God in a box

by aChristian 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    As one of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years I was, of course, fully opposed to the idea that the God of the Bible was a "Triune" God. For the first couple years after leaving the Witnesses I continued to hold strong anti-Trinity views. A few years ago I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. Afterwards I decided to consider both sides of this issue a little more closely than I had done in the past.

    After doing so it wasn't long before I found myself convinced that there is much less spiritually objectionable to the Trinity doctrine than there is to the common alternative. Those who reject the Trinity normally do so because they do not view Jesus Christ as Almighty God or as One Christians should rightly worship. Non-Trinitarians almost always end up viewing Jesus as only "a perfect man" and God's chief angel. Though Christ Himself said we are to "honor the Son just as we honor the Father" (John 5:23), non-Trinitarians never seem to do anything close.

    Yet, despite the fact that all non-Trinitarians seemed to give far too little honor to Christ, I had great trouble giving serious consideration to the Trinity doctrine because my mind told me it made absolutely no sense. How could three Divine Beings make up one God? After all, 1+1+1 does not equal 1. I knew that in Kindergarten.

    I realize now that I had only one problem in believing that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit could make up one God, or that one God could manifest Himself at different times, and simultaneously, in three different forms. That was my inability to fathom the existence of anything beyond our physical world.

    But then I found out something quite interesting. I discovered that scientists now firmly believe that dimensions beyond our four physical dimensions of space and time do indeed exist. For they now tell us that even though we can only directly observe four dimensions, there must somehow, somewhere, exist at least six other dimensions. For, they say, only when we allow for the existence of these extra dimensions, in which forces operate beyond our four dimensional laws of physics, are we able to account for all the properties and principles of "quantum mechanics."

    Take, for instance, "string theory." At the very heart of string theory is the proposal that the cosmos experienced a dimensional split at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang began. At that instant, the ten-dimensional expanding universe split into two pieces: a six-dimensional piece that permanently ceased expanding and never produced matter, and a four dimensional piece that became our dimensions of length, width, height and time. Modern science maintains that only that four dimensional system continued to expand, eventually producing matter and stars. (see Stephen Hawking's A Brief History Of Time, 1988)

    Now, since modern science believes in the existence of dimensions beyond the four we experience, it seemed to me that I should be able to believe that God exists both in and beyond the four space time dimensions in which we exist. For if as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would not be bound by the laws of the physical universe which He had created any more than I would be bound by a cage I made to keep my parakeets in. While my birds would be locked inside the width, height and depth constraints of the cage I made, I would not be so constrained. If as the Bible says God created our physical universe, He would have to be omnipresent. For, if He was not, He would be bound by the width, height and depth constraints of the "cage" He had made. The same goes for other natural laws. If God made them, He must have existed before they were made, and so He would not then have been bound by them. And He would not now be bound by them either, unless He chose to climb inside the "cage" He made, close the door and throw away the key.

    I also learned that Einstein proved that time is only a dimension of our physical universe. And that time began when our physical universe began. Thus, if Christ existed "with God" (John1:1) before the creation of our physical universe He must have existed before time began, and His origin can truthfully be said to be "from the days of time indefinite." (Micah 5:2 NWT) Or for those who prefer plain English, "from everlasting," and "from the days of eternity." (KJV, NAS) So, though in one sense God's Son had a beginning, in another sense He did not. For if Jesus Christ has existed since before time began, when did He begin?

    It also helped me to remember that Jesus Christ is God's "Only Begotten Son." (John 3:16) To be "begotten," according to both the Biblical and dictionary definitions, means to be produced, not out of nothing, but from a parent's own body. For instance, the Bible tells us that Abraham "begat Isaac" "from his own body." (Gen.15:4; 25:19) And it is widely understood that Isaac pictured Jesus Christ.

    Children who are begotten by a human parent, once they are full grown, are equal to their parents in every way. In physical stature, in strength, in intelligence, etc. Granted, the child may not have the same position in business or government as his father but, in reality, that child is the parent's equal in every way. I, for instance, will always show my father the special honor a son shows to his father, but at the same time I will always be my father's equal. So, if Jesus Christ was begotten from his Father's own body, so to speak, before time began, he is both eternal (without a beginning in time), as Micah 5:2 says, and his Father's equal, as Philippians 2:6 tells us in most translations of the Bible.

    Another thing I kept in mind was that our fathers are three dimensional physical people. As such they occupy only a few cubic feet of space. As their sons, begotten from their bodies, we too are three dimensional people who occupy only a few cubic feet of space. For fathers who beget sons always do so "after their own kind," so to speak. Now the Bible tells us that God is not a three dimensional being occupying only a few cubic feet of space. The Bible indicates God is omnipresent. He exists everywhere at the same time. So, if Christ was begotten from God's own body, so to speak, and "after his kind," so to speak, He too would have God's own omnipresent nature.

    When I was born the cord connecting my mother and I was cut. At that time I was no longer physically a part of either one of my parents. We soon became even more "disconnected" when I was placed in the hospital nursery fifty feet down the hall. Right now I might be in New York and both my parents might be thousands of miles away from me in California. But if God begat a Son after His own kind, so to speak, He and His Son would both be of the same substance, and thus both omnipresent. If this is so, it becomes very difficult to think of them as two separate Spirit Beings. And since they both have and send forth the same Holy Spirit, as Scripture says they do, from their mutual omnipresent position, it is not difficult to think of God as "three in one." In fact it then becomes more difficult to think of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as separate entities.

    I am now convinced that all the Scriptures pertaining to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to their Deity, can only be understood and fully harmonized by someone who does not attempt to put the God of the Bible into some kind of four dimensional box. I believe my feelings in this regard are signs of spiritual growth.

  • ianao
    ianao

    Hello aChristian.

    So does this mean that you believe in a holy trinity?

    If so, is it your understanding that Jehovah is the name of the 1in3,3in1 triune God?

    The only reason that I am asking is that most folks who embrace the trinity give up a bit of their critical thinking skills. (This may be for the better anyway as far as keeping faith in God's promises).

    It's my understanding that in the trinity doctrine the name of the triune God is called Jehovah.

    Here is a little "formula":

    Jehovah = Father + Son + Holy Spirit

    My personal problem with that is, that the Son has a name all to himself (to which every knee should bow) known as Jesus. So let's update this formula:

    Jehovah = Father + Jesus + Holy Spirit

    Jesus was out to have his Father's name sanctified (i.e. for religious use). This "Father" was higher than he was, and he called him his own God as well as everyone else's God.

    My problem is, how is Jesus' Father's name going to be sanctified if the name of the triune God is Jehovah. Logically, the Father's name is UNKNOWN, so how could anyone believing in a trinity ever sanctify it?

    Granted, you could explain those lapses in logic as a mystery of God, but to me that is indeed a cop out giving you permission in advance to stay ignorant of other scriptures that seem to contradict these notions (as catholic/protestant churches have been doing for a long time now.)

    To be honest though, maybe it's best to stay in the clouds of mystery if you really want to put faith in God.

    I know from personal experience that if you start picking things apart and using sound logic, you may end up with more than you bargained for.

    Edited by - ianao on 13 March 2001 11:36:31

  • TR
    TR

    Very interesting theory. Will have to ponder this one.

    TR

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    :So does this mean that you believe in a holy trinity?

    Yes.

    :If so, is it your understanding that Jehovah is the name of the 1in3, 3in1 triune God?

    Jehovah is the name God used to identify Himself with in Old Testament times.

    The Watchtower Society's use of the name "Jehovah" is not scriptural. They have added the name "Jehovah" many times to the text of the New Testament even though they admit that, "…no early surviving Greek manuscript of the ‘New Testament’ contains the personal name of God." ( The Watchtower March 1, 1991 p. 28 ) The Watchtower Society has said that they believe that the writers of the New Testament used the divine name in their original writings but that their original writings were later corrupted. However this contradicts what the Society itself has said. The Society tells us that, "Jehovah God has seen to it that his Word has been protected not only from mistakes copyists made but also from attempts of others to make additions to it. The Bible itself contains God’s promise that his Word would be kept in a pure form for us today." ( You Can Live For Ever in Paradise on Earth, 1982 p. 53 ) So, the fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses had no business inserting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations when that name is not found in any early surviving Greek manuscript of the New Testament. Historians tell us that the personal name of God, as used in the Old Testament, was not used in either its written or spoken form for many years before the time of Christ. Because the Jews were afraid overuse of the divine name might amount to "taking the name of the Lord in vain," they actually forbid its use altogether.

    The Bible tells us that for Christians the name of Jesus should be promoted above every name. (Phil. 2:9) Jehovah's Witnesses do not do this. Their putting the name Jehovah into the New Testament portions of their New World Translations and promoting that name above every name, rather than the name of Jesus as the Bible says Christians should be doing, is wrong.

    The name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was taken from God's words to Israel recorded in Isaiah 43:10. For a Christian group to take on such a name clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture. First, the words spoken by God recorded in Isaiah 43:10 were spoken to the nation of Israel, not to Christians. The Bible tells us that Christians are to be witnesses of Jesus just as the Jews were witnesses of Jehovah. Jesus said, "You will be witnesses of me." (Acts 1:8) And the Bible tells us that it was "by divine providence," by God's own direction, that His people in the post-Jewish age would be known by the name of Jesus Christ. (Acts 11:26 NWT) Thus, instructing Christians to identify themselves by the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" clearly conflicts with the teachings of scripture.

    Shortly before the Christian age God allowed the name He had used to identify Himself with in Old Testament times to be lost forever. This happened when Jewish religious leaders forbid its pronunciation. After generations passed with the Old Testament name of God not being pronounced, and with the written Hebrew language having no vowels, the Old Testament name of God was lost. Do you really believe that if God wanted the name He used in Old Testament times to be used today by Christians He would have allowed that name to be lost in such a way? I don't. I believe God intended for this to happen. Why? To open the way for Jesus Christ to be called God, as Isaiah had prophesied that He would be. (Isaiah 9:6; John 20:28)

  • ianao
    ianao

    Hello again aChristian.

    Please note that you are not talking to an active/baptized JW, so you do NOT need to convert me. I was a confused xtian before I almost became a confused JW.

    I am talking about logic here.

    If you believe in the 'trinity doctrine' then:

    Jehovah = Father + Jesus + Holy Spirit

    (According to the proof-texts that you guys like to use, exluding the dubious Johnian comma).

    My question to you is, knowing that Jesus wanted to see his Father's NAME to be sanctified (don't have the scripture in front of me) how are you going to consider his name holy and praise him when you don't even know his name? I am just curious as to how you bypass/nullify/rectify this logical argument.

    I am not arguing old-english rhetoric or deliberate mistranslations (if you want to get into that, then let's talk about all four of the KJV's "hells" )

    I am talking about the logistics of a stated position.

    Edited by - ianao on 13 March 2001 12:31:17

  • aChristian
    aChristian

    : I am talking about logic here.

    I think that may be your problem. Human logic says that 1+1+1 cannot = 1. Human logic says that a lot of things make no sense and thus cannot be possible. But many things which seem impossible to men are not impossible to God. Your demands that God must be able to be fully understood by a person using human "logic" is attempting to "put God in a box."

    : My question to you is, knowing that Jesus wanted to see his Father's NAME to be sanctified (don't have the scripture in front of me) how are you going to consider his name holy and praise him when you don't even know his name? I am just curious as to how you bypass/nullify/rectify this logical argument.

    I do know His name. His name today is Jesus Christ.

    Your human logic says a son cannot also be his Father. I say your human logic is unable to fully comprehend the God of the Bible. That was the point of my post.

    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called, "Wonderful Counselor," "Mighty God," "Everlasting Father" and "Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)

    Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9)

  • ianao
    ianao

    Well, that's fine. My lack of logic is your sensibility. Your lack of logic is my sensibility. Fair enough.

    I do know His name. His name today is Jesus Christ.

    Interesting, so it is your contention that Jesus wanted to sanctify his OWN name, despite the fact that he referred to his Father's name. This could be so, if you ignore the fact that Jesus was God's Son. (i.e. they were in that relationship). I wonder how Father God feels about that?

    Believe what you want about my logic, but you are contradicting (sp?) your own doctrine. But hey, it is your right to hide your lack of logic (as I perceive it) behind God's veil should you choose to do so.

    I will admit, it seems to be nothing but a way to rectify scriptural contradictions. If one line of scripture contradicts another, you change your thinking. It's just too bad that you have to depend on the neo-platonic greek writing style of John in order to substantiate your beliefs. It's really no different from the witnesses who depend on Paul's writings to substantiate their own. Witnesses just seemed to have substantiated beliefs than the average Christian never had to cognize.

    Fascinating.

    Well, I'll refrain from getting in a big argument over things, as I don't have the time and whip out my bible and start quoting scriptures that say that God is not a God of confusion. (As apparently he is, to some extent).

    Thanks for answering the question. I like your reasoning too, as all I can do at this point is denounce your sincereity to God (as I would perceive it), or ridicule your own critical thinking skills. I could also point out that since you and I are both human, and since God put his word here for us in a readable fashion that we are supposed to apply our logic, as it was written to us, through us, FOR us, but I won't go down that route.

    I peronally think we are BOTH guilty of putting God in a "box". Your box isn't so different from mine, yours just has room for three people!

    Take care.

    Edited by - ianao on 13 March 2001 18:0:48

  • Prisca
    Prisca

    aChristian, thank you for your interesting discussion on this subject. I found your theory on the different demensions of God and the Christ quite feasible, although the more I read it, the more it convinced me of the non-trinity view. It seems it can be used to argue both ideas! I know this wasn't your intention, but it seems to me the trinity/non-trinity view can be as equally debatable as the God/no-God view.

    Anyhow, I hope my little post here doesn't interrupt the aChristian/ianao tennis match. I enjoyed your discussion guys.

  • thinkers wife
    thinkers wife

    Ianao and A Christian,
    I like Prisca, have different views of God and the Bible. But I thoroughly enjoy reading other peoples ideas. Especially when the are presented in a civil manner.
    It is nice to see some thinking people trying to formulate thoughts. IMO, when we stop thinking we die spiritually speaking.
    Personally, I don't think if there is a God such as mainstream religions teach, that he cares what our concept of him is. But I do think it matters to that being whether or not we consider him.
    Interesting discussion.
    TW

  • ianao
    ianao

    aChristian: Your serve... (j/k)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit