Also, I have a question that might surprise everyone.
It may seem like a simple question, but I would like to see your answers.
The Trinity
by meadow77 740 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
JosephMalik
1st Timothy 6:16: the Only One having immortality, living in light that cannot be approached, whom no one of men saw, nor can see; to whom be honor and everlasting might. Amen.
Now, in those Verses, it says that there is Only One who is our Ruler, King of kings, and Lord of lords, and has immortality.
My question to you is, who is that One? The Father or Jesus Christ?
Undisfellowshipped,
No this is not true. There are at least two that have immortality. Paul knew all this when he made this statement because he said about God in this same letter in chapter 1 verse 17:
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
And we can assume that angels are immortal as they have been around a long time and the sinful ones must be destroyed deliberately after the 1000 years end. Yes, immortal Beings or any other Being can be destroyed Matt 10:28. But in chapter 6 and verse 16 Paul is describing Christ. Not that Christ was not immortal when He existed as the Word, no, but Paul is describing Christ the human the only human in fact to attain immortality when Paul wrote to Timothy. He is the exception of all mankind but in time Paul also taught the Corinthians that all resurrected mankind will be immortal like Him. This is what the kingdom will do for all mankind restored to life, not just 144000 symbolic disciples.
Paul is also teaching Timothy that our immortal Lord now dwells with God somewhere normal human beings cannot approach. This is possible because Jesus now posses the nature of man and the nature He had as the Word. In fact our Lord never expected to be raised from death as a human. His hope in God was:
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
As the Word once again and as mans creator it was a simple matter to keep His promise and raise His body that was executed. In this way our Lord acquired both natures and can use either one at will the way He did at Pauls conversion. Pauls appointment was personal and yet did not signal the second coming as promised in Acts. But our Lord will descend to this earth once again and rule as King on Davids throne. This is where the kingdom will be and this earth is the place to which they will all be resurrected or changed.
Joseph
-
JosephMalik
What does the Title "Son of Man" mean?
Undisfellowshipped,
Most think that it is a Messianic title and refer to Daniel 7:13. While this may be if you read through the many uses of this expression it simply identifies a human being, a lowly creature in the scheme of things. And yet such a lowly creature became our redeemer.
Joseph
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Thanks for your answer about what the Title "Son of Man" means.
Yes, that is what I found through my research.
"Son of Man" means that Jesus was a Man (a Human Being).
Now, my question is:
What does the Title "Son of God" mean?
-
UnDisfellowshipped
JosephMalik said:
In fact our Lord never expected to be raised from death as a human.
Is that so?
John 2:19: Jesus answered them, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John 2:20: The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this Temple in building, and will You raise it up in three days?"
John 2:21: But He spoke of the Temple of His Body.
John 2:22: When therefore He was raised from the dead, His Disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture, and the Word which Jesus had said.Sounds to me like Jesus prophesied that He would be resurrected in His Human Body.
-
JosephMalik
JosephMalik said:
In fact our Lord never expected to be raised from death as a human.
Is that so?
John 2:19: Jesus answered them, "Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
Undisfellowshipped,
You must not have read what I posted. I already answered all this. Jesus could not have raised His body if He were not raised as the Word by God first in answer to His prayer. He expected to raise his body sure, but he could not do that while He was dead. With both natures now secured He can be addressed either way. Some verses simply provide more detail than others. Perhaps this is what confuses you?
Joseph
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Thanks for your reply Joseph, and yes, I had read your post, and I did misunderstand what you were saying.
My beliefs are different.
I believe that when Jesus died He (as a spirit - The Word) went to the Father.
I believe that Jesus was never "out-of-existence" (as the Watchtower teaches).
Jesus as a spirit (the Word) then returned to His Body after 3 days.
That is why Jesus said "I will raise [the Temple of My Body] up after 3 days".
That is why Jesus said I have authority to take My own Life back".
If Jesus was "out-of-existence" during the 3 days, how could He do those things?
Basically, what I'm saying is that it is my belief that right after Jesus died, He (as the spirit Word/Logos) went to be with the Father, and on the third day, returned to His Body and was raised up.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 December 2002 3:24:20
-
The Firm
fjtoth, thanks for posting this:
I have this marked as verse 5, however upon further examination it's possible that I could be simply reading it wrong, and perhaps the tetragrammaton I see refers to "Lord of Hosts" in verse 7 (hebrew reads backwards, and I may have read it forwards, or something). The tetragrammaton I see must be in the next verse, next to a hebrew word that looks like "nx]p". Can you check on that? I will most definitely research further to either strengthen, or abandon, my case (I'll definitely let you know). Either way, I suppose the next question would be, "given the context of verse 6, who does the tetragrammaton refer to in verse 7?".
I'm glad you've brought this discrepancy to my attention, and I will enjoy researching this further. If I have made a mistake, which it looks like I might have, I can thank you for setting me straight. That's exactly why I came to this forum, and fjtoth you have been most charitable in correcting a brother. Thank you!
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Herk said:
So, the question remains: Was Peter correct when he did not say Jesus is God? Was he wrong when he said Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God? What is your answer? You know, of course, that if you say Peter was wrong, then you are saying God is wrong, since Jesus told Peter that his answer came from God.
Of course Peter was correct!
Jesus was absolutely the Christ, the Messiah, and the Son of the Living God.
However, Herk, you seem to be implying that since Peter only called Jesus "The Messiah and the Son of the Living God" then that must mean that Jesus is not God because Peter did not call Him God.
If that is what you are trying to say, then there is a big problem.
First of all, that would mean that since Peter did not call Jesus "Lord" in that Verse, then that must mean that Jesus is not Lord!
Since Peter did not call Jesus "Savior" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Savior!
Since Peter did not call Jesus "King" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not our King!
Since Peter did not call Jesus "Son of Man" in that Verse must mean that Jesus is not the Son of Man!
Do you see my point?
Herk said:
What Thomas said was a different story. We can discuss that another time. I just wish you would stick with what we've been dealing with so far, instead of frequently changing the subject.
It's interesting how you ONLY want to discuss what Peter called Jesus in that Verse, but you don't want to discuss what Thomas called Jesus.
Jesus said that Thomas was "Blessed" because Thomas believed that Jesus was "The Lord of me and the God of me", and Jesus said that everyone who believed the same would be blessed!
Will you answer the questions I've raised in this post?
I will certainly try my humble best.
(1) Were the kings of Israel addressed as God, and if so, did that mean they were actually God himself?
I can't imagine "God" being a title of Israel's King, that seems like it would be completely contradictory to the Ten Commandments.
Just look at how the Jews reacted when Jesus called Himself the "Son of God".
(2) If Jesus was addressed as God in the same way that Israel's kings were addressed, does that prove he is God himself?
See my answer to Question 1 above.
(3) Will you acknowledge that the "him" who is worshipped in Revelation 5 is God and not the Lamb, as shown by the fact that only God is sitting upon a throne and only the one on the throne is rendered worship?
As I said before, I checked 17 Translations, and they do NOT have the word "Him" in that Verse, they simply state "they fell down and worshiped."
So, I'm not quite sure that the word "Him" was in the original Greek Text or not.
Here is what Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary says about the words "Him" or "Him who lives forever" or "Him who is on the Throne" being in that Verse:
"Him that liveth for ever - This clause is wanting in ABC, thirty-seven others, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, some copies of the Slavonic, Itala, and Vulgate; and in Andreas, and Arethas, ancient commentators on this book. It is also wanting in some editions, and is undoubtedly spurious. Griesbach has left this and the above twenty-four out of the text."
I do agree though that it is the Father who is sitting on the Throne in Revelation Chapter 5.
But, who is right there "in the midst of the Throne" with the Father?
It is none other than the Lamb and also the Holy Spirit (Seven Spirits)!
Revelation 5:6: I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the Seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the Earth.
So, when all of the creatures who were around the Throne fell down and worshiped, they were also around the Lamb, because the Lamb was in the midst of the Throne!
What does the Greek word for "midst" mean?
According to Strong's and Thayer's Bible Dictionaries, it means "In the middle of" or "Before" -- So the Lamb was either "in the middle of the Throne" or was "Before the Throne" -- The Lamb must have been right next to the Father because the Lamb took the Scroll out of the Father's hand!
Also, I find it interesting that, no where in Revelation Chapter 5 does it mention the Lamb worshiping the Father, instead it shows the Father and the Lamb receiving equal honor and glory.
(4) Will you acknowledge that Peter was correct in his identification of Jesus, not as God, but as the promised human Messiah, the Son of God?
Please see the top of this Post for my explanation.
I wholeheartedly, 100% absolutely agree with Peter that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God.
But, if I believed what you are trying to say, I would have to believe that Jesus is NOT Lord OR Savior because Peter did not call Jesus by those Titles in that Verse.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 December 2002 4:25:51
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 1 December 2002 4:26:39
-
meadow77
Herk-you have commented on the question you ask and wonder ouloud if I will ever answer your post.Here is my answer-No. I told you that I will not be held to ideas of courtesy if they are not returned. I have read this post and it's all about THOSE TRINITARIANS! Their dishonest, their this their that. You rebuked me for being heavy handed in my wording, and then when I tried to explain to you that my intent was not to be rude, you informed me that I was being TOUCHY. You said instead of being defensive, I should take a lesson. So, I thought about it, and came back with a reformed attitude. I tried to be non aggressive, not accusatory, and submit my ideas in a polite way. I did my best to play nice. Then you make accusations and call trinitarians dishonest. When I call you on it, you refuse to switch gears, and instead launch another attack on me, and start giving examples that you feel to be lies, and therefor give you the right to call trinitarians generally dishonest. But I am a trinitarian and I feel like all the statements that have been made against the trinity are lies. Does that give me the right to call nontrinitarians GENERALLY DISHONEST? According to you it does not, and I should change my tone if I want people to listen to what I have to say. You however, I guess are under a different set of rules, and can refer to people however you feel lke it. Don't tell me how I started this thread. I am well aware of how I started this thread. I took your critisicm and learned from it as you asked me to do. The question is, can you take your own advise? And if you can, then I will respond to you. If you can't then I will not, because you have made it clear the rules for play, and I will not play a game where the rules are different for every contestant.