PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Send a file File manager PDF Toolbox Search Help Contact



Jesus is God and he is the Son of God by Kakai Mate .pdf



Original filename: Jesus is God and he is the Son of God by Kakai Mate.pdf

This PDF 1.5 document has been generated by Microsoft® Word 2016, and has been sent on pdf-archive.com on 14/07/2016 at 09:12, from IP address 115.248.x.x. The current document download page has been viewed 519 times.
File size: 955 KB (49 pages).
Privacy: public file




Download original PDF file









Document preview


The claim that Jesus Christ was divine is one of the most fundamental doctrines of the Christian church. It is upon this foundation that the church has been
built, and upon which a number of other vital doctrines take their stand. It is therefore imperative that Christians are able to adequately defend the divinity
of Christ from both a historical and theological perspective, to ensure the faith remains real and relevant for today’s world. Ever since the church’s
inception, almost 2000 years ago, it has been attacked by various heresies that have sought to destroy it. The claim of Christ’s divinity has been one such
target. In recent years, one of the most well known attacks on the divinity of Christ has been from Dan Brown’s novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’. In his book, it
is claimed that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was only a man. The book says it was not until the 4th century that the deity of Christ was
imposed upon the church by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Although his book is fiction, it has cast doubt in the minds of many people that Jesus’
divinity is an essential part of the Christian faith. Similarly, well-known atheists I know such as Richard Dawkins have laughed at the claim that Jesus was
divine, although they do give him credit for being a ‘good’ and quite ‘interesting’ man within history. It is against this backdrop that Christians must
defend the divinity of Christ and communicate it effectively to a postmodern world. We are now living in an age where there is no such thing as neutral
truth, and everything is treated with a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’. As a result, people are usually taking on board different philosophies and theories they
like and almost mixing them all together. It can be difficult to communicate the message of the gospel within this context, much less the divinity of Christ.
However, it is the church’s mission to do so, and in this book I aim to adequately examine and explain the historical reasons why the early Christians
came to the startling conclusion that Jesus was divine from the bible itself.

Introduction
It is observably clear that in every book of the New Testament the deity and humanity of the Person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was taught implicitly
or explicitly. The Person and nature of the risen Savior Christ defines the orthodox Christian religion. He is God the Son, the Lord of glory, “perfect God
and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body” (Council of Ephesus re-affirmed). Since the Founder and thus, Cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus Christ,
any such denial or distortion of the biblical revelation of either His Person, nature (God-man), or finished work is a denial of “the true God and eternal a
life” (1 John 5:20). First, as stated over, it is the entire content of divine revelation that affirms the deity and humanity Jesus Christ, the Son. Virtually every
New Testament book teaches the full deity of the Son explicitly or implicitly. The Bible also certainly teaches that Jesus was fully human. Paul refers to
Jesus as “the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Hebrews tells us that Christ became human “in all things” (Heb. 2:14, 17: “Since the children have flesh and
blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death--that is, the devil—17. For this
reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that
he might make atonement for the sins of the people”.). Here we will examine from the NT with Greek and Aramaic version and OJB (orthodox Jewish
Bible). Without going further let’s examine from the Bible: (Note: Yahweh or Jehovah the personal name of God may be used in some verses however they
both are not the correct one)
A) Jesus the Son is God
1) John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
OJB: Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along
with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13] –The Word is a
person (Logos-masculine noun)
2) John 1:18: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him
known”. The word the One and only Son who himself is God is Monogenes Theos‘-lieterally the Unique God.
Orthodox Jews bible (OJB) has: ―’No one has ever seen Hashem [Ex 33:20]. It is Elohim the Ben Yachid (God the unique Son), it is he, the one being in
the kheyk (bosom) of HaAv, this one is Hashem's definitive midrash (exegesis).
3) John 20:28: “Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus) My Lord and my God”. Thomas confession of risen Christ is God and Lord. Jesus did not
rebuke him instead blessed him saying vs 29. “Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen
and yet have believed.” Notice first that Jesus is called “the God.” The Greek reads: Apekrithē Thōmas kai eipen autō, ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou (lit.,
“Answered Thomas and said to Him: the Lord of me and the God of me”). Here Thomas addresses Jesus as “the Lord” and “the God.”This is not mere
statement of surprise as OMG. A monotheist Jews would never said this. In the LXX (Septuagint Greek OT) of Psalm 34:23 (Eng. 35:23), a near identical
phrase is used to address YHWH: “Stir up Yourself, and awake to my right And to my cause, my God and my Lord (emphasis added). The LXX renders
the last phrase as, ho theos mou kai ho kurios mou (lit., “the God of me and the Lord of me”). Was Psalmist simply exclaiming in surprise when he wrote
my Lord and my God? Absolutely not. The typical response of the JWs (Jehovah Witnesses who deny Jesus was God) here is that the phrase “my Lord and
my God” was Thomas merely expressing excitement or surprise seeing Jesus (something like, “Oh my God!). Of course, the argument is completely
destroyed by the fact that first, Thomas was directly addressing Jesus: “he [Thomas] said to Him.” The phrase translated “to Him” is from the Greek
personal pronoun autō. The reason why it is translated (in virtually every translation) as “to Him” (even in the NWT) is due to the pronoun being in the
dative case, thus, something Thomas said “to Jesus. And second, if the phrase, “the Lord of Me and the God of me” as the literal Greek reads, was
merely a statement of excitement used in the presence of Jesus, a perfect Rabbi, Thomas would have certainly been rebuked by Jesus on the spot for taking
the Lord’s name in vain (cf. Exod. 20:7). In other words, if Jesus were not “the Lord” and “the God,” He would have not only corrected Thomas (as the
angel corrected John in Rev. 19:10), but He would have also rebuked him for addressing a creature as “the Lord and the God. In Revelation 4:11 we have a
very similar phrase to that of 20:28 where theos is in the nominative case with the vocative force, that is, in direct address like in: “Worthy are You, our
Lord and our God” (axios ei, ho kurios kai ho theos hēmōn, lit., “Worthy are [You], the Lord and the God of us”). Here we have both kurios and theos in
the nominative case, but used with the vocative force (i.e., direct address) by the “twenty-four elders” (v. 10), as with John 20:28 and the countless other
examples. Also similar to John 20:28 (“my Lord and my God”) is Psalm 5:2, which is directly addressed to YHWH: “my King and my God.”
Note: The phrase eipen autō or eipan/ eipon autō (“said to him”) in JOHN 20:28 is used frequently in John’s Gospel to clearly denote direct address (e.g.,
John 3:26; 4:52-53; 5:14; 7:3; 21:17; 21:19). Also the whole point OF John gospel is Jesus is the son of God and shares the same nature as God John 20:32:
“but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name”.
OJB: John 20:28: In reply, T'oma said to Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, Adoni and Elohai!
4) Titus 2:13-―”Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (tou megaglou Theou kai soteros hemon
Iesous Christous), who gives Himself for us”. The appearing is the son not the Father, the one who redeems us and gave himself for us is the Son. Aramaic
version reads: ….of The Great God and Our Lifegiver, Yeshua The Messiah,

OJB: Awaiting the tikvah hameashsheret (the blessed hope), the appearing of the kavod HaEloheinu HaGadol and Moshieynu Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach
Yehoshua, [Gk Epiphenias is used for only Jesus in 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Tim 4:8, 4:1, 2 Tim 1:10, 2 Theso 2:8.
5) Heb. 1:8-9 – the Father calls the Son as ‗GOD‘. Your throne O God is forever and ever.....Therefore, God, Thy God has anointed Thee”.
OJB: and hashem says to haben, kis'ahcha elohim olam vaed shevet mishor shevet malkhutecha ("your throne, o G-d, will endure for ever and ever, and the
scepter of justice is the scepter of your kingdom" --tehillim 45:7). 9 ahavta tzedek vatisna re'sha, al ken meshakhacha elohim, elohecha shemen sasson
mechaverecha ("you loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; on account of this G-d, your G-d, anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your
companions"-tehillim 45:8).
6) 2 Peter 1:1: “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing in the (singular) righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Theou hemon
kai soteros Iesous Christos).” The same rule is used in 2 Peter 1:11: “of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesous Christos), 2
peter 2:20 ..of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (tou Kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesous Christos, kjv lacks hemon), 2 Peter 3:18: ‘.our Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ( tou Kuriou hemon kai soteros Iesous Christos).The one refer by Peter as our God and savior in 2 Peter 1:1 is Jesus Christ.
OJB: … Shimon Kefa, an eved and Shliach of Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua: to the ones having obtained, with us [Shlichim of Moshiach], equally
precious[orthodox Jewish] emunah (faith) [the Emunah of the true Dat HaYehudit] in the Tzedek Hashem [Dan 9:24] of Eloheinu and Moshieinu Rebbe
Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua.
7) John 5:18 ― “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God”. The verb ‘breaking is eleuen- imperfect active indicative, ‘calling’ is verb - imperfect active
indicative, ‘making’ is poion is verb - present active participle-Literally “he not only continues to break the Sabbath but also continue to call God his own
Father always making himself equal with God” The force of an imperfect tense indicates a continuous or repeated action normally occurring in the
past. Thus, this was not the first time Jesus claimed God was His Father in the sense of essence. Apparently, He had been making (repeating) this claim
John 5:17-18: Son of God = God the Son. One of the best examples of where Jesus’ claim to be the “Son of God” denoted ontological (viz. in very
nature) equality with God is found in the Gospel of John chapter 5. In verse 17, Jesus affirms: “My Father has been working until now (He is always
working), and I have been working.” This was Jesus’ response to the charges brought against Him: The Father’s creative activity stop after six days, but not
His governing and upholding the universe. However, the Son’s activity of mediating, rewarding, punishing, etc. keeps on going. Then we read in verse 18:
“For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but He was also calling God His
Father, making Himself equal with God” (emphasis added). The Jews (and the Apostle John) clearly understood that by claiming God was His Father (i.e.,
the Son of God), Jesus was claiming to be “equal with God.” This is especially confirmed by the response of the Jews to Jesus’ claim: “For this reason
therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He was . . . calling God His Father, making Himself equal with God” (emphasis added).
Note in John 19:7, the Jews response to Jesus’ recurring claims of being God’s Son: “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made
Himself out to be the Son of God.” Again, this sharply opposes the position of those who assert that Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was not a claim to be
equal with God.
OJB: “Because of this, therefore, those of Yehudah were seeking all the more to kill Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, because not only was he not Shomer
Shabbos, but also Rebbe was saying that his own Av was Hashem, thereby making himself equal with Elohim [Yochanan 1:1]. Aramaic says the same as
Greek
8) John 10:30, 33 ―vs30: “I and the Father are one (semen (verb-we are), one-hen (singular neuter). 31. Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to
stone him, 33. The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone you not; but for blasphemy; and because that you, being a man, make yourself
God.” Jesus affirms that his claim was right in 34. “Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods”? If he called them
'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be set aside-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the
world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son” He did not reject the Jews accusation instead he affirms. Jesus was
almost stone because he put himself before the Father “I” and my Father in vs 30’. His whole point was he is the Son sharing the same nature as the Father.
Both historically and in present-day, Christians have rightfully pointed to this passage to show that Jesus Christ claimed equality with God the Father: “I
and the Father are one.” As with Jesus’ other undeniable claims to be equal God, the response of the Jews in verse 10:33 is an irrefutable confirmation of
Jesus’ claim of being equal with God—God Himself: “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make
Yourself out to be God” (emphasis added). However, it is not merely in verse 30 where we see Jesus claiming to be equal with God. Rather, it is the
passages leading up to verse 30 that prove His claim of absolute. In verses 27-29, Jesus claims that “He is the Shepherd and He gives His sheep eternal life
and no one can snatch them from His (vs 28) or His Father’s hand. Now, the Jews were well acquainted with Psalm 95:7: “For He is our God, and we are
the people of His pasture and the sheep of His hand.” Knowing that only YHWH can make this claim of having sheep in His hand as well as giving them
eternal life (cf. Deut. 32:39': See now that I, I am He, And there is no god besides Me; It is I who put to death and give life. I have wounded and it is I who
heal, And there is no one who can deliver from My hand; Isa. 43:11: I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour); So when Jesus made this
noticeably divine claim and then added, “I and the Father are one,” it’s easy to understand the response of the Jews: “You, being a man, make Yourself out

to be God.” If Jesus was only claiming to be “one” with the Father in the sense of mere representation as with judges or Moses, Jesus’ claim would not
have warranted blasphemy (cf. Lev. 24:16). Jesus claimed the exclusive attributes of YHWH (vv. 27-29) then claimed He was one in essence with the
Father, which naturally prompted the Jews to stone Him for blasphemy—for making Himself out to be God. The Jews understood him claiming that he is
the one working in union with the Father in bringing salvation.
9) Philippians 2:5-8 ―”Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who existed in the nature(form) of God, did not consider robbery to be
equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, emptied himself taking the form of a bond servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found
in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
a) The word translated “existed” (“being” KJV, NIV) is huparchōn, which is a present active participle. The participle here indicates a continuous
existence or state of continually subsisting. Hence, Jesus did not become the very form or nature of God at a certain point in time, rather He was always
existing as God. Literally translating will be “who continue to exist or existing always’.
b) Next, the word translated “form of God” (NASB) or “nature of God” (NIV) is morphē. Theou. This word denotes the specific qualities or essential
attributes of something. (Strong's Concordance 3444 morphḗ – properly, form (outward expression) that embodies essential (inner) substance so that
the form is in complete harmony with the inner essence. “In the form of God”-denotes the expression of divinity in the pre-existent Christ, sharing the same
nature as the Father. Thus, in His pre-existent state, Jesus possessed (always subsisting in) essential deity as the Father. Paul does not simply say, “He was
God.” He says, “He was in the form of God,” employing a turn of speech which throws emphasis upon Our Lord’s possession of the specific quality of
God. In other word “the form of God” is the sum of the characteristics which make the being we call “God,” specifically God, rather than some other
being—an angel, say, or a man. When Our Lord is said to be in “the form of God,” therefore, He is declared, in the most expressed manner possible, to be
all that God is, to possess the whole fullness of attributes which make God to be God (God nature is immutability, unchanging, omnipresent, omniscient
omnipotent etc, Christ posses all this nature. To deny that the Son has truly nature of God (the morphē (nature) is to deny that the Son was truly in the
nature of man (morphē of man (truly man) in vs 7“taking the form/nature [morphē] of a bond-servant”. If Paul comes up saying directly “….in Christ
Jesus, who is God” this may be wrong because it may convey that Jesus was the Father (God in NT mostly applied for the Father when the context bears it
out), the next phrase makes it clear (His equality with God).
c) His equality with God - is isa- nominative plural neuter constituting all the essence of what God is.
d) The last part of the verse (“[He] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped”) has been a topic of much discussion among scholars as to the
precise meaning of the term harpagmos (“a thing to be grasped” or “robbery”). But as we have stated, the meaning must be in light of the first part of the
verse: “always subsisting in the nature of God. In other words, the meaning of harpagmos cannot be separated from the meaning of the participle
huparchōn. It is something that seized and hold on to, This word (harpagmos) has two distinct meanings. One, a thing unlawfully seized, and two, a
treasure to be clutched and retained. The second one fits in the context. It is translated variously: "Something to be grasped" (NIV, RSV), "something to be
exploited" (NRSV), and "robbery" (KJV). Whatever, the exact meaning of harpagmos, it seems clear that the preexistent Christ already possessed equality
with God, and determined not to clutch at it or cling to it, but rather to obey his Father and humble himself. If harpagmos is used as a denial of deity of
Christ, how come he can seize or keep something that God will not share or allow for a created being (it proves Christ is more powerful than God which is
not the case Paul presented here). The context is Christ did not use his divine attributes for his own good. Matt 11:29 (Or how can anyone enter the strong
man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house)
e) Emptied himself taking: The Self-Emptying of God the Son. It was the Son who voluntarily “emptied Himself, taking the nature of a servant” (v. 7). The
reflexive pronoun heauton (“Himself”) indicates that the subject (Jesus) is also the object (i.e., the one receiving the action of the verb—the verb
being (ekenōsen, “emptied”). Therefore, Jesus Christ, in His pre-existent state, emptied Himself; it was a “self-emptying” (lit., “He Himself emptied”).
The word emptying κενόω kenoō means literally, to empty, "to make empty, to make vain or void." It is rendered: "made void" in Romans 4:14(For if they
which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect) 1 Corinthians 1:17 (For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to
preach the gospel--not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power" 1 Corinthians 9:15 (But I have used none of these
things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying
void); "should be vain," 2 Corinthians 9:3 (But I am sending the brothers in order that our boasting about you in this matter should not prove hollow, but
that you may be ready, as I said you would be).. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the passage before us. The essential
idea of its used is that of bringing to emptiness, vanity, or nothingness where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to that as nothing;
that is, someone assumes a more humble rank and station and not his essence or nature.
But what did he empty himself of? The term “taking” is from the Greek aorist active participle, labōn. Semantically, this is a participle of means
connecting link. The participle of means describes the means or manner of the emptying. Hence, the Son emptied Himself by means of His incarnation
(John 1:14). The emptying did not involve in any way, shape, or form, His deity, for Paul safeguards against such an assertion in verse 6: “Who
[Christ] always and continually subsisting in the very nature and substance of God” (lit., trans.). Further, the Hymn indicates plainly that it was not God
the Father, as Oneness Pentecostals suppose, but the Son, who voluntarily emptied Himself and thus became obedient to death—“even death on a cross” (v.

8). So emptying connects to the vs 7. but emptied Himself, taking (labon) the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men”. The whole
point of his emptying is not his divinity but restricting himself to use his divine prerogative for himself.
The hymn says he was "made in human likeness." "Likeness" is the Greek noun homoiōma, "state of being similar in appearance, image, form, resemblance
-- made like to, likeness, shape, similitude. The blessed Apostle clearly shows us that the manner by which Christ emptied himself was by becoming a man
and, hence, a slave. Paul was basically saying that Jesus laid aside his Divine privileges, not his Divine attributes. This can clearly be seen in the
exhortation that we should follow his example. We cannot lay aside Divine attributes (since we do not have them), nor are we called to lay aside our human
attributes, or cease to be human, but we should follow Jesus in his humility and willingness to serve others, even those who in this world are considered to
be lower than ourselves in power or status as he stated in vs 2-4: “make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in
spirit, intent on one purpose. 3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than
yourselves; 4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.” The Lord Jesus, according to the inspired Apostle,
set aside the honor, the prestige, the fame, and the glory that comes with being God, a point he makes elsewhere:
So Christ emptied the following by his incarnation:
1. He emptied Himself of glory. In John 17:5, Jesus prayed, “Glorify me...with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.” He gave up the
adoration of the saints and angels when He came into this world.
2. He emptied Himself of independent authority. In John 5:30, Jesus said, “I can do nothing on My own.” He brought Himself into a different relationship
with the Father, where ALL of His activities and actions had to be cleared in that unusual way. Though equal with the Father, now uniquely submissive to
Him.
3. He released the voluntary exercise of His divine attributes. Compare John 1:43–51 (his omnipresent) with Matthew 24:36 (his humanity does not
know the last hour) to see how Jesus sometimes was omniscient and sometimes not.
4. He gave up eternal riches. I just want you to try to imagine for a moment the treatment that the Son of God, the King of the universe, gets in heaven.
Yet 2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “...though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich.”
5. He gave up His intimate relationship with the Father. Who can describe the fellowship that exists between the first and second Person of the Trinity?
And to hear Jesus on the cross in Matthew 27:46 shouting, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” He made Himself nothing—for you and me.
6. He became a servant: “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’" Mark 10:45
f) Found appearance as man he humbled Himself (heauton- The reflexive pronoun) by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!
The Greek noun schēma means "the generally recognized state or form in which something appears, outward appearance, form, shape of a person”; He
assumed all the innocent infirmities of our nature. He appeared as other people do, was subjected to the necessity of food and clothing, like others, and was
made liable to suffering, as other men are. Outward fashion was all that men could see; and in it they found “no form or comeliness,” or “beauty, that they
should desire Him” (Isaiah 53:2-3). Was Jesus really human or just pretending to be? A second century Christian heresy, docetism, held a Hellenistic
dualistic view that spirit is good and flesh is evil, thus Jesus could not have become flesh and thus partaken in human evil. Ergo, Jesus must have been
merely pretending to be human. But from its earliest days, the apostles insisted that Jesus indeed had become human. The Apostle John made this
confession a test of a genuine Christian: "This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the
flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God" (1 John 4:2-3a). The Council of Nicaea re-affirmed that Christ had not
only become human, but in human form was both fully God and fully human, not half divine and half human as John's Gospel declares: "In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have
beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." (John 1:1, 14, RSV). The Nicene Creed states this truth thus: "Who, for us men for our
salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right
hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."In summery Paul was
contending that Jesus was though equal with God the Father laid aside all his divine glory for us and so we must also serve our fellow human though we are
of equal nature. Phil 2:2-5: make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3Do
nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4do not merely look out for
your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.”
g) Vs 9-11:. Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name (to anomati) that is above every name, so that (hina) at the name of
Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord (Kurios-nominative
singular masculine, Iesous- nominative singular masculine) to the glory of God the Father. Which is to be understood, not of the outward act of bowing the
knee upon hearing the name, and the syllables of the mere name Jesus pronounced; for in the bare name there can be nothing which can command such a
peculiar respect; it was a name common with the Jews: Joshua is so called in Hebrews 4:8; and the name of Elymas the sorcerer was Barjesus: that is, the
son of Jesus, Acts 13:6. The name appears as in vs 10. Iesoun (genitive of possession), it is the name Jesus has which is the Lord Yahweh quotation of

Isaiah 45:23. In verse 9, we read that the Father exalted Christ and bestowed on Him the “name” which is above every name. “Name” (onoma) is highly
significant in a Semitic (“Jewish”) context. Generally, it carries the meaning of authority, power,or on behalf of (see 1 Sam. 17:45). In verses 10-11,
without question, Paul is loosely drawing from Isaiah 45:23: “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will
not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” This passage is an undeniable reference to YHWH (cf. vv. 22-25).
Paul, however, applies it here to Jesus Christ the Lord who glorifies the Father—namely, the YHWH of Isaiah 45:23. There are further exegetical details
that enhance the force of Paul’s Jesus-Isaiah connection. First, both Isaiah 45:23 (LXX) and Romans 14:11 (also from Isa. 45:23) contain future tenses
(“every knee will bow,” every tongue will confess” [or “will swear allegiance”]) and indicative moods, indicating the future certainty of the event.
However, in Philippians 2:10-11, Paul changes the original tenses and moods of the verbs from that of Isaiah 45:23 (and Rom. 14:11) to make, as indicated,
Philippians 2:10-11 a purpose and result clause. The purpose of God the Father exalting the Son, then, was for the result of every knee bowing and every
tongue confessing that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” thus, the YHWH of Isaiah 45:23—hence Jesus will be the fulfillment of Isaiah’s (future) prophecy. That is
why Phili 2:11: says “every knee should bow (Kamse verb - aorist active subjunctive)….every tongue confessed (exomologēsētai verb - aorist middle
subjunctive). Also the term Kurios was a Septuagint translation of YHWH and Paul refer Jesus as YHWH of Isaiah and OT. Moreover Yahweh does not
share his name or glory. Isa 42:8: “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols.
Isaiah 48:11: “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another.
1 Cor 12:3: “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is
the Lord (kyrion accusative singular masculine- Iesoun- accusative singular masculine) but by the Holy Ghost (even KJV says).
Roman 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," (kyrion accusative singular masculine- Iesoun- accusative singular masculine) and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Kjv has Lord Jesus
OJB: Philip 2:5-8: 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach Yehoshua, 6 Who, though existing in the demut of the mode of
being of Elohim [His etzem or essential nature, Yn 1:1-2; 17:5], nevertheless Moshiach did not regard being equal with G-d as a thing to be seized 7 But
poured out and emptied himself taking the demut of the mode of being of an eved and was born in the likeness of Bnei Adam and having been found in
appearance as an Adam,8 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach humbled himself and took the path of shiflut (lowliness), unto mishma'at even unto death and that, a
death on HaEtz”
Note: The whole point Paul cites is taken from earliest Christian hymns (Carmen Christi (“Hymn to Christ) also called ” kenosis passage-emptiness, is the
'self-emptying' of one's own will. LXX used Kurios for YHWH obviously Paul refers Jesus as YHWH.
KJV Commentaries
Eκενωσεν (Ekenosen) in the most basic sense means "emptied," but it is proper to translate it with a more precise word that fits the context. The context
that surrounds this verb is exegetical of its meaning (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary). All translations translate the forms of κενόω in various ways
according to context. More dynamic translations exhibit the wide range of ways in which κενόω could be translated.
Consider the NIV:
κεκενωται (kekenotai-from verb ‘keno’) is translated "has no value" in Romans 4:14
κενωση (kenose from verb ‘keno’) is translated "deprive" in 1 Corinthians 9:15
Even the literal NASB translates verb κενόω (keno) according to context:
κεκενωται is translated "made void" in Romans 4:14 and 1 Corinthians 1:17.
Thus κενόω does not merely mean "empty" but emptiness in regards to a thing (determined by context). The NIV in Romans 4:14 translates κεκενωται as
"no value" because the context determines that the emptiness is in regards to value. The NASB in 1 Corinthians 1:17 translates κεκενωται as "made void"
because the context determines that the emptiness is in regards to effect. Likewise, the KJV translates εκενωσεν in Philippians 2:7 as "made... of no
reputation" because the context determines that the emptiness is in regards to reputation:
KJV: “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a
man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Philippians 2:7-8). The point of Philippians 2:7-8 is that Jesus
made himself empty in regards to reputation. Thus “made himself of no reputation” is precise. The literal "emptied himself" can lead to abuse by people
like Jehovah's Witnesses who do not believe that Jesus was God. The New World Translation has "emptied himself." One could take this phrase "emptied
himself" and suppose that Jesus emptied himself of his divinity. The KJV translation ensures that the meaning of εκενωσεν is understood according to
context and prevents abuse. Since even the literal NASB translates κενόω according to context and not always as mere "emptied," the KJV's treatment
of εκενωσεν is more proper and helpful.
10) Matthew 1:23: Jesus is called ―Immanuel ‘ which means ‗God is with us.
11) 1 John 5:20, ―And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him
that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life [houtos eistin ho alēthinos theos]. He (Jesus) is the ‘Eternal Life‘ in I John 1:2
(the eternal life which was with the Father). The Jehovah's Witnesses refer "This is the true God" to "Him who is true", i.e. the Father of the Son. But that

runs somewhat contrary to normal grammar, where 'houtos', 'this', tends to tie in with the closer possible referent, not the further: "A demonstrative pronoun
is a pointer, singling out an object in a special way. The three demonstrative pronouns used in the NT are 'houtos,' 'ekeinos,' and 'hode'....'houtos' regularly
refers to the near object ('this'), while 'ekeinos' regularly refers to the far object ('that')." (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Daniel B. Wallace, p. 325).
John could have expressed himself ungrammatically; but if he did not, this is a clear statement of the eternal Deity of the Son, Jesus Christ and moreover
the Father is never called eternal life anywhere instead the Son is called even in this same books. The fact is the closest antecedent to houtos is “Jesus
Christ.” Second, although the Father is said to possess “life” (cf. John 5:26 and 6:57), just as the Son does (cf. John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), “eternal life” is
never attributed to the Father in the NT, but it is to the Son in John 11:25 and 14:6. Also 1 John 5:11 calls Jesus as eternal life not the Father.
12) 1Timothy 3:16, ―And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested (phaneroo-appear, manifestly declare, make,
manifest (forth), shew (self) in the flesh,
13) Isaiah 9:6 ―a child is given to us whose name is Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God(El gibbor), Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace”. The
prophets understood that the coming Christ would be God. It should also be brought out to the JWs cult that in the Old Testament the Hebrew phrase El
gibbor was applied to YHWH (cf. Deut. 10:17; Ps. 24:8; Jer. 32:18). In Isaiah, many times El denoted the true YHWH contrasted to false El's (e.g., 43:10;
44:10).
Note Targum rendering: “The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born [Heb yeled yalad], unto us a Son is given, and He has taken
the law upon Himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity, Wonderful, The Mighty God, who liveth to eternity, The Messiah, whose peace shall be
great upon us in His days.” (Jonathan b. Uzziel; emphasis added).YHWH is called El gibbor in Isaiah 10:21. Thus, ask the JW: If El gibbor ("Mighty
God") means less than the Almighty God, then, how is it that Jehovah can be called El gibbor in Isaiah 10:21 (NWT)?
14) Col 2:9: "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"(hoti en autō katoikei (isdwelling)pan to plērōma tēs theotētos sōmatikōs)
Historically Paul's letter to the Colossians was a pointed refutation against Gnosticism. Paul was very concern of the heretical teachings that were creeping
into the church. Paul specifically refutes the Gnostic teaching that asserted Jesus was not the supreme ETERNAL GOD in flesh. The Gnostic Jesus was a
"lesser god," that is, an emanation from the supreme God. According Gnosticism, the supreme God was pure spirit. Hence, spirit is good and all "matter" or
the material world was inherently evil, thus, God or anything good cannot, really, dwell in flesh. Therefore, Jesus, to the Gnostics, only "seemed" to possess
a body. The Apostle John also deals with this error, in 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 7:”Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they
are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that that Jesus has come
[elēluthota (perfect tense); lit. "has come and remains] in the flesh is from God. . . . many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not
acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming [erchomenon; (present tense); lit. "and remaining"] in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist (1 John 4:12; 2 John 7; emphasis added).Bearing that in mind, we can understand plainly as to why the Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, choose this specific
wording in this verse. The verse is clear: Jesus is fully God in human flesh. This idea, God becoming flesh, was a sickening thought to the Gnostics of the
day. Because of the clarity of verse, in terms of demonstrating the deity of Christ, it caused great difficulty for JWs who endlessly denied this. Hence, the
JWs change it. The NWT of JWS uses the phrase, "divine quality" (theiotēs) which means "divinity" as with angels or things that are "godlike" as the word
(theiotēs) is used in Romans 1:20. However, the adjective theiotēs is derived from theios. Whereas the word theotētos in col2:9 is derived from theos
(God). There is a qualitative difference of these two Greek terms. Recognized Greek lexicographer, Joseph Thayer, defines (translated from Grimms
lexicon) theotētos as: "the state of being God." In fact he comments on the difference of the two words:"theot. deity differs from theiot. divinity, as
essence differs from quality or attribute; cf. Fritzsche on Rom. I. 20.]" (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament), 288. In other word Jesus
was God before his incarnation and even after his incarnation, Jesus is fully God even in his human form. He is not just half part of God or half man, he is
fully God as well as fully man. He is still the God-man that is why Paul used present tense.
OJB: Because in Moshiach kol melo Elohim (all the plentitude of G-d) finds its bodily maon laShechinah (dwelling place for the Shechinah)
15) Rom. 9:5–―Christ came who is overall, the eternal God blessed forever.” Paul directly says Jesus is God the eternal. VS 3. For I could wish that I
myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race
OJB: Theirs are the Avot (the Patriarchs), and from them came, in so far as his humanity is concerned, Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach, al hakol hu HaElohim
mam'vorach l'Olam va'ed. Omein.
16) Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12 - Jesus told Satan, ―you shall not tempt the Lord your God‖ in reference to Himself. Who was Satan tempting? It was Jesus yet
Jesus said to Satan thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God referring to himself.
17) Mark 14:61-62: „The High priest asked him saying to Him, Are you the Christ the son of the Blessed One? Jesus said ‗I am‘. And you will see the Son
of man sitting at the right hand of power, coming with the cloud of heaven. In response the High Priest tore his clothes and said what further need do we
have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. The Jews including the High priest rightly understood that Jesus was claiming to be Divine Person. Jesus
was referring himself as the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13-14: ―one like the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven…to Him was given all dominion
glory and Kingdom, that all nations, people and language should serve (Pelach) Him, His dominion is everlasting and his kingdom shall never be
destroyed”. Here the Son of Man is divine person to be worship by every living being and He is coming to the Ancient of Day (the Father).

18) John 1:23: ―I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness make straight the way of the LORD”. In reply to the crowd, John said he was the voice
crying, who would prepare the way for the LORD (Jesus). John the Baptist proclaimed Jesus as the Yahweh of OT citing the Yahweh of Isaiah 40:3 ―the
voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the wilderness for our God and applying it to Jesus directly. Jesus is
Yahweh
19) Luke 1:16-17: He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him (The Lord their God)in the spirit and
power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord.” See from Vs 6“They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. 8. Once
when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God. 9. He was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go
into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 15. For he will be great before the Lord. And he shall not drink wine and strong drink, and he will be full
of the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb.
20) Revelation 22:6 ―The angel said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show
his servants the things that must soon take place." The Lord God is Jesus because he himself said in vs 16 ―I Jesus have sent my angel to testify to you
these things in the churches. In Revelation 1:1 also says ―The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take
place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. Obviously, the Lord God is Jesus who sent his angel.
21) I Corinth 8:6: ―”and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live”. In agreement of Zechariah 14:9―The
LORD will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one LORD, and his name the only name. In other word Paul is saying that the one LORD
of the OT is now Jesus Christ. In Deu 6:4 ―the LORD our God the LORD is one LORD‖. The One LORD of the OT is the Lord Jesus Christ.
22) John 17:5–Jesus said ―And Now O Father, Glorify me together with yourself [para seautō, seautō is Reflexive pronoun - second person dative] with
the Glory which I had with you [para soi-dative singular] before the foundation of the world. Jesus is commanding the Father for the full restoration of his
glory that he shared with the Father. The word ‘I had‘ is eichon-imperfect active indicative which means he shared with him from eternity, not just a part
of time). Imperfect means without beginning at point of time, in other word from eternity. And second, aside from this passage, which clearly displays the
distinction and intimate relationship between the Father and Jesus, there is the issue of the aorist imperative form of doxazō (i.e., doxason, “glorify [Me]”).
Although the imperative mood can denote a simple request, the most common usage of the imperative is for commands. Recognized Greek grammarian
Daniel Wallace comments on the imperative verb: “with the aorist [as in John 17:5], the force generally is to command the action as a whole. . . .” Since
Jesus is presented in Scripture as ontologically (i.e., by nature) co-equal with the Father, His “commanding” the Father to glorify Him would not infringe on
the doctrine of the Trinity—one divine Person commanding another divine Person of the same ontological class or category. Also, “doxoson‘ (glorify is in
command form in aorist active middle- When the Greek middle voice verb form is used, the subject of the verb is seen as acting upon itself or for its own
benefit) which only God can do. Know this in Isaiah 42:8 “I am the LORD that is my name and I will not give my glory to anyone” Isaiah 48:11 ― For
mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another.. If God said he will
not share his glory to anyone, then Jesus is not a created being but God of God, sharing the same nature as the Father. If Jesus is not God, it will be
extremely blasphemous for any created being to say such word that God alone can say.
Glorify Me together with Yourself: First, the glory mentioned here is a shared glory—Father and Son. It is the divine glory that Yahweh does “not share”
with anyone else (cf. Isa. 48:11]. What erases the Oneness notion is that, grammatically, when the preposition para (“with”) is followed by the dative
case (as in this verse: para seautō, lit., “together with Yourself”; para soi, lit., “together with You”), especially in reference to persons, it indicates “near,”
“beside,” or “in the presence of.” A. T. Robertson brings to light the exegetical details of verse 5: “This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and
conscious existence at the Father’s side . . . ‘before the world was. So how do Oneness advocates answer this? Well, the Oneness position asserts that the
preposition para ("with") means "with the mind/thought," etc. So they apply that meaning to John 17:5. So, the glory that the Son spoke about was a future
glory of the "Son," which was merely "in the mind" of the Father (Jesus' divine nature). Thus, as they argue, the Son was with God in terms of being in the
"mind" of the Father, or a future "plan" of the Father, but not as a distinct person as the text plainly indicates. Oneness advocates conclude, then, that Jesus
was actually praying: "Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory, which I had in Your mind as a future plan, before the world was.” Or, as
one Oneness says, "God loved His plan before the beginning." However, a few things should be considered: 1) Although, para with the dative can carry a
meaning of "in the mind" (Num. 31:49 LXX), there is no standard Lexicon that applies that meaning to John 17:5. In light of that, many Oneness teachers
go so far as to abuse (that is, misquote) Greek lexicons in order to make the Oneness-unitarian position work. Again, no standard provides a metaphorical
meaning as "in/with the mind" for para with the dative at John 17:5. In fact, Thayer says of para at John 17:5:"dwelling with God, John 8:38; i. q.
[equivalent to] in heaven, John 17:5. 2) Aside from John 17:5, every place in John's literature where John uses para with the dative (10 times--John 1:39;
4:40; 8:38; 14:17, 23, 25, 17:5 [twice]; 19:25; and Rev. 2:13), it carries a meaning of "with" in a most literal sense--thus, nowhere in John's literature
does para denote “in one’s mind." Para is used with the dative at John 14:23: "Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My
word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with (para auto) him"; and John 19:25:"Therefore, the soldiers did these
things. But standing by the cross [para tō staurō] of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." The

word ‘para’ is preposition which can mean near; i.e. (with genitive case), from beside, (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or
subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with. This used over 100 times translated as, beside the road (matt 20:30), beside the sea (mark 2:13),
by the lake (Luke 5:2), Troas with carpus in 2 Timothy 4:13 etc..
23) John 13:13 ―"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am.‖ Jesus affirms that he is the Lord (Kurios) the Greek title for
Yahweh. Yahweh (LORD) of the OT now is Jesus Christ without excluding the Father.
24) Rev 22:13: ―Jesus himself says I am the Alpha and Omega, the Begining and the End the First and the Last.‖
In Isaiah 44:6 ―thus says the LORD the King of Israel….I am the first and the Last, part from me there is no God..
Isaiah 41:4 ―I am the LORD I am the First and I am the Last‖. Isa 48:12: “Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am
the last. Jesus is the LORD of OT. The title First and the Last is a divine title, and Jesus used this title for himself which means he call himself God. Jesus
the Son of man claim himself as divine eternal God in Rev 1:17: ―When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me
and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last vs 18: I am the living one. I was dead, and now look, I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the
keys of death and Hades.
25) Acts 20:28: ―God purchased us with his own blood‖
26) Hebrew 1:3: ―The Son is the exact substance of the Father (Upostatseos tes character=exact substance) upholding all things by the word of his
power”Whatever the Father is the Son is the same as the Father. The JWs, as well as the Mormons, say that Jesus is not the same substance or nature as
God the Father, however the author of Hebrews expressively contradicts that idea. Jesus is the, "exact representation of God the Father's nature. . . ."
(charaktēr tes hupostaseōs). "Hupostaseōs" denotes nature or substance. "Charaktēr" denotes, exact or perfect expression of God. Only God (the Son) can
perfectly and exactly represent God (the Father). Creatures such as Michael the archangel, as the JWs assert Jesus to be, cannot do so. We must be careful
though when explaining Hebrews 1:3. The JWs constantly accuse Christians of believing in Modalism, which is the heretical belief that Jesus is the
Father. However, Hebrews 1:1-14 clearly differentiates Jesus from the Father. Jesus is of the same substance or nature as God the Father, as stated in
Hebrews, however they are clearly distinct Persons. As the first part of the Athanasius Creed declares: We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance
OJB: Who being the Shechinah zohar (brilliance) of Hashem and the exact impress and demut of Hashem's essential nature, being, and reality, and
sustaining everything by his Dvar HaKo'ach, after he made tihur (purification) of chatta'im (sins), sat down at LIMIN ("the right hand" TEHILLIM 110:1)
of the Majesty on High.
27) John 5:23: ―that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father‖—the Son has to be God in order to be honored exactly as his Father, no mere
created being deserved honor as the Father.
28) John 8:58: ―Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, before Abraham was I AM (I AM of exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 40-50): Greek: (….Prin Abraham
genesthai (second aorist middle deponent middle or passive deponent) Ego eimi (verb-present active indicative ). This angered the Jews who tried to stone
Him. Jesus was claiming to the God of burning Bush (Exo 3:14: “God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM (Heb: Ehyeh asher Ehyeh (LXX-Ego eimi Ho
On). This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.) Note: The LXX substitute the second ‘Ehyeh’ in with verb Ho on which stem
from same verb ‘Ego Eimi”. The Targum of Jonathan has it: "I am he that is, and that shall be.''-in Exodus God merely convey that he is the being one, the
eternal self existing one that is why he used the verb form (Ehyeh-I AM). Interesting enough the Platonists and Pythagoreans seem to have borrowed their
from hence, which expresses with them the eternal and invariable Being: it is said that the temple of Minerva at Sais, a city of Egypt, had this inscription on
it, "I am all that exists, is, and shall be.' and on the temple of Apollo at Delphos was written the contraction of "I am".Jehovah witnesses (JWs) wrongly
translated this as “I have been (ego huparchw-perfect tense): Literally translating will be “Before Abraham was born [genesthai -an aorist tense shows
action happened at point in time, showing the commencement of Abraham’s existence], I am” [ego eimi—a present tense form, suggesting timeless
existence]. In Greek an aorist sets a point of beginning for the existence of Abraham, so the present tense ‘I am’ predicates absolute existence for the person
of Jesus, with no point of beginning at all” Robertson (greatest Greek scholars). Usual idiom with prin in positive sentence with infinitive (second aorist
middle of ginomai) and the accusative of general reference to coming as to Abraham suggest the contrasting of two nature of the subjects spoken.
Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God. The contrast between genesqai (entrance into existence of Abraham)
and eimi (timeless being) is complete. See the same contrast between en in # 1:1 (kai theos en ho logos (the Word was God) and egeneto in # 1:14 (kai ho
logos sark egneto (aorist)-the Word become flesh). See the contrast also in # Ps 90:2 between God (ei, art-present tense) and the mountains (genhqhnaiaorist tense).But the issue is not settled so easily. Does the Bible ever legitimately translate the present tense 'eimi' into the English perfect tense "I have
been"? Yes, it does. In John 14:8-9, it says, "Philip said to Him, 'Lord show us the Father, and it is enough for us.' 9Jesus said to him, 'Have I been so long
with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how do you say, 'Show us the Father?'" Where Jesus
says, "I have been" is in the Greek present tense, 'eimi.' Literally, again, this is "I am." Here we have an example of the Greek present tense being translated
into the English perfect tense. This is the very same thing the JWs organization claims is legitimate in John 8:58. Why is John14:8-9 is translated into "I
have been? Quite simply because if we did not do this, then the English would say, "I am with you so long . . . " That is awkward in the English, so


Related documents


PDF Document what we believe rally point church
PDF Document jesus is god and he is the son of god by kakai mate
PDF Document doing the greater works
PDF Document manifestation
PDF Document catholic encyclopedia the blessed trinity
PDF Document order my day


Related keywords