by solafide 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ecclesiastes 12:7
and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Here's another good verse on the matter,
26 As the body without the spirit is dead,
What does God do with the spirit once it return to Him?
Either it sticks around with Jesus Luke 23:43 2 Corinthians 5:8
Or goes here 1 Peter 3:18-20 2 Peter 2:4
All the best,
Stephen
The YHWH of the old testament said in Isaiah and says over and over I am the only God, only Lord, Only savior, that he will NOT share his Glory with another, this is all very confusing if you hold to a belief system like the JW's and not believe their one. this ones for reinna if jehovah planned to send micheal the arch angel make him lord and savior and share his glory with him, why did he lie to isaiah about it???????? or did he just not know what he was going to do at the time , or maybe chickened out at the last moment and sent an angel instead! Not being blaspemous just pointing to the absolute Absurdity in this doctrine! There is one answer to the riddle, Jesus is YHWH or some part thereof
PS
I tend to focus on the New Covenant and perhaps that is what makes a difference in my view,
Somehow you've missed the dozens of references of God's Wrath in the NT.
He is the savour, the redeemer, the judge, all things that God was in the Old Covenant, Jesus is in the New one.
Jesus also has wrath:
Rev 6:16
and they *said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
The first He came as a Lamb, the next time He comes as the Lion Judah.
Rev 5:5
and one of the elders *said to me, "Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals."
Narkissos : I think it is quite possible that at a certain stage of development of the Fourth Gospel (after the addition of the Prologue but before the addition of the first conclusion, chapter 21 and the second conclusion) Thomas' confession (20:28) similarly echoes the Prologue (1:1), but this is not so apparent now because it didn't remain the "last word" of the book so to say.
Narkissos, I had a rare 'Eureka' moment on reading the above which is the only explanation I have come across of John 20:28 which makes any sense to me. In fact now that you have said it, it seems so obvious. And if John 20:28 was the last verse of the Gospel of John that would explain why everyone seemed to ignore what Thomas had just said. What a very satisfying way to conclude the Gospel. But while I am aware that there is manuscript evidence throwing doubt on the ending of the Gospel of Mark, I was not aware of similar evidence regarding John's Gospel. Apart from the fact that it would make more sense to end John's Gospel at that point is there any manuscript or other evidence to support your suggestion of "the addition of the first conclusion, chapter 21 and the second conclusion"?
The Gospel of John certainly looked "heretical" to many in the 2nd century. In fact the earliest attestations of its use are found among Gnostics (Valentinus, Heracleon, Basilides).
I can just imagine how the Gnostics must have loved it with all the references to light and life and truth and being one with God. And of course it would also have held great appeal for the Alexandrian philosophers. I am frequently amazed with the similarities between Philo and John, and can see that back there each person would read into the Gospel their own understanding of God just as they do today.
solafide : Let me simply say this of the Greek in John 20. Looking strictly at the text itself, and if this was all we had to look at at the momment, we would have MORE reason to believe that Jesus was God in this passage than the Father! This is because in verse 17, Jesus literally says "I ascend to the father of me and the father of you, the god of me and the god of you".
solafide, I do try my best to understand your point of view but for the life of me I cannot see how you reach the conclusion above. And since, as Narkissos explained, John inextricably tied the God with the Father (similar to Paul's statement about "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") I don't understand how you can take verse 17 and say Jesus is the God but not the Father.
The point is this : if John wanted us to conclude that Jesus is God by including Thomas' expression why does he make it quite clear that Jesus is not God in verse 17. I am not suggesting there is an easy answer. Maybe Narkissos is right that, in effect, everyone can be God (in John's theology). But unless you can account for the context of Thomas' statement I would be cautious about using it as a proof-text.
I just think it's hard for most JW's to get their arms around Jesus being YHWH because its treated as a proper name, that of God the Father alone rather than a title or phrase(the I Am)....truth is we will never know unless we learn to travel time and see for ourselves. I do know this though that the word does not exist in the text of the NT and this is evidence that it was not used by the early diciples or by Jesus Himself! The true emphasis of the NT is on Jesus and that glorious name, and by no other including (YHWH the name) are we saved! My wife is a christian fortunate enough never to be exposed to this cult and is puzzeled to the level we study indefinate articles and such and I see her point......knowledge itself is not what saves or made Christ happy but raw faith like that of the gentiles that did not know Him! I know that damnable cult has ruined us all but I think we would all do well to be "like Babes" again and just look to Him as a Father......I don't know if some ever will........and that means Mission accomplished WT!
Narkissos,
My point in verse 17 was that God is not referred to with a definite article. That was the major contetion. We look at other verses to know that the Father is God, especially by seeing definite articles. So John's overarching notion is to "overflow the boundaries of God into mankind"? Did John call you up and tell you this? John is one of the most heavily laden books in the NT which testifies to the deity of Christ (in the sense of Him being God).
Earnest,
"And since, as Narkissos explained, John inextricably tied the God with the Father (similar to Paul's statement about "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") I don't understand how you can take verse 17 and say Jesus is the God but not the Father."
No, I said that cults who like to act as clever counterfiets could attempt to say that. My position is the Trinitarian one, where both Jesus and the Father are God. The definite article before the first mention of "Father" may or may not apply to the mention of God. In 20:28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God), but not in 20:17 (only before the first mention of Father, and none after). I know I should study Greek more, however.
The point is this : if John wanted us to conclude that Jesus is God by including Thomas' expression why does he make it quite clear that Jesus is not God in verse 17.
John makes it clear that there is distinguishment between them. That's the Trinitarian position though. Where does he say "Jesus is not God". I understand that's your theology, but where does it say that? I have shown you were it DOES say that Jesus is God, because He is called God.
I am not suggesting there is an easy answer. Maybe Narkissos is right that, in effect, everyone can be God (in John's theology). But unless you can account for the context of Thomas' statement I would be cautious about using it as a proof-text.
Where are Narkissos and you getting this leap in interpretation of John that "everyone can be God"? There's not much to the context in that passage! You are making the context more confusing and in depth then what is presented. Like I said, Thomas simply wants proof that Jesus rose, not that He is God. He calls Him God after the proof. I think you're trying to fit in this non-existent confusion into Thomas' mind, as though too much was going on for him and he didn't have his inhaler with him thus started spouting off weird things like calling Jesus God. Oh, but on the other hand, Jesus never denounces his statement!
Further, there are 5 other places where Jesus in referred to in the NT with a definite article as being God, and a couple of them aren't possesive. Also, it's funny how no one has dealt with "Johannine" (now I feel more authentic) theology that Jesus is God, especially in 12:41 where Isaiah saw Jesus' glory as referenced from Isaiah 6 where Isaiah sees Yahweh's glory!
Psalm 82 is the scriptural definition of "gods" and "God", or at least the starting point that Jesus used at John 10:34.
Spike,
In that verse, the Jews don't use a definite article, thus are charging Jesus for making himself out to be "god-like' which can simply mean divine or more then human in the context, hence Jesus doing miracles (a Messianic sign). Jesus argues from their own turf, and shows how this is not anything new hence why judges in the OT functioned as gods to judge because they were doing so with a mandate from God. Jesus argument is how much more does He have the authority to do miracles if He and the Father are one, thus is sent with the Father's mandate and is one with Him.
In John 5, the Jews do charge Jesus for being equal with the God, hence the definite article there. Jesus never back down from this claim and says He's really just a god, but says all must honor Him just as the Father.
Narkissos,
not glenster this time...
"Both Trinitarianism and Arianism are 4th-century doctrines."
The Council of Nicea used Scripture to substantiate this doctrine. Therefore, if they did so correctly with Scripture, then it is a 1st century doctrine. You'd have to show how they didn't do so correctly for your statement to be true.
"The Trinity doctrine is, in a sense, more inclusive than the Arian one, because it includes the multiple within the one God."
I'm sure it is. The Council of Nicea was used to combat Arianism.
"But it is more exclusive than Johannine theology, in that it excludes the believers from "God"."
God excludes believers from God. He is uncreated, and we are created. He is omniscient, we have finite pee brains, etc. John never blurrs these lines between God and believers.
When one discusses the Trinity, it is helpful to look at passages which would substantiate Jesus and the Spirit being God. Many of the other things you bring up are related yet seperate discussions.
solafide In John 5, the Jews do charge Jesus for being equal with the God, hence the definite article there. Jesus never back down from this claim and says He's really just a god, but says all must honor Him just as the Father.
Spike Tassel Here are the verses from the NWT Reference Bible [expanded footnotes included], starting with John 5:17:— 17 But he [Jesus] answered them [the Jews]: "My Father has kept working until now, and I keep working." 18 On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God. 19 Therefore, in answer, Jesus ["Jesus," ¤[i.e. aleph]AVg; B. "he."] went on to say to them: "Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative [Or, thing original with him."], but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
The false charges are mixed with some truth. The highlighted phrases show that Jesus is like Our Father, Jehovah; like father, like son, given responsibilities by the Father, who alone had the power to confer these responsibilities upon Jesus. And, as we proceed into the discussion, Jesus makes a number of further statements about his identity, again, as similar but distinct and lesser to that of Our Father, Jehovah.
The one with a holy [not prejudiced] spirit can see the truth from what he says, as follows, again Here are some of the relevant verses from the NWT Reference Bible [expanded footnotes included], starting with John 5:20:— 20 For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, in order that YOU may marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes those alive whom he wants to. 22For the Father judges no one at all, but he has committed all the judging to the Son, 23 in order that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He that does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Most truly I say to YOU, He that hears my word and believes him that sent me [i.e. Jehovah] has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself [Or, "in himself the gift of life." See Romans 6:23.], so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself.
Let me stop there. Verse 24 is especially important. It is stating that Jehovah "has life in himself" [i.e. will live forever], has "in himself the gift of life" [i.e. the ability to grant everlasting life to others], and "he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself" [i.e. Jesus did NOT have the ability to live forever UNTIL Jehovah gave it to him].
