The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    hi yizuman

    If god has no limitations then I declare he is 'a big pink fluffy rabbit' he's not limited so he can be! but he limits himself and defines himself biblically and so that is the measure we use. The bible says God cannot die. The bible also says no one can see YHWH and live etc. the difficulty of trying to say god is three is simply that he declares he is One it's as simple as that, he limits himself to one.

    Trying to say god is three in one is like trying to say he is a 'big pink fluffy rabbit' neither is biblical and create contradictions with what the bible does say.

    Reniaa

  • isaacaustin
  • isaacaustin
  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    This is my last post tonight...mobileweb is too tedious. Nowhere does the Bible show Jesus got more knowledge at his baptism. Luke 2 makes it plain he was born the Christ...the angels declared it and Simeon saw the Christ. His baptism simply declared him to Israel.

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    it's the bible that shows Jesus got knowledge at baptism

    Does it really? Sounds more like *gasp* speculation to me. Only one from a source you don't question.

    But for the sake of the discussion, if the earthly Jesus remembered his pre-human existence as his, he was more than a man. This is a problem you have in common with Trinitarians, even if such pre-existence was angelic rather than divine. This is actually a bigger problem for you if you maintain that Jesus was not more than a man (cf. the Trinity brochure above).

  • isaacaustin
  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa:

    Maybe this will help explain the 3 in 1 that is giving you so much trouble, taken from my web site at:

    http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html

    Questions of “otherness”: How can God be one, yet three? How can the Word be God yet be with that God?

    Ancient, medieval and modern theologians grappled with the problem of unity and otherness. How can God be one and also three? How can the Word be God, yet also be with God? Or, as the Jehovah's Witnesses put it, “As the Son of God, he could not be God himself” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6). Or, “God could not be his own son” (ibid., Chapter 7).

    Once again, the prologue to John’s gospel sums up the issue as it exemplifies this apparent contradiction:

    In the beginning was the Word,
    And the Word was with God,
    And the Word was God.
    (John 1:1 Green’s Literal Translation)

    First, John 1:1 pertains to divine Persons of the immanent Trinity, not the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God. Furthermore, the ancients were aware of conceptual difficulties with respect to God being one yet three, but they also understood that if John 1:1 is to be taken at face value, then God must be “one” in one sense, and “three” in a different sense (Catholic Encyclopedia, 296). With time it became apparent that the conceptual obstacles were not insurmountable once it became clear that the answer lies not in comparisons to the material, vegetable or sensory worlds, but in the intellectual and psychological.

    For instance, “Justin pictures the preexistent Word as the Father’s rational consciousness (1 Apol. 46; 2 Apol. 13), as emerging, therefore, from the interiority of the Godhead while never-the-less remaining inseparable from the Godhead” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 296).

    Tertullian (d. 230 A.D.) displayed a good sense of the manner in which God is one, and the way in which he is at the same time three:

    God is indeed three: in grade or order, in appearance or aspect, but with a realist connotation, and in manifestation; but in substance (granting an indecisiveness in Tertullian’s use of the term), in power, God is perfectly one. (ibid., 297)

    The Word stands forth and is other than the Father though still within the Godhead in the manner suggested by human reflection, as internal discourse is in some sense another, a second in addition to oneself, though yet within oneself. (ibid., 296)

    Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit’s roles as the two hands of the Father; and by the third century the three Persons were understood to be “distinct yet not divided, different yet not separate, and each with a particular yet complementary role to play in salvation” (Oxford, 1208).

    Additionally, Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274 A.D.) elevated the psychological analogy to another level, drawing parallels with man’s understanding of self and the interior conceptualization of the intellect:

    Men can and do think of their own minds; and when the human intellect reflects upon itself, understands itself, there comes forth within the intellect, in consequence of the act of understanding, the concept or interior conceptualization of the intellect itself so understood.

    This, moreover, is the only type of generation or coming forth that is possible in the immaterial and infinite Godhead. As God understands Himself, there issues forth from God Understanding (the Father) God Understood (the Son).

    In terms of this psychological analogy, then, the three Persons are both immanent to the undivided Godhead and yet distinct as Persons - as God understood in God Understanding, and as God Beloved (the Spirit, ch. 19) in God Loving (the Father and the Son as single source). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 303)

    There are other ways to look at this. For example, you have a spirit within you; it is with you yet it is you. Or, in terms of one person being with another person, an individual with multiple personalities is one individual composed of multiple individuals in his mind, each of which is that person yet with him and each other. Or, Scripture states that husband and wife are one flesh, not two (Genesis 2:24), yet we accept this illogical unity on a spiritual, abstract level as perfectly acceptable.

    Accordingly, the idea that the Word was God and was with God and that each of the three Persons of the Trinity dwell in each other is entirely within the realm of logical abstract possibilities. As a matter of fact it is perfectly reasonable. Bear in mind, we are dealing with spirit, and the immanent preincarnate Word at John 1:1, not the created humanity of Jesus.

    Finally, the Word’s relation to the Godhead, in the sense of being “with” God does not mean “mere company, but the most intimate communion” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words Compilated and Expanded upon in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible [Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001], 152) (Strong and Vine’s). This intimacy of the Word with God is a product of their mutual indwelling, among other things, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father (John 17:21 NAB). Furthermore, the Word (Logos) is the personal manifestation, “not of a part of the divine nature, but of the whole deity” (Strong and Vine’s, 152).

    JD II

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    As for what Jesus knew and did not know, this explains the three kinds of knowledge Jesus possessed, from

    http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html

    Christ’s Knowledge: How much did Jesus know? If he was God, why was some of His knowledge limited? [Top]

    The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that Jesus could not be God because of his limited knowledge for Jesus “learned obedience” (Should You Believe, Chapter 7), did not know the precise day and hour of the Last Day (ibid.), and was given a revelation by God (ibid.). Much of the Jehovah's Witnesses’ confusion here likewise stems from their inability to comprehend the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus (i.e., it was the created human Jesus, who was not God, who learned obedience). Nor do they understand the nature of Jesus’ three-fold human knowledge.

    Theologians are in general agreement that Jesus had a) the beatific, or intuitive, vision of God; b) infused knowledge, and c) acquired knowledge (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930).

    A) Vision/Intuitive or Beatific Knowledge [Top]

    With respect to His vision knowledge it is taught that “Christ in His humanity, i.e., in His human intellect, from the very first instant of the incarnation, had the immediate vision of God, (ibid., 930). “[T]he two, hypostatic union and vision, of necessity go together.”

    Christ’s self-awareness as a Divine Person in His human nature includes the beatific, or immediate, vision of God.

    Christ’s vision of God, it is common teaching, was not comprehensive with regard to its primary object, the divine essence; it was limited because it was human. Nor does it extend, as to its secondary objects, to all that the divine knowledge comprehends, but only to what pertains to the object of God’s vision knowledge…. not to the object of the knowledge of simple understanding …; and here it extends particularly, if not exclusively, to all that pertains to His mission and man’s salvation. (ibid.)

    B) Infused Knowledge [Top]

    Whereas “the vision is inexpressible in human concepts (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930) and is a knowledge that ‘Christ derived from His contact with the Father,” Christ’s infused knowledge is “expressible in human concepts and words” (ibid., 938). “The distinction may be explicit in Scripture (cf Jn 7.16; Mt 11.27). Infused knowledge is similar to angelic knowledge, “Because vision knowledge is incommunicable in human terms, and Christ’s mission entailed the communication to men of divine mysteries …” i.e., salvation, “ … a communicable knowledge of these mysteries was necessary” (ibid.). Infused knowledge was required because of Jesus’ mission.

    Today theologians incline to explain the extension of Christ’s infused knowledge from the purpose and nature of His mission; this was a coming in lowliness, not in glory, and did not require the knowledge of all human learning … but only of all that pertains to men’s salvation …. This was necessary and sufficient for Christ to discharge His mission.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 938)

    C) Acquired Knowledge [Top]

    “The fact of Christ’s experiential, or acquired, knowledge is considered certain by theologians today,” and like all of us was “limited and restricted.” This knowledge “was perfect in keeping with the concrete circumstances of His time and place, age and mission, and His dealings with people for His redemptive and prophetic mission” (ibid.). Jesus “grew” in this knowledge (cf Luke 2.40, 52) through observation and experience and from other people (ibid.).

    D) The Three Kinds of Human Knowledge were Distinct, but not Separate [Top]

    “[The] three kinds of human knowledge in Christ, required by what Scripture and revelation say of the God-man, did not hinder or exclude but rather complemented one another. The three were required on different grounds and existed on different levels, while uniting in one human consciousness for the purpose of Christ’s mission” (ibid., 938, 939).

    The three kinds of knowledge were the acts and possession of one human intellect and one human awareness; they were distinct, not separated. Their perfect harmony, however, remains mysterious; it is part of the very mystery of Christ.” (ibid., 939)

    Some modernists place less emphasis on Christ’s vision knowledge believing that it could lead to interference and the exclusion of genuine human experience (Encyclopedia of Religion, 25).

    14) Jesus’ ignorance of the Last Day - Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge which is inexpressible in human concepts, not His infused knowledge. But did the Holy Spirit know the day and hour of the Last Day?[Top]

    At Mark 13:32 Jesus stated “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Son” in this context does not refer to the “God” of the God-man Jesus but the man and His human knowledge. St. Augustine offered a solution to the question of Christ’s limited knowledge that today is universally accepted, namely, that “Christ had no communicable knowledge of the Last Day because it did not pertain to His mission to reveal it.” “[One] could say that Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge, not in His infused knowledge” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 939) (emphasis added).

    Augustine said this in the context of the question about human infirmities taken on by Christ; his solution here too has prevailed: Christ took all of these infirmities, except ignorance, which is not only a consequence but also a principle of sin. (ibid.)

    Roch A. Kereszty explains “The Word has known man and the fullness of human experience from all eternity through his divine knowledge. But in the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status,” renounces, it seems, the direct use of his divine consciousness and knowledge, and becomes aware of himself as man and learns as man gradually about God, himself, people and the world. He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).

    There are also practical considerations regarding Christ’s limited knowledge of the Last Day. Not only was it not necessary in order to fulfill His mission, but mankind’s awareness of the exact day and hour has the propensity for unrepentant man, subject to death at any moment, to put off repentance and salvation until the last possible minute. This would countermand Christ’s command to be constantly vigilant (Matthew 25: 1-13).

    The Jehovah's Witnesses contend further that even if, “as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?” (Reasoning, 409). The answer is that the Holy Spirit did know because He is one of the Hypostases or Persons of the Holy Trinity. Remember, usually “Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). God is by nature triune and one of those Persons is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus stated that only the Father knows exactly when the Last Day shall be, his reference to the Father, the triune God, by definition included the Person of the Holy Spirit.

    JD II

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    hi nark

    Your right I went a bit far in speculation but it is easy to do, the scriptures are clear something happened at baptism. The assumption is that any of this makes him more or less a man. the appostles were given holy spirit that allowed them to do miracles did that make them more than men? Jehovah said he would make moses a God to pharoah and gave him powers that allowed moses do many miraculous things so while moses was doing this was he in nature the same as God?

    Man is said to be made in God's image what does that mean?

    Reniaa

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    reniaa

    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?

    Is this your way of admitting the WT isn't biblical? Are you admitting as Spike did that "It requires spiritual discernment" from the WT.

    No I can't show WT "Theology" (if you can call it that) biblically.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit