Trinity- True or False

by defd 215 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  I just got back from occupational therapy and had new 2 new hand splints made for me

  Sorry to hear that, hope you`ll be ok.

  Question for all Bible and greek scholars here (my skills in this department are very limited): 8:12:

  "Then Jesus spoke out again, “I am the light of the world. The one who follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

  Clear claim of some sort of deity! Then follows: John 8:19, which says:

  "Then they began asking him, “Who is your father?” Jesus answered, “You do not know either me or my Father. If you knew me you would know my Father too.

  Ok, this is at least a claim of Messiah-hood, but Jesus clearly says that there is a very close link between the two! And almost immediately after follows: John 8.24:

  "Thus I told you that you will die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”

  I know that biblicial language is often very "decorative", etc, but I have to ask: Why this sentence structure, and why the expression "I am he", if all Jesus wanted to say, was that he was the Messiah? He had allready made that clear long ago, twice in the same conversation with the followers (this is the part where they`re about to stone that adulteress). The point is: Yes, maybe it isn`t possible to claim that "ego eimi" is the greek translation of Yhwh, but the two expressions (the linguistic meaning of the name of god - although Yhwh of course means something more in addition to "I am", as it is, of course, Gods name ) and the greek expression "ego eimi" means the same thing (as close as you can possibly get two expressions from two different languages, of course, the same frase in two different languages will never mean exactly the same thing). My point is: IF John didn`t intend to claim that Christ was part of the deity, WHY wouldn`t he use other words than the ones he used? WHY does he always come back to the "I am" - espression, especially since what usually follows after "I am", is "nothing in particular? In the above mentioned conversation/passages, Jesus has allready claimed twice, before the "I am he"-statement, that at least he is the Messiah! If all he wanted to say was that he was the Messiah, why wouldn`t John say that he said "I am the Messiah", or "I am the messenger of God" or "I am the son of God" or "I am really, really close to my dad, you know" (....) or whatever? Why this exact phrase? A phrase that is stated over and over? If not...
• 

  zen nudist

  (the linguistic meaning of the name of god - although Yhwh of course means something more in addition to "I am", as it is, of course, Gods name ) and the greek expression "ego eimi" means the same thing (as close as you can possibly get two expressions from two different languages, of course, the same frase in two different languages will never mean exactly the same thing)

  this is the root of the problem , Ego Ami does not mean the same as YHWH, and the translators of the septuigent did not translate it as such, they translated it as HO ON.... THE ETERNAL... saying I am THE ETERNAL[one]

  not just I am which has no divine or undivne aspect whatso ever
• 

  JosephMalik

  The writers of the NT, the Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc. show an acquaintance not only with the Greek OT but also with intertestamental books that circulated during the period. That would constitute evidence that they were in contact with the textual tradition of the LXX, the pre-Theodotionic text, and other versions/writings, and that such texts circulated. No?

  Leolaia,

  No!. That some spoke Greek and may have translated some texts into Greek is not what we are talking about here. Does this mean that the LXX as we now know it existed at such a time? And further did this influence John in some way and did John even know about any such documents? If this cannot be determined then how could the existence of such documents or any documents for that matter be used as proof for such dependence or influence? Despite claims that such a version existed several hundred years BC there are other claims that they did not and evidence is given to show that this was all based upon fables. Just Google “LXX version” and see for yourself. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/LXXJophus.html is a good place to start.

  Leolaia: Like alphabetic acrostics??? I don't have a clue what is meant here....

  An acrostic is a scroll where the first word of a sentence or paragraph is spelled out and all the rest of the words contain only their first letter, the identity of such a word added and annunciated from memory. This is what was used in the Temple as complete scrolls were too rare and fragile. And they were in Hebrew from the photocopies that I have seen in my biblical references. This explains: John 7:14 Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. 15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

  Joseph
• 

  inquirer

  Littletoe --
  
  Why upset at this verse? The point isnb't about who was called a "god" in the bible, as Thomas' explicit use of it. What was his opinion? Did he view Jesus as a "god" in the sense of Satan or Moses, or did it go deeper than that?

  Yes he did, just read these verses below. "God" was use for Jesus, Satan, human judges and even the belly! We shouldn't let a couple of Scriptures to conclude a trinity. Philippians 3:19 and their finish is destruction, and their god is their belly, and their glory consists in their shame, and they have their minds upon things on the earth. John 10:34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: "YOU are gods"’? 35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot be nullified, Psalms 82:1-6 God is stationing himself in the assembly of the Divine One; In the middle of the gods he judges:

  2 "How long will YOU keep on judging with injustice

  And showing partiality to the wicked themselves? Se´lah.

  3 Be judges for the lowly one and the fatherless boy.

  To the afflicted one and the one of little means do justice.

  4 Provide escape for the lowly one and the poor one;

  Out of the hand of the wicked ones deliver [them]."

  5 They have not known, and they do not understand;

  In darkness they keep walking about;

  All the foundations of the earth are made to totter.

  6 "I myself have said, ‘YOU are gods,

  And all of YOU are sons of the Most High.

  Surely if Satan was called a god Jesus could too! It just takes some readjustments in our thinking. There's not enough proof in the Bible that Jesus is God. I am sure the ancient Israelities would not have graspped this concept! Jehovah didn't say "And by the way Adam, Jesus is God too." He didn't say to Moses and "Jesus is God too, but I won't reveal him until the time of the Roman empire in the 1st century AD!" lol
• 

  Cygnus

  Hellrider, not much time here sorry, but I believe Jn 8:58 is unique both in its contextual grammar to make its importance time, but also it differs linguistically from all the other "I am [he]" statements. I see all these (extra non- Jn 8:58) ego eimis as being nothing more than part of Jesus' claim to be the promised Messiah, not YHWH, and nothing else. To assume more is to violate and presume upon the texts.

  I am not feeling well and might head for bed. See you all in several hours.
• 

  DannyHaszard

  WOW apostates sure are smart people.Do you think the WT writing staff will plagiarize this thread? ----------- Watchtower Whistleblower: Danny Haszard Bangor Maine Jehovah's Witnesses are the 'perfect storm' of deception-in a word they are the cult of Innuendo
• 

  LittleToe

  Boys, boys, boys! I already told ya that I'm not gonna argue for or against the Trinity.

  My sole pre-occupation in this thread is the Deity of Christ.

  Kindly don't do the JW-thang and sidestep it into denigrating my comments on the basis of a different doctrine from the one which I'm addressing, when referencing me.

  To that end I leave open the Thomas quote, for Inquirer and Defd, with the comment "so what did Thomas believe?", but while awaiting a reply move onto the passage now under primary discussion - John 8 "I AM":

  Again, setting aside any ideas pertaining to Trinity, or claims to be "the Father" (of which I don't know anyone who believes this, except maybe a few Modalists), etc., what is John claiming he's saying?

  He clearly isn't just saying that "I was around before Abraham", as if he were merely ancient of days. He uses a different tense.
• 

  JosephMalik

  He clearly isn't just saying that "I was around before Abraham", as if he were merely ancient of days. He uses a different tense.

  Little Toe,

  What good are grammar arguments in proving a something like this? We have grammatical rules today and may think that similar rules existed then but did they? And were such authors schooled in such rules? Further has anyone ever broken a grammatical rule to emphasize a point? Like a slap in the face this gets your attention quick. And are we to believe that Jesus did not answer the question put to him? After all John starts out his Gospel with this very information in his first verse. Is it now to be concealed or never used again? How did John know about it then? Could it not be from such comments?

  Joseph
• 

  ozziepost

  LT:

  Do ya think we'll get a reply from Defd on the Thomas question? Or on the question I posed to him on the Deity of Christ based on texts from Revelation:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/96120/1641625/post.ashx#1641625

  Have you noticed a policy of ignoring the hard questions? Or perhaps checking in "the Index", eh?

  Cheers, Ozzie (true freedom class)
• 

  Cygnus

  LT, I know you aren't arguing the trinity. That's why I said your ideas would probably fundamentally differ from an Eastern Orthodoxian. From a brief search on the WT-CDROM here's a snippet of what I came up with regarding the JW christological ideas of Jesus' (and the 144,000's) deity:

  *** w67 8/1 pp. 455-456 A New Administration of Earth’s Affairs ***

  “Happy and holy is anyone having part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no authority.” Jesus looked forward to sharing in a marvelous resurrection, and his followers happily anticipate this. They are raised up from their earthly bodies, which are mortal and corruptible, and changed, in that they are given incorruptible, immortal bodies. They are able to enter into the very presence of God, who is immortal. The “second death” symbolized by the “fiery lake that burns with sulphur” into which the “wild beast” and the “false prophet” were hurled has “no authority” over the 144,000, for immortality means deathlessness. Jesus Christ was given “indestructible life” and these are sharers with him.—1 Cor. 15:53, 54; Heb. 7:16.

  *** w52 7/1 p. 412 Restrictions of Christian Freedom ***

  Man is not the only creature that has bounds set to his relative freedom. Since it is written that man is ‘made a little lower than the angels’, it appears that the area of relative freedom enjoyed by the angels would be somewhat greater than that of faithful man. (Heb. 2:6, 7, NW) Then there are the 144,000 members of the glorified Kingdom organization in heaven who are “sharers in divine nature”, which is a status still higher than that of any of the angels. So with like reasoning it must be concluded that these glorious immortal sons of God enjoy a vast field of relative freedom conformative to their new creation. (2 Pet. 1:4; 2 Cor. 5:17, NW) Of the resurrected Christ Jesus, the King, it is written, “He is the reflection of his [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being.” (Heb. 1:3, NW) Truly this exalted one has a relative freedom of great free-will action that must approximate that of God himself. Yet, in fact, Jehovah as the Sovereign Superior is the sole one who has absolute freedom. (bold and italics mine)

  Edited to add: Joe Malik, you have a PM sir. :)
  Secondary edit: "deathlessness" to a JW means a state of undying, or incapacity to die. These personages rely on no external means to support their life, but have as the Bible calls it 'life within themselves'. And they cannot be put out of life, they are indestructible. Angels do not possess this obviously; Satan and his hordes end up in Gehenna, which, again, to a JW means utter annihilation from which there is no escape. Granted, do contemporary JWs think about this stuff? No. I bet even most professed "anointed" couldn't coherently explain it. But there it is in black-and-white.