Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • UpAndAtom
    UpAndAtom
    To me it means "outside of time" (not "infinite time" - that's another concept).

    The concept of time plays a role that few regard as important or even relevant (as evidenced above), but it so permeates everything in this Universe that it goes unnoticed for it’s true character…. not of past and present… but of existance itself.

    All objects assimilate themselves - to themselves in successive moments of their existance. In effect, they cause themselves to stay in existence by their own harmonious assimilation process (as opposed to just dissapearing into nothing). It could be argued that all objects are their own time peieces… however this is wrong thinking.

    The use of the word “time” is misleading, for there has never been a word to describe it properly (other than Jehovah’s own name I suppose). This is what prompted God to state, “I am that I am” at Exodus 3:14. (In my opinion, the New World Translation completely misses the point here!)

    As an interesting side note, whilst getting ready to submit this post, an impulse in my brain fired and brought back a dream I had many years ago* whereby I was writing this post to you now…. about this very subject. (I dream a lot… so much so, I wake up feeling like I never slept).

    * The perception was actually then and now were the same - in effect my argument.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    The God who is yesterday, today and tomorrow, the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega.

    I stumbled across Isa.44:6, in this context, and it made interesting reading.

    UpnAtom:I've experienced those kind of dreams, too. I don't dream very often, so I take note of vivid dreams.

  • UpAndAtom
    UpAndAtom

    Yes... there are many references of this type. Even Jehovah's name itself. It's a concept I feel that is not necessary to fully understand for our spiritual development, yet it still underpins our existence none the less.

    Genesis seemed to be full of inconsistencies and/or riddles to me in the past... however now I read those same riddles and they actually make sense to me now. I don't have to guess, or make excuses, or draw weird assumptions or even quibble about this word or that. This is the kind of understanding that Jesus must've had for the scriptures, and it is one I would like to learn too.

  • Dean Porter
    Dean Porter

    LittleToe,


    Gen. 1:26. it is an interesting thought you make by use of the term 'Collaborate'.


    However, it is also interesting that the expression 'make' appears here and not 'create'.

    However, as you will appreciate , there are several conflicting opinions on who is being spoken to here.


    Is it another person or persons of the Godhead ? If it is, then, does this expression tell us how many persons ? Is it one other person or two others or more than two others ?


    If it is the Godhead speaking to one another; why doesn't the passage make that CLEAR by saying God spoke to himself ?


    Point is that even some adherents of the Trinity have candidly stated that this verse proves little that could support the trinity.


    The Jews never saw any plurality of the Godhead in these verses and it is well known that they saw God as speaking here to the Angelic Hosts.


    If it was the SON, the begotten Master Worker, then that would make even more pertinent sense in light of the role Jesus is later shown in scripture to have shared in or collabareted as you put it.


    Also , a direct reading of this verse without the unstated belief in the trinity would initially always simply suggest a conversation between God and at least one other party distinct from himself.


    Your second point, Does not the Son have Life in himself and have the ability to grant it ? Well, Yes. But didn't we just cover that point in John 5 :26 where it is said that the Father GRANTED OR GAVE him that right.


    Looking at these verses, the question arises in my mind - Why would Jehovah not reveal himself to be 'three persons' lucidly from the start.


    Some would say that there are 'hints' to this in the O.T. like Gen. 1:26 but why HINT.


    Why not just 'explcitly state' that fact ?


    Also if God is three persons and we are made in his image then why aren't we all three persons ?


    By the way, Do you dream in colour ?


    Dean.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    The Trinity doctrine states that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead, so it's got nothing to do with God talking to Himself. How many times do I have to repeat that?
    If all three person's are God, then one person of God talking to another person of God, is completely feasible, just as during this conversation we have one person of man (LT) talking to another person of man (Dean).

    If God were speaking to the angelic host that would mean that we were created in the image of angels, then, huh?

    I do dream in colour, yes. I rarely hear sound, though.
    And yourself?

  • UpAndAtom
    UpAndAtom
    we were created in the image of angels, then, huh?

    Yes... all human souls were created equally... as angles. Free will being what it is, our first instinctive reaction was to rebel. Thus we no longer wanted to stay in heaven. We actually choose to leave.. and how many want to go back??.... sadly very few indeedy-doo. The statement, "Let us make man in our image" has always been a cause for debate, but you've got to have faith that it means what it says! For instance, we have multiple layers of conscience state do we not? Your unconscious mind (such as your dream state), and you're waking conscience state. They are two very distinct states, but are they both you? How much different is this compared to God's statement, for surely we think before we speak. We plan before we act. We dream before we build! Surely God also has multiple layers of conscience states too. Does God dream? Does God need to dream? And of course... are we his dream?

  • Dean Porter
    Dean Porter

    LittleToe,


    You may have to keep repeating it until it makes any logical sense as far as I am concerned.


    The point I am making is that the scripture does not suggest OR SAY that several persons of the triune Godhead were speaking to each other; rather, that the single entity God was having a conversation with another or other entities.


    Your illustration of one MAN speaking to another MAN does not compare to the triune Godhead speaking to itself as we although being of the same nature are different entities. Your triune Godhead is supposedly a single entity so if one person is speaking to another then he WAS speaking to himself and would appear to be schitzophrenic, as that is the only comparable situation seen in man who is made in God's image, in my opinion.


    Yes, we may well be made in the image of the angels as they are sons of god made in God's image as was man. So Man and Angels both reflect the image of their maker.


    The Do You Dream In Colour question was a referrence to an Early 80's Song by Bill Nelson. Just threw it in to see if you would recognise it. Just for fun.


    Dean.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Dean:
    Other things that the text doesn't say:

    • God wasn't talking amongst themselves
    • God was talking to angels
    • Angels are made in God's image
    • That the angels were involved in creating things

    It actually appears that whichever person is talking, they are talking very personally indeed, and as part of a creative act - "Let us make man in our image".

    I still hold to my analogy, as it is the easiest thing to compare it to, in the human consciousness.
    The Trinity doctrine does declare there to be several persons with the same nature. As such they are able to talk amongst themselves, just as you and I are.

    To be honest we are here philosophically discussing a God who declares that He hears the prayers of millions, simultaneously, and can answer accordingly. You and I will never get to grips with the nature of God, be He a single person or three.

    Taking another route (and I don't like this analogy, but I'll throw it in anyway), what about con-joined (at the hip) twins? They share the same nature, and in fact the same body, but are individual persons, with their own consciousness.

    As for Nelson, you've got the right era of music, for me (70/80's) but I don't recall that one

  • Dean Porter
    Dean Porter

    LittleToe,

    a couple of thoughts on your last post.

    1) you are right in saying that a Creative act is being spoken of here ; however,
    (and I'm not taking issue with you here) I do find it interesting and a matter for further investigation , that the scripture says "let us MAKE man" the underlying hebrew word here is not (bara) create. Could it be that the angels were being addressed and invited to ' collaberate' as you expressed it earlier ? Something I will need to try to find time to look into.

    2) I am not denying the 'feasability' that the seperate persons of the Godhead were having a discussion here. I am only saying that it is one option out of three possible options. ( the least likely option- that is )

    3) I see why you don't particularly like the 'joined at the hips twin ' illustration. They do share the same nature and the same D.N.A. but they are 'seperate entities' really; they are not Zephod beeblebrox ( if thats how you spell it) from 'Hitchhikers Guide', if you know what I mean.

    All in all, this scripture is actually very VAGUE ! None of us can really say with any certainty what the true meaning is. As we have both suggested there are several possible options of understanding but there is no certain explanation as not even the N.T. quotes it with any interpretation.

    Therefore, I can see why certain trinitarians do not insist in using this scripture as a proof text because it really provides no proof of either position.

    Shall we call it a 'no score draw' on this one.

    By the way, I totally agree about that period of music. The Years '78 to '82 were the best period in british music to my mind.

    What do you want to discuss next ?

    You were interested in telling me about your understanding of the Holy Spirits personality and Godship ?

    Do you want to start a fresh thread so we can discuss this and other lines of reasoning ?

    Dean.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Dean:
    I wasn't keeping track of score. Would you like a game of Bridge
    LOL

    Like so much of scripture and doctrine, there are points and counterpoints, with the axe falling due to interpretation. I'm glad salvation is not down to us having to comprehend "God". If it were, who could stand? And yet we have an example, of one who was the exact representation of His very being.
    The huge lesson from this, IMHO, is that God IS love, despite His followers.

    I enjoy discussing scripture, though, especially when someone (such as yourself) has well reasoned arguments that challenge my current understanding. It's a real pleasure to be able to discuss such things openly, without censure.

    As you suggest, I'll start a thread on the Holy Spirit.
    Catch ya there...

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit