Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

Wonderment
Wonderment

godrulz:
Since you talk a lot, and feel so sure that Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and since I avoid convoluted reasonings, just tell me ONE scripture that clearly says that God the Father, the Son and holy spirit are 3 persons with equal power and status.
Please don't quote me the "I am" sayings which does not prove your point. I am a sucker for simplicity. Just tell me ONE scripture that says everything you claim all over this site. If the Trinity is a bible teaching, it should not be difficult for you to share your zesty enthusiasm with ONE scripture. Please, because I can't find it in my bible. Am I missing some pages? Help!
still thinking

Wonderment.....you gotta be more careful with your bibles...you just can't have pages falling out all over the place...especially not the most important ones....
godrulz

The doctrine of God and Christology is not based on one proof text. There is probably no doctrine we could prove to you from one verse to your satisfaction. When JWs are given a verse about the trinity or Deity of Christ, they pit another verse against it to create a contradiction. This is why we cannot proof text one verse out of context. It is cumulative evidence of all verses that show the triune understanding since it is progressive revelation from Old Testament monotheism to fulness of Christ in incarnation (Heb. 1:1-3) and further detail on the Holy Spirit in Jn. 14-16, etc.
The WT gives simplistic answers to more complex issues. They have purged intellectuals from their midst and usually attract uneducated people who will not think critically, but want the WT to think for them (and the WT insists that they not be questioned, even if wrong). You may be an ex-JW, but you still have some of the root issues?
Matthew 28:18-20 singular name and mention of 3 personal distinctions (in the name of the Father God, Michael the Archangel, and the active force is NOT what it says!) is a start.
Jn. 1:1 The first clause shows that the Word was eternally preexisting when there was a beginning to creation (Gk. was=imperfect, continuous tense; contrary to JW Arianism). The Word was with God (Gk. pros/face to face). Thus, He is personally distinct from the Father/Gk. ho theos, but Jesus is also called ho theos elsewhere (contrary to modalism/Sabellianism/oneness). The last clause (see KIT, not NWT a god) is qualitative, anarthrous (without definite article) and shows that the Word is of the nature of God (but not the person of the Father; if modalism was true/Jesus=Father, then the grammar would be different). We know from the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and many other verses that there is one true God by nature. If Jesus was a god, this would be polytheism unless he is a false god. This verse alone supports the triune understanding even though the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. Other passages in John establish His Deity and personality (impersonal force is gross error by WT). Jn. 1:14 identifies the Logos/Word as Jesus Himself, God with a face, God in the flesh.
So, I can give a list of verses that say that there is one true God, YHWH. There are not many gods (contrary to Mormonism/Hinduism). We can also find verses that say that the Father is God, the Son is God (Deity of Christ), and the Spirit is God. We can also find verses that show the personal distinction between F, S, HS (the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father). The only way to reconcile all of the biblical date is a triune (compound unity) understanding.
The ex-JWs who come to this understanding often see that Jesus is Jehovah even if they do not understand the trinitarian implications. Others see the personality of the Spirit (an even easier concept). This eventually leads one to a trinitarian view, the biblical, historical, orthodox view of Christianity from biblical times, ff.
The WT booklet on should you believe in the trinity is full of misquotes (I have the booklet and the photocopies of every page in outside sources that they quote), straw men arguments, etc. It can be systematically refuted line by line.
Here is a link to help understand the trinity. (if it says trinity proof texts, you can click on the verse in the article for a detailed explanation of the verse). I would believe it based on the two verses I gave you, but a definitive case will be based on all relevant verses. There are few doctrines that can be established in a true, balanced way by one verse, so your request is not reasonable. This is the problem with cults that have a conclusion and then they tack on verses out of context to try to prove their point (can make Bible say all kinds of things it did not intend using this method). We need to do sound exegesis and establish a biblical theology based on extended passages. When Raymond Franz looked at Christendom's commentaries at Bethel for research, he saw how they kept things in context of paragraphs leading to right conclusions. This contrasted with WT books that had a heading and then took isolated verses out of context (e.g. Jn. 14:28; Eccl. 9:5, etc.) to prove the point. This is shoddy scholarship/eisegesis (reading meaning back in from bias vs pulling it out of text=exegesis).
I can deal with the few Arian proof texts from a trinitarian view, but can WT deal with dozens or hundreds of Deity/trinitarian verses? No, so they mistranslate these passages in NWT so average JW will not realize the Bible does not support WT since few bother to research or learn Gk., etc.
If you have specific questions, I will be happy to 'reason from Scripture' like a Berean with you. If you want to refer to WT arguments or literature, I am not afraid of that (even though you are not JW, but how much of your indoctrination is affecting your thinking still?).
Wonderment

godrulz:
I see u provided 10 paragraphs, but not ONE scripture which proves the Trinity.
You mentioned John 1:1, how does that prove a trinity, when no holy spirit is mentioned. Your conclusion that "was" shows that Jesus was eternal does not hold up under one look at a Greek concordance. "Was" is used of other humans and things. After all, the heavens and earth ‘were’ created in the beginning. The earth was without form... (Ge 1:2, LXX) The sea "was" no more. (Re 21:1) Jesus disciples are with him from the beginning. (All forms of eimi) A Greek concordance will yield dozens of samples which show "was" is not a unique term used of Jesus alone.
There is a difference between saying "the Word became flesh" (Jn 1:14) and "incarnation." The first term is biblical. The second is foreign to the NT. I want to stick to bible terms as they are given to us. That is why I stick to "Son of God," rather than "God the Son."
Matthew 28:20 in my bible version does not say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are 3 persons, nor that they are one entity. And when I go to the Greek text, I find the Father and Son in masculine gender, but holy spirit in NEUTER gender. Why?
You mentioned Ray Franz looking up to Christendom's reference works as fine works. But he never was able to make sense of the Trinity. All this "cumulative evidence", you speak of, when examined carefully, fall down like a stack of dominoes, one by one.
We can throw hundreds of nuts and bolts in a big bin, and shake them all we could, at the end, we won't obtain milk from it. Well, if we try hard enough, we may lucky to find adulterated milk.
Essan

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the point of "was" in "In the beginning the Word was" the fact that "was" indicates that the Word was already there before "The Beginning"?
So it's not, "In the beginning, the Word arose" or "In the beginning, the Word came to be".
Isn't this indicating that when the 'Beginning' came to be, when creation began, the Word was there already, indicating the Word has always existed?
Isn't that the point Godrulz is making, or am I missing something?
Knowsnothing

Essan says:

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the point of "was" in "In the beginning the Word was" the fact that "was" indicates that the Word was already there before "The Beginning"?
Yes.
So it's not, "In the beginning, the Word arose" or "In the beginning, the Word came to be".
Isn't this indicating that when the 'Beginning' came to be, when creation began, the Word was there already, indicating the Word has always existed?
The thing is, just because creation came into the picture, doesn't mean the Son always existed. Remember, Jesus is begotten and always subordinate to God.
Isn't that the point Godrulz is making, or am I missing something?
Probably, as most trinitarians argue, yet the arguement doesn't take into account the whole begetting of Jesus, doesn't it?
still thinking

Lets have a look at the word beginning...
be·gin·ning /bi'giniNG/

Noun: The point in time or space at which something starts. If the word "was" in the beginning....he was there from when the beginning started....However, God always was. Therefore...the Word had a starting point, God does not.
godrulz

'was' is imperfect tense in Greek, not aorist...it shows continuous past tense without saying whether the event ended or not. When there was a beginning, the Word was already existing. With the rest of the verse, it is more than pre-existence, but eternality (consistent with Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16, etc that shows Him as uncreated Creator, not creature; the issue is the imperfect tense, not the word beginning which points to Gen. 1:1). Jn. 8:58 is also eternality, not pre-existence, the self-existent one (NWT translates it correctly dozens of times, but in this case only, twists it because of the Jehovahistic implications).
wonderment: I gave you a link with dozens of verses. I am not attempting to give detailed explanation of trinity here. I also said that Jn. 1:1 does not exclude the possibility of the Holy Spirit being personal, Deity, since other verses clearly teach this. Using your logic, Jesus is not real because some verses only mention the Father. If a verse only mentions the Son, does that mean the Father is not real or not God?! The triune understanding is based on all relevant verses, not one proof text (hence I do not rely on I Jn. 5:7 Vulgate interpolation that is not in originals, even though it is factual).
Franz was referring to specific things he saw in context that the commentaries were right on. Regrettably, he was free from WT, but did not go far enough to embrace biblical Christianity. The fact that WT must misquote trinitarians to disprove the trinity (?!) shows there desperation and deception to suppress sound doctrine.
Personal, masculine pronouns are repeatedly used of the Holy Spirit (Him, his, He, etc.). This is true in Greek and English. The one verse that uses neuter is in error in KJV, but correct in virtually every other version. It is a grammatical peculiarity. You display ignorance of Greek noun/adjective gender which does not have sex connotations. Even in French, a truck is masculine, but a window is feminine. This has nothing to do with gender. Why point out one verse that uses neuter (neuter can also be used of Father and Son if the grammatical antecedent demands it with no compromise of gender established in other ways), but ignore the many more that use masculine for the Holy Spirit in English? The word 'spirit' is neuter and is still neuter when referring to the Father as spirit (Jn. 4:24). NWT would translate spirit in relation to Satan as he/him even though it is a neuter Greek word (so they are inconsistent). It does not mean the Father is neuter gender. Verses that use spirit in relation to Christ/Father are grammatically neuter, but rightly translated as he/him due to context and going from Greek to English (we do not have the same masculine, feminine, neuter system that French and Greek does). Active force is a pathetic perversion of Scripture and theology as is a denial of the trinity/Deity of Christ.
Theocracy is not in Scripture, but the principle is. Incarnation is a legit term to describe the truths of Jn. 1:1-14; Phil. 2:5-11.
Article on neuter Holy Spirit (the Bible teaches that the Spirit has will, intellect, emotions, is lied to, teaches, speaks, grieves, knows, loves, etc. This is not mere personification like Wisdom/Folly in Proverbs; the WT article on the personality of Satan gives principles that will also prove that the Holy Spirit is personal vs impersonal force/concept).
Why do people whine about me? I am responsive within reason, but too many plug there ears/eyes because they can't refute it.

Wonderment

godrulz:

Says scholar Jason B. BeDuhn (B.A.; M.T.S.; Ph.D) on the subject
of personal pronouns:

“Now it turns out that both ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ Greek nouns can be used
for impersonal things as well as persons. But ‘neuter’ nouns are used only for
impersonal things, such as objects, animals, forces, abstract principles, and so on.
The same holds true for ‘masculine,’ ‘feminine,’ and ‘neuter’ pronouns. […] But
even though the ‘personal’ category is larger in Greek than in English, the ‘Holy
Spirit’ is referred to by a ‘neuter’ noun in Greek. Consequently, it is never spoken
of with personal pronouns in Greek. It is a ‘which,’ not a ‘who.’
It is an ‘it,’ not a ‘he.’” (Truth in Translation, Accuracy and Bias in
English Translations of the New Testament, p. 140)

BTW, The holy spirit is generally spoken of in the neuter gender, except when
it is personified, for ex. as a "Helper." Otherwise, the above applies. The Father and
Son are generally referred to in the masculine gender in the Greek Text. I hope you
take the time, as I have, going over occurrences of holy spirit in Scripture,
and you will see that Dr. BeDuhn is right on. Again, check Mt. 28:19 in the
Greek Text for a start. Can you do that, before accusing others of ignorance?

And John 4:24 you quote, Yes, the spirit is in the neuter gender, but "the God"
being a spirit is in the masculine gender. This agrees with the statements above,
does not contradict it. Is is not odd that just about everytime God and Christ
are mentioned, are in the masculine gender, and the spirit when mentioned next
to them are always in the neuter gender. Take Romans 1:1-4, where God and
Christ are found in the masculine gender. The spirit in neuter.

And what is the point of Jesus sending his disciples to ‘baptize people in the
name of the Father, the Son and the holy spirit, when only the spirit is in
neuter gender? The word in the "name" is also in the neuter gender. The word
"name" is impersonal. Does not that weaken the trinitarian link?

Dr. BeDuhn has a full chapter in his book dealing with the holy spirit. I suggest
you read it before you accuse him too of Greek ignorance, because his findings
may conflict with your wishful thinking.

Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

Share this