Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Is Jesus God Or 'a' God?

On The Road To Full-Time Ministry ❗️❗️

~~IF YOU WANT TO CONNECT~~

~~IF YOU WANT TO SUPPORT~~
CashApp: $Hasani20

[nikostheater]

I am Greek, from Greece and I have to admit that this video is VERY informative and absolutely accurate. Excellent work.

[mramrb-kudu]

Please never stop defending our religion, I was almost lead astray by a lot of misconceptions and people like you have guided and protected me. You are not just converting nonbelievers you are also helping those who are lost and have doubts.

[AlexanderBTorres]

This makes me want to learn Greek even more.

[sofakritic]

This guy has the best smile in chritsian apologetics team. Shine for Christ bro. All people need Jesus more then anything or anyone.

[ChristNotReligion]

It is an excellent tease for Christians to learn a little bit of Greek; it pays off dividends, well done TheBlackDoctor and GodLogic.

[GodsRighteousFire]

Your whole team is amazing. Learned so much from just this! Bible from Olive Tree is an amazing resource, I started using it when I saw this video. Just the side by side bible thing is so convenient and lists references for you. I always knew TheBlackDoctor is knowledgeable but not to this extent. What an absolute mega-mind that we are blessed to have! All Glory to Jesus Christ!

[switchvideo]

Sorry but the guy who is trying to undermine the New World translation is being a bit dishonest if he as he claims, understands the Koine Greek. It is true that when talking bout the God who Jesus is WITH does have the definite article (the word "THE") in front of "God" But when it refers to Jesus as "god" or Godlike it does NOT definite article in front of the word "god" Now in Koine Greek there is NO indefinite article, that is the word "A" however the context and the fact that John uses Theos in connection with Jesus and "Ho-theos" in connection with his father Jehovah shows that John was not identifying WHO the word was but rather WHAT the word was!

[christopherleewilliams]

I love the “was” in the imperfect active indicative because it means that the Word existed past continuously, that He always existed, that there was NEVER a time that He didn’t exist. It points to His eternal existence even before we get to the 3rd clause, THEN Apostle John repeats it 3 TIMES!!!

The Word ALWAYS EXISTED in the beginning, the Word ALWAYS EXISTED with God (the Father), and the Word ALWAYS EXISTED as God (by nature/essence)! WOW!😍

[padgatavitielnam]

I'm a Greek student and feel blessed to be here today. You know, you use the same Bible software as me, The Olive Tree. As the Apostle Paul would say, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. It's such a powerful tool. One cannot be a strong apologist or defend their faith without understanding the Greek and Hebrew Bible. I pray that I become fluent in Greek within a year, like 'The Black Doctor'.

[jamesswapon]

Every day we/i am praying for your seafty, secquarity and provition to get power of Jesus' Holy Spirit to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[jimjuri]

One thing is obvious from all these exercises. In order to make Jesus into God, John 1:1 comes to the rescue like the last straw. But it needs a little tweaking of the grammar.
The very one who wrote John 1:1 wrote a little further.

(John 1:34) And I have seen it, and I have given witness that this one is the SON OF GOD.


Obviously John never meant that Jesus himself was the very God he was WITH at a point in time. An illogical statement anyway.
Jesus was a god. Which means a mighty being, an angel. After God exalted Jesus in position (Philippians 2:9), Jesus became and is now a 'mighty god' (Isaiah 9:6).

[dangdutirama]

These are some of the questions from John 1:1 that Godlogic failed to address:
1. How can god have a beginning?
2. When the word was with god, does that imply that there were only 2 gods at the beginning? Where was the 3rd god?
3. The word become flesh. The bible says god does not change his nature. But now the word has turned into flesh. So how this is not a contradiction.
4. GodLogic admitted that there is corruption in the biblical text. So how could he based his discussion and faith on a corrupted book.

GodLogic, please answer.

[MrKappaKappaPsi]

Praise God for the excellent teaching.

[jerrilynncarminati]

Love this breakdown Doctor! Keep contending for the faith Gents!

[airkami]

Thanks for sharing. Y'all are very educational!

[inkyfingers]

This was great! Learning so much from you and TheBlackDoctor!

[awathompson]

Great job with the Greek, when I took Greek 40 years ago I was told that the answer was the Grandville Sharp rule. Again, great job.

[xmuzic]

This breakdown is awesome. Thank you brothers. Bless 🙏🏽

[aksk]

The very trinitarian NET bible admits the following in its footnote to John1:1
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.
So from the above we find Trinitarian SCHOLARS admiting that ("a god") is a LEGITIMATE way of translating John 1:1
The NET bible continues
Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c
Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons.
So the NET bible Scholars agree with the Doctor in this video in that John 1:1 is DESCRIPTIVE of what the Word was (divine, essence, nature, kind )
To help understanding compare
In the beginning was Eve, Eve was With THE HUMAN (Adam), and Eve was Human.
In the beginning was Eve, Eve was With THE HUMAN (Adam), and Eve was a Human.
Both these renderings describe what Eve was (qualitative), but it is clear Eve was not Adam "The human". John 1:1 shows the Word has Gods nature but is not "The God"
Jehovahs witnesses position is misrepresented in this video because Colewells rule, Moffat and other renderings are discussed in their literature and they are fully aware of the other possible readings.

[candyandy]

I cool as this is, nothing is more time valueble as when I read my Holy Bible. God