by UnDisfellowshipped 123 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
All the best,
Stephen
1 Each of the Three Persons is called "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and "God" in the Bible.
2 Jesus IS Jehovah, but He is NOT The Father or The Spirit.
OK here's what I don't get.
Based on statement 1, "The Father" = Jehovah and "The Son" = Jehovah
But Statement 2 says A = C but A <> B.
In mathematics, if A = C and B = C, then A = B.
What am I missing?
1 Each of the Three Persons is called "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and "God" in the Bible.
2 Jesus IS Jehovah, but He is NOT The Father or The Spirit.OK here's what I don't get.
Based on statement 1, "The Father" = Jehovah and "The Son" = Jehovah
But Statement 2 says A = C but A <> B.
In mathematics, if A = C and B = C, then A = B.
What am I missing?
Nothing! 2. is obviously erroneous as you have discovered.
I agree with 1. Look in the OT and Jesus is clearly there and called LORD or YHWH.
However, 2. seems wrong and contradictory. How can Jesus be "Jehovah" but not the Father? The Father is "Jehovah" (YHWH)!!!
"Jesus is not the Holy Spirit"?! Read this verse carefully
9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
Else these
the trinity doctrine is a ridiculous attempt to infuse paganism into "christianity" and it worked.
just because the fuckin JW cult got it right (after many other people did the legwork for them) doesnt mean the trinity is ok now.
If the objective is clarifying the (orthodox) Trinity doctrine better take "Jehovah" out the equation imho.
The divine name Yhwh belongs to the Hebrew Bible. It plays no role whatsoever in the construction of the Trinity doctrine (in either 4th-century AD Greek or Latin).
In between (and already in the NT texts) the traditional Yhwh material from the OT has split in a number of ways; e.g., between "theos, God = the Father" and "kurios, the Lord (substitute of Yhwh) = Jesus Christ" in Paul; or, as the name given by the Father to the Son in John.
In later Trinitarian doctrine the only remaining divine "names" are (1) theos which is taken as referring to the unique and common essence (ousia, substantia) of the deity and (2) "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" which as taken as referring to the three distinct (and non-interchangeable) "persons" (hupostasis, persona). Hence the three "persons" are "God" (this is the one essence they have in common; from this "essentialist" perspective Trinitarianism is a monotheism); but none or the three is the two others. The use of the verb "to be" in the two previous sentences actually stands for two different kinds of relationships (and its mathematical substitution by "=" in sinis' post is misleading from this perspective); as to "being 'God'" being means quality or quiddity (the "what"); as to "being the Father, Son or Holy Spirit" it means identity (the "who").
Perhaps the clearest classical creed from this perspective is the Latin Quicumque vult: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html
Perhaps the clearest classical creed from this perspective is the Latin Quicumque vult: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iv.html
How beautiful.
Narkissos, on another thread about "paths in life" you indicated that you no longer take a label for yourself. I believe you. However, I often sense in reading your comments that you have a deeper love for the faith than many of us that do accept a label.
Pax.
BTS
As to the Quicumque vult (my previous link), note the relationship between the "personae" -- as far as identity (who they are) is concerned, they are other (alia) to each other; as far as quality or quiddity is concerned, they are alike (talis... qualis).
Another very interesting conceptual development in Greek orthodoxy is that of perichoresis or "mutual indwelling" of the persons (Gregory of Nazianze, John Damascene) which somehow revives the characteristic reciprocal expressions of Johannine theology (I am in the Father and the Father is in me, botched by the NWT "in union with" which makes reciprocity tautological). -- The big difference, of course, is that in John this mutual indwelling extends directly to the elect, which is only true in Trinitarian doctrine through the supplementary mediation of the Holy Spirit.
BTS: I must admit that coming from WT-land to theology, unlike many xJWs, I was rather attracted to the Trinity/Christology doctrine in a kind of aesthetical manner: I find a certain beauty to it.
This reminds me of an old man I met when I was a very young JW pioneer. He knew the Bible and theology very well and we had a long series of discussions. He was quite critical of the Bible, from what I first perceived as an atheist-agnostic standpoint, but to my surprise he was also quite defensive of the Trinity doctrine when the topic came up. That seemed incredibly inconsistent to me from my fundamentalist-unitarian standpoint. I have thought of him many times since (he must have died long ago).
this topic is a waste of resources
why not discuss somethign relevant?
besty,
Lol. Relevant to what?
In addition to the specifically religious issue I think it's interesting because it has shaped our particular "Western" (even if it goes pretty far East) way of thinking and understanding the world, of constructing and reconciling contradictions, the relationship between the ideal of One and the reality of the multiple, timeless theory (a word which etymologically meant contemplation, beholding) and historical narrative, and so on. It has even contributed a great deal to fashion our notion of "person," hence our self-understanding; one of the chief cornerstones of most modern philosophy, Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit, is still basically Trinitarian in structure. So, belief aside, understanding what it is really about and how it works (historically and philosophically), rather than the bogeyman the WT fed us, may be quite relevant to us I feel.
Great post UnDisfellowshipped! I will for sure be using this (with permission) in a PDF. TTYL
Blessings...
