by evangelist 178 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This subject is so old!
By now, surely you know that the Trinity doctrine is about substance, not personage.
I'm human, consisting of flesh and bone, as are many on this board (I hope).
The Father and Son are God, consisting of spirit.
In some way they are distinct from the angels, who are created beings, just as we are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Unfortunately, LittleToe, a great many trinitarians do not "know that the Trinity doctrine is about substance, not personage." They interpret the very poor wording found in most Bible translations at John 1:1c, "the Word was God", as meaning "the Word" and "God" are the same persons, whereas good scholars know that in this verse the use of the anarthrous (without the article "the") theos means that theos is qualitative, and thus a statement about the nature, not the personal identity, of "the Word". In my opinion, this poor translation suits the trinitarian agenda very well because it obscures issues that are difficult for many people to understand, and keeping people ignorant about difficult issues is a good way to keep them believing the way a leader wants.
The simple fact is that the Greek theos has an extremely wide range of meaning within its basic meaning of "powerful entity" (powerful man, powerful ruler, angel, god, etc.), and so when John wrote kai theos en ho logos ("and god was the word"), it is not perfectly clear, especially to a non-native Koine Greek speaker, exactly what he meant by "god". Did he mean what trinitarians say, namely, "the nature of THE god" or "the nature of God"? If so, just what did John mean by nature of God, and how do we know for sure that he meant it? Did he mean nature in terms of being "the one and only true God"? Or did he mean what non-Christian Greek speakers, who John wrote his Gospel to inform, would tend to think, namely, "powerful, supernatural being"?
Given this, the wording of John 1:1c that most accurately reflects John's apparent meaning is something like, "the Word had the nature of god", with "nature of god" left up to the reader to interpret.
John's wording here is interesting in that he put the predicate theos ahead of the subject ho logos. This was apparently to emphasize the "godness" of "the Word", so as to say "god was the Word". This would be something like an English speaker's emphatically but ungrammatically saying, "human is he". This doesn't work well in English simply because English speakers don't talk that way, but such wording perfectly normal in Greek.
As for the nature of God, note that the NT nowhere clearly defines this. However, John 4:24 says, "God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being)" (Amplified Bible), which suggests that God's nature is "spirit" (Greek: pneuma). We can also say that God's nature is "god" (Greek: theos). But what is the nature of "spirit" and "god"? Those are hard things to define, but every culture that speaks a particular language has its own internal logic that somehow defines any number of hard-to-define concepts. Such concepts are difficult to define in the sense that it's hard to describe them without using the words you're trying to define.
To illustrate, an ancient Greek might say, "Zeus estin ho theos" which is clear and definite by itself ("Zeus is (the) God"). Or he might say, "Zeus estin theos", which is not clear by itself because it can mean "Zeus is (the) God" or "Zeus is (a) god", and so context would have to determine what was meant. He might say, "ho theos estin Zeus" which would also be clear all by itself "(the) God is Zeus". And he might say, "theos estin Zeus" or "Zeus theos estin", which are just other ways of saying "Zeus estin theos". The point here is that when we have a definite name (Zeus) along with an indefinite word (god) that can be used to describe the person named, the name is the subject of the sentence and the describing word is the predicate.
You said that we on this board are human, and by that you obviously mean that we have the nature "human". Of course, that's just one kind of nature, since "nature" is just a word that means "category". We also have the natures "vertebrate", "mammal", "primate" and so forth. So in terms of some of our "natures" we are distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom, but in terms of others we are the same.
It's the same thing with respect to the nature of the Father and the Son. Both have the natures theos and pneuma, god and spirit, as Greek and English speakers would categorize them. But angels, Satan and "wicked spirits" also have those natures.
The interesting thing is to say that the Father has the nature "God". In English, "God" has several meanings. It is a title that we apply to the entity also known as "the God of the Bible" (note the self-referential definition) and "the Creator described in the Bible". By common usage, "God" is also a proper noun, i.e., it is virtually a name that we apply to the entity that also bears the title "God". This might be compared to calling Bob, the head of my company, "Chief". Bob is the chief, and by common usage the Chief, and again by common usage, just Chief. Now we can ask, what is the nature of Bob? Well, Bob has the nature "human". He also has the natures "mammal", "chief" and, to stretch things a bit, "Chief". It would be stretching things a bit far to say that he has the nature "Bob". Similarly, we can say that the God of the Bible, whose name is, say, Yahweh, has several natures: "spirit", "god", "divine being", "God", "Yahweh". I would say that it is stretching things a bit to say that the latter two are proper "natures", for the same reason it's stretching things to say that Bob's natures are "Chief" and "Bob". For these reasons, without a good deal of solid argumentation, I believe that it's quite misleading to say that the nature of God is "God". It's actually a form of circular argument.
With these considerations in mind, I think that your statement, "The Father and Son are God, consisting of spirit" is an oversimplification, and in fact is misleading in that it assumes what needs to be proved, namely, why it is alright and sensible to say that "the nature of God is `God' ". But in this you're not alone. I've read a number of good books on the Trinity, and I have yet to find one where the above considerations are dealt with other than by bald assumption.
Remember that according to the Bible, angels and "wicked spirits" have the natures "god" and "spirit". Thus, according to your logic, they must be God. No? Then explain why not.
Just as most Jehovah's Witnesses are abysmally ignorant of many details of their most cherished doctrines, and JW leaders like it that way, I think that most trinitarians are clueless about the considerations I've barely scratched the surface of above, and most of their leaders like it that way.
AlanF
a great many trinitarians do not "know that the Trinity doctrine is about substance, not personage
Not only that, but they ignore that the Trinity Doctrine (or more precisely, the deification of Christ) was a gradual development that took centuries after the canonical books of the NT were completed. This is not a problem for Catholics, who do not believe in the inerracy and completeness of the Bible, but it is a problem for Protestants. But most Fundamentalists are as ignorant of Biblical Exegesis and Church History as the Dubs are.
To put it simple: There's no Trinity doctrine in the Bible unless you take verses out of context as JW do.
So Alan F.,, Are we to take it that you are a 'good' Bible scholar speaking from actual knowledge of the greek language?
I do know a bit of greek and Know people that speak it fluently and know a bit a bout the grammar of that passage and quite a few others. I can't write out the greek here due to lack of the proper font but the litteral translation for the part of John 1:1 in question is "and God was the Word." Saying that the absence of the article--the greek equivalent of the word 'the'-- means that the word is not God comes from a lack of knowledge of Greek and a hopes that the english translation can be manipulated to say what one wishes were true. There is a word for 'The' and a word for 'A' so when appropriate they are used, the lack in the original languages does not mean an abiguity-- just read it for what it says.
So you are saying that the fact that it doesn't say "and THE God was the Word" means that the word isn't God............. very interesting.
Does this apply across the board: where the article is left out that means the personage being spoken of is not God? Would the article being left in mean the personage is God? What is the hard and fast rule for this interpretation to judge the scriptures with? If it helps clear anything up for you I could give you all the references in which the Greek does include the article before Theos in reference to Jesus. I could also give you all the references where the greek leaves out the article before Theos in reference to the Father.
Incidentally, There are no reputable or well known greek scholars with the JW interpretation of John 1. In JW literature they assert they have scholars on their side but the scholars they name are most certainly against such interpretations and have have threatened law suit against the WTBS for saying they support them and their interpretations and for mis-quoting them. The letters against the WT have been published if you doubt this. The only 'scholars' that come close to agreeing with them are obscure and do not support the interpretation of JWs on many other important issues including one at least that claims his interpretation came from the spirits he was consulting. I would be very cautious about claiming scholarly backup without checking it because of this.
Joseph Joachim--
This a common belief-- that the concept of the trinity evolved or that the earliest Christians did not believe Christ was God. This is a misled conclusion though. If you read the works of the earlist Christians starting back during the same century of Christ you see very clearly in their writtings that they believed and taught that Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the Father were indeed God. I have some of these quotes if it's of any actual interest of anyone to check this claim out. The 'trinity' is a name given to give what the Bible says about Gods nature something to call it by. While the word is not in the Bible the concept is. Many words are not actually in the text of the scriptures itself but are perfectly legitamite to use--For example we may all remember the word 'Theocracy'-- not in the Bible but the concept is. The word 'Bible' is not in the Bible for that matter. Yahweh is triune as the scriptures state. It did not originate in the Catholic church and existed LONG before the Council of Nicea.
here is some scriptures that God is Jesus in the flesh.
Are they good verses thaT jehovah witness can relate to?
How can Jesus have all fullness Col 2:9?
Jesus is the creator according to Col1:16 , John1:3,Isa44:24,45:12
Jesus created all thing for Himself Col 1:16.
all men is drawn unto Jesus
Joh:12:32: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Joh:6:37: All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh:6:44: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jesus knows everything, and has all authority
M't:18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
1Pe:1:11: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
Joh:16:30: Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
Re:2:23: And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Jesus and God receives the same honor and glory
Re:5:12: Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Re:5:13: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.
Isa:42:8: I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Joh:5:23: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him
I know that it true that Jesus is equal to God the father:
Joh:14:9: Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh:14:23: Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh:11:27: She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
1Tm:3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
God is Jesus 2Pe:1:1: Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:
Ti:2:10: Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
Ti:2:13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
Heb:1:6: And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb:1:8: But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
Heb:1:10: And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Is these convincing scripture that can help a Jehovah witness to see the truth and they can be set free from the society?
Praise God
To Adonai438:
: So Alan F.,, Are we to take it that you are a 'good' Bible scholar speaking from actual knowledge of the greek language?
My knowledge comes from reading what many different scholars have said. I have the barest personal knowledge of Greek.
: I do know a bit of greek
It appears that "a bit" is a bit of an exaggeration; see below.
: and Know people that speak it fluently and know a bit a bout the grammar of that passage and quite a few others.
I suspect that what you "know" comes entirely from biased persons.
: I can't write out the greek here due to lack of the proper font
You can transliterate, as I have done. Put the Greek in italics, and it's pretty clear.
: but the litteral translation for the part of John 1:1 in question is "and God was the Word."
This shows that you do not know what you're talking about. First, the original Greek was entirely in capital letters, lowercase only being invented many hundreds of years after the 1st century. So the literal translation would have been "AND GOD WAS THE WORD". Second, the use of "God" here is an interpretation, not an automatic result of straightforward translation.
The best scholars understand that the translation "and God was the Word" is misleading, because without a careful explanation that "God" here refers to the nature of God -- whatever that is -- and not the person of God, it equates "God" with "the Word" -- something that I'm sure you do not believe is a proper equation. But I already said this in my above post. Why do you ignore that?
: Saying that the absence of the article--the greek equivalent of the word 'the'-- means that the word is not God
I did not say that.
: comes from a lack of knowledge of Greek and a hopes that the english translation can be manipulated to say what one wishes were true.
Saying that I said what I did not comes either from a lack of reading comprehension or a hope that readers will not notice that you're misrepresenting what I said.
: There is a word for 'The' and a word for 'A'
In English, yes. In Greek there is a family of words for "the" but no words for "a".
: so when appropriate they are used, the lack in the original languages does not mean an abiguity-- just read it for what it says.
In many cases the meaning is ambiguous, and requires a judgment call by the translator. The fact that you don't appear to know this further shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
: So you are saying that the fact that it doesn't say "and THE God was the Word" means that the word isn't God............. very interesting.
No, I did not say that. I said that the lack of an article, plus other factors I described above and will not repeat, shows that the word theos is not being used as a noun, but qualitatively. This means that it is referring to the nature of God, whatever that is. Thus we would have "the Word had the nature of {god or God}", or "the Word was divine", where we understand "divine" to mean "having a divine nature". A similar thing using only English would be to try to say, "John is human", where "human" is qualitative. We could also say, "John is a human" or, more oddly, "Human is John". But in English "human" can properly be used qualitatively all by itself, or with the indefinite article "a" (which Greek does not have), to mean essentially the same thing. In other words, there is no real difference between saying "John is human" and "John is a human", because both mean "John is an entity in the category `human' ". But in Greek, you have no choice since there is no indefinite article.
: Does this apply across the board: where the article is left out that means the personage being spoken of is not God?
No. There are NT examples where the anarthrous theos unarguably refers to God.
: Would the article being left in mean the personage is God?
Usually in the NT, but not always.
: What is the hard and fast rule for this interpretation to judge the scriptures with?
There are no hard and fast rules. Word usage is helpful, but context plays a big role. So does one's overall view of what the NT says about the relation between God and Jesus.
: If it helps clear anything up for you I could give you all the references in which the Greek does include the article before Theos in reference to Jesus. I could also give you all the references where the greek leaves out the article before Theos in reference to the Father.
It might be interesting to compare those with the references I have.
: Incidentally, There are no reputable or well known greek scholars with the JW interpretation of John 1.
If you mean that there are no such scholars who would say that using "a god" in John 1:1c, as does the JW's New World Translation, best represents John's thought, then you're probably right. However, there are a number of good scholars who admit that it is grammatically permissible. They reject it on theological grounds, which is no surprise, given that virtually all recognized theological scholars are trinitarians. This is a bit of a catch-22 situation because scholars who publicly reject the Trinity doctrine have a short shelf life.
By the way, since I'm not a JW, it makes no difference to me what the JWs say about these matters.
: In JW literature they assert they have scholars on their side but the scholars they name are most certainly against such interpretations and have have threatened law suit against the WTBS for saying they support them and their interpretations and for mis-quoting them. The letters against the WT have been published if you doubt this.
Please stop talking in generalizations. You're talking about the late Julius Mantey, whom the Watchtower certainly misrepresented. But the fact that the Watchtower misrepresents certain people and issues has no bearing on the validity of my arguments. My arguments are based on what I have read in a variety of sources, including solidly trinitarian ones.
: The only 'scholars' that come close to agreeing with them are obscure and do not support the interpretation of JWs on many other important issues including one at least that claims his interpretation came from the spirits he was consulting.
Right, the Watchtower thoroughly embarassed itself by using Johannes Greber's translation to support certain claims, Greber being a spiritist and all.
: I would be very cautious about claiming scholarly backup without checking it because of this.
No argument there.
Now, if you want to continue this discussion intelligently, you'll have to discuss the issues I've brought up rather than just to ignore them and present other material. This is not a case of "your sources" cancelling "my sources". It's a case of what the evidence as a whole indicates.
AlanF
Alan, have you read anything by Dr. Scott Hahn from Stubenville? I would like to know your opinion of his writings if you have. Thanks.
AlanF,
Wasting your time with Dipfucks again, I see.
What a waste of your good talent and hard work.
Farkel
You're too mean, Farkel. Keep it up!
Bluesapphire, I've not read any books by that author. What does he write about?
AlanF
Alan F. writes: "The simple fact is that the Greek theos has an extremely wide range of meaning withing its basic meaning of 'powerful entity, powerful man, powerful ruler, angel, god, etc.' "
Yet John 1:1 also says "the Word was with God." Is the Father also
one of those "powerful supernatural beings?" Any distinction or do
we just have a number of powerful supernatural beings?
