What did Raymond Franz believe after his exit? (page 3)

GOrwell

Sort of off-topic, but for those x-jw's (Like Raymond Franz, and others in this thread) who believe in the deity/divinity of Jesus, but not the Trinity, how do you reconcile there still only being one God?

binadub

Blondie / Mouthy:

I get confused when someone brings up a thread that was started years ago. I blindly seem to think everything on the first two or three pages is recent. I have been wondering who brings those threads from years ago to the fore.

Anyway, I'm glad you cleared that up for me before I posted Frank and said something about it. He would be wondering, too.

Another thing that just happened after my previous reply here, an amazing coincidence. Another thread about Ray Franz from Terry caught my eye. Just as I started to read it, Cynthia called me. I told her what I was reading and she asked if I would send her the words. I'll copy it to Dan and have him give it to her.

Thanks and blessings,
~Binadub (aka Ros)

binadub

GOrwell:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,--1Tim.2:5

In the analogy I used about the British monarchy (if you read that--it was a pretty long post), the "monarch" was supposed to be equated with "God".
In Great Britain royalty, there is one monarch, like there is one God. The monarch has a son who may inherit the throne, at which time he will become the monarch.

God is the Father. In the OT, He was also referred to as "King". Jesus has been referred to as the "Prince". The prince became king when his father appointed (glorified) him. That's how I reconcile it.

My question is: How do Trinitarians reconcile there being only one God if, as they now claim, the three are not one as the WT claimed the doctrine, but three in one?

But like others, I don't regard it as a salvation issue and I have wonderful friends who are Trinitarian.

~Binadub

GOrwell

I'm not a trinitarian, but this is a pretty good non-trininatrian (but long) treatise on the Father-Son relationship, found from the xjw.com site. However, the author doesn't go so far as to identify who he thinks Jesus is. He says that he has the nature of God etc, but differentiates him completely from the Almighty/Father. Of course, for Jesus to have the nature of God, even post resurrection, goes against the whole of the Hebrew scriptures, where only Almighty God is God, and no one is like him, in any sense. The OT YHWH is a jealous God who doesn't share honour, glory or worship. Yet, along comes the Son, and that dynamic changes completely.

http://www.christianrespondent.com/pubs/Father-Son.pdf

Chariklo

My question is: How do Trinitarians reconcile there being only one God if, as they now claim, the three are not one as the WT claimed the doctrine, but three in one?

Binadub, this is just a quick, off-the-cuff answer from my own knowledge but without checking anything.

"Christendom" as JW's seem to call the rest of the churches, use the term Godhead which I don't think I've encountered during my time with the WT. It's maybe a bit old-fashioned, possibly going out of common usage, but basically it encapsulates the concept of "Godness", "God-substance". Thus, the Nicene Creed says of the Son "being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made". (Well, the translation has changed since I went to Mass, and it now says "one in Being with the Father", I just checked.)

I was taught, and have always believed, that that substance, the Being shared by both, is the Godhead.

I think your analogy of the monarchy is helpful in a way. I haven't met that before. Again, and this is just thinking as I type, there is the "substance" of royal-ness. The analogy begins to get a bit weak here, because of course royalty, or royal blood, can be diluted, but just to go with it for the time being.

When I wrote my last post in this thread, I was really just analysing how it was that I, as just one person, a very active and hitherto "devout" Catholic, came to become to all intents and purposes part of a JW congregation. (I was never baptised, but was a zealous unbaptised publisher. Events brought subsequent misgivings and baptism was postponed. The elders told me I was very much part of the congregation, and treated me as such.) I was able to accept the WT definition of God and even that it was possible that Jesus might after all be one and the same as Michael, though I was never comfortable in any way with that teaching and never found it proved or probable, merely possible. I was, though, certain that there is one God.

You say "three in one", and I'd say cautiously, ye-e-s, but also "one in three". Non-JW Christians see God as three-in-one and one-in-three together as a whole concept. You probably wouldn't find that very often on a doorstep, because unlike JW's, who are constantly educated in their own doctrines, most members of other churches do not know their own doctrines in any depth at all. I just happen to, because that is my nature and the way my life has gone.

Does that throw any light, Binadub, or just cloud the waters more?

Best I can do first thing in the morning. I am well aware of the teachings of both sides of this, but have no idea at the minute how I resolve these teachings, either for myself or anyone else.

moshe

I too met Ray in person a couple times at his home. We had some nice discussions and shared some letters, but it was hard to pin him down on his beliefs. I think he wanted each person to decide for themselves what religion meant to them, without his interferance. Yes, he was humble to the extent that he avoided an open personal conflict with the WT leadership, instead he fought with his books.

binadub

GOrwell:
In the OT there was only one God. After Pentecost, I think it depends on how you define "God". Is it a title (as in monarch), or is it a being? If it is a being, then is Satan a God? Satan was the "God of this world," now Christ is. (That's my view.)
Chariklo:
Thanks for your thoughts. I know from years (decades) of Trinitarian debates ad infinitum ad nauseum on these forums, that the Trinity doctrine does make sense to Trinitarians, but the reasoning escapes me. I generally do not debate, as I don't most controversial doctrines, even with JWs, but I might only suggest that the term "one Godhead" is not scriptural to my recollection and does not help the logic. I agree that Christ having been Michael is only a possibility, but are you aware of the scriptures and reasoning that lends to that possibility. It is not a concept unique to JWs. The reasoning is that in the first prophecy, Genesis 3:15, it is the offspring of the woman who will strike the blow to the head of the serpant. The name "Michael" means "like God." •Dan.10:20-21 identifies Michael as the "prince" of the Israelites.
•Prophecy: "And at that time shallMichaelstand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book"--Dan.12:1
•Prophecy:"Because the Lord Himself shall come down from Heaven with a commanding shout of an archangel's voice, and with God's trumpet. And the dead in Christ will rise again first. Thessalonians 4:16
•Prophecy:"And there was war in heaven:Michaeland his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.--Rev.12:7-10
So the possibility, though not definite, is at least plausible. Here's a NonJW Web article on the subject if you might be interested: http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/michael.htm
moshe:
Ray did not want people to look to him as a leader of any movement--which a lot of people tried to get him to do. He could have. He was very careful not to give that impression and did not want people to depend on him for an alternative religion. It is as you said (in the bold). Thanks.
~Binadub

slimboyfat

What Ray Franz believed after he left is well documented in his books. But what did Cynthia believe? That's a more interesting question. Years ago Heinz Schmidt spread rumours that Cynthia never wanted to leave the organisation and wrote letters to the Society asking for them to be allowed back. Probably not true, but there is something of a silence in Ray's books when it comes to what Cynthia's view of events was.

Lozhasleft

Interesting thread. In line with your thought Binadub, Hebrews 1v2 calls Jesus the " HEIR of all things" which clarifies his position, just as you said.

Loz x

GOrwell

Having both the nature of God (Jesus is a exact copy/representation/image of God) and the title/position of God (Jesus) is different than Satan simply having the title of God, but not the nature, or rightfully receiving/sharing the worship/glory/honour. That PDF on the Father/Son Relationship admits that Jesus has the nature of God and the title of God, but can't admit to worshipping two beings that share the nature of God. I mean, if you're a polytheist, that's fine. Just come out and admit it :)

I can't see Jesus being Michael. Heb 2:5 says that God didn't subject these things to an angel, but only to his Son.

What did Raymond Franz believe after his exit?

Share this