Posts Tagged ‘Jesus’


Jesus – The Promised Messiah

Christian denominations believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They believe that Jesus is the anointed one by God who fulfilled the promised covenant of God to Abraham. However, some non-Christian religions believe that Jesus is not the promised Messiah. For them he was just a prophet of God. Jesus was prophesied to come from the line of David in Isaiah 9:7 which was fulfilled in Matthew 1:6, 6 – 17. Jesus was also the one prophesied in Isaiah 11:1 – 5; Isaiah 53:1 – 12 which was fulfilled in Christian Greek Scriptures. He was the one sent by God for forgiveness of sins and salvation of the mankind – Matthew 26:28; John 17:3. He was not just a prophet. He was called “the Son of God” – John 3:16 – 17; Matthew 3:17.

Matthew 26:28 for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.

John 3:16 For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

Matthew 3:17 Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

Jesus was also the one promised by Jehovah in Jeremiah 23:5 which is described as a king from David who will rule with justice and righteousness in which he was also the one promised in Micah 5:2 which has a proof in John 1:1 -3, 14; Colossians 1:15 – 20; John 3:13 and John 6:62; John 17:5, John 8:56 – 58 etc. Jesus was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah – Matthew 2:1, 3 – 9.

Jeremiah 23:5 “Look! There are days coming,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “and I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will certainly reign and act with discretion and execute justice and righteousness in the land.

Micah 5:2 “And you, O Beth´le·hem Eph´ra·thah, the one too little to get to be among the thousands of Judah, from you there will come out to me the one who is to become ruler in Israel, whose origin is from early times, from the days of time indefinite.

John 1:1 – 3, 14 1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in [the] beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. 14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.

Colossians 1:15 – 20 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile again to himself all [other] things by making peace through the blood [he shed] on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man. John 6:62 What, therefore, if YOU should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?

John 17:5 So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. John 8:56 – 58 56 Abraham YOUR father rejoiced greatly in the prospect of seeing my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” 57 Therefore the Jews said to him: “You are not yet fifty years old, and still you have seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

Below is a quote taken from Encarta 2007 about the Ephrathah which is also Bethlehem. “Ephrath, also called Ephrathah, wife of Caleb in the Old Testament. Ephrath is also an alternate name for the city of Bethlehem. According to the Bible, Caleb was the great-grandson of Judah, one of the patriarchs of the 12 tribes of Israel. Ephrath’s grandson, Salma, is described in the book of Chronicles as the father, or founder, of the city of Bethlehem (I Chronicles 2:51). The word Ephrathite is the sole remaining term indicating matrilineal descent among the otherwise patriarchal Israelite clans. Jesse, the father of David, is called an Ephrathite in the Old Testament, and thus the entire line of Davidic kings traces its descent from Ephrath. Jeroboam I, described in the Old Testament as the first ruler of the northern kingdom of Israel, is also called an Ephrathite (I Kings 11:26).” Another proof from the Bible that Bethlehem is Ephrath (Ephratah) is in Genesis 35:19. Jesus was also foretold in Genesis 21:12 and Genesis 22:18 as the promised seed of Abraham which has a proof text in Galatians 3:16.

Genesis 21:12 Then God said to Abraham: “Do not let anything that Sarah keeps saying to you be displeasing to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her voice, because it is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be.

Genesis 22:18 And by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves due to the fact that you have listened to my voice.’”

Galatians 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. It says, not: “And to seeds,” as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: “And to your seed,” who is Christ. Jesus was the one mention in Psalms 110:1 which has a proof text from Jesus words in Matthew 22:41 – 45 (*v. 44). In this passage Jesus was describing himself as the one seen by David who was talking with Jehovah. Psalms 110:1 The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand Until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.”

Matthew 22:41 – 45 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together Jesus asked them: 42 “What do YOU think about the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him: “David’s.” 43 He said to them: “How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him ‘Lord,’ saying, 44‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? 45 If, therefore, David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he his son?” 46 And nobody was able to say a word in reply to him, nor did anyone dare from that day on to question him any further.

Some people believe he was only a prophet of God others just a well-known person and so they don’t believe in Christianity. He is indeed a prophet for he had revealed words from Jehovah and prophesied events to come. Jesus words in John 5:43 identified himself as someone mentioned by Moses in Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 49:10. In these two passages, Jesus was foretold by God to come. If he is a prophet of God then there is a reason to believe that he belong to a true church or congregation of God and what he quoted by himself from the scrolls in the Old Scriptures are real, true and from the word of God. It is true that Jesus prophesied the events to come and one of it was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. in which it is true in the Scriptures that if the event was said to happen then it also mean that a prophet was within the people (Ezekiel 33:33). His prophecies include the denial of Peter about him, his death and resurrection on the third day, the signs of the last days, the persecution of his disciples and the coming great tribulation before ends come. All of his prophecies were come true and the last is about to come very near. The one which is to come is the great tribulation then next after it is the great day of Jehovah which is Armageddon which is believe by almost all of religions. A prophet in dictionary is defined as someone who can foretell the future. In this case Jesus was really a prophet which is also mention in Deuteronomy 18:18 – 19 which was fulfilled to Jesus and has a proof text in John 12:49; John 15:15; Hebrew 1:2 and Acts 3:23. The proof of a true prophet is when his words came true and was spoken the revelation for the name of God [Jehovah] – Deuteronomy 18:20 – 22.

John 5:43 I have come in the name of my Father, but YOU do not receive me; if someone else arrived in his own name, YOU would receive that one.

Genesis 3: 15 And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”

Genesis 49:10 The scepter will not turn aside from Judah, neither the commander’s staff from between his feet, until Shi´loh comes; and to him the obedience of the peoples will belong. Deuteronomy 18: 18 A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him19 And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him. 20 “‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.” (Compare John 8:28; 18:8)

(Take note: Jesus was killed and died yet he was resurrected by God, indicating that he was anointed of God and a prophet because he spoke only in the name of his Father)

John 12:49 because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.

John 15:15 I no longer call YOU slaves, because a slave does not know what his master does. But I have called YOU friends, because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to YOU.

Hebrew 1:2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.

Acts 3:23 Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And all the prophets, in fact, from Samuel on and those in succession, just as many as have spoken, have also plainly declared these days.

Deuteronomy 18:20 – 22 20 “‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. 21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.’ Another proof to believe that Jesus is the spokesperson sent by Jehovah God or the Word of God (John 1:1; John 1:14; Revelation 19:13) is that there is no verse in Hebrew Scriptures that speaks of the righteous people that will go in heaven after resurrection but rather the resurrected people will live on earth – Proverbs 2:21, 22; Psalms 37:9, 11, 29. It was only through Jesus the heavenly hope is preached to people. What about Psalms 68:18 that speaks of people who went into heaven? This revelation has become possible because Jesus was the one described who goes up into heights and we can see the proof of this verse in Ephesians 4:8 – 10. Please see the link below for additional information about heavenly life and earthly life. How about Ezekiel who was taken up in heaven in 2 Kings 2:11? He was not taken up to literal heaven but rather in a place somewhere just like prophets thought in verse 16. They said it because they have no knowledge about resurrection into heaven much well of a living man then eventually taken up into heaven. What they saw is a whirlwind that took up Elijah in sky and displaced him into another place. One thing the word “sky” in English simply refers to the same word as “heaven” just like in Genesis 1:28; Psalms 79:2; Jeremiah 7:33; 15:3. They have the same Hebrew word. Thus, Jesus was the one who revealed the word of Jehovah about those who have hope for heavenly life and those who have hope for earthly life. It was through him the eternal life in heaven was been introduced to people during his ministry. Therefore the fact of denying the Greek Scriptures is the same as denying Jesus and the hope for heavenly life since the heavenly life was taught in the Greek Scriptures and by Jesus. No one has the knowledge of heavenly hope in the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures. It was only through Jesus that the resurrection for heavenly life has been introduced and only through his apostles and disciples which is also known as the early Christians. Here are some of the Hebrew Interlinear links that speaks about the word “heaven” which means of a literal “sky”: Notice the Hebrew word for heaven and the literal sky in the atmosphere has the same word used.

Genesis 1: 28

Psalms 79:2

Jeremiah 7:33

Jeremiah 15:3

Another proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah is that he was the one pierced which was foretold in Zechariah 12:10 which has a fulfillment text in John 19:34, 37; John 20:27.

Zechariah 12:10 “And I will pour out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of favor and entreaties, and they will certainly look to the One whom they pierced through, and they will certainly wail over Him as in the wailing over an only [son]; and there will be a bitter lamentation over him as when there is bitter lamentation over the firstborn [son].

John 19:34 Yet one of the soldiers jabbed his side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. ” 37 And, again, a different scripture says: “They will look to the One whom they pierced.”

(Undelined for emphasis. Take note it is a prophecy in the Hebrew Scriptures and fulfilled to Jesus in Greek Scriptures.)

John 20:27 Next he said to Thomas: “Put your finger here, and see my hands, and take your hand and stick it into my side, and stop being unbelieving but become believing.” Therefore there is a big reason to believe that Jesus is anointed by Jehovah since not only in Scriptures it says that he is the promised Messiah but also the accounts of the Bible that reports about his life which includes the miracles he had performed to many people. A prophet in a dictionary is defined as someone who foretells the future and someone who tells men a message or command from God. Jesus fits to this identity but a more relative identity is being fulfilled to him because he was the Son of God, the Messiah or Christ of God – Matthew 16:16, 17; John 17:3. Take note in these two verses, Jesus claimed by himself and to people that he is the Christ (Messiah in Hebrew). See also these texts in relation to Jesus: Hosea 6:2. Of course, the Biblical text speaks of not a literal resurrection but rather resurrection in spiritual status and becoming alive in the eyes of Jehovah. Jesus in the same relation has resurrected on the third day thus becoming a spiritual being and is living before God. The proof texts of resurrection of Jesus on the third day are in Matthew 16:21; Luke 9:22 and Mark 8:31 and that he had taken up into heaven was in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9.

Matthew 16:16, 17 16 In answer Simon Peter said: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Jo´nah, because flesh and blood did not reveal [it] to you, but my Father who is in the heavens did.

John 17:3 This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. SOME


Prophesied Text                                                                         Fulfillment Text

The light of the nations        Isaiah 42:6, 7                  John 8:12, Luke 2:32; Matthew 4:16

The one pierced                  Zechariah 12:10                 John 19:34, 37; John 20:27

No bone had broken             Psalms 34:20                   John 19:33, 36

Offered his life to mankind     Isaiah 53:11, 12          1 Peter 2:24; Matthew 26:28;

and brought the sins of the people                               Matthew 20:28

Born in the tribe of Judah       Genesis 49:10            Luke 3:23 – 33

Born by a virgin                      Isaiah 7:14                   Matthew 1:18 – 25

Came from the seed of           Isaiah 9:7                     Matthew 1:1 – 17


Came from the line of             Isaiah 11:1;                  Matthew 1:1, 6- 17; Luke 3:38

David                                      Jeremiah 23:5

Came in to Jerusalem              Zechariah 9:9               Matthew 21: 1 – 9

while riding on a donkey

The one to proclaim the          Isaiah 61:1,2               Matthew 4:23; 11:5; 25:13; 31 – 46

Good News of Kingdom

*Isaiah 42:6, 7

6 “I myself, Jehovah, have called you in righteousness, and I proceeded to take hold of your hand. And I shall safeguard you and give you as a covenant of the people, as a light of the nations7 [for you] to open the blind eyes, to bring forth out of the dungeon the prisoner, out of the house of detention those sitting in darkness.

John 8:12 Therefore Jesus spoke again to them, saying: “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.”

John 12:35 – 36, 46

35 Jesus therefore said to them: “The light will be among YOU a little while longer. Walk while YOU have the light, so that darkness does not overpower YOU; and he that walks in the darkness does not know where he is going. 36 While YOU have the light, exercise faith in the light, in order to become sons of light.” 46 I have come as a light into the world, in order that everyone putting faith in me may not remain in the darkness.

John 1:6 – 10

6 There arose a man that was sent forth as a representative of God: his name was John. 7 This [man] came for a witness, in order to bear witness about the light, that people of all sorts might believe through him. 8 He was not that light, but he was meant to bear witness about that light.

9 The true light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world.10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him.

Consider also the text in Daniel 7:9, 13 -14 which speaks of the Son of Man and of the One before the Ancient Days. It was said that the one like a son of man was presented before the One before the Ancient Days and has given rulership to all nations. Compare Psalms 2:8 – 12; 110:1 – 7; Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:25. There are many reasons to believe about Jesus. He was foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures (as one of it see this link concerning the 69 weeks mention in the book of Daniel when the Messiah will be revealed:,  he spoke about himself as the one spoken in the Hebrew Scriptures and as the Son of God, showed miracles in the eyes of many people during his life and foretold many prophecies which had happened including the situation on the LAST DAYS which no prophet had said before during the early Christians. It was only him and through him that we are seeing his prophecies on these last days – Matthew 24:3 – 14. He even foretold to his apostles that he will die and resurrected on the third day. Those revealed prophecies should wonder by us since the Christian Scriptures were written only as early of 41 C.E. to 98 C.E. and he was born on 2 B.C until 33 C.E. That was a very huge gap of years to let seen the beginning of the last days starting in 1914. Imagine almost 2000 years and only one person did it with accuracy! We have reasons not ignore the person Jesus Christ! His accounts of his life were also supported by the early historians during the early Christians. If we only could take the Scriptural evidences in Hebrew Scriptures along with the Greek Scriptures and the evidences of the accounts of life of Jesus and his prophecies that is happening in the last days, we could think and wonder that he must be a prophet and the Messiah of God. The proofs that some of his words were taken from the Hebrew Scriptures and his words about himself (proving himself) along his great miracles performed in the eyes of many people are indeed valid reasons to believe that he is the one sent by God. Should we believe on hearsays rather than from his words and from the words of the other people that have witnessed his life? Should we reject the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures when in fact it shows concordance or in agreement to each other? I hope this article will give encouragement to people who are not Christians to seek for the truth and study the truthfulness of the word of God – the Bible.

Please see the link below for better understanding about Jesus – The Promised Messiah.


Jesus as Michael the Archangel

(A Grammar Outlook)

The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They based their belief in the written verse of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 of the New World Translation which says, “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” Michael is known as the archangel in Judas 9 which states, “But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” Archangel means an angel who is first in rank. Arch which means first therefore, Michael is the first angel in position. But other Bible versions translated the second phrase as “with a voice of the archangel” implying that there is an archangel in the scene separated from Jesus. The words “with a/the commanding call” means as Jesus descends from heaven there is a command which he is voicing out or there is a command from an archangel that is associated in Jesus descending. However, the latter is not proper to use because the next phrase after “commanding call” has a preposition “with” and a word “voice” thus, it is a continuation of the phrase “commanding call” which means the commanding call is from Jesus which shows a quality and which identifies the kind of voice that Jesus has . The next phrase “with an archangel’s voice” will be a descriptive phrase for the first phrase. However, some would say that the phrase that contains “with”, “voice”, and “archangel” (there are no articles “a”, “an”, and “the” in the original Greek text of this verse) means there is an archangel’s voice who is present in the scenario as Jesus descends. The preposition “with” as I would like to point here denotes same time, possessions of things, showing attributes or showing feelings, ideas or conditions. Let us show some examples.

As an example of time: He went outside with his girlfriend and with his classmates. (The example shows people are with him or together with him as they went out or in other way the girl went out together with her boyfriend and with her boyfriend’s classmates. Also it denotes same time of the actions done by the people).

As an example of possession of things: A man with a car – denotes a man owns a car. However, “a man with the car” denotes a man is beside or near the specific car which he may or may not his own possession (not an example of possession of things if may not). This gives a hint to the verse above. If we would write the verse as “…will descend from heaven with the commanding call,…” it would give a thought that the commanding call may not from him just as the second example is stated. The usage of articles here now makes sense. And I believe the NWT translators have really maintained the exact meaning of every verse in the original texts of the Bible.

As an example of showing attributes or quality: 1) She is a lady with a beautiful voice. 2) Michael speaks with a voice of a king. The first one shows that a lady has a beautiful voice while the second one shows Michael has a voice like of a king. This is the NWT translation that speaks of Jesus that has a voice of an archangel and since archangel means chief angel (from arch which means first and an angel) therefore Jesus is an angel who is first in rank.

As an example of showing feelings, ideas or conditions: 1) She speaks with love and wisdom. 2) She lives with pain but with noble.

So now, which is the correct in the next phrase? Is it “with a voice of the archangel” (single identity) or “with the voice of an archangel” (which means from the class of archangel)” or “with an archangel’s voice”? If the verse really states in this way “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with a voice of the archangel, …” (highlighted for emphasis) meaning a definite archangel who is separate from Jesus is in the scenario and this would mean that there is a voice which is present as Jesus descends from heaven. The same thing applies to the phrase “with a voice of an archangel”. This would be invalid because it shows disrespect on part of Jesus. If this is the phrase we are going to use then, it would mean literally that as Jesus is descending and commanding another angel is shouting. He cannot repeat the commanding call of Jesus. Only Jesus is given the right to resurrect the people – 1 Corinthians 15:21 – 22; John 5:25, 28 – 29. Why I am saying that the angel cannot repeat the command of Jesus? Think of this. Is it a proper act of an angel to cause his voice as a call to resurrect the dead people if really the power to resurrect dead people is vested on Jesus by God. John 5:28 – 29 speaks that whoever hears the voice of Jesus will rise again. On the other hand, if the archangel would make a call before Jesus commands then the original Greek text must really show the meaning in that way. The one possible translation verse base in position that would show that there are three objects treated differently is this: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with God’s trumpet, with a commanding call and with a voice of the archangel,…” This really shows that there are three different objects. I believe the Greek writers know at least the rules in attaining the exact meaning of a verse if knowing the sensitivity of the meaning of different contexts that is when position or ordering applies but this is somehow a problem in Greek language because ordering sometimes does not applies in Greek text. The possible translation version which could mean that the archangel will voice out after Jesus gave his commanding call is first there would be a sound of call of the trumpets (possibly continuing), then a voice of the archangel and lastly, a commanding call of Jesus. However, the Greek text doesn’t show this. Take note: the reader when reading this could have a preconceive thought if Jesus is describe as to have an archangel’s voice or there was an archangel separated from him who is shouting. Now, it is not only Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that Jesus is an angel but even early on the time of early apostasy had come, the belief that Jesus is an angel was well known. Thus, when someone is reading or writing the said verse HE WOULD BE AWARE as to how it is meant exactly. For if you are going to write the possible position of the phrases just I have said, it would create different meaning within the context. We should also note that the verse speaks of descending of Jesus and all phrases following it used the preposition “with” which indicates time. In the position of the phrases of the said verse, all are in line with the descending of Jesus which requires same time. Though the second phrase denotes a quality as what JW believe, it still shows of present time i.e the voice of Jesus is described as to be an archangel’s voice. Thus, when you said even in past tense the statement, “The woman asked her request with a voice of a child” or “The woman asked her request with a child’s voice” then, it means the woman asked a request in a child’s voice or in a voice like of a child. Therefore, when Jesus is described as descending, he has a commanding call and that call is describe as an archangel’s voice which is part of the time of the descending of Jesus. Therefore, the translation of NWT is an exact translation of the original Greek verse of 1 Thessalonians 4:16. Changing the position of the three phrases especially the original Greek texts will make difference in meaning which I hope to see by the readers. However, since order in Greek language does not apply always, it sometimes difficult to know what should be the proper translation just as in Hebrew 1:8 as an example. However, just I have said when someone reads it he may come to think as how it is normally mean as he read it. The fact that the second phrase “with [an] archangel’s voice or with [a] voice [of an] archangel follows the first phrase describing as Jesus descends with a commanding call would not disregard the possibility that the second phrase is an adjective clause or descriptive phrase of the first phrase. This makes the understanding of the early people that Jesus is the archangel since archangel’s voice would only fit to the archangel as the meaning of archangel means an angel who is first in rank or simply the chief angel. However, some argue that since Michael in Daniel 10:13 is said as to be one of the chief princes they say that it cannot be Jesus if he is the archangel alone. They say Michael is one of the archangels since he is called as one of the chief princes. However, Michael was called the Great Prince in Daniel 12:1. The word “Great” would only fit to the highest person in position on a certain group. Jehovah is called as the Prince of princes as you will see later. Since Jesus is a Great prince then he is one of the foremost princes (Jehovah and Jesus).  Just as we have high officials in military in a country, we only have one highest military official in a country. We could have high officials as the General, Lieutenant General, Major General and Brigadier General yet only the Great official is entitled to the highest position in the army which is the General who is acting the commanding-in-chief of the Armed Forces. Let us analyze the claim of some that there is an archangel present and separated from Jesus. The claims of others about 1 Thessalonians 4:16 believe that the Bible must be written in this way: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with a voice of the archangel and with God’s trumpet, …”   or “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with a shout of an archangel and with God’s trumpet,…” The sentence above shows as Jesus descends with a commanding call there was an archangel with a voice/shout (a calling) and a sound call of God’s trumpet. We know that the command of Jesus will cause the dead to resurrect. So definitely, the archangel’s voice would not mean that after Jesus had his commanding call the archangel would call also. This is invalid. So we will assume that the archangel is calling Jesus to descend from heaven. Again this is not possible because if Jesus will really call by an archangel then the voice of the archangel must be written in another way like this: “the Lord himself will descend from heaven with the voice of the archangel, with a commanding call and with God’s trumpet, …”  There is no possible way of interpreting it as there is really an archangel who is calling Jesus to descend unless it is written in the way above and this way. But even this translation will be used is still confusing to the readers since Jesus will call by the archangel and he would have a commanding call. How do we say that the commanding call is from Jesus based on the proper sentence that must appear to indicate that there is really no archangel separate from Jesus? First, if the commanding call is not from Jesus, it would be a redundant as the archangel is shouting already and still the archangel’s has a voice to call.If there is the archangel separated from Jesus who is calling then the original sentence should be written only in this way “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a call of the archangel and with God’s trumpet.” Second, if he[the archangel separated from Jesus] is the one who has a commanding call then he would make himself as the one who causes the dead to resurrect. Therefore, it is really invalid. If others would insist that there is really an archangel’s calling or a shout call in order Jesus to descend, then the preposition “with” would fall into something which involved the same time just as I have mentioned in the examples above. The word “with” in “with the voice of the archangel” would definitely indicate that time is involved thus it means as Jesus descends there is an archangel’s shout of voice. And this would not possible to happen before Jesus descends because the word “with” indicate an event is happening accompanied with the first event that is happening also. This is an example of preposition “with” under the same time. As a dare to those who said it is an archangel who is calling separated from Jesus then can he cite a sentence using “with” in the second phrase that happen first before the first phrase happen? As I would like to point out the commanding call of Jesus would not be repeated by the archangel because Jesus himself is the one that will cause the dead to resurrect and not by an archangel. Even in using the same context of that sentence just like in the sentence below is not valid in relation to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 of other versions. “The President went out with a commanding order, with a shout/voice of the commander and with musical background.” It is plain to understand that as the president went out with a commanding order there is a shout of call of a commander with musical background. This happens all at the same time and not a shout of a commander followed by the president’s commanding order. But rather it should be written in this way if there is really a call of a commander: “The President went out with the shout/voice of the commander, then with a commanding order and with musical background.” This applies consecutive event as the president went out. Another thing, Jesus is not the name given to Jesus when he was created. It is because the name Jesus means “Jehovah is Salvation” which we can see implicitly in Matthew 1:21 which is in relation with the meaning of the name Joshua. In this verse Jesus is called Jesus because he is going to save the nation of God – the Israel but now includes the Gentile nations (Hosea 2:23). Another logical proof that Jesus is not the name of Jesus is because Jehovah created earth to be inhabited by the people eternally starting from Adam and Eve – Genesis 1:26 – 30. Notice verse 26, God created Adam and Eve according to their (Jehovah, Jesus and all the angels) image. One nature which shows image of God and Jesus (before he became man) is that they could live eternally if they will follow God’s will. Thus, God wanted the people to live on earth forever. However, death comes because Adam have sinned against God – Romans 5:12. Jesus name was given as his name because he is going to save God’s nation so how could Jesus be his name before in heaven before God created man if God’s plan to people is to live forever on earth? So it is impossible to have the name Jesus but rather Michael which means “Who is like God?” The meaning of the name Michael signifies very important and relevant to Michael (Jesus) himself for it shows that there is no one like God. Moreover, the carrier of that name reveals the person itself about the personality of God and since Jesus is the exact representation of God and the invisible image of God then, of course the carrier of that name reveals the high qualities of a person that reveals the high qualities of the Almighty God. Jesus is the only the best one among all who fits to bear the meaning of that name! Therefore, there is no reason not to believe that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. How about Hebrews 1:5, does it says Jesus is not an angel? Hebrews 1:5 For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? (underlined and highlighted for emphasis) The underlined phrase does not say that Jesus is not an angel. A sentence like this, “To which one of the students did you ever say ‘you are number one’?” The statement suggests that the one who is number one is also a student. Thus it suggests that the number one student is one of the students. The same applies in Hebrew 1:5. Jesus is an angel and he is the only one called by Jehovah to be his son and that He will become his [Jesus] father. The verse does not violate Jesus as to be an angel. He is an angel who is first in rank that is why he is called an archangel. Another example, “To which one of the teachers did you ever say ‘you are best’?” The word “best” is given to a teacher who is someone considered as best. The same applies with Hebrews 1:5. Actually, Hebrews 1:13 prove within its context that Jesus is not Jehovah. In that context Jehovah is saying to his son [Jesus] to sit on his right side which is also written in Psalms 110:1. Here are some other examples that the reader may study in relation to Hebrews 1:5.

1. With regards to the Friend, He told “To which one of the youth did I ever said, ‘You are my Friend’?”

2.      With regards to the One, He told, “To which one of the men I said, ‘You are the One’?”

Both sentence requires that “the Friend” and “the One” belongs to the group of class called “youth” and “men” respectively. Let us have another one. “With regards to the Prince, He told, “To which one of the strong men, I told ‘You are my Prince.” NOTE: The above examples does not show literal sameness in the structure of Hebrews 1:5 since it has added the preceding phrase but it helps the readers understand the person as identified as the one spoken about by the speaker is special and would only valid if he belongs to the class of persons whom he is being compared with. This is a comparison about the special person who is being compared with the other persons. It would only make significant and would give emphasis of the special person if he is part or belong to the class of strong men of whom he is being compared with. Let us see in the following example if the person being compared would become really special if not part of the group or class. “With regards to the Man, He said, “To which one of the women, I said, ‘You are [a man] so dear to me.” At first understanding this sounds really bad because the man is not connecting with the women. Of course the statement above cannot hold the specialness of the person spoken about who is being compared to the class or group because the man is distinct and not part of the class. However, taken not the words in the bracket would mean that there is a woman from among women who is so dear to him yet it really doesn’t connect with the first phrase indeed. “With regards to the Son, He said, “To which one of my daughters, I said ‘You are special.” The Son is not being specified as the special one but rather there is a special one from among the daughters and not the son himself. The same thing can see – that the person spoken about doesn’t connect with the daughters. But look at this example and see the difference with the last one above. “With regards to the Son, He said, “To which one of my children, I said ‘You are lovable’. This only indicates that the son is special since it is with regards with him or about him who is being compared with the other children as “lovable” and it clearly shows that he belongs or a member of the class of the children. Thus in Hebrews 1:5, the Son would only be special if he really belongs to the class of angels making him as special from among the other angels. What about Jesus and his angels in some verses? Would it mean that he is not an angel and not belong to the class of angels? Not really. If I say “I have my men”, would it make me different from them and not consider myself as a man? If I also say “I have friends”, would it mean that I could not consider myself a friend? What about God and his angels should we say that God is also an angel? Not really. Though angels are gods too (1 Corinthians 8:5; Psalms 8:5 [‘godlike’ see the Hebrew text]), it would have not to say that God is an angel since angels means messenger. A messenger is a one who receives a message from the giver of the message. Just as “I” will not become “You” as a person because we are two different individuals or I am an uncle and would have become myself as a nephew of myself (as an uncle) is really illogical. Just as the receiver is different from the giver, Jehovah is different with Jesus or the Father is distinct with the Son who are both present with each other at specific time. (Revelation 1:1; Hebrews 12:2). In an illustration just below we will see that God cannot be an angel. In a government there is a president or a king and he has military people. The highest military official of his government would be the General. This General should have his army and the General really belongs to the class or group of army and so Jesus and his angels means he belongs from the class of angels he has. Thus, “the General and his army” is also the same in real thought with “Jesus [the Archangel] and his angels”. While “the President/King and his army”, is also similar with the words “God and his angels” but doesn’t mean he belongs that group or class. Another implicit meaning of angel could mean as servant. Since Jesus is an angel and subordinate to Jehovah then he is a servant of God. (Isaiah 53:11; Zechariah 3:8; Matthew 12:18; Isaiah 42:1) Likewise, Jesus’ angels are subordinate to Jesus thus they are servants too of Jesus (compare Hebrews 1:6 and Philippians 2:10) Jesus said that a servant is not greater than his lord and the sent one is not greater than to the one who sent him (John 13:16). For additional information about Jesus as the Michael the Archangel please visit this links.

ADDITIONAL STUDY: However, some would questions as how would it mean if it is being said as “with an archangel’s voice”? Some would say that since the NWT translators used the indefinite article (an) then it would mean that the archangel is one from among the archangels. This is not really the thought that is implying in the sentence. We should know that “with an archangel’s voice” denotes quality of voice rather than suggesting a literal voice comparable to voice of some sort of angels. The words “with an archangel’s voice” is more proper to use than “with a voice of an archangel” since the second phrase clearly suggests a literal voice of archangel (which would be indefinite in a sense) while the first phrase really suggest the implicit thought of having authority as of being the archangel (as definite identity). The NWT gives a better clarification that Jesus is having an archangel’s voice. The voice is being emphasized here as it is being compared with the other voices of persons. Thus, there would have different voices which suggest authority of different persons. Again, it is not literal voice comparable to different voices of persons but rather it suggests authority in implicit thought. If I say, “The man went out with an American flag.” This clearly shows that the man went out carrying an American flag. Should we say, since it uses “an” then, it means there are many flags of America? No, but rather it suggests that there is only one American flag that is recognized by the people of America. The word “an” is used as a possession of a thing for the person spoken about and since the noun begins with letter “A” then “an” should be used but it doesn’t convey a meaning of being indefinite noun. Therefore, “an American flag” is a qualitative noun yet a definite noun but it can be indefinite from among flags or that is comparable with the other flags of the nations. Likewise, “an archangel’s voice” denotes a qualitative noun that suggests authority of the persons describes as of being THE archangel thus a DEFINITE noun rather than being an indefinite noun. However, the voice is being indefinite from among many angels who may have authority also that is why Michael was called “one of the foremost princes” in the book of Daniel since he is not the only one prince however, he is the only one called “Great Prince” showing a single person for that position – that is the Great Prince of all the angels. Jesus is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords”. Since kings are also called prominent persons then Jesus although he is the King of kings and Lord of lords is also one of the prominent persons because he belongs from among kings and from among lords. Jehovah indeed is called Prince of Princes in Daniel 8:25 (see the Hebrew Interlinear).  The words “Prince of princes” here does not shows second in the position but rather it shows an implicit thought of having authority from among ELOHIM (GODS; see Deuteronomy 10:17; Psalms 136:2; Psalms 135:5; Psalms 97:9; Psalms 95:3) who suggest of being majestic and excellence in its superlative case. Thus, Jehovah as the Prince of princes suggests he is a person who has the greatest authority from among those who have authorities in heaven and on earth. (Compare this with the authority given to Jesus in Hebrews 2:8; 1 Peter 3:22 and the authority of God in all in 1 Corinthians 15:27 – 28). The word “prince” does not literally mean second authority but literally it means as the one who takes first place in the position. However, Jesus being the Great Prince does not mean that he is the Prince of princes. Although Jesus is called the Great Prince in heaven he is not the highest person in heaven but he is the highest person in angels ranking. Jehovah is the Prince of prince or the Prince of all but Jesus is the Great Prince in heaven. There is nothing wrong as Jehovah and Jesus are both first since Jehovah is being exclusive from all as he is the first ABOVE ALL while Jesus is the first AMONG ALL (which denotes of being of the same class or group or a member of among all the creation of Jehovah) excluding Jehovah God. Just as the General could have his army the President could have also his army and the General is also his army. The same thing applies to Jehovah and Jesus. Jehovah has his angels and Jesus who also belongs to the class of angels has his angels (see the link in the watchtower’s site) thus both are being first above all the angels. So, would the Trinitarians insist also that “THEOS” in John 1:1c is both qualitative and definite because of 1 Thessalonians 4:16 that the word “archangel” is definite as I have presented? No, because the Bible verse spoken about above ONLY shows of having or possessing the abstract quality (i.e. authority as of being the archangel) and not as of showing or depicting the physical qualities [i.e. qualities as of being [an] archangel who may be indefinite from among archangel (as other thought) but unfortunately this doesn’t prove to be true]. While, the word “THEOS’ in John 1:1c does not reflect of being definite and that it should not be identified it as identity simply because it would contradict with the preceding phrase that is “the Word is with God” showing that the Word is accompanied with God. In order to say that THEOS in John 1:1c is definite and an identity as of being the God, then it must not contradict itself within the context of the said verse. If we say, “The Son of God is with Almighty God” would it mean that the Son of God is also the Almighty God or the Son of God is with no one else but only himself? Then, to whom the word “Almighty God” refers to and the word “with” points to? If I say, the understanding of the word of God (the Bible) is in concordance WITH Scriptural evidences, how must one view it? That is the Bible concepts are presented along with the Scriptures itself. Thus, the Biblical concept (in the mind) that Word as being the Son of God and not God is presented WITH (separated from the mind) the Scriptural verses in the Bible. Of course, Trinitarians do also used Bible verses to support their own doctrines but in twisted ways. So what is common here and what is the explicit idea that I am saying? That is both (Trinitarians and Anti-Trinitarians) have concepts in their mind that is being approve by themselves by the use of the Scriptural verses. Thus, concepts are formulated in their mind based on how they understand the Scriptures. Therefore, the human knowledge (false and true) is set upon by human based on their perceived thoughts through observations. So there is “YOU” who is present WITH the principles in the Bible and it only needs “YOU” to perceive that principles in the Bible. In conclusion, the word “WITH” only suggest that there is a thing that is accompanied or present with another thing or there is a thing separated from the other thing whether it can be seen or not seen. Please see this link for some scholars who believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Quotes From Scholars Concerning Jesus as Michael the Archangel


Is Jehovah The Same Person as Jesus?

(A discussion about terms applied both to Jehovah and Jesus)

Some terms in the Bible are used to address both to Jehovah and Jesus. These terms are the “savior”, “father”, “first and last” and “lord of lords” and “king of kings”. Let us first study the term “savior” used to address Jehovah in Isaiah 43:11 which states, “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.

In this verse Jehovah is saying that there is no savior other than him, thus Trinitarians say that since Jesus is also called as “a savior” in Luke 2:11 he is also Jehovah. However, let us compare Isaiah 49:26 in which Jehovah is called as the “Savior” of the Israel wherein in Septuagint interlinear there is an article in the preceding of the word “Savior” and in Luke 2:11 in which Jesus is also called as “a savior” there is no article before the word “savior”. Thus, it is proper to translate it as “a savior” to emphasize that he is not the one and only Savior which is Jehovah but the savior who is appointed by Jehovah. This is in conformity with the text in Jude 1:25 in which Jehovah is said as the Savior but it is only through Jesus Christ. However in KJV it does not have Jesus Christ as acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. Thus if we will follow the original Greek translation of this verse (in which Jesus Christ is not written), still the one and only identified as the “savior” is only Jehovah. However, since Jesus is the one sent by Jehovah to be the savior of the world, he is therefore acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah. A very good proof of this matter which explicitly shows that they are distinct and that Jesus is acting as the savior on behalf of Jehovah is in Acts 5:31 which states, “31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are witnesses of these matters, and so is the holy spirit, which God has given to those obeying him as ruler.” – NWT

It is clearly said in this verse that Jesus was exalted by his Father and that he was on the right side of God. There would be no valid interpretation of it than to say that Jehovah is separate from Jesus and are both present at particular time.  The Greek text of this verse has no article before the word “Savior” making it as indefinite thus it shows it is not Jehovah and also it is clear in the text that Jehovah exalted him to be the Chief Agent and [the] Savior on his right hand. Consider also Acts 13:23 in which in Greek interlinear it has no article thus NWT renders it as “a savior” and not the savior unlike in other bible versions which renders it as “the savior”. However in John 4:42 and 1 John 4:14 Jesus was identified as to be “the savior” of the world. Should we say that he is the Savior in the Old Testament or he is Jehovah? No. In these verses it only shows that Jehovah sent his son to be “the savior of the world”. Using an article on the Greek text by the writer was valid because Jesus was the one acted as the savior of the world in “physical” sense when he offered his life for the mankind. There is no other savior in the world who came in the world and who acted as the savior of mankind literally. We can see the difference of using the word “savior” to Jesus when he was described in heaven in Philippians 3:20 which states,“But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,”. In this text we can clearly see the carefulness of the writer in addressing Jesus as a “savior” who is being compared with Jehovah as “the savior” of all since both of them are in heaven. We can see an example of this using an article in Titus 1:3 and 1 Timothy 2:3 which identifies Jehovah as “the savior”. A good verse example in the Bible that identifies Jesus as “a savior” is in Isaiah 19:20.

20 And it must prove to be for a sign and for a witness to Jehovah of armies in the land of Egypt; for they will cry out to Jehovah because of the oppressors, and he will send them a savior, even a grand one, who will actually deliver them. – NWT

The original Greek interlinear has no article before the word “man” in which in Bible translations renders it as “a savior”. This clearly identifies that Jesus is a savior on behalf of Jehovah and Jehovah is the only savior.

Another term use both to Jehovah and Jesus is the “Father”. Jehovah is address as the “Father” many times in the Bible both in Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. On the other hand Jesus was once addressed as a “Father” in Isaiah 9:6.

“6 For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” – NWT

Is it right to say that because of this title used to address to both of them we can say that Jehovah is also Jesus? No. Take note that Abraham was also called the “Father” of all nations and this means he is a father to God’s people. Since Jehovah is the father of all Christians (that is on the time of adoption of men) and those who will be resurrected and be saved should we say that Abraham as he is the father of all nations (God’s people) is also Jehovah? Of course not. Saying Jesus is the Father of Christians is saying also that Abraham is the Father. Abraham was called “the father of all nations” in Genesis 17:4, 5 since through him all the people on earth will be blessed – Genesis 8:18; Genesis 12:3 and Galatians 3:8. Jehovah made a covenant with him that the promise “seed” will come through his descendants and this was Jesus and there are 144, 000 who belong to this seed. They are also called the seeds of Abraham who will have the promise of God of heavenly life – Galatians 3:29.  Therefore, Jesus as a “Father” doesn’t mean that He is the Heavenly Father but rather a father to the congregation of God for he is the head of the church whom appointed by Jehovah. Jesus is called to be as n “Everlasting Father” since it is through him the people on earth will be blessed – Acts 3:25; Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:14. Do you think Abraham could be the father of all nations if the will of God did not happen through Jesus Christ? Abraham became the father of all nations only because of Jesus’ performance who acted in the foundation of the Christian congregation of God. It was through Jesus Christ the foundation of the congregation of God was established. Just as the head of the house – the father is also concern with his children and thus he feeds them and provides them everything they need. Jesus as the head of the congregation of God provides spiritual foods through his faithful and discreet slaves and provides them physical needs through his name in relation to the requests of the Christians to his Father. Moreover, Jesus is a father to all Jehovah’s Witnesses (after the final salvation) since it is through him the salvation for them is assured and the blessings for them came after. Jesus is a father since he let feed God’s people with right instructions and words of God as well as those people who are not yet part of the congregation of God but have chance to enter into it.

Another term used to address to both of them is “first” and “last”. Jehovah used this term to identify himself in Isaiah 44:6 which states, “This is what Jehovah has said, the King of Israel and the Repurchaser of him, Jehovah of armies, ‘I am the first and I am the last, and besides me there is no God.”

While the text that identifies Jesus as the “first” and “last” is in Revelation 1:17 – 18 and Revelation 2:8. Since Jesus died as a man before therefore all Christianity agreed that this is Jesus however, since he is also called as “the first and last” the same descriptions to Jehovah in Isaiah 44:6, then Trinitarians concluded that they are one or coequal. However, this cannot be true since in Revelation 3:21 Jehovah and Jesus were identified as separate individuals who are both present at the same time. This is a proof from among many verses in the bible that identifies Jesus who is in the right side of Jehovah. So definitely Jesus is not Jehovah. He is called “first” since he is the first creation of Jehovah – 1 Colossians 1:15, 17 – 18. He is “first” – the beginning of all creation of Jehovah as he was described in Proverbs 8:22 – 23. Some bible versions translated verse 22 as the wisdom [the personification of Jesus] which was not created but possessed by God showing it is an eternal nature of God which is present in him. This is not true since verse 23 in their versions and in NWT suggests that this “wisdom” was established by Jehovah and all the terms used by other bible versions shows the same meaning of producing and forming it which is really synonymous to the word “created”. That is why this wisdom was called the master worker or craftsman who is being delight with his Father and who is beside of the Father. Can wisdom as nature of God can have delight to God and act as a master worker or craftsman who is beside of God? It cannot be possible unless the wisdom is a person. Jesus is also the “first” since he was the first one resurrected from dead who have eternal life in heaven and he is the one whom Jehovah appointed to be first in all things both in heaven and on earth. But this doesn’t mean he is Jehovah who is above everything. In 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28 Jesus was described as the king who will hand over his kingdom to his God. Verse 25 clearly stated that God made him the king to put all God’s enemies under his feet but verse 27 and 28 clearly reveals that Jesus will subject himself to his God so that the God may be above in all. Thus in this verse it shows he is the “last” – the last person who will have the highest authority with everything in heaven and on earth and that he is also the last person who will subject himself to God and who will turn over his kingdom to the only true God.

What about the word “lord of lords” and “king of kings” which were used both to Jehovah (1 Timothy 6:15 – 16) and Jesus (Revelation 19:16)? Do these verses prove that they are one and coequal? No. Even Nebuchadnezzar was also called as “king of kings” in Daniel 2:37 but this doesn’t mean he is literally the king of all the other kings on earth. This only means that he is the most powerful king on earth on that time thus in his dream which was explained by Daniel that he (symbolizes by a tree in Daniel 4:4 – 37) is the most powerful on that time yet his kingdom will be taken away from him and this happened when he got sick mentally because he became too proud of himself however, he got back his power and kingdom when he recognized Jehovah as his God and humble himself in the eyes of God. This suggests also the same in reference to Jesus. He is the “king of kings” and “lord of lords” on the time it was given to him by Jehovah but Jehovah will be the King of all and Lord of all when Jesus subject himself to the God Almighty – 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28.



(An Analysis Based on Grammar Syntax and Meaning)

One of the debatable topics in the Bible is John 1:1. Some Bible scholars translated the verse of John 1:1c as “the word was God” while the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) version translated it as “the Word was a god.” In this article we would find out whether it is possible to render it as “a god” as well as to know whether “God” in John 1:1c is correct. Many scholars say that if the subject and predicate has definite article (the), then both nouns are interchangeable.  As an example of this consider the study in Greek text of Matthew 13:38 which states, “the world is the field.” This would mean also as “the field is the world” which is true in the English grammar rule. However when the article is absent in the predicate then it would mean that they are not interchangeable. For example “the 144,000 people are chosen ones” could not mean as “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people.” In the previous example when using the concept of logic, one can say that all 144,000 people are chosen ones but one can never say that “the chosen ones are the 144,000 people” which would mean that the chosen ones are only 144,000 people and this is because we know that a lot of persons in the Bible are chosen people of God but not part of the 144,000. In studying logic, the validity of a sentence depends on how it is being delivered or structured. Thus, the sentence “the teacher is male” cannot mean as “the male is teacher” which would sounds bad definitely. So as with the sentence “the valedictorian was girl” (if for example it was written as the same as in Greek without article) cannot mean as “the girl was the valedictorian”. The first sentence states that the valedictorian was [a] girl (showing indefinite characteristics as of a girl and an indefinite noun who belongs from the class of girls), while the second sentence shows identity (a definite noun which was being identified from among the other students). The first sentence defines the characteristic of the valedictorian [i.e. the valedictorian has a nature of a girl] and that the valedictorian belongs to a group or class of girls while the second sentence identifies the valedictorian as the only girl who is different from the other students. This is true in the statement “the Word was God” which cannot mean as “[the] God was the Word” and “the Word is Man” which also cannot mean as “The Man is the Word” which is not in the rule of grammar (whether it could be in English or Greek) for the word God has no article and that it falls as a quality and not an identity – being an indefinite noun and not a definite noun. Unlike in the statement “the Word was a god’, it can mean definitely as “A god was the Word” which shows both sameness to “the valedictorian was girl” and “a girl was the valedictorian”. The statement “the valedictorian was girl” is almost the same as “the valedictorian was a girl”. The first statement shows that the valedictorian has a nature of a girl while the second statement shows the valedictorian is a girl [identified as a girl physically who has a nature of a girl and is belong to a group called girls]. To have a clear illustration of the thought let us have another example. Suppose the statement is “the model is girl”. How could we sense the sentence? The statement shows the model has a nature of being a girl. However, when you say “the model is a girl”, it really identifies as to what class or group of model it belongs i.e. it belongs from girls and on the other hand it also shows that the model has qualities like of a girl. The statement “the model is girl” is not really identifying the model as a literal girl but rather describing the model as it has the characteristics or attributes of a girl. Thus, when a model (suppose to be a male cross dresser is identified as “the model is girl./!”, it would definitely shows that he has a quality or nature of being a girl in the sense of fashion modeling and not that he is a girl (literally). Likewise, the statement “the model is a girl” shows that the model is identified as being literally a girl [someone who has the qualities or nature of being a girl] and is belong to the class or group of girls. So “the word was God” doesn’t really mean that the Word is the God Almighty but rather the Word is a god who has the quality or nature of God. The word “God” in John 1:1 that refers to the “Word” really refers only to someone who looks like a god. If we will not take the Word as “a god” and we take it as “God”, still the “Word” is described as someone who has the qualities or nature of a god therefore he is really a god. For if we say in a statement “Michael is spirit” we would always arrive in one conclusion – that is, Michael has the quality of being spirit (qualitative noun) and that he is a spirit from among many spirits (indefinite noun).

An example verse in the Greek Scriptures (NT) where Paul is identified as “theon” (god) without article is below. Here, Paul is being considered as a god and not the God. Someone who has a quality of a god because the power of God is manifested through him by the miracles he had performed in the eyes of many people. You can check the interlinear link of Acts 28:6 here ( Paul is described as GOD (THEON) without article therefore it shows qualitative and that he may be a god also.  Thus, we can say that if the subject is defined by a noun then it has an important and necessary force of meaning within that noun. However, we can only get the right and exact interpretation of the word based on the context of the whole sentence. We would not interpret the word that identifies the subject as it would contradict the other phrases. Thus, in getting the meaning of the word that identifies the subject, we have options on how to deal with the grammar structure of the whole sentence. These options that we may take vary on the degree of relevance of the word that defines the subject. Thus, when a sentence is translated into English we may have to look back for the original writings of that sentence whether it could be in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or Coptic and others. Basically, this is important and does matters especially when the word which is being identified has no related phrases to further support its identity. However, when the English translation is so obvious in its context we would need a little process on how we would deal with the words to interpret. In John 1:1b it is clear and obvious as it was said that the Word was with God. The preposition “with” when use in English varies differently according to its usage but basically all the usage of “with” when connected to the subject generally refers to something which is present with or within the subject. An example of this is: “I have come to this idea with my knowledge in English.” It means that I have known an idea because of the knowledge I have in English. Thus, my idea is presented with the knowledge I have. Another example using “with” as external objects is this: “He brought up this study with his colleagues.” Therefore, this means the person brought up a study together with his colleagues or it could be in this way, he and his colleagues brought up a study. Thus, there are two objects which are present with the brought up study. To have a plain example let us have this statement: “I went out with my friend” or “I am with my mother.” Obviously, a grade one American student could understand this plainly. That the two sentence means that I and my friend went out and I and my mother are together at the same time. Both suggest that there are two distinct subjects who are both present at a particular time.

In another example of the Watchtower in their magazine, the study presented in one example verse in Greek words “ho theos phos” which means “God is light” would not mean as “Light is God”. “Ho” is a definite article before theos but notice phos has no preceding definite article thus they are not interchangeable. They say this is also true in a Bible verse such as “God is a Spirit” which cannot be written interchangeably as “Spirit is God”. Take note the use of indefinite article (a) in that verse by the NWT translators to emphasize that God is a kind or sort of spirit. Some bible translation uses “God is Spirit” which made them conclude that Spirit is God (a person) and so likewise they would interchange it as “Spirit is God” (Holy Spirit is God). But this is not proper way to do so. The same also with “God is love” which is wrong to say as “Love is God”. These examples show that whenever God is describe by another noun which shows quality (that is abstract noun) or a noun that shows nature of God then the writer does not use article for the nouns that describes God. In John 1:1b it says that the “Word was with God” thus there are two separate beings that are together. Actually when you indicate definite article (the) before the word “God” in John 1:1b which makes it “the Word was with the God”, it would definitely mean very explicit that the Word is present with the God having a clear distinction of the two objects or subjects. Another example, “The Secretary was with the President.” It would mean that the Secretary is together with the President. In writing sentences in English which begins with God we usually don’t write the definite article “the” before God. Instead, we say like “God created everything” not “The God created everything” for we mean there is only one God that would stands for God – the Almighty. Now consider these examples:

1.      The Word was the King. (This is interchangeable – meaning the King is also the Word which is not acceptable in relation to verse we are talking because it would teach equality thus saying Jesus is Jehovah. Many scholars disregard this kind of translation in relation to John 1:1 but still they follow the doctrine of Sabellianism or the belief in a triune God that God became Jesus as a God-Man and died. The above example shows definiteness.)

2.      The Word was King. (Although it sounds not as good to the hearer, this clearly state a state of showing attribute or quality of being a king thus we may say in the verse above that we are talking that the Word was divine or having a godlike nature. This shows indefiniteness. This example really shows the meaning of John 1:1c. “The Word was King” shows that the word is a king who has the quality or attributes of being a king. This example shows not a definite king but rather indefinite from a group of kings. The Word is being described as a king who can compare to other kings but not the definite king who may be above and incomparable to other kings.)

3.      The Word was a king. (This indicates that the Word was one of a king from the class of kings. This would tell that the Word has the attributes of being a king and can have same nature as the other kings.)

Consider also the following statements in which the noun “man” is use by some scholars:

1.      “HE IS MAN.” – This really means that he is a man – a physical qualities and inner qualities that shows of being man. It does shows that the spoken about is human. For example: “Volta is man”. The peculiar name tells the hearer or reader as to what nature Volta has. Thus it suggests Volta has a nature like of a man therefore he is a man. The same suggests in the words “THE WORD IS GOD” in John 1:1c which really suggests “THE WORD IS A GOD”.

2.      “HE IS A MAN” – This really means that he has the good nature of being man; it shows attributes of a person that shows good qualities as man and that he is a man literally and belongs to a class of man.

3. “HE IS THE MAN” – This really means that he is identified as being “The Man” and would only refer to him as his identity who is distinct from all other men.

Thus you may render John 1:1c as “God” ONLY because the “Word” was divine in nature or having a godlike nature or is describe as being divine like of God but not to identify it as an identity as God (the Almighty) and it is also possible to translate it as “a god” for the Word is a kind or sort of god (that belongs to the class of gods) who is lower than the Almighty God Jehovah and has the qualities or nature of being god. It says in the Bible that the head of Christ is God and that he is going to give his kingdom to his Father after he defeated all his enemies and he will subject himself to God – 1 Corinthians 11:3; 15:27 – 28) These shows that they are not equal (Jesus ≠ Jehovah). Other translations use “The Word is God” to say that he is the God himself or equivalent to Jehovah but in John 1:1b and verse 2 it does shows that they are not equal but distinct who are both present at the same time. One thing would fail in the nature of Jesus with Jehovah is Jesus was created and has beginning while the God Almighty has no beginning and no ending or cannot die. – Proverbs 8:22-31 (Jesus is called the master worker or the craftsman); Colossians 1:15, John 1:14, 18; Habakkuk 1:12; Psalms 90:2

If the reader would insist the Word is God (Jehovah) then he would be violating the truth in the second phrase which states, “the Word was with God”. Take note the Greek term used here is “TON THEON” which would refer to Almighty God. Now, using the verse as “the Word is a god” would sense very acceptable because it clearly distinguishes the two persons discuss in John 1:1b which is “the Word was with God” and also with verse 2 which states “This one was in [the] beginning with God”. In this verse it does not only suggests two subjects but also suggests the presence of the two subjects at the same time. The verse that would prove that Jesus is “a god” and not the “God” is John 1:14 and John 1:18: Let us see some of the different Bible versions.

14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth. – NWT

14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.  – NASB

18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him. – NWT

18No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. – AMP

Footnote:  f John 1:18 Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament: This reading is supported by “a great mass of ancient evidence.”

18No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. – KJV

18No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him – NASB

The evidence that it has the word “only-begotten” in Greek (which is monogeneses) from the early manuscripts would definitely show that Jesus was created by his Father or was begat by his Father but not literally. It only shows Jesus was brought up by his Father or in the same sense that someone has brought him in existence. He had just not existed by his own but someone had caused him to exist. Thus, he did not exist eternally but rather he existed from a definite time or from a very long and particular time ago. Some scholars say it should be translated as “one and only” for the root word of gennao was from “genos” which means “type” or “kind’ thus they say it could be “one of a kind” or simply “unique” and so the NIV and TNIV renders it as “one and only”. Even this word is going to use in the translation above, still it does not prove faulty that God is distinct and separate with the Word for the subject “only-begotten” or “only child” or “only one” is being described as the one who is in the bosom [position] of the Father that is the Word is in the presence of the Father literally because of the use of preposition “with” (NWT) but sadly, it is not the way it is written in other bible versions. However, when I say “the baby is in the bosom of the mother” how would it mean to a person? There is no other meaning of it than to say that the baby is in the close position (literally) of the mother. It cannot be the same as in a close relationship with someone because the Greek word for bosom which is “Kolpon” means place or position which requires a literal closeness of position of the two subjects spoken about. There is in no way to say that the Word (the begotten god) is equal with God (the Father) for they are described as they are both present at a particular time. Below is a quote that was taken from a commentator in one blog regarding John 1:1:

“As an aside to the discussion is the Sahidic Coptic translation of John 1:1c (Auw ne-u-noute pe p-shaje). The Coptic uses the indefinite noun possibly to refer to the abstract, or essence. More than likely the failure to use the article is possibly due to recognizing the previous phrase (Auw p-shaje ne-f-shoop n-nahrm p-noute) as contradictory if they did. Please note Horner’s Coptic translation (need this New Athena Unicode font) says, “[a] God was the word.” While he recognizes “a god” as a possible English translation of the Coptic, it is not the probable translation, based on the Greek.”

Notice that the commentator said that Horner statements said that “a god is not a probable translation based on Greek”. But how come the Coptic translated it as “a god”. The fact this was made in this translation is that the translators of the Coptic were really knowledgeable about the distinction of Jehovah and Jesus and that they see other texts on that chapter that identifies the separateness of God and Jesus in a same particular time. Many verses in the bible do not use article in Greek but when translated in English they use an indefinite article (a) to represent that the word is not definite or unique or simply to say that it belongs to a group or class of something.

Actually when a person said “HE IS GOD!”, it does shows that the person spoken about is like a god or that he is the God. To get the real meaning of what the speaker is trying to say is to see how it is being written. If this is translated in Greek and the speaker refers the person spoken about is the God then he would have to write an article before God and if the speaker refers the person spoken about as a quality and an indefinite noun then he have to leave the article before the word God showing that it is not an identity but rather a quality and an indefinite noun. Of course in English grammar the statement “He is God!” provide us two meanings. One is that he is [a] god showing a nature of God and the second is that He is God (the Creator). This now reveals our topic.  With this we can see that the first meaning applies to John 1:1c – that is the Word is a god [someone who belongs to gods] who has the nature of God but not the second meaning for it would show that Jesus is God (the Almighty) which is not in concordance with many verses in the Bible that speaks Jesus is not God (identity). Thus in order not to have misconception with the English translation of John 1:1c it should be necessary to render it as “a god” to emphasize that the word is not the God but a god who has the nature of God making it clear with the distinction of the Father and Son. In addition to this, God was addressed as the “Father” and Jesus as the “Son” in the Bible. Although Jesus was addressed also as a “Father”, God was never addressed as a “Son”. Likewise Jesus was addressed as a “brother” but God was never addressed as a “brother”. Moreover, God addressed his chosen ones as his “children” but Jesus addressed the little flock as to be his “brothers” and also Jehovah is identified as “Almighty God” but Jesus is only address as “Mighty God” and never as “Almighty God”.

rmnnoute shared a good comment on this post and he shared this link:

For discussion about the Trinity Doctrine please see the link below:

For articles concerning about NWT please see the links below.

FOR IN-DEPTH discussion about qualitative, definite and indefinite nouns please see this link below.


Concerning about qualitative noun let us have examples again.

1.      “That boy is star!” and “That boy is a star.”

2.      “He is gay.” and “He is a gay.”

The first person in the first number indicates that the boy is describe as to being a star, suggesting he is famous and showing a quality of being a star while the second sentence in the first number indicates that he is a star who belongs to a group of stars. In the second example, the first person in the second number who is spoken about indicates a quality of being gay and so he may be therefore a gay. The second person in the second number indicates that he is a gay and belongs to a class of gays.  Both first examples in the two numbers show that the qualitative noun shows also as being an indefinite noun.

Now let us consider an example that is related issue to the Trinitarians.

“You are my princess.”

There are two meanings that implies here. The first one could be that she portrays the qualities of being a princess but never a literal princess in real life. Thus, it shows only qualitative but not definite or indefinite. The other one is, it implies that she is a literal or real princess in true life and she possesses the qualities of being a real princess and thus she belongs to a class of princess. Therefore, it suggest both qualitative and indefiniteness.

This is the thing that arises in theology in relation to John 1:1c. Some Trinitarians insist that the word “THEOS” is only qualitative and not definite nor indefinite because to say by them that “THEOS” is definite would mean the “Word” is “God [the Father]” but it prohibits them because of Greek grammar rule and to say the “Word” is indefinite means the “Word” is a god who belongs to a class of gods also dislike by them. Some still insist that “God” here is definite and would mean as “God” as being an identity even an anarthrous article (ho) is absent before the word “God”. However, this doesn’t hold true in Greek language when it comes to grammar rule and thus weakens the Colwell’s rule. If however, Trinitarians would not accept the word “THEOS” pertaining to the “Word” as indefinite noun but cannot accept it also as a definite noun because of the fact in the Greek grammar rule, and believing it is only a qualitative noun then there are two questions for them to be answered. One, if “THEOS” here in John 1:1c is qualitative only and they believe that Jesus is God as a definite being and consider no other gods, is it not true that being a qualitative noun as for a definite person (identity) means that the qualitative noun is also a definite noun? If yes, can you cite an example of qualitative noun in the Bible that suggests of being a definite noun or even in the English grammar? Second, if the qualitative noun is not a definite noun then how come it is not an indefinite noun?

Let us go back with the sentence “He is gay.” Obviously, the word ‘gay” is a qualitative noun. This shows not definite for there is no one consider as “the Gay” who is distinct from among the gays and so it is indefinite (a gay) who belongs to the class of gays. Trinitarians might use the point I have discussed in the examples above (as to the model and to the princess) that qualitative here maybe also refer to a definite noun but clearly in these two examples they are not have the legitimate characteristics to be called as a true girl and a true princess. In relation to “THEOS” in John 1:1c, some Trinitarians as those who claim it is both qualitative and definite noun only based their belief on assumptions on the belief that Jesus is God (the Almighty) founded back in the Nicene Creed and Athanasian Creed without really understanding the real truth presented in the Bible. On the other hand the Jehovah’s Witnesses asserted they belief based on what the Scriptures states alongside with the logic of reasoning and understanding plus the evidence of the factual information written by the early people in the early history of Christianity.

Some Trinitarians (as I am not sure if all of them) believe that there are no other gods to be considered because they believe there is only one true God and all the other gods are false gods. True Christians (the JW) believes that there is only one true God (John 17:3) yet they believe that there are other called gods but never to be considered as false gods. Read Psalms 97:9; 136:2 and 1 Corinthians 8:5. Remember the word “Almighty God” would not be meaningful and worthy of the title itself unless there are called other gods. (Compare Psalms 135:5; Deuteronomy 10:17) Being Almighty God means being the most powerful God among the other gods.

So the word “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies it is qualitative and indefinite. Trinitarians can only say it is qualitative and definite only in a sense of assumption of the belief that the “Word” is also the Almighty God. Yet, when force by grammatical standard rules in Greek language and by the supporting verses that identifies Jesus as the Son of God, it does not cope with the truth that the “Word” is “a god” (indefinite identity) who belongs from among the other called gods. What does the Greek Scriptures portend grammatically? Because of vast examples of showing definite nouns with anarthrous article before the nouns itself, it thus shows that the Greek writers are really aware and applied the knowledge of identifying the definite and indefinite nouns. Now, is a NWT version a valid and truthful translation with regards to John 1:1? Really it is. To say that a person is “a god” is to say that he has qualities of being god. What is implicit in John 1:1c shows explicitly by the NWT translators. Therefore, the sentence “THEOS EN HO LOGOS” implies that the Word is a person who has divine qualities like of God.

The word “THEOS” in John 1:1c suggests explicitly of being qualitative but implicitly indefinite and the translation word “a god” for “THEOS” in John 1:1c implies explicitly that it is indefinite (i.e. he belongs from a class of gods) and implicitly shows qualitative (i.e. he has the qualities as of being a god). A vice-versa rule indeed!


(Note: This applies to some qualitative nouns and some indefinite nouns. But what matters here is that most qualitative nouns can be indefinite nouns. While not many indefinite nouns can be qualitative nouns.)

For a final example, let us consider these statements.

1.      “HE IS DEVIL.” (if however written in Greek)

Should we mean that he possesses the qualities of Devil and that he is the devil or that he is a devil that possesses the qualities of the Devil? This is another example in the Bible that does not have definite article and so in one verse it is translated as “a devil”. I have an explanation of like this in one of my blogs about John 1:1.

2.      “Enjoy the power of majesty.

Basically, majesty is a qualitative noun merely an abstract noun. We know that majesty is used for a high class of persons and this could be used for a king or god such as in the expression as “Your majesty”. Thus, the word “majesty” shows qualitative and that it shows also of being indefinite from among those called “majesty”.

Regarding Isaiah 45:5 and 44:8 and among others saying that there is no God other than Jehovah, this does not mean literally that there is no other gods apart from Jehovah since he himself told in many verses in the Bible that there are other gods just for example he said in Deuteronomy 10:17 which he said He is God of gods. Literally, he is God of gods (those who possess his nature of course i.e. love, wisdom, power and justice) and so it involves gods in heaven and on earth and this is true in 1 Corinthians 8:5 in relation to Psalms 82:6 and Psalms 8:5* [*see the word used in Interlinear which suggest of being godlike because of the root word which suggest of being god]. Therefore, when Jehovah said that there is no God other than him, it is not literally but lexically with deeper sense, he is implying that there is no one like him being identified as the only true God (John 17:3) i.e. no other gods can be equated to him for all those gods are just like dust to him though he give importance with those gods he created and belongs to him and for him. He is identifying himself as someone who is unique and is incomparable with the other gods. We must interpret the words of Jehovah not as we understood it in literal way but through its lexical force of meaning and beyond what we thought plainly but according to his thought and not by our own understanding.

Regarding Isaiah 44:24 and among other verses, it is true that Jehovah who is Almighty God claim that he alone stretches the heavens and made the earth yet this doesn’t mean Jesus Christ is not with him. Although he asked who is with him and said no god is beside him, which would sound that he is alone by that time and he is alone when he stretches the heavens and made the earth, this doesn’t mean of literal interpretation. What he is saying that subject by himself alone (i.e. through HIS AUTHORITY, POWER AND SPIRIT) all of the things in the universe were created because of himself alone. When I say, “I, by myself  built this good system of government.”, would it not mean that I may have used someone or others who have helped me to built the good system of government I have planned to have? Also in this statement, “I by myself created this movie.” Does it only limit to myself or rather it may mean that there are persons involved when I created the movie? It only means that subject to the original thought of the creator of the movie as well as being part of the creation of the movie, he gave his authority, power and direction to others to create the movie he wanted. Therefore, God as the Creator alone or as the one who created the universe by himself alone means lexically (beyond the shallow thought of the sentence and in order not to contradict with the other proofs about Jesus Christ as being also his partner in creating all things) that He is the only one from whom by himself his original thought and plans were executed and subject only by himself alone. Now we can understand that in the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures), Jehovah is proclaiming himself as the only one who has authority and power above all yet when he sent Jesus Christ to earth, he introduced him as someone he used to create all things in heaven and on earth (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17) thus giving Jesus Christ the authority, power and spirit but in accordance or subject with the will of God. His will in the New Testament (Christian Greek Scriptures) is to reveal his son to mankind as the Son of God and that his son is the appointed ruler of all things both in heaven and on earth (Hebrews 2:8; 1 Peter 3:22; 1 Corinthians 15:27 – 28). But before the book of Isaiah were written it was foretold earlier that the Wisdom (personification of Jesus Christ) was beside of God who is acting as the master worker of God – Proverbs 8:22, 23, 30 (Note: He was the beginning of the works of Jehovah and he was set up or established but the literal wisdom of God is something which is eternally possess by God as he existed eternally yet this Wisdom (Jesus Christ) was said to be set up or established thus it means he was brought up into existence i.e. from being inexistence into being existence. Some would say before the universe were set up or created there is no knowledge upon yet that is why God created or establish his wisdom in himself. Is the Wisdom really the wisdom of God as it is the nature of God? No, because the wisdom of God is in his mind and acting only as his instrument in understanding his will. However, this Wisdom was called to be at the side of God who is delighted with God and acting as someone who has wisdom in creating things (Proverbs 8:30). If I have knowledge about something and wanted to build something through it, could my wisdom create that thought in my mind into physical things? Certainly no. But rather in order to have the concrete product of my thought, I will use someone/something who/that will help me to concretize the wisdom I have in my mind and that the person I will use will have the likeness of wisdom I have thus we will be having the same idea and so we can create the things which I wanted to create. Finally, we should remember that it is not through the mind (as if the mind can produce and hold things together) of God that all things were created but rather it is through his spirit (compare Psalms 33:6 104:30; Job 33:4) everything were created and that all hold together. Yes, the mind is used by God in organizing his will but not in creating though he uses it of course but it is through his spirit which is the powerful force in the universe that he use to perform or execute his will including in creating things.

In the concept of JOHN 1:1 the word THEON is a definite being of which he is identified as an identity. From the word THEON/THEOS (definite) there would be class of theon/theos of which they are in the nature of the word THEON/THEOS but they are indefinite from the groupmates of theon/theos. They show the qualities of being THEOS/THEON but not of the same substance or composition of THE THEON/THEOS. So whether they are taken as a whole group (all the theos/theon) but considered everyone individually or as individual they are really indefinite from among the other members of the group and are not really the same with THE THEOS/THEON which is identified as a single entity. Therefore, even the word “law” without article denotes all the laws of THE LAW it does not convey of being THE LAW but it suggest of all the laws in the law taken individually which are indefinite from among all the other laws within The Law and have the nature or qualities of being called a law. Lastly, if the Set A is THE THEOS from whom he created the class of theos which are his subsets, then every theos he created are being indefinite from among the other theos (elements) that THEOS had created and are his elements but all the theos or every theos is not the set THE THEOS. To have an example suppose a box is set A and its element is a ball (b). The element which is ball cannot be Set A since they are really different in nature. But what it says here is that A contains b and that b cannot contain A since you cannot put the box on the ball.

I do not say that this topic is of high level of proving yet I hope it may help in giving a more concrete explanation about the subject core I have discussed.

Here is the link about the words of Colin which got me interested to tackle.


Yes, it is true that there are some instances in the Bible that speaks of God yet without article in Greek texts but how come the word “God” in John 1:1c should not mean definitely as the God but should determine only as “a god” that shows in the nature of the God?  The reasoning of Trinitarians in finding the many instances of word “God” without article in the Greek texts that suggest of being God himself is really shallow in thinking. Why? First, they do think that nouns without article is always definite which is not always true and with the other nouns (count nouns) without article can they say it can be a definite noun? Why for certain reason that those count nouns without article (except as identified explicitly by the context of the verse that the count noun is definite) is always indefinite? Why not use the same thought of being definite like of the word “God” without article without hesitantly doing it with the count nouns without article? The real thing is it cannot apply that thought of being definite since it is always identified that all the definite count nouns should have the definite article (the) except for those without article but clearly conveys of being definite because of the supporting context of a verse given. However, when speaking of the word “God”, whether there is an article present or absent before the word “God” if the context of the verse conveys of being the definite God then it has always no problem dealing with the word “God” as to be definite because it is really a requirement to do so that the rendering of the word “God” should be definite and not indefinite. If Trinitarians would insist in a way that “God” without article would show definite in many instances as it is acceptable even with those who believes only in one person God and would use this to back up the case in John 1:1c then why not by the same logic of reasoning use the same concept of definiteness with those nouns without article? The main point that always pointing by the Trinitarians is that God without article that refers to God is always definite and since they believe Jesus is God then he is God definitely. Even if we write in English translations the word THEON and THEOS of John 1:1 with the word “God” as it may be written as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word” [I put it in a literal transliteration of the original Greek], or in very transliterated way of the original root word of the Greek text as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and God was the Word”, should we say that the Word is [the] God? Even getting the meaning of it literally it cannot equate equivalently since the Word is towards with the God and so would mean that in the beginning the Word was coming closer with [the] God. How about “and God was the Word”? Since many Trinitarians misinterpreted the word “God” in John 1:1c which they refer to God (the Father) but others only as the qualities of the Father (the divinely being of the Father) then they say that “the Word is God” would mean as “the Word is Divine” (in which I agree also) or “what the God was, the Word was” (in which I do not agree which means having same substance). If we will put on a mapping the word that identifies the qualities of God as the divinely being of the Father in the original Greek text of clause c then we will have “the divinely being of the Father was the Word” but it cannot be and would never be the same as “the Divine Being was the Word” which shows sameness with “the God was the Word” or “what the God was the Word was.” Let us focus on the words “the divinely being of the Father was the Word”. The divinely being of the Father includes all the qualities and nature of the Father which composed of love, power, wisdom and justice and all these four major qualities of God is represented by the Word and not just as “what the Father was the Word was” which shows of same or equivalent substance. What it conveys here is that the full attributes or divine nature of the Father can be seen through the Word (compare Hebrews 1:3 and Colossians 1:15). Even in the Holy Scriptures these four major divine attributes of God which is love, wisdom, power and justice can be seen clearly from all the creation of God or of all the things he made or done – Romans 1:20. But the divine attributes of God is not limited unlike all the things he made or created. However, these works or creation [which are temporal in its qualities or in its own sense unlike with Jehovah] of Jehovah including Jesus as the Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22,23,30) shows the very attributes of the divinely being of the Father. Now, since the Father has divinely being of himself then he of course can be called as The Divine Being (identity). And since the Divine Being (the Father) has divinely being to himself and that his divinely being is represented by the Word or can be seen through the Word, then the Word is absolutely a divine being who has divinely being just like as of the Father. Thus, God who shows the qualities of being God himself is represented by Jesus who is also a god which shows the qualities of being God (Divine Being). In conclusion, the possible transliteration of the original Greek text of John 1:1 is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and the divinely being of God* was the Word.” But it is more acceptable and par of John 1:1c if this is translated as “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being divine was the Word.” And as I have explained above the possible parallel translation of these in its core meaning is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word is being divine” or “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a divine being [or a god].”

*The divinely being of God may show as the equivalent meaning of the qualitative noun “God” in John 1:1c of which the qualities of God can be seen through the Word or that it represents by the Word (see 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30) thus the Word has the qualities of God or of being divine or has godly nature and therefore can be called as a god who has also the nature of God.

Another good literal transliteration of John 1:1c is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards to [the] God, and being like God was the Word” or in a good translation in English we may have “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and being like God was the Word.” Therefore in proper English structure translation it would be “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was being like God.”

Let us focus on the third clause. The word “being like God” literally means of showing the qualities or nature of being God thus the Word was being like God in the beginning or in contractions it would definitely become as “the Word was like God.” In illustration if I say “the girl is like the princess” it means that the girl I am spoken about looks like the princess I am talking about. In other words, the girl shows her qualities of being a princess like of the princess (definite) I have mentioned and not the girl is being or becoming the princess. This means that the girl has the qualities of the princess but it does not conveys that all the exact and full nature of the princess is in her as like the identity of the princess was incarnated to her. The girl of being like a princess represents the whole being of the Princess but not really acting as the Princess or in other words the full nature of the Princess can be seen through her but not all the full nature of the Princess is also in her. She is only the representation or the manifestation of the princess i.e. the full qualities of the princess can be seen through her but her qualities are not the same or exact with the full attributes of the Princess. Therefore, the words “the Word is like God” simply shows that the Word shows the qualities like of [the] God and not that he is being God or the God and so in conclusion we can say that he is a god possessing the nature of God.

Thus the translation “The Word is Divine” only means that the Word is being divine and that he is a divine being but not as he is the Divine Being [the Father] (Compare Philippians 2:6).

What about the terms “It is in him that all the fullness of “THEOTES” dwells bodily” (Colossians 2:9)

THEOTES could have a meaning of a Diety, God, being God, divine nature/qualities

If we would write the words as “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily.”

And since the Diety means Godhead then Trinitarians insist that the Diety which is the Godhead [God] is also Jesus.

Again, as I have explained in the previous above the divinely being of the Father (i.e.) his full nature of being God can be seen through Jesus or represents by Jesus. Thus, even it may mean as all the fullness of God resides in Jesus this does not mean that Jesus is also God. What the real context mean is that all the divine nature of God can be seen bodily or physically (i.e. by the naked eyes of man and by perceiving the wonders of works of God) through Jesus or that all the divine nature of God represents by Jesus since Jesus is the exact representation of the Father (Hebrews 1:3) and the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and that through him ALL THINGS were created (1 Colossians 1:16 – 17, Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3) which of course literally shows the full divine attributes of the Father. Like I have said about the girl who is like a princess, the girl never exists as the incarnated identity of the princess. The same thought can be seen between God and the Word. The Word never exists as the incarnated identity of God. To have a clear concrete illustration, let us say “Denver is the exact image of his father Billy.” or “Denver is the exact representation of his Father Billy.” Even you get the DNA analysis of Denver it would never be the same as unique as the DNA of the father Billy! To point one of the uniqueness of each other is their fingerprints. Clearly as asserted by Science no one in the world have the same fingerprint! What about the other qualities like the level of their IQ (wisdom), their inner personalities (emotional IQ), their physical image and strengths (power), the marks on their body, their ways of their thinking (judgment), their likes and interest, etc. Thus, even Denver is the exact image of the father Billy then it must not to conclude that Denver is the Father Billy. Thus, the sentence could only mean as “Denver has qualities like of his Father Billy.” The only acceptable and undeniable truth if Jesus is God (the Father) is that there would be words written as “and God became the Word” or “and God became Jesus” or “and God became the Son” however, no text or even single hint in all the Scriptures that gives this plain understanding.

Thus, the words “It is in him that all the fullness of the Diety dwells bodily” would only mean as “It is in him that all the full divine qualities (or nature) [of God] dwells bodily.”

See this in depth study about Colossians 2:9 in this link: (

Here are the examples of words that are of the same structure as of divinely being:

powerful being, merciful being, godly being, friendly being, loyal being, almighty being, cheerful being, crazy being, etc.