The Case for Unitarianism

by UnDisfellowshipped 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Hi AllElseFails! Thanks for your comments!

    You said:

    "When responding to my question of "God by Nature" you used the illustration of husband and wife."

    Yes, and I actually got that illustration from 1 Corinthians 11:3.

    1 Cor. 11:3 (ESV): But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

    You said:

    They are both clearly human by nature neither "above" the other in abities only in position/resposibility. However one is the husband and one is the wife they are not the same (as my wife and I will attest to).

    Yes, I would agree 100% from my experience with women! lol! Men and women are definitely NOT the same! :-)

    You said:

    "I do believe the "nature of God" is in the Son. Again that is the only way to understand the relationship - my son is by nature my genetic code - he is me, but uniquely different. He has a different position and personality than me, but he is not "me"....... I the "father" am God. He, my son,(even if he is omnipotent) is the Lord Jesus not the God Jesus (1 COR 8:6) He is subserviant to me. He does my will not his own. He does not know all that I know. (Mark 13:32 - International Standard Version - "No one knows when that day or hour will come-not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but only the Father.)Yes my son has the potential of me (Father = God), But not the position of me (Father = God)."

    I would say I agree wholeheartedly with that, except one thing. I would say, based on certain verses which teach that Jesus knows all things in Heaven, I would say Jesus was only limited in His knowledge while He was on earth.

    You said:

    "I would be curious too on what basis the holy spirit is scripturally ascribed to the Godhead. A duality more scriptural perhaps?"

    I will try to post more about The Holy Spirit soon. There is more and stronger evidence for the Duality of Father and Son than for the Deity of The Spirit, but, as I posted above, there are several passages that show The Spirit is a Divine Person and that put Him on an equal level with The Father and Son.

  • allelsefails
    allelsefails

    I read your post above on the spirit. Very interesting. Raised a JW I've never ascribed the "Spirit" personality, but there are obviously scriptures that do exactly that. However for me the question arises - Why call it the "Holy Spirit"? What does that mean? What does the Bible calling it that reveal about what it/he/her is? Why does the Bible use Father, Son, and Spirit to describe them? Why does a person (the spirit) not have a unique personal name? Thanks for your well researched post and answers. I look forward to your response.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    AllElseFails said:

    "I read your post above on the spirit. Very interesting. Raised a JW I've never ascribed the "Spirit" personality, but there are obviously scriptures that do exactly that. However for me the question arises - Why call it the "Holy Spirit"? What does that mean? What does the Bible calling it that reveal about what it/he/her is? Why does the Bible use Father, Son, and Spirit to describe them? Why does a person (the spirit) not have a unique personal name? Thanks for your well researched post and answers. I look forward to your response."

    Matthew 28:19 says that The Father, The Son, and The Spirit all share One Name (this would most likely be the Name "Yahweh").

    Jesus said that The Father had given His Son His Name. Jesus also said that The Son has given everything that He received from The Father, to The Holy Spirit. (See John 17:11 and then John 16:14)

    To be honest, I don't know why The Holy Spirit is not referred to more often by a personal name. But, by the same token, in the New Testament, The Father is not referred to by a personal name, except with the exception of "Praise Jah" in Revelation. The Father is referred to as "God," "Father," "Lord," "Almighty," etc. But is only referred to as "Jah" a few times in Revelation.

    In the New Testament, the main focus and spotlight is on Jesus Christ. It is His Name that we must put our trust in to be saved.

  • allelsefails
    allelsefails

    Matt 28:19 - I have always understood "in the name of" to be a reference to "by the authority of" - ie "stop - in the name of the law" if there is some other understanding of the original language I'm missing here I would be interested to hear it..... John 17:11 - vague - we are to be one "just" as the son and father are one. This is a statement that repressents 2 things exactly the same. The way in which we are one is the way the Son and Father are the same. That is one in purpose and will. John 16:14 - the NWT says "That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you." Is there something missing in the NWT here? I don't really understand how this says what you are claiming it says. Please explain using orig language and other translations if you have time. ............I have also been interested in the focus on Jesus in the NT. (Obviously JWs diminish it as much as they can by adding "Jehovah" to the NT where it is never found in any of the oldest texts, as well as changing the word "worship" to "do obeseisance" or "bow down" when it refers to Jesus.) I also believe if you insist on Yahweh instead of Jehovah for the OT God's name Yeshuah would be more appropriate for Jesus - just to be consistent.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    AllElseFails,

    Thank you for your reply.

    You said:

    "Matt 28:19 - I have always understood "in the name of" to be a reference to "by the authority of" - ie "stop - in the name of the law" if there is some other understanding of the original language I'm missing here I would be interested to hear it...."

    My Reply:

    Many commentaries and scholars believe that Jesus was referring to an actual Name:

    The Geneva Bible Study Notes say that it means "Calling upon the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."

    Barnes Commentary says: "In the name ... - This phrase does not mean, here, “by the authority”. "

    However, many other commentaries and scholars believe that Jesus was referring to the "authority" of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

    And, some believe He was referring to both an actual Name and the authority behind the Name.

    In either case, I can't see how an impersonal force would have a Name, and I can't see how an impersonal force can have any authority, especially not authority on an equal level with God.

    You said:

    "John 17:11 - vague - we are to be one "just" as the son and father are one. This is a statement that repressents 2 things exactly the same. The way in which we are one is the way the Son and Father are the same. That is one in purpose and will. John 16:14 - the NWT says "That one will glorify me, because he will receive from what is mine and will declare it to you." Is there something missing in the NWT here? I don't really understand how this says what you are claiming it says. Please explain using orig language and other translations if you have time."

    My Reply:

    My point with John 17:11 was that the Father has given the Son the Father's Name. And in John 16:14, Jesus has given everything He received to The Holy Spirit (including this Name).

    Now, "Name" in those verses may very well mean "authority." If so, then God has given His Son all of His authority, and The Son has given The Spirit all of His authority.

    How can Jesus give all of His authority to an impersonal force? And how can an impersonal force hear, speak, teach, have a will, have a mind, be blasphemed, be lied to, etc.?

    You said:

    "I also believe if you insist on Yahweh instead of Jehovah for the OT God's name Yeshuah would be more appropriate for Jesus - just to be consistent."

    I agree. I call God "Jehovah" and "Yahweh."

  • allelsefails
    allelsefails

    You wrote - "In either case, I can't see how an impersonal force would have a Name, and I can't see how an impersonal force can have any authority, especially not authority on an equal level with God." The law is a great example - the law carries authority though it is an impersonal thing. The law has the authority of the government behind it, just as the spirit (if it is impersonal) has the authority of Jehovah behind it. As you agree the "name" in this verse could refer only to the authority - certainly not a clear point either way to build belief on. The law can be refered to in many ways - as having intent, as being fair, ....... You wrote - "My point with John 17:11 was that the Father has given the Son the Father's Name. And in John 16:14, Jesus has given everything He received to The Holy Spirit (including this Name)." I do not see in 16:14 the phrase "given everything he received" I don't see anything that indicates that at all. Again maybe the New World Translation has changed something here? I don't see his name or authority as clearly part of this exchange. ..... You wrote - "In either case, I can't see how an impersonal force would have a Name, and I can't see how an impersonal force can have any authority, especially not authority on an equal level with God." I agree and have no good explanation for this except that the writers have poetic license in some of these verses. (lame yeah?) I do not see how a "person could be poured out at Pentacost 33CE or empower Christians through out history. Or be something God gives us if we pray for it. Also would you care to comment on John 17:11's use of "they may be one just as we are." I still think this verse explains the realtionship well. The Son and Father are one the same way we Christians are one - united in purpose and intent. Just as a husband and wife become one in purpose at their marriage.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    AllElseFails, thank you for your reply.

    You said:

    "The law is a great example - the law carries authority though it is an impersonal thing. The law has the authority of the government behind it, just as the spirit (if it is impersonal) has the authority of Jehovah behind it. As you agree the "name" in this verse could refer only to the authority - certainly not a clear point either way to build belief on. The law can be refered to in many ways - as having intent, as being fair,"

    My Reply:

    I agree that things that are impersonal can (and have been) personified in the Bible, such as The Law.

    However, I cannot see why Jesus would have commanded people to baptize in the authority (or name) of The Father, The Son, and an impersonal force. That doesn't make sense to me. Especially if that impersonal force is a part of God, then why does it need to mentioned separately? The only reason that I can see for The Spirit to be mentioned separately from The Father is if The Spirit is a different Person.

    The same reasoning applies to many other verses in the New Testament. Why would the Bible writers give credit to an impersonal force (separately from the credit that is given to The Father), especially since this impersonal force would be part of God the Father? Why not just give the credit to God the Father? The only explanation I can find is that The Spirit must have been a distinct Person who should be honored equally with The Father and The Son.

    You said:

    "I do not see in 16:14 the phrase "given everything he received" I don't see anything that indicates that at all. Again maybe the New World Translation has changed something here? I don't see his name or authority as clearly part of this exchange."

    I apologize, I meant to say John 16:14 AND 15. Not just verse 14. Here is how both verses read in the New American Standard Bible:

    John 16:14-15 (NASB): "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

    Jesus said that all things that The Father has are His, and that The Spirit takes from Jesus all the things that He shares with The Father. In other words, all Three Persons share all things.

    Look at some other verses where Jesus teaches that He shares all things (and all authority or power) with The Father:

    John 3:31, 35 (ESV): He who comes from above is above all. ... The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.

    John 17:2 (ESV): since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.

    John 17:10 (NASB): and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them.

    You said:

    "I agree and have no good explanation for this except that the writers have poetic license in some of these verses. (lame yeah?) I do not see how a "person could be poured out at Pentacost 33CE or empower Christians through out history. Or be something God gives us if we pray for it."

    Good point. It must be one way or the other. Either The Spirit is a Person and the Bible uses figuratively language sometimes when speaking about Him ("pouring out", etc.), or the Spirit is an impersonal force and the Bible personifies it sometimes (calling it "He" and saying it has a mind and will and hears and speaks).

    I recommend that you examine very closely all of the verses that speak about the Holy Spirit, and look at the context, and then apply the same reasoning and logic that you apply to whether or not angels, Satan, or the demons are persons or impersonal forces, and then make your decision about whether you believe The Spirit is a Person or impersonal force.

    To me, the verses that convinced me that The Spirit was a Person were the ones that say He has a mind, He has His own will, He chooses things, He feels things, and He is always mentioned on an equal level with God and Jesus, and He is given credit for things separately from The Father and The Son.

    You said:

    "Also would you care to comment on John 17:11's use of "they may be one just as we are." I still think this verse explains the realtionship well. The Son and Father are one the same way we Christians are one - united in purpose and intent. Just as a husband and wife become one in purpose at their marriage."

    In that context of John 17, I would say that you're right. Jesus is saying that Christians will be united just like The Father and Son are united (in purpose and will and love).

    However, the context is different in John 10.

    Starting at John 10:24, the focus is on Jesus' identity. Jesus says that The Father is greater than all, and then He says "I and The Father are One." The Jews then try to stone Him for claiming to be God. Jesus then says The Father is in The Son and The Son is in The Father (in other words, they share the same Nature or Essence). They try to arrest him.

    In order to correctly understand any passage, we always have to closely examine the context. The "One" in chapter 10 is Nature, and the "One" in chapter 17 is "unity" or "purpose."

  • allelsefails
    allelsefails

    Thanks for your obvious hard work to answer my questions. I agree the to the point that John 16:14 AND 15 point strongly to the duality of Father and Son, however it still does not say "given everything he received". John 16:14-15 (NASB): "He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. "All things that the Father has are Mine; [all things the father have belong to Jesus] therefore I said that He takes of Mine [not everything, not the name, not specified at all] and will disclose it to you." It does NOT say HE (spirit) takes everything that is mine, it says He takes of (or from) what is mine. As far as the Son having all authority and power of the Father - no problem to accept that. As I said The Father gives it to the Son! That explains the relationship perfectly. The Father has it all by himself, but decides to share authority, power, abilities, knowledge, etc.. with his Son. This fits perfectly with the illustration of Father and Son. Father gives to Son life, training, inheritance, abilities, nowledge, wisdom ...... Son gives to Father obedience, worship, honor. (You don't need the references - right?)Can the Son be equal to the Father? in power - yes, in knowledge - yes, in abilities - yes. Are they the same person? NO ...... I will pray and study on your other thoughts here about John 10 vs. 17 having different context. Obviously the context of a scripture is essential to understand it, but I do see the use of the same words and phrases in the same book to be a connecting factor to use in interpretation (chapters were divided up later. Thanks again for your comments.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Hi AllElse,

    I apologize for the delay in responding. (It's been really hectic at work the last week getting ready for July 4th -- I work in retail as a manager at a large store)

    I definitely plan on responding ASAP to your very good questions.

  • compound complex
    compound complex

    Thank you, UnDfed, for this interesting presentation.

    You may find the following information, though not your principal point, enlightening as it references the position you declare to occupy:

    Devil's Advocate. In the Roman Catholic Church, where the term had its origin, "the devil's advocate" is one appointed to present the arguments against a proposed canonization as a saint. He is, indeed, therefore, as Fowler insists, "the blackener of the good" rather than "the whitewasher of the wicked." None the less the general public, lamentably ignorant of holiness in all its ways and forms, uses the phrase to mean the advocate of a bad cause or one who injures a cause by his advocacy of it, and has so used it so long that these meanings must be accepted as standard.

    A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage, by Bergen Evans and Cornelia Evans, p.133.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/124663/1/Devils-Advocate-RCC

    Check out the above link to find an explanation and background for the searing sarcasm that scorches users of the term "TDA."

    CoCo

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit