Indeed. Reniaa, I pointed you to the same problem months ago, and you didn't reply at all; now you reply off-topic: JWs have to combine an (arch-)angelicperson with human nature just like Trinitarians have to combine a divineperson with human nature. The logical problem is basically the same; it is not made easier because the nature of the (first) person is inferior: it's not easier for a rabbit to become a mouse than for a cow just because it is smaller. Get it? So even if you don't want to call this "incarnation" or "hypostatic union" you would have to think something similar if you ventured into thinking your own doctrine at all (God forbid).
The Son in two persons
by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AllTimeJeff
Just to say, I find the Trinity fascinating now that I have left, due to all that JW's left out. I don't spend a great deal reading up on it like I did when I first left, but it never ceases to amaze me how the NT Trinity has evolved, and from a theological perspective, what it means.
-
Chalam
Here you go Jeff and all "interested ones", check it out
Mars Hill Church | Doctrine | Trinity: God Is
All the best,
Stephen
-
reniaa
hi guys lets get down to brass tacks here.
these words have come to define themselves but original they had very simple meanings.
el - God meant powerful one and any powerful being not human was an el to hebrews but YHWH was defined by name and God of gods, the one true Almighty God over others.
Psalm 136:2 (New International Version)
2 Give thanks to the God of gods.
His love endures forever.Daniel 11:36 (New International Version)
36 "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.
thats why Deut 6:4 defines him as one YHWH not just one God hebrews knew there were many gods by their definition.
and again the use of divine could be applied to anything from God and people or angels possessing divine Godlike qualities given by God. Divine literally means of god.
the hypostatic union is taking all this ignoring it and redifining it and creating contradictions in the bible.
YHWH is identified as the One true God and this is by Jesus himself. the distinction between the Almighty God and Jesus is always kept very clear biblically.
John 17:1-3 (New International Version)
1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (New International Version)
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.
Reniaa
-
Chalam
Maybe you should just watch the vid?
All the best,
Stephen
-
Narkissos
Sooo... the off-topic reply was no accident.
I'll answer for you Reniaa: the "life" of an archangel in a human body is an incarnation, and a hypostatic union of two natures in one person (hypostasis), even if you don't use those words and choose to say the same thing otherwise. And it makes the result different from any other human, including Adam.
Of course it's not THE ("orthodox") Incarnation and hypostatic union. But you still need basically the same trick for an archangel becoming a man (and keeping his identity through the "metamorphosis") as for "God the Son" becoming a man.
-
Deputy Dog
Spike
You and reniaa have already admitted you don't know what "form" (nature) came down from heaven.
I see one "nature" (a.k.a. "person", "personality") always inferior to Jehovah
You may see "nature" and "person" as the same, but, the scripture you quoted, talks about the nature,or the what. Keep in mind the topic here is the "persons" or the "who". The WT contradicts this passage by saying that before Jesus came to earth, he existed in the person (and form) of Michael.
My question to you now is, in what person does the son exist today in heaven? The WT seems to want it both ways. Is it the person of Jesus or Michael? Keep in mind we are not talking just about names here.
The WT teaches 1Thess 4:16 Proves they are the same "entity". Clearly this passage refers an archangels "form", and voice "person". The notes in the NWT clearly refer to the person of Michael.
1Th 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
So what person would mediate between God and men? Notice the way the NWT says it "a man, Christ Jesus". Looks like they refer to a particular man, in the person Jesus.
1Ti 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all-[this is] what is to be witnessed to at its own particular times.
Nark, Leolaia
Leaving aside the whole unscriptural "balance pattern" and the idiocy of "more doesn't work", this really begs for the question: "how could an archangel ever be lower than angels?" Duh
.Great point about the natures! I also made a similar argument months ago and got no response. I'd still like to know what part of Michael came down in John 6. They truly have no idea "what" came down. But, that was another thread.
-
Deputy Dog
Nark
Of course it's not THE ("orthodox") Incarnation and hypostatic union. But you still need basically the same trick for an archangel becoming a man (and keeping his identity through the "metamorphosis") as for "God the Son" becoming a man
They can't even do that right. Which is my point in this thread.
-
reniaa
hi nark and deputy
now can you show this to me biblically? because biblically God's son came down to earth became man died and got resurrected back and was still himself only not a man. it doesn't really go into details and so do we need the details?
I believe Jesus was fully human on earth as do the witnesses
but to put it simply. The way I see it is the best we can say is jesus used to be made of 'spirit stuff' then he was reborn into 'flesh stuff' and now he is once again 'spirit stuff'
flesh is flesh. spirit is spirit.
John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
Hebrews 1:14
Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?At no point is there any mention that he became the almighty God he is still kept separate from almighty God both before, during and after.
1 Corinthians 15:27
For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.My belief in the bible does not include speculation beyond it to validate my faith.
Reniaa
-
Narkissos
I believe Jesus was fully human on earth as do the witnesses
... and the "orthodox" (Trinitarians) of the Nicene/Chalcedonian creeds. QED.
but to put it simply. The way I see it is the best we can say is jesus used to be made of 'spirit stuff' then he was reborn into 'flesh stuff' and now he is once again 'spirit stuff'
Focus on the "he". Something (the person)had to continue from one "state" (or "stuff," after all that's a possible translation of ousia, if not very classy) to the next.
At no point is there any mention that he became the almighty God he is still kept separate from almighty God both before, during and after.
Off topic.
My belief in the bible does not include speculation beyond it to validate my faith.
Which is exactly the point I tried to make in my first post on this thread. If you tried to think what you believe you'd come so close to the problematic of classical theology that it would not be so easy to make fun of it and to stand out as so different.