If after 2000 years christians are still debating what John 1:1 means about God, jesus , their relationship etc,etc,
And we still havent heard anything from God
It doesnt inspire confidence that their is a God.does it ?
Interpret John 1:1 by John 1:1.
by towerwatchman 77 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Doug Mason
smiddy,
I suggest that we are interested in seeing how others lived and thought in order that we might help ourselves. These scriptures need only be seen as literature and of showing us the human mind (not God's).
To me, they illustrate the power that mythology holds, and in that way they make me look at us and ask if we are any better at accepting facts, rationally.
We can pour scorn at the ancients believing their God(s) as being directly involved in their daily lives, of thinking that God was directly involved in the affairs of nations, yet in the next breath we hear our parliament opening with prayer, of politicians invoking their religious biases (same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.), and of US leaders saying "God bless America".
We have no idea what the original writers of "Scripture" wrote. There has been no God to protect it from corruption, distortion or deliberate manipulation. The WTS is only one of myriads who have done this.
I think the quotation from Epicurus is most apt, which starts with (check Google Images): "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? ...."
Doug
-
John_Mann
To John Mann
Sometimes you have to do your own homework. Hope the following helps.My analogy it's not modality like in the analogy of the physical states of water.
One God, three Persons.
-
cofty
One God, three Persons - J_M
Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?
-
John_Mann
Wouldn't it have been useful if Jesus had said something similar?
He did.
Through the Apostolic Sucession. I admit in the Bible the Trinity it's not directly present but it's strongly implied.
Not one Bishop ever said about Trinity: "this is something new".
Reincarnation would be something they would protest, for instance.
If Trinity was not part of Christianity why bring Trinity rather than reincarnation?
If they were trying to bring something to be more popular why bring a totally new and extremely complex concept instead of one extremely popular (even today) like reincarnation?
-
cofty
why bring a totally new and extremely complex concept
Early christians were a Jewish sect. They adored Jesus. Monotheism in theory had to be reconciled with their practice. The solution was a ridiculous formulation of self-contradictory words.
-
cofty
I admit in the Bible the Trinity it's not directly present
It is flatly contradicted.
-
John_Mann
Early christians were a Jewish sect.
Yes.
They adored Jesus.
Yes.
Monotheism in theory had to be reconciled with their practice.
Yes.
The solution was a ridiculous formulation of self-contradictory words.
It is flatly contradicted.
Just your opinion.
Not the opinion of the overwhelming majority of Christian throughout the history.
Philosophically speaking the concept of Trinity is very sophisticated. Even in my atheistic phase I recognized its philosophical value because it can explain the mechanism of our minds too.
That's why we can have an internal dialogue inside our minds. A dialogue implies two persons and if you pay some attention you'll notice that we have two people in our minds. And if you pay closer attention you'll notice a third one who observes the internal dialogue.
The very nature of the intellect and will produces this three-persons phenomenon.
-
Fairlane
Looks like the trinity concept belongs to the workings of the human mind.
-
Half banana
Only those exposed to it!