John 1:1 and God being "with" God.

hooberus

The watchtower says regarding John 1:1: "Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person"

This argument is used by them againist the Trinity. While Trinitarians believe that there is only one God, they also believe that there are distinct persons within the one God and that each person is God. Thus they are able to be "with" one another, yet each be God, and that there is still only one God.

(Trinitarians believe that the one God exists in the form of three eternal persons and that God can be in more than one place at a time).

Narkissos

Is it "with" in the first place? As you know the Prologue uses the preposition pros + accusative, which, when connecting a personal subject to another personal subject, is generally associated with a verb of movement (going or coming to sb, e.g. 14:28 I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I) or speech (talking, saying or answering to sb). With a static verb such as eimi ("to be"), we have no choice but translating "with", although we are probably losing something. Remember the subject is ho logos, the Word -- basically not someone but something, despite the grammatical masculine gender and the preexisting allegorical hypostatization on the angelic pattern in Philo. Interestingly, in the "rewriting" of the Prologue in 1 John 1:1ff the subject is neuter (ho èn ap'archès, what was from the beginning), then feminine (tèn zôèn tèn aiônion hètis èn pros ton patèra, the eternal life that was "with" the Father). So basically I doubt we are speaking of "two persons" -- rather the connection of "something" which may be called either "the Word" or "the Eternal life" (and will of course be related to Jesus) to "God". (Interestingly, the same preposition occurs again in 1 John 2:1 about the paraklètos we have "before" the Father, or in 3:21 about the parrèsia ("boldness") we have "before" God).

Another expression, a more personal one, appears as a parallel in 1:18: monogenès theon o ôn eis ton kolpon tou patros, an only-son God, who is in the bosom of the Father, which is echoed (with a different preposition) in 13:23 about the Beloved disciple reclining en tô kolpô tou Ièsou, in Jesus' bosom. Note that in both texts the one "in the bosom" serves a function of exegesis, or revelation, of the other. Whereas the Beloved disciple is hardly "divine" in your book, this make much sense in the original Gnostic perspective of the Gospel (as I read it), where everyone who receives the revelation becomes the revealer.

Off topic now -- I'm just curious about Hooberus: were you ever a JW? Are you pursuing a "Trinitarian mission" to (pros tous) xJWs? Is this mission (if any) restricted to those who are still in a somewhat "fundamentalistic" mind (as you suggested when dismissing my "polytheistic" comments on your previous Trinity thread)? I expected some comments from you on my "Son of God" thread, which could have been of some interest to you, but unfortunately you didn't appear...

Alf3831

The watchtower says regarding John 1:1: "Someone who is "with" another person cannot also be that other person"

They also emphasize that if there are two persons here described, then they also must be two beings. Something trinitarians deny.

This argument is used by them againist the Trinity. While Trinitarians believe that there is only one God, they also believe that there are distinct persons within the one God and that each person is God. Thus they are able to be "with" one another, yet each be God, and that there is still only one God.

If each person is God, then there are more than one God's, correct? Where is "God" defined like this in the scriptures? Honest trinitarians admit that no such definition can be found in the text.

(Trinitarians believe that the one God exists in the form of three eternal persons and that God can be in more than one place at a time).

Hmmm, so when it is "the word was God", it means, "the word was three eternal persons?" Interesting concept. Alf3831

Earnest

I have recently been reading Augustine's writings on the trinity to try and understand how this teaching became the dogma of the church. I understand the insistence that the three must be one God in order to maintain the monotheism of the O.T. But when it speaks of the Word being with God I am uncertain whether trinitarians understand that to mean that the Word is with the triune God (which would surely then make four persons - Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Logos) or if it is understood that the Word is with God the Father. If ho theos can refer to either the triune God or to God the Father specifically, is there any basis for differentiating when it refers to one or the other ?

Earnest

herk

It's positively amazing that trinitarians, unable to add one plus one, pride themselves on deciphering from the Bible a theory so complicated that even their best scholars can't explain it in reasonable language. Just as they expect us to accept BY FAITH that one plus one plus one equals one, they want us to shove reason aside and accept BY FAITH a doctrine not taught in the Bible but concocted many, many years after the Bible was completed.

herk

darkuncle29

This must be like the math that physicists use when describing protons,neutrons and quarks.

1 God + 1 Son + 1 Holy Spirit = 1 complete Triune godhead

1 "up" quark + 1 "down" quark + 1 "strange" quark = 1 baryon (neutron, proton, or "other")

azaria

I could possibly be one of only a few on this board that does believe in the Trinity. I think the JW org has so warped the idea, such as the three headed god, as in Hinduism, that they won't even consider it. Yet I believe that the bible does say in the old and new testament that this is so. I understand that some Rabbis before, and during the time of Jesus did believe God as being "three in one." That is why many Jews at that time were able to accept Jesus as the Son of God.

In very simplistic terms: (I’m sure many have heard this one): An egg: yolk, egg white, shell. Each distinct but together make one. 1 Egg Shell + 1 Egg White + One Egg Yolk= 1 Egg (not three eggs)
Man: body, mind, spirit: each distinct but together make up one human being. 1 Mind + 1 Body + 1 Spirit= 1 Man (not 3 men), so 1 Father + 1 Son + 1 Holy Spirit= 1 God (not three)

(I believe that when God said “let us make man in our image” that He meant as He was triune so are we triune, body, mind, spirit (soul) Son-body, Father-mind, Holy Spirit-spirit. but I could be wrong.
As humans we try to understand the trinity but we can’t comprehend it. (Can you comprehend the universe?) Because we can’t understand it doesn’t make it untrue. CS Lewis (in Mere Christianity) stated “In God’s dimension you find a being who is three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube is six squares while remaining one cube.”

If one truly wants the truth about the trinity you can find it. I could quote so many scriptures to back it up but feel that if you really want to find out, then it’s best to do it on your own. What helped me was Strongs concordance and a bible other than NWT.
God, the Father is our Saviour, Creator, the Good Shepherd, I AM (God said to Moses I AM WHO I AM)
God, the Son is our Saviour, Creator, the Good Shepherd, I AM (John 8:58-Before Abraham was born, I am)
These are just a few examples. The more you look, the more you find. I'm sure some will pick this apart. How can both the Father and the Son be the creator. Maybe a silly example would be: Father is the Architect, the Son is the Actual Builder (one company, two different jobs)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen 2 Cor 13:14

Leolaia

herk....The fallacy of the analogy to 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is this: trinitarians do not believe that each person of the Trinity is the totality of God in exclusion to the persons. The three persons are not equivalent to three Gods. Trinitarians commonly use a different mathematical analogy, one of multiplication: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. This captures nicely the concept of mutual substance, but it is also incorrect because it assumes a modalist type of trinitarianism. The three persons of the Trinity are not like the three states of water in post-Nicene trinitarianism. So 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 might be more accurate, except this concept also fails to capture the sense of common substance that multiplication does. Maybe this is better: (1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3) x 1 = 1.

John 1:1 and God being "with" God.

Share this