Trinity- True or False

by defd 215 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Cygnus

  LT, thanks for posting that for me. :) I've watched you from afar over the last few years and I admire your spirit of justice!

  It is true that technically speaking JW christology differs from the traditional one (although you yourself while espousing traditionalist views might fundamentally disagree with say an Eastern Orthodox believer on the essence of God), but it is untrue that JWs write of or think about Jesus as a "mere angel" in servitude to God Jehovah as the rest of the angels are. Jesus occupies a position far above the angels in the writings and the hearts of JWs. He is duplexed with Michael in that he fills the office, role, duty, function, etc. of 'archangel' and is said to "seemingly" characterize Michael, but his nature and essence now post-resurrection is that of Jehovah God himself, which angels are not. The 144,000 are also said to attain this level of godly being. I could come up with hundreds of references in contemporary WT literature to prove what I said about JW feelings about the risen and now established king (via 1914's birth of the kingdom) Christ, and I could come up with some obscure WTs that demonstrate and substantiate my points on christ's nature being far above angelic. I just have enough difficulty typing with my injury.
• 

  LittleToe

  I'm sorry, Cygnus, but I disagree completely, to the point of telling you that you're wrong (a rare occurance, as you likely know, so please give a little credance to it)

  That may have been the opinion of the early Bible Students, but the modern day JWs hold no such view. They are so determinied to see the Father as distinct and high above everything, that they hold Jesus and the "anointed" to be merely servants. Their language ultimately makes Jesus a puppet king.

  Sure he's second only to the Father, but so far below Him as to hardly be worth mentioning! A pawn, sacrificed on a stake, and now sitting idly on the sidelines of the real power, since 1884...1914...even now... to be unleashed like a weapon against His foes, rule in some obscure fashion for 1000 years and hand things back to Daddy, while somehow retaining the title of King Abducator.

  Further, the scanty conflicting theology that you claim to find in contemporary literature would belie the beliefs held by the rank and file, due to generations of indoctrination.

  They tolerate the idea of Jesus and the anointed somehow being granted "eternal" life (instead of the "everlasting" variety that the plebs will enjoy, even after a second testing after the millenium), likely because they don't know what to do with it since it's unavoidable in scripture, but they in no way claim that this makes them "godlike" in any kind of Divine manner.

  I can assure you I have a reasonable grasp on their ideas - I once claimed to be "anonted" myself, and so held a personal interest in the subject!
• 

  Hellrider

  I agree with LittleToe. An angel is just an angel, whether he was one of the two first, or not. And who was the other one of the two first? Lucifer, aka Satan, the devil, etc. So according to JW-doctrine, both the "good" angel, Michael, and the fallen one, "Lucifer", are just that, angels, and I was never told that Jesus was anything more than that. Jesus hasn`t even a higher status than Satan, other than that he is guaranteed to win the battle of Armageddon (funny thing, I knew a guy once who had a tattoo of the devil, and under it it said "better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven") .And if Jesus has such a high status,why did the WT change all the passages where Jesus (could be said to) claim that he is divine/a part of God? If Jesus in WT-doctrine was anything more than an angel, why did they change those passages? And how could there be anything "in between" an angel and god? Even though this angel is appointed king, there is a kaiser above him, if he is the prime minister, there`s a president above him. So either Jesus is an angel, or he is God? Anything else is not understandable to me. The only thing in JW-doctrine that gives Jesus any respect, is at the end of prayer "in the name of Jesus etc...", so all prayers have to go thru Jesus. But the prayer in itself is directed to God Jehovah, not Jesus. Also: JWs are the one christian-based religious group I can think of that is literally obsessed with the Old Testament. Most other religious groups focus much more (some almost solely) on the NT, particularly the gospels.
• 

  Leolaia

  Actually, I never claimed that the use of "egó eimi is itself based on the OT LXX," in fact I said that there is no proof of this. What I said was that "the gospel of John was dependent on the Greek LXX" and on the basis of this fact "the use of ego eimi in the LXX is quite relevant to appreciating its use in John". Thus when I cite evidence of similarities between the two, this is not to be construed as hard proof of dependence but as evidence of influence. But since there are (1) similarities and (2) a general dependence on the LXX, it cannot be said that the Greek OT is just not relevant to the present question.

  John 1:23 and Isaiah 40:3 show only a similarity not a dependence. If they were exact then perhaps a dependence could be established, but they are not.

  It is far more than a mere "similarity". The two have a word-for-word agreement except for a few specific modifications, particularly in combining two clauses into one. Making modifications to a source does not render your text no longer dependent on that source; the study of literary dependence does not demand a total one-to-one agreement between texts in all details. This is just not reasonable because authors usually had some freedom in adjusting the text. Rather, the connection with the LXX is quite plain when we note that other Greek translations phrased Isaiah 40:3 in quite different ways. Thus instead of boóntos "crying aloud" in John 1:23 and Isaiah 40:3 LXX, Aquila has kalountos "calling out", instead of hetoimasate "prepare" in the LXX (= Mark 1:3, Matthew 3:3, etc.), Aquila and Theodotion have aposkeuasate "prepare", while Symmachus has eutrepisate. Instead of using a form of euthus "straight" (= LXX), the author of John could have instead used homalisate "make even" as Symmachus does.

  What such differences really show is that this was more probably a paraphrase or summation of this text from whatever unknown source it was derived and not a dependence on the LXX version of it.

  And yet what we find is that time and again, the wording in John follows the wording in the LXX. This is not to say he did not use other versions as well or the Hebrew (cf. John 13:18 which is enough different from the LXX to represent a free translation, a different version, or a free adaptation of the LXX), but such use does not mean that the LXX wasn't a source either. This is clear from the culminative weight of examples, not just one example like the one I quoted. Here is another:

  John 12:38: kurie tis episteusen té akoé hémón kai ho brakhión kuriou tini apekaluphthé

  Isaiah 53:1 LXX: kurie tis episteusen té akoé hémón kai ho brakhión kuriou tini apekaluphthé

  Verbatim agreement, and this is hardly the only way to phrase the Hebrew into Greek. In fact, John 12:38 has kurie "Lord" the equivalent of which is missing in the Hebrew MT (cf. Romans 10:16 which also cites the LXX text).
• 

  M.J.

  To add to LT's point. JWs attribute more power to Satan than they attribute to Jesus. According to them, all Satan's power is his own. All Christ's power comes from his dad.
• 

  JosephMalik

  This is not to say he did not use other versions as well or the Hebrew (cf. John 13:18 which is enough different from the LXX to represent a free translation, a different version, or a free adaptation of the LXX), but such use does not mean that the LXX wasn't a source either.

  Leolia,

  And does this mean that such interpretation of “ego eimi” is somehow dependent upon such use? No, as each verse can be interpreted based upon its own context and such OT texts do not alter John’s use of ego eimi. This dependency is all guesswork anyway of course as most texts of the day were Acrostics and few if any texts in any form were available outside of the Temple or Synagogue. We may know what such texts say today but we do not know if John actually saw one do we? You of course are aware of the arguments that such an LXX version did not even exist until the third century or even later? One can simply Google this up and see for themselves. The point I have made is that John did not allude to the Supreme Being anywhere in his work by using the expression “I am.” All one has to do is punch in “I am” in their Online Bible search engines and see how John really used this common term throughout his work. It is as simple as that.

  Joseph
• 

  Cygnus

  
  LT and hellrider, I appreciate your points and respect them, but it hurt me to read them because I'm very sorry, but I must disagree. I just got back from occupational therapy and had new 2 new hand splints made for me and I need to bathe and take care of some hygiene issues so I'm a little busy and now my WT-CDROM won't work. I will edit this post later when I can get it to work to provide some black-and-white basis for my assertions. Edited to add: OK, I called my dad and explained to him what's going on so he is going to give me his 1991 WTCDROM; my mom is going to bring it to me in a few hours. So I'll try to make my posting some time tonight. Isn't it great that I have JW parents who will give me a WT CD for apostate purposes?
• 

  zen nudist

  And does this mean that such interpretation of “ego eimi” is somehow dependent upon such use? No, as each verse can be interpreted based upon its own context and such OT texts do not alter John’s use of ego eimi. This dependency is all guesswork anyway of course as most texts of the day were Acrostics and few if any texts in any form were available outside of the Temple or Synagogue. We may know what such texts say today but we do not know if John actually saw one do we? You of course are aware of the arguments that such an LXX version did not even exist until the third century or even later? One can simply Google this up and see for themselves. The point I have made is that John did not allude to the Supreme Being anywhere in his work by using the expression “I am.” All one has to do is punch in “I am” in their Online Bible search engines and see how John really used this common term throughout his work. It is a simple as that.

  I can not imagine a sillier argument for the trinity then this "I am" Debate. no one in their right mind would see that phrase in any other book and think the person saying it was calling himself God.... yet many trinitarians have Parrotted this from some preacher they have herd blindly repeating it as if it really was meaningful. 1. in Greek Jehovah does not say Ego Ami, but Ego Ami Ho On.... or I am THE ETERNAL [one]. and no jew has ever confused Jehovah to mean simply ego ami.

  2. Jesus was giving a TIME reference when he said BEFORE Abraham, I exist[ed] not a statement of divinity.
• 

  Cygnus

  
  Zen nudist, you're exactly right and if I were a Christian/Catholic, while I would accept the trinity as a matter of accepting tradition, I could not buy into the scholastic approach that tie Jn 8:58 to Ex 3:14 making Jesus "the" ego eimi ho on.

  And Joe Malik had a good point about the LXX copies being stored away but I am not tied to reductionist thinking and have to insist the actual apostle John wrote the book so the encounter in Jn 8 with the Jews very well could have been a later addition. I don't know, who was the first so-called church father to advance the argument that Jesus was "the I AM"? I don't think Origen did. Maybe Justin?

  Edited to add: I spoke to a Jew once who was arguing with trinitarian Messianic Jews (Jews for Jesus) and he told me that in Judaism, it is anathema to believe that the Messiah would be YHWH himself.
• 

  Leolaia

  I know of no evidence that "few if any [OT] texts in any form were available outside of the Temple or Synagogue", or at least not available to NT writers who were not part of "the Temple or Synagogue". Perhaps I just don't understand your point. The writers of the NT, the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. show an acquaintance not only with the Greek OT but also with intertestamental books that circulated during the period. That would constitute evidence that they were in contact with the textual tradition of the LXX, the pre-Theodotionic text, and other versions/writings, and that such texts circulated. No?

  This dependency is all guesswork anyway of course as most texts of the day were Acrostics

  Like alphabetic acrostics??? I don't have a clue what is meant here....

  You of course are aware of the arguments that such an LXX version did not even exist until the third century or even later? One can simply Google this up and see for themselves.

  No...could you please provide a web link? Although the LXX was likely compiled over time (e.g. third to first century BC), the claim that the texts of the LXX "did not even exist until the third century [A.D.?] or even later" just flies against all the evidence I have seen (e.g. Qumran fragments of the LXX, attestation in Hellenistic Jewish writers, the NT and church fathers, the fictional story of the composition of the LXX attested in the Letter of Aristeas, Philo of Alexandria, Josephus, etc.).