Spiritual Counterfeits

Brian,

If it is not so tough why does the NT carry so many warning passages about it?

Martin,

What warning passages in Scripture are you referring to?

In the meantime, let me provide an example from personal experience. I am in the moonwalk/bouncer business (inflatable jumpers, slides, etc.). Now, I can spot an inferior piece a mile away, at first glance. I can also take one look at a setup of one and know instantly whether or not it has been done by someone who knows what they are doing.

This "discernment" is quite easy for me. But for someone who knows nothing about my industry, who has not had experience with the items I am talking about, this discernment would be very difficult, and quite hard to do. It was for me in the beginning, when I didn't know enough to make good judgments on purchases and quality setups.

The only reason I can now quickly and easily discern between quality pieces and cheap ones, and between a good setup and a bad one, is because of my years of hard work with those items in that industry. I have been doing it now for over ten years, and while the work is still tough, my ability to quickly discern things relating to my industry is easy.

Does that make sense?

Another example is one used quite often concerning those who are trained to spot counterfeit currency. For someone who has gone through rigorous training (and continues to do so), the process of discerning between a fake dollar bill and a real one is quite easy. The work to get to that point was and is hard, but the actual discernment itself is not that tough.

Thanks.

As soon as I began to read your post on the work of the adversary through spiritual counterfeits, I thought of the Morman and Jehovah's Witnesses cults. With their radical commitment and noble lives, Satan has, in them, immitated Christianity so closely, and thereby deceived so many who do not know God as they ought. To survey the history of these cults is to see them for the pathetic farce that they are, and yet millions are still duped. It is a testimony to Satan's malicious power. A great reminder to stand on guard, Tim.

To echo what Mike said above and to go along with the post's theme, the greatest threat to a Christian or to anyone seeking Jesus out is to see something that is really close but not exactly it.

Therefore, cults claiming 90% of Christian orthodoxy but re-inventing the other 10% are more dangerous than radical Islam, Hinduism, etc. It's very clear to see "white" vs. "black"...but when you're comparing "white" vs. "shades of gray"...things get a little tougher..

A great post and more reasons why "laziness" in your intellect, spirit, emotion, soul is a dangerous path to destruction...

Picking on the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT translation of John 1:1 is a bit myopic. Did you know there are 50 other translations that also do not translate John 1:1 as "The Word was God"?

A diligent and unbiased Bible student shouldn't be dogmatic over John 1:1 when there is this kind of variation amongst translators.

3 examples my friend:

1- When Jesus was baptized why did he get his Fathers approval if he is 1/3rd of an equal Trinity? Did he pray to himself before he went under?

2- When Jesus was in great pain and near death why did he say "not my will but yours - his Fathers) take place" - was he talking to himself or another "1/3rd" that was greater or powerful?

3 - Grammatical English: "Your will, your kingdom, your sheep... my God, your God..." - and to Satan while being tempted "It is written 'It is God alone you must worship'" - didn't say "me, my or mine" or anything like that.

Just 3 short things out of dozens when I read the 4 Gospels that tells me Jesus may be a god but not the Almighty God - or 3 in one. And I ain't even touched the Holy Spirit aspect....

Interesting "defense" though ;^)

Just 3 short things out of dozens when I read the 4 Gospels that tells me Jesus may be a god but not the Almighty God - or 3 in one. And I ain't even touched the Holy Spirit aspect....

I think this is a good example of what Tim said--how being even a few degrees off doctrinally can lead to a world of falsehood. These are all misunderstandings of the roles of the Trinity...something most Christians may not fuss over, but it's obviously led to heresy--the denial of the full divinity of Christ. In truth, the Father, though co-equal in essence, has authority over the Son (thus the titles Father and Son); thus, the Father represents the godhead and is often referred to simply as "God." Of course, the Son is referred to as God as well (e.g. Hebrews 1:8), just not as often. The twisting of this truth is that because the Son subjects Himself to the Father's authority, He is therefore not really God.

Steve,

Who do you say Jesus is?

Brian,

And as for the Trinity, I believe it is a fraud that Satan used to trick the early Christian Church.

For more information:

http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Steve

I included a link to Matthew Concise's Commentary but it didn't show up in my previous post. For those who are interested you can Google his name and discover his entire commentaries on line.

Link is fixed. -Moderator

Jabbok,

I never said anything about the Trinitarian views of any translator. The complaint was that the NWT used "a God". I pointed out that 50 other translations said something different than the KJV. I was then questioned if any of those translation used "a", to which I pointed out 20 that did.

I believe I've made a very compelling point that the NWT is not the only translation out there that translates John 1:1 differently.

Can anyone hear actually admit the NWT is not alone in translating John 1:1 differently, or will everyone immediately change the subject?

Steve
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Brian,

It is true that Thomas’ statement is curious. However, as a Christian, I have to first look to Jesus’ example as a far greater authority in deciding who to worship. Do you put Thomas statement over what Jesus himself explicitly said?

Jesus himself referred to his Father as his God (Rev 3:12)

“‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine.

Because Jesus diligently copies the example of his God, this has confused many people thinking that he might be almighty God. However, ultimately Jesus will subject himself to his God such that Jehovah will be over all. (1 Cor 15:24-28)

24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to HIS GOD and FATHER, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 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.

Steve

Steve,

It's interesting to research some of the names and books you've included in your list. I came across another blog in which a commenter going by the name of STEVEP gave a similar list. I thought the comments there were interesting. Here is a brief portion of one of them:

A massive list of past Unitarian apologists, unknown theological quacks, and other crackpots, is unimpressive. It is a common ploy of apologists of an abnormal doctrine to call upon a list of what appears to be impressive scholars in order to bolster their argument. For example, "gay" Christian apologists who attempt to make the Bible affirm homosexual relationships use the same tactic. "'Dr' so-and-so who teaches at such-and-such university or seminary says thus-and-such about this particular passage and it supports my views about homosexuality," or whatever. Even Islamic apologists do the same thing, calling upon wild-eyed liberal scholars supposedly writing in favor of Christianity, to prove their position. Having "Dr" in front of your name or an arsenal of thickly bound books does not automatically make one an expert on anything.

I believe this guy hit the nail on the head.

Leicester Ambrose Sawyer left the Presbyterian Church after denying the Inspiration of Scripture.

J.N. Jannaris is a Jehovah's Witness apologist with no credentials.

Half of your examples do NOT include "a" before God.

You're barking up the wrong tree so please just answer Brian's question. Who is the Alpha and the Omega?

Exodus 3:13-14:
Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”

John 8:58-59:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

Jesus knew the implication of the words that he chose to describe himself, and the Jews to whom he was speaking understood the reference. It was blasphemy (unless, of course, it was true!). It's why they wanted to kill him.

On your Alpha/Omega question, I will make these 5 points:

(1) At Revelation 1:8, its owner is said to be God, the Almighty. In verse 11 according to KJ, that title is applied to one whose description thereafter shows him to be Jesus Christ. But scholars recognize the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 11 to be spurious, and so it does not appear in RS, NE, JB, NAB, Dy.

(2) Many translations of Revelation into Hebrew recognize that the one described in verse 8 is Jehovah, and so they restore the personal name of God there.

(3) Revelation 21:6, 7 indicates that Christians who are spiritual conquerors are to be ‘sons’ of the one known as the Alpha and the Omega. That is never said of the relationship of spirit-anointed Christians to Jesus Christ. Jesus spoke of them as his ‘brothers.’ (Heb. 2:11; Matt. 12:50; 25:40) But those ‘brothers’ of Jesus are referred to as “sons of God.” (Gal. 3:26; 4:6)

(4) At Revelation 22:12, TEV inserts the name Jesus, so the reference to Alpha and Omega in verse 13 is made to appear to apply to him. But the name Jesus does not appear there in Greek, and other translations do not include it.

(5) At Revelation 22:13, the Alpha and Omega is also said to be “the first and the last,” which expression is applied to Jesus at Revelation 1:17, 18. Similarly, the expression “apostle” is applied both to Jesus Christ and to certain ones of his followers. But that does not prove that they are the same person or are of equal rank, does it? (Heb. 3:1) So the evidence points to the conclusion that the title “Alpha and Omega” applies to Almighty God, the Father, not to the Son.

I would suspect that this question of yours, brought up in the context of trying to prove that Jesus is Almighty God is based on the massively illogical view that if two different people share the same title, they must be the same person?

Jesus and some of his followers shared the title apostle, what does that prove?

Or, here’s another example of very weak logic. If two or more people share the title “Savior”, that must prove that Jesus is Almighty God.

If you are also thinking that is a Trinity proof text, I offer this:

The Scriptures refer to God as Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God even says: “Besides me there is no savior.” Since Jesus is also referred to as Savior, are God and Jesus the same? Not at all. Titus 1:3, 4 speaks of “God our Savior,” and then of both “God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.” So, both persons are saviors. Jude 25 shows the relationship, saying: “God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (See also Acts 13:23.) At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word (moh•shi´a‛, rendered “savior” or “deliverer”) that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel, but that certainly did not make Othniel Jehovah, did it? A reading of Isaiah 43:1-12 shows that verse 11 means that Jehovah alone was the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel; that salvation did not come from any of the gods of the surrounding nations.

Have I answered your question fully?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com

Dear David,

You are attempting to use John 8:58 as a Trinity proof text. I’ll show you why this doesn’t make sense.

At Exodus 3:14 (KJ) the phrase “I AM” is used as a title for God to indicate that he really existed and would do what he promised. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, says of the phrase: “To the Israelites in bondage, the meaning would be, ‘Although He has not yet displayed His power towards you, He will do so; He is eternal and will certainly redeem you.’ Most moderns follow Rashi [a French Bible and Talmud commentator] in rendering [Exodus 3:14] ‘I will be what I will be.’”
The expression at John 8:58 is quite different from the one used at Exodus 3:14. Jesus did not use it as a name or a title but as a means of explaining his prehuman existence. Hence, note how some other Bible versions render John 8:58:
1869: “From before Abraham was, I have been.” The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.
1935: “I existed before Abraham was born!” The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed.
1965: “Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am.” Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink.
1981: “I was alive before Abraham was born!” The Simple English Bible.
1984: “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Thus, the real thought of the Greek used here is that God’s created “firstborn,” Jesus, had existed long before Abraham was born.—Colossians 1:15; Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30; Revelation 3:14.

Again, the context shows this to be the correct understanding. This time the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for claiming to “have seen Abraham” although, as they said, he was not yet 50 years old. (Verse 57) Jesus’ natural response was to tell the truth about his age. So he naturally told them that he “was alive before Abraham was born!”—The Simple English Bible.
Here is some specific information to help you with your studies of this scripture:
Here are also some other references for your review that underscore the point that multiple translators from multiple religious backgrounds realize that John 8:58 is not a proof text of Jesus’ identify at Jehovah God of Exodus 3:
“before Abraham was, I have been” Syriac—Edition:A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, by Agnes Smith Lewis, London, 1894. (Fourth Century Manuscript)
“before ever Abraham came to be, I was” Curetonian Syriac—Edition: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, by F.Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham existed, I was” Syriac Peshitta—Edition: The Syriac New TestamentTranslated into English from the Peshitto Version,by James Murdock, seventh ed., Boston and London,1896. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham came to be, I was” Georgian—Edition: “The Old Georgian Version of the Gospel of John,” by Robert P. Blake and Maurice Brière, published in Patrologia Orientalis, Vol. XXVI, fascicle 4, Paris, 1950. (Fifth Century Manuscript)
“before Abraham was born, I was” Ethiopic—Edition: Novum Testamentum . . . Æthiopice (The New Testament . . . in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.
If your into Greek and want more details, here you go:
The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started “before Abraham came into existence” and is still in progress. In such situation ειμί (ei•mi´), which is the first-person singular present indicative, is properly translated by the perfect indicative. Examples of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Joh 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8.
Concerning this construction, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover, 1897, p. 267, says: “Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues,—a state in its duration; as, Jno. xv. 27 απ’ αρχης μετ’ εμου εστέ [ap’ ar•khes´ met’ e•mou´ e•ste´], viii. 58 πριν ᾿Αβρααμ γενέσθαι εγω ειμι [prin A•bra•am´ ge•ne´sthai e•go´ ei•mi].”
Likewise, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by J. H. Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62, says: “The Present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the action is conceived as still in progress . . . It is frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lk 248 137 . . . 1529 . . . Jn 56 858 . . . ”
Attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some say that εγω ειμί (e•go´ ei•mi´) is the equivalent of the Hebrew expression ’ani´ hu’, “I am he,” which is used by God. However, it is to be noted that this Hebrew expression is also used by man.—See 1Ch 21:17 ftn.
Further attempting to identify Jesus with Jehovah, some try to use Ex 3:14 (LXX) which reads: ᾿Εγώ ειμι ο ων (E•go´ ei•mi ho on), which means “I am The Being,” or, “I am The Existing One.” This attempt cannot be sustained because the expression in Ex 3:14 is different from the expression in Joh 8:58. (See Ex 3:14 ftn.) Throughout the Christian Greek Scriptures it is not possible to make an identification of Jesus with Jehovah as being the same person.—See 1Pe 2:3 ftn; App 6A, 6E.

Are you really sure you want to throw out John 8:58 as a Trinity proof text in light of the overwhelming evidence that “I AM” is not necessarily the correct English translation?

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

When many take issue with Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" of John 1:1 (as, "a god"), they often miss the point that one of the principal reasons for this is because of the Grammatical construction there, that is, that this is "a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, and subject noun (implied or stated)" and not just that the noun theos (in the third clause) lacks the Greek definite article.

For other examples of a similar Greek construction, please examine the few following verses within your own prefered translation of the Bible and see whether your own translators had inserted either an "a" or "an" there - in most cases they do:

Mark 6:49
Mark 11:32
John 4:19
John 6:70
John 8:44a
John 8:44b
John 9:17
John 10:1
John 10:13
John 10:33
John 12:6

At each of those verses, identity of the one discussed was not at issue; no, but rather, the class and/or quality of the individual was.

Agape.
john1one@earthlink.net
http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com

Dear Brian,

Here is your answer on your “worship” question. The information is from:

Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, by Jason David BeDuhn, University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 2003.

Jason David BeDuhn is an associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, in Flagstaff. He holds a B.A. in Religious studies from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins from Harvard Divinity School, and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions from Indiana University, Bloomington.

On page 42 BeDuhn says,
The verb proskuneo is used fifty-eight times in the New Testament. When the King James translation was made, the word picked to best convey the meaning of the Greek word was "worship." At that time, the English word "worship" had a range of meaning close to what I have suggested for the Greek word proskuneo. It could be used for the attitude of reverence given to God, but also for the act of prostration. The word was also used as a form of address to people of high status, in the form "your worship." So the King James translation committee made a pretty good choice.

But modern English is not King James English, and the range of the meaning for the word "worship" has narrowed considerably. Today, we use it only for religious veneration of God, so it no longer covers all of the uses for the Greek verb proskuneo, or of the English word in the day of King James. For this reason, it is necessary that modern translations find appropriate terms to accurately convey precisely what is implied by the use of proskuneo in the various passages where it appears. If they fail to do this, and cling to the old English word "worship" without acknowledging its shift of meaning since the days of King James, they mislead their readers into thinking that every greeting, kiss, or prostration in the Bible is an act of worship directed to a god. (p. 42)

BeDuhn then gives examples where proskuneo is used in the Gospels while pleading before man (Matthew 18:26). These verses are translated in most versions as "prostrated himself before," "fell on his knees," and "fell down before." Following these illustrations before man, BeDuhn gives a list of verses which place the individual before Jesus using the same word proskuneo. He says,

But in other passages, translations revert to the KJV's "worship" inappropriately. They do so primarily because the gesture of prostration is directed to Jesus, and in that circumstance they translate differently under the pressure of theological bias. (p. 44)

BeDuhn makes this comment,

Rendering a single Greek word into more than one English alternative is not necessarily inaccurate in and of itself. Since Greek words such as proskuneo have a range of possible meanings, it is not practical to insist that a Greek word always be translated the same way. . . . But in our exploration of this issue, we can see how theological bias has been the determining context for the choices made by all of the translations except the NAB and NWT. There are passages where many translators have interpreted the gesture referred to by the Greek term proskuneo as implying "worship." They then have substituted that interpretation in place of a translation.

I am not going to enter into a debate over interpretation. It is always possible that the interpretation of the significance of the gesture may be correct. But the simple translation "prostrate," or "do homage," or "do obeisance" is certainly correct. So the question is raised, why depart from a certain, accurate translation to a questionable, possibly inaccurate one?

The answer is that, when this occurs, the translators seem to feel the need to add to the New Testament support for the idea that Jesus was recognized to be God. But the presence of such an idea cannot be supported by selectively translating a word one way when it refers to Jesus and another way when it refers to someone else. . . . They might argue that the context of belief surrounding Jesus implies that the gesture is more than "obeisance" or "homage." It's not a very good argument, because in most of the passages the people who make the gesture know next to nothing about Jesus, other than that it is obvious or rumored that he has power to help them. (pp. 47-48)

Steve,

You are attacking a strawman, as I have not referenced the KJV even once in all my comments. I do not use the KJV, but that is not the issue anyway. You are avoiding directly engaging the Scriptures.

You can do data dumps all day long...I am interested in your opinion, not someone else's.

You have yet to directly engage any of the questions I have put to you concerning the Alpha and Omega and the worship of Jesus.

This statement - whether from you or from the person you quoted - is about a blasphemous as one can get.

Jehovah is Almighty God. Jesus is his first born Son, being 2nd in command of [t]he entire Universe.

Finally, The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is truly Jehovah God...the great "I am".

The reason the Jews wanted so badly to kill Jesus in John chapter 8 is because they perfectly understood what He was saying when He said, "Before Abraham was born, I am."

Of those among the Jews that day who wanted to kill Him, there were none there saying, "Calm down, everybody. He's not claiming to be God because he is not using the exact same word Jehovah God used with Moses. He is only trying to tell us of his pre-human existence."

No. They knew full well what He was saying...and they wanted Him dead because of it.

Steve, my heart aches for your soul. I pray God would be pleased to open your eyes to the truth of Who Jesus really is, and that He would grant you faith and repentance.

Steve,

Thanks for making my point for me yet again. Yes, you provided lots and lots of words...you have provided lots and lots of "translations"...you have provided opinions on the word 'proskuneo'.

What you haven't done is engage the word of God in context.

What does Jesus mean when he says, "I am the Alpha and Omega"? Don't go pull up some long citation from someone else...what is YOUR response to Jesus' claim here?

Jesus clearly accepts worship on at least 6 occasions in the gospels. Why is it that the angels never allowed anyone to proskuneo before them, but Jesus does?

Again, the Jews knew exactly what Jesus was claiming at John 8:58. They understood perfectly that He was making Himself equal with God, and claiming to be God Himself.

Jesus is most certainly Jehovah, Steve, and all the word counts and translation citations and dancing around the text will not change that fact.

Jesus and the Father are one.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God.

If you've seen Jesus, you've seen the Father.

Jesus had the authority to lay His life down, and He had the authority to take it back up again.

Jesus has the authority to forgive sin. Only God can forgive sin.

In Jesus, ALL the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form.

Okay, so Jesus wasn't applying the divine name to himself in John 8:58. Though if he were, the anger of the crowd would make sense: blasphemy would be punishable by death.

Instead, the crowd wants to kill Jesus simply for making a deluded claim about his age? They have a problem because he claims to be really, really old?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the crowd goes a little overboard here....

Dear David,

The Jews going overboard? Yes, the unbelieving Jews were already hysterically whipped up, looking to kill Jesus on any false charge, And, on multiple occasions they tried.

John 5:18, RS: “This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God.”

Did Jesus break the Sabbath? No, Jesus kept the Law perfectly, and he declared: “It is lawful to do good on the sabbath.”—Matt. 12:10-12, RS. (The Jews were claiming he did this, but he didn’t)

Did Jesus ever claim equality with God? No, while properly referring to God as his Father, Jesus never claimed equality with God. He straightforwardly answered the Jews: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing.” (John 5:19, RS; see also John 14:28; John 10:36.) (The Jews were wrongly interpreting)

Jesus was simply calling God his Father. Over and over again, Jesus specifically said that he was God’s Son, and that God was his Father.

PLEASE READ THIS SCRIPTURE VERY CAREFULLY... The Jews wanted to INCORECTLY stone him for blasphemy, thinking he was making himself a god. Jesus specifically said he was only claiming to be God's Son.

(John 10:31-37) Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. 32 Jesus replied to them: “I displayed to YOU many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are YOU stoning me?” 33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” 34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “YOU are gods”’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, 36 do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, do not believe me.
It was the unbelieving Jews who reasoned that Jesus was attempting to make himself equal with God by claiming God as his Father. It was those unbelieving Jews, too, who claimed that Jesus broke the Sabbath, but they were wrong also about that.

At John 8:58, we find the Jews angrily arguing with Jesus, saying he is demonized... taunting him, arguing with every thing he says. They argue with him about his statement about “never tasting death”. They say: “Oh yeah! What about Abraham? He died didn’t he?” and “Who do you claim to be?”

When they argue with Jesus : “You aren’t even 50 years old, how did you see Abraham”. Jesus simply answers that he existed before Abraham. Once again, the Jews anger ignites over their own interpretation about what that meant.

Do you really want to form your beliefs based on what these angry Jews thought about Jesus? Do you believe Jesus was breaking the Sabbath, or is that just what the Jews were insisting?

(John 8:48-59) In answer the Jews said to him: “Do we not rightly say, You are a Sa•mar´i•tan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered: “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and YOU dishonor me. 50 But I am not seeking glory for myself; there is One that is seeking and judging. 51 Most truly I say to YOU, If anyone observes my word, he will never see death at all.” 52 The Jews said to him: “Now we do know you have a demon. Abraham died, also the prophets; but you say, ‘If anyone observes my word, he will never taste death at all.’ 53 You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died, are you? Also, the prophets died. Who do you claim to be?” 54 Jesus answered: “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifies me, he who YOU say is YOUR God; 55 and yet YOU have not known him. But I know him. And if I said I do not know him I should be like YOU, a liar. But I do know him and am observing his word. 56 Abraham YOUR father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” 57 Therefore the Jews said to him: “You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to hurl [them] at him; but Jesus hid and went out of the temple.

This is why many translations don’t say “I AM” at John 8:58

Dr. James Moffatt was on the Revised Standard Version Bible Committee, and note how he translates John 8:58 in his own version: “‘Truly, truly I tell you,’ said Jesus, ‘I have existed before Abraham was born.’”

Professor E. J. Goodspeed was a member of the American Standard Bible Committee, and his translation renders John 8:58 as follows: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born!’”

Chas. Williams’ The New Testament: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born.’”

A. S. Lewis’ “The Four Gospels” According to the Sinaitic Palimpsest: “He said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have been.”

The Twentieth Century New Testament: “‘Believe me,’ Jesus replied, ‘before Abraham was born I was already what I am.’”

G. M. Lamsa’s The Modern New Testament: “Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.”

Jas. Murdock’s The Syriac New Testament: “Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say to you, That before Abraham existed, I was.”

F. Pfaefflin’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus: ‘Before there was an Abraham, I was already there [war ich schon da]!’”

C. Stage’s Das Neue Testament (German): “Jesus said to them: ‘Truly, truly, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [war ich].’”

Nácar Colunga’s Nuevo Testamento (Spanish): “Jesus answered: ‘In truth, in truth, I say to you: Before Abraham was born, I was [era yo].’”

F. Delitzsch’s Hebrew New Testament and that by Salkinson-Ginsburg both have the verb in the perfect form “I have been” (haiithi) instead of in the imperfect form.

Dear Brian,

>In light of what is stated in these two passages about Jesus, how can He be a created being if >there was >NOTHING created that He Himself didn't create? Are you suggesting that He created >Himself? The >passages are quite straightforward (though I'm sure you will have an interesting >take on them) that Jesus >created everything, and that there is NOTHING that has been created >that He did not create.

No, I am not suggesting that Jesus created himself.

Since you have asked to focus on the phrase “ALL THINGS”, let’s consider what the Bible means...

Notice what Paul said here:

(Ephesians 1:22) He also subjected ALL THINGS under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,

(Hebrews 2:8) ALL THINGS you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him;

When Paul said ALL THINGS what did he mean?

Let him clarify:

(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 it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 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.

POINT: When the scriptures say that God subjected “ALL THINGS” under Jesus feet IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE WHO SUBJECTED ALL THINGS TO HIM.
Who was the exception? It was Jehovah God. This point was so self-evident to his readers that it didn’t even need mention the first two times, because it was “evident”... It went without saying because everyone knew that Jehovah was the Most High, Almighty God and that everything else was below him including Jesus Christ which was the point of verse 28:

“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”

>I am curious as to how you would explain John 1:3 which says, "All things came into >being through >Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the >life was the Light of men."

So, for the exact same reason that Paul didn’t have to mention this every single time he used the term ALL THINGS, the apostle John didn’t either.
When John wrote at John 1:3 “all things” and Paul wrote Col 1:16 “all things” I want you to notice the rest of the sentence:

“... all things have been created through Him and for Him”

Through Jesus.... For Jesus?
By whom? By his father, Jehovah.

When Jehovah created all things he did this through Jesus and for Jesus.

Jesus is a created being. This is why Jesus is continually called “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) and “the beginning of the creation by God” (Rev 3:14)

And Jesus specifically was alive because of his Father:

(John 6:57) Just as the living Father sent me forth and I live because of the Father, he also that feeds on me, even that one will live because of me.
In summary, let’s make sure you understand what I am proposing the Bible truth is. Jehovah is the Almighty God who has existed forever. The first life form that he created was his firstborn son, Jesus who lived in heaven with Jehovah prior to coming to the earth.

After Jehovah had created Jesus, he went on to create all other things THROUGH Jesus. This is similar to how any developer will accomplish his building goals THROUGH other people.

Jesus has always been a faithful Son to his God and Father Jehovah, imitating him, doing his will and purposes. Even though “ALL THINGS” were subjected to him and “ALL THINGS” were created through him, he ultimately subjects himself to the one person who is excepted in this “ALL THINGS”, his Father, Jehovah God:

(1 Corinthians 15:24-28) Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. 28 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.

Have I answered your question?

To others: I welcome private email discussions, so please email me...

Thanks!

Steve
BibleStudentSteve@yahoo.com
http://tinyurl.com/2k2tvo

Steve,

You did not honestly engage John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. Instead, you went to a completely different passage about all things being in subjection to Christ.

I asked you a simple, direct, question about what is stated in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 concerning the truth that NOTHING has been made except what Jesus Himself has made.

You have proven once again that you are not willing to engage Scripture in a straightforward and honest manner.

Col. 1:16 doesn't leave the reader with the need to have to figure out what "all things" is referring to. Your biased method of reading into the text is beginning to show forth with each attempt at defending your indefensible position that Jesus is not Jehovah.

Paul says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him."

All things...in heaven and on earth.
All things...whether visible or invisible.
All things...whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers or authorities.

Jesus created all things...and NOTHING was created that He didn't create...including Himself. THAT is the straightforward and clear reading of the text.

Sadly, your presuppositions will not allow you to honestly engage what is written.

Also, you still haven't answered why Jesus would claim to be the Alpha and Omega if He was not.