Body: | Click to View
Click to View
Decepto-Meter
Deceptive Quote: Trinitarian
The Watchtower takes little bits of McKenzie's comments on Jn 1:1 (a god) and leaves the false impression in the mind of the reader that McKenzie agreed with the JW's mistranslation. What is clear, is that when McKenzie says Jesus is a divine being, he is saying that Jesus is in that unique class of divine being with the Father and the Holy Spirit, to the exclusion of all others. Jehovah's Witnesses satanically redefine the meaning of the phrase, "divine being" into something different than what McKenzie meant.
McKenzie, John L.: Dictionary of the Bible
Click to View
"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated . . . 'the word was a divine being.'" "Dictionary of the Bible", by John L. McKenzie, 1965, p. 317, as quoted in, Should you believe the Trinity?, Watchtower publication)
What they left out to deceive you:
In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos, which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times. "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus with the titles which belong to the *Father, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28). "The glory of our great God and Savior" which is to appear can be the glory of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13)" (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, God, p317)
What else do Anti-Trinitarians quote:
"The trinity of God is defined by the church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, New York, 1965p. 899, quoted by anti-trinitarians)
What they fail to tell the same article also says:
"Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. ... Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
The NT does not approach the metaphysical problem of subordination, as it approaches no metaphysical problem. It offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another. (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons. What it does contain are the words which the NT employs to express the trinity of persons such as Father, Son, Word, Spirit, etc. A study of these words shows us how the revelation of God in the NT advances beyond the revelation of God in the OT. The same study of these words and their background is the best way to arrive at an understanding of the distinction of persons as it is stated in the NT." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
Our comment
When McKenzie says "Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being."", he is saying that "the word was with a divine being (Father) and the word was a divine being". or "the word was with a God (Father) and the word was a God" This rendering is really no problem because both divine beings are equated in the passage as equal in status as being God or a divine being!
When McKenzie calls Jesus a divine being, he is classing Jesus with the Father and the Holy Spirit, who, he says, are also divine beings. So for McKenzie, as with most Trinitarians, saying Jesus is a divine being, means that Jesus is uncreated God.
Notice that McKenzie comes out and says that "This is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun [Gk. ho theos] is applied to Jesus a few times."
The second anti-Trinitarian quote says nothing more than the creedal definitions of trinity of the 4th century are not found in the Bible, while the Biblical definitions of the trinity, namely the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit, are found in the Bible.
Deception Exposed:
McKenzie's comment on page 899, makes his meaning crystal clear: "He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L. McKenzie, Trinity, p899) When McKenzie says Jn 1:1 should be translated "and the word was a divine being", he is classing Jesus with the Father as uncreated God. Its just that simple!
Jehovah's Witnesses satanically redefine the meaning of the phrase, "divine being" into something different than what McKenzie meant.
JW's will grasp at anything they can to promote their inconsistent and unscholarly translation of John 1:1. We have dealt with this in another place.
Full Text:
"Trinity. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in
God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined
was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not
explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within
the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature" which are
Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The
trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which
these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously
applied to God by some theologians. The ultimate affirmation of trinity of
persons and unity of nature was declared by the Church to be the only
correct way in which these terms could be used. The elements of the trinity
of persons within the unity of nature in the Bible appear in the use of the
terms Father*, Son*, and Spirit*. The personal reality of the Spirit
emerged more slowly than the personal reality of Father and Son, which are
personal terms. On the application of the name of Spirit to the Son in the
Pauline writings Cf SPIRIT. The unity of nature does not appear as a
problem in the Bible, and indeed could only arise when a philosophical
investigation of the term nature as applied to God was begun. In the NT the
Father is "the God" (Gk ho theos), and Jesus is "the Son of the God" (ho
hyios tou theou). The Spirit is "the spirit of the God" or "the holy
spirit," in this context a synonymous term. Deity is conceived not in the
Gk term of nature but rather as a level of being, "the holy"; between this
level and the level of "flesh" there is an impassable gulf. Impassable,
that is, by man; it is bridged by Jesus, the Son, who renders it possible
for men to be adopted sons. Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no
room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He
communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore
belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about
the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about
the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in
which His personal reality is not explicit. This distinction between God
and flesh is the NT basis for the affirmation of the unity of nature; the
very identification of the Father with "the God" shows that the NT writers
intend to distinguish the Son and the Spirit from the Father. The NT does
not approach the metaphysical problem of subordination, as it approaches no
metaphysical problem. It offers no room for a statement of the relations of
Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less
properly on the divine level of being than another. In Jewish thought of
the time the son and the spirit are angels; it does not even take the
trouble explicitly to deny it. At the same time, it is necessary to recall
that in Catholic belief the trinity of persons within the unity of nature
is a mystery which ultimately escapes understanding; and in no respect is
it more mysterious than in the relations of the persons to each other.
"Son" and "Spirit" do not express perfect identity and are not intended to
express it; the distinction of persons is not merely numerical but reposes
upon a mysterious personality or character in each one which is unknown in
its ultimate reality. The Church has declared that any statement of this
distinction which reduces the divinity of any of the persons is a false
statement; equally false would be a statement which would deny their
personal distinction. The notions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed
that we may know God better; and the theologian should explore these ideas.
The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of
persons. What it does contain are the words which the NT employs to express
the trinity of persons such as Father, Son, Word, Spirit, etc. A study of
these words shows us how the revelation of God in the NT advances beyond
the revelation of God in the OT. The same study of these words and their
background is the best way to arrive at an understanding of the distinction
of persons as it is stated in the NT." (Dictionary of the Bible, John L.
McKenzie, Trinity, p899)
GOD: NT. The word theos is used to designate the gods of paganism. Normally
the word with or without the article designates the God of the Old
Testament and of Judaism, the God of Israel: Yahweh. But the character of
God is revealed in an original way in the NT; the originality is perhaps
best summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in and through Jesus
Christ. The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in
the prophetic word* as in the OT, but in an identity between God and Jesus
Christ. Jn 1:1"-18 expresses this by contrasting the word spoken by the
prophets with the word incarnate in Jesus. In Jesus the personal reality of
God is manifested in visible and tangible form. In the words of Jesus and
in much of the rest of the NT the God of Israel (Gk. ho theos) is the
Father* of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title ho theos,
which now designates the Father as a personal reality, is not applied in
the NT to Jesus Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This is a
matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun is applied to Jesus a few
times. Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God [=
the Father], and the word was a divine being." Thomas invokes Jesus with
the titles which belong to the *Father, "My Lord and my God" (Jn 20:28).
"The glory of our great God and Savior" which is to appear can be the glory
of no other than Jesus (Tt 2:13) * And the identity of Jesus and the Father
is expressed clearly without the title in Jn 10:30, "1 and the Father are
one." The application of the noun is less certain in Rm. 9:5; Paul's normal
usage is to restrict the noun to designate the Father (cf I Co 8:6), and in
Rm 9:5 it is very probable that the concluding words are a doxology,
"Blessed is the God who is above all." 2 Pt 1: 1 is slightly more ambiguous
than Tt 2:13, to which it is not strictly parallel; it may be rendered "our
God and Jesus Christ savior." The pronoun "this" in I Jn 5:20 is easily
referred to God, who is implicit in Jn 5:19, although "Jesus Christ" is the
nearest noun. It should be understood that this usage of ho theos touches
the personal distinction of the Father and the Son and not the divinity
i.e., the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. The identity of ho theos (theos)
with the Father appears in the large number of texts in which the word is
joined with father: Rm 1 -'7; 15:6; 1 Co 1: 3; 15:24; 2 Co 1: 2 f; Gal 1:
3; Eph 1: 2; 5:20; 6:23; Phl 1: 2; 2: 11; Col 1:2 f; 2 Th 1:2; 2 Tm 1:2; Tt
1:4; Phm 3; Js 1: 27; 1 Pt 1: 2 f; 2 Jn 3. The revelation of God in and
through Jesus Christ is often expressed in the complete union of Jesus with
God and of the entire integration of the mission of Jesus with the will of
God. God sends Jesus (Jn 3:34; AA 7:35), constitutes Him (AA 10:42),
demonstrates Him (AA 2:22), seals Him (Jn 6:27), exalts Him (AA 5:3 1; Phl
2:9); Jesus comes from God (Jn 8:42; 3:2; 9:16, 33; 13:3; 16:27 f). God
pardons in Jesus (Eph 4:32), empowers Him (Mt 28:18; Jn 3:35; 5:22; 13:3;
Eph 1:21 ), reconciles in Him (2 Co 5:19). The Christian belongs to Christ,
and Christ belongs to God (I Co 3:23). In Christ the fullness I] of deity
dwells bodily (Col 2:9). In His preexistent state Christ existed in the
form of God (Phl 2:6). In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God
is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him
God is known (Cf. knowledge) in a new and more intimately personal manner,
and through Him God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father
and your Father, my God and your God" (Jn 20:17). (Dictionary of the Bible,
John L. McKenzie, God, p317)
Click to View
Top 10 List: Click here
When a Jehovah's Witness reads this top ten list, they either conclude the Watchtower organization engages is satanic quoting practices, or become dishonest themselves!
Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes
Written By Steve Rudd, Used by permission at: www.bible.ca
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|