The Son in two persons (page 14)

Spike Tassel

I am NOT a moderator. And, besides, I used John 17:11 with a "composite third person of the Biblical Trinity". THAT's NOT in any Reasoning™ book!

jonathan dough

Spike screamed: I am NOT a moderator. And, besides, I used John 17:11 with a "composite third person of the Biblical Trinity". THAT's NOT in any Reasoning™ book!

Jonathan whispered: Calm down, man. I wasn't refering to Jn 17:11 but your reference to the Holy Spirit's alleged lack of a personal name, the JWs argument, which can be found at pg. 407 of the Reasoning book.

"the Jehovah's Witnesses reason that “[t]he Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father - Jehovah. They inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. But nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name applied to the holy spirit” (Reasoning, 407)."

jd II

jonathan dough

Spike said: "No, the holy spirit is INDEED a COLLECTIVE person, as John 17:11 clearly shows."

REPLY: You lost me on this one, Spike. What do you mean by "collective person"? Are you saying that you believe the Holy Spirit is the the third Person of the Holy Trinity? Collective in what sense? Person in what sense? I thought you were a JW?

JD II

Spike Tassel

just like the "144,000" is a collective Person, the bride of Christ

reniaa

hi Nark

I don't agree extra knowledge given or memories equate to an extra separate consciousness, Remember trinitarians openly admit to a hypostatic union so they do have it as openly part of their beliefs you cannot take what they believe and paste it on to witnesses.

Hypostatic involves more points than just extra memory/knowledge.

Hypostatic union It involves saying Jesus had two consciousies and two wills, two separate parts that can act without each other (one die and one not die going upto heaven).

(Incidently i'm still wondering about the whole resurrection of the creature flesh jesus and was it joined to the other son the God Jesus straight away or after it was ascended to heaven according to trinitarian rhetoric?)

It's like your saying

look theres a RED bus it's big, red, and has 4 wheels but look theres a red postbox it's red so it must be a bus! even though it shares/agrees nothing else in common with the bus but it's colour.

Allowing for extra memory/knowledge does not allow for a whole new will and separateness of conscousness

If a person has amnesia does he become two persons? of course not when his memory returns they just get added to his current awareness and he absolutely remains the same person, the same will, the same consciousness.

The bible makes it clear that people under the influence of holy spirit only had a greater access to God's power and certainly not of any pre-human existence but then none of them had a prehuman existence like Jesus had. in fact he is unique among men in this which is clearly stated by the bible.

Yes Jws are similar to trinitarians because we both use the bible and draw our theologies from it. So the RED part of it is we both accept the biblical words that Jesus had a prehuman existence and is God's son and we both have ways to explain it.

Were we differ is what we do beyond the bible!

How much we add too what the bible says.

Your trying to make a case for Jw hypostatic union simply from Jws allowing Jesus could become aware of his prehuman existence but that is not all that is involved when you say Jesus had two wills, parts or consciousnesses. Your making the point of agreement hypostatic union when in fact it is Jesus's prehuman existence and knowledge of it.

Your taking the big red bus and working backwards (ack somthing theologians do a lot) when you should be working forwards from the red colour/bible.

Reniaa

quietlyleaving

I think hypostatic union in its different conceptions (if I understood it properly) is quite dynamic for thinking out human transformation/potential and I can understand why such ideas would pose a threat to organizations that resist change and prefer to stay within a self referencing story that constantly thwarts thinking and acting outside the box. Trouble is they will bring about their own demise.

reniaa

hi quietly leaving

If you applied all that to trinitarians that I would agree with you, the point isn't whether trinitarians or Jws for that matter believe in hypostatic union but whether it is actually a doctrine tought by the bible, and it simply isn't!

The bible is clear Jesus is always shown to have one will and conscousness there are not little sign posts saying "now I am talking as Jesus creature" and "now I am talking as god the son".

When Jesus dies there is absolutely no biblical evidence that Jesus got split in two and that any part of him remained alive, I already showed a scripture that clearly says it is God the son that is the sacrifice. Did you notice Jon dough had to literally read that as "Jesus the creature" basically rewritting it in his own head to deal with it?

The worst fault of trinitarian theologians is they have drawn certain erroneous conclusion but then apply them backwards to the whole, ignoring scriptures that deny their conclusion and reading it into any scripture they can even if it has nothing to do with the conclusion.and then even worse they can read a scripture saying the absolute opposite to their theology and pretend it doesn't, cognitive dissonace :s

I admit witnesses can fall into this trap, anyone can but as a rule of thumb the more extra biblical rhetoric you need to explain your doctrine the less biblical it is.

Reniaa

quietlyleaving

I admit witnesses can fall into this trap, anyone can but as a rule of thumb the more extra biblical rhetoric you need to explain your doctrine the less biblical it is.

Reniaa

AMEN

designs

Poor Trinitarians, modern day Don Quixotes.

reniaa

hi quietly leaving

The appeal of the witnesses to me is that their doctrinal points are purely bible driven! God is one YHWH, deut 6:4, soul dies, ec 9:5, annointed bride class -bible again, armageddon- bible again, earth promise - isaiah and jesus "meek inherit earth". Jesus is God's actual firstborn of creation son - extremely biblical. YHWH is the father - isaiah, Father is the one true God - Jesus own words at John 17:3. these aren't just references to these things taken out of context read into them, they are specifically saying it.

Deut 6:4 is extremely clear "YHWH is one YHWH"

JW's don't go off into reams of theological or philosophical speculations then repaint them on the bible, basically "a spade is a spade" with them.

the best trinitarians have for 3 in 1 is the baptism scripture in mathew which is about baptism and not God at all. Unlike deut which is on topic. Or they use John 1:1 which does mention God but says Jesus is WITH God which gramatically in itself shows he cannot be God but also has been shown to be innacurate in translation.

Have you heard of the sahidic coptic? it's a 3rd century copy written before trinity got accepted as doctrine and more importantly not written in greek so it's grammer was clearer, and it clearly renders John 1:1c as divine/a god/god-like basically qualative completely! absolutely no identity as "The God " at all.

Reniaa

The Son in two persons

Share this