hooberus! Thanks for that link! It's much worse than I orginally thought
Trinity pamphlet, - a response & research
by Kristofer 51 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Death to the Pixies
<<<also found a link to the writings of the early church fathers that you can read for yourself rather than listen to what other people think they said. I was shocked by the academic dihonestly. Happy reading>>>
Reply: Greetings, Let's not get "academic dishonesty" confused with a warranted interpretation. If we take Justin into consideration (Justin being one of the Fathers quoted in the pamphlet) we find some disagree-ing with the WTS interpretation and implications derived from Justins words*, but this is not dishonesty on the part of the WTS simply because it goes against an Orthodox interpretation of Justin. JWs are not alone as seeing Justin as having the Son as an Angel of temporal origin. One thing for sure is, Justin nowhere speaks of what was later deemed an "Eternal generation", in fact all signs point elsewhere. Justin regularly refers to Jesus as the "First-begotten" and "first-progeny", applies the LXX of Proverbs 8:22 to the Son. Lamson notes:
" He speaks of the "Son" as the Logos, that before created things, was with God, and begotten, when, through him, he [God] in the beginning created and adorned all things" The meaning is, that he was converted into a real being, having a seperate personal subsistence, at the time God, using him as his instrument, was about to proceed to the work of creation. That this is the meaning is obvious from the use of the term "when" (we use Ottos text):he was begotten of God "when through him he created and embellished all things"- language which makes the two acts almost simultaneous, the one taking place immediatley before the other..... The attribute, like all divine attributes was eternal, but it became hypostatized or converted into a real person,in time, that is just befoe the creation of the world. Justin elsewhere, as we shall see speaks of the Son as the "beginning" of God's "way to his works". (The Church in the first 3 centuries p. 53)
Now we can also take Justin as being ambiguous in this regard, but you canot say the Pamphlet mis-quoted Justin, or that they have shown dishonesty. Many Non-Jws have came to this very same conclusion.
*Pamphlet makes this observation on Justin:
Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things." He said that Jesus was inferior to God and "never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say."
-
Kristofer
I see a couple of problems here,
#1. You are using Lamson's interpretation of Justin when you could just as easily go to the source and see what Justin has to say.
#2. I don't know how you can dodge dishonesty here. Saying that justin called the prehuman Jesus a "created angel" is a flat out LIE! Yeah, sorry..but that's dishonest. Show me where he calls Jesus a "created angel" and I will take back my accusation.
Justin does say:
"The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."
I also don't see anywhere where Justin refers to Jesus as inferior.
Interpretation? I don't think so. Putting words into people's mouths is gross and dishonest. -
Saoirse
yes jehovah os lord ans so is jesus.and we have to be thankful to both of them.but this doesnt not mean they are the same person.
The WT grossly misrepresents the trinity. The Christian view of the trinity is far different from what the WT claims it is. The trinity doctrine never claims that Jesus and the Father are the same person as this picture illustrates:
-
Death to the Pixies
Krist:#1. You are using Lamson's interpretation of Justin when you could just as easily go to the source and see what Justin has to say.
Reply: I only used Lamson to show that the WT was not alone in their view on Justin and the ECF. Others have come to the same conculsions based on the writings on the Fathers. I could quote others. In the case of Justin, the first father quoted in the Pamphlet, their intertpretation is both plausible and warranted.
Krist:2. I don't know how you can dodge dishonesty here. Saying that justin called the prehuman Jesus a "created angel" is a flat out LIE! Yeah, sorry..but that's dishonest. Show me where he calls Jesus a "created angel" and I will take back my accusation.
Reply: "Created angel" was not not attributed to be a direct quote from Justin, but an implication derived from his writings. They could have been more thorough, but they did not have space to do so in their pamphlet. They are free to interpret. That is not a mis-quote nor dishonest.
Krist:Justin does say:
"The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God."Reply: Justin does call Jesus G-god, but in what way is enlightening. Justin defintiely believes Jesus to be a different God than the Almighty, a distinct "subjected" God, as can be seen from his writings:
: "Then (Justin) replied, 'I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures (of the truth) of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because he announces to man whatsoever the Maker of all things above whom there is no other God - wishes to announce to them...'. Then (Justin) replied, 'Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses and who is called "God" is distinct from Him who made all things - numerically, I mean, not (distinct) in will'... 'For I affirm that he has never at any time done anything which he who made the world - above whom there is no other god - has not wished him both to do and to engage himself with'." (Trypho LVI)
Krist:I also don't see anywhere where Justin refers to Jesus as inferior.
Reply: That is open to debate, Trins will argue basic Trinitarian arguments when we show Justin applied John 14:28 to Jesus without qualification, when he says such things as:
""And now I shall again recite the words which I have spoken in proof of this point. When Scripture says, 'The Lord rained fire from the Lord out of heaven, 'the prophetic word indicates that there were two in number: One upon the earth, who, it says, descended to behold the cry of Sodom; Another in heaven, who also is Lord of the Lord on earth, as He is Father and God;the cause of his power and of His being Lord and God " (Trypho)
We wil let his words speak for themsleves.
Sincerely.
-
carla
pmj,
jehovah jesus and the holy spirt are the same person.----------Christians do not say this, why don't you spend a few minutes finding out what Christians actually think before simply relying on a lying printing corporation to tell you what others think. In fact, why don't you try to do a real study of the doctrine so you can talk about intelligently with others before you assume what they believe. It would take hard work, and you may have to use the brain God gave you to try and at least understand what Christians are really saying and get out of the box of what you have been told. But, then I guess the wt is the easier way. No real thinking involved, no effort to understand anything, just believe everything we say cause we say so even if we are wrong.
-
Death to the Pixies
<<Christians do not say this, why don't you spend a few minutes finding out what Christians actually think before simply relying on a lying printing corporation to tell you >>
Reply: People do love to make these comments, but thay are not fair. Other than a few mistakes over the last hundred years, the WT has correctly described the Trinity in its defenses. I have seen many more variations/mistakes in Trinitarian Literature and references.
-
JW_Researcher
Thank you for the link.
-
Leolaia
Pixies....It is true that Justin Martyr's christology was closer to the "Two Powers in Heaven" (deuteros theos) theology of some streams of early Judaism (as found in Philo of Alexandria, for instance) than other second-century apologists, and technically the Society did not misquote him for they only provide a paraphrase, but their representation of Justin and the other apologists is not a simple failure of being thorough due to lack of space. The Society's characterization of the beliefs of the apologists is consistently skewed to mention whatever is consistent with their own theology (even attributing statements and views the apologists did not hold in some cases) while omitting everything that would be inconvenient with their theology.....especially all the beliefs that would serve as ingrediants to the fourth-century Trinity doctrine (i.e. the Deity of Christ, the unity in substance between the Son and Father, the relationship between the three Persons as a Trinity, the co-equality of Christ with the Father, etc.), which gives the misleading appearance that the notions of the Trinity appeared out of nowhere in the fourth century. That is imho the main issue here. You say that they are "free to interpret" the views of the church fathers, but that doesn't mean that one can characterize the views of someone any which way one wants. It is hardly conceivable that the authors of the broshure missed all the affirmations of Christ's Deity and trinitarian thinking in Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. The consistent, systematic nature of the misrepresentation tells me that it is deliberate and thus dishonest. Would it be dishonest for me to insist that the Society DOES TEACH eternal hellfire, because they refer to everlasting destruction in a fiery Armageddon?
What did they leave out about Justin Martyr? He claimed that the Son was the "Lord God" of the OT who appeared as the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" in the burning bush (1 Apology 62-63), that the God who "appeared in so many forms to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses" was "born a man of a virgin" (Dialogue 75), that "Angel" was a title given to the Son because he announced God to man (1 Apology 62, Dialogue 76), that "God" was also a title given to the Son (Dialogue 34, 61, 124, 127 "God the Son"), but not only is he "called God" but "he is God, and always shall be God" (Dialogue 58), and thus is to be worshipped (1 Apology 6, Dialogue 68), but as God he is subject to the Father (who is distinguished as the "ineffable God", cf. 1 Apology 62-63, Dialogue 61, 127), that the Son was "begotten" by the Father by "an act of the Father's will" but like an enkindled fire has the same brilliance as the first fire while not lessening the power and brilliance of that first fire (Dialogue 61), and thus the Son is generated from the Father without dividing "the substance of the Father" (Dialogue 128), just as a fire can start another fire without losing any of its original substance. This "begetting" is a rather different concept from "creating" and Justin always refers to the Son being "begotten" (and the Father as "unbegotten", 2 Apology 6), and never as being created (cf. 1 Apology 12, 22, 23, Dialogue 61, 129). In fact, Justin specifically denies that the Son was an angel in the ordinary sense:
"I do not consider that teaching true which is asserted by what you call a heretical sect of your religion, nor can the proponents of that heresy prove that he spoke those words (i.e., 'Let us make') to angels, or that the human body was the result of an angel's work. But this Offspring, who was truly begotten of the Father, was with the Father and the Father talked with Him before all creation, as the scripture through Solomon clearly showed us, saying that this Son, who is called Wisdom by Solomon, was begotten both as a beginning before all his works, and as his Offspring" (Dialogue 62).
For these and other reasons, I felt the Society's characterization of Justin Martyr was both selective and erroneous....and when this was added to the very skewed characterizations of the other church fathers, I could not help but regard this publication as offensively dishonest...
-
Shining One
HI LT,
>I'm beyond caring about arguing the Trinity doctrine, but it was the WTS Trinity Borchure that put the last nail in the coffin, for me, regarding and residual belief that they were just misguided.
I also came to same conclusion over this brochure. I was having online discussions in a 'Bible Student' group, went to two of their conventions at Grove City College in Western Pa. I got to meet Ron Frey and Jim Penton. I still held to the position that the Trinity was false. The research that exposed the lying and chicanery of the WBTS was the most important factor in my conversion. When I realized that Jesus claimed to be God, scripture foretold the Messiah as God and the earliest Christians worshipped Jesus it changed me forever. I discovered my Lord in February of 2000, committed my life to Him then was baptized in April of that year (as were my wife and two teen sons!).
Rex
