Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

hooberus

Here is dialogue on 1 Corinthians 8:4-5 and (my verse comparison) taken partly from another thread: I am posting it here because of its revelance to this thread: In what sense is the Father God?
"For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" Deuteronomy 10:17
"O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever." Psalm 136: 1-3
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
The Father since he is "God of gods" (Deuteronomy 10:17 Psalm 136:1-3) and the "one God" as contrasted with the "gods many" (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) must be the true God Jehovah.
In what sense is the the Son Lord? "That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;" 1 Timothy 6:14-15 "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:" Deuteronomy 10:17
"O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever. O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever." Psalm 136: 1-3
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
The Son since he is "Lord of lords" (Deuteronomy 10:17 Psalm 136:1-3) and the "one Lord" as contrasted with the "lords many" (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) must be the true Lord Jehovah. Answering Objections: Isn't 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is clearly making a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah? 1 Corintians 8:5-6 is not making a disctiction between Jesus and Jehovah (which name does not appear in the New Testament). 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is primarily making a distinction between the "gods many" / "lords many" with the one God and one Lord. The is also a disctiction made between the Father and the Son. However both are Jehovah. But aren't the Father and the Son are addressed in completely separate references in verse 6? The Trinty teaches that the Father and the Son are separate persons within the Godhead, hense them shown to be distinct from one another is according to Trinitarian theology. The fact that there seems to be a distinction between the "one God the Father" and Jesus Christ does not mean that He is not also God any more than the fact that the Father is shown to be distinct from the "one Lord Jesus Christ" means that He is not also Lord. As one of David Reed's books says: "There is but one God," says Jehovah's Witness in applyling this verse, "and who is he? The Father! So, Jesus is not God." However, there is a flaw in his line of reasoning. Don't let him stop there; make him apply the same line of reasoning to the rest of the verse. Then he will have to say, "There is but one Lord, and who is he? Jesus Christ! So, the Father is not Lord." Of course, the JW does not want to reach this conclusion, because he always speaks of Jehovah as 'Lord." Point out to him that he cannot have the one without the other. He cannot make the first half of the verse exclude Jesus fron being God, without making the second half exclude the Father from being Lord. The fact is that scripture uses the terms God and Lord virtually interchangeably. The various false gods are called both "gods" and "lords." The Father is called both "God" and "Lord," and the Son is referred to by both terms. The apostle Thomas addressed Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28). Watchtower leaders have taught their disciples to see 1 Corinthians 8:6 in a contrast that does not exist. Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse p. 96
Even though Jesus is referred to as “Lord of lords” in Relations 17:14 and 19:16, there is no reference to Jesus being “God of gods”.
There is also no reference to the Father being "God of gods" in the New Testamant does this mean that He is not then "God of gods"? Of course not. We know that the Father is the God of gods mentioned in the Old Testament because the New Testament says that He is God. Just like we know that Jesus is the "God of gods" of the Old Testament because the New testament says that He is God. Interestingly the New Testament never refers to the Father as "Lord of lords" (though I believe that He is). The New Testamant applys this phrase to Jesus Christ, hense Jesus Christ is the "Lord of lords" of the Old Testament.
Dean Porter

Hooberus,

You say the term God in 1 Tim. 3:15 is a matter of debate. Well, you pays your money you take your choice. I am of the opinion that thru the work of people like Tichendorf that the debate was over and that " who" was and is the correct reading.
But whichever side is correct - if the reading is still debatable as you put it, then I don't think you can rely upon it to prove your case. So as I said previously it carries no weight with me.

The other scriptures you quote ( with the exception of John 1:14 ) could also be termed debatable as to their rendering and their interpretation.Having said that taking them as you will no doubt read them I still don't see how they support your view that Jesus was and is 'simultaneously' God and Man.

For example John chapter 1 says the "divine word" became flesh it doesn't say the word became a God / Man. In fact doesn't the famous passage in Phillipians chapter 2 say that Jesus emptied himself of his heavenly form. If he was still fully God on earth then in what way did he lower himself ?

Also the passage in Timothy about the mediator being the man Jesus could simply refer to Jesus as the man he was during his earthly sojourn.

Colossians 2: 9 is a difficult passage due to the rarity of the greek word used there. So the exact interpretation is difficult. But again I think it falls short of saying that he was a God /Man duality that you seek to read into it.

Consider this passage as rendered in Schonfield's translation " for it is in him that the immensity of the divine wisdom corporately dwells...". No God/Man in that rendering which really bears true to the context of the passage and the arguement/ line of reason that Paul is using.

Also, if I understand you correctly you are saying Jesus is now a Man in Heaven and by that I can only understand you to mean he is flesh ! Yet 1 Cor. chapter 15 seems to highlight the difference between Flesh and Spirit in the resurrection culminating in verse 50 with the words..." I tell you this my brothers that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Realm of God..."

You say you will address some of the other points I raised in an earlier entry. I hope so and in particular I would like to see your thoughts on why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 as either God or Lord. Why doesn't Paul say 'there is to us One Lord God the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit'. ?

Dean.
Dean Porter

LittleToe,

my apologies for keeping this post brief as once again I have had difficulty getting on line and it is now late and I'm tired and may not make sense.

I think I've got the hang of the return button now.

Your last comments mentioned that there are " some things" that the Father does not know. Can I ask you to elaborate on what these things are and where in scripture it is pointed out that the Father lacks such Knowledge.

With regard to Jesus learning obedience in his heavenly pre -existence I believe the fact that he was the "sent one" from the Father shows he obediently gave up his heavenly glory so as to sojourn on earth to fulfill God's promise as the seed that would come. Also like other loyal 'bene ha elohim' he ramained obedient and faithful to the Father when other 'bene ha elohim' rebelled with Satan.

I did know that Barclay was scottish and a trinitarian. What I like about Barclay (apart from his obvious knowledge and skill in writing ) is the fact that he is honest and candid about certain passages and texts so as to say what he sees in the text and not be influenced by what he is supposed to see by the orthodoxy of his denomination.

Its late .... I'll be sleeping in 5 minutes. zzzzzzzzz

Dean.
hooberus

Also the passage in Timothy about the mediator being the man Jesus could simply refer to Jesus as the man he was during his earthly sojourn.

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;. . . " 1 Timothy 2:5
This part of the verse is in the present tense. Also other verses speak of Christ as the present mediator, as well as a man in heaven.
Jesus is also said to be the Son of God and the Son of man at he same time.
Also, if I understand you correctly you are saying Jesus is now a Man in Heaven and by that I can only understand you to mean he is flesh ! Yet 1 Cor. chapter 15 seems to highlight the difference between Flesh and Spirit in the resurrection culminating in verse 50 with the words..." I tell you this my brothers that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Realm of God..."
Here is my earlier thread on the bodily resurrection and present manhood of Jesus Christ. The "flesh and blood" issue is discussed there.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/51559/1.ashx
You say you will address some of the other points I raised in an earlier entry. I hope so and in particular I would like to see your thoughts on why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 as either God or Lord. Why doesn't Paul say 'there is to us One Lord God the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit'. ?
The context of 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 is a comparison of the "gods many" and the "lords many" (idols). with the one God and one Lord. The pagans refered to their deities (idols) as "gods" and "lords" The titles were titles of deity. Since the idols were not refered to generally as "spirits" to express their deity, there was no contextual need for Paul to refer to the one Spirit as contrasted to "spirits" of any of the idol worshippers.
Any way the concept of the one Spirit Contrasted with the one God and one Lord is found in Pauls writings:
1 Corinthians Chapter 12
4: Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5: And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6: And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
Ephesians Chapter 4
4: There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5: One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Though in Ephesians Chapter 4 the one Spirit is used with the other things that are not God, such as "one baptism" in this verse, I still think that the Language is significant when compared to 1 Corinthians Chapter 8 and especially 1 Corinthians chapter 12.
hooberus

There are passages in the New testamtent that only mention the Father sending the Son. However we know from Isaiah that the Holy Spirit also sent the Son.
"Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me." Isaiah 48:16
In the same way the fact that 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not mention the one Spirit, does not prove that He is not also God.
LittleToe

Dean:
Regarding what the Father does not know, I merely meant obedience.
Regarding "sons of God" (bene ha elohim), when was the Son ever referred to with that term?
The sons of God shouted for joy, when the Son (as the Master Worker) made the heavens and the earth, but I suspect his hands were full at that time (Job38:7)
I like Barclay's honesty, too. He is a good example of what Christian Theologians should be about.
Btw, thanks for the <CR>'s, it;s much more readable
Holey_Cheeses*King_of_the juice.

.......two eggs will suffice, but it is preferable to use three, and remember, the fruit must be all cut to the same size.......
.....ooops, sorry.......I thought this thread was about fruitcakes.
cheeses - running off with mixing bowl in hand........
LittleToe

Cheeses:P!ss off!!! LOL
But before you do, give me that mixing bowl, it's my turn to lick it out
Dean Porter

Hooberus,

you have mentioned various arguements here and I wish to address them all. However as you stated earlier in this thread,we end up talking about a different topic or scripture from the one we started out with. So for the moment I will leave the discussion on Jesus as Mediator as I want to have a good look at the previous thread where this was discussed at length before I throw in my pennys worth.

I have comments to make further on that topic but will probably post them on your other current thread that is dealing with that topic rather than on this one. So I will get back to you on that one.

With regard to 1 Cor. 8:5,6 you say that there was no contextual need for Paul to speak about the Holy Spirit because he was only talking about the contrast between the pagan lords and gods. But does not the Trinity doctrine mean that the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit are each and all Jehovah, each and all God and each and all Lord?

So therefore if Paul is defining here the christians God and Lord then I think there is a contextual need to show that all three persons share these Diety Titles. As I said right at the start of this thread its not so much what these verses say as what they do not say that is your problem.

You may be interested in reading an excerpt from a book I found during my research entitled " The Jesus Question " by John Ziesler ( senior lecturer of Theology University of Bristol). I will type the pertinent portions but by all means find the book and check the full text for verification.

page 60 " The word ( kyrios) thus has a spectrum of use, from the merely human to the divine, but probably always conveys the notion of legitimate as opposed to despotic authority.......as they read the septuagint which used kyrios in place of the divine name they completed the arguement Jesus is Lord, and Yahweh is Lord; therefore Jesus must be divine. THIS IS A SOMEWHAT MUDDLED ARGUEMENT, AND IS NO LONGER AS SECURE AS WAS THOUGHT.........the septuagint arguement is an odd one and proves too much , FOR NO ONE IN THE EARLY CHURCH WANTED TO EQUATE JESUS WITH YAHWEH. THEY DID WANT TO SAY HE WAS DIVINE, BUT THEY AVOIDED BALD IDENTIFICATION......

.....It is instructive to read again 1 Cor. 8:5,6 where Paul in calling Jesus 'Lord' SEEMS TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM YAHWEH THE ONE GOD......... page 62.....there is a reservation. Jesus is bracketed with God, YET CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM HIM". end of quote.

The same writer states in the book "Pauline Christianity" in the Oxford Bible Series

page 33...." We may begin looking at 1 Cor.8: 5,6 ......GOD AND LORD ARE NOT IDENTICAL but are related in much as Yahweh and Wisdom are.....Jesus thus appears as the Christians answer to these many Lords , just as God the Father is their answer to the many gods.........NOW WHETHER OR NOT PAGANISM DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN gods and lords, PAUL DOES. JESUS IS LORD , THE FATHER IS GOD......

.....IN THIS PASSAGE 'LORD' THUS STANDS IN CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH GOD, BUT IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH IT.........

page 37 ..... It is such passages that lend force to the often-quoted words of L. Cerfaux that ' Christ is Lord because he is God's vice regent, exercising a power that BELONGS to god'.This seems to be exactly right. God's powers and reign are excercised through Christ as God's PLENIPOTENTIARY REPRESENTATIVE, BUT CHRIST IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH GOD.THINGS TRADITIONALLY SAID ABOUT GOD MAY NOW BE SAID ABOUT CHRIST, BUT NOT THAT HE IS GOD." end of quote.

Says it all I think.

Dean.
Dean Porter

LittleToe, I have used up all my available time tonight on that lengthy post to Hooberus. I'll hopefully be able to continue our edifying discussion tomorrow. Cheers for now Dean.

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

Share this