Earnest,
Thankyou for giving me the full reference for Werner's Book. I will definately try to obtain the book either through my local Reference Library or see if I can find it on Amazon.
I have seen quotes from this work on many internet sites and have always found his comments truly revealing.
Thanks again.
regards,
Dean.
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 10
by hooberus 126 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Dean Porter
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson,
thank you for your response. I am happy to comment further.
You mention the point about the Son being ETERNALLY - BEGOTTEN. I don't personally see that as proof of Jesus being Almighty God like the Father for the two following reasons:
1) the expression is an oxymoron - it is self contradictory and makes no logical sense.
2) it is not a scriptural term and therefore has no bearing on a discussion on inspired scripture.
With regard to Jesus being the WORD, you ask if ever there was a time that God was Mute?
That is an interesting thought, but I think we have to remember that the greek term LOGOS, whilst generally being translated as the Word, there is not really a completely suitable english term to translate the full understanding of the greek.
Logos refers not only to God's Word bur also his expressions, his mind, his thoughts ,his plans etc.
So whilst God will always have had these faculties it was not always the case that they were 'manifested to creation'. When God expressed himself to creation it was through the LOGOS.
As I stated previously the logos is Gods communication to the world, his messenger, his ambassador,
his SHALIACH.
As the image of God , Jesus is the ultimate representative of God to Humanity.
Adam was made in the image of God and Jesus became the second Adam.
Adam was God's visible representative to the earth, the physical embodiment of God's rulership of the earthly creation.
Likewise Jesus as the Image is the ultimate representative of God over the earthly creation.
Therefore as I see it to call Jesus the Image of God , is actually to say he is NOT God but rather God's
ambassador.
With regard to the use of O.T. passages being applied to Jesus in Hebrews, I would reiterate my recommendation to read Buchanan's Commentary on Hebrews particularly on that very point.
Suffice for me to point out this now that in Chapters 1 and 2 it is not only passages relating to Jehovah that are applied to Jesus but there are passages there that are quoted with reference to Jesus which are originally in the O.T. addressed to King David , King Solomon and I believe Isaiah also.
So are we to reason that this proves he IS King David and the others ? I think not.
I don't have time to comment further on other points you raised as it is late and I'm tired and my mind is going...... Daisy , Daisy , give me your answer true.
til the next time,
Regards
Dean. -
gumby
I'll bet if I wrote a book and wanted people to KNOW who I was and who my Son was......I could have done a better job than the acclaimed author of the Bible. Wanna bet?
Gumby
-
Kenneson
Dean,
To say that calling Jesus the eternally begotten Son of God is an oxymoron because it is contradictory and not a Scriptural term and not logical certainly begs the question. What this term implies is that the Son has existed as long as God has existed and will continue to exist as long as God exists. Doesn't sound illogical to me, but beyond logic. I don't fully understand it, but then if I did I suppose I would be God. And surely you know that there are many terms that we use that are not found in Scripture (including the word Bible), but that doesn't make them illegitimate, especially if the concept is there.
Time and again in Genesis we are told that God said thus and thus and it came to be. It was through the Logos (Word) that creation occurred. The Son is more than a manifestation to creation; he is the origin of creation, the source of creation. And that is the connotation of Rev. 3:14, not that he himself had a beginning, but that through him everything had a beginning. See also John 1:3
Adam was made in the image of "us" at Gen. 1:26 Do you agree that the us is the Father and the Son? Gen. 1:27 Jesus is not said to be made in the image of God, HE IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. Col. 1:15 As a matter of fact, Jesus was never made or created at all. Adam, on the other hand, was made from the dust. Gen. 2:7
-
Kenneson
P.S. The first man Adam is depicted as a recipient of life. Gen. 2:7 The last man Christ is presented as the giver of life. See Rom. 1:3-4; 14:9 Through his resurrection body Jesus became LORD. The first man is said to be from the earth, while the last man is from heaven. The physical body of Adam is from below, while the risen body of Christ is described as "spiritual" or glorified or from above. 1 Cor. 15:46-47 Adam and Christ each represent a possibility of human existence, possibilities that are real since all are what Adam was and all can become what Christ is. Vs. 49 "To bear the image of the heavenly one": To have the same sort of "spiritual" or glorified body.
-
Earnest
Shouldn't Hebrews 1:4 have the word "other" in front of the word "angels" if Jesus were an angel who was made better than the "other" angels? - Hooberus, 05-Nov-03 18:31 GMT
Hooberus, you have either failed to read or chosen to ignore what has been said at length in previous posts on this thread. You continue to create a strawman (that Jesus held the same position as the angels) that has repeatedly been shown to be false. Continuing to repeat it will not make it true.
However, only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are referred to as God. So it seems that the God nature includes more than spirit and this is what I am concerned with. How do you preserve the sovereignty of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without denying that angels are spirit beings and man has a spirit? - Kenneson, 05-Nov-03 12:48 GMT
Kenneson, these are excellent observations and I have a similar concern: How do you preserve the sovereignty of the Father and still give the Son the honour due to him. However, it is not only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit who are referred to as God. Psalms 8:5; 97:7 refer to the angels as gods and of course there are many references to them as sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; Genesis 6:2,4). This expression (sons of God) uses a Hebrew idiom in which "son(s)" refers to participants in a class or in a state of being, and the second word describes the class or state of being. Thus, in Genesis 5:32, Noah is said to be a "son of five hundred years," meaning he was 500 years old. So NRSV translates it as "heavenly beings". As an aside, many (Philo, Jerome, Franz Delitzsch) interpret Genesis 1:26 as God's consultation with angels thereby attributing angels with the same image and likeness of God. Of course we do not have to accept their interpretation but it likely gives us an idea of Jewish belief at the time of the NT. Anyway, the fact remains that angels are also part of the "class" of God. Hence, Jesus and the angels have always been of the same class.
If Jesus was an angel before he became man but received a higher position to them only at his resurrection and ascension, then what was his position to the other angels in his Pre-existence?
Hebrews 1:6 describes him as the firstborn and so he has always had that eminent position. Proverbs 8 has been applied to Jesus by many and it indicates the close bond he has always had with his Father. However, he is not pictured at God's right hand until after his resurrection. Daniel 7 is a vision of his being brought before God's throne, not sharing it with him. So it was only after his resurrection that he was exalted to that lofty position.
Also, what became of his spirit nature that you speak of when he became a man? Angels, it seems, in the Old Testament could materialize. But Scriptures don't speak of Jesus materializing a body and appearing like a man. It says he became a man.
Philippians 2:7 says "he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men". I understand that to mean he gave it up, just as those who are resurrected to heaven give up their fleshly nature. I agree that scripture teaches he became a man in the same sense that Adam was a man.
I have more to ask about the passage in 1 Cor. 15, but I have to go to work now.
With respect, I think I will bow out of this discussion now. I have appreciated the points you have raised and the civility you have shown but feel that the same points of view are simply being expressed in different ways and I don't know that I can add more to what I have already said. If you wish to p/m me you are welcome to do so.
Earnest
-
Kenneson
Earnest,
Just a few more thoughts on your comments. I thought that In order to reconcile the two accounts of creation Philo distinguished the heavenly man of Gen. 1:26-27 from the earthly man of Gen. 2:7 and argued that the second, historical man was a copy of the first ideal man. Was the heavenly man an angel?
Yes, the word sons of God are used for angels, for Jesus and even Adam (Luke 3:38). So is Adam a son of God in the same sense as Jesus and angels? Is Adam the only begotten Son of God? Are angels? And in Ex. 7:1 Moses is made God to Pharaoh. Is he God like Jehovah? Yet Heb. 3 depicts Jesus as superior to Moses!
You stated: "Phil. 2:7 says 'he emptied himself and took a slave's form and came to be in the likeness of men." I understand this to mean he gave it up, just as those who are resurrected to heaven give up their fleshly nature."
Well, if he gave up his spirit nature when he became a man and gave up his fleshly nature as a man at his death, what was left of him?
-
Dean Porter
Kenneson,
I appreciate your candor in that you say you don't fully understand this point about Eternally Begotten.
So can I take it that you are conceeding the point that " Grammatically " it IS an Oxymoron ?
You say there are many words or expressions that we use that are not found in the scriptures. This is true but should we build or support a Doctrine on an unscriptural term ?
Also you suggest it is O.K. if the CONCEPT is there. But I don't think the Concept of Eternal Begetal is there.
The scriptures do contain the terms Eternal and Begotten, but they are not used together. If the concept was there then why were the writers not inspired to combine these terms ?
Rather, the Concept that is found in the scriptures is conveyed by the terms like BEGOTTEN ; SON ; FIRSTBORN. Do not these terms imply a life that arises from the procreative process of a parent ?
If God is a trinity of co-eternal persons, Why use terms like FATHER and SON and ONLYBEGOTTEN and FIRSTBORN to describe their relationship ? By using these terms they have IMPLIED a difference between them in terms of temperal existence.
The terms are used so as to convey some understanding to the human comprehension - so why use terms that actually imply the opposite of what the trinity is supposed to be ?
In my opinion, I see in these terms a concept that cannot be described by the oxymoronic expression eternally begotten.
With regard to Rev. 3:14 and Colossians 1:15 it is a case, I think, that the greek terms there can be understood in different ways 'depending' on your doctrinal position.
If you believe Jesus is not created you will read these terms one way and a non trinitarian will read it another way.
You mentioned that Jesus is the SOURCE of creation and thus is the uncreated creator. This in fact takes us back to a point I was making earlier on this thread ( or was it another one) where I was making the point that in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 it is the Father who is described in the greek as being the Source of creation whereas Jesus is described as the means or Agency of creation.
The point was that all things are " of " the Father ( ex ou ) but only " through " the Son ( di ou ).
"Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament'
there is one God, the Father (all hmin eiß qeoß o pathr). B omits all here, but the sense calls for it anyhow in this apodosis, a strong antithesis to the protasis (even if at least, kai eiper). Of whom (ex ou). As the source (ex) of the universe (ta panta as in Romans 11:36; Colossians 1:16) and also our goal is God (eiß auton) as in Romans 11:36 where di autou is added whereas here di ou (through whom) and di autou (through him) point to Jesus Christ as the intermediate agent in creation as in Colossians 1:15-20; John 1:3.
In reply to your direct question re: Gen 1: 26 , I personally think it was the Son that the Father was speaking to. However, no one can be absolutely dogmatic on this point as it could equally have been the whole angelic hosts that he was addressing as thought by many commentators.
On the point of Commentators and angelic hosts.
Can I ask you who do you think the Theophanic Angel of the Lord was ?
The Angel in the Bush on Sinai : the Prince of the Army of God before Joshua etc. ?
regards,
Dean. -
Kenneson
No, I'm not saying it is an oxymoron. I'm saying I don't fully understand it. Let me explain. If we understand begotten and Son literally in terms of human begettal, than we are faced with a problem. Is God a heavenly man that he implanted his seed in the woman (the Jerusalem above) to produce a Son? Or is it allegorical? It's the best words the authors of Scripture could come up with to explain that Jesus was not a thing made or part of creation. He is separate. But what else could God beget but God? Since God is eternal Father, then the Son is eternal. Thus the term eternally begotten.
As to 1 Cor. 8:5-8, some scholars don't see the "all things" as having anything to do with cosmology or the origin of the universe. Rather, it has to do with all things pertaining to our salvation esp. as effected by Jesus Christ. And where the NWT says "and we for him" and other translations "and for whom we exist" can also mean "toward whom we return." See Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 2:11-13; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 4:15; 5:18
If the angel of the Lord of the New Testament is the same as the angel of the Lord of the Old, than I would say that it is referring to Gabriel. See Luke 1:11, 19; Luke 2:9; Matt. 1:20, 24; Matt. 2:13, 19;Acts. 5:19; Acts 8:26; Acts. 12:33
-
Earnest
Kenneson,
I thought that In order to reconcile the two accounts of creation Philo distinguished the heavenly man of Gen. 1:26-27 from the earthly man of Gen. 2:7 and argued that the second, historical man was a copy of the first ideal man. Was the heavenly man an angel? - Kenneson, 08-Nov-03 01:25 GMT
As you think that is what Philo argued, what do you think Philo understood the heavenly man to be ?
Is Adam the only begotten Son of God? Are angels?
As far as I know, only Jesus is described as the only-begotten Son of God. As you have mentioned previously that all things were made through him then he would be the only-begotten directly by God. The fact that Hebrews 1:6 says he was the first begotten shows that there were other sons of God, as previously discussed on this thread.
And in Ex. 7:1 Moses is made God to Pharaoh. Is he God like Jehovah?
What do you think ?
Well, if he gave up his spirit nature when he became a man and gave up his fleshly nature as a man at his death, what was left of him?
A consideration of 1 Corinthians 15 shows that he had a heavenly resurrection and Hebrews 1 and many other scriptures mentioned previously on this thread shows he was exalted to God's right hand.
Gods, like angels (aggelos), can refer to both flesh and spirit natures. This is not only discussed in this thread but there was also a lengthy discussion in the thread "God is Jesus". I would invite you to read through that thread and particularly the posts by AlanF who was as thorough there as he is on Neo-Babylonian chronology elsewhere.
Earnest