Posts by Dean Porter

14

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus in

this is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the trinity.

i ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later.

so jesus is not god.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

I am sorry if you think I am 'complicating' what you are saying. With respect I don't think I am . I am merely trying to point out what I see as a glaring omission
here to express the Intimate Knowledge of each other that the three persons of the trinity are supposed to have.

The fact that the Holy Spirit is not included in this statement is a weakness in the Trinity arguement that could easily be missed if one is not "reading between the lines'.

I am well aware of the depth of your knowledge and your familiarity with the arguements For and Against the trinity. It is for this reason I don't think there is any point in us discussing all the usual pros and cons because we have seen them all before. We have already made up our minds on those lines of arguement.

Therefore I am trying to dig deeper into other lines of reasoning to see what we can come up with. This may involve more complicated reasoning but it makes for deeper understanding.

On the subject above ( Matt. 11:27 ), whilst I realise Jesus was not trying to give an 'involved' arguement on the finer points of the Trinity : nevertheless I certainly believe the specific point he was making ( and the reason the account is in scripture ) is to stress the intimacy of the Father and the Son. Now as I read the scriptures , if the Trinity is revealed in the New Testament then accounts like this one SHOULD express the triune nature of the Godhead.

Many trinity arguements centre on debates about Jesus and the Father and the correct translation of a word. We swap experts views etc.etc.

But if the trinity is true then the Holy Spirit would simply be seen or referred to in simple texts like this one. If the Third person of the Trinity is missing - then no matter what we think of the Father and the Son - the Trinity can't be right without a fully fledged Third Person.

John 17 : 3 according to our context test only speaks of two persons to know for eternal life. The Father and the Son. See what I mean . Why is the Holy Spirit omitted there also ?

I appreciate that you think this may not be a Salvation issue. But I tend to think that if we can't get the true identity of God right what hope do we have getting anything else right ?

I won't be able to post on our other thread tonight but I will get back to that thread soon.

Regards,

Dean.

14

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus in

this is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the trinity.

i ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later.

so jesus is not god.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

you say he wasn't trying to teach them the Trinity ?

I'm surprised by that comment. I thought that teaching the Trinity concept was paramount in Jesus role if he was to reveal God to the Jews as he truly was and as they did not yet know him.

Jesus spoke of things that were difficult to grasp like the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood but that did not stop him teaching these things.

I am sorry but this seems to be a point where we must differ, because I think if the trinity was a biblical teaching it is in scriptures like this one where it SHOULD be clearly EXPOUNDED.

John 17 :3 , we don't need to go thru every scripture. I did say I wanted to look at KEY scriptures and I think this is one. I think you appreciate my point here. Clearly, the CONTEXT shows that the Term God here contextually only refers to the Father and it refers to him as the ONLY TRUE GOD.

YOU SAID context determines the number of persons meant by the term God in its occurences. So in this case it clearly means the Father only. Also the Holy Spirit is not mentioned here , AGAIN, so we only need to know the Father and the Son. I told you I saw problems with that understanding and this verse is one of them !

Yes, it takes a thief to catch one..... and I was well known for my Trinity Talks too.

Regards

Dean.

14

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus in

this is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the trinity.

i ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later.

so jesus is not god.

Dean Porter

Hooberus , with all due respect, you are back round to 1 Cor. 8: 5,6 again which I dealt with on that particular thread. I suggest you go back and read what I said there and in particular that nice qiotation that debunks your view that Lord and God must mean that the Father and the Son are both Jehovah. I am sure if you didn't get the point then , there is no point in me repeating it now. By the way I don't think you are appreciating the difference between " of " and " through". regards Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in 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,

Re: 1 Tim. 2:5 you didn't specifically state anything about the second occurance of God in this verse ? Or did you just mean it is the collective Godhead in both occurances ?

I am working on this verse with the intention of posting on Hooberus' specific thread at a later date. However , we are on the subject now ... so......

I like your illustration ( especially the Star trek reference - Live Long and Prosper - were you aware of the origins of the Vulcan V sign ? ; but thats another thread).

However. I think you are 'confusing' the role of an Ambassador and that of a Mediator. Using your illustration , if the Klingons and earthlings wanted to broker a relationship then certainly they would send Ambassadors to meet with earth's Ambassadors to thrash out a deal. Each Ambassador would naturally be a representative of their Race. But, if a deal could not be brokered then the matter would have to go to ARBITRATION and this is when a Mediator would be required.

The point is this, a Mediator would have to be a "middle-man" i.e. a neutral person
who does not belong to either disputing party, otherwise there would be bias. So, in such a situation a Vulcan could act as Mediator because the Vulcan is neither Klingon nor Earthling.

So in 1 Tim. 2:5 Jesus is not acting as a Representative or Ambassador but rather he is acting as the INDEPENDANT MEDIATOR who is in the Middle being not a member of either party who is in dispute.

God as Savior - no problem with that as the Father is the source of Salvation and Jesus is the Instrument of Salvation.

So , with regard to Begotten, you don't see creation implied in this term ?

Does not the word Begotten carry in it the sense of Birth / generation ?

With respect, you don't seem to have defined what Begotten means to you. You just imply it doesn't mean created , so what does it mean?

I threw in the phrase Eternally Begotten because it is the Athanasian Creed term.
You seem to be happy to use it. Yet, it made me wonder, because if you realised the truth of the trinity from your reading of the Bible ; you certainly didn't get this term from the bible as it does not use this term of Jesus.

( by the way , I have read "VINES" comments on his definition of Monogenos where he talks about unoriginated relationship etc. I honsetly think even he would have to admit that what he says goes beyond what the greek word means itself. He unashamedly profers an interpretation where I believe he puts the cart before the horse to arrive at his answer - if you know what I mean.)

The bible only states that he is the only-begotten not the Eternally -Begotten.

If the Son is Eternally - begotten and thus uncreated then why isn't the Father also described as Eternally -begotten ?

The fact that he isn't tells me that there is clearly a difference between the Existence of the Father and the Son.

I think the term Eternally Begotten was needed so as to try and get around this problem. Because surely Begotten implies a birth and thus a beginning to a life.

Again , I like your illustration regarding the AMOEBA. It is interesting that you use the term 'Procreation' as well. I see what you mean about the new cell being derived from the already existing matter of the original cell. So it could be viewed as having already been in existence. Therefore is it a new creation or just a reproduction ? Therefore is the begetting of the son a creation or a reproduction ?

Thus if the Son is is begotten from the already eternally existing Father is not the son eternal too, already existing ? I do see the import of all that and to tell the truth I have been thinking along those lines myself.

But these facts still remain. As per your Amoeba, the new cell arises from the pre -existent cell material but once it has its own membrane and nucleus it is a SEPERATE ENTITY. Also , once there is two Cells the Original Cell material in fact PRE-Dates the second cellular entity. Further, the second cellular entity only exists by virtue of the First cellular entity.

Has the new cell been born or created ? Does it have a BEGINNING ?

Therefore by this illustration I still see the Father as the Source of Life who pre-dates the Son who is now a Seperate Entity (not just seperate personality but seperate entity). I don't think even this scenario justifies a 'co -eternal' Godhead.

Enough from me ,

back to you ,

Dean.

14

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus in

this is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the trinity.

i ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later.

so jesus is not god.

Dean Porter

LittleToe,

Yes, I agree with you that the context relates to the men of those villages that would not recognise Jesus or his words with any merit.

In fact I had intended to point that out in my original post but neglected to do so.

However, the fact remains that the text says not man but NO-ONE. Why might this be ?

If the word man was in the text I think this could give a contextual understanding that Jesus knowledge of God was simply better than any man i.e. any other Rabbi or Priest.

But because it says 'No-one', I think the wider point that the text is stressing that whether on Earth OR in Heaven, Jesus' knowledge and Intimacy with the Father is incomparable.

Yes, the Angels do Know God,they have association and experience of him but their knowledge is not that of the Only-Begotten who resides in the Bosom position. They could not reveal what Jesus could.

The citizens of Chorazin and Bethsaida would attend their synagogue and learn about God from their learned men but they won't know about God to the extent that Jesus can reveal to them.

So I think my point still stands as to why the Holy Spirit is not included in this comment regarding the Intimate Knowledge between the Father and Jesus.

If the point of the text is to stress the intimacy of the Godhead that only Jesus can reveal then why not Detail all the persons of the Godhead ? Why miss one out ? If the term 'no-one' is to exclude all but the 'cognoscenti' then the Holy Spirit would have to be included to prevent any misunderstanding !

I found those two other texts you mentioned interesting but have to say that in reading them my attention was caught again by John 17:3.

In light of what we were discussing elsewhere, How many persons of the Godhead does the context show to be referred to here in the term God in verse 3 ? and which person of the Godhead is it ?

Cheers

Dean.

14

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5

by hooberus in

this is part 5 of a series of threads discussing specific verses used by the watchtower and others with similar beliefs to try to "disprove" the trinity.

i ask that comments deal with the specific issues related to each of these verses, and that "other verses" (even those related to the trinity) not specifically dealing with the verses and issues at hand be witheld until later.

so jesus is not god.

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

just a few thoughts on this verse for you to consider:

1. To explain away the problem of Jesus receiving all things from the father you use the illustration of a Father passing on his property to his Son. Yes, a Father and Son do share the same nature, but the point of your illustration just highlights that your Fathers property is NOT YOURS until such time as he Gives it to you.

So the shared nature means nothing regarding possession and ownership.

If Jesus gets something from the Father then obviously he did not have it before it was given.

2. For me the more important point about this verse which you seem to have missed ( probably because of the translation you are using ) is that once again the suppossed third member of the Trinity is omitted.

The greek text here does not have the word MAN in it , rather, the greek text says NO-ONE knows the Son, but the Father, and NO-ONE knows the Father but the Son.

Therefore, why is the Holy Spirit omitted once again. He does not know the Father like the Son does and He does not know the Son like the Father does. In fact the scripture says No-one knows the Father unless the Son reveals him to them.

Why would the Holy Spirit need to ask Jesus to reveal the Father to Him if they were all Persons of the same Godhead ?

Once again this scripture reveals the unique relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is completely ruled out of that relationship.

It don't make sense IF the Trinity exists ; but it makes perfect sense if there is no such thing as a Triune Godhead.

Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in 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,
sorry for delay but you know how it is , weekend , family responsibilities and the rest.

thanks for the reply about the 'number of persons' implied by the Term God.

So, along with your previous comment I understand you to be saying that sometimes context can show how many persons are meant and other times a comment re: Jesus Lordship shows that God can simply be referring to the Father.

Should it not be the case that when Jesus or the Son is mentioned next to God without further qualification that the Term God should mean the other two members of the trinity ?

If not, why not ?

Unless the scripture makes it clear in the context that the Father alone is meant or unless if the scripture actually states God the Father, should not the reader understand the term God to mean the other two persons of the trinity ?

For example: In the scripture that Hooberus was banging on about in 1 Tim. 2:5,
God is mentioned twice in the verse and Christ Jesus is mentioned seperately. Therefore , Does the number of persons inferred from the term God differ in each of the two occurances. Indeed maybe you could tell me how many persons exactly you understand to be inferred in each occurance God in this verse.

The reason I ask is because I foresee problems with the understanding of this verse
depending on how many persons are implied by God in each of its occurrences. Sincerely, I would appreciate your thoughts on this point as I am making a study of certain key texts with this thought in mind.

Now some replies to your questions.

1. Your first question re: the Word I think you were asking do I think the pre-existent Jesus was simply involved in the creation of Man or indeed in all Creation.
I would say that Colossians chapter 1 shows he was involved in the creation of all things and was thus the Fathers 'Master Worker' in Creation.

2. The extent that I see Christ as an Ambassador is more or less as I previously stated in the last post. He is the IMAGE of God. The Visible REPRESENTATION of the Father. The Father's Shaliach i.e. the Fathers Legal AGENT and PLENIPOTENTIARY.

"The Twentieth Century New Testament' expresses the thought well in its translation of John. 7:28,29...." Yet I have not come on my own authority, but he who sent me may be trusted; and him you do not know. I do know him , for it is from him that I have come, and he sent me as his MESSENGER.

3. The difference between Begotten and created ? You saved the best one for last and quite right to.

I think there is a fine shade of 'distinction' of meaning between these two terms rather than there being a 'difference'.

To create is to bring into existence; to beget is to 'procreate' or Father.

Both terms retain the thought of bringing into existence but the term Beget includes the thought of fathering sentient life whereas one could simply create a work of art.

Another relevant question might be: what is the difference between 'Uncreated' and
'Eternally Begotten' ?

Cheers LittleToe,

Dean.

7

Troublesome Trinty Verses Part 7

by hooberus in

this is part 7 of a series of threads which discuss verses used by the watchtower and others to "disprove" the trinity and deity of jesus christ.

each thread looks at a different verse.

please restrict your comments to the verse or closely related concept.

Dean Porter

Hooberus,

you clearly see the problem that this verse presents to your belief that the three persons of the Trinity are supposed to be co-equal; because how can they be if two persons do not share the same knowledge as the third person.

In reading your attempt to try and solve this problem you have not provided any scripture to explain "why" The Son or the Holy Spirit do not know this Information about the 'Day or the Hour'.

Instead you suggest that there is a 'deficiency' in the knowledge of God stated elsewhere in scripture. This seems like a strange defence to me as you appear to be undermining God's Omnipotence.

Further to this you suggest that this paradox of different levels of knowledge between the Godhead is probably such that mans mind could not comprehend and that also we can only know those details of God that God chooses to reveal to us.

You then attempt an explaination by saying that Jesus must have just ASSUMMED that the Holy Spirit knew and and thus didn't need to mention him in this verse.

I think your reasoning is seriously flawed for the following reasons :

1. The scripture simply states that ONLY the Father knows. So this imbalance of

knowledge is a fact.

2. If Jesus ASSUMMED that the Holy Spirit knew this information, then he was WRONG

for assumming. If he was wrong then he is not omnipotent and he is not God.

Further to this point ; why would he assumme this if he actually states that

Only the Father knows.

3. Whilst there may be some things about God that our minds could not comprehend

this is not one of them because God has revealed the details of this matter to

us in the bible.

If you care to take a closer look at The Book of Acts Chapter 1

verses 6 and 7 you will see that Jesus states that the Father has kept this

information to himself. Try reading this verse in different translations and

the meaning remains the same, i.e. that the Father alone has this knowledge.

For example.....

Schonfield's translation... " these are matters which the Father has RESERVED

EXCLUSEVLY for himself."

Barclay's translation... " these things are SOLELY in the Fathers control."

Moffat's translation... " that the Father has fixed by his OWN AUTHORITY."

Therefore the scriptures argue against there being equality of knowledge between the supposed three persons of the Godhead.

Thus it lays bare your erroneous supposition that if the scriptures say something to the contradiction of the Trinity it is simply something we can't understand.

When in fact there is another Option that you just will not admit to seeing, which is that the Father alone is GOD and that there is in fact no triune Godhead taught in scriptures.

I hope this information helps you reach a better understanding .

Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in 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,

don't worry about the length of the post : but I agree that a short concise post dealing with a few thoughts is much easier to reply to and helps to focus on one main topic.

You might find this strange but I think I can say that I totally agree with the content of your last post.

Now I am going to do some 'thinking out loud ' here, so don't quote me on this "as gospel'. I think you are right in that Jesus made the Angels as the Master Worker and in a sense Fathered them. However he could still be viewed as a brother of the angels because they were all still Sons of God despite the fact that Jesus was a unique or Only-Begotten Son.

I suppose in the same way that Adam fathered the Human race but in a sense could be viewed as our Brother because we can be all be viewed as Sons of God. Only he was a unique Son in the sense that he was brought into existence directly by God.

In JOB I think it is Yahweh who is speaking to Satan directly as it suggests that the assembly was before Yahweh's presence in heaven. Unlike us humans who Yahweh would speak to through His Angel. It would be the Word or Angel of the Lord speaking to JOB. I think the Word could speak about this angelic group and still include himself in that group.

I completly agree with your analogy re: Ghengis Khan and the Ambassador. This is precisely the arrangement I was meaning in an earlier post about Jesus being the Father's Shaliach. Jesus is the Father's Envoy / Apostle / Ambassador. His Plenipotentiary Agent who fully represents the Father acting and speaking for him AS IF HE WERE THE FATHER who sent him.

This for me explains all the texts that refer to Yahweh which are applied to Jesus and in particular the Text were Thomas exclaims MY LORD AND MY GOD because Thomas has recognised that Yahweh is present before him as visibly represented to him by the risen Shaliach Jesus.

In the same way that Yahweh 'appeared' to and 'spoke' to Moses face to face by means of His Angel in the burning bush. The angel was his Shaliach and therefore the Angel WAS Yahweh whilst exercising that role.

I hope that goes some way to explaining my view of Jesus. I don't view him as a simple low ranking Angel. No, he is the Image of God; the only-begotten Son who is in the BOSOM POSITION of the Father. He sit at the Father's Right-hand the position of favour and authority. Yet as high as these terms are he is still not Yahweh but is Yahweh's Shaliach to mankind.

The revelation still shows this by the way that Jesus is always seen 'seperate' from 'God' in the throne visions. Yes , as you say he is seperate from the 24 Elders and the other bene Ha Elohim but he sits at God's right-hand.

I don't think we are so far apart in our understanding. I think the only real difference is the extent of the Ambassadorial role of Jesus.

I started by saying I like short sharp posts and here I am posting another novel.

I will read some more on the Master Worker but the more I post here the more I find I need to research. My head is starting to hurt too.

By the way did you have a think about my question re: the understanding of how many persons are to be understood in the use of GOD in various passages using context.
Does the word GOD means a different number of persons in different contexts ?

This is an important question for me as I think it has a bearing on many important texts.

Regards

Dean.

133

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

by hooberus in

in 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,

Good Evening to you,

I have to say it , your mind is sharp and your posts show you are a deep thinker.
Which is good because it means I've got to 'be on my Toes' if you will pardon the pun.

Where is the Son reffered to in scripture as Bene Ha Elohim ? Good Question.

First of all I need to point out that I was not inferring that there was a Direct reference to the Son by this term - as I don't believe there is. However, I also don't believe this phrase is used directly in scripture to refer to any individual.
(You will no doubt keep me right on that one.)

The term, as you know occurs only a relatively few times. On the occassions it does it appears to be a GENERAL term refferring to a group. Therefore I believe it refers to the Son when the term is used to refer to the heavenly group that he belongs to.

The scriptures I am thinking of are JOB. 1:6 AND JOB. 2:1 and also JOB. 38:7 which you mentioned. I note that you have taken the term Master Worker from Proverbs 8 and supplanted it with your comments on JOB. 38. The speaker in JOB. 38 is God, not the Master Worker. The two classes of angels mentioned in JOB.38 are Morning-Stars and Angels. The Master Worker may well be one of the Morning-Stars.

Anyhow, I believe that the pre-incarnate Jesus was as the Pre-Emminent Only -Begotten Son was included in this assembly of Divine Beings mentioned in JOB.Therefore I think there is no problem in reffering to the Son as Bene Ha Elohim as surely he is the Primary and most emminent example of a Son of God.

" The International Standard Bible Encyclopeadia" Volume 1 page 124.....
......Angel: Definition and Terms......Bene Ha Elohim......MEMBERS OF THE CLASS CALLED ELOHIM.

"The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament" Volume 8 page 347.....
......BEINGS THAT BELONG TO THE DIVINE WORLD OR SPHERE.

" The Anchor Bible - Commentary by Mitchell Dahood" "psalms" page 50-51....
the gods ( bene ha elohim) MEMBERS OF THE HEAVENLY COURT OF YAHWEH.

Therefore if as I believe Jesus is not YAHWEH himself, then automatically I will see him as being the most senior member of ths Heavenly Court of Yahweh. I hope that explains why I used that term of Jesus. ( also I like the term and your understanding of it is a gauge for me of your discernment which I appreciate).

Regards

Dean.