Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

by zagor 92 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    Question Zagor: was it God who used that word echad or was it a hebrew talking about God?

    Comment: Either way, the whole premise of this belief in God - is that there is only ONE God.

    WE are supposedly created in God's image - a truly multi-dimensional being that is incomprehensible by our still evolving, puny little minds - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    the mystery of the mind body spirit - the energies that make up the visible & invisible - will forever be a wonder. It boggles my mind to hear restrictions put on such a concept as an all powerful, all knowing, all mighty being. God can't be this or that cause logic, & human reasoning....blah, blah, blah.

    Whats worse & I know we all would agree on this, is a printing company making people believe they are bird food if they don't agree with their description of the box they put the unexplainable in.

    Sorry wp

  • zagor
    zagor

    LOL
    LT,
    That was funny. Well I guess you could see it that way too. It would look as if “she” is then the only female in heavens. It would of course confuse the whole issue quite a bit. Why was Jesus then used to, so to speak, “give birth” to the rest of the creation if there was already a female on service, not to mention a jealous female? Colossians 1:15 –17.

    In any case I’d recommend reading again Hebrews 1:1-14. IT quite nicely describes everything we’ve been talking about.
    I’m sure you’ll agree that there is danger to get hung on one single scripture. If bible is the word of god it surely has to be in harmony with itself. So when one reads John 1:1 it should be correlated against other parts of the bible that speak of the same issue like one in Hebrews 1:1-14, Colossians 1:15-17 or others that speak on the same theme.
    I don’t know old Greek but I can well imagine that it had many figurative expression which were understood by natives of that time.
    I hate to imagine how someone in say 2000 years time would translate expressions such as Pass the buck, Pay through the nose, Pie in the sky, Piggy in the middle, Play ducks and drakes with, Play one's cards close to one's chest, Politically correct, pot calling the kettle black, Pour oil on troubled waters ….
    Need I continue?
    Is it hard to imagine the use of personification, in this case, to make a point?

    Anyway, love discussion with you guys too

  • zagor
    zagor

    the mystery of the mind body spirit - the energies that make up the visible & invisible - will forever be a wonder. It boggles my mind to hear restrictions put on such a concept as an all powerful, all knowing, all mighty being. God can't be this or that cause logic, & human reasoning....blah, blah, blah.

    Sorry WP,

    Your point misses the target. IT is not about what our minds can comprehand about god but about how he revealed himself through his word, i.e. how HE himself wanted us to know him. So what you are saying is really beyond the point.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Zagor:
    I still say that you are taking a compilation of 66 books and making out like we have to believe they are one book with total internal integrity. Why should I contrain my mind in this way? (a genuine question)

  • zagor
    zagor

    Oh no LittleToe, you don’t have to constrain yourself at all. We were just having a conversation, nothing more, nothing less. As far as I’m concerned you can reject all 66 of them or pick and choose what you feel is good enough for you.
    Of course you can see now why someone who accepts all 66 books i.e. the whole bible (2 Tim 3:16) or even just all the writing of the apostle Paul cannot but conclude that God is superior to Jesus which would make trinity invalid.

    Cheers mate

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Morning Zagor

    You comment on the use of just one scripture to support a doctrine, and yet the stance of a canon of 66 finds it's greatest support in the single scripture you quoted. However it also may support other views, such as the inclusion of the Apocryphal writings.

    God is more than just Christ. I can understand how someone who holds to an inerrant 66 book canon can believe God to be greater than Christ, as I was raised as a JW. I can also understand how someone with a similar foundation can believe Christ to be equal to the Father. Both theological positions (and others) are supported by quite a number of scriptures, depending on how you interpret them. So ultimately it comes down to the interpretation.

    I will say this, though - every exJW I know who has re-read the bible, attempting to begin from a neutral stance, has come to the conclusion that it speaks of Jesus as being far more than we were taught by the WTS. I'm not talking here just of believers, but of atheists alike.

    You don't have to believe that Jesus is God, and on the opposite end of the scale, you can continue to believe that he's merely an angel, if you wish (tis no skin off my nose). You can believe in the inerrancy of 66 books, or you can dismiss all of it. Nonetheless, a straight reading (rather than hopping around with prooftexts, as we were erroneously taught) reveals why the majority of bible scholars (believer and atheist alike) hold somewhat different views from JWs. It has also been one of the fundamental documents upon which Western philosophy is based.

    For no other reason than that, it bears reading, preferably with as little bias as can be conjoured up.

  • zagor
    zagor

    LT,

    First I did start this thread with one scripture, precisely Genesis 1:26, my intention was not to include Greek scripture at first at all. It was you my friend who introduced them in discussion, which I accepted and along the way raised a number of valid questions and I’m yet to receive a satisfactory answer from you or anyone else on any of those (please read all my posts on this thread again).

    I’m not in any way defending WTBS or their beliefs so I really hope you are not alluding to it as I find that statement offensive. Besides they are not the only Christian church or otherwise who rejects the trinity.

    I don’t believe Jesus is an angel, which makes me doubt that you actually read fully what I write or perhaps you just skim through it.

    On the personal note I find Trinitarian supporters are often behaving in a way evolutionist do, i.e. they’d rather make anyone not agreeing with them shut up or try to humiliate you with their theological achievements, which is why I was hoping I could have unrestrained discussion on this forum, perhaps I was wrong.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Zagor:I hope you're not looking for offense where there is none. Your last post would seem to indicate that you're on the borderline of letting your feelings get hurt. This is only a web-board, and it's only a discussion

    I was merely throwing some examples into the pot of the variety of ways in which scripture is interpreted. Since the topic is about "Trinity" (conversaions about which I have completely had my fill) and that most all of us here totally understand the JW perspective, it is for that reason alone that I used those extremes.

    Try to remember that although our comments might be directed towards one another, this isn't a private room. There are hundreds reading, many lurking, and quite a few are still active JWs. I hope this goes some way towards explaining why I replied as I did.

    For the sake of continued discussion, you might explain to me in what way I've not satisfied your request fro information. Mongst other things you seemed to be asking, with this thread, whether or not man was created in God's image as a triune being. I attempted to answer that by pointing you towards a historic thread, and am open to discuss it further and deeper, if you wish.

    Shalom, bro

  • zagor
    zagor

    That's okay, never mind. Perhaps when I visit Europe next year and if there is apostafest we can discuss it then

    There are hundreds reading, many lurking, and quite a few are still active JWs. I hope this goes some way towards explaining why I replied as I did.

    You are right

    Shalom Aleychem

  • hmike
    hmike

    Hi Zagor,

    Thanks for the reply.

    I'll try to give you an example of what I've referred to. I'm going to start with text from the web because it is easier to just paste it in here--I hope. (I've had problems in the past with pasting in text.)

    The reference here comes from the Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, authored by Dwight A. Pryor. I'm going to try to paste in the critical sections; the entire text can be found at www.jcstudies.com/oneGodandLord.html

    >>>

    ...when Israel affirms the Shema it acknowledges the indivisible unity of Y/H/W/H. The Hebrew word ehad speaks of unity not singularity. The One and Only God is a unity of all that he is-was-will be, of all his attributes, actions and appearances. Though he has many names, there are not many gods. The plural noun, Elohim, always takes a singular verb in the Hebrew when referring to the God of Israel. God's majesties are many and his manifestations manifold, but in himself he is indivisibly One.

    ...

    The textual revelation of ehad as oneness-in-unity is found from the very beginning of the Torah, in Genesis 1.5: "vay'hi erev, vay'hi voker, yom ehad" ("And it was evening, and it was morning, day one.") This first occurrence of ehad in the Bible unites two parts of a day, evening and morning, into one/ehad. No less telling is the use of ehad with reference to adam or humankind in Genesis 2.4. When the male and the female unite as husband and wife, "v'hayu l'vasar ehad" - "they shall become one flesh (body)." Two persons, equal but distinct, become inseparably joined together as one/ehad. In another instance, looking toward the end of all things, the prophet Ezekiel foresees a time when the children of Israel will be fully united, when the two "sticks" of Judah and Ephraim are joined in God's hand to become one/ehad.

    That ehad is used this way in the biblical text is important. Ehad points to unity, not singularity (yahid), and the implications of that bear profoundly upon the nature and character of the God of Israel. Consider, for example, the creation of humankind (adam), made in the image of God. Why does God make one person, then from the one make two (Adam v'Havvah), in order that the two shall become one? If ‘one' is the starting point, how can it also be the goal? Because man alone is yahid, a singularity, but when the two become ehad, a unity is achieved that far surpasses singularity. From the one, God forms two-that-become-one because he wants humankind to learn how to love. In singularity only self-love is possible; to love truly it takes an ‘other'. In learning how to love one's corresponding other, one learns how to love God.

    ...

    This veneration of Yeshua with and connected to Y/H/W/H is permissible only if he in some way is within the ehad of God. Otherwise such attributions of scriptures, functions, authority, power, and identity to him that apply exclusively to the God of Israel would violate the Shema's monotheism.

    If in any way Jesus as the Son is outside the sphere of God's ehad - whether as a godly man ‘adopted' by God and elevated to the highest place; or as a supernatural, ‘divine agent', maybe even the first-born of all creation, come down from heaven as a man - in either case Yeshua the Son remains outside the ehad of God and compromises his uniqueness, exclusiveness and indivisible unity. Quite simply, within a Jewish frame of reference, the risen Lord Jesus can be worshipped with HaShem only if in some ontological sense he operates within the oneness of God, i.e., is divine. Y/H/W/H shares his glory with no one; worship/service is reserved exclusively for him alone.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit