Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

hooberus

This is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the Trinity. I ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later. The reason for this is to get people to think on each issue within the overall Trinity controversy rathen than simply "jumping" to other trinity verses and issues when confronted. Matthew 11:27 and similar verses: "All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Matthew 11:27 Unitarians such as JW's reason: If Jesus were God then all things would have already have been his. So Jesus is not God.
Ther are several problems with this:
1. The fact that Jesus as a Son (or as man) received all things from his Father does not mean that Jesus has less of a nature than the Father. Someday I, hooberus will receive all things from my earthly Father, yet we are both equal in terms of our humanity. In the same way the fact that Jesus received all things from his father does not mean that Jesus had a lesser nature than his Father.
2. Matthew 11:27 can be explained by the following: The Father and the Son created all things. The Father held legal authority in a sense over all things until a time in the future when the Son took part in creation by becoming man, then the Son being heir recieved "all things."
3. Most importantly we know that Christ was the creator of "all things," and from this we know that he is Jehovah along with the Father.
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.
LittleToe

Something that game me pause to wonder is what the term "heir" means, when the Father is eternal.
I didn't find that Unitarianism gave a satisfying answer, personally (though that's not to say that it might not satisfy someone else).
Hooberus:
Take it easy, will ya. I can barely keep up with the other threads, and now you've introduced two more!!!
Would you mind letting these run their course, for a wee while.
Also, I feel I must prewarn you that whilst it's an interesting subject for some (myself included), this kind of discourse can't be maintained for lengthy periods of time (yup, even MY stamina for Trinitarian threads, is flagging!).
Other than that, thanks for bringing up some interesting themes.
hooberus

My goal with these threads is a series of relatively short "bite" size discussions centered around certain verses that unitarians often use. The goal is to get them to examine carefully these verses in their true context, and to provide a trinitarian response.
The reason that some of the other threads have gone long is because posters have "jumped" verses and concepts within the total Trinity doctrine. It is very difficult to have a reasoned dialogue when people move the discussion into other areas. This is true even if the new area is within the overall "Trinity doctrine" Therfore, I am starting a thread for each verse or closely related concept used by unitarians against the Trinity. This prevents (or was intened to) people from moving the subject when confronted with problems in their reasonings.
If posters would try to stick as close as possible (while still making their points) to the thread verse or thread concept then the following would happen.
1. Issues would not be dodged by moving to other verses.
2. The Threads would be shorter and more to the point.
3. The threads would be easier to understand.
4. People would have to "think" before using these verses in the future.
Dean Porter

Hooberus,

just a few thoughts on this verse for you to consider:

1. To explain away the problem of Jesus receiving all things from the father you use the illustration of a Father passing on his property to his Son. Yes, a Father and Son do share the same nature, but the point of your illustration just highlights that your Fathers property is NOT YOURS until such time as he Gives it to you.

So the shared nature means nothing regarding possession and ownership.

If Jesus gets something from the Father then obviously he did not have it before it was given.

2. For me the more important point about this verse which you seem to have missed ( probably because of the translation you are using ) is that once again the suppossed third member of the Trinity is omitted.

The greek text here does not have the word MAN in it , rather, the greek text says NO-ONE knows the Son, but the Father, and NO-ONE knows the Father but the Son.

Therefore, why is the Holy Spirit omitted once again. He does not know the Father like the Son does and He does not know the Son like the Father does. In fact the scripture says No-one knows the Father unless the Son reveals him to them.

Why would the Holy Spirit need to ask Jesus to reveal the Father to Him if they were all Persons of the same Godhead ?

Once again this scripture reveals the unique relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is completely ruled out of that relationship.

It don't make sense IF the Trinity exists ; but it makes perfect sense if there is no such thing as a Triune Godhead.

Dean.
LittleToe

Dean:
1. Joh.17:5 (and 16:14 makes interesting reading, too).
2. The context indicates that it's mankind. Otherwise, do the angels not know Him??
Dean Porter

LittleToe,

Yes, I agree with you that the context relates to the men of those villages that would not recognise Jesus or his words with any merit.

In fact I had intended to point that out in my original post but neglected to do so.

However, the fact remains that the text says not man but NO-ONE. Why might this be ?

If the word man was in the text I think this could give a contextual understanding that Jesus knowledge of God was simply better than any man i.e. any other Rabbi or Priest.

But because it says 'No-one', I think the wider point that the text is stressing that whether on Earth OR in Heaven, Jesus' knowledge and Intimacy with the Father is incomparable.

Yes, the Angels do Know God,they have association and experience of him but their knowledge is not that of the Only-Begotten who resides in the Bosom position. They could not reveal what Jesus could.

The citizens of Chorazin and Bethsaida would attend their synagogue and learn about God from their learned men but they won't know about God to the extent that Jesus can reveal to them.

So I think my point still stands as to why the Holy Spirit is not included in this comment regarding the Intimate Knowledge between the Father and Jesus.

If the point of the text is to stress the intimacy of the Godhead that only Jesus can reveal then why not Detail all the persons of the Godhead ? Why miss one out ? If the term 'no-one' is to exclude all but the 'cognoscenti' then the Holy Spirit would have to be included to prevent any misunderstanding !

I found those two other texts you mentioned interesting but have to say that in reading them my attention was caught again by John 17:3.

In light of what we were discussing elsewhere, How many persons of the Godhead does the context show to be referred to here in the term God in verse 3 ? and which person of the Godhead is it ?

Cheers

Dean.
LittleToe

So you're acknowledging that the only-begotten Son has a different knowledge than the angels?
Interesting
Christ wasn't trying to teach them about the Trinity, he was establishing his role in salvation. There was no need to get sidetracked into any theology beyond the essential conversation that he was conducting, that they couldn't get to know the Father without first knowing him. It was a hard enough concept for them to grasp, without throwing the Holy Spirit into the pot.
As for Joh.17:3, it could be "Godhead" without any conflict (if the prayer were predominantly a lesson for the disciples) but I really think that unlikely. The believe the context is that the Son was praying to the Father, and showing the disciples that they needed to know (intimately) the Father AND the Son. Apparently their life depended on it.
Are we going to go through all the scriptures that only speak of Father and Son, in an attempt to derail the Trinity? LOL
I was an elder with a couple of "anti-Trinity" outlines under my belt. I know the JW and Unitarian stance well. I also was living in a highly Trinitarian religious area, and regularly argued against that topic for decades.
Ever hear the saying "to catch a thief"?
hooberus

Dean Porter said:

1. To explain away the problem of Jesus receiving all things from the father you use the illustration of a Father passing on his property to his Son. Yes, a Father and Son do share the same nature, but the point of your illustration just highlights that your Fathers property is NOT YOURS until such time as he Gives it to you.

So the shared nature means nothing regarding possession and ownership.

If Jesus gets something from the Father then obviously he did not have it before it was given.

I probably agree with much of what you say here. Especially the phrase "the shared nature means nothing regarding possession and ownership" which seems to separate the issues of "nature of being" and "possession and ownership." It is the Unitarians that use the issue of "possession and ownership" to try to lessen the nature of the Son!
2. For me the more important point about this verse which you seem to have missed ( probably because of the translation you are using ) is that once again the suppossed third member of the Trinity is omitted.
This point (which has to do with the second part of the verse I would prefer to try to deal with on the "knowlege" thread. (Part 7)
hooberus

Dean, I would be interested in your comments on my third point. This dealt with the issue of "all things" being created:
3. Most importantly we know that Christ was the creator of "all things," and from this we know that he is Jehovah along with the Father.
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.
Dean Porter

Hooberus , with all due respect, you are back round to 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 again which I dealt with on that particular thread. I suggest you go back and read what I said there and in particular that nice qiotation that debunks your view that Lord and God must mean that the Father and the Son are both Jehovah. I am sure if you didn't get the point then , there is no point in me repeating it now. By the way I don't think you are appreciating the difference between " of " and " through". regards Dean.

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

Share this