I have to tell you the Trinity is not a good subject to try to convence a witness that he is wrong on. For exsample John 1:1 take a look in a diglot (Greek into English) I use the Zondervan translation you'll notice two different spellings for the God Jesus and the God Jehovah then look down at look at vrs 18 you'll notice the same two different spellings for God here notice the GOD for Jehovah Oeov the bible say's no man has seen but the god for jesus Oeos declared him to the world. I ask you this why does the writer of John use two different spellings for God here if it is the same God. John 1:1 look you notice the subject (word) has the article (o) but when it is said here that the word is God it does not have the article showing. Which mean it should be translated a god. Now look at when he was with God this GOD has a article before it (tov) which show that this God (Oeov) was of more importace than the god spelled (Oeos) Jesus god. Greek does not use a or an ex. lets go look at a house or leta go look at the house. a is plural the is singular. So when two nouns a used in the same sentence the Greeka use a diffinite artcle to show the reader which noun is the most important. So John 1:1 actually prove the Trinity wrong..
Do Jehovah Witnesses Believe in the Trinity?
by researcher1 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Leolaia
skyman....The different "spellings" (e.g. theos vs. theon) reflect the varying grammatical role of the noun in the sentence (inflection for case), and this is a wholly separate matter than whether a noun is anarthrous or not (e.g. nominative ho, accusative ton for "the"). In v. 1, the word theon is accusative because it follows a preposition (thus *pros ho theos is impossible in Greek), and theon is accusative in v. 18 because it is the grammatical object (i.e. the one that is "seen"). The same God is nominative (ho theos) in John 3:16 because he is the subject, the one who "loves" the world. The author of John uses two different "spellings" for the same God simply because the noun has different grammatical roles in different contexts, just like for any other noun. If you said in Greek "God sent his Son and the Son revealed God to the world", the word for "God" will necessarily be theos in the first clause and theon in the second, tho they refer to the same being.
The issue is why theos in John 1:1c lacks an article. One possibility is that it is indefinite, so that the theos known as the Word is a member of a class of other theoi "gods". However, the noun can be anarthrous for other reasons as well, and in fact the indefinite sense is the least well attested sense for predicate anarthrous nouns -- which makes the NWT rendering unlikely (without even considering its theological problems). Predicate definite nouns in the preverbal position usually lack the article anyway, such as the following:
John 1:49: "Nathaniel answered him, 'Rabbi, you are the Son of God (su ei ho huios tou theou), you are [the] King of Israel (su Ø basileus ei tou Israél)' ".
Here the translator has to supply the definite article because the noun basileus "king" precedes the copular verb ei, but when both nouns follow the verb (e.g. huios "son" and theou "God"), neither noun is anarthrous. Here are other examples from the gospel of John:
John 3:29: "[The] bridegroom is the one who has the bride" (ho ekhón tén numphén Ø numphios estin).
John 5:27: "And he has given him authority to judge because he is [the] Son of Man" (hoti Ø huios anthropou estin).
John 11:49: "Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was [the] high priest that year (Ø arkhiereus ón tou eniautou ekeinou), spoke up".
And here are examples elsewhere in the NT involving theos "God":
Philippians 2:13: "For God is the one working within you (Ø theos gar estin ho energon en humin)".
Hebrews 11:16: "Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God" (ouk epaiskhunetai autous ho theos, Ø theos epikaleisthai).
It is therefore quite erroneous to say that the noun must be indefinite in John 1:1c because it lacks a definite article. These examples show that in the same grammatical position as in John 1:1c, the anarthrous noun is definite when it is a predicate nominative and in a preverbal position. However, there is a third type of predicate nominative (PN) similar to the preceding one that is probably most appropriate to John 1:1c: qualitative predicate nominatives. These differ from definite predicate nominatives in that the subject and the PN are not fully interchangeable. For instance, "The one working within you is God" means pretty much the same thing as "God is the one working within you" (with a slight shift in emphasis), but saying "The Inuit are Eskimos" does not mean the same thing as "Eskimos are the Inuit", for there are other tribes or groups of Eskimos. This type of PN is also usually anarthrous, and it is highly significant that it was frequently used throughout John and 1 John and is found in the NT only in those same writings:
John 1:14: "And the Word became flesh (ho logos Ø sarx egeneto)".
John 2:9: "The master of the banquet tasted the water that had become wine (egeusto ho arkhitriklinos to hudór Ø oinon gegennémenon)".
John 3:6: "Flesh gives birth to flesh (gegennémenon ek tés sarkos Ø sarx estin), but the Spirit gives birth to spirit" (gegennémenon ek tou pneumatos Ø pneuma estin).
John 6:63: "The words ... are spirit and they are life" (ta rhema ... Ø pneuma estin kai Ø zóe estin).
John 12:50: "And I have known that his commandment is eternal life" (hé entolé autou Ø zóe aiónios estin).
John 17:17: "Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth" (ho logos ho sos Ø alethéia estin).
1 John 1:5: "God is light and darkness is not in him" (ho theos Ø phós estin kai Ø skotia ouk estin en autó).
1 John 4:8: "God is love" (ho theos Ø agapé estin).
Because this is a very distinctive Johannine stylistic trait, this pattern is probably what occurs in John 1:1c. Note that in the case of the wine in John 2:9, the water does not become all the wine that is in existence -- it instead becomes wine in quality and nature. Similarly, by saying that "the Word was God", the author of John does not say that the Word was God in his entirety; he instead says that the Word was fully God in quality and nature (i.e. "divine"). This in no sense means that the Word was conceived of as an inferior being to the Father (such as an angel or archangel), any more than the wine that Jesus created was inferior to wine in general (or the love that defines God is inferior to love in general). Rather, the Word is everything that God is in nature and quality, just as God is everything that love is. That the PN in John 1:1c is qualitative is indicated further by its parallelism with the qualitative PN in John 1:14 ("the Word became flesh"). Both theos "God" and sarx "flesh" are preverbal PNs and they contrast the Word's incarnate nature with his pre-existent nature: (1) the Word had theos as his nature from "the beginning" (en arkhé), from before even Creation itself (cf. v. 3), while (2) he had the nature of sarx when he "made his dwelling among us" (v. 14). The choice in verbs emphasizes this contrast in states: in his pre-existent state, the Word had an existence of being theos (hence, eimi "to be" is used in John 1:1c), whereas in his incarnation he became sarx (hence, ginomai "to become"), that is, he changed from one nature to another. This understanding of John 1:1 reveals how close it is in conception to Philippians 2:6-7, which ALSO uses anarthrous preverbal nouns (tho in the dative and accusative cases, rather than nominative...so these are not instances of PNs) to indicate the nature of Jesus in these two domains:
Philippians 2:6-7: "Being in [the] form of God (en Ø morphé theou huparkhón), he did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking [the] form of a servant (Ø morphén doulou labón), having become in [the] likeness of men (en Ø homoiómati anthropón genomenos).
Some scholars believe that the christological hymn of Philippians 2:6-7 directly influenced the author of the Prologue of John, and the parallels are quite striking between theos én (John 1:1c) and morphé theou huparkhón (Philippians 2:6), and sarx egeneto (John 1:14) and morphén doulou labón (Philippians 2:7). If anything, the author of John seems to have expressed more concisely the thought in Philippians 2:6-7, that Jesus originally existed in a fully divine state ("equality with God", as Philippians 2:6 puts it). And it is curious that just a few verses later in Philippians 2:13 we encounter an anarthrous preverbal PN of theos, just what occurs in John 1:1c.
-
Ténébreux
As regards the flag in their meeting places,
They do not put them in buildings they own
but
if they rent a building and there is a flag in it, they do not remove the flag, but leave it where it is.
That sort of makes sense to me... they don't venerate the flag, but at the same time they try not to show disrespect for it. Removing or covering over an already-existing flag could be seen as disrespectful.
-
barry
Gday Brian,
Im an SDA and I live in Australia. The trinity is a big subject with the Witnesses but this arguement started a long time ago. In about the third century there were different views concerning the trinity and one view came from a priest named Arius who first said the Son is in no way God and the holy spirit is Gods active force. Hence the witnesses are called Arians because of there beleif.
The SDA beleif in the trinity is exactly the same as Catholics and most protestant denominations. The doctrin as we now have it was developed from the ecumenical councils starting from first council at Nicaea.
A book I would strongly reccommend Is called 'Christian thought ' by Tony Lane. I have a copy of it but cant put my hands on it right now.
The witnesses will say the doctrine of the trinity is pagan but by useing their same logic all christian doctrin could be argued is pagan.
I have also found very few witnesses know what the doctrine of the trinity is and what we beleive and they often neglect the doctrine of the incarnation.
Maybe you could go to the Kingdom Hall in the course of youre research Ive been there and tehy are quite friendly people and no dought would make clear there point of view. They have WT study which is like the lesson study that we have. During this study only those that are picked and given the mic can comment. You just cant have youre say like in the SDAs. They then have the public talk which is like our sermon.
Good luck with youre project and God Bless Barry
-
Kenneson
Welcome Brian.
This topic has been hashed and rehashed in this forum. I suggest you do a Google search of trinity or Is Jesus God? on this site and see what you come up with.
-
AshtonCA
I don't know if you realize it or not, but the Jehovah's Witnesses are actually an offshoot of the 7th day adventists. I just got done watching The Jehovha's Witnesses, a Non Prophet org. and it says that Russells, wrote a book with the founder of the adventists. Then he went and formed his own religion after leaving the adventists. I was shocked to hear this. Please do not slam me, I am simply quoting the video.
Ash
-
bennyk
Actually, the JW's are descended from the SECOND ADVENTIST movement, NOT from the Seventh-Day Adventists. The SDA has its origins in the Second Adventist movement also; one might say the JW's and SDA's are 'cousins'. (No offense, AshtonCA)
-
Honesty
Also, I was researching about their NEW World Translation and found that it has been altered.
Hi Researcher,
Altered is putting it mildly.
The JW's believe that Jehovah is Almighty God and that Jesus is a god. Therefore, they are polytheistic and not monotheistic as Christians are although the JW's deny it vehemently. A JW cannot come to grips with anything that defies WatchTower Bible Society logic on any issue. The WatchTower denies the diety of Christ and all loyal JW's do too. Trying to explain the Trinity (3 seperate people in one God) is like trying to teach a 3 year old calculus. It can't be done unless they open the door to their hearts and let Christ enter when he knocks.
-
barry
The SDAs have there roots in the Millerite movement and the Second Adventists were Adventists which made dates such as 1875 for the second comming. SDAs made no further dates after 1844 for the second comming.
I come here to be with all my fellow cousins. Barry