Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  you say he wasn't trying to teach them the Trinity ?
  
  I'm surprised by that comment. I thought that teaching the Trinity concept was paramount in Jesus role if he was to reveal God to the Jews as he truly was and as they did not yet know him.
  
  Jesus spoke of things that were difficult to grasp like the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood but that did not stop him teaching these things.
  
  I am sorry but this seems to be a point where we must differ, because I think if the trinity was a biblical teaching it is in scriptures like this one where it SHOULD be clearly EXPOUNDED.
  
  John 17 :3 , we don't need to go thru every scripture. I did say I wanted to look at KEY scriptures and I think this is one. I think you appreciate my point here. Clearly, the CONTEXT shows that the Term God here contextually only refers to the Father and it refers to him as the ONLY TRUE GOD.
  
  YOU SAID context determines the number of persons meant by the term God in its occurences. So in this case it clearly means the Father only. Also the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here , AGAIN, so we only need to know the Father and the Son. I told you I saw problems with that understanding and this verse is one of them !
  
  Yes, it takes a thief to catch one..... and I was well known for my Trinity Talks too.
  
  Regards
  
  Dean.
• 

  hooberus

  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.

  The Part 1 Thread discussed the issues of the words "Lord" and "God." I don't think that we discussed the issues of the creation of "all things." Anyway both the Father and Christ are the creators of "all things" Hense both must be Jehovah. Since Jehovah created all things. By the way Romans 11:36 teaches that "all things" are of and "through" the Lord. The Lord in that verse is clearly Jehovah.
• 

  LittleToe

  Dean:
  Please don't complicate what I'm saying. I'm trying to keep things simple, here

  I merely mean that on that occasion Jesus was teaching something specific, just as he was on other occasions, such as eating flesh and drinking blood, etc.

  I'm happy for us to differ
  Unlike many, I don't believe that the Trinity doctrine is a salvation issue.
  I think that it's all about having a personal relationship with the Son.
  From that comes a knowledge of the Father and scripture, as empowered by the Holy Spirit.
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  I am sorry if you think I am 'complicating' what you are saying. With respect I don't think I am . I am merely trying to point out what I see as a glaring omission
  here to express the Intimate Knowledge of each other that the three persons of the trinity are supposed to have.
  
  The fact that the Holy Spirit is not included in this statement is a weakness in the Trinity arguement that could easily be missed if one is not "reading between the lines'.
  
  I am well aware of the depth of your knowledge and your familiarity with the arguements For and Against the trinity. It is for this reason I don't think there is any point in us discussing all the usual pros and cons because we have seen them all before. We have already made up our minds on those lines of arguement.
  
  Therefore I am trying to dig deeper into other lines of reasoning to see what we can come up with. This may involve more complicated reasoning but it makes for deeper understanding.
  
  On the subject above ( Matt. 11:27 ), whilst I realise Jesus was not trying to give an 'involved' arguement on the finer points of the Trinity : nevertheless I certainly believe the specific point he was making ( and the reason the account is in scripture ) is to stress the intimacy of the Father and the Son. Now as I read the scriptures , if the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament then accounts like this one SHOULD express the triune nature of the Godhead.
  
  Many trinity arguements centre on debates about Jesus and the Father and the correct translation of a word. We swap experts views etc.etc.
  
  But if the trinity is true then the Holy Spirit would simply be seen or referred to in simple texts like this one. If the Third person of the Trinity is missing - then no matter what we think of the Father and the Son - the Trinity can't be right without a fully fledged Third Person.
  
  John 17 : 3 according to our context test only speaks of two persons to know for eternal life. The Father and the Son. See what I mean . Why is the Holy Spirit omitted there also ?
  
  I appreciate that you think this may not be a Salvation issue. But I tend to think that if we can't get the true identity of God right what hope do we have getting anything else right ?
  
  I won't be able to post on our other thread tonight but I will get back to that thread soon.
  
  Regards,
  
  Dean.
• 

  LittleToe

  Dean:
  I know what it's like to work under time constraints - no worries

  I'm not into swapping so-called "expert" opinion, either. I'd rather present and defend my own opinions.

  Have you considered that there may have been certain things that were taken for granted, in that age, such as the unity of Father and Spirit?
  If that were the case, it would make talking about it superfluous.

  I agree that the Holy Spirit's part in all this is the weakest part of the Trinity doctrine.
  I haven't time to post about it tonight, myself, but maybe I can present how I came to that understanding, and then we can debate it (if you'd like)...