The Duality -- The Father and The Son

by UnDisfellowshipped 218 Replies latest watchtower bible

fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
But, you implied that because Jesus has human companions, he was only equal to men and not greater, and now, you are arguing against the very reasoning that you tried to use against the Trinity earlier.
Again I have to say that I don't follow your reasoning. Your argument, not mine, is that Jesus is God because he is God's companion. My argument is you are wrong. Having God as a companion does not make someone God, any more than being God's friend made Abraham God.
More and more I can understand why you accept the Trinity doctrine. I feel bad in telling you, but you have an awful habit of reading things into the Bible that are just not there. Ordinary people would not take the position you do with regard to "companion" or "associate." If the word was "equal," it would be another story. But you are so intent on seeing "equal" where the text says "companion," that you are deriving something in the text that is not there. It seems you wish with all your heart that it was there, but I have to tell you, it just isn't.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
I am posting this just to get some other people's viewpoints on Zechariah 13:7. I am not saying this commentary is definitely correct, as I haven't yet researched the verse enough. But here is one interesting observation:
There you go again, running to your version of The Watchtower. You will notice there is a very big difference between the way you approach the Bible and the way that I do.
If you will put your "Watchtower" aside and actually read the Bible itself, you will find that your "Watchtower" is very much in error, I'm sorry to say. In fact, as you read the from the Commentary, you will notice this admission:

as Grotius, Umbr., Ebrard, Ewald, Hitzig, and others suppose

This shows that at least 5 scholars disagree with the conclusion of the Commentary and they agree with what I said about the shepherd being an evil one.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
If Jesus had human associates, companions or partners, does that mean Jesus was only equal to humans and no greater? See, you really cannot use that argument against the Trinity.
Can't you see how nonsensical your argument is here? You have human associates. I have human associates. Nearly everyone on earth has human associates. What does that prove?
Dogs have human associates. Cats have human associates. Birds have human associates. What does it prove?
Would you argue that dogs are human because they have human associates? Then why argue that someone is God simply because he has God as an associate?
As I mentioned above Abraham had God as his lover, according to the Hebrew text. And vice versa. Was Abraham actually God because of that relationship? If not, why are you making a big issue over a word that has less significance than "lover"?
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
The Bible teaches that while Jesus was on earth, He was God and Man. John 1:1 says that the Logos was God. Then God the Logos became flesh (John 1:14). Now, if God becomes flesh, how could God possibly stop being God? He can't! God can't stop being God.
Again I have to tell you that you are reading things into the Bible that are just not there. There is not a verse in the Bible that spells out your belief that Jesus was God and man on earth. Yes, Jesus was God in the secondary sense, just as his ancestors were -- those ancestors who were appointed and anointed by God. Hebrews chapter 1 makes it very clear that just as they were appointed and anointed, so was Jesus. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Jesus was God by nature. If Jesus was God by nature, then so are all Christians, in view of 2 Peter 1:4 and several other texts.
I believe you have jumped to the wrong conclusions in your interpretation of John 1:1, 14. Since I know how strongly you feel about those verses, I'm not going to get into a discussion of them here. It would take another thread that would likely last as long as this one has.
I sometimes wonder if people are in their right minds when they speak of God as coming down here to our ultra small planet. Solomon acknowledged that the heavens of the heavens cannot contain God, but Trinitarians ignore that part of the Bible as if it doesn't exist. God is so awesome that none of us can imagine his magnificent greatness. It is dishonoring to God to suggest that he is puny enough to place his foot upon this planet defiled by mankind's sin. There is no scripture that says God himself came down here. But we are told that he sent his Son into the world. We are also told that God dwells among men, but we are told that he does that by his spirit, not by abandoning his universal throne and personally walking by our side. Angels may do that, but God is far too awesome.
I can imagine you will argue against that point of view as well. I think you will do it because I suspect you have never read the Bible from cover to cover. I'm not saying that to be insulting. I'm saying it because of things you say about the Bible and about what is in it. Again, I want to emphasize, Undisfellowshiped, I'm not saying it to be insulting. It's just that something exudes from you that impresses me as coming from someone who is a novice in handling the Bible. You will probably tell me you have read the Bible cover-to-cover. You may even tell me you've done it several times. I will confess that I cannot believe it. If you have, I cannot help but wonder how you have forgotten so much. At any rate, I really doubt we would be having this kind of discussion if you were actually quoting ideas and thoughts from the Bible as they actually occur there. You have impressed me as being very different from 99% of the people with whom I've had Bible discussions throughout my life.
I would highly recommend that you read the Bible through at least once before attempting to teach others what it says. There is a dire warning to all of us in James 3:1: "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment." We could find ourselves among those described in 1 Timothy 1:7 who wanted to be teachers, "even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions."
I'm not saying this applies only to you. It applies to me as well. If you continue to teach the Trinity, and it turns out to be false doctrine in the eyes of God, you will have a lot to answer for. And if I'm teaching wrong by saying only the Father is God by nature, I will have much required of me in "stricter judgment," as James wrote above.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
I encourage you to post the hardest, toughest questions you can possibly think of about the Trinity, and I will study the Scriptures and pray to God, and I will post my replies (as I have the time).
I really hope you mean that. I've already submitted so many questions that you haven't touched yet. What, for example, is your answer to the question about the way God speaks of himself thousands of times in the Scriptures?
I've been wondering why you have ignored that question for so long.
God NEVER speaks of himself as "us" or "we" or "our". He ALWAYS says "I" and "me" and "myself." How do you explain that if he is speaking for THREE persons?
In another thread you used to argue that God said "us" in Genesis. But that was only three times compared with the THOUSANDS of times where he speaks as a singular person. In those three instances he was speaking to others as the context shows, but Trinitarians make a big issue over those three verses in Genesis. Why don't you say something about those thousands of other verses that I mentioned?
And God isn't the only one to speak of himself in the singular. All through both the Old and New Testaments, his worshipers speak of him as "he" and "his" and "himself." Jesus spoke the same way, not only of the Father, but in every instance where he mentioned the word "God" or "the Majesty."
There are many other questions I've raised. I wait with eagerness to see how you deal with them.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
First of all, Christians, Trinitarian or otherwise, should not be making pictures of God or the Divine Being. The Bible forbids that. So, the Trinitarians who did that in the past were sinning by doing that. So are Unitarians or anyone else who makes an image of God.
Now that the paintings and sculptures have been made, they speak volumes about how Trinitarians think of God. If church leaders have condoned such artwork, and they most certainly have, they are telling the artists they have the right idea. To paint God with three faces is only natural if that is the impression people get from sermons on the Trinity. I agree that pictures of God should not be attempted, but I see nothing wrong with depicting the Trinity since the Trinity is a false non-biblical god.
By the way, how do you feel about pictures of Jesus? If Jesus is God, do you think it's okay to produce books about Jesus with pictures of him? What about movies with Jesus in them? If Jesus is God, and it's wrong to make pictures of God, don't you think it's wrong for Christians to read such books and go to such movies?
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
Just because Jesus is anointed by The Father, that proves that He must be an inferior, lesser god?? I don't agree with that at all. In fact, as I said above in another post, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus was anointed above His companions when He was made, for a little while, lower than the angels as a Man on earth.
Aren't you mocking an arrangement set up by God himself? Are you suggesting that anointings were merely for show, and that they had no value?
There is no getting away from the fact that Jesus was anointed. The very title Christ means anointed, emphasizing that his very existence advertised God's anointing of him for special service. Additionally, he was appointed. He was ineligible for God's service in a special capacity unless he was both anointed and appointed. So I think you are making a big mistake by suggesting, contrary to Hebrews chapter 1, that the anointing of Jesus had no meaning.
And the meaning is this: He was called out by God just as other men were. He was commissioned by God just as other men were. The only difference between him and them is that he was God's own Son by birth. All others anointed by God were descendants of Adam, but Jesus was born without sin and had God himself as his genetic Father.
Frank
fjtoth

Undisfellowshiped,
You wrote:
Trinitarians say that the Shepherd of Zechariah 13:7 is "God" because Psalm 45:6, as well as the New Testament, says He is God.
That is not true. You have been arguing that Jesus is God in Zechariah 13:7 because he is called God's "companion" or "associate." Don't try to change your story.
Additionally, there are several Trinitarian commentaries that try to do the same thing you have done. They try to show that "companion" means "equal." As I've shown, it does not mean equal. There are only ten uses of the Hebrew word in the entire Bible, and that word is not used for any special relationship such as for a wife or very close friend. It simply means, so to speak, "that guy that lives down the street or next door." He is not someone special but merely an acquaintance. This is where you and I differ. You trust any Trinitarian commentary that comes along. I believe you trust them more than you trust the Bible itself. I am almost certain that is the reason you accept the Trinity doctrine, a doctrine that was not believed in throughout the entire Bible period. It was a doctrine brought into the so-called Christian church long after the apostles had died. It is a doctrine warned against in 1 John 4:1-3:
My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the Enemy of Christ; you heard that it would come, and now it is here in the world already.
The teaching of the Trinity is the teaching of the Antichrist, the great Enemy of Christ. The Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus came as "God" or as the "God-Man," not as a bona fide human being. Your mind has been conditioned to believe that the Trinity doctrine is taught in the Bible, but I view that as brainwashing just the same as I view the JW religion as brainwashing. And it is just as dangerous.
Frank
UnDisfellowshipped

fjtoth said:
"The glory" is God's; he is its source. The Son reflects or radiates that glory.
I agree. Trinitarians also agree. The early church fathers agreed as well. The Father is being compared to the sun, and The Son is being compared to the light rays emitted from the sun.
But, if there was a time when the sun did not give off light rays, then it was a dead star, correct? So, how could The Father ever exist without giving off rays of His glory? Was there ever a time when The Father was not glorious?
Also, light rays are constantly, always proceeding from the sun, just like The Son is always, constantly being begotten or proceeding from The Father [the Source]. The Son is distinct from The Father, but is not a separate being, and not a creature.
As C.S. Lewis once pointed out in his radio program, there is a huge difference between being begotten by God, and being created by God, just like there is a difference between being begotten by humans and being created by humans.
If something is begotten by a human, it IS HUMAN. The begotten always has the SAME NATURE as the one who beget him because the human father passes on his genes, his nature, to his offspring. However, humans can only create what is NOT human. They can create computers, tools, buildings, cars, airplanes, telephones, etc. But they cannot create HUMANS.
In the same way, God can only create things that are NOT God by Nature, such as angels, humans, animals, etc. However, whatever is begotten by God IS GOD, and has the Nature of God. That is why Jesus Christ is called "The ONLY-Begotten Son of God."
As you said, Jesus is the "genetic Son" of God The Father, and actually has God's "genes" within Him. That has to mean that Jesus shares God's Nature, and is God by His Nature.
fjtoth said:
He doesn't possess God's nature
Yet, Colossians 2:9 says that Jesus Christ has all of the fullness of the Deity (or God's Nature) dwelling in His Body.
So, does Jesus possess God's Nature or not?
fjtoth said:
The verse goes on to say something else that I think you may have failed to notice: The Son is "the exact imprint of" God's nature. He doesn't possess God's nature, but he is the "imprint" of that nature's glory, as if God had stamped upon him a copy of himself. That is why Jesus could say, "If you have seen me you have seen the Father." Christ is so much like God that he bears a striking resemblance. But he is not God himself, or there would be two Almighty Gods. Eugene H. Peterson's Message Bible says it plainly and nicely: "This Son perfectly mirrors God, and is stamped with God's nature."
But, if we believe your way, we end up with TWO Gods, One Almighty, and One who is an EXACT COPY of the Original, but who is somehow lesser who is not Almighty.
How can Jesus be an EXACT COPY of The Father but still be a lesser creature, considering that Psalm 89 and several other Scriptures teach that NO CREATURE is anything like God at all, not even the highest angelic creatures in heaven?
Considering those Scriptures, it would be ultimate BLASPHEMY for any creature, even the highest heavenly creature, to say that if you have seen him, you have seen The Father, and you no longer need to see The Father because you have seen him.
How can The Son be "stamped with God's Nature," and yet have a lesser, created nature? If someone were to say that a human son of a human father was "stamped with his father's nature," no one would think that the son had a lesser nature, but instead, they would think he had the exact same nature as his father. No one would suspect that his son was actually a lesser creature such as an ape.
fjtoth said:
Everything the Son has was given to him. And it was given to him after he was born and more so after he was resurrected from the dead.
Show me from the Bible where it says that The Son was only given what He has "AFTER HE WAS BORN." Where does the Bible ever say that?
mouthy

Undisfellowshipped. >You said it very well. I enjoyed the way you reason(hug) Thanks

The Duality -- The Father and The Son

Share this