LittleToe, Hi again. Thanks for those thoughts. I am interested in which translations you read. You say that they played a major factor in reappraising what you had previously understood about Jesus. I have looked at several over the years and have a few favourites myself. I particularly like MOFFAT's translation and GOODSPEED's American translation. The one I am reading at the moment is one I would definately recommend - Hugh J. Schonfields Authentic New Testament. Have you heard of that one ? I take your point about Jesus being described as 'doing God-type things' and being 'likened to God' but I believe that this is not inconsistant with a non-trinitarian understanding. I don't think most readers fully appreciate the Jewish principles involved in the role of "The Shaliach". Professor Barclay wrote an excellent piece on this subject in his book " Jesus - As they Saw Him". It is found in the chapter discussing Jesus role as God's Apostle. Jesus is the Sent One ' The Fathers Special Envoy who represents him as if the Father was himself there present in person. This explains so much of how certain passages about Jehovah are fulfilled in Jesus etc. Much like as Jesus says that how we treat his 'Brothers' we treat him because his followers are his representatives; but on a much grander scale. You seem to imply acceptance of the fact that Jesus did not have the same knowledge of the Day and Hour of his Return. So therefore I take it you are conceeding that point ? However, you say that the Father also lacked Knowledge about obedience as if that cancels out Jesus lack of Knowledge ? I don't see the logic in that because it still means there is a difference in knowledge between two persons of the Godhead. Also, I believe you are indirectly referring to Heb. 5:8 where it says that Jesus "learned obedience" and therefore the inferrence is that this is knowledge that the Father has not learned or have. A few problems with that reasoning : that scripture is saying that Jesus learned obedience to the one who would save him from death - namely the Father. By his faithful course even to death, he learned obedience to the Father that he would not have known otherwise. This tells me again that the Son is subject to the Father not equal. Also the Father will never need to die so will never need to learn obedience to the death ! However, Jesus would need to learn the date of his return! But another point about the Day or the Hour is the fact that the scripture doesn't even mention the Holy Spirit. Jesus doesn't know nor do the Angels ! But the Holy Spirit is omitted from mention at all. Then the scripture says in fact that ONLY THE FATHER KNOWS. So again there is in fact two persons of the Godhead who do not know what the Father knows !!! what do you think.... Dean.
Dean Porter
JoinedPosts by Dean Porter
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus, you quote 1 Tim 3:16 in support of your claim that Jesus was " God manifest in the flesh ". I am surprised that you used that rendering of that scripture because I think it is common knowledge nowadays that the rendering 'God' is the result of a corruption in the manuscript texts. The better and more reliable texts read / translate as 'He' who was or simply 'who' was. I don't think I need to list all the modern translations as proof; just check a few for yourself. So, that scripture carries no weight with regard to your arguement. Reading your comments you say that Jesus is still a Man in Heaven. That is a new thought to me. Is that a universal understanding in Trinitarian circles ? Do all trinitarians believe he is a fleshly man in Heaven ? Also, if he was fully a man and fully God whilst on earth then how can trinitarians argue that the Father was only greater because Jesus was in the flesh. If Jesus is GOD then he is God. If he is not all powerful or all knowing in the flesh on earth then he is not GOD. You don't need me to list all the scriptures that show this fact.Scripture says he did not know the Day or the Hour; it was not his to give to the Boarnerges their place at his right hand - only his Father could decide that. So if he does not exercise the same power that his Father has then to my mind he is not fully God 100% as you suggest he was. The trinitarian wants to 'eat' his cake and 'have' it.
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
LittleToe,
thanks for replying. I am sorry it has taken so long to reply myself but some nights I can't access this site for some reason? Anyway , you said it is the Context that makes it obvious that the Father was referred to in that scripture by the term God. Is it the ' loose rule' then that the context will show the reader How Many PERSONS of the Godhead are being referred to when a scripture Mentions GOD. Particularly so when another person of the Trinity is mentioned alongside the term God. What I am getting at is - How many 'persons' does the term God mean and does the amount of persons it means change from verse to verse?
With regard to your comments re my inability to spot falsehood ! Well the J.W.'s helped me to spot the Falsehoods that I had been raised to from childhood. So my association with The Borg ( to borrow a funny term from this board ) helped me to develop my love for the Truth and develop my reasoning powers. It was because I didn't stop thinking and reasoning that I now find I can no longer accept the falsehoods that they teach re 607 bce and the 1914 Generation etc. However, I believe they were and are right about the Trinity. What makes me think I have researched this subject well enough? The fact that I have and continue to research it. I try to remain open minded and objective and try to continually " test my faith " as scripture says to. I never rested with the Society's explainations and always wanted to search further and deeper. I suppose the reason I am posting here means I am still researching and proving my belief.
Have you never believed anything at one time which you eventually realised was wrong? -
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Littletoe, you say that in 2 Cor. 13:14 it is " obvious " that it is The Father that is being referred to here as God. Can I ask you how it is that you come to that "obvious" conclusion ? Thanks Dean.
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus,
you say that Jesus prayed to the Father because Jesus had Two Natures and it was because of his human nature that he prayed to the father. But surely if he still had Divine nature then he was still God , according to your understanding. Therefore you still have the problem where you have God praying to God. This does not make sense to me and the fact he had human nature as well does not negate this problem. Also,you suggest that The Watchtower sometimes teaches that the Father and Jesus are the same person. This is not a fair criticism. Having been associated with the Watchtower for 16 years (formerly having been a Trinitarian) I think I would have spotted that if it was the case. It maybe some JW individuals sometimes get confused and state that error but I think the Society are pretty clear that the Dogma is three persons in One God. There has been many an accusation of the Society setting up a Strawman but this time on this point I think you have set up a Strawman.
Dean. -
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
ellderwho, thanks for clarifying that for me and sorry for taking a time to reply (had to sleep then go to work). Yes I agree that the Holy Spirit is required to understand that Jesus is Lord. I fully agree with Paul calling Jesus Lord. The point that Hooberus originally alluded to at the beginning of the thread was that by calling Jesus Lord, Paul is equating Jesus with God / Jehovah. One of the points I was trying to make was that the Title Lord when applied to Jesus does not necessarily equate him with God. The word Lord has various levels of application and depth of meaning. We need to find out what Paul meant here by applying that title. If he was simply trying to equate the Father and the Son to show that they are the same God then why did he not simply say " but to us there is one LORD GOD the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He would therefore have conjoined both titles in one and clearly shown that all three persons mentioned are all and the same LORD GOD. As I said previously , if this new teaching of the trinity was needed to be shown and explained then why did he not do so here in these terms. To my mind I therefore see that this was not his intent as he was not trying to equate the Father and the Son as the same GODHEAD. He was trying to show that worship of the Father now required recognising the role and authority of his Son Jesus whom he had anointed to act as our LORD i.e our Master / King / Messiah. So Paul skillfully shows the intimacy of the relationship between the Father and the Son whilst still showing the difference in their status. Let me quote from a refernce work that I found at a local reference library. A JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - Chapter 7 page 52-53 " The God of Judaism and of the Bible is affirmed by Paul; he speaks of his eternal power and of his Godhood which has been known since the creation of the world. Not God , therefore but the means of knowing him has changed.....He ( referring to Christ the Son) is an offshoot of God, not identical with Him but subject to the Father, just as the Logos was a manifestation of God's mind, not identical with God......The Pauline distinction between God and the Christ is emphasized in the word Lord ( Kyrios) which in literal Greek meant master, ruler or simply sir.....Paul...consistently reserves 'God' for God and never alludes to God as 'Lord' Lord, somewhat as in Philo , is an attribute of God but not God himself. Christ then is an aspect of God ; godly , yet not God". So this view sees the term Lord as clearly demonstrating a 'difference' between the Father and the Son, an entirely opposite view to the trinitarian view expressed by Hooberus. I have other similar quotes from other reference works saying much the same. Therefore in 1 Cor. 8 : 5,6, I see not a triune God expressed but the special role that the Lord Messiah has in relation to the worship of God the Father. I welcome your further thoughts on this reply. Dean.
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Ellderwho, I am not entirely sure I understand what you are asking me here. Could you elaborate for me the crux of your question and then I can give an answer rather than guess at what you are asking. Thanks Dean.
-
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Classavenger,
you say that Paul was not trying to give a lesson on the Trinity here and thus did not need to mention the HOLY SPIRIT. Well, whilst I respect your point of view and your right to believe what you want, I think you are avoiding the point of my earlier comment. Many have pointed out in print and on the internet that Paul was using the terms of the Shema in this passage. By doing so he was showing the importance of the Christ to our faith and how bound up together is the acknowledging of the authority of the Christ as part and parcel of our worship of Isreals God THE FATHER. Now, I believe that trinitarians say that the Trinity is outlined and revealed in the New Testament. Surely this was an opportunity for Paul to instruct on the Trinity if this was a major part of the new light that Christians had to teach especially to Jews who had only previously understood God to be one person. However, He does not do so. You suggest that he " had no reason to" i.e. speak about the Holy Spirit here. Well I cannot see your reasoning here because surely if Paul 's purpose in this passage and in all his writings is to proclaim the new light of the Trinity then every opportunity to do so would be clearly taken and lucidly demonstrated. Why did he not say " but to us there is only One God, the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit. If the Trinity was a bible doctrine he would surely have stated it here. He does not do so because he does not teach a triune Godhead. I think that some of the strongest arguements against belief in the trinity is not what some passages do say but rather what some passages DO NOT SAY. For all the debate we could go in to over titles like LORD and GOD and the application of them to the Father and the Christ , the SIMPLE point here in this passage where Paul is discussing the important persons in our worship he only mentions TWO PERSONS not three. I think this is a serious omission and one that would confuse the readers if the Trinity was later to be enunciated further. But to my mind I think it is the case that Paul has simply stated that the Father and the Christ are the objects of our worship. Christ being our Lord to the glory of .... GOD THE FATHER.
I responded to this topic as I felt that this scripture is one of the strongest arguements against the Trinity and no amount of " stretching the truth" is going to change the fact of what it says and what it does not say.
regards
DEAN -
133
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1
by hooberus inin this series i hope to discuss some common verses used by the watchtower to "disprove" the trinity and deity of the lord jesus christ.
the first one is 1 corinthians 8:6: .
"but to us there is but one god, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one lord jesus christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
-
-
Dean Porter
Hooberus, I think you are really stretching the meaning of this verse beyond belief. Clearly Paul is showing the importance of the position and role of Christ in the faith of the Christian but at the same time upholding the fact that THE FATHER is still the one and only God. If Paul was trying to show monotheistic Jews that JHWH was in fact three persons then why did he not mention the Holy Spirit in this passage? If Pauls intention here was to show new light on the identity of GOD then he only at best showed that the Godhead was composed of the Father and the Christ. But even that is not actually proved here. It is such a simple and clear statement - the Father is God. The terms Lord and God can be applied to many individuals and they are in the bible to the Father and the Christ AND ALSO to men. Paul is not saying that only the Christ can be called Lord as the term Lord was even used in Bible times as a simple form of address like we would address a person as Sir or Lord ( like a Judge or Minister ). Paul is just showing that our faith revolves around these two most important persons and of these only the Father is God. I could write much more on the subject but it would be pointless as the truth of the scripture is so simple and straight forward. There is no question of bad translation or debate about Greek words - the Father is God - end of story. Goodnight to the Trinity!
-
46
Top Ten Bands/Artists in no order whatsoever
by Lycurgus inall right folks... the number one most important thing about a person is?
you guessed it, what kind of music they listen to.
so list your top ten bands/artists in no particular order.
-
-
Dean Porter
1. The Cocteau Twins 2. The Skids 3. Bill Nelson ( ex Be Bop Deluxe) 4. Sparks 5. David Bowie 6. Elvis 7. The Beatles 8. Jimi Hendrix 9. Kraftwerk 10. The Armoury Show Hope there are 'some' unfamiliar names in there that will prompt some of you to investigate further. Happy listening. Dean.