Commenting NeonMadman on the trinity

by Rev BII 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Rev BII

  NeonMadman wrote:

  Re: The Bible teaches Jesus is Jehovah? Nov 27, 2001 12:34

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Note here that Neon Madman completely ignored Rev Bill's citations and went to a pet one of his own!
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I wasn't 'ignoring' Rev Bill's citations, as such, but I chose to respond only to a specific remark of his, namely:

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  I know a certain guy will go on with scriptures calling Jesus God now. Who cares for logic. Well a god he surely is but not THE GOD
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  So my intent was specifically to address the issue of Jesus being "a god," and not a general apologetic for the Trinity.

  Rev Bill's remarks as well as the comments of others in this thread bespeak a general misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine, which is amost universal among JW's. The Trinity is not 3 gods, or a god with 3 heads; it is one God composed of three distinct persons. Jesus, while on earth, was both Son of God and Son of Man. He had divested himself of his position and glory with the Father, and had taken "a slave's form." In this context, all of the scriptures Rev Bill cited make perfect sense:

  John 8:58 - Jesus was not simply saying that he existed before Abraham, as the NWT would mistranslate; he was identifying himself with the I AM of Exodus 3:14, Jehovah God Himself. Obviously, the Jews understood him that way, as they attempted to stone him for blasphemy. There would be no blasphemy in claiming to have existed before Abraham, but to claim to be God Himself would indeed be blasphemy, were it not true.

  Hebrews 8:1 - speaks of Jesus and the Father as separate persons. Rev Bill uses this to 'prove' that the Trinity is untrue, because he misunderstands the doctrine. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. However, both are God Almighty.

  Hebrews 12:2 - same as 8:1

  John 17:24 - I notice that Rev Bill reverts to King James wording of this one scripture, though all the others he cites are quoted from more modern translations. A favorite ploy of JW's is to find the Bible translation that most closely fits the doctrine they want to teach, and use that version exclusively for that scripture, ignoring the readings from other translations that may not be as friendly to their beliefs. Here, I'm not sure what Rev Bill's point is, but it seems to me that he is asserting that Jesus was given his glory by the Father before the founding of the world, and the KJV wording could be interpreted that way. By contrast, the NIV says, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." In other words, the glory that Jesus would receive upon his resurrection was given to him because of the Father's love for him. It was the same glory of which he had divested himself in becoming human. (Philippians 2:5-11)

  John 14:28 - Again, a "humanity scripture," dealing with Jesus' nature as a man on earth after divesting himself of his divinity as
  I have detailed above.

  Mark 13:32 - Same as John 14:28. As a human on earth, Jesus did not know "the day or the hour". Even most JW's would acknowledge that Jesus knows the day and the hour now. So that statement was one that applied to the setting in which it was spoken.

  Regarding the remainder of Rev Bill's summation,

  quote:
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. If we say the trinity is true and Jehovah knows stuff Jesus doesnt know, then that's seriously schizofrenic.
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Again, this illustrates Rev Bill's lack of understanding of the Trinity teaching. Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father, or that they are the same person. They are distinct persons, along with the Holy Spirit, making up the one God. Nothing schizophrenic about it. It may be a concept that is not understandable by a finite human mind (i.e., a "mystery," or antinomy of scripture), but there are many such "mysteries" in scripture. I cannot conceive of God existing eternally into the past, can you? Where does it say that a finite human mind should be able to fully understand the infinite God?

  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
  
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

  Rev BII's reply;

  'John 14:28 - Again, a "humanity scripture," dealing with Jesus' nature as a man on earth after divesting himself of his divinity as
  I have detailed above.

  Mark 13:32 - Same as John 14:28. As a human on earth, Jesus did not know "the day or the hour". Even most JW's would acknowledge that Jesus knows the day and the hour now. So that statement was one that applied to the setting in which it was spoken.'

  First of all, Jesus existed before he went to earth. When he said The Son didnt know all God knew, he was speaking generally. Before, as Logos, on earth as Jesus Christ and afterwards as divine King.

  'Again, this illustrates Rev Bill's lack of understanding of the Trinity teaching. Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father, or that they are the same person. They are distinct persons, along with the Holy Spirit, making up the one God.'

  - I hear the average trinitarian here in a more rude form; 'They are one person and they are 3 three persons and that's the same!! Understand that or burrrnnn!!!' Yes I got it and it's the lack of logic I refute, besides there's no afterlife punishment for the sins of this life :-). Now what can you do with a guy that says so.

  John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
  - Is basically bad english. God's name isnt I am. It's an expression. I smell manipulation here. I haven't the NWT by me now, but it wouldnt surprise me if it said 'I was', which isnt bad english. Jesus uses the same kind of expression as Jehovah did once. What fantasy you people have in order to back up your lack of logic.

  Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (you go figure the translation quizboy)
  - Jehovah is who he's most certainly. He uses this expression this time.

  Your comment to John 17:24, is blatant lies. It has nothing to do with that, it has something to do with how I retrieved the scripturequote, I hardly expect the KJV to support anything I say but I do know the NIV to be manipulative and wont go near it. I believe I used the RSV. I dont use the NWT either, nice try guttermouth. Also, it's very foolish of you to attack me this way as the the meaning I wanted from John 17 was that Jesus spoke to his father about the role he had before creation, all translations express that.

  Hebrews 8:1 - speaks of Jesus and the Father as separate persons. Rev Bill uses this to 'prove' that the Trinity is untrue, because he misunderstands the doctrine. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. However, both are God Almighty.

  - You believe that nonsense yourself? *lol*

  'Again, this illustrates Rev Bill's lack of understanding of the Trinity teaching. Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father, or that they are the same person. They are distinct persons, along with the Holy Spirit, making up the one God. Nothing schizophrenic about it. It may be a concept that is not understandable by a finite human mind (i.e., a "mystery," or antinomy of scripture), but there are many such "mysteries" in scripture. I cannot conceive of God existing eternally into the past, can you? Where does it say that a finite human mind should be able to fully understand the infinite God?'

  Blind believe here, bad reasoning.

  'Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father, or that they are the same person. They are distinct persons, along with the Holy Spirit, making up the one God.'

  Again I feel sad you believe such nonsense.

  'I cannot conceive of God existing eternally into the past, can you? Where does it say that a finite human mind should be able to fully understand the infinite God?''
  - much much more easy than that he's one and he's three. Afterall he created us. As I have said before, trinitybelief root in fear and lack of OT founding. There's no trinity in the OT, there's one God.

  God Bless
• 

  Rev BII

  About the 'Jesus is a god' thing, you should note that the angels are mentioned as sons of God too. Jesus is Logos, the spokes man of Jehovah.

  God Bless
• 

  wallaby jack

  Today my God is refreshingly cold in a long tall glass with milk, coffee, vanilla icecream and a sprinkling of chocolate on top. My point being that, what makes you think your trinity is any more a god than my quadrinity?

  At least I admit making my God with fresh ingredients not a recipy handed down from ancient sumner. (please name something original about christianity and i may get interested)

  unclebruce quenching his spiritual desires without the sucking straw of babylon.
• 

  Rex B13

  Hey Unc,
  All pre-historical worship originates from the one, true God. Pagan cultures assimilated the original ideas of God and added to them when they began idolatry. Practically all humans are aware of an inborn concience that has continually shown up in the laws of most cultures.
  Why in the world would it surprise you that someone like Zarathrustra had some valid teachings? Abraham was a pagan before he followed God's direction! The 'originality' question is another moot objection.
  The reality is that Christ lived, performed miracles, was slain and resurrected, proving His claims and His deity.
  Rex
• 

  NeonMadman

  Sigh.

  You've caught me quite late in the day on this, and I was just about to get off the computer, having been on for several hours for various tasks. I also need to defrag, because this durn-blasted machine is running slow as molasses in January. Besides, I'm tired, and haven't spent time with my wife today except at supper.

  So, I'm going to reserve comment on what Rev Bill says here until tomorrow.

  Watch for it, I promise I'll get to it...

  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan
• 

  NeonMadman

  OK, here we go...

  First of all, Jesus existed before he went to earth. When he said The Son didnt know all God knew, he was speaking generally. Before, as Logos, on earth as Jesus Christ and afterwards as divine King.

  You are imputing thoughts to Jesus that are not expressed in the scripture under discussion. Jesus said he did not know the day or the hour, and he said it in the present tense. For you to expand that statement to cover all of his existence is speculation on your part. The scripture does not say that. Tell me, do you believe that Jesus NOW knows the day and the hour? This came up for discussion several times while I was a JW, and I never heard anyone assert that Jesus did not NOW know the day and the hour. Obviously, then,Mark 13:32 applies to the time at which it was said, and not to all of eternity.

  - I hear the average trinitarian here in a more rude form; 'They are one person and they are 3 three persons and that's the same!! Understand that or burrrnnn!!!' Yes I got it and it's the lack of logic I refute, besides there's no afterlife punishment for the sins of this life :-). Now what can you do with a guy that says so.

  First, don't put words into my mouth. I never said anything about anybody 'burrrnnning', nor is it a concept I am very comfortable with, theologically speaking. But we aren't talking about afterlife punishment for sins here. Rather than prove your point, you divert attention to an entirely different topic. If you want to discuss the Trinity doctrine, as we supposedly are, I'm willing. If you want to get into the hellfire discussion, I'll let someone else deal with that.

  Second, it is clear from these comments that you definitely don't "got it". You still completely misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity if you are capable of summing it up as "'They are one person and they are 3 three persons and that's the same!!" That is absolutely not what the Trinity doctrine teaches. The Trinity doctrine teaches that there are three distinct persons who comprise the one God. That is not the same thing as saying that the three persons are one person, or that there are three Gods. If the doctrine actually said what you are trying to make it say, I would agree with you about the lack of logic.

  John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
  - Is basically bad english. God's name isnt I am. It's an expression. I smell manipulation here. I haven't the NWT by me now, but it wouldnt surprise me if it said 'I was', which isnt bad english. Jesus uses the same kind of expression as Jehovah did once. What fantasy you people have in order to back up your lack of logic.

  Well, it may be bad English, but the vast majority of Greek scholars, Christian and non-Christian, would disagree with you. The expression in Greek is ego eimi, which literally means "I am". The NWT, by the way, translates the expression as "I have been," which, if you want to get technical, is also not so great English. As I pointed out in my previous remarks, what proves that Jesus was identifying himself as God is the reaction of the listening Jews, who immediately picked up stones to stone him for blasphemy. For a man to claim to be very old, or to have existed before his earthly life was not blasphemy. For a man to claim to be God, however, most certainly was.

  Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (you go figure the translation quizboy)
  - Jehovah is who he's most certainly. He uses this expression this time.

  We agree that Jehovah uses the name, "I AM" for himself in Exodus 3:14. This, of course, demonstrates the falsity of your previous statement, "God's name isnt I am." I would agree that God's primary name isn't "I Am," but it is a name that He chose to identify himself with in this case, that was familiar to religious Jews centuries later. Hence, the strong reaction when Jesus identified himself in this way.

  Your comment to John 17:24, is blatant lies. It has nothing to do with that, it has something to do with how I retrieved the scripturequote, I hardly expect the KJV to support anything I say but I do know the NIV to be manipulative and wont go near it. I believe I used the RSV. I dont use the NWT either, nice try guttermouth. Also, it's very foolish of you to attack me this way as the the meaning I wanted from John 17 was that Jesus spoke to his father about the role he had before creation, all translations express that.

  Well, I can't speak to how you retrieved the scripture quote, but it does seem odd to me that you ended up with a translation that appeared to support the point I thought you were trying to make, when most translations do not. If I mischaracterized your motives personally, then I apologize. However, in general terms, I will stand by my statement that

  A favorite ploy of JW's is to find the Bible translation that most closely fits the doctrine they want to teach, and use that version exclusively for that scripture, ignoring the readings from other translations that may not be as friendly to their beliefs.

  since I have seen Witnesses do this sort of thing time and time again. Even the Society does it in some cases, using translations other than even the NWT if it reads the way they want it to.

  Speaking of apologies, I think you owe me one; I feel that all of my comments to you have been reasonable and respectful, and that nothing I have said deserves to earn me the title "guttermouth". Why is it that every person on this board who defends the JW position seems incapable of doing so without name-calling and invective? I guess it's because of the unChristian example set by the Watchtower Society itself when talking about so-called "apostates".

  As to the substance of John 17:24, I agree with you that "Jesus spoke to his father about the role he had before creation." However, that in no way disproves the Trinity doctrine, or the deity of Jesus Christ, so what is your point?

  Hebrews 8:1 - speaks of Jesus and the Father as separate persons. Rev Bill uses this to 'prove' that the Trinity is untrue, because he misunderstands the doctrine. Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. However, both are God Almighty.

  - You believe that nonsense yourself? *lol*

  Another favorite JW tactic - when you can't refute an argument, ridicule it.

  Yes, I believe that, as have scholars and Christians alike throughout the millenia, even the early church fathers, some of whom studied at the feet of the apostles. I believe it because it is clearly taught in the scriptures that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It is also taught clearly that there is only one God. What can I conclude, then, except that the three persons make up the one God?

  Blind believe here, bad reasoning.

  Sorry, you don't get away with that. I have at every point in my argument expressed both reason and scripture in defense of my assertions, while you are the one offering learned reasonings along the lines of, 'you believe that? snicker snicker'. If anyone is guilty of blind belief and bad reasoning, it's you. And you don't get to just categorize someone's argument as bad reasoning and leave it at that; you have to show WHY the reasoning is bad, something you have not even attempted to do.

  'Trinitarians do not say that Jesus IS the Father, or that they are the same person. They are distinct persons, along with the Holy Spirit, making up the one God.'

  Again I feel sad you believe such nonsense.

  More of the same line of attack; instead of actually refuting anything I say, you declare it "nonsense" and wave it away. I feel sad that you are still seeing the world and the Word through Watchtower-colored spectacles, and that you are still in mental bondage to the most clearly identified false prophet of our time.

  - much much more easy than that he's one and he's three. Afterall he created us. As I have said before, trinitybelief root in fear and lack of OT founding. There's no trinity in the OT, there's one God.

  Again, you mischaracterize the Trinity doctrine. I'd like to believe that you are sincere and that you truly misunderstand what the doctrine teaches, but your mocking tone leads me to wonder whether you are distorting the teaching deliberately, because it's easier to disprove that way.

  If you'd like evidence for the Trinity in the OT, I suggest you consider the following:

  Isaiah 40:3-5 - John the Baptist was to prepare the way of Jehovah. He actually prepared the way for Jesus (Mark 1:1-3). Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.

  Is. 44:24; 42:5 - Jehovah is the Creator of all things, but Jesus is the Creator of all things (Col. 1:16; John 1:3). Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.

  Is. 43:11 - Jehovah is the ONLY Savior, but Jesus is the Savior ((Tit. 2:13). Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.

  Zechariah 11:11-13 - Jehovah was to be sold for 30 pieces of silver, but it was Jesus who was sold for 30 pieces of silver. Therefore, Jesus is Jehovah.

  I could go on and on; there are dozens of places in the scripture where Jesus is identified as Jehovah, and the Watchtower has to scurry around trying to explain why the scriptures don't mean what they say in order to maintain its theological position. Are you sincere enough to read the Bible without the Watchtower blinders, and accept what it plainly says?

  I strongly suggest you consider some of the study material recommended by Rex B13 in the prior thread from which this one spun off. To reiterate, he said:

  If you really care, do the research and you will see that every little objection is handled here:
  http://www.watchman.org/jw/answers.htm Answering Watchtower Objections
  http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/t03.html The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Robert Bowman
  http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/t10.html The Doctrine of the Trinity
  http://answering-islam.org.uk/Trinity/beckwith.html The Trinity by Francis J Beckwith
  http://www.probe.org/docs/bel-trin.html Why We Should Believe in the Trinity Pat Zuckeran
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9t8/9t8072.html Writing the Trinity Philip Yancey
  http://www.atlantaapologist.org/Sharp.html A Bicentennial Defense of Granville Sharp's Argument for the Deity of Christ.

  If you aren't going to do the research then you end up posting something that is foolish to anyone who has actually studied the issue. Rev Bil is a blatant example of this, posting the same old arguments built on straw man and red herrings.

  Rev Bill, I'd like to think you're better than that. Do the research, and be honest with yourself!

  
  Tom
  "The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure; to live it you had to explode." ---Bob Dylan