by lostsheep82 144 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
yes I do get it but I don't agree with it, I think the whole context of Jesus's words around his quoting Deut and and other times he refers to Jewish One God show that he doesn't consider himself YHVH or even under the umbrella of YHVH but thats for another discussion.
All I wanted to show is trinitarians are forced biblically to preach YHVH is Jesus and I think the above statements showed this.
sbf, How does the tabernacle relate to Christ's divinity? If one accepts that the bible teaches strict monotheism, as any JW apologist would do, it's difficult to believe in mormon-like lower divinities. The latter is called henotheism.
reniaa. Since it is wrong in your knowledge about the Trinity, I think that you should become more modest. Your expression "trinity Must be teaching YHVH is Jesus" is fundamentally wrong. The Trinity doctrine is not teaching "Jehovah is Jesus." Although I know enough that there are much people who believe "Jehovah is Jesus", the accurate Trinity doctrine is not taught such. In the Old Testament, there is seldom a part which has made reference concretely about the Son (Jesus Christ). Therefore, if Jews say it "our God" in the Old Testament, it shows God Jehovah (the Father). Clearly, Jehovah is the Father's name and the Son's name is Jesus. http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/ps/chapter_110.htm#bk1 possible http://godpresencewithin.web.fc2.com/ P.S. Now, this forum does my comment to a strange display.
If one accepts that the bible teaches strict monotheism, as any JW apologist would do, it's difficult to believe in mormon-like lower divinities. The latter is called henotheism.
Call it what you like, certain parts of the Bible certainly do describe lesser beings as gods. And not just "bad" gods. The angels are called gods in the Psalms and so on. So maybe JWs are not "strict monotheists" in a certain sense, but then neither were the early Bible writers. "Strict monotheism" as I understand it is a late development in the theology of the Hebrew Bible.
How does the tabernacle relate to Christ's divinity?
It is an old Greg Stafford debating point I borrowed just for fun. The argument, so it goes, is that if the heavenly tent can be called the "true tent" without meaning to imply all other tents are "false", then Jehovah can be the "true God" without all other gods (like Jesus for example) being "false". Stafford argues that the dualism is original/imitation rather than true/false. And he argues that false gods are false imitations of the true (i.e. original) God, whereas Jesus, as a god, is a genuine imitation of the true God. (following Hebrews 1:1-3 where Jesus is called a copy of God)
However I remember there was an in-house JW apologetic debate over even that point, and I think Edgar Foster came up with the better argument by saying that Jehovah is called the "true God" but in context the whole true/false dichotomy is false. But he rejected Stafford's original/imitation argument using the tent analogy.
JW apologists would not generally concede "strict monotheism" as you say, without first at least defining the term more broadly than most other Christians do. I thought you were into all that apologetic stuff at one stage? Well this is the sort of thing I am referring to when I imply JW aplogists have ways of getting round this true/false God argument.
JW apologists would not generally concede "strict monotheism" as you say, without first at least defining the term more broadly than most other Christians do.
Yes you're right. Besides, also more broadly than most other JWs do. The average JW doesn't know their own religion is not as montheist as they might think, or am I wrong on that?
hi san if trinity does not preach YHVH is JEsus how does it get past deut saying YHVH is the one true GOD?
Hi slim you make agood point JW's do allow for people in the bible to be called gods like Jesus in john 1:1 'a god' but there is a definite defining that only JEhovah is the ALmighty God and only one of him.
4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
they take their queue from this scripture.
Besides, also more broadly than most other JWs do. The average JW doesn't know their own religion is not as montheist as they might think, or am I wrong on that?
I suppose. But if they are "studious" Witnesses and have read The Word - Who is He? According to John (or The Word - Who is He? According to Fred Franz if you will), or even just the Insight book they will know all about "lesser gods" and the argument about Jesus being a god in a certain sense. For others I can't say, but I was certainly aware of that nuanced version of monotheism this implied when I was a good believeing JW.
And when you say "not as monotheist as they might think" it is almost as if there is some sort of accepted standard of monotheism (to which even JWs themselves unwittingly assent despite themselves) against which JWs are found wanting. What standard is that? As I say I think certain parts of the Bible do have a more loose definition of monotheism that allows for lesser gods. (call this henotheism if you like) So Jehovah's Witnesses don't fail compared to that standard.
They do however fail to live up to the "strict monotheism" of say Deutero-Isaiah that Evangelicals commonly appeal to when debating with JWs.
They do however fail to live up to the "strict monotheism" of say Deutero-Isaiah that Evangelicals commonly appeal to when debating with JWs.
No, sbf, you're cheating!!
This game should be played starting from the premise that the Bible is God's inspired word and that all parts are in perfect harmony with one another.
I have always thought 1 Cor 8:4-6 is a good anti-Trinitarian scripture.
It is hard to believe that Paul who wrote that was an orthodox Trinitarian as it later was formulated in any meaningful sense. John 17:3 is another good one.
Ok, but Thomas identifies Jesus as both Lord and God.
