A Refutation
of Matt Slick’s Trinitarian view of John 10:30, 33!
Continuation of my rebuttal of Matt Slick of “CARM”
I have already addressed Matt Slick’s Trinitarian view of John 10:30, I now address John 10:33…!
Matt Slick, says;
"1. John 10:30-34 is a section of verses where the Pharisees say that Jesus is making Himself out to be God (v. 33).
...
1. "I and the Father are one. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"
2. You can say, "See, even the Jews knew He was claiming to be God. The Jehovah's Witness (if he's quick enough) will say something like, "Jesus wasn't God, the Jew's only thought that Jesus was claiming to be God." Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee."
Reply,
Addressing the latter part of point 1 and all of point 2.
As Slick uses the NWT here is:
John 10:31-36 NWT
”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?”
Is it true, as Slick says, that the Jews accused Jesus…
“…because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"?
Here once again, is where Slick is being tricky with his readers, as he totally omits what the original Greek says and the surrounding context!
Here is how and why!
John 10:33
” We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."” NIV
“…We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT
Which translation is correct, the NIV (and subsequently other Trinitarian translations) or the NWT?
Orginal Greek of John 10:33
“…σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.”
Acts 28:6 (original Greek)
…μεταβαλόμενοι ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν.”
Here we see that, the accusative “θεόν” (theon) in both accounts, referring to Jesus and Paul do not carry the definite article “the” (ton) and are therefore, anarthrous! In Greek, the definite article is not always necessary in order to make a noun definite, such as an attached Dative, Genitive or a Possessive Pronoun, such as “your, our…” and Greek commonly drops the article when a noun is attached to such, but in John 10:33 and in Acts 28:6, so both texts have no definitizing elements associated with them!
I must ask why Trinitarians translators render “theon” as “God” [NIV] and not “god” or “a god” [NWT]? The fact that is, is that “theon” is indefinite, not definite and therefore, relates not to identity, but class, category, Paul is of the class…”god” and therefore, exhibits either the character or qualities (or both) that belong to class, category, “theon”, (god) - likewise, Jesus is of class, category “theon” (just like Paul) and to use an old illustration from the 20th century, which clearly demonstrates the principle of belonging to such “class, category”:
Charles is a prince, can mean, that Charles is the son of a king or Charles is not the son of a king, but exhibits the character and/or qualities that belong to class, category prince! Can we see what is going on here, one is either the “son of…” or exhibits the…” either way, Charles is not the king, so likewise, just as Paul is not “God” [king] neither is Jesus “God” [king] or to put it another way, English has a way to refer to “the God” (ton theon or ho theos) and that is, English drops the article when referring to “God”[the Father] as English does not need the article “the” in order to identify – the Father, this was the way the NT writers commonly referred to the “Father” i.e. as “God” (English) Greek (ton theon, ho theos…the God)
Trinitarian translations therefore, mislead people into thinking, that when the proper noun “God” and not the common noun “god” being applied to Jesus, it will naturally be assumed, that Almighty God, is being talked about, but this is false and rather Modalistic, because in English, the term “God” is treated as a proper noun, therefore, a name, such as London, Paris, New York, Maple tree…whereas, city, country, tree…are common nouns and do not specify or identify any specific person, place or thing! Strong 2316 defines the Greek term “theon or theos, either as “God or a god” context and grammar…dictate either one noun or the other; and we have seen how we ought to understand “theon” in relation to Paul, but a little more on Jesus?
What context reveals, let’s visit John again?
John 10:31-36 NWT
”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?”
Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus, “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy” what was this so-called blasphemy? Trinitarians, like Matt Slick say, that it was because, “…the Jews knew He was claiming to be God” the fact is, is that the Jews said no such thing, as it is Trinitarian eisigesis! So, what did the Jews actually say; “…σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.” Notice, that “θεόν” (theon = god) is “θεόν” (theon = god) and not “τὸν θεόν” (ton theon = the God) this is verified with Jesus’ next words, when he refers to men (acting as judges) as “gods” (theoi) singular “theos = god);
“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… do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”
Here is the empirical proof of the matter, that Jesus never claimed to be “God” and the Jews also never said or was claiming either that Jesus was claiming to be “God”, but the son of God, “a god”, as others were legitimately recognised as “gods”, so why not Jesus, who better to lay claim to being a god, than Jehovah’s son, Jesus, as he was sent by the Father and more powerful and authoritative, that the men who were judges, who were “gods” (Ps 82:1, 6).
Trinitarians, like Matt Slick inject their Trinitarianism right into the text itself and we see this in the NIV…when the translators know very well, that “theon” is a common noun, just as it is with Paul in Acts 28:6 and in fact the exact same common noun, but the NIV translators turn a common noun “god” into a proper noun “God” and the proof of the pudding is in the grammar and context; Trinitarians like Slick are just too slick for their own good!
” We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."” NIV
Notice how Slick works:
"Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee."
Slick desperately tries to put JWs on the side of the Pharisees, as though denying Jesus his "Godhood", but it has been positively shown, that Slick, and his tricky Trinitarian translators show gross disrespect to both the Father and son, by having the son usurp the Godhood of the Father, by saying in effect, that the son shares or participates in that very same Godhood, which solely belongs to the Father, alone!
Scripture examples, that show why it is impossible for Jesus to be "God":
I have already addressed Matt Slick’s Trinitarian view of John 10:30, I now address John 10:33…!
Matt Slick, says;
"1. John 10:30-34 is a section of verses where the Pharisees say that Jesus is making Himself out to be God (v. 33).
...
1. "I and the Father are one. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"
2. You can say, "See, even the Jews knew He was claiming to be God. The Jehovah's Witness (if he's quick enough) will say something like, "Jesus wasn't God, the Jew's only thought that Jesus was claiming to be God." Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee."
Reply,
Addressing the latter part of point 1 and all of point 2.
As Slick uses the NWT here is:
John 10:31-36 NWT
”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?”
Is it true, as Slick says, that the Jews accused Jesus…
“…because you, a mere man, claim to be God.'"?
Here once again, is where Slick is being tricky with his readers, as he totally omits what the original Greek says and the surrounding context!
Here is how and why!
John 10:33
” We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."” NIV
“…We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy, even because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” NWT
Which translation is correct, the NIV (and subsequently other Trinitarian translations) or the NWT?
Orginal Greek of John 10:33
“…σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.”
Acts 28:6 (original Greek)
…μεταβαλόμενοι ἔλεγον αὐτὸν εἶναι θεόν.”
Here we see that, the accusative “θεόν” (theon) in both accounts, referring to Jesus and Paul do not carry the definite article “the” (ton) and are therefore, anarthrous! In Greek, the definite article is not always necessary in order to make a noun definite, such as an attached Dative, Genitive or a Possessive Pronoun, such as “your, our…” and Greek commonly drops the article when a noun is attached to such, but in John 10:33 and in Acts 28:6, so both texts have no definitizing elements associated with them!
I must ask why Trinitarians translators render “theon” as “God” [NIV] and not “god” or “a god” [NWT]? The fact that is, is that “theon” is indefinite, not definite and therefore, relates not to identity, but class, category, Paul is of the class…”god” and therefore, exhibits either the character or qualities (or both) that belong to class, category, “theon”, (god) - likewise, Jesus is of class, category “theon” (just like Paul) and to use an old illustration from the 20th century, which clearly demonstrates the principle of belonging to such “class, category”:
Charles is a prince, can mean, that Charles is the son of a king or Charles is not the son of a king, but exhibits the character and/or qualities that belong to class, category prince! Can we see what is going on here, one is either the “son of…” or exhibits the…” either way, Charles is not the king, so likewise, just as Paul is not “God” [king] neither is Jesus “God” [king] or to put it another way, English has a way to refer to “the God” (ton theon or ho theos) and that is, English drops the article when referring to “God”[the Father] as English does not need the article “the” in order to identify – the Father, this was the way the NT writers commonly referred to the “Father” i.e. as “God” (English) Greek (ton theon, ho theos…the God)
Trinitarian translations therefore, mislead people into thinking, that when the proper noun “God” and not the common noun “god” being applied to Jesus, it will naturally be assumed, that Almighty God, is being talked about, but this is false and rather Modalistic, because in English, the term “God” is treated as a proper noun, therefore, a name, such as London, Paris, New York, Maple tree…whereas, city, country, tree…are common nouns and do not specify or identify any specific person, place or thing! Strong 2316 defines the Greek term “theon or theos, either as “God or a god” context and grammar…dictate either one noun or the other; and we have seen how we ought to understand “theon” in relation to Paul, but a little more on Jesus?
What context reveals, let’s visit John again?
John 10:31-36 NWT
”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?”
Why did the Jews want to stone Jesus, “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy” what was this so-called blasphemy? Trinitarians, like Matt Slick say, that it was because, “…the Jews knew He was claiming to be God” the fact is, is that the Jews said no such thing, as it is Trinitarian eisigesis! So, what did the Jews actually say; “…σὺ ἄνθρωπος ὢν ποιεῖς σεαυτὸν θεόν.” Notice, that “θεόν” (theon = god) is “θεόν” (theon = god) and not “τὸν θεόν” (ton theon = the God) this is verified with Jesus’ next words, when he refers to men (acting as judges) as “gods” (theoi) singular “theos = god);
“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… do YOU say to me whom the Father sanctified and dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s Son?”
Here is the empirical proof of the matter, that Jesus never claimed to be “God” and the Jews also never said or was claiming either that Jesus was claiming to be “God”, but the son of God, “a god”, as others were legitimately recognised as “gods”, so why not Jesus, who better to lay claim to being a god, than Jehovah’s son, Jesus, as he was sent by the Father and more powerful and authoritative, that the men who were judges, who were “gods” (Ps 82:1, 6).
Trinitarians, like Matt Slick inject their Trinitarianism right into the text itself and we see this in the NIV…when the translators know very well, that “theon” is a common noun, just as it is with Paul in Acts 28:6 and in fact the exact same common noun, but the NIV translators turn a common noun “god” into a proper noun “God” and the proof of the pudding is in the grammar and context; Trinitarians like Slick are just too slick for their own good!
” We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."” NIV
Notice how Slick works:
"Then you can say, "Oh, I see. Then let me get this right. You agree with the Pharisees, Jesus wasn't God? Is that correct? The Jehovah's Witness will not like it that he agrees with a Pharisee."
Slick desperately tries to put JWs on the side of the Pharisees, as though denying Jesus his "Godhood", but it has been positively shown, that Slick, and his tricky Trinitarian translators show gross disrespect to both the Father and son, by having the son usurp the Godhood of the Father, by saying in effect, that the son shares or participates in that very same Godhood, which solely belongs to the Father, alone!
Scripture examples, that show why it is impossible for Jesus to be "God":
John 6:57; 1 Cor 8:6; 2 Cor 1:3; Eph 1:3, 17; Heb 1:9; and Rev 3:12, 14.
A. Graham (aka-Letusreason)
A. Graham (aka-Letusreason)
No comments:
Post a Comment