Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sea Breeze 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • smush
    smush

    There is no doctrine more evil than trinity. The only cop-out Trinitarians have is the nonsense of a hypostatic union...another concoction of Satan. Jesus was 100% MAN - FULLY HUMAN. How many times does the bible have to say, "God cannot be a man?"

    Hebrews 2:17...

    Hebrews 2:17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] FULLY HUMAN IN EVERY WAY, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

    The hypostatic union destroys the atonement. If Jesus was God that makes him a fraud and the cross a hoax. The bible says Jesus was tempted IN EVERY WAY AND THAT HE KNEW TEMPTATION. It also says, "God cannot be tempted and therefore cannot sin."

    If Jesus was God that means he could not have sinned anyway. (Back to the only Trinitarian answer of TWO NATURES) That makes the Word of God totally contradictory and makes Jesus a fraud because he never would have to overcome sin since he also being God couldn't have been tempted to sin anyway - ultimately making him a fraud and the cross a complete hoax and the atonement for sin a complete hoax - think about it.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345
  • SydBarrett
    SydBarrett

    "Dr. Ken Johnson has identified several statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls that predict that God would visit the earth as a man... as the Messiah."


    LOL, "Dr.". Probably as much a Dr as Kent Hovind and his ilk. Here is a picture of the esteemed University where Hovind earned his "doctorate" :

    LMAO. "Patriot University".


  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    The NT never calls God's angels 'THEOS', and in the case of Jesus, we are not just relying on the application of the word "THEOS" in the singular and without any diminutive appendages, but on such attributes (omniscience, beginninglessness in time, prayer hearing, worship, etc.) which cannot apply to created angels.

    On the one hand, the apostle sees the form of God in terms of equality with God, and on the other hand, we know that angels are in a lower form of existence than God. Christ has a higher dignity than the angels, according to the beginning of chapter 1 of the letter to the Hebrews. Thus, his divine form of existence cannot be categorized in the language that occasionally calls angels (or human judges) gods.

    The NT manuscripts did not differentiate between "THEOS" with a lowercase, and "THEOS" with upper case, they distinguished whether Nomina Sacra were used or not. For example P46 gives a very interesting example in the text of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, in which references to “God” and “Lord” (in reference to Jesus) are written as Nomina Sacra, but the so-called (thus false) “gods” and “lords” are written out in their entirety:

    “With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol in this world is nothing, and that there is no God [ΘΣ] but one. If after all there are so-called gods [ΘΕOI], whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods [ΘΕOI] and many lords [KYPIOI], yet for us there is one God [ΘΣ], the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ [KΣ, IHΣ XPΣ], through whom are all things and through whom we live."

    "THEOS" when applied to Jesus is always 'nomen sacrum' in the ancient MSS, so it should be translated with a capital letter.

    Fun fact: The Arians of the 4th century interpreted John 1:1c by putting a full stop after «God was», and "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sence in the next verse.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    The NT never calls God's angels 'THEOS',

    By confining your statement to the NT it seems you are aware that the OT does call the angels gods in places like Ps 8.5. Why doesn’t that count?

    Christ has a higher dignity than the angels, according to the beginning of chapter 1 of the letter to the Hebrews.

    What Heb 1.4 says is that Jesus “became” better than the angels because he inherited a more excellent name than theirs. This makes sense if Jesus was elevated above the angels as JWs believe. On the other hand it makes no sense to talk about God himself “becoming” better than angels.

    Which manuscript are you saying had a full stop in John 1.1c?

  • Duran
    Duran
    the OT does call the angels gods in places like Ps 8.5

    430. elohim

    on the other hand, we know that angels are in a lower form of existence than God.

    [16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.]

    [27 For God “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him. 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.]

  • Big Dog
    Big Dog

    I have read most of this thread and don't think I missed it but if I did apologies. When discussing the trinity doctrine with people as an academic exercise, especially JW's, my question was always well what about the Holy Spirit? It seems most of the wrangling always involves Jesus and his nature with respect to God and so forth.

    The Holy Spirit is if I remember my JW teaching correctly God's active spirit. It is a part of God, emanates from God yet has the hallmarks of personhood, independent action, emotion, appearance in a different form, etc. I would ask, well, it appears that you have no trouble with 2/3 of the trinity concept, why would it be such a leap to see Jesus in the same fashion? I never really saw that much difference between the two.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    aqwsed12345 : "THEOS" when applied to Jesus is always 'nomen sacrum' in the ancient MSS, so it should be translated with a capital letter.

    "THEOS" (singular) when applied to anyone including Paul (Acts 28:6) and Satan (2 Cor.4:4) is always 'nomen sacrum' in the ancient MSS. Should these also be translated with a captal letter?

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    I mostly read this forum and rarely post...

    According to Yohannes Greber who inspired the NWT and published the book "Communication with the Spirit World," (a channeled communication), he relates this regarding the Trinity:

    “There are two other grave errors in the concept of God entertained by your creeds, and of these I shall speak only briefly here, because they will be discussed at greater length on another occasion.

    “You teach of the union of three persons in one Godhead, maintaining that there are three spirits, each of which is a true Deity, but which, when united, constitute only one God. This is human madness and the greatest absurdity. There is no union of three persons and no Trinity in the sense in which you teach it. God is only a single personality. Only the Father is God. All other holy spirits are God’s creatures. None of them is the Father’s equal."

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    slimboyfat

    "Why doesn’t that count?"

    Because we take into account not only that there is a difference in theological background between the OT and the NT, the most important thing is that it was written in a different language, so here it is not necessary to look at the general sense in which "elohim" is used in the OT, but to whom and in what sense "theos" was used in the NT originally written in Greek. And it is decisive: no inspired biblical text originally written in Greek calls anyone other than the true God "theos" in a positive sense.

    "What Heb 1.4 says is that Jesus “became” better than the angels because he inherited a more excellent name than theirs."

    Hebrews 1 speaks partly of the supremacy which he already possessed from the beginning (meaning his deity), since he is the only one begotten of the Father, and on the other hand of the glory which he received only after his resurrection and ascension. The two are not sharply separated in the text, for example in verse 10 it is about the creation of the world, it was obviously before those mentioned in the verses 3-4: "made purification of sins", etc. So this part is about his glorification as a man, i.e. that after his resurrection and ascension he received the name "Lord" in terms of his human nature, this is what Philippians 2 is about.

    "On the other hand it makes no sense to talk about God himself “becoming” better than angels."

    However it makes perfect sense, if we confess not only the one-essence deity of the Son with the Father in the Nicene sense, but also his dual nature in the Chalcedonian sense, according to which he took on human nature at the time of the Incarnation and will no longer put it down. And what the Father did in relation to the Son, he did not "with himself", since we are not Sabellian modalists either. Here it is about how the Father glorified the man Christ.

    "Which manuscript are you saying had a full stop in John 1.1c?"

    The ancient manuscripts did not use full stops, commas, etc., and I did not claim that such an NT manuscript exists, but that this is how the Arians interpreted away John 1:1c.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit