by AuldSoul 32 Replies latest watchtower bible
VG:Setting aside the Trinity, for a moment, do you see that some of the bible writers were claiming that Jesus was "Divine"? By equating him with the God of the OT they are elevatnig him above being a mere man or angel.
The Trinity argument is a mental stopper that the WTS uses to avert us from making the connections about Deity which are clear and which some of the bible writers are categoric about.
What amuses me is how few Witnesses, including elders, even realize that this was done to the NWT. I have asserted this fact on a couple of occasions and been questioned on it by elders, at which point I direct them to the Divine Name brochure which freely admits this practice.
The only time we had to answer to elders for our "actions", back in 1997, one of the elders asked if it was true that I had told our niece (another JW) that the Divine Name was not in the original copies of the Greek scriptures. I said it was true and yes I did tell her that, so he started to correct me, and I told him it was in the Divine Name brochure and that's where I got the information. The other elder told him I was correct and they dropped that subject.
I was really surprised they didn't know it. It was one of those things that I had known for so many years, I couldn't remember not knowing it. But I was one who actually read the publications.
The point is that the New Testament is Christ centred we have in centre place a church whose direct head is the Christ whereas Jehovah moves more to the periphery.
The JWs want to carry on the Jehovah centred picture of the old testament and that's why they introduce Yahveh's name in the New Testament when there is none.
The Trinity argument is a mental stopper that the WTS uses to avert us from making the connections about Deity which are clear and which some of the bible writers are categoric about.
I agree with LittleToe, Van Gogh. If you are asking about the nature of the divine, the nature of deity, or the nature of Christ then the Bible is pretty plain spoken.
But if you are asking about the Trinity, it requires understanding of what the Bible teaches about other concepts first. Several basic misconceptions held by most JWs are very difficult to overcome. In this case, the starting point would be how the Bible portrays Jesus relative to OT texts.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
It is worth noting that prior to post-exilic monotheism, Yahweh was originally construed as the divine king of Israel, the patron god of the nation, but who ruled at the consent of El-Elyon as one of the "sons of Elyon". Each nation had their own god and Yahweh jealously insisted that the Israelites worship him rather than the gods of other nations. This parallels the role of Baal in Canaanite religion (Baal was the adopted son of El, who ruled at his consent), and Baal -- particularly the reintroduced Baal from Phoenicia/Syria -- was the main competitor of Yahweh in the popular cult. The storm theophanic language applied to both Yahweh and Baal was the same -- they rode the clouds as their chariot, with the winds (= cheribim, who were personified winds) as the chariot's wheels, they spoke through thunder, their arrows were the lightnings, and they both battled the chaotic powers of the Sea (e.g. Leviathan/Lotan). So in this older cult, Yahweh was not the highest god -- he was a son of Elyon. But eventually, Yahweh became identified with El and thus language pertaining to El also later came to be applied to this god. In some quarters, this identification gave Yahweh a consort Asherah (who was El's wife in Canaanite myth). In other quarters, Asherah became assimilated to Yahweh as a hypostasis (e.g. as Yahweh's face, presence, as his wisdom, etc.).
But in the post-exilic period, only one god was permitted in the nascent monotheism....thus all the other "sons of Elyon" became demoted to angels or "princes of the nations" (as in Daniel), and the name "Yahweh" itself was discaded as too limiting and anthropocentric for the only true God...and meanwhile God was perceived as more and more remote on account his his insurpassible glory and greatness, which necessitated a greater reliance on angelic intercession (hence, angels are the ones who provide revelation in Tobit and Daniel, not God). Yet the memory of the kingly god ruling at the consent of the aged creator god did not die, for Daniel employs this time-honored mytheme in ch. 7 by describing a heavenly merkebah vision of the Ancient of Days (= El) who delegates royal authority on the "one like a son of man" (= Yahweh), and thus the original language used for El and Baal/Yahweh are applied to these figures...El was the aged "father of years," Baal/Yahweh was the "rider of the clouds"...here the father figure is the "ancient of days" and the "one like a son of man" "walks on the clouds". So the older relationship between deities has been recast in a new form consistent with monotheism.
Then Christianity arose, it drew on these traditions directly. Jesus was identified with the "one like a son of man" who ultimately rests on a Baal/Yahweh figure. The Father-Son relationship of Jesus and God, and Jesus' role as the "king" of the Jews and the ruler of "the kingdom of God" also reflects the older mythological ideas. And so OT texts that referred to Yahweh were ripe for the picking, and the employment of kurios in the LXX also facilitated the application of Yahwistic OT passges to Jesus, as a secondary figure like the "one like a son of man" in Daniel.
Van Gogh,
Many OT passages using the Divine Name are quoted in the NT as referring to Jesus (and wrongly translated back to “Jehovah” in the NWT). Is this further proof for some sort of Trinity, i.e. Yahweh the Father/Jesus the Son/Holy Spirit? Or are Yahweh and Jesus the same as opposed to The Father within such Trinity, i.e. The Father/Jesus the Son-Yahweh/Holy Spirit?
That's a very interesting question, but I don't think we can gather a clear answer from the New Testament, because the writers apparently never asked this question themselves.
Still, it is quite noteworthy that Paul's use of kurios (the default substitute for Yhwh in the Greek OT) applies to the Son, not the Father. And that the Christological "I am" in John (which refers to the identical absolute use of "I am" by Yhwh in the Greek version of Deutero-Isaiah, rather than the interpretation of the name Yhwh in Exodus 3) is also applied to the Son rather than the Father.
Another important fact is that 2nd-century Gnosticism, which is a heir of both Paul and John, generally maintains positive reference to the name Yhwh as revelation of the "true divine" or supra-divine while it rejects the OT God as a fake god. The "orthodox" reaction to Gnosticism strongly identified the Father to the OT God, barring an exclusive identification of Yhwh with Jesus (and not the Father) from subsequent theology.
Stepping back to the broader perspective of religious history, it may well be that the incipient NT christology was an unconscious resurgence of the ancient Israelite pattern (still perceptible in many texts of the OT, and thus active) where Yhwh was not the highest god (which was El) but the closest one.
Just wanted to thank those who afforded me/us the opportunity to freely tap into their knowledge banks, sharing their awesome grasp of the subject matter. What would this board be without you all? As the Divine plot thickens, I cannot but still hope LT's less analytical approach as to the true nature and identity of the Divine will ultimately prove to have more merit than humanity could ever have hoped for.
VG
(Sorry for highjacking the last stretch of your thread Auld)
Leo:Taking the historic elevating of Yahweh, in the ancient pantheon, further; denoting him the only son completes the loop.
GD:I concur. Christ's Deity is one of the key lessons that the NT writers attempt to get across. It's not surprising really, since this would have been the main thing that was under attack from their detractors.
Questions aren't usually addressed until they are actually asked, which is usually when a position is attacked. To expect the NT writers to have it all thought through from the start is a tad unfair. Experience tells us that life simply doesn't work like that.
Ross,
Christ's Deity is one of the key lessons that the NT writers attempt to get across.
I would question that. It is certainly true of the Johannine literature and Colossians; of Mark and the authentic Pauline epistles to a lesser extent (the "Son of God" is not "God"). But Matthew, Luke, James or Revelation appear to have completely different interests imo.
Didier:I phrased it careful, though I could have generalised a little less regarding the corpus
Not only is it not the only key lesson, for a number of the writers it doesn't even take prime importance in their message. When it comes to the early apologetics it does appear as a major theme, however.
Maybe this brief exchange is a case in point for Gumby's "Early Fathers" thread. We are all making genuine comments, here, and yet there are nuances that if left uncontested could colour a later reading.
