The Trinity

by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

SwedishChef

Gumby, as many books out there that "disprove" Christianity, there are twice as many which validate Christianity.
SwedishChef

Herk, which posts should I have responded to?
DakotaRed

Strange how trinitarians try to force the English translation of John 1:1 as the only proper version, yet deny and over look all the mentions Jesus made himself as to his not being the only true God, as he did his Father. You know, pick and choose scriptures to justify the doctrine?
In language, something cannot be with itself, so logically, the common translation of John 1:1 they love to use shows 2 Gods. The Bible says there is only one God!
Since copy and paste seem to be their norm;
Dr. Jason BeDuhn of Northern Arizona University (who is not the JW apologist he is accused of being) says, concerning John 1:1;

"The Greek phrase is theos en ho logos, which translated word for word is "a god was the word."

"Greek has only a definite article, like our the, it does not have an indefinite article, like our a or an. If a noun is definite, it has the definite article ho. If a noun is indefinite, no article is used. In the phrase from John 1:1, ho logos is "the word." If it was written simply logos, without the definite article ho, we would have to translate it as "a word". So we are not really "inserting" an indefinite article when we translate Greek nouns without the definite article into English, we are simply obeying rules of English grammar that tell us that we cannot say "Snoopy is dog," but must say "Snoopy is a dog."

Now in English we simply say "God"; we do not say "The God." But in Greek, when you mean to refer to the one supreme God, instead of one of the many other beings that were called "gods," you would have to say "The God": ho theos. Even a monotheistic Christian, who believes there is only one God and no others, would be forced to say in Greek "The God," as John and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament normally do. If you leave off the article in a phrase like John 1:1, then you are saying "a god." (There are some exceptions to this rule: Greek has what are called noun cases, which means the nouns change form depending on how they are used in a sentence. So, if you want to say "of God," which is theou, you don't need the article. But in the nominative case, which is the one in John 1:1, you have to have the article.)

So what does John mean by saying "the word was a god"? He is classifying Jesus in a specific category of beings. There are plants and animals and humans and gods, and so on. By calling the Word "a god," John wants to tell his readers that the Word (which becomes Jesus when it takes flesh) belongs to the divine class of things. Notice the word order: "a god was the word." We can't say it like this in English, but you can in Greek. The subject can be after the verb and the object before the verb, the opposite of how we do it in English (subject-verb-object). Research has shown that when ancient Greek writers put an object-noun first in a sentence like John 1:1 (a be-verb sentence: x is y), without the definite article, they are telling us that the subject belongs to the class represented by the object-noun: :"The car is a Volkswagen." In English we would accomplish the same thing by using what we call predicate adjectives. "John is a smart person" = "John is smart." So we would tend to say "The word was divine," rather than "The word was a god." That is how I would translate this phrase. "The word was a god" is more literal, and an improvement over "The word was God," but it raises more problems, since to a modern reader it implies polytheism.

No one in John's day would have understood the phrase to mean "The word was God" - the language does not convey that sense, and conceptually it is difficult to grasp such an idea, especially since that author has just said that the word was with God. Someone is not with himself, he is with some other. John clearly differentiates between God from the Word. The latter becomes flesh and is seen; the former cannot be seen. What is the Word? John says it was the agent through whom God made the world. He starts his gospel "In the beginning..." to remind us of Genesis 1. How does God create in Genesis? He speaks words that make things come into existence. So the Word is God's creative power and plan and activity. It is not God himself, but it is not really totally separate from God either. It occupies a kind of ambiguous status. That is why a monotheist like John can get away with calling it "a god" or "divine" without becoming a polytheist. This divine thing does not act on its own, however, does take on a kind of distinct identity, and in becoming flesh brings God's will and plan right down face to face with humans."
Lew W
JosephMalik

Joseph, In what instances are Moses and other prophets called "God"?,
SwedishChef,
This was already discussed on this forum by Herk when he discussed the psalm use again at Hebrews 1:8. And a search of scripture will reveal:
Exodus 4:16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.
Exodus 7:1 And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.
Moses was made God to Arron his brother and Pharoah as well. The use of a small g makes no difference. The theology of the translators factors in not the text itself.
And there are others some of which I put in Beyond Trinitariansm. The verses our Lord used in his defence at John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; are others and can be traced back. Since all this is verified by Him there is no mistake regarding such use and no excuse for anyone to confuse the issue as the Jews did in Jesus day and as Trinitarians do today.
Joseph
Edited by - JosephMalik on 30 November 2002 18:34:14
SwedishChef

Joseph, you are very wrong. In fact, there is no possible way you could be more wrong. That capitol "g" makes all the difference.
herk
SwedishChef,
Here's one of the first posts you never answered:
SwedishChef,
Let's start with the first 5 passages you supplied. You seem eager to get away from them and eager to move on, even though you haven't proved a thing by mentioning them.
1 Timothy 3:16 - You said this is one of "countless" texts that prove Jesus is God. Your reason is that some translations say: "God was manifest in the flesh." However, Bruce M. Metzger wrote in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: "No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eigth or ninth century ... supports [theos]; all ancient versions presuppose [hos] or [ho]; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading [theos]." Today, most translations show their disagreement with the KJV by omitting any reference to "God" in this text. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Simply by ignoring it? This is the first text you introduced to prove Jesus is God. How can we accept your interpretation of any other text if you choose to ignore the facts here? So, what is your response? And what scholarly support do you have?
Revelation 1:8 - It is plain from simply reading this verse that the Father, not Jesus, is the Alpha and Omega and the Lord God Almighty. Jesus is never called the Lord God Almighty. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Are you going to simply ignore the truth? Surely you had a reason for citing this verse! Why not show us how it proves your point. Or, could it be that you have no proof, after all?
Genesis 1:26 - Trinitarians and JWs say that God was speaking here to Christ. However, the Jews have long held that God was speaking to "all the army of the heavens standing by him, to his right and to his left." (1 Ki 22:19-22; Job 38:7) So, how does this in any way "prove" that Jesus is God? How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Jesus said concerning the Jews, "we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22) Why do you choose to give preference to trinitarians who were not Jews and who came along centuries later with a different interpretation than the Jews had?
Matthew 28:19 - This verse simply mentions the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It says nothing about them being God or equal persons within the Godhead. How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Or, as in all the examples above, are you unable to give an answer?
1 John 5:7 - Up above, Navigator gave a fine explanation of why this verse is not found in all the better translations. Why do you choose to ignore something so vital to knowing the truth about God and Christ? How do you answer this, SwedishChef? Could it be you have no answer?
You want us to move on and treat as credible whatever else you have to say. How can we? What basis have you given us to believe that you are a sincere truthseeker? The Bible is plain and simple, yet you prefer to give it a trinitarian twist. Abraham was not a trinitarian. Neither were Moses, David, John the Baptist or Jesus. You can only wish that they were, since you haven't got a single piece of evidence that will stand up under scrutiny.
Herk
herk
SwedishChef,
Here's another one you haven't answered:
SwedishChef,
There is no evidence of a Trinity in Isaiah 44. The rendering you supplied is from the KJV. It should be obvious to the casual reader that something doesn't look right in the phrase "Thus saith the L ORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the L ORD of hosts." The natural inclination of a sincere Bible student is to try to make sense of this. First, he notes that the L ORD is the true King of Israel. But the redeemer - whose redeemer is he? Is he Israel's redeemer or the L ORD 's redeemer? He cannot be the L ORD 's redeemer since he is the L ORD himself. Thus we naturally conclude that he is Israel's redeemer. This makes sense, since Isaiah often in other places identifies the L ORD of Hosts as Israel's Redeemer. (41:14; 43:14; 44:24; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7, 26; 54:5, 8; 60:16; 63:16)
In fact, this phrase or something similar is very common in Isaiah:
"I will help thee, saith the L ORD , and thy redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (41:14)
"Thus saith the L ORD , your redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (43:14)
"As for our redeemer, the L ORD of hosts is his name, the Holy One of Israel." (47:4)
"Thus saith the L ORD , thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel." (48:17)
"Thus saith the L ORD , the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One." (49:7)
"The L ORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel." (54:5)
So, Trinitarians are in error when they try to make the case that Jehovah the King of Israel is a person different from Jehovah of hosts, Israel's Redeemer. Checking other translations, we get a better rendering. For example, the NASB says at Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the L ORD , the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the L ORD of hosts."
If they are two separate persons, why are both named Jehovah when the name of the Son of God is Jesus, not Jehovah which is the name of the Father? Furthermore, where is the Holy Spirit in this picture? If there were a suggestion of two different persons, the most this text would indicate is that God is a binitary, not a Trinity.
This One Person who is the God of Israel then proceeds to say, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." In other words, Jehovah the Father is the first God; before him there was no Almighty God. And there will be none after him. He will bring to a successful conclusion the issue over Godship, forever vindicated as the one and only Almighty God.
Somehow, SC, you jumped from Isaiah to Zechariah 2:11 with the rest of your text in quotes:
"And many nations shall be joined to the Lord [Jehovah] in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts hath sent me unto thee."
I suppose you intended to show that Jehovah is Jesus since Jehovah says to Israel "I will dwell in the midst of thee" and that they would know Jehovah "hath sent" him.
Here, again, a serious Bible student is puzzled at first due to the language. There is no problem in understanding how God would "dwell in the midst of thee," for he often said that in connection with the tabernacle and the temple. (Leviticus 26:2; Deuteronomy 23:14; Psalms 46:5; Isaiah 12:6) But, how could "the L ORD " be "sent" by "the L ORD "? Our understanding opens up when we discover who is actually speaking, as the following breakdown will show.
Verse 1: Zechariah ["I lifted up mine eyes"]
Verse 2: Zechariah and "a man" ["Then said I ... and he said unto me"]
Verse 3: Zechariah ["behold, the angel that talked with me"]
Verse 4: Zechariah and an angel ["said unto him ... speak to this young man"]
Verse 5: An angel quoting Jehovah ["For I, saith the L ORD "]
Verse 6-8: An angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 9: An angel who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me."
Verse 10: And angel quoting Jehovah ["saith the L ORD "]
Verse 11-13: An angel ["and thou shalt know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee"]
So, it is an angel, not Jehovah himself, who says "ye shall know that the L ORD of hosts hath sent me." Seven times in Zechariah, an angel says something like that. (1:10; 2:8, 9, 11; 4:9; 6:15; 7:12) This should also be noted: The angel was not predicting a future time when God would send someone. He was referring to a future realization that God had already sent his angels to Israel:
"Then said I, O my lord, what are these? And the angel that talked with me said unto me, I will shew thee what these be. And the man that stood among the myrtle trees answered and said, These are they whom the L ORD hath sent to walk to and fro through the earth. And they answered the angel of the L ORD that stood among the myrtle trees, and said, We have walked to and fro through the earth, and, behold, all the earth sitteth still, and is at rest." (1:9-11)
Isaiah 44:24 is self-explanatory. Yes, "there is one independant creator," and he is Israel's L ORD and Redeemer.
I hope this is helpful.
Herk
SwedishChef

This has been a heated debate for many years. Highly respected scholars say John 1:1 translates "the Word was God", while other scholars say "a God".
This is the Strongs literal Bible version (with number references) of John 1:1. The Strongs Bible is a word for word literal tranlsation of the Bible.
|1722| In |9999| {the} |0746| beginning |2258| was |3588| the |3056| Word, |2532| and |3588| the |3056| Word |2258| was |4314| with |3588| - |2316| God, |2532| and |2316| deity |2258| was |3588| the |3056| Word.
As you can see, the greek word for God (the supreme being) is the same one which is ascribed to the Word. The word for "deity" and the word for "God" are the same word. Therefore, the Word is classified as the Supreme Being.
If the Word was meant to be classified as "a God", a different word would have been used; one that meant "god".
Dakota, if this guy your quoting is right, then why is it that every version out there says "the Word was God"?
ASV
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Bible in Basic English
John 1:1 From the first he was the Word, and the Word was in relation with God and was God.
Darby version
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Webster Bible
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Weymouth New Testament
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Youngs Literal
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
Russian
John 1:1 , , .
Dutch
John 1:1 In den beginne was het Woord, en het Woord was bij God, en het Woord was God.
French
John 1:1 Au commencement tait la Parole, et la Parole tait avec Dieu, et la Parole tait Dieu.
No Clue
John 1:1 Na potku bylo Slovo, a to Slovo bylo u Boha, a to Slovo byl Bh.
:-)
Sounds to me like your source is a rouge who wants to twist the simple message in John 1:1.
Earnest

It's certainly been entertaining to follow this thread and I can no longer resist putting my oar in. What I would like to know of those who believe in the trinity as formulated by the church is how they can be of one substance.
The Nicene Creed states that:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty...And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made...And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son...
The Athanasian Creed is more specific where it says:
The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone. The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone. The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.
If the Father is unbegotten and the Son is begotten how can they be of one substance ? And if the Holy Spirit is not generated but proceeds from the Father, how can he be of the same substance as the Son who is generated ? Why is this important ? Because while it is great fun to trade scriptures, many trinitarians do not give sufficient thought to what they actually believe if their exegesis of scripture is accepted. Unless one resorts to saying that the teaching cannot be demonstrated but is believed because the Church says it is true, all other explanations eventually lead either to a belief in three gods or to a description of the trinity which is actually unitarian in nature with God the Father in first place.
Earnest
JosephMalik

Joseph, you are very wrong. In fact, there is no possible way you could be more wrong. That capitol "g" makes all the difference.
SwedishChef,
Nothing at all wrong with what I said or demonstrated. Why not show how the Hebrew text proves your point? Now that kind of demonstration would help someone but a comment like yours here means nothing.
Joseph

The Trinity

Share this