What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    I see AQ is still trying, even though being disproven by everyone here, and using the same arguments experts disproved 20 years ago.

    you cant use the "was" argument - a trinitarian admitted 20+ years ago that that's NOT how the verb functions even with "beginning" and is just a matter of the writers perspectives (egeneto is a different case.)

    as to the original post - Shiliach... its that easy

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Halcon

    The verses you quoted have nothing to do with what I was talking about. They do not praise learned ignorance or JW-style theological barbarism. By the way, even the apostles didn't understand everything that Jesus taught, since, as Christ said, the Holy Spirit would later make them understand the teaching.

    Matthew 11:25: Here, Jesus praises the Father for awakening and strengthening the ignorant, those yearning for the salvation of knowledge, to accept the truths of salvation, which the proud who considered themselves wise and clever rejected. It's because God has hidden "these things", namely the truths of salvation, from the wise and the intelligent, that is, from the proud who considered themselves such, from the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees, and have revealed them to infants, to the spiritual children, to the ignorant but good-willed simple people seeking the truth. In fact, God did not hide the truth, but as a punishment, allowed it to remain hidden from the proud and wicked pseudo-wise. Christ is not giving thanks for the hiding but for the revealing. Unbelief is usually the consequence of pride and sins, whereas faith is a gift from God, presupposing humility and goodwill. "To hide" here means to allow it to remain hidden, and the thanksgiving refers only to the revelation, not to the hiding, which is only a consequence of the pseudo-wise's pride and their opposition to grace. If some believe the proclamation of the gospel and others do not: this is the work of divine grace and truth; for those who believe are inwardly enlightened by God's grace to believe; those who do not believe, by God's just judgment due to their pride and other sins, are not enlightened in such a way that they might truly believe, although they could believe and would indeed believe if they were willing to cooperate with the grace sufficiently provided to them by God. God chooses these people and makes them spiritually rich, wise, and powerful. Why? So that no one may boast before Him, but whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord. See 1 Corinthians 1:31.

    1 Corinthians 2:1 does not prove that theology, which serves the scholarly systematization of revelation, necessarily has to be primitive; it simply states that Apostle Paul preached in simple terms to those who were to be converted to faith. This is entirely correct, and nobody said that preaching at the level of Summa Theologica is required for those ignorant in faith. However, this does not imply that primitivism is the criterion for theological truth.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Wonderment

    "...the Father sending the Son to earth is indicative that..."

      No, the concept of "sending" in itself does not imply any ontological inferiority, see my comment on page 2, which the Arians would need to prove.

      "...the Father is greater than the Son..."

      Read this: John 14:28 - In short: "greater" does not mean "ontologically superior", and this is excellently justified by the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father (not vice versa), and also by the fact that the Son (unlike the Father) became man (incarnated), thus "greater" does not prove that he was a creature or an archangel, as asserted by the WTS.

      "...the Son being taught by the Father is evidence that the Son is lesser than the Father all-around...."

      No, this only proves that the Son's knowledge (like everything else, his existence and deity) originates from the Father, not that the Son's knowledge is lesser in terms of its final outcome.

      "They tell us that the Son is One and the same as the Father...."

      This is a straw man argument; it's not the Trinitarians but the Sabellian modalists who say this. The Trinitarians say "that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit."

      "...even while on earth, but in his subordination state on earth he was not... a contradiction."

      This is not a contradiction, since the principle of contradiction means that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time AND from the same perspective. We do not claim the divinity of Jesus' humanity, nor His humanity of His divinity; therefore, these are not the same aspects, so there is no contradiction. Look up hypostatic union and Chalcedonian theology before you try again.

      "The use of all authority given to the Son (Mt 28.18) is used as proof that Jesus is God."

      No, we do not just "use" (?) this but all the Scriptural statements that claim the Son is the Lord and God (not an archangel), who is begotten of the Father (not created), and attributes to Him qualities that can only be true of God. At the same time, the dogma is precisely aware of that "whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle."

      "...the original words for all in Scripture rarely means everything under the Sun."

      However, we know well that with the Son's birth from the Father before all "aeons," He received not just authority over things "under the Sun" as some allocated right, but the fullness of divinity (cf. Col 2:9).

      "...It has exceptions, such as in 1 Cor 15.27,28."

      This has nothing to do with whether the Son is truly God or not. The textual context is about the end of the world after the universal resurrection, which is separated from God by sin; because with the final act of Christ's redemptive work, the resurrection, everything is completed, so that Christ can return humanity to God, over which sin and death, the power of the flesh, the world, and the devil, ceases. Paul says, to God and the Father; because then humanity is generally subjected to God, to the three divine persons, but especially to the Father, inasmuch as Christ's holy humanity is united with the Son of God, and thus, in this humanity united with the Son, the entire redeemed human race enters into a special, filial relationship with the Father. Nevertheless, Paul means to say, since all authority is with the Son, it does not mean that the Father has renounced everything or subjected Himself to the Son, as often happens with earthly fathers when they pass on authority and possessions to their sons. The apostle might have felt it necessary to make this remark for the Christians converted from paganism, who could think of the pagan myth at the mention of Christ's reign, according to which Jupiter deprived his father Saturn of his kingdom and authority.

      After all enemies are defeated, and all people, as well as angels, are subjected to the Son, then He Himself will also be subjected to God, so that God may be the sole ruler, and everything depends directly on Him. Since Christ, with the reborn, redeemed people, forms the new humanity, the new generation, and He, as the head, is inseparable from the body: it is natural that He too will be subjected to God, as will every individual member of this new generation; however, this subjection really only applies to His human nature. The expression "that God may be all in all" signifies God's perfect sovereignty over creation.

      After the resurrection will come the Last Judgment and the end of the world. According to His human nature, the Lord Jesus is the lord and king of the whole created world, primarily of humanity, but also the mediator for the redeemed humanity before the heavenly Father. After the judgment, Christ's mediating role ceases, and eternal happiness will be directly under God's kingdom. Therefore, after the Last Judgment, the rule of Jesus Christ transitions into the direct, eternal rule of God. The Son subjects Himself to the Father: according to His human nature. Scripture also teaches that in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15, 23). Jesus subjected Himself (hypotasso) to the Father (1 Cor 15:28), "that God may be all in all", but this does not at all imply inferiority, since He also subjected Himself (hypotasso) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 states, "Christ is all, and in all".

      This place (like Jn 17:3; 20:17; 1 Cor 11:3, and similar declarations in the New Testament) can only be correctly understood concerning the order of salvation ("status oeconomiae" - the state of salvation orders) and within the Trinity (the mutual relations of the divine persons). God, the Father, has placed His Son above all creation, "putting everything under his feet" (v. 27). However, this is only valid for the time until the final fulfillment of things. In the end, the Son will hand over everything to the Father, who subjected everything to Him, and He Himself will also eternally exercise His filial position ("subordination"), which He already occupied in relation to the Father before the foundation of the world was laid. Otherwise, He would not be the Son - even if begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning -, and thereby divine in essence. (That is, Jesus differs only in His Sonship - this is expressed by "begotten by the Father from eternity, without beginning" -, otherwise, He possesses the same divine essence, power, "from eternity, without beginning") The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so the self-subjection does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if by doing so He would renounce some of His dignity.

      "There were things Christ did not know about at the time he walked on earth (Mt 24.36; Acts 1.7)"

      According to Jn 21:17, the apostle Peter specifically said to Jesus that "Lord, you know everything". Regarding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) you may read my notes HERE. Augustine also gives a good explanation for this.

      "The Trinity dogma is irrational..."
      This is not irrational, but rather beyond understanding (suprarational), because God is unprecedented in the created world: for God does not resemble human conceptions (cf. Acts 17:29).
      "... and cannot be explained in a paragraph or two..."
      There are quite a few things in the world that cannot be explained in two paragraphs; incidentally, this is what the Nicene Creed is for.
    • BoogerMan
      BoogerMan
    • aqwsed12345
      aqwsed12345

      @BoogerMan

      I have already presented my arguments regarding 1Cor. 15:27-, if you want to give a counter-answer, first delve into it and then try it again. Augustine deals with itt too:

      According to Thomas Aquinas:
      These words are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and (De Synod.): "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."

      And indeed, Hilary is right, the Father is "greater" because He is the source and origin =principle) of the Godhead, not because the Son is less God, after all, Scripture declares that he possesses the fullness of the Godhead (Col. 2:9). As the Lord Jesus said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' (Acts 20:35)

      https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xl.html

    • Vanderhoven7
      Vanderhoven7

      If any of you are aspiring to be a Catholic priest you must be able to speak on the subject of the Holy Trinity for 5 minutes without making more than 17 heresies.

    • aqwsed12345
      aqwsed12345
    • Halcon
      Halcon

      Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man whois taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

      - from the first link above, from Augustine

      This is 100% neoplatonist (and consequently Platonist). The essence/substance/divinity does not cease. It is the constant of the divinity, a common denominator so to speak (a constant also well explained by Plotinus) that allows for the Trinity interpretation.

      It is a purely 'mental' idea that runs into trouble when it's applied to the physicality of things that are perceived as separate, like a father standing next to his son.

    • Wonderment
      Wonderment

      acqwsed: There are quite a few things in the world that cannot be explained in two paragraphs; incidentally, this is what the Nicene Creed is for.

      I believe that one can successfully, in two paragraphs, explain the relationship of the submissive Son to the Father as the One Supreme Being of the universe (Slim has done this) without resorting to ancient mangled statements common of post-Christ humans who deviated from the simple biblical statements found in the NT.

      Your posts indicate that you have a hard time convincing yourself and others that the Trinity has biblical roots. Otherwise, why go repeatedly back to the Nicene and other ancient creeds which only prove that humans at that time were greatly confused about the identity of God?

      The Nicene Creed is not biblical.

    • Wonderment
      Wonderment

      Vanderhoven7: If any of you are aspiring to be a Catholic priest you must be able to speak on the subject of the Holy Trinity for 5 minutes without making more than 17 heresies.

      Interesting! Where did you get this?

    Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit