The Son in two persons

by Deputy Dog 332 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    hi leolaia

    There is always a modalism aspect to trinity while they insist 3 separate persons can be one God at the same time. Adam and eve are said to be one, so as one does that make them one human but 2 persons? no of course not they remain 2 persons and 2 humans/adams. they is the only biblical comparison trinitarians can use but they have to insist Jesus, God and HS are not 3 Gods but One God but still 3 separate persons. There is no biblical grounds for this reasoning it's read into it to support their hypothesis.

    What happens to Jesus the human creature? according to hypostatic union only Jesus the human creature dies and the God bit goes to heaven joins with the father and then raises himself as god the father with the help of the holy spirit person. So then does the human creature jesus go upto heaven and rejoin his God part?

    by the time we get to this point we are creating serious contradictions with scripture. God cannot die, he is eternal so jesus isn't an equal sacrifice because he doesn't die only a part of him dies the human creature. but this is denying the sheer wait of scripture that never hint that any part of jesus son of God lived from the roman centurian at his death.

    Mark 15:39 (New International Version)

    39 And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and [a] saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son [b] of God!"

    to revelation Revelation 2:8
    "To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again.

    we are already having to ignore scriptures.

    John 1:14 (New American Standard Bible)

    14 And (A) the Word (B) became flesh, and (C) dwelt among us, and (D) we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of (E) grace and (F) truth.

    according to hypostatic doctrine this is an impossible scripture because the word is the god bit that doesn't die it just gets another fleshly will added to it.

    but here is the biggest spanner if the son of God or god the son if your prefer didn't die this following scripture is a massive contradiction

    1 John 4:10 (New International Version)

    10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for [a] our sins.

    this is very clear it is the son that is sent that is the sacrifice

    This whole mess is created by the insistence that Jesus must be part of the One true God, to keep alive the myth of a triune God.

    Reniaa

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    The separation in Christian tradition between theology proper (the doctrine of God) and christology, pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology (doctrine about Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, salvation and the church respectively) as different and almost unrelated "chapters" of dogmatics, with the ontological or immanent Trinity (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) on one side and the economical Trinity (God the Father, the incarnate God-man Jesus, and the Holy Spirit operating in the church and individual believers) on the other, is an indirect but logical consequence of the split between orthodoxy and Gnosticism in the 2nd century AD.

    In spite of the apparent complexity of its pedagogic/initiatic myths, the basic Gnostic pattern was much simpler: somehow the original "fullness" (plèrôma) of the deity had become broken, scattered, alienated and imprisoned in the world in the process of creation itself, and the whole redemption/salvation consisted in its reintegration. It was the redemption/salvation of the deity itself, from creation as it were. There was but one deity or spirit at the source and at the end of everything, working within the redeemer(s)/revealer(s) who didn't need to be more than an appearance in the material world ("docetism"), as well as within all the elects or "pneumatics" ("spirituals") to this end.

    The official rejection of this Gnostic pattern (which in primitive forms had coexisted with others in earlier Christianity) left "orthodoxy" with an absolute distinction between creation and the uncreated deity; against Gnosticism it had to affirm that the Fall (Sin) occurred within the realm creation (not "upstream" of it as in the Gnostic "generations" of divine emanations). It was no longer a divine problem but one internal to creation (which was originally "good" but totally non-divine). Hence the redeemer had to be construed as a "bridge" between two mutually exclusive "worlds" -- belonging to both as it were. The Chalcedonian formulations of hypostatic union offer a "solution" to this "problem" in those terms.

    The Arian (and neo-Arian) solution(s) is just as dependent on this understanding of the "problem" as the orthodox one; only it makes the redeemer a part of creation, somehow unaffected by sin, creating three realms instead of two: (1) God the one and only uncreated; (2) the Son created yet unaffected by sin, similar to God in nature (homoiousios) although not of the same nature (homoousios); and (3) sinful creation. It still has to explain how (2) relates to (3), either by a new form of docetism or by another kind of "hypostatic union," depending on whether it wants its less-than-divine but more-than-human Saviour just to appear like a man or to be a man. WT theology at least chooses the second option, which logically requires some form of hypostatic union (that was the topic of this thread). That should imo be obvious to any consistent JW apologist (not the kind we have had lately though).

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    hi nark

    If you want me to believe your assertions you need to address the biblical contradictions that such a belief brings out. as far as I can see the bible backs up that jesus remains himself completely before, during and after, he is God's son and sent to be a sacrifice for us and to die himself not just a part of him or a created new flesh added version of him but he himself 'God the son' if you like to unbiblically put it.

    1 John 4:10 (New International Version)

    10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for [a] our sins

    here the bible is clearly saying it is the one that is sent down from God that dies. how does the hypostactic argument address that?

    Believing that Jesus is a spirit like his father is one thing and thats what the Jws believe (where is the hypostatic union in believing God and angels and JEsus are spirit creatures?) and he can become flesh as the scriptures say

    John 1:14 (New American Standard Bible)

    14 And (A) the Word (B) became flesh, and (C) dwelt among us, and (D) we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of (E) grace and (F) truth.

    and then he gets raised a life-giving spirit

    out of sheer interest what do they think happens to the fleshly jesus after he's raised hypostatically wise?

    Nark the bible wasn't written for intellectuals it was written for the average person with average understanding to understand. Words and relationships chosen that we could relate too and it doesn't go into natures and substances all the players remain obstinately separate completely themselves.

    Reniaa

  • booby
    booby

    Reniaa said: Nark the bible wasn't written for intellectuals it was written for the average person with average understanding to understand. Hope I understood what you are trying to say. If I did understand you, then why does the GB (I find those letters can encompass all the pseudonyms used by witnesses) say that ordinary folk like you and me cannot understand the bible without their disclosures and help. The GB does not agree with you or you with them, when you simplify natures and substances. You know, Jesus is a god but is not divine in nature. I would like to see you address the "The Son in two persons" comment that started this thread.

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    "they is the only biblical comparison trinitarians can use but they have to insist Jesus, God and HS are not 3 Gods but One God but still 3 separate persons."

    REPLY: The 3 persons of the Trinity do not refer to humans like you or I, but spirit. This is a fundamental flaw in JW understanding, a tactic used to mislead the public into believing the Trinity is something it is not.

    The three spiritual Persons or hypostases of the triune God are not to be confused with material human beings, persons like you or I. [Top]

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously think of “Person” as an individual self-conscious human person (Encyclopedia of Religion, 57), and we humans don’t engage in the kind of conduct the three Persons of the Trinity do, such as inner dialogue where people combined within a human person speak to each other. Or, they argue that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person because it appeared as a dove or flames of fire, never in the form of a human. And, it seems irrational to them that one such person can inhabit another person, so the Holy Person cannot be a person (Should You Believe, Chapter 6). They write:

    On one occasion the holy spirit appeared as a dove. On another occasion it appeared as tongues of fire - never as a person. (Should You Believe, Chapter 8).

    [R]egarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The spirit of Yahweh seized on him and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces.” (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No, it was really “the power of the LORD [that] made Samson strong. (TEV) (Should You Believe, Chapter 6) (emphasis added).

    A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it … None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person. (Reasoning from the Scriptures [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985], 380) (Reasoning)

    First, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to recognize that we are dealing with spirit, not flesh (the Holy Spirit is, after all, spirit), and the Bible is replete with examples of spirit persons entering individuals such as the spirit person Satan who entered Judas (Luke 22:3), and spirit demons who routinely inhabit people (Matthew 8:29-31). Furthermore, Jehovah is a spirit person and is the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Christian believer (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18 NWT), as does Christ (Romans 8:9-11; see also John 4:24). The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ objections in this regard are groundless.

    And simply because the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove or tongues of fire and not a human person does not mean He is not a spirit person. After all, the Almighty is a spirit person though invisible (Colossians 1:15). Angels are spirit persons who took human form, but their mere appearance as humans does not mean they are angels, or that angels who never took human form are not spirit (Genesis 18).

    Second, “Person” should be regarded as a contemporary misnomer, an imperfect expression because it connotes a separate rational and moral individual. It is a word erroneously derived from the Latin persona and misapplied in the English modern era, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

    Persona: A Latin word regularly used to refer to the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity and to the one ‘person’ of Christ. It therefore fulfills the role in Latin theology performed by hypostasis in Greek. The natural translation into ‘person’ in English is misleading. Persona originally meant a ‘mask’ and then a ‘role.’ It is used to indicate an individual in his or her external presentation, and does not convey the idea of self-consciousness or the internal psychological content suggested by the English word ‘person’ with its close link to the word ‘personality.’ (Oxford, 1210)

    Third, as mentioned above, the hypostatic “Person” refers to a form in which the divine essence exists, not a created human, but three personal self-distinctions (The New Bible Dictionary [Grand Rapids, Michigan, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962], 1300) (New Bible Dictionary).

    In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is one in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth in as much as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)

    Fourth, while each Person is self-conscious, He never acts independently.

    [P]ersonality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity; each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. (ibid.)

    Fifth, The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue,“ Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual…. Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? … What purpose would that serve except to mislead people?” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6).

    This line of argument illustrates their confusion. The triune God is not split into three. He is one undivided individual as just mentioned. His diversity manifests itself in operations and characteristics:

    When we say that God is a unity we mean that though God is in Himself a threefold centre of life, His life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality, and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in unity we mean that there is unity in diversity, and that diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)

    We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity,” (Catholic Catechism, 75). “[T]he Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.” Athanasian Creed; DS 75; ND16)” (Catholic Catechism, 79).

    Sixth, there is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:

    Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: he is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute.

    While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)

    Seventh, the three Persons are permanent features of God’s three distinct manners of His activity:

    Trinitarian theology is par excellence the theology of relationship. Its fundamental principle is that God, who is self-communication and self-giving love for us, is from all eternity love perfectly given and received. The traditional formula “God is three persons in one nature” compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God’s eternal being (the three persons) that are the ontological precondition for the three distinct manners of God’s tripersonal activity in the world (as Father, Son and Spirit). (Encyclopedia of Religion, 55)

    Eighth, each Person has the divine nature, but each has it differently:

    Whatever is other, distinct, plural, personal, and proper in the Godhead is exclusively a matter of relationship. Father, Son and Spirit do not differ as God, but in the way each is God with respect to the others. Each has and is the divine nature, but each has it differently: the Father from Himself, the Son from the Father, the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. God, then, is one in substance, three in Person, and what is significant about this distinction, what makes it non-contradictory, is that what is personal in the Godhead is not something absolute, but something purely relative, (Council of Florence, 1442). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 303)

    Ninth, the doctrine also holds that the divine Persons exist in their relationships to one another:

    The three divine Persons exist in their particular, unique natures as Father, Son and Spirit in their relationships to one another, and are determined through these relationships. It is in these relationships that they are Persons. Being a person in this respect means existing-in-relationship. (Trinity and the Kingdom, 172)

    [T]he three divine Persons possess the same individual, indivisible and one divine nature, but they possess it in varying ways. The Father possesses it of himself; the Son and the Spirit have it from the Father (ibid., 172). The Trinitarian Persons subsist in the common divine nature; they exist in their relations to one another. (ibid., 173)

    “A divine Person is a non-interchangeable existence of the divine nature.” By the word ‘existence’ - existential - [he] meant: existence, in the light of another” (ibid., 173).

    JD II

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    reniaa,

    First of all I certainly don't want you to believe anything.

    as far as I can see the bible backs up that jesus remains himself completely before, during and after, he is God's son and sent to be a sacrifice for us and to die himself not just a part of him or a created new flesh added version of him but he himself 'God the son' if you like to unbiblically put it.

    Good. This implies that different natures or "stuffs" (angelic and human from the JW perspective) successively exist within one person; this is basically what hypostatic union is about, although the "orthodox" version implies that (1) the first nature is "divine" rather than "angelic" and (2) they subsist simultaneously from Incarnation onward. I'm not discussing which version is "true," just pointing out that both involve the same kind of "problem" and "solution". I'd add that for the resurrected Jesus to be the same person he was as the archangel Michael and then as the human Jesus he must have kept "something" (at least, "memory") from the previous "stuffs". Should you think thoroughly about what that implies I doubt you would come up with anything simpler than the orthodox version of hypostatic union; different certainly, but not simpler.

    where is the hypostatic union in believing God and angels and JEsus are spirit creatures?

    Lol. Nowhere indeed.

  • tenyearsafter
    tenyearsafter

    booby,

    All you will get is a "runaround" from Reniaa...she doesn't answer the question directly...and oftentimes, she doesn't answer at all. Trying to reason with the unreasonable is a no-win scenario. I have tried to present questions to her and Spike Tassel, and the questions are mt with silence or gibberish. Save yourself some frustration!

    TYA

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    "What happens to Jesus the human creature? according to hypostatic union only Jesus the human creature dies and the God bit goes to heaven joins with the father and then raises himself as god the father with the help of the holy spirit person."

    REPLY: Christians do not believe that God the Son raised himself as "god the father" as you claim. Where do you come up with this distortion?

    As to what happens to Jesus the human creature, Christians believe the heavenly resurrected Jesus does not cease being human.

    Regarding the humanity of Christ, although this humanity can never be viewed in isolation because, “In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity (Fundamentals of Christology, 320). He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (ibid., 317).

    Fifth, the exaltation refers to the resurrected heavenly Jesus that died on the cross, who does not cease to be human (ibid., 318), a glorified human yet still God the Son to whom every knee shall bow. And any exaltation that God the Son might have enjoyed was with respect to His grade, order, appearance, aspect or manifestation (Tertullian). It would be a change in order of precedence in operation, a change in the relationship, but it would not alter in any way the essential being, nature and power of God; that which defines the triune God as one.

    JD II

  • jonathan dough
    jonathan dough

    Reniaa wrote:

    "by the time we get to this point we are creating serious contradictions with scripture. God cannot die, he is eternal so jesus isn't an equal sacrifice because he doesn't die only a part of him dies the human creature. but this is denying the sheer wait of scripture that never hint that any part of jesus son of God lived from the roman centurian at his death."

    REPLY: First, the notion that Jesus had to be an equal sacrifice, equal to Adam, is completely false but off topic for now. With respect to your question, it was the creature who bled on the cross. “In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity (Fundamentals of Christology, 320). He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (ibid., 317).

    JD II

  • reniaa
    reniaa

    hi booby

    I know originally hebrew word for god el simply ment powerful one and they used it on any powerful non-earthly being. So angels were called gods, evil spirits weres called gods and people given power by god were also called gods as in the case of moses. but there was only one "God of gods" and jesus himself pointed that this was his father "You the only true God".

    Hi nark

    The whole hypostatic point is to have two usable parts of Jesus. One that can be in heaven and going back again undying (Son of God) and another that can die and be resurrected (son the flesh creature) but once you show scripturally that it is the son of God that dies then the need for a fleshly Jesus is gone as well as the hypostatic union. but also trying to get divinity of Jesus to make him the One true God is also lost.

    Are we not really only debating here about divine?

    Can Jesus be a spirit creature called a god/divine have access to god's power and not be the One true God? just be God's Actual "firstborn of creation" son?

    this allows for Jesus to die when God can't die

    this allows for God to know things Jesus doesn't

    this also allows for the multiple birth/creation references to Jesus in regards the start of his prehuman existence inc proverbs 8.

    The bible sets the precedent that things other than the One True God can be called gods without being the One true God why does this have to be different for Jesus?

    hi jonathan

    I'm glad you allow that human oneness between a man and a woman cannot be used to substantiate the trinity one doctrine but now you have to show a biblical scripture that allows for that in itself.

    Sir Isaac Newton whose laws on physics are still used in space travel today didn't accept the trinity arguments simply becasue they are unsubstantiated biblically.

    Reniaa

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit