Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus 93 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  herk

  LittleToe,

  would you deny that Revelation calls Jesus "the first and the last"?

  Jesus calls himself the first and the last at Revelation 1:17 and 2:8. In both instances, the context clarifies in what sense he is the first and the last.

  • 1:17, 18 - "Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."
  • 2:8 - "These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive."

  Now, in what way is Jesus "the first" with respect to being "he that liveth," "he that ... was dead," and he that is "alive for evermore"? Chapter 1, verse 5, calls him "the first begotten of the dead." He was the first person on earth that God raised from the dead to be "alive for evermore."

  Jesus is also the last person who was raised from the dead directly by God himself. God is no longer the one who raises the dead since he gave the keys to unlock "hell and ... death" to Jesus. So, Jesus is the first and the last with regard to resurrection from the dead.

  your logic in saying that Jesus "could not have been" seems very human, IMHO
  Who are we to say what "God" can or can't do or be?

  Am I to conclude that you view the Bible and Christianity to be without logic? If the Bible says Jesus "emptied himself" and trinitarians insist that he emptied himself of being God, what is wrong with concluding by means of logic that he could not be God on earth if he emptied himself of being God? Somehow your point escapes me.

  How would you explain Judges 6:12-16, etc. (I just happened to read it right now). Here the "angel of the LORD (YHWH)", evidently "the Word", is called "the LORD".

  If we take the Bible for what it says, there is no need for an explanation here. The text shows clearly that an angel was called "the LORD." This is a point that trinitarians just don't seem able to grasp. Jesus is not the only agent of God who is called "God" and "the LORD" in the Bible. The angel is not a member of a triune Godhead because he is called "the LORD," and neither is Jesus. Only the Father is "the only true God," and all others who are designated by him as "God" and "the Lord" are those who speak and act for him as his agents or representatives. (John 17:3)

  There is no suggestion in the Bible that the angel was "the word" of John 1:1.

  herk
• 

  herk

  hooberus,

  The apostle Paul warned about those who preach "another Jesus, whom we have not preached"

  You can't point to a single text that shows Paul or any other apostle as preaching the Trinity doctrine, namely, that God is three persons known as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. There isn't even a hint in their preaching that the number three is connected in any way with the Godhead. The ones that "preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached" are the trinitarians, not those who accept the unitarian preaching of Jewish Jesus and his Jewish apostles about who God is and about Jesus' relationship with him.

  herk
• 

  herk

  elderwho,

  What then did Jesus empty himself of ?

  The answer becomes clear when a person reads the letter to the Philippians in its entirety. Trinitarians take texts out of context just as JWs do, and then they build a case based upon that text without considering what the original writer had in mind.

  If I had the time, I'd love to illustrate for you what Paul's design was in each chapter, but let's focus on chapter 2.

  In the first chapter he told the Philippians that his prayer for them was that their love may abound more and more, that they may be "filled with righteousness that comes through Christ Jesus--to the glory and praise of God." (1:9-11) He contrasted persons of envy, rivalry, selfish ambition and false motives with those of goodwill, love, sincerity and true motives. (1:15-18) He made it clear that it's a struggle to live as Christians should. (19-30)

  In chapter 2, Paul urged the Philippians to be humble as Jesus was. He described the exalted status of the man Jesus. As the reflection of God his Father, he was in the "form of God." Note that the text does not say he was God. As God's chief agent on earth, Jesus had been invested with a functional equality with God and was destined to sit at God's right hand. But instead of taking advantage of his royal position as God's legal representative, he humbled himself by being the servant of mankind, even to the point of submitting to a criminal's death on the cross. The transition is from the rank of God's "right hand man" to the rank of a servant. The contrast is not between being God and becoming man. What Paul had in mind is the career of the man Christ Jesus, not the incarnation of someone from heaven. Jesus' humility is the exact opposite of the arrogance of Adam. Adam, under the Devil's influence, tried to grasp at an equality with God to which he was not entitled. Jesus, on the other hand, did not abuse his God-given status as the agent of God his Father.

  While urging the Philippians to be like Jesus, Paul wrote of his own 'emptying of himself' as Jesus had done. He wrote: "But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice." (2:17)

  Then he gave the examples of Timothy and Epaphroditus. Concerning Timothy: "For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. For they all seek after their own interests, not those of Christ Jesus." (2:20, 21) And concerning Epaphroditus: "Receive him then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he came close to death for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was deficient in your service to me." (2:29, 30)

  In chapter 3, Paul further mentioned how he had "emptied himself." He wrote: "But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead." (3:7-11)

  I think that, if you will read the letter to the Philippians in one sitting with the above thoughts in mind, you will conclude that Jesus emptied himself, not of being God, but of living as he had every right to live, as the royal heir to the throne of David and as God's chief agent upon earth.

  herk
• 

  herk

  Kenneson,

  It's interesting to note that some would make Jesus God in the sense of Moses, David and others. Yet Hebrews chapter 3 shows that Jesus is superior to Moses. See also John 5:45-47. In regards to David, see Matt. 25:41-46.

  I haven't suggested that Moses, David and others were equal to Christ. The Bible makes clear that Jesus is God's only-begotten son. He was a man, but no ordinary man nor simply the greatest man among great men.

  But we have a choice in our understanding of how it was that he was "God" and "the Lord," even as other men were so entitled. Either, as trinitarians assert, he was "God" in the truest sense, or he was God in the sense that other men were ranked in the Bible by God himself as "God." The Bible itself makes the choice easy: It says that the Father is "the only true God" and that the God of Jesus is the same as our God. I don't know any way that the Bible could make the matter simpler than that.

  It's also interesting that Jesus the Rock is compared to Peter, a rock. Yet Christ is greater than Peter for he is the chief cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)

  Again, I haven't said that Peter is equal to Christ. A problem arises when trinitarians insist that Christ is equal to God simply because both are called the Rock.

  And the unity of the Father and the Son is said to be the same as the unity between the believer and Jesus. Yet that is not what Rev. 21:22 and John 1:14, 18 indicates.

  What could be your reason for disputing with Jesus? He's the one who said "just as we are." Why do you doubt he meant what he said? As for Revelation 21:22, where is the denial that the oneness between God and Jesus is the same as the oneness between them and Jesus' disciples? The text says: "I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple." Why is it so difficult to see from that text that "the Lord God the Almighty" and "the Lamb" are two separate entities, just as two men standing side-by-side would be? Your use of the text for the purpose given is an illustration of how trinitarians strain and strain to find evidence in the Bible for their theory.

  As for John 1:14, 18, how can you find a contradiction of what Jesus said in these words? The passage says that no person has ever seen God but that "the only begotten God" has explained him. There is no way of escaping the having of two Gods if you want to insist that God and the only begotten God are equals. However, there is no problem when one realizes that the only begotten God is God in the sense that he speaks for the God for whom he serves as chief agent. That idea is not the invention of some uninspired unitarian. Instead, it comes straight from the Bible, even as the NIV Study Bible footnote for Psalm 45:6 shows.

  Perhaps those who consistently try to minimize Jesus will explain to us how Jehovah is Savior (Isaiah 43:11) and Jesus is Savior (Titus 1:3-4). How is Jehovah the Creator (Gen. 1:26-27 and Isaiah 44:24)) and Jesus the Creator (Heb. 1:8, 10)? How can Jesus give things that only God can give? (John 1:12-13 )

  A man can be anything God wants him to be. Certainly God the Father is the ultimate Savior, but he has from time to time raised up Saviors to perform deliverance for his people. The Hebrew word for Saviour is applied to Joshua, Ehud and others. Jesus also was such a Savior, but, needless to say, a Savior far greater than any other man appointed by God. Jesus can do anything God authorizes him to do. In the first century, the crowds were awestruck by the miracles he performed "and they glorified God who had given such authority to men." (Matthew 9:8) And Jesus said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18)

  herk
• 

  Narkissos

  Hooberus:

  Do the non-trinitarians on this board consider trinitarians such as myself to be genuine christians?

  I can't answer for them, but I do hope and believe most of them do... Why could not trinitarians and non-trinitarians consider each other as "Christians in error"? Christian heresies are Christian anyway, and who has the final word on orthodoxy and heresy?

  LT:

  To Herk's comment on "the angel of Yhwh" I would only add that mal'akh ("angel") is a functional term, actually meaning "messenger", "envoy"; in this sense humans can be mal'akhim as well (Genesis 32:2,7 etc.).

  Accordingly, in most narrative Bible texts the divine mal'akhim ("angels") are functional characters, not necessarily to be understood as permanent creatures. They are just one literary way of expressing the deity's manifestation into an otherly interpersonal drama. That's why the text very often fluctuates between "the angel of Yhwh" and "Yhwh", because the functional meaning is actually the same.

  Only when (in apocalyptic literature) "angels" become a specific category of permanent, heavenly creatures, bearing individual names, the question comes "which angel is this?" and the phrase "the angel of Yhwh" can be reinterpreted as pointing to a special high-ranking angel. Only then the "angel of Yhwh" can cross the previously autonomous "personified Wisdom" thread and be identified to the logos, as probably occurs in Philo (cf. my "son of god" thread). One must note, however, that such an identification is not made in the N.T., which avoids referring to Jesus as an "angel"...
• 

  LittleToe

  Herk:
  A few questions, if you don't mind, as I'm interested in your viewpoint, and have no desire for us to batter each other senseless:

  • In conjunction with your exposition of "the first and the last", how does that differ from "the Alpha and the Omega"?
  • Who do you say the angel of Judges 6 is?
  • Further, are you saying that any old messenger, sent form God, may bear the name YHWH?
  • How would you express your understanding of the Trinitarian and Binatarian doctrine of God? (I ask this because of your claim that Trinitarians cannot accept the individuality of Father and Son, a la Revelation's Temple illumination)
  • In your opininon, who is the "creator"?

  your logic in saying that Jesus "could not have been" seems very human, IMHO
  Who are we to say what "God" can or can't do or be?

  Am I to conclude that you view the Bible and Christianity to be without logic? If the Bible says Jesus "emptied himself" and trinitarians insist that he emptied himself of being God, what is wrong with concluding by means of logic that he could not be God on earth if he emptied himself of being God? Somehow your point escapes me.

  My point

  is that you are declaring what God can or cannot do..
  Further, are you stating that God at all time behaves using the rules of human logic??

  Nark:

  Why could not trinitarians and non-trinitarians consider each other as "Christians in error"?

  Hear, hear. Especially given that our limited (even laughable) understanding is temporal.
  I'd rather have a tolerant and all-inclusive "Christianity", and leave God to be the final judge, since that appears most scriptural
• 

  herk

  LittleToe,

  I'm interested in your viewpoint, and have no desire for us to batter each other senseless:

  I think you are taking the wrong approach to serious Bible study. I have no intention of battering someone senseless, even if, as you suggest, that is the purpose of some. I take from your analysis of the discussion that your view is that it would be best to simply ignore the Bible on this topic.

  In conjunction with your exposition of "the first and the last", how does that differ from "the Alpha and the Omega"?

  Some people get hung up on titles, whereas the context should be given preference. Unless a person has a pre-conceived view of such titles or designations, the verse itself or the surrounding ones show how or in what sense either God or Jesus is "the first and the last."

  Who do you say the angel of Judges 6 is?

  The Bible often speaks of angels, but it gives the names of only two, Gabriel and Michael. When addressing humans, they served as spokespersons for God. Judges 6 does not give the angel's name. "The Lord" is not his name, but as in the case of Jesus, it is his functional status as God's agent.

  are you saying that any old messenger, sent form God, may bear the name YHWH?

  What is the point of your expression "any old"? God sometimes chooses the weak and beggerly to carry out his assignments. Jesus himself was a humble carpenter, not a Pharisee educated by the wise and intellectual: "At that time Jesus said, 'I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.' 'All things have been committed to me by my Father.'" (Matthew 11:25, 26) God is free to choose any angel he prefers to represent him as "the Lord" in any situation.

  How would you express your understanding of the Trinitarian and Binatarian doctrine of God?

  I think your question is superfluous. My unerstanding ought to be quite clear from my posts in this and several other threads. I see no point in reviewing here everything I've said.

  In your opininon, who is the "creator"?

  God alone is the Creator of the universe. Others were his associates in the work, as several Bible texts make clear. However, when others he employs bring things into existence, it is from what has already existed. We, for example, can be "new creatures" in Christ. But the raw material Christ uses in making us such is the persons we formally were while alienated from God.

  My point
  is that you are declaring what God can or cannot do.. Further, are you stating that God at all time behaves using the rules of human logic??

  I still fail to see how you find this position reasonable or scriptural. I've shown how the trinitarian position is incompatible with the Bible, and you seem intent on picturing me as telling God what he can or cannot do. Perhaps you need to try a bit harder to make yourself clear as to the motive and reason for your question.

  herk
• 

  Kenneson

  Herk,

  You stated: "Yes, the Bible says Jesus is God. But the question is, Is he God in the sense that the Father is God or in the sense that Moses, David and others were spoken of as God?"

  I'm glad you can admit in your response that since Jesus is superior to Moses and David they are not on the same par and therefore not equal. He must be a slightly higher God than those fellows. Now if Jesus has pre-eminence over Moses, David, must he not also have pre-eminence over his own disciples, as he did Peter? So the oneness that he speaks of in John 17 is not one that raises us to equality with Jesus and the Father, is it?

  It is the New World Translation in John 1:18 that makes Jesus the only begotten god and ergo posits the two Gods concept. Most translations say the only begotten Son, God. A footnote in my Bible reads: "While the vast majority of later textual witnesses have another reading, 'the Son, the only one; or 'the only Son,' the translation above follows the best and earliest manuscripts, monogenes theos, but takes the first term to mean not just 'Only One' but to include a filial relationship with the Father, at at Lk 9, 38 ('only child') or Heb. 11, 17 ('only son') and as translated at Jn 1, 14. The Logos is thus 'only Son' and God but not Father/God." Thus we don't have two Gods, but two persons who are God.

  On Rev. 21:22 Trinitarians make a distinction between the two persons here. The point is that both the Father and the Lamb constitute the one temple. Likewise, both the Father and the Lamb occupy and possess the throne (Rev. 22:1,3) and both receive worship (Rev.5:13-14 and 6:9-10) Yes, there is unity between Jesus and his followers, but it is not the same oneness that he and the Father possess.
• 

  ellderwho

  In the first chapter he told the Philippians that his prayer for them was that their love may abound more and more, that they may be "filled with righteousness that comes through Christ Jesus--to the glory and praise of God."

  Also 1:19 Paul states " for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ" v22 Paul wants to be with Christ and does not say he wants to be with Yahweh. Would not Pauls hope lead him to desire to be with the "only true God" Paul seems to settle for Jesus.

  From the above does Jesus have a seperate Spirit? And does it somehow differ from "the" Holy Spirit?

  In chapter 2, Paul urged the Philippians to be humble as Jesus was. He described the exalted status of the man Jesus. As the reflection of God his Father, he was in the "form of God." Note that the text does not say he was God. As God's chief agent on earth, Jesus had been invested with a functional equality with God and was destined to sit at God's right hand.

  You present what Paul states and leave out key verses such as verse 6 and 7 which explictly states;

  "did not regard equality with God something to be grasped" Nas/ Niv

  I cannot explain the Triune nature of Jesus, but Paul tells me I will not be able to "grasp" this idea.

  v7 "but made himself nothing" Niv "but emptied himself" Nas.

  The text does not say Yahweh did this to him (Jesus) that Jesus did this "himself."

  The answer becomes clear when a person reads the letter to the Philippians in its entirety. Trinitarians take texts out of context just as JWs do, and then they build a case based upon that text without considering what the original writer had in mind.

  Because Paul wrote this letter from prison, the main highlight is the fact that Paul still finds joy. Joy in who? Christ, not Yahweh. In all of Pauls suffering why does he find joy in Christ?

  Phil. 1:1 servants of Christ, not Yahweh.
• 

  ellderwho

  Herk,

  God alone is the Creator of the universe.

  Because Isaiah 44:24 states "I am the LORD who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself."

  The Jw has a hard time with this as well, in the NWT the end of v24 asks the retorical question "who was with me"

  This is a inescapable verse for the Jw when compared with the like Col. 1:16 Jo.1:3 Heb.1:10 If Yahweh was alone during creation of the heavens, then why is credit given to Jesus?

  To follow up this thought, look at Isaiah 45:12

  "It is I who made the earth and created mandkind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens"..

  Others were his associates in the work

  How do you reconcile this thought of others were his associates?