Is Jesus God?

EMA writes:Peg this rendering, IAM is more consistent with the context as the author points out. Simple pre-existence does and is not coveyed

Kbertsche writes:Consider the title of Sharp's paper: Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament: Containing many New Proofs of the Divinity of Christ

that might be true if John 1:1 didnt actually say that Jesus was 'A' god and not 'THE' God.There are plenty of other bible translations beside ours which shows that Jesus is 'A' god.This does not result in worshiping many gods (polytheism)

jaywill writes:
If you accepted that the Logos is the God with also Whom He is WITH, then that would be monotheistic belief. As it stands you have to teach polytheism to deny the incarnation of Jehovah as the man Jesus Christ.lolWho was God speaking to in genesis when he said"Let US make man in OUR image"Obviously he was speaking to his Son Jesus. The one who has been with him from before the time that Abraham lived.

that might be true if John 1:1 didnt actually say that Jesus was 'A' god and not 'THE' God.There are plenty of other bible translations beside ours which shows that Jesus is 'A' god.This does not result in worshiping many gods (polytheism)

Initial Comments:It is important to note that our position is the only position that defines the word "God" [theos] in John 1:1-2 with the identical definition throughout (God, as a class of being, not as a name).
The word "God" is used in two ways. First "God" is used many places as the generic "class of being" definition as in Gen 1:1 and John 1:1. Second, "God" is used in specific personal reference to the Father as in Eph 4:4.
The use of "God" as a class of being in John 1:1, mirrors Gen 1:1 where "God" as a class of being created and made "man in our image". In fact, the only formal personal proper noun/name for God is "Jehovah", not "God". Just as the entire first chapter of Genesis refers to God as "God" (noun/class of being, not personal proper noun/name) and it isn't until Gen 2:4 that God is referred to as "Jehovah" (the formal personal proper noun/name), so also in John 1:1-13, "God" is used in the "class of being" sense and it isn't until John 1:14 that the Father is specifically identified!
Jehovah's Witnesses (Arians), on the other hand, define the first "theos" [God] as a personal proper noun/name for the Father and the second exactly like we do, as a "class of being". The difference is that JW's define Jesus as a lessor class of being, and we, defining the two occurrences of God identically, as an equal class of being! Our position is irrefutably solid and the only consistent one.
We do give honourable mention to the Modalists, (United Pentecostal church International, UPCI), for they like we, do define God identically in its two occurrences in John 1:1. However, they define God as a personal proper noun/name for the same person, thus they want to read into the passage that Jesus is the same person as the Father. This does incredible damage to the distinction of God, so vividly seen in many passages like the baptism of Jesus. We merely ask Modalists: "Who was Jesus praying to? Himself?" Their answer is, that the human half of Jesus was praying to the divine half. So although we give them a gold star for consistency, do fail to win the prize. Jehovah's Witnesses don't even get a gold star!
Arians (JW's) and some well meaning Trinitarians mistakenly translate it "and the word was divine". If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, he would have used the adjective for "divine" [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3. Instead, John used the word for God, "theos".
In regard to the translation "a god", it is well documented and indisputable, that the Governing Body of the Jehovah's Witnesses has misquoted many Greek authorities with the intent to draw a conclusion opposite to what that Greek authority intended by his work. Many of the supporting authorities in the footnotes of the early versions of the NWT have been deleted as proof of this. Several of these Greek authorities have written formal repudiations of how the Watchtower deceptively misquotes them.What reputable scholars say about the New World Translation of John 1:1:Barclay: Dr. William Barclay, a leading Greek scholar of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."Bowman, Robert Bowman, All scholars agree that in John 1:1 "logos" is the subject and "theos" is the predicate. This sets the translation of John 1:1c as, (The Word was God" not "God was the Word". Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.)Boyer: Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."Bruce: Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]Colwell: Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"Feinberg: Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."Griesbach: Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott): "So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favor of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."Johnson: Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian."Kaufman: Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."Mantey: "I have never read any New Testament so badly translated as The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of The Greek Scriptures.... it is a distortion of the New Testament. The translators used what J.B. Rotherham had translated in 1893, in modern speech, and changed the readings in scores of passages to state what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and teach. That is a distortion not a translation." (Julius Mantey, Depth Exploration in The New Testament (N.Y.: Vantage Pres, 1980), pp.136-137)Mantey: "Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they (Watchtower) had misquoted me in support of their translation." (These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Julius Mantey on The New World Translation", Mantey is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Kingdom interlinear Translation)
Mantey: Dr. Julius Mantey, author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, calls the NWT "a shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"
Mantey: the translators of the NWT are "diabolical deceivers." (Julius Mantey in discussion with Walter Martin)
Martin: Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."Metzger: Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, professor of New Testament at Princeton University, calls the NWT "a frightful mistranslation," "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature)Mikolaski: Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"Nida: "With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." (Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society: Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.)Rowley: British scholar H.H. Rowley stated, "From beginning to end this volume is a shining example of how the Bible should not be translated."Wescott: Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation): "The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' ans so included in the unity of the Godhead."We may or may not ever know exactly why the definite article is lacking in verses like John 1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b. The only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that "a God" is not demanded by the Greek or context! (Even if it is, it still changes nothing.) Honest and informed Jehovah's Witnesses will admit that that "a god" is possible, but not the exclusive translation. They must admit that "the Word was God" is also a possibility. E.C Colwell suggested in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933, that the reason for dropping the definite article in John 1:1c, was to make it clear that he intended to say, "The Word was God" rather than "God was the Word". Although this is possible, such suggestions imply that using the definite article in John 1:1c would force the verse to read Modalistic. (Where the Father and Son are the same person with different roles.) We however, don't really need such explanations, for we are the only position that completely maintains the distinction in persons between the Father and the Son, (avoiding Modalism), while also maintaining that both the Father and the Son are the "God" class of being, equal in stature as God. (avoiding Arianism and Polytheism)
It has escaped the notice of Jehovah's Witnesses that a noun with or without a definite article, does not change its meaning at all! For example there is absolutely no difference between saying indefinitely: "A woman is a manager of a home" and saying definitely: "That woman is the manager of her home" (Tit 2:5). The words "woman" and "manager" and "home" are defined identically, although used indefinitely or definitely. The same thing is true in John 1:1 and every other place in the Bible! Saying indefinitely: "Jehovah is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jehovah is the God". In fact, Jehovah is called both "a God" in the Bible. (Mic 7:18, Luke 20:38, 1 Cor 14:33). The meaning of God is identical in both cases. To say, "Jesus is a God" is identical to saying definitely: "Jesus is the God". Again, Jesus is called THE GOD in John 20:28. Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to take the unprecedented position that a noun changes its basic meaning as a general rule, when used definitely vs. indefinitely in John 1:1.
Jesus is called "THE GOD" (ie: theos with the definite article just as in the expression "and the word was with THE GOD" in John 1:1) in the following passages: John 20:28; Tit 2:13; 2 Pe 1:1; 1 John 5:20. So both the Father and Son are called "God" both with and without the definite article.
In the first chapter of John, the word 'God' ('theos' in Greek) is used 13 times. In 7 places theos has the definite article (1:1b; 1:2; 1:29; 1:34; 1:36; 1:49; 1:51) In a remarkable 6 instances (1:1c; 1:6; 1:12; 1:13; 1:18a; 1:18b) theos (God) lacks the definite article. Every Greek scholar will tell you that the lack of a definite article does not mean that the noun must be indefinite. Clearly the meaning of these instances is the Only True "God", even though no definite article is used. In fact the most powerful proof against the NWT's rendering of "a god" in John 1:1 is the NWT itself!

im sorry but i think your 'author' needs to have his head checked.They are two different words entirely. The exodus I AM is a title, while the 'I am' in John is translated as 'I am he' in many other verses that John wrote.If you accept this guys word for it, then so be it. We shoud move onto a new subject.

"Who has done this and carried it through, calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord - with THE FIRST of them and with THE LAST - I AM HE." Isaiah 41:4 "

"Who has wrought and done these things? he has called it who called it from the generations of old; I God, the first and to all futurity, I AM" (ego eimi). LXX

jaywill writes:Whether or not these multiple Gods are worshipped is beside the point. The fact that they are taught is polytheism.

Paul at 1 Cor. 8:5, 6 writes:Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthas indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

jaywill writes: Besides, to suggest that John opens his Gospel with a teaching of more than one God would contradict the Son's summary of His mission in His prayer in John 17:"And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ" (John 17:3)

The Father is greater than I am. John 14:28John 5:19 Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner"John 5:30I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative; just as I hear, I judge; and the judgment that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but the will of him that sent me"John 20:17 Jesus said to her: ..‘I am ascending to my Father and YOUR Father and to my God and YOUR God.’1Cor 11:3 But I want YOU to know that the head of every man is the Christ; ... in turn the head of the Christ is God"Matt 24:36 Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father"

EMA writes:As much as I respect you as a person and bible student maybe these fellows have a reason for rejecting that rendering in the NWT. based on thier scholarship and not due to prejudice against what they call cults or sects

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. XIII, No. 4, October 1951 Grammar alone cannot prove how the predicate in this verse should be translated, whether ‘God’ or ‘a god.’

The New American Bible (1970) in its section Biblical Terms Explained" writes: In Jn 1:1, the Word is called ‘God’ but the original Greek term used here, theos [God], is not the usual word for God, ho theos [the God].

Divinity Professor John Martin Creed writes: The Prologue [John 1:1] is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous [theos without the article ho (the)] than it appears to be in English.

An American Translation by E. J. Goodspeed and A New Translation by James Moffatt writes: Render John 1:1 as: "And the word was divine"

The Four Gospels Harmonized and Translated, by Count Leo Tolstoy Pg30, parag 2 writes: "If it says that in the beginning was the comprehension, or word, and that the word was to God, or with God, or for 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 Patristic GospelsAn English Version of the holy Gospels as they existed in the Second Century, by Roslyn D’Onston. page 156 footnote to John1:1 writes: There are three distinct reasons for believing of God to be the true reading. First, the manuscripts, as stated in that Note; secondly, the logical argument, because if the Evangelist meant ‘was God,’ there would have been no occasion for the next verse; thirdly, the grammatical construction of the sentence: for ‘was God,’ would he not have written ho lgos ēn thes, which would, at any rate, have been more elegant? But if we read it, kai theo ēn ho lgos, the theo is in its proper place in the sentence. I have refrained from correcting the text of this passage at the express desire of the late Bishop Westcott. The Greek word theoũ means of God.

killinghurts writes:Children are taught to believe religion... they don't come out of the womb with a kippah on their head.

"Peg" writes:just as they are taught to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause no doubt.

"Peg" writes:God may be a fantasy to you perhaps, but to many people he is not.
So even if those parents are wrong, they are not deliberately telling their kids a falsehood...unlike christmas and easter which are just blatent lies parents tell, correct?

killinghurts writes:Unfortunately for our kids, we don't do the same with other made up things, like God.