LittleToe, I have used up all my available time tonight on that lengthy post to Hooberus. I'll hopefully be able to continue our edifying discussion tomorrow. Cheers for now 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 have mentioned various arguements here and I wish to address them all. However as you stated earlier in this thread,we end up talking about a different topic or scripture from the one we started out with. So for the moment I will leave the discussion on Jesus as Mediator as I want to have a good look at the previous thread where this was discussed at length before I throw in my pennys worth.
I have comments to make further on that topic but will probably post them on your other current thread that is dealing with that topic rather than on this one. So I will get back to you on that one.
With regard to 1 Cor. 8:5,6 you say that there was no contextual need for Paul to speak about the Holy Spirit because he was only talking about the contrast between the pagan lords and gods. But does not the Trinity doctrine mean that the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit are each and all Jehovah, each and all God and each and all Lord?
So therefore if Paul is defining here the christians God and Lord then I think there is a contextual need to show that all three persons share these Diety Titles. As I said right at the start of this thread its not so much what these verses say as what they do not say that is your problem.
You may be interested in reading an excerpt from a book I found during my research entitled " The Jesus Question " by John Ziesler ( senior lecturer of Theology University of Bristol). I will type the pertinent portions but by all means find the book and check the full text for verification.
page 60 " The word ( kyrios) thus has a spectrum of use, from the merely human to the divine, but probably always conveys the notion of legitimate as opposed to despotic authority.......as they read the septuagint which used kyrios in place of the divine name they completed the arguement Jesus is Lord, and Yahweh is Lord; therefore Jesus must be divine. THIS IS A SOMEWHAT MUDDLED ARGUEMENT, AND IS NO LONGER AS SECURE AS WAS THOUGHT.........the septuagint arguement is an odd one and proves too much , FOR NO ONE IN THE EARLY CHURCH WANTED TO EQUATE JESUS WITH YAHWEH. THEY DID WANT TO SAY HE WAS DIVINE, BUT THEY AVOIDED BALD IDENTIFICATION......
.....It is instructive to read again 1 Cor. 8:5,6 where Paul in calling Jesus 'Lord' SEEMS TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM YAHWEH THE ONE GOD......... page 62.....there is a reservation. Jesus is bracketed with God, YET CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED FROM HIM". end of quote.
The same writer states in the book "Pauline Christianity" in the Oxford Bible Series
page 33...." We may begin looking at 1 Cor.8: 5,6 ......GOD AND LORD ARE NOT IDENTICAL but are related in much as Yahweh and Wisdom are.....Jesus thus appears as the Christians answer to these many Lords , just as God the Father is their answer to the many gods.........NOW WHETHER OR NOT PAGANISM DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN gods and lords, PAUL DOES. JESUS IS LORD , THE FATHER IS GOD......
.....IN THIS PASSAGE 'LORD' THUS STANDS IN CLOSE ASSOCIATION WITH GOD, BUT IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH IT.........
page 37 ..... It is such passages that lend force to the often-quoted words of L. Cerfaux that ' Christ is Lord because he is God's vice regent, exercising a power that BELONGS to god'.This seems to be exactly right. God's powers and reign are excercised through Christ as God's PLENIPOTENTIARY REPRESENTATIVE, BUT CHRIST IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH GOD.THINGS TRADITIONALLY SAID ABOUT GOD MAY NOW BE SAID ABOUT CHRIST, BUT NOT THAT HE IS GOD." end of quote.
Says it all I think.
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
LittleToe,
my apologies for keeping this post brief as once again I have had difficulty getting on line and it is now late and I'm tired and may not make sense.
I think I've got the hang of the return button now.
Your last comments mentioned that there are " some things" that the Father does not know. Can I ask you to elaborate on what these things are and where in scripture it is pointed out that the Father lacks such Knowledge.
With regard to Jesus learning obedience in his heavenly pre -existence I believe the fact that he was the "sent one" from the Father shows he obediently gave up his heavenly glory so as to sojourn on earth to fulfill God's promise as the seed that would come. Also like other loyal 'bene ha elohim' he ramained obedient and faithful to the Father when other 'bene ha elohim' rebelled with Satan.
I did know that Barclay was scottish and a trinitarian. What I like about Barclay (apart from his obvious knowledge and skill in writing ) is the fact that he is honest and candid about certain passages and texts so as to say what he sees in the text and not be influenced by what he is supposed to see by the orthodoxy of his denomination.
Its late .... I'll be sleeping in 5 minutes. zzzzzzzzz
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 the term God in 1 Tim. 3:15 is a matter of debate. Well, you pays your money you take your choice. I am of the opinion that thru the work of people like Tichendorf that the debate was over and that " who" was and is the correct reading.
But whichever side is correct - if the reading is still debatable as you put it, then I don't think you can rely upon it to prove your case. So as I said previously it carries no weight with me.
The other scriptures you quote ( with the exception of John 1:14 ) could also be termed debatable as to their rendering and their interpretation.Having said that taking them as you will no doubt read them I still don't see how they support your view that Jesus was and is 'simultaneously' God and Man.
For example John chapter 1 says the "divine word" became flesh it doesn't say the word became a God / Man. In fact doesn't the famous passage in Phillipians chapter 2 say that Jesus emptied himself of his heavenly form. If he was still fully God on earth then in what way did he lower himself ?
Also the passage in Timothy about the mediator being the man Jesus could simply refer to Jesus as the man he was during his earthly sojourn.
Colossians 2: 9 is a difficult passage due to the rarity of the greek word used there. So the exact interpretation is difficult. But again I think it falls short of saying that he was a God /Man duality that you seek to read into it.
Consider this passage as rendered in Schonfield's translation " for it is in him that the immensity of the divine wisdom corporately dwells...". No God/Man in that rendering which really bears true to the context of the passage and the arguement/ line of reason that Paul is using.
Also, if I understand you correctly you are saying Jesus is now a Man in Heaven and by that I can only understand you to mean he is flesh ! Yet 1 Cor. chapter 15 seems to highlight the difference between Flesh and Spirit in the resurrection culminating in verse 50 with the words..." I tell you this my brothers that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Realm of God..."
You say you will address some of the other points I raised in an earlier entry. I hope so and in particular I would like to see your thoughts on why the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 as either God or Lord. Why doesn't Paul say 'there is to us One Lord God the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit'. ?
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
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.
-
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.