Trinity- True or False

by defd 215 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    He is identified as uniquely the Son, and different from the angels, as per Hebrews 1 & 2, and the title "only-begotten Son". Different from what angels? Not non-human ones as most teach. It is the angels of the covenant under discussion in Hebrews. They were Jews of times past like the prophets and fathers introduced and described in verse 1. Now we know that this Son created the worlds (as the Word). Not only John but Hebrews and Colossians testifies to this fact. He is therefore the only-begotten human being to come into existence by means other than himself and thus identified as the only-begotten Son of God.

    Joseph

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    LT, I didn't mean to offend. You're a believer, though. I'm not. That's what I meant by emotional investment.

    NeonMadman showed how the WT is pretty much contradictory in its explanations of things, they are so reductionist at times, it's a big reason why I can't ever be anything close to a JW again. But I haven't been able to hear of or come across anything in more recent WT material that blatantly contradicts that 1951 WT I referred to. Either way, aside from some small academic interest, the subject really is boring, and ultimately an exercise in frustration. After all, we're essentially arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Cheers, LT. :)

    Edited to add: That '92 WT NeonMadman referenced was an article arguing against Jesus being a God-man so it is arguing against a particular form or definition of "divinity," and not, obviously, the one JWs believe that applies to Jesus. IMO, Matthew 4:8-10 kinda blows away any idea that Jesus thought he was "the Lord", "God", or Jehovah. He says only The Lord, or Jehovah (NWT) is to be worshipped. But Hebrews says the angels worship the Son. As Terry said, Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

  • zen nudist
    zen nudist
    The only reason the "anointed" become sons is by adoption. He isn't the "firstborn among many brothers" (Rom.8:29) in the midst of the angels.

    as I said, the other humans became divine by adoption, I agree, but they are no less divine then the elohim now, infact they are said to be superior to them...so numerically once again, there is no justification of saying the elohim are limited to three and its obvious this number is growing if the bible it to be believed.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider


    Right, I have a couple of questions for all you Bible scholars:

    John says: " 1:1 In the beginning1 was the Word, and the Word was with God,2 and the Word was fully God.3 1:2 The Word4 was with God in the beginning. 1:3 All things were created5 by him, and apart from him not one thing was created6 that has been created.7 1:4 In him was life,8 and the life was the light of mankind.9 "

    My question is: Isn`t there a contradictory statement here? First he says: "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was fully God". (That the word is Jesus Christ (or later known as Jesus Christ) is pretty clear. Jesus calls himself "the light of mankind" on one occasion, I think it is later in John.) This first verse more than indicates that God and the Word are "in" the same entity, in the beginning the word was with God (it is even mentioned before God), and it was fully God! This would clearly indicate that it was "inseparate" from God, that it was not created!

    But then comes "all things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created". This I don`t understand. It seems to be selfcontradictory! Could it be that the "apart from him not one thing was created part" only refers to the Word in earthly form, the Christ? And I have a question for Zen Nudist (and any others that would like to answer): What is the justification for claiming that the Word is Michael the archangel? Because if the Word is Jesus (and all things were created thru him), and Jesus is Michael, then Michael is the Word!! Where in the Bible can I find this? I know that the catholics have a lot of theories about the angels and archangels, but I never learned anything about this stuff in the JWs. And another thing: If the Words/Jesus` real name is Michael, wouldn`t it be more appropriate to just call him that, for the JWs, who believe that this is who he is?

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    How many times must this verse be discussed before it is understood? This is an introduction and sets the theme for John’s Gospel. It starts out by tracing the history of the non-human Word that was with God at the beginning of mankind’s or as John states it the worlds creation:

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

    At such a beginning the Word was commissioned to create humanity and be responsible for it as the God to such a world of humans. Those that understand this first use of the term God to be the Supreme Being would be correct, but this is determined by reason and context and not by the term God. The term God identifies no one in and by itself and is applied to others as well. This is also now true of the Word. This second use simply means someone in authority an Anointed one to be such as Moses or the Messiah for example. That the Word was now called God as such a time shows how such authority was passed to him by this Supreme Being that he was with. Nothing really earth shaking here since the very name of God which is far more significant and specific in scripture than the term God was passed to angelic and non angelic messengers such as the one in the burning bush to act in this Supreme Beings behalf just as if they were Him and in countless other texts in much the same way.

    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

    Not everything was made by him. John is only discussing all things pertaining to the world of humankind and the salvation of such a World that this Word would provide. Of this truth many were in darkness and continue to be in darkness and fail to comprehend it to this day. So John said of the Baptist: 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

    But to those that do not grasp this fact that only humanity this specific World is under discussion or the World with all its complexity and governmental structure the apostle continues and says: 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    No trees, plants or animals included just this specific world of humans and only those that qualify to become Sons of God. Who created the animals or at least some of them? Who do you think had authority over such animals and used them improperly?

    Joseph

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    This might not address your exact question, Hellrider, but the best translation I think of Jn 1:1 is the New English Bible which renders Jn 1:1c: "What God was, the Word (Gr. LOGOS) was."

    William Tyndale recognized that the Greek pronoun in the prologue of John was neuter, not masculine, so it might be best read: "All things were created though it" etc. When you see "him", "it" can be substituted. Refer back to Psalms 119:89: " To time indefinite, O Jehovah, Your word (Gr. LOGOS) is stationed in the heavens." Especially Psalms 33:6: " By the word (Greek LOGOS) of Jehovah the heavens themselves were made."

    To Tyndale, and today's Christadelphians and Abrahamic Faith churches, Jesus existed only in the mind of God and didn't exist until his earthly existence. In Jewish thought, what was to come to fruition on earth comes from heaven first (e.g. in pseudoJewish/Christian thought: the New Jerusalem, the pre-ordained church of God, etc.).

    It's messy. Who knows what was really meant. Thus the extensive writings of pre- and post-Nicean philosophers.

  • Midget-Sasquatch
    Midget-Sasquatch

    Cygnus I'm glad the references I picked made my point. In line with what Terry was saying about the ambiguity that can come up with wording, the WTS teaches "divine" to have the following different meanings:

    *** it-1 p. 638 Divine ***

    That which belongs to God or pertains to him, that which is godlike or heavenly.

    You can see how the WTS can pick and choose meanings to suit their particular views about the divine nature of the anointed and in particular, Jesus. Here's some more relevant stuff :

    *** it-2 p. 474 Nature *** Divine Nature. Also, there is a different nature belonging to those in heaven, spirit creatures of God. The apostle Peter speaks to his fellow Christians, spiritual brothers of Jesus Christ, of "the precious and very grand promises, that through these you may become sharers in divine nature [phy´se·os]." (2Pe 1:4) That this is a sharing with Christ in his glory as spirit persons, Peter shows in his first letter: "God . . . gave us a new birth [a·na·gen·ne´sas he·mas´, "having generated us again"] to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you." (1Pe 1:3, 4) "Divine nature" requires a change in nature through death and resurrection, as made plain by the apostle Paul at First Corinthians chapter 15. He explains that the Christian must die and must be resurrected in a different body, a spiritual one, which requires a change.—1Co 15:36, 38, 44, 49, 51

    So thats how the JWs are taught to view Jesus and the anointed as being "divine". They are spirits like Jehovah and, like you said before, they have "life within themselves". But thats the extent to which they are the same in nature or essence to Jehovah in JW minds and in the literature. Jesus is called a god in the following sense:

    *** it-2 p. 54 Jesus Christ *** The Word’s preeminent position among God’s creatures as the Firstborn, the one through whom God created all things, and as God’s Spokesman, gives real basis for his being called "a god" or mighty one. The Messianic prophecy at Isaiah 9:6 foretold that he would be called "Mighty God," though not the Almighty God, and that he would be the "Eternal Father" of all those privileged to live as his subjects. The zeal of his own Father, "Jehovah of armies," would accomplish this. (Isa 9:7) Certainly if God’s Adversary, Satan the Devil, is called a "god" (2Co 4:4) because of his dominance over men and demons (1Jo 5:19; Lu 11:14-18), then with far greater reason and propriety is God’s firstborn Son called "a god," "the only-begotten god" as the most reliable manuscripts of John 1:18 call him.

    Also about that 52 WT you cited, that article was mainly talking about relative free will. True, it portrays them as being much closer to Jehovah, than anyone else, but they still don't come up exactly to Big J's level. Here's part of the paragraph following the one you quoted:

    . *** w52 7/1 pp. 412-413 Restrictions of Christian Freedom ***

    SCOPE

    OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM

    27 Unlike Jehovah, all others have bounds defining their freedom to a greater or lesser extent, depending upon their degree of inferiority in status, all the way from Christ Jesus to faithful man. However, the extent of the area of relative freedom is adequate to enable the creatures of whatever status to give the fullest expression to their perfect lives with good to themselves and all about them, all to the glory of their Creator, God. To the individual creature the amount of freedom set before him is vast.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Jo:
    So let me get this right. You believe that Satan made the earth, plants and animals, and Jesus made mankind?? They both got busy on the sixth day?

    Gonna love seeing your sources for that one (I don't recall reading that in the Apocryphal or psuedopigraphyl writings). I thought I was eclectic with bible verses, but you really take the biscuit!

    Aren't you side-stepping Col.1:16 which speaks of him creating the things in the heavens, too? The context goes beyond merely governments, here. Besides, isn't creatorship again reserved to "God"? What makes God "God"?

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    Yes, the WT picks and chooses. And yes, while Jesus and the 144,000 will be indestructible, they will always be subject and inferior to Jehovah, both in will and I guess in substance.

    Again, it's arguing angels on the head of a pin...

    LT, don't pick on Joe. I like his ideas, they're different. What's wrong with a little difference to shake things up in the ol' gulliver? Besides, if you read the context of Col 1 you might find it's talking about future subjects and participants of God's Kingdom.

    Edited to add, in response to LT's post underneath mine, cause I don't want to waste posts today: OK LT, sorry, I know underneath that tough exterior you bring out in these type of threads, ultimately you're a kind soul. And you've definitely got one thing right: Joe Malik is as tough as the day is long. :)

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Cygnus:
    I aint picking on anyone. I'm enjoying the debate, and he's got a thick enough hide to take it. I like his ideas, too

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit