Can any Witness possibly anwser this question?

by jerome 132 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    It's quite clear that scriptures can be translated in different ways according to the predisposition of the translator. So if we are describing a quality when we say the Word was a god, we could also say the Word was divine, the Word was what God was...we could even say the Word was God providing the reader understood we were referring to a quality and not a noun. So if you put the same question - was the Word a true divine or a false divine - you can see the question makes no sense.

    Alan's observation that the earliest writings (the synoptic gospels) have no indication of deity is quite telling and indicative of the confusion that existed in the first century as to just who and what Jesus was. While I accept John's writings a part of the canon I cannot pretend I don't have some difficulty with his Platonic vocabulary which seems more fitting a man of Athens than a fisherman of Galilee. And after that it took hundreds of years of wrangling to come up with an acceptable creed...and the success of that creed had more to do with the political astuteness and administrative authority of Athanasius than anything else. But getting back to what was actually written it is clear that both trinitarians and unitarians read the same texts and believe they support their view of God.

    So how did the first readers understand it ? They were Jews and whether or not there is a subliminal teaching of the trinity in the OT we do know the Jews in the time of Jesus believed in one God only, without any arguments about substance (although they argued about everything else). Their central belief was the shema and to that Jesus added the law to love one's neighbour. Should Christians believe anything different ?

    Earnest

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    UnclePenn1:

    : UH, I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure AM is not a Christian Alan. Have you read any of his posts?

    Indeed I have. Apparently you have not, at least, not with understanding, because his post above confirms that he claims to be a Christian. Besides, no one but a braindead Fundy would strongly support the argument that "1X1X1=1" is evidence for the Trinity, and then object when the idea is clobbered.

    : P.S. What is a Fundy? Cause, if it means someone who loves Jesus and loves and honors God, then take a big ol' stamp and mark it right across my forehead.

    There are many species of Fundies. There are Christian ones, Islamic ones, Hindu ones, etc. All have one thing in common: a singularly braindead devotion to a religion or to a religious book or, most often, their interpretation of a religious book, such that they throw away reason, common sense and common decency. This devotion shows that their beliefs are based mostly on blind emotion, not on reason.

    For example, there are decent Moslems and there are Fundamentalist Moslems. The latter are comprised of people like Osama bin-Laden, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and their fanatical, suicidal followers.

    There are also decent Christians and there are Fundamentalist Christians. The difference between them is the degree of fanaticism and devotion to reason. Fundamentalist Christians invariably believe the interpretation of their religious leaders of the Bible over reason, facts and common sense. For example, they tend to be young-earth creationists, whether of the six-literal-day variety or the Jehovah's Witness creative-day-equals-7000-years variety. They are singularly insulated from the scientific fact that the earth and life upon it have been around for billions of years.

    There are many, many Christians who love Jesus and who honor God; I count among my closest friends such people. None of them are Fundamentalists in the sense described above, even though some are Evangelicals and believe most of the things that are set forth in books like the classic The Fundamentals.

    In sum, to me, the most useful notion about Fundamentalism is that it is a mindset, not a belief system, and so that is what I mean by "Fundy". It is the mindset of the cultist.

    Dungbeetle:

    Your comments are on the money. Lowlife trolls like WhizBrain, who "kick the cyber-s**t" out of people who are down just for fun, deserve no quarter, and they won't get it from me. Anyone who listens to their hypocritical bleatings of "why am I being beat on?" is a moron.

    Your comments on whether the scriptures require belief in the Trinity are well taken. Only Fundies like the JWs and certain of the posters in this thread make belief or non-belief in this fuzzy doctrine a litmus test for Christianity.

    jerome:

    Your thread has been invaded by certain braindead people who refuse to deal with reasoned arguments and substitute stupidity and various forms of name calling for it.

    Your comments on the Trinity are right on, and are exactly the point of my first post.

    Apostate Man:

    You claim you weren't raised in a CULT, but your actions prove that you're a Fundy and a cultist, as I've described above. But you know perfectly well what I meant, and so your whinings that you're not part of a CULT are just as misleading as are the whinings of the Watchtower when they claim they're not a cult. We know different.

    As for how many Gods there are, the Bible is clear: One.

    Now let's try for the thousandth time: sensibly define the mathematical operation of "multiplication of gods".

    AlanF

  • spender
    spender

    I just wanted to say that AlanF is correct in his multiplication argument...vectors, dot products, cross products...when dealing with complex systems the answer is not as easy as you think.

  • Moxy
    Moxy

    hey, another very important thing with multiplication that alan didnt really mention is that you are not multiplying numbers here, you are multiplying people (or gods). now even if we assume the normal mathematical definition of multiplication applies, we have the problem of units.
    e.g. you can multiply things like speed and time to get distance, but simply saying a speed of 3 and time of 5 makes a distance of 15 is meaningless without units. e.g:
    3mph x 5hr
    = 3x5 x mph x hr
    = 15 x miles x hr / hr
    = 15 miles

    you can only get a meaningful answer if your units can be multiplied. so ill give you that 1x1x1=1. but shouldnt the equation be:
    1 god x 1 god x 1 god
    = 1x1x1 x god x god x god
    = 1 god cubed

    whats a god cubed?

    why dont you just do what everyone else does? call it a mystery that we can never understand with our puny human minds and you will believe it no matter what anyone says ever ever ever. because in your heart you just know it to be true. i would be satisfied with that answer.

    mox

  • spender
    spender

    you've made another very good point moxy. It seems silly and disrespectful to me to try to apply our mathematics to something so far beyond our comprehension as God.

  • simwitness
    simwitness
    whats a god cubed?

    What every single "revealed" religion attempts to do to God, "box" him into their very own "we are right, you are wrong" definition.

    God is what god is. Allways has been, allways will be. Only man would attempt to limit this in any way, shape or FORM.

    --- it's time to think outside of the box!

  • apostate man
    apostate man

    I thought I was posting with people smarter than some of you.

    First, I didn't start the 1x1x1 thing, 4christ did. I agreed with her that it does make sense, even though THAT IS NOT THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT.

    Second, ALAN, WTF. You call me names and put me down and when push comes to shove, YOU BELIEVE THEIR ARE JUST AS MANY GODS AS I DO? Let me quote...

    ALANF-"As for how many Gods there are, the Bible is clear: One."

    A.M.-"The Bible CLEARLY says that there is ONE GOD and no others. "

    A.M.-"ONE GOD. Using a mathematical equation is not the best way to put it, I agree. 4christ said that also. "

    ALANF-"Apostate Kindergartener wrote: ONE

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

    SO, what gives Alan? You agree with me the whole time and are pissed on HOW I came up with one God? Or are you viewing One God differently than I am. Lets see, a conformist would say their is one God, Jehovah, and that Jesus and Satan are "other gods". Is that your stand, Alan?

    Break the chains that bind you,
    unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing.
  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Bang:

    : they spoke of the Holy Spirit as God, the Father as God and Jesus as God - and no one else.

    That is not entirely correct. Nowhere in the NT is the Holy Spirit spoken of as God, nor is Jesus spoken of as God. Only the Father is unequivocally spoken of as God. A number of Bible passages might indicate what you claim, but every one is open to interpretation based on one's overall understanding of the NT's message about the nature and function of Christ with respect to God the Father. I'll be posting a lot more on this later in the week.

    Now, I know perfectly well that certain passages in the NT have been translated as many Bible translation do with John 1:1c: "the Word was God". I've asked for general comments on questions like the following, but have gotten no sensible response: if the Word was God, then we can conclude that the Word is still God. But what does "God" mean in these statements? If the statement is talking about persons, then "the Word is God" means that the person of the Word is the person of God. But if "the Word is God" in terms of persons, then it is equally true that "God is the Word" -- i.e., the two propositions are convertible. But mainstream trinitarians reject that for various reasons. Tell me why they reject this notion.

    Shelia:

    The topic of the proper understanding and translation of the articular and anarthrous (i.e., with and without "the") uses of theos in the NT is large and complex. There are a number of passages where theos alone refers to the Father, plenty of passages where theos with the article refers to the Father, and a few passages where either usage refers to someone else. There are a number of passages that scholars and theologians have been debating for nearly 2000 years.

    I haven't read the JW discussion of this material in their Reasoning book for years, but I don't believe that it covers all the bases adequately. Nor do many treatments by various trinitarian authors I've read. The best book on this subject, in my experience, is Jesus as God by Murray Harris. Harris is strongly trinitarian but presents a thorough and reasonably fair and objective discussion of these matters. Later this week I'll be posting a lot of material from his book, so that readers can get an idea of what a good scholar has to say. In the meantime, see my comments to Bang.

    Earnest:

    Good observations!

    AlanF

  • gumby
    gumby

    "In the beginning" means that Jesus, or the Word as he is called in that particular text, had a beginning.

    This was YK's statement a few pages back.

    Let's see here..."In the begginning WAS the word"
    Commen sense tells me when this begginning started...Jesus WAS already there.

    "WAS the word", gives absolutely no hint that this means he was created.

    Not much has been said about vs.3 just two scriptures away...."Through him ALL....ALL....ALL things were made;without him, NOTHING...NOTHING...NOTHING, was MADE that has been MADE".(emphasis added)

    If NOTHING was made without him, then Jehovah did not MAKE Jesus.

    Col.1:16 " For by him, ALL....ALL....ALL, things were made".(emphasis added)

    All does not mean the writer was saying "well uh...I mean BESIDES Jesus" All means all!

  • apostate man
    apostate man

    "Nowhere in the NT is the Holy Spirit spoken of as God, nor is Jesus spoken of as God. "

    Wrong again Alan. Obviously you haven't read the scriptures Uncle Penn and myself put up on page 4, I think.

    Break the chains that bind you,
    unless, of course, you're into that sort of thing.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit