list of
8747 false gods mentioned in the Bible.
·
Belly or Stomach too is referred as a
God. Philippians 3:18-19
·
Satan is called the, God of this world,
or system of things or age as per translation. 2 Corinthians 2:4
·
Even the Bible says, 'you are gods' / 'ye
are gods' in Psalm 82:6 and John 10:34
So now does this mean, you will add all
these BEINGS who were called as GODS too in your Church's new Family of
"God Beings"? No.
But John
called both of these beings “God.”
Man, mouse, and canary are certainly
not all equally man simply because
they all have the same “essence” or “nature” of flesh.
The above would be
FLAWED LOGIC
In the same manner and reasoning, Therefore, God, Jesus, and the angels
all have the “essence” or “nature” of spirit. They are all SPIRIT BEINGS. Even
if John called both of these, I repeat SPIRIT BEINGS as God, this obviously does not make them all
equally or equal to Almighty God Yahweh!
I really don’t
believe that further debate over the nature of God would be helpful for either of us.
Sir Barry Howdeshell, you have your democratic and voluntary right of opinion towards this.
Towards believing that further debate is not helpful for you. That’s your
Personal Belief. I will honor and respect your “giving up” and if you do not
respond, so will I to not reply any further. You out of your ownvoluntary and willful choice have decided to put a
stop to this, “Eye Opening” debate.
But I cannot
FORFEIT my choice and decision and discretion in debating about the
nature of God and taking the debate to its LOGICAL CONCLUSION. If not for my personal spiritual knowledge, then
there are dozens of other readers in this Loop of communication, for whom this
discussion could be valuable in “knowing the truth, which will set them free.”John 8:32
1 Corinthians
10:31New International Version (NIV)
31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do
it all for the glory of God.
Colossians
3:17New International Version (NIV)
17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it
all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
This debate
was NOT for any personal fame, name or gain. Not even to satisfy my imperfection of
ego that is a default of the Sinful human nature, that has not yet found
Christ’s one and only true church.
We believe that Jesus Christ was the Word, a God being who
was willing to humble Himself and become a human being with limited power.
Apparently, you disagree strongly with this, and that is your prerogative. Ours
is to discontinue this debate.
Unhappy that
you are withdrawing from this debate, voluntarily and willingly. If errantly,
inadvertently, accidentally or due to the way I am inked to write, if I have been in any manner rude or crude
in my writings, then please do accept my apologies.
Perhaps you could find more information about our beliefs on
the nature of God by using our search engine at https://www.ucg.org/.
Sir Barry. I have read
a lot of your Church of God publications pdf by downloading and printing them.
I have just responded to your Church’ssingle and smallest article of:
UCG.org / Bible Study Tools / Booklets / Who Is God? / Who
Was Jesus?
Who
Was Jesus?
Posted on Feb 17, 2011 by United Church of God Estimated reading time:
12 minutes
I have just
responded with only a GLASS FULL of Water (remarks & comments), I too do not
intend to flood you with a BUCKET FULL of Water (as its not refreshing for you
anymore.) I WILL RESPOND ONLY AND ONLY IF YOU REPLY TO MY ABOVE DETAILED
SCRIPTURAL STUDY TO YOUR ANSWERS ON GOD BEING.
Thanks and Regards and God Bless.