Posts by slimboyfat

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

slimboyfat

All very interesting, but can you answer the question?

When was Jesus “taught” by the Father according to John 8.28? And doesn’t it imply that the Father knew things the Son didn’t know until he taught him?

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

slimboyfat

Okay, is there anywhere in all that which talks about John 8.28?

I think the passage must be talking about Jesus’ prehuman relationship with God because the same passage emphasises that Jesus came “from heaven” and that he was “sent” by God who taught him.

It seems to me this is a real problem for Trinitarians because if Jesus was taught by his Father in heaven then it means that Jesus didn’t know things until God instructed him and therefore God is superior to his Son in knowledge. This is such a straightforward reading of the text it’s difficult to see how it couldn’t be saying that. Yet it’s problematic for the Trinity that maintains the Father is not superior to the Son in knowledge except for a sense limited to when Jesus became a human.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

slimboyfat

The context of John 8 indicates rather strongly that Jesus was taught by God in heaven before he came to the earth:

23 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins.”
25 “Who are you?” they asked.

“Just what I have been telling you from the beginning,” Jesus replied. 26 “I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is trustworthy, and what I have heard from him I tell the world.”

27 They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28 So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.” 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

slimboyfat

I understand that Trinitarians apply subordinationist passages to Jesus’ “human nature” but can you really do that in this passage? Surely the passage is talking about God teaching the Son over aeons of time. Or would you argue this passage only refers to Jesus learning from God as a human during his earthy life? The book of John so often refers to Jesus’ life and relationship with God in heaven (John 1.18; 17.5, and many more), it would be odd if this verse did not refer to that age old relationship between God and his Son too.

In the culture of the time it was completely taken for granted that a father and son are not equals, because a father is older than his son, and he is wiser and more knowledgable than his son. This context underlies all the descriptions of Jesus and God as Father and Son. It’s only later Christians came to define God and his Son in terms of essence and nature and substance and begin to deny basic understanding that a father is superior to his son in age, wisdom and knowledge.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

slimboyfat

This is not a verse that I’ve seen feature heavily in Trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the Trinity. If there are any around I’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the Trinity.

The verse says:

So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.

As far as I know there are no major textual or translation issues, so the verse is straightforward in that sense.

What strikes me is the final phrase: “just as the Father taught me”. JWs believe that Jesus is God’s first creation and that God taught his Son everything over billions of years in his prehuman life. When do Trinitarians think that God taught his Son?

One commentary makes the statement:

but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things; this he says not as lessening himself, or making himself inferior to the Father, but to show the excellency of his doctrine, and to assert the original, authority, and divinity of it; suggesting that it was not an human doctrine, or a device of man's, or his own, as man, but was divine, and from God

But the impression of the verse is that the Father is superior in knowledge and wisdom compared with the Son and that he taught the Son everything. So this commentary seems to raise the problem with the verse for the Trinity without offering a solution.

40

Dates and times

by jhine in

last night at my bible study group we looked at 1thessalonians ch 5 .

we have been working through the whole letter.

verses 1-11 start with .

slimboyfat

1 Cor 7:29?

144

Hailstone message AND everyone will be saved? Questions

by slimboyfat in

i’ve not been paying close attention to watchtower developments, but talking to a jw yesterday it occurred to me the society (yes, still use that term - old school) have been sending out mixed messages in recent years.

from what i gather, a few years ago the gb announced that during the great tribulation jws would be required to preach a “hailstone message of judgement” which involved telling people it was too late for them to repent and they were definitely going to be destroyed.

there were hints that this could be very soon, “any day now” preaching could stop and the hailstone message come in, kind of thing.

slimboyfat

Thanks Earnest, that’s what I thought the teaching was. I take it that’s what Russell also taught, and only changed in the 1930s when the new teaching of the “great crowd” was developed. I think the old teaching is closer to the Christadelphian understanding of Armageddon. I wonder if the Society will move closer to that view.

144

Hailstone message AND everyone will be saved? Questions

by slimboyfat in

i’ve not been paying close attention to watchtower developments, but talking to a jw yesterday it occurred to me the society (yes, still use that term - old school) have been sending out mixed messages in recent years.

from what i gather, a few years ago the gb announced that during the great tribulation jws would be required to preach a “hailstone message of judgement” which involved telling people it was too late for them to repent and they were definitely going to be destroyed.

there were hints that this could be very soon, “any day now” preaching could stop and the hailstone message come in, kind of thing.

slimboyfat

Is it worth pointing out that when Rutherford wrote his booklet Millions Now Living Will Never Die there were fever than 100,000 Bible Students worldwide and they expected to go to heaven, not live forever on earth. The “millions” who were expected to survive Armageddon were currently unbelievers who would accept the truth in the new world in large numbers and never die.

Have I got that right?

Could Watchtower be working its way back to that “understanding” of millions of non believers surviving Armageddon?

40

Dates and times

by jhine in

last night at my bible study group we looked at 1thessalonians ch 5 .

we have been working through the whole letter.

verses 1-11 start with .

slimboyfat

Did the apostle Paul apologise for telling people it was better not to get married because the end was near in 1 Corinthians 7?

144

Hailstone message AND everyone will be saved? Questions

by slimboyfat in

i’ve not been paying close attention to watchtower developments, but talking to a jw yesterday it occurred to me the society (yes, still use that term - old school) have been sending out mixed messages in recent years.

from what i gather, a few years ago the gb announced that during the great tribulation jws would be required to preach a “hailstone message of judgement” which involved telling people it was too late for them to repent and they were definitely going to be destroyed.

there were hints that this could be very soon, “any day now” preaching could stop and the hailstone message come in, kind of thing.

slimboyfat

"JW's used to believe you had to be a baptised JW to be saved at Armageddon, now JW's believe baptised JW's and some who react favourably during the Great Tribulation may get saved meaning exJW's, or family members of JW' etc no longer HAVE to die prior to Armageddon to ensure they are in paradise as they now can react to the events of the Great Tribulation favourably and be saved".

So non believing relatives will have a better chance of surviving because they can still repent after the Great Tribulation has started but they would still need to repent before Armageddon in order to survive? That doesn’t sound like as good a chance as somebody who is resurrected in the new system and has 1000 years to mend their ways. If I was a believing JW I would be disappointed because it sounded like the GB were saying that non believing relatives would have the same chance whenever they died. But if it’s as you describe then wouldn’t many JWs still not wonder if non believing relatives would be better off dying and getting resurrected?