The fourth Gospel itself is clearly a product of several redactional layers (see the "conclusions" in chapters 12 and 20, as well as the many doublets) -- and chapter 17 hardly belongs to the oldest strata. Anyway, it's ironic how this work, which was first received and commented by Gnostic circles and not in the main (Pastoral) Church, later became the cornerstone for the "orthodox" Trinitarian construction.
A New View of the Trinity
by Eugene Shubert 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
SM62
Could anyone give me a simple explanation of the Trinity without resorting to using long, impossible-to-under sentences and without me having to run to the dictionary for every other word? Whenever this subject is discussed, I goes right over my head - I am not entirely stupid, but I can never follow the debate because it gets so complicated and words are used that are never used in normal conversation (at least - I don't use them). Maybe my brain is slower than most, and I need things explained in easy terms.
I was once a Catholic and didn't understand the Trinity then. I spoke to a priest about it once, but he completely lost me. I became a JW, went through the Trinity brochure, and was even more puzzled. I have read some articles on the subject but still don't know if it is a belief I can accept or not because I am not sure exactly what it is.
.....the Son and the Father are both "the only true God" (cf. John 1:1). Hence the Father being in the Son as the Son is in the Father. Hence Christians being in the Father if they are in the Son. The Son referring to the Father as "the only true God" does not logically deny his own deity......
Sorry - but you lost me there.
Terri
PS - apologies for not being as bright as I should be
-
Narkissos
Terri,
I'll try, forgive me if I don't succeed.
Trinity at its best means the following: God is not only "above us" (as the Father), but also among us (as the Son) and within/between us (as the Spirit).
This means distinguishing three everlasting "modes of being" in the One Deity, three "personae" in the latin sense (which can also mean "masks" through which the actor's voice is heard in Roman theater).
As a "synthesis" of the divergent theologies of the N.T., it was indeed a brilliant idea according to the 4th-Century philosophy. Certainly not an eternal truth to me, but that's only my view.
-
Eugene Shubert
Terri
The very best way to understand the Trinity is to just believe in all the Bible texts listed in this link:
-
Narkissos
Eugene: An addition of Biblical verses will never amount to a doctrine such as the Trinity. Such a dogmatic synthesis does not just result of a sum of texts, it implies a philosophical outlook such as the neo-platonician which was conscious in Augustine but also implicit in other trinitarian thinkers (btw, have you read my previous post about Philo?).
-
JosephMalik
Leolaia,
You stated: It seems to be intellectualizing on the WTS' part that turns Jesus' affirmation of the trueness of God into a denial of his own divinity.
The WTS aside divinity does not mean trinity but Trinitarians use it that way. So what is your point? As stated earlier divinity is alternately translated as Godhead and in such texts Jesus is never affirmed as the true God. Just as the term God does not specifically identify the Being under discussion as true God and can be used of others, this term deity does not identify such a Being as trinity simply because the word seems to rhyme with it. The use of this term to emphasize a Godly quality in someone does not make such a Being God himself.
You said: Jude 4 refers to Jesus Christ as "our only Master and Lord" -- does that prove then that Jehovah is not our Master and Lord? Of course not.
And this means what? That Jesus and Jehovah are the same Being? Does Jude say that in Jude 4? 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
What Jude really teaches is that our God identified as Lord (despotes) God in this text is not the same as our Lord (kurios) Jesus Christ. He is describing two separate Beings entirely to which we are indebted.
You said: John understands that the Son and Father have a mystical unity amid distinction of each other, so that both the Father and Son could be described as theos (God) existing with each other in John 1:1.
What John understands is what John wrote and there is no mystery regarding his words. John clarified for us how such words as theos (God) apply to other Beings human and otherwise and how our Lord used such information in his own defense John 18:34. In John 1:1-2 for example which also introduces how man came into existence he states: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Is this Word identified as the same as the God such Word was with? No! Is this Word identified as the same substance as God so as to be part of His very Being? No! John demonstrates clearly that this Word that literally created man did not do so on his own authority but with the authority of the God this Word was with during such a beginning of the human race. Is John teaching that this Word was God to the God he was with? No! The Word was God to the human race created by him now that authority to be such a God was given and such creation permitted to take place. It is in this capacity and not the capacity of true God that this Word performed such a task and it was to such a world that this Word came to redeem mankind. John of all the gospel writers clarified such use of the term God for us.
You said: In 17:21, Jesus says that his Father is in him just as he is in the Father, and he prays for his followers to be united "so that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me" (v. 22-23). Even in the form as a "servant", the Son is still united with the Father.
In what way does a united relationship prove a doctrine that teaches identical Being? You do not mean to say that we become God as a consequence of our united relationship do you? The scriptures also teach that married couples become one flesh, but it does not intend to teach that such couples become one Being literally does it?
You said: Jesus' statement in v. 22-23 is very significant because it is alluded to in 1 John 5:20, written by the same author or school and note what is says on who is "the true God":
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true [the Father, whom the Son had revealed], and we are in Him who is true [the Father], even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life."
You also said: Yes, John here is calling Jesus the "true God".
No this is totally false. The scripture is identifying Him who is true as the true God not the Son in this verse. This true God also has a (Human Son) Jesus Christ to which we owe this understanding and our redemption. John knows the identity and difference between the non-human Word (Logos) and the human and only begotten Son Jesus Christ. John taught us that the Word created mankind, and since the Word did not come into human existence by himself he became the only human and only begotten by God directly. Some translations such as the NASB actually translate ?only begotten God? thus revealing this truth. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Yes it is this human Son that is the only begotten God to which we owe our lives. As for your text verse 19 should also be included like this:
19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. 20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, [the God described in the prior verse] and we are in him that is true, [the God described in the prior verse] even in his Son Jesus Christ [His Son that imparted such understanding to us]. This [the God described in the prior verse] is the true God, and eternal life.
John therefore affirms that the God that we are of is true God and that His Son has come to give us this understanding. We are expected to embrace this Son as well if we expect to have the relationship with God stated and not lieth in wickedness with the world.
Joseph
-
peacefulpete
Narkissos...agreed. The prayer in the garden pericope has the earmarks of later work. Yet the original mystery cult character of the book has been preserved, making it immediately recognizable as different from the others in the canon. The question is why it was allowed in without further washing. Was it a deliberate concession to Gnostic/esque sects? Was the book (dispite possibly having been in some form written early) included a few decades later, and therefore less time to modify? Were the Dualistic passages in John needed by the church to support the later Trinity? What is the earliest attestation of these verses? Third,Fouth cent.? If so maybe the book was essential to the theological direction the church had gone, becoming an uncomfortable leg brace of sorts. What is your opinion?
-
gumby
and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ") was spoken by Jesus is your first mistake. Noone talks like that. Further noone is present to hear this private "prayer", and Jesus has no opportunity to tell anyone of it. So how'd the author of John quote him?
Good observation pete.
It's kinda like moses who recorded ALL the words of various individuals when he wasn't there. If he wasn't there, then he heard it second hand....and that would mean the second hand info., also came from god. If he didn't hear it second hand, and heard it directly from god, then we are to believe moses sat in his tent and played secretary, while the lord stood there and dictated the first 5 books of the bible.
Gumby
-
Narkissos
Peacefulpete: I doubt the final "publishing" of the fourth Gospel may be later than the beginning of the 2nd century CE. We have kind of a terminus ad quem with the fragmentary papyrii such as P52 (ca. 125 CE), P66, P75 and Egerton 2. Of course none of these documents contain the very last additions, but it is unlikely that a previous form would have had a very wide circulation.
In fact some of the last additions can be explained as an adaptation to the "Protocatholic" or "Great Church" context, such as the sacramental development in chapter 6 on "eating my flesh and drinking my blood", or the putting in perspective of Peter's and the Beloved disciple's roles in chapter 21 (meaning, we have the right to exist alongside, or in the margins of, the Great Church). Nonetheless, I guess there was also some kind of a "democratic" process in the reception of the Johannine works by the main Church when the Johannine community disappeared, partly "lost" to so-called "Gnostic heresy" and partly absorbed by the main Church: the texts were accepted in both sides because they were loved. Origen certainly played a great role in the process of translating the Johannine "protognosticism" in terms acceptable to the main Church. In a jest I could perhaps say: "Johannine protognosticism is the salt of Orthodox Christianity"...
-
Narkissos
Joseph Malik: At the very least you could perhaps admit that the writer of the fourth Gospel was very fond of toying with the idea of the "divinity" of Jesus. In that case my question would be: Why was he?