by gold_morning 137 Replies latest watchtower bible
Auldsoul,
My argument was based upon the Biblical text. You want to expand it well outside the Bible, which has nothing to do with my argument based upon the Bible. Trinitarians want to interpret various texts in light of their preconcieved polypersonal god, to prove that he is polypersonal. This is circular.
As for me, I consider myself a monotheist. Some might call me a Henotheist, but I am certainly no more such than those at Qumran.
There are many gods and many lords, but they are false ones.
Ephesians 4:4-6
One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.
Does this mean more than one, or only one?
1 Corinthians 8:6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord (kurios), Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.
1 Corinthians 12:6
and there are varieties of operations, and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons.
In case you were wondering where the last two verse come from, they are the marginal references from "God" and "Lord" in Ephesians 4:4-6.
1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus,
And that one is linked from "God" in 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Is there only one God, Mondo1? Do you read the Bible for what it says?
Match these verses up with Isaiah 9:6 and John 1:1.
If the Word was a god "In the beginning..." and there is only one God, what god was the Word? Was the Word a false god? If Messiah would be called "Mighty God" would He be a false one, or a true one?
Since you believe God is NOT polypersonal, please explain this seeming contradiction.
Mondo:
If we want to understand the Bible, we must understand how those that were alive when it was wrote would look at it. I've attempted to give you a bit of insight into how they thought and how they wrote. You can call it explaining away, but it is hardly that. It is simply a fact that they looked at things as I put forth.
...Those alive at the time it was written would never look at it in the way you claim that they would look at it, on the contrary. To people in Palestine at the time of Christ, and in particular to the greeks, God-men were a dime a dozen. The idea was not new to neither greek, jew or roman. Shortly after Jesus, the roman emperor declared himself God. Greeks and romans had worshipped humans and dead objects ("idols") for centuries, allready. The NT was written in greek, by greeks. There is no surprise in the worship of Jesus Christ. The fact that you could write what you wrote above, shows that you know surprisingly little about history. There are so many points to be raised at this latest argument of yours that I don`t know where to begin. For example, the distinction Father/Son was not as clear as it is today. Today, in 2006, a young boy can grow up to be whatever he wants to be. 2000 years ago, this was not the case. If the father was a carpenter, the boy would be a carpenter (trained by his father). If the father was a civil servant, the boy would be a civil servant (trained by his father). If the father was God...well, you get the picture. Also, what did people know about, and believe about, conception and fatherhood at that time in history? They still believed the theories of Aristotle, theories which we today know are wrong, but at this time, these theories were considered "truth": The mother of a child contributes only physical matter, the flesh and blood. The form of the child, and its spirit and soul comes from the father only, the mother has absolutely nothing to do with it. If the child turns out to be a girl, she is, according to Aristotle, a "misfigured boy", in the sense that "something went wrong in the uterus". If the child is a healthy boy, he is a perfect image of the father, a part of the father in every way, as if the Spirit of the Father had had a spiritual offspring, taking place in the physical matter/flesh coming from the mother. And so, if the father was God...well, you get the picture. If you wish me to quote historians and works of Aristotle of this, let me know. The truth is, this what the greeks and romans, and to a certain extent, jews, believed at this time. If we are to take the historical context into consideration when trying to figure out "what these texts must have meant to the people at the time", I would love that, because my case is much, much stronger than yours on that particular issue. In fact, it would have been very strange if the jews and greeks at that time had believed in anything but a "God-man". If you had known anything at all about history, you would never have written what you just wrote above.
Does this mean more than one, or only one?
Interesting question. One must understand how those in the first century understood the words "one something." For example, the NT teaches that Jesus is our "one Lord" and yet the apostle John in Revelation 7:14 had no problem addressing one of the 24 elders as his Lord. Further, in John 8, the Jews state "we have one Father, God" and yet only 2 verses prior they stated: "Abraham is our Father." If they have one Father who is God and Abraham is their Father, is Abraham God? No. The point is that the expression "one something" didn't necessarily mean that exclusively, but that completely.
There are many gods and many lords, but they are false ones.
Scripture would beg to differ. The Bible speaks of the false gods as "so-called gods" while there are many real gods, such as the angels.
Mondo
The fact that there were pagan god-men has little to do with the God of the Jews and their rejection of such pagan deities.
The NT was not written by Greeks, it was written by Jews.
You err because you attempt to classify "God" as a job, comparing it to a carpenter. It is not a job, it is a position, and one does not hold that position, and more specifically, exist as a person of a single being, because one is born of another. You want to accept that Jesus is God's Son, but not accept all that is included with that thought, which is that he was produced from the Father and quite truly came to be in existence... thus meaning he is not eternal.
I know the history and the background quite well, but obviously you wish to project your own insufficient understanding of the issues on to me. Quite clearly, you have little or no grasp of the principle of agency and how it necessarily applies to the interpretation of Scripture.
Mondo1 said:If we want to understand the Bible, we must understand how those that were alive when it was wrote would look at it.
Were YOU there? After reading your "arguments" on JWD recently, you would seem to imply that you were....either that, or you must have MAJOR scholarly qualifications along with minor connections with the dead men of old! NO one could speak with such conviction on precisely how the bible writers meant something unless you had special powers or insights.
Mondo1, do you ACTUALLY THINK that the bible is so complex and complicated that men "unlettered and ordinary" who are striving to understand it....will be at a loss unless they are either a) blessed with a capacity such as yours, or b)have a group of MORE unlettered and ordinary men in Brooklyn to do all their interpreting FOR them?
I mean....the scriptures cited by AS, hellrider, etc, are so SELF-explanatory, yet you would have us all to believe they don't say what we think they do...but YOU can correctly decipher them in a heartbeat to "mean" something else! My-oh-my......
Would you share with the rest of the peons, illiterates and Sesame Streets grads here...just what qualifications you DO HAVE in order to speak to others this way? I think I can speak FOR these others in asking you to share your most interesting and superlative commendatory educational background on which you base your posts. Surely, you will enlighten us even further.
Curious Annie......of the "those who want to know" class
Trinitarians want to interpret various texts in light of their preconcieved polypersonal god, to prove that he is polypersonal. This is circular.
The WTS are the absolute masters in the art of circular reasoning, but it doesn't seem to stop THEM! LOL!
A few months ago on another DB I had used some of the same scriptures that AS used here......and I was accused by a JW of being a "Trinnie" (I had never heard the term before and he was being quite derogatory in the rest of his "answer"), and the post was dripping with sarcasm and derision.
I see that you are using this reference to support your "points", but the odd thing IS, that one does not HAVE to be a "Trinnie" to depend on the passages that AS used. The point being----he may BE----but it isn't necessary to the use of scripture that is there in the bible to start with. Maybe you'd like to bring out that most people living north of the Mason-Dixon Line must have differing opinions on scripture as well.....
...just as bringing this "Trinitarian" idea into the debate is of no merit at all.
Annie
Sunspots,
It is not necessary that I was there, though it would be helpful! Rather, we have numerous works outside of the Bible that reflect the mindset of the time and it is from these and the scholarly work that has been done in these areas that can help us to determine how certain things should be understood. Of course, we must make sure that our conclusions do not conflict with Scripture in doing so, for in such a case ur interpretation would be wrong. The point is simply that the most reliable way to read Scripture is to try our best to understand how they looked at it, now how our 20th/21st century mind does.
For qualifications, I do not claim anything special. I have studied some formally, but most of my study has been on my own. The fact that one does study and comes to learn certain things that can be substantiated historically tends to make one qualified to point these things out.
Mondo1,
If you believe there are many true gods (plural, poly, many), how can you also be mono- (singular, one) -theistic? Or do you believe that since Jesus would be called a mighty god (lowercase "g") instead of "Mighty God" that means you aren't believing in multiple gods? (Isaiah 9:6)
I am just trying to get a clear picture of what your beliefs are. You seem to vascilate between polytheism and monotheism in your replies, as though you are unsure precisely what you believe about God.
For instance, you are at least Henotheistic (as you admitted you might be), but you not only acknowledge the possibility of other gods, you stipulate that there are other gods, in which you believe. You simply do not worship them. At the very minimum, this places you somewhere between Henotheism and polytheism.
Polytheism does not require the worship of more than one god, it only requires belief in more than one god. So, judging by your posts here (if you actually believe the angels are gods, that Jesus is a god separate from the god you worship, etc.) your stated beliefs show you are polytheistic, yet you call yourself monotheistic or at the outside Henotheistic.
I hope you would agree that if any faithful Christian in the Bible record prays to Jesus, then it must be okay for any Christian to do so. To your knowledge, is any Christian in the Bible recorded praying directly to Jesus?
Mondo1: Prayer is direct address. As Revelation 5:13 is not direct address, it is not prayer.
Acts 7:59-60
And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: "Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them." And after saying this he fell asleep [in death].
Sorry, I hit enter prematurely. The Scriptures and following were added in the edit.
"Made appeal" has a footnote in the NWT. It reads: "Or, 'invocation; prayer.'" To whom did Stephen pray? Why—especially given the context—was kurios replaced with Jehovah in this instance, since Stephen is plainly directly addressing his comments to "Lord Jesus?"
You still have not responded regarding the indentity of the Alpha and the Omega. According to the NWT it seems that it is both Jesus and the One seated on the throne. But that would strongly indicate polypersonal deity...so there MUST be another explanation. I can hardly wait to read it.
If you believe there are many true gods (plural, poly, many), how can you also be mono- (singular, one) -theistic? Or do you believe that since Jesus would be called a mighty god (lowercase "g") instead of "Mighty God" that means you aren't believing in multiple gods? (Isaiah 9:6)
I don't believe Jesus is called "Mighty God" or "a mighty God" though I wouldn't have a problem with it. All others who are called gods derive their godship from the one true God. There are not gods in the order of the Greek gods, etc.
I am just trying to get a clear picture of what your beliefs are. You seem to vascilate between polytheism and monotheism in your replies, as though you are unsure precisely what you believe about God.
I believe that there is only one who is truly and completely God in every sense of the word. We have to remember that the word god (el, qeos) meant more than one thing. It had more than one application. So the term could be used of others in a lesser, secondary sense, without conflicting with the thought of their being one god. Moser brought this out: “Moderns are often unaware that T??? [God] had a much broader semantic range than is allowed for G/god in contemporary Western European languages. “
Polytheism does not require the worship of more than one god, it only requires belief in more than one god. So, judging by your posts here (if you actually believe the angels are gods, that Jesus is a god separate from the god you worship, etc.) your stated beliefs show you are polytheistic, yet you call yourself monotheistic or at the outside Henotheistic.
Well, as I said, I am no more henotheistic than say, the Jews of the Qumran community. From the Dead Sea Scrolls we read this: “And exalt his exaltation to the heights, gods of the august divinities, and the divinity of his glory above all the august heights. For he is God of the gods … Sing with joy those of you enjoying his knowledge, with rejoicing among the wonderful gods … Praise him, divine spirits, praising for ever and ever the main vault of the heights … The spirits of the holy of the holy ones, the living gods, the spirits of everlasting holiness.”
So if you want to classify it as henotheism, I guess go ahead, but as the 1st century Jews demonstrated this same belief, what more needs to be said? I call myself a monotheist because of how I believe these others are gods and of course because my views parallel those of the 1st century Jews and yet they are classified as monotheists.
I hope you would agree that if any faithful Christian in the Bible record prays to Jesus, then it must be okay for any Christian to do so. To your knowledge, is any Christian in the Bible recorded praying directly to Jesus?
I think the entire issue is open to debate, but there is no explicit case of prayer to Jesus within the NT.
Mondo
