Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  Dean:

  1 Tim. 2:5
  I think it's "Godhead" in both cases. Christ is the frontman, so to speak, representing the collective.

  Ambassador / Mediator
  I wasn't confusing the roles, because this IS a special case.
  In this case the human race IS estranged from that of "God".
  The Ambassador has come from the aggrieved party, to mediate in the form of BOTH natures (God AND Man), because it appears there is no other third party in a position to do this.
  I would offer you Gal.3:20, by way of support of this.

  Begotten EternallyMaybe the word eternal means something different to you, than it means to me, in the context of "God". To me it means "outside of time" (not "infinite time" - that's another concept).
  I believe that if it were possible to state that the Son had a beginning, then it was before time even existed. If there was such a beginning, it would have been at this point that the Father became "the Father". Before such an event and after it there only existed "God".
  Finally creation began, including that of time, through the Son.

  Father Begotten?
  That one is faintly ludicrous - LOL
  A father is a father, however only becomes such upon the generation of a child.
  Also the Father is not the Son. Of course there is a difference between the existence of each. I see no argument for declaring them symbiotic, either, given that one of them died.

  Amoeba
  In the case of the single-celled organism, a split occurs, with each portion retaining an identical half, before they go on to lead individual lives, whilst still remaining of the genus "Amoeba".
  I don't think you'd find it particularly easy to differentiate which cell was the older.
  Again I tell you that the Trinity doctrine, as I understand it, doesn't say that the Father IS the Son. It openly acknowledges that these are two distinct persons.

  Pre-dating
  To "pre-date" something, you need time to exist.
  This is my view of eternity - not infinite time, but an abstract in it's own right in which God dwells.

  I hope that helps you understand my position a little better.
  As with all things to do with the substance of "God", it's beyond our ken.
  Therefore it is the role of the philosopher to try to make it understandable for human understanding.
  I believe we will never truly "comprehend" it, however.
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus,
  
  I apologise to you if my posts to you are sometimes a little short and sharp. I have to admit I get a little frustrated with the fact that you present so much information at one go and quote scriptures here and there, that it is difficult to address all that you mention.
  
  You actually made the point at the start for every one to keep their comments short and focused on the subject text and not to wander off the subject. So I find it strange that you do just as you say not to.
  
  Also , I feel you don't always address arguements that are put to you but rather just re: quote the same comments again.
  
  However I appreciate that this time your reply is more focused and reasoned. I will try to address it as best I can. I make no apology if it is a bit wordy as your comments necessitate me to make it so.
  
  You qoute a portion of my earlier comments but your comments tell me that you have 'missed' the Rationale of what I was saying.You replied " each person is called God and Lord in scripture".
  
  So you agree that Father / Son / Holy Spirit are all God and Lord. So my point was , that being the case,if Paul is contrasting the pagan Lords and Gods with the Christian God then CONTEXTUALLY there is a NECESSITY for him to mention all three persons of the trinity in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6. Because if all three are equally God and Lord then he has to detail that here.
  
  It would be possible to elsewhere in certain contexts like John 20;28 to refer to one person with these terms. But here in 1 Cor. 8 the context must define all three as such for it to be fully the accurate description of the Christian Lord God incontrast to the Pagan Lords and Gods.
  
  Thus because it doesn't, I believe it shows that Paul had no intention of revealing a triune Godhead. So regardless of what you think the term Lord means applied to Jesus here, the fact there is no Holy Spirit defined here means ther is no TRINITY.
  Maybe a DUAL Godhead but not a TRIUNE one.
  
  The printed comments that you reproduced simply just repeat your dogma on the matter. It says nothing to refute the comments of John Ziesler that I quoted.
  
  Also the ISAIAH comments don't tell me anything that concerns my position.
  
  However, your use of ROM. 11: 36 is much more pertinent and interesting and shows the type of REASONING that I think merits discussion.
  
  I believe this verse refers to GOD the Father but for arguements sake lets say it means the triune Godhead.If the lord here means Father Son AND HOLY SPIRIT then it proves all three are the Lord of whom and through whom we are. You qoute it because it repeats the comments of 1 Cor. 8 5,6. However by doing so it actually shows the error that you make.
  
  Do you see why ?
  
  Becuase if all three members of the Trinity are included in this text then that just shows the necessity upon Paul to say exactly that at 1 Cor. 8. But as we have said he omits the Holy Spirit there !
  
  At 1 Cor. it is ONLY the Father and the Son who are spoken of in these terms about of whom and through whom. Thus if these two referrences explain each other it simply shows that the Holy Spirit is NOT the Lord and God of whom and through whom we are !
  
  Once again two persons, does not a trinity make.
  
  As I stated before, if Paul was making the arguement for the trinity at 1 Cor. 8:5,6
  it would have been so much easier and concise and accurate to say ONE LORD GOD, THE FATHER , THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT OF WHOM AND THROUGH WHOM WE ARE.
  
  He did not do so because his purpose was solely to show jews that Jesus was now an important part of our worship of the Father.
  
  Lastly, If the Father and Jesus are the same LORD AND GOD then why did he split up the phrase OF WHOM and THROUGH WHOM in 1 Cor.8. between the Father and Jesus.
  
  In Rom. 11 :37 the GOD there is spoken of with both these terms. But the terms are split in 1 Cor. Why ?
  
  Because in Rom. it is God the Father who we are indeed OF and THROUGH but in 1 Cor.8 Paul still shows we are OF the Father but only THROUGH Jesus. Jesus is not referred to as the one we are OF . ( the greek I believe is actually OUT OF )
  
  So although Jesus is expressed in exalted terms he is still not on a par with the Father. This is the point that Ziesler makes.
  
  What do you think ? I will appreciate your comments, but don't cut and paste , TALK to me, REASON with me.
  
  regards,
  
  Dean.
• 

  hooberus

  I never wished to imply that Paul was trying to teach the complete Trinity doctrine in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He was discussing idols which were called "gods" and "lords" by the pagans.

  In the New Testamant though each person is refered to as "God" and "Lord" at times, usually the normal practice is for the Father to be refered to as "God"; the Son as "Lord"; and the Spirit as "the Holy Spirit." Since Paul was discussing pagan "gods" and "lords" he used the normal terminology of God the Father and Lord Jesus Christ. If the pagans used the word "spirits" to express deity then I would have expected Paul to use the phrase "one Spirit" (which He does elsewhere) in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

  Trinitarians do not use 1 Corinthians 8:6 for the complete trinity doctrine. My main point in bringing up the verse is to respond to Unitarian claims that the verse demotes Jesus into a lesser being than the Father.

  The fact that the "one Spirit" is not mentioned with the "one God" and "one Lord" in 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not disprove his personhood or deity. I don't believe that from the context Paul was required to give the complete trinity doctrine of three persons. Indeed in 1 Corinthians 8:6 he never called the Father "Lord" (which we know that he is from other verses), nor did he call the Son "God" (which we know he is from other verses).

  1 Corinthains 8:6 is a strong statement to the deity of both the Father and the Son.

  Jesus is called "one Lord" which is a title of the Lord Jehovah.

  Jesus is said to be the one "through whom are all things" were made. All things were made through Jehovah (Romans 11:36).

  Both the Father and the Son are shown together in the creation of "all things." We know that Jehovah made all things "alone" by himself. (Isaiah 44:24). Hense the Father and Son must be the one Lord Jehovah who made all things alone.

  In conclusion though 1 Corinthians 8:6 does not in itself teach the complete trinity doctrine (which i don't believe is necessary from the context), it actually offers strong evidence for the Lord Jesus being Jehovah. And certainly does not teach that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father.

  "yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." 1 Corinthians 8:6

  If unitarianism were true it should read someting like this:

  "yet to us there is one God and one Lord, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and a lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all other things, and we through him."

  I realize that this post is not a specific answer to all of your points. However due to limited time, I hope to finish up my portion of the dialogue on this thread.
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus,
  
  thankyou for your reply, I appreciate the manner and tone. I am pleased that we and LittleToe have been able to offer alternative viewpoints on this and other scriptures and still maintain a respect for each others chosen stance.
  
  I realise that if you don't see things the way I do then that is your right and I cannot insist on my own viewpoint. Of course the same is true the other way.
  
  I hope we can continue to express alternative viewpoints in the same tone. Even if we are unable to change the others viewpoint at least the arguements we present may help any other parties who may read these post to make their own minds up one way or another.
  
  If I could mention a few other thoughts on your last post; you give a suggested alternative rendering of the scripture in a Unitarian style and say " it should read something like this". Well , the suggested reading you provide IS SOMETHING LIKE it actually is.
  
  The only difference with your version is that you use Lord twice but other than that it is exactly the same. Paul doesn't use Lord twice because he is reserving that title for Jesus to show the distinction of roles and positions between the Father and the Son. The Father is God, and the son is the Messianic Lord or King.
  
  This is the point Ziesler is making, rather than equate the two persons ,Paul is distinguishing them yet showing the proximity of them.
  
  Its a question of understanding what Lord means here, is it to identify Jesus as God
  or is it to show him as the Authority by which Jehovah will now express his rulership through, as he previously did, through the Davidic Lords i.e. Kings ?
  
  So is Jesus the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament ?
  
  Does the use of Lord prove this ?
  
  Certainly there are scriptures relating to Jehovah that are fulfilled in Jesus but this need not necessarily prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the same way that Malachi prophesises that ELIJAH would prepare the way of the Lord. This of course was fulfilled in John the Baptist. Was John really Elijah ?
  
  What I am leading to ( and what you are probably expecting ) is the use of the term
  Lord in Psalm 110:1. This is such an important verse for reasons you don't need me to tell you. So lets look at it again.
  
  If the Lord means Jehovah, then why isn't the tetragrammaton used twice in this verse. If the Father is the first Lord and the hebrew term is the tetragrammaton, then this identifies him as Jehovah. Jesus, when applying this verse, refers himself to the second Lord which is not the tetragrammaton. So whilst they are in one sense both Lords, only one of them is Jehovah !
  
  So Paul could refer to Jesus as Lord and yet not be meaning to identify him as Jehovah, but rather , identify him as the Davidic Lord King - the Messiah.
  
  What do you think ?
  
  regards,
  
  Dean.
• 

  hooberus

  I think that both Psalm 110:1 as well as the situation with Romans 11:36 and the "of" and "through" issue probably deserve their own threads. My goal with this series is to provide an explanation within a trinitarian framework for the common arguments used by witnesses and others against the trinity and more specifically the deity of Jesus Christ. My hope (Lord willing) is to continue this series of threads. I hope that each thread will be relatively brief and specific.
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus, So in other words you would rather just post all your views and your side of the arguement without people like me confusing the issues for you. Dean.
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  
  I hope you are well this evening.
  
  
  Now to try and get back to some of the thoughts we were discussing.
  
  
  Eternally Begotten : Yes I think I do take a slightly different view of this term.
  
  A common dictionary defines Eternal as ' without beginning', yet begotten means a generation , a procreation and thus implies a beginning. Thus it appears to be an oxymoron.
  
  
  I have often thought about "Time" and what defines it for us. The fact the planets move and events occur through action; we see time demonstrated via these events and actions. If there were no events there would be no tangible evidence of the passing of time. Therefore when The Father was alone 'Time' had not begun. I think time began with the Generation or begetting of the Son.This being the first event , time began with the Son ? Actually re: reading your comments I think you indeed say much the same as this.
  
  
  However, with regard to Eternally Begotten, we must remember this is not a scriptural term.
  
  
  Some commentators make the point that Monogenes also has the meaning of 'Unique',
  
  'of sole descent' and even 'one of a KIND'. If he is UNIQUE in his begetting then this also implies some 'difference ' from the father and the holy spirit, a difference which is more than simply a difference in personality.
  
  
  Father Begotten: yes this is a non-starter of an idea but of course I meant to demonstrate that point by suggesting it. The Father is the Generator not the generated. So these father /son terms themselves imply difference of levels of existence and ,yes, even time.
  
  
  From our discussion, I can honestly say I think my appreciation of this matter and the term begotten has increased and I feel I have a more heightened understanding of it.
  
  
  Whilst I still see the Son as having a 'birth' and thus a 'beginning' I can also say that the Son is entirely different from the other Sons of God because he alone is Generated from the Father, from the Fathers own being ? Whereas, all other creation was brought into existence 'through' the Son. This means the Life of The Father and the Son is unique, thus Jesus words at John 5: 26 ( which states even the slight difference between them in that the Son was GIVEN life in himself).
  
  
  I've just read Barclays translation of this verse and I think it expresses the thought really well......" As the Father HIMSELF is the source of life, so he has GIVEN the Son power to be the source of life."
  
  
  I'm going to post some thoughts on the Mediator topic but will do so on that specific thread.
  
  
  I would appreciate your comments on those as I give weight to your opinion.
  
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  Dean.
• 

  LittleToe

  So, given that it was literally the hand of the Son that brought forth all of creation, to whom do you ascribe the title of creator?
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  I think you know already know how I will answer this.
  
  Jesus is the Master Worker, the instrument of Creation. The Father is the SOURCE of Life as the scripture we just looked at tells us.
  
  Thus all things are 'through' the Son, not 'of' the Son.
  
  I think someone already applied the illustration of the Architect and the builder.
  
  An Architect designs a structure and arranges the finance etc. to complete the building work (Isumbard Kingdom Brunel for example). Although he will not take part in the actual work in construction ( he employs a builder) he is nevertheless the CREATOR of this structure. It is his design, his project, he takes the credit.
  
  The Father is the Creator.
  
  John 4:34, " my food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish HIS work".
  
  Dean.
• 

  LittleToe

  I know the JW response, but I question it, not least for the following reasons:

  • Gen.1:26 seems to indicate collaboration (and not with angellic creatures).
  • Hasn't the Son got life in himself and the ability to grant life to whomever he choses?