by hooberus 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I believe "God" is used in 2 senses in John 1:1
God describes a person and a "nature" or make-up.
If we re-write John 1:1 and substitute a couple of words:
"In the beginning was the Women, and the Woman was with Human and the Woman was Human.
"This sentence makes perfect sense. The first occurance of the word "Human" is describing a person. The second occurance of "Human" is describing the "nature" or "fabric" of the woman.
There are 2 persons being described but only 1 nature
Dawn,
Rev 1:8 God/Father is calling himself Alpha and Omega, yet Rev 1:17 Jesus is clearly speaking (as it says I was dead and behold am alive), and he calls himself the first and the last (alpha and omega).
The words in Rev. 1:17 are not Alpha and Omega, but Protos and Eschatos.
Rev 22:12 says "Behold, I am coming soon" (who is coming again? Jesus of course) - and then calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. So it appears in Revelation that both God and Jesus refer to themselves as the Alpha and the Omega.
Rev. 22:12 is quoting God, not Jesus. The Good News Bible inserts the name Jesus, but this is different from the original Greek and unlike other translations. Jesus is never called the Alpha and the Omega. Even if he were, why should that lead us to conclude that he is God? God, Jesus, angels and men are addressed in the Bible as "Lord," but that does not make them equal. Similarly, the term "apostle" is applied to Jesus and a select group of his closest followers, but that does not mean everyone called an apostle shares equal status with Jesus. (Matt. 10:1-3; Heb. 3:1)
John 14:8 tells a story of the last supper, Philip says to Jesus "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough" - Jesus' response "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time?"
The fact of the matter is that Jesus is the Son of God, not God the Father. So, when looking at Jesus, Philip literally saw God's Son, not God Himself. However, Jesus reflects his Father perfectly. He is "the image of the invisible God." (Col. 1:15) He is "the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature." (Heb. 1:3) Note, please, that the text does not say that he "is" the invisible God. No, he is the "image" of his Father. He is "the exact representation," but not God Himself. Similarly, Adam was created in God's "image and likeness," but Adam was not God. (Gen. 1:26) We ourselves are "predestined to conform to the image of His Son," but that will not make us equal to God's Son any more than his being in God's image makes him equal to God. (Rom. 8:29)
herk
hooberus,
herk, I am curiuos as to your beliefs, on the Father and Christ.
I believe the Bible is very clear about the distinction between the Father and Christ. However, I am also firmly convinced that it is God who reveals to persons what that distinction is. When Peter identified Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the Living God," Jesus responded by telling Peter that "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt. 16:15-17) The Trinity is not a revelation from God. It is a concept that was invented and publicized by men. It is therefore very distant from the understanding that Peter expressed concerning Jesus' relationship with God. The only way that trinitarians will ever receive a correct understanding about the Father and Christ is by paying attention to what the Bible actually says instead of to what men and institutions claim that it says. herk
hooberus,
I was never a JW. I do want JWs to know the real Jesus Christ of the scriptures. Though many former JWs here no longer reapect the Bible there are some here who do, and I hope that these revaluate who Jesus Christ is.
It is quite evident that you never were a JW. Many of the arguments you use to defend the Trinity doctrine have been discussed among JWs for many years. Your arguments are the same ones they encounter year after year as they talk with people at their homes. The absurdity and unscripturalness of the doctrine is a basic reason many JWs remain in their organization. It is, in fact, one of the principal doctrines that have turned people away from Protestant and Catholic churches to become JWs.
I believe JWs are wrong about the origin and some other aspects of the biblical Jesus. But I believe trinitarians are even further from the truth about who Jesus is. Neither JWs nor trinitarians "know the real Jesus Christ of the scriptures." It is only from the words of the Savior and his immediate followers that anyone can determine which is the correct identification of Jesus among all the competing ideas. It is quite easy to know how the disciples viewed their master during his lifetime on earth. We can also trace their reactions toward him immediately after his death and resurrection. The problem that JWs and trinitarians have is that they place their focus upon a comparatively few verses that seem to support their views while they ignore the overwhelming testimony of the bulk of both the Old and New Testaments.
herk
hooberus,
While I believe that the one God exists in the form of three persons, I do not believe that the greek word Theos itself specifically means "three persons" but that it means deity.
Sometimes the word Theos refers to nature
There is not a single instance in the New Testament where popular Bible translations render Theos as "deity" or "nature." I know of no lexicon that agrees with your definitions.
herk
hooberus,
Trinitarians generally interpret John 1:1 as meaning that the Word was with God the Father. This is due to the context of John chapter 1, as well as 1 John chapter 1.
If trinitarians truly abided by "the context of John chapter 1, as well as 1 John chapter 1," they would acknowledge that "the word" is also God the Father. "The word" spoken by God became "flesh" in the man Jesus (verse 14), just as "the word" spoken by God became a book known as "the Bible." The Bible is not God, and yet it is God because as a book it perfectly reflects his personality. The man of flesh produced by "the word" of God also perfectly reflects his personality, though the man is not God Himself.
The same "word" produced the entire universe: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Ps. 33:6, 9) "He commanded and they were created." (Ps. 148:5) "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." (Heb. 11:3) "By the word of God the heavens existed long ago." (2 Pe. 3:5)
Trinitarian and Arian translators have chosen to use a capital "W" in John 1 but nowhere else in the Gospel. One should wonder about this inconsistency. Additionally, some translations say "it" instead of "he" and "him" in verses 2 through 4 since the translators see "the word," not as a person but as it truly is, namely, "the word" spoken from the mouth of God the Father.
herk
Is God's word separate from God or less than God?
Jesus is also spoken of as the wisdom of God. Was there ever a time that God was lacking in wisdom? Is the wisdom of God less than God
Moreover, when the Bible states that God spoke, does it mean he has a mouth, tongue, body parts? Or is that an anthropomorphism?
I also now believe in the Trinity. It is very hard because of all the brainwashing JW's do, so sometimes you doubt yourself. The main point I see, is if your a person who believes the bible, that Jesus became the way to salvation. Why would God give that authority to anyone but himself? I am not very well versed in all the extensive research but when I read the scriptures it seems to be clear to me. Sometimes I just think " what's all the big deal about who's right or wrong". God explains very simply what you need to do. Anyway that's my 2 cent's for what it's worth. PC
herk said:There is not a single instance in the New Testament where popular Bible translations render Theos as "deity" or "nature." I know of no lexicon that agrees with your definitions.
I did not wish to imply that Theos should be translated "deity" (I think that it should usually be translated "God"). My comment was that is what it means. see the Strongs greek dictionary for the word.
Re: the term "nature": By this term I was saying that Theos can refer to nature, not that it should be translated as "nature". Just like saying that word "human" can refer to a mans nature, is not saying that the word "human" itself should be translated as "nature"
