Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  A verse very similar to 1 Corinthians 8:6 is Romans 11:36

  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? [NWT "Jehovah"] or who hath been his counsellor?or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him `be' the glory for ever. Amen. Romans 11:34-36 ASV

  Comment: All things are "of" the Lord Jehovah and "through" the Lord Jehovah

  "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 ASV

  Comment: All things are "of" the Father and "through" the Son. Hense the Father and the Son must both be the Jehovah "of" whom and "through" whom all things were made.
• 

  ellderwho

  hooberus,

  One of the main problems with Jesus not being in the Godhead is somehow, somewhere he has to be created. Secondly being the ultimate in polytheism the "a god" fiasco.

  If Isa 9:6 "Mighty God" is worthy of God status as well as 10:20,21 "Mighty God" being YHWH Then we wind up with two Mighty Gods. I believe these verses demonstrate that Jesus is the YHWH that is the Mighty God.
• 

  LittleToe

  Dean:
  I know little about you, since the majority of your sparce posts have been on this thread.
  You'll excuse me, I hope for getting straight to the point:

  in 2 Cor. 13:14 it is " obvious " that it is The Father

  Context, my friend.

  Having been associated with the Watchtower for 16 years (formerly having been a Trinitarian) I think I would have spotted that if it was the case.

  Ya think?
  You missed the fact that you were involving yourself with a whole bunch of other falsehood. What makes you think that you researched this subject thoroughly?
• 

  hooberus

  I will be posting some more "troublesome Trinity" verses shortly. I am trying to concentrate on the verses used by non-trinitarians to "disprove" the trinity. The first post was 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, the second 1 Timothy 2:5. I think that is heplful to concentrate on 1 verse or closely related subject at a time. (Though you are free to discuss what you wish, I have noticed that most (though not all) "Trinity" debates degenerate into a scriptural ping-pong match, with each side sending volleys of verses and concepts at each other with out understanding how the other side thinks or carefully looking at the verses the other side uses. These posts are my attempts as a Trinitarian to deal with the arguments used against the trinity by non-trinitarians. For example I examined the Watchtower reasoning behind 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 and then showed that it was faulty, I then showed how 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 actually supports the full deity of Jesus Christ. Of course others may still have a different belief on this verse. Anyway, I plan on (Lord willing) dealing with many of the anti-Trinty verses commonly used in a series of many "Troublesome Trinity" posts. I hope to do this taking into account the other sides arguments as well as using parallel verses. I actually hope for a series of controlled, relatively short dialogues covering each verse or closely related concept thoroughly rather than a one or two long theads which go all over the place. Due to the complexity of all of the subjects surrounding the Trinity, I feel that this is the best way to dialogue and have constructive discussion of this very important subject. Though you are free to post as you wish within the guidelines, I ask that for the sake of contolled discussion that the topics of discussion within each thread remain reasonable close to the specific "verse" or concept of that specific thread. Hopefully this will lead to better understanding of the issues.

  hooberus
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  thanks for replying. I am sorry it has taken so long to reply myself but some nights I can't access this site for some reason? Anyway , you said it is the Context that makes it obvious that the Father was referred to in that scripture by the term God. Is it the ' loose rule' then that the context will show the reader How Many PERSONS of the Godhead are being referred to when a scripture Mentions GOD. Particularly so when another person of the Trinity is mentioned alongside the term God. What I am getting at is - How many 'persons' does the term God mean and does the amount of persons it means change from verse to verse?
  
  With regard to your comments re my inability to spot falsehood ! Well the J.W.'s helped me to spot the Falsehoods that I had been raised to from childhood. So my association with The Borg ( to borrow a funny term from this board ) helped me to develop my love for the Truth and develop my reasoning powers. It was because I didn't stop thinking and reasoning that I now find I can no longer accept the falsehoods that they teach re 607 bce and the 1914 Generation etc. However, I believe they were and are right about the Trinity. What makes me think I have researched this subject well enough? The fact that I have and continue to research it. I try to remain open minded and objective and try to continually " test my faith " as scripture says to. I never rested with the Society's explainations and always wanted to search further and deeper. I suppose the reason I am posting here means I am still researching and proving my belief.
  
  Have you never believed anything at one time which you eventually realised was wrong?
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus, you quote 1 Tim 3:16 in support of your claim that Jesus was " God manifest in the flesh ". I am surprised that you used that rendering of that scripture because I think it is common knowledge nowadays that the rendering 'God' is the result of a corruption in the manuscript texts. The better and more reliable texts read / translate as 'He' who was or simply 'who' was. I don't think I need to list all the modern translations as proof; just check a few for yourself. So, that scripture carries no weight with regard to your arguement. Reading your comments you say that Jesus is still a Man in Heaven. That is a new thought to me. Is that a universal understanding in Trinitarian circles ? Do all trinitarians believe he is a fleshly man in Heaven ? Also, if he was fully a man and fully God whilst on earth then how can trinitarians argue that the Father was only greater because Jesus was in the flesh. If Jesus is GOD then he is God. If he is not all powerful or all knowing in the flesh on earth then he is not GOD. You don't need me to list all the scriptures that show this fact.Scripture says he did not know the Day or the Hour; it was not his to give to the Boarnerges their place at his right hand - only his Father could decide that. So if he does not exercise the same power that his Father has then to my mind he is not fully God 100% as you suggest he was. The trinitarian wants to 'eat' his cake and 'have' it.
• 

  LittleToe

  After 30+ years in the borg, I've spent the last two years studying the Word and other literature, and my deepest doctrines have been overturned.

  I came to an understanding of the Trinity through the Word, not books and theologians.
  I also had an experiential faith, that put him into a category above that of angels.

  Reading the bible and letting it explain itself (several translations and Greek) I can to appreciate that Jesus was being described in far different terms to the ones I had been raised with. Also that the Holy Spirit appeared to have personality, and was attributed to being "another" one like Jesus.

  Jesus did God-type things, was likened to as God and had a divine nature.
  There's more learning on these few Trinity threads, than you'll get in many textbooks.
  Personally, I'm content for people to maintain their own beliefs, whatever they may be, if it simply comes down to interpretation. I hate the intellectual dishonesty of some, though, especially the WTS.

  As for the limits of Jesus knowledge, the only thing that he appeared not to know was the day and hour ascribed to his own return. It appears that the Father is missing some knowledge, too, since he has never learned obedience.

  Just a few rambling thoughts...
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe, Hi again. Thanks for those thoughts. I am interested in which translations you read. You say that they played a major factor in reappraising what you had previously understood about Jesus. I have looked at several over the years and have a few favourites myself. I particularly like MOFFAT's translation and GOODSPEED's American translation. The one I am reading at the moment is one I would definately recommend - Hugh J. Schonfields Authentic New Testament. Have you heard of that one ? I take your point about Jesus being described as 'doing God-type things' and being 'likened to God' but I believe that this is not inconsistant with a non-trinitarian understanding. I don't think most readers fully appreciate the Jewish principles involved in the role of "The Shaliach". Professor Barclay wrote an excellent piece on this subject in his book " Jesus - As they Saw Him". It is found in the chapter discussing Jesus role as God's Apostle. Jesus is the Sent One ' The Fathers Special Envoy who represents him as if the Father was himself there present in person. This explains so much of how certain passages about Jehovah are fulfilled in Jesus etc. Much like as Jesus says that how we treat his 'Brothers' we treat him because his followers are his representatives; but on a much grander scale. You seem to imply acceptance of the fact that Jesus did not have the same knowledge of the Day and Hour of his Return. So therefore I take it you are conceeding that point ? However, you say that the Father also lacked Knowledge about obedience as if that cancels out Jesus lack of Knowledge ? I don't see the logic in that because it still means there is a difference in knowledge between two persons of the Godhead. Also, I believe you are indirectly referring to Heb. 5:8 where it says that Jesus "learned obedience" and therefore the inferrence is that this is knowledge that the Father has not learned or have. A few problems with that reasoning : that scripture is saying that Jesus learned obedience to the one who would save him from death - namely the Father. By his faithful course even to death, he learned obedience to the Father that he would not have known otherwise. This tells me again that the Son is subject to the Father not equal. Also the Father will never need to die so will never need to learn obedience to the death ! However, Jesus would need to learn the date of his return! But another point about the Day or the Hour is the fact that the scripture doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit. Jesus doesn't know nor do the Angels ! But the Holy Spirit is omitted from mention at all. Then the scripture says in fact that ONLY THE FATHER KNOWS. So again there is in fact two persons of the Godhead who do not know what the Father knows !!! what do you think.... Dean.
• 

  LittleToe

  Dean:
  You make some good points, but are sooo hard to read
  The occasional carriage return wouldn't hurt
  Pretty please...

  I don't know about cancelling one another's knowledge out. I was merely trying to make the point (it was a direct reference, btw) that there are also things that the Father has no knowledge of.

  Btw, just a point of clarification, the Father didn't save the Son from death. He allowed him to go all the way in rendering up his life.
  Are you saying that the Son didn't need to be obedient before his incarnation, since the only reference to his learning this is in the passage you quoted? Just a thought to ponder.

  I've used over a dozen different translations, but my favourite is Green's Literal Version. I use his Hebrew Greek Interlinear, because it contains the whole bible, in original languages, in a single volume. It's on my desk constantly.
  It uses the name Jehovah in the OT, and doesn't attempt to insert words, like the NWT.
  I also have this verson on e-Sword, which has been an invaluable research tool.

  Incidentally, Barclay was both a Scot and a Trinitarian
• 

  hooberus

  Dean Porter said: Hooberus, you quote 1 Tim 3:16 in support of your claim that Jesus was " God manifest in the flesh ". I am surprised that you used that rendering of that scripture because I think it is common knowledge nowadays that the rendering 'God' is the result of a corruption in the manuscript texts. The better and more reliable texts read / translate as 'He' who was or simply 'who' was. I don't think I need to list all the modern translations as proof; just check a few for yourself. So, that scripture carries no weight with regard to your arguement.

  The phrase "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 a matter of debate. However the concept also occurs in other verses John 1:1, 1:14, Isaiah 9:6; Colossians 2:9 etc.

  Reading your comments you say that Jesus is still a Man in Heaven. That is a new thought to me. Is that a universal understanding in Trinitarian circles ? Do all trinitarians believe he is a fleshly man in Heaven ?

  In my experience most Trinitarians do believe this, becasue they believe in thre resurection of Jesus' body John 2:19-22 as well as the verses that say that he is a man in heaven (Psalm 80:17; Timothy 2:5 etc.) The rest of your points I may discuss in other threads in this series.