Did Jesus worship a God?

[RabbiKnife]

Exactly.  Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God.

Of course the Jews struggled with it, just as the Jehovah's Witness struggles with it, just as even evangelical Christian struggles with it.

Struggling with a concept doesn't make the concept incorrect.  There is, however, no other explanation that satisfies all of Scripture.

Let me ask an easier question.

On what basis are people saved from their sin so that they do not have to suffer the wrath of God?

[theMadJW]

JWs and I have no problem understanding the term.
I fyou accept  Christ as the Messiah- your "sins are forgiven".

[RabbiKnife]

JWs and I have no problem understanding the term.
I fyou accept  Christ as the Messiah- your "sins are forgiven".

OK.

And exactly what does that mean?  I know a bunch of folks that can quote bumper stickers but have no idea what they mean.

What does it mean for one's sins to be forgiven, and why is that important?
Further, (a) who forgives one's sins and (b) based on what? 

What payment satisfies God's righteous wrath against my sins?

[theMadJW]

Nice Diversion!
Make a Topic about it.

[Athanasius]

Why do you quote Greek?
To show onlookers how SMART you are?

Knowledge of Greek is required for proper exegesis, that's just bible study 101. Importantly, it lets us read Jesus' words in the language He spoke them.

Anyway, you cast the following allegation in another thread:

That why I call you people "churcoids"- for you listen to you Clergy rather than Jesus- whose words you probably haven't READ!

Well, I have read the words of Jesus and quoted them to you (as did RK). I don't take kindly too gaslighting, though.

But you need to re-phrase all the words of Christ to show a 'Trinity'.

We do not, and I would offer that trinitarian doctrine was millennia ahead of itself in positing an ontology of the godhead that wasn't limited to the confines of our present reality. You know, because a being who isn't native to our very reality just might not be explicable by our present reality. A bit like trying to describe a 4th-dimensional object in 3 dimensions. We just can't quite get there.

But you're free to disagree and present your case (in your own words, like, without the horribly misinformed YT videos). If you don't mind let's stick to the Greek because we'll only end up submerged in it anyway.

[theMadJW]

I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people. 
I was once one who BELIEVED then.

Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!

[RabbiKnife]

Nice Diversion!
Make a Topic about it.

No diversion.  Central to this discussion.

And your response is?

[Athanasius]

I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people. 
I was once one who BELIEVED then.

Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!

Yes, those tricky hobbits...

Alright, you may proceed. In your own words.

[theMadJW]

Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!

[RabbiKnife]

I familiar with the Greek tricks that Theologians use to fool people. 
I was once one who BELIEVED then.

Lets take one of your examples, and go from there!

OK, already out there.   And it's not a "Greek trick."  It's just good old fashioned scholarship, whether dealing with the Gospel of John or with any other ancient Greek text.

How to you square the inconsistent application of the definite article/indefinite article in John 1:1?  Why the difference in the translation of "beginning" to include a definite article when one is not present in the text, but the insistence that "the" is not proper before Theos?

Here's the reason.   It has to do with Greek grammar and syntax, and when a noun is used with a linking verb, the article is simply left out and we capitalize "God" instead of saying "the God."

This is why the Greek is important, not just relying on one aberrant translation that no Greek scholar agrees with.

[theMadJW]

I was talking to Athanasius.

All you have is church dogma , and you ignore Jesus' words!

[Athanasius]

I was talking to Athanasius.

All you have is church dogma , and you ignore Jesus' words!

Dude I'm called Athanasius for crying out loud. Let us defer to RK:

---

OK, already out there.   And it's not a "Greek trick."  It's just good old fashioned scholarship, whether dealing with the Gospel of John or with any other ancient Greek text.

How to you square the inconsistent application of the definite article/indefinite article in John 1:1?  Why the difference in the translation of "beginning" to include a definite article when one is not present in the text, but the insistence that "the" is not proper before Theos?

Here's the reason.   It has to do with Greek grammar and syntax, and when a noun is used with a linking verb, the article is simply left out and we capitalize "God" instead of saying "the God."

This is why the Greek is important, not just relying on one aberrant translation that no Greek scholar agrees with.

[theMadJW]

John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)

How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)

[RabbiKnife]

It's actually axiomatic.

The Word/Logos/Jesus was in the beginning.  Sort of self-explanatory -- also demonstrates the eternality of Jesus
The Word/Logos/Jesus was with God.  Demonstrates separateness of Jesus the Son from the persons of God the Father and God the Spirit.
The Word/Logos/Jesus was God.  Demonstrates the unity of the Godhead, showing that Jesus is a co-equal in the Godhead.

Not too tough, really.

But again, doctrine is not made of one verse in isolation, but from all of Scripture taken together.

[Athanasius]

John 1:1- In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, (the Trinity- 3 Beings)
and the Word was God.(the Trinity- 3 Beings)

How do YOU explain this?
(We all know the Word was in reference to God's son, don't we?)

In addition to what RK noted, I'll add that:

- It's unclear what you're actually asking, and thus looking for.
- You're (still) confused over what the doctrine of the trinity teaches, which is not "3 Beings".