Need help on the trinity and John 1:1

by toladest 42 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  GD:
  That's my point. It's intentionally not the other way around.

  Alan nailed it when he highlighted that it's about "substance". There are other scriptures which make the same point, that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father.

  If Christendom wasn't so knee-jerk against the concern of being labelled polytheistic, it might accept a triune family of Father / Mother / Son.

  The next step of quantifying what "substance" this family is made of becomes the link needed to the Trinity doctrine. Godstuff (allegedly) is eternal and everywhere, simultaneously, regardless of which person is made of it.

  Another step again, whioch would be anathema to most Christian religions, is the idea that if this godstuff is everywhere, then it must inhabit every molecule of us and the rest of nature - pantheistic, almost.
• 

  zen nudist

  my youngest brother, never a JW, raised catholic, but definitely an anti-trinitarian.... came up with the notion

  that THE WORD of John 1:1 refers to the promises of GOD which were made flesh in Jesus.
• 

  Narkissos

  Grammar here is of limited help.

  The only sure conclusion from the combination of an anarthrous theos with an articulate logos is that logos is the subject and theos is the attribute / predicate. The "logos was theos," not "the theos was logos".

  Cf. 1 Jn 4:8, ho (article) theos (subject) agape (anarthrous, predicate) estin: "God is love," NOT "love is God" (which would be theos he agape estin).

  The real issue as to the meaning of theos, "God" or "a god" in John 1:1 depends not on grammar but on the conceptual context of the occurrence. Simply put, is it a polytheistic work? In that case there would be no problem in translating "a god" (e.g. theos hen [ho] Dionysos, Dionysos was a god).

  Imo the whole context of the Johannine writings has nothing to do with polytheism. Instead it offers an interesting inclusive version of both Jewish (religious) and Greek (philosophical) monotheism -- one God, but potentially including all his "children" -- through the first of them all, his "only Son" aka. the Logos.

  In this perspective the NWT is plain wrong, but not on grammatical grounds -- rather for disregarding the conceptual context. Certainly John doesn't mean that the logos is another god. He is God within the world, within his own (chapters 1; 14; 17 are especially clear on this issue).
• 

  renee_robburts

  Arian doctrine Jesus was hetrousios (like substance of God)

  Athanasisus doctrine homousious (same substance of God)

  For whatever reason Constantine supported the Athanasisus doctrine during the Niceian debate and this is what became known as the apostles creed. During my search on the trinity beliefs i found no document supporting such theory it is all based on faith.

  I choose to beleive the arian belief which is Jesus is not God, yet he is of the essence of God; the Holy Spirit (instrument of God) indwelled in Jesus when he was baptized. Therfore from this God, by means of the Holy Spirit worked through Jesus and after death became devine.
• 

  the_classicist

  For whatever reason Constantine supported the Athanasisus doctrine during the Niceian debate and this is what became known as the apostles creed. During my search on the trinity beliefs i found no document supporting such theory it is all based on faith.

  I choose to beleive the arian belief which is Jesus is not God, yet he is of the essence of God; the Holy Spirit (instrument of God) indwelled in Jesus when he was baptized. Therfore from this God, by means of the Holy Spirit worked through Jesus and after death became devine.

  The Apostles Creed was actually an old baptism creed, likely from Jerusalem.

  Constantine himself was both an Arian and Trinitarian at different times in his life and he was baptised before his death by an Arian bishop. If you look at Constatine's letters, he was a bridge builder and tried to reconcile both sides instead of simply defeating Arius because Constantine did not want a schism which would rip his empire in half.

  Athanasios himself said in "A Monk's History of Arian Impiety," : "If a decision was made by the bishops, what concern had the emperor with it? Or if it was but a threat of the emperor, what need then was there of the designated bishops? When in the world was such a thing ever heard of ? When did a decision of the Church ever receive its authority from the emperor? Or rather, when was his decree even recognized? There have been many councils in times past, and many decrees made by the Church; but never did the Fathers seek the consent of the emperor for them, nor did the emperor busy himself in the affairs of the Church."

  The Fathers of the Nicene Council agreed with the Nicene Creed b/c they found it to be traditional and biblical, not simply because the Emperor supported it. And it must be noted that when Constantine became an Arian later in life and tried to impose it on the Church, the Church did not accept it b/c it wasn't a part of orthodox doctrine.
• 

  A Paduan

  What a strange debate
  
  'Arian' proponents against Jesus being 'God' are simply reinforcing the concept of "some other guy who's different and really in charge of you" (and a very jw one too)
  
  Consider this:
  
  
  
  

  What's the substance ? I am who I am
  

  
  
  It's just not a jw sort of thing I think.
  

  
  
  
• 

  toladest

  Wow! I can't believe all the replies and in depth discussion! AlanF I really liked your way of explaining it. A lot of you made real valid points and brought up interesting ideas. I did not realize that there were SO MANY ways to interpret one scripture. This is the kind of stuff that made me realize that the bible was not so perfect. It seems to me that anyone can rationalize ANYTHING with the scriptures.

  Another thing that boggled my mind is the realization I came to when I really studied the God of the OT and the God of the NT. They really seem so different. The OT God seems so angry and full of vengence whereas the NT God seems to lean more towards kindness and forgiveness. It seems to me that "God" is what people make of him.......
• 

  googlemagoogle

  It seems to me that anyone can rationalize ANYTHING with the scriptures.
  
  it not only seems so.
  
  that's why there are so many "bible-based" or "bible-explaining" books out there. and they all disagree. if god existed (and i don't believe that) and the bible would be "god's word" (which i also not believe of course), he did an awful job making his point clear. he doesn't deserve being praised.
• 

  the_classicist

  that's why there are so many "bible-based" or "bible-explaining" books out there. and they all disagree. if god existed (and i don't believe that) and the bible would be "god's word" (which i also not believe of course), he did an awful job making his point clear. he doesn't deserve being praised.

  That's 'cause you think sola scriptura is the only viable Christian doctrine in terms of revelation.
• 

  googlemagoogle

  now you'll tell me about your "personal experiences", mr. flanders? ;-)