Dean Porter

Joined

• started 0 topics
• posted 74 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Dean Porter

• 
  72

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

  i will take some of these and start theads for them.

  due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  
  by all means ,please play Devil's advocate as I would rather know if there was error in my reasoning rather than keep deluding myself.
  
  
  I hadn't thought of the Greek circumstance of Timothy but as his Jewish mother raised him in the knowledge of the Jewish faith then angelic messengers would be as familiar to him as would be the Greek Messenger Gods like Mercury.
  
  
  Now, to go back to a scripture you mentioned previously Gal. 3:20. I am glad you mentioned it as it is one I wanted to comment on.
  
  
  Whilst it mentions Mediators it is not referencing the same situation mentioned in the Timothy verse.
  
  
  Paul was also well versed in priciples of LAW. He speaks here about the difference in Law between a CONTRACT and a PROMISE.
  
  
  The LAW COVENANT was a CONTRACT between 2 parties, namely God and the nation of Israel and was agreed and mediated by an agent or mediator ( Moses ). Our own law today recognises that a contract is agreed between 2 parties who have come to
  
  'consensous in idem' and thus bind each other to obligations and who cannot just cancel the effect of the contract.
  
  
  However, Paul contrasts this arrangement with the PROMISE that Jehovah made to Abraham. This is as is today in Scotland Known as a UNILATERAL OBLIGATION or a GRATUITOUS PROMISE. This means that 1 party simply PROMISES to do something to the benefit of another and thus binds and obligates themself to perform this promise. No agreement is required to be established with the other party and the other party is under no obligation.
  
  
  So Paul is here contrasting the superiority of the abrahamic covenant over the Law Covenant by this astute definition of Contract Law which is still applicable in civil Law courts today !
  
  
  So, this scripture and what it says bears little reference to the Mediatorship of Christ in Timothy that we were discussing. Two completely different Legal arrangements.
  
  
  A last interesting point is the way Barclays translation renders this verse. I thought it was thought provoking if you get my drift.
  
  
  " This is to say that the validity of the Law depends on TWO PARTIES , one to give it and one to keep it, and on a mediator to bring it from one to the other. But a promise depends on only ONE PERSON, the PERSON who makes it, and when there is only ONE PERSON involved there is no necessity of a mediator. And in this case GOD is that ONE PERSON".
  
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  
  You may have to keep repeating it until it makes any logical sense as far as I am concerned.
  
  
  The point I am making is that the scripture does not suggest OR SAY that several persons of the triune Godhead were speaking to each other; rather, that the single entity God was having a conversation with another or other entities.
  
  
  Your illustration of one MAN speaking to another MAN does not compare to the triune Godhead speaking to itself as we although being of the same nature are different entities. Your triune Godhead is supposedly a single entity so if one person is speaking to another then he WAS speaking to himself and would appear to be schitzophrenic, as that is the only comparable situation seen in man who is made in God's image, in my opinion.
  
  
  Yes, we may well be made in the image of the angels as they are sons of god made in God's image as was man. So Man and Angels both reflect the image of their maker.
  
  
  The Do You Dream In Colour question was a referrence to an Early 80's Song by Bill Nelson. Just threw it in to see if you would recognise it. Just for fun.
  
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  
  Gen. 1:26. it is an interesting thought you make by use of the term 'Collaborate'.
  
  
  However, it is also interesting that the expression 'make' appears here and not 'create'.
  
  However, as you will appreciate , there are several conflicting opinions on who is being spoken to here.
  
  
  Is it another person or persons of the Godhead ? If it is, then, does this expression tell us how many persons ? Is it one other person or two others or more than two others ?
  
  
  If it is the Godhead speaking to one another; why doesn't the passage make that CLEAR by saying God spoke to himself ?
  
  
  Point is that even some adherents of the Trinity have candidly stated that this verse proves little that could support the trinity.
  
  
  The Jews never saw any plurality of the Godhead in these verses and it is well known that they saw God as speaking here to the Angelic Hosts.
  
  
  If it was the SON, the begotten Master Worker, then that would make even more pertinent sense in light of the role Jesus is later shown in scripture to have shared in or collabareted as you put it.
  
  
  Also , a direct reading of this verse without the unstated belief in the trinity would initially always simply suggest a conversation between God and at least one other party distinct from himself.
  
  
  Your second point, Does not the Son have Life in himself and have the ability to grant it ? Well, Yes. But didn't we just cover that point in John 5 :26 where it is said that the Father GRANTED OR GAVE him that right.
  
  
  Looking at these verses, the question arises in my mind - Why would Jehovah not reveal himself to be 'three persons' lucidly from the start.
  
  
  Some would say that there are 'hints' to this in the O.T. like Gen. 1:26 but why HINT.
  
  
  Why not just 'explcitly state' that fact ?
  
  
  Also if God is three persons and we are made in his image then why aren't we all three persons ?
  
  
  By the way, Do you dream in colour ?
  
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  I think you know already know how I will answer this.
  
  Jesus is the Master Worker, the instrument of Creation. The Father is the SOURCE of Life as the scripture we just looked at tells us.
  
  Thus all things are 'through' the Son, not 'of' the Son.
  
  I think someone already applied the illustration of the Architect and the builder.
  
  An Architect designs a structure and arranges the finance etc. to complete the building work (Isumbard Kingdom Brunel for example). Although he will not take part in the actual work in construction ( he employs a builder) he is nevertheless the CREATOR of this structure. It is his design, his project, he takes the credit.
  
  The Father is the Creator.
  
  John 4:34, " my food is for me to do the will of him that sent me and to finish HIS work".
  
  Dean.
• 
  72

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

  i will take some of these and start theads for them.

  due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  Well, I think that was in fact the reason I gave the example of Gabriel and Zechariah. The context was the Incense Burning in the Holy of the Temple. The incense burning was the ceremony that pictured the prayers of the peoples asscending to God. So how appropriate for the Angel to appear to him then and there. So I see that as lending scriptural support to this idea.
  
  Zechariah was told that this was his answer to his Prayers or Supplications.
  
  Remember, I was drawing on the reasoning of Professor Barclay and although I haven't read it recently, Alfred Edersheim makes a similar point in his classic work " The Temple".
  
  Now, whether, the Jewish Mythical thinking of angels carrying prayers to God is True or False, the Point is that JEWS THOUGHT THAT WAY. Paul is addressing what they might think.
  
  Also, don't forget that whilst the word Angel might conjure up in your mind the thought of a lower rank heavenly creature - the term (grk. Aggelos) really simply means a MESSENGER.
  
  Do Messengers only ever carry messages ONE-WAY ?
  
  Dean.
• 
  72

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  on a previous thread many other "troublesome" verses have been brought up.

  i will take some of these and start theads for them.

  due to the complexity of the subject, several threads each covering one or two verses will be started, lord willing.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  I have read this thread with interest and would like to throw in some thoughts.
  
  
  Professor Barclay points out that the word translated mediator is MESITES and does literally mean a 'middleman'.
  
  
  Westcott defines the term as " one who standing between the contracting parties shall bring them into fellowship".
  
  
  So to be a true middleman, he must be seperate from 'both parties' so as to be truly in the middle and thus unbiased. Therefore, he cannot be the God on one hand nor part of mankind either.
  
  
  However, he is the perfect choice in that he has shared both divine nature and human nature and thus can sympathise with both sides.
  
  
  But you will say, how can you say he is not part of mankind when the scripture indeed calls him the man.
  
  
  Well, I will offer an explaination on that point in a moment. First consider the TYPE for this arrangement in scripture.
  
  
  Barclay points out that in Jewish thought 'Moses' was considered to be the Mesites between God and men in his day. But Moses was a MAN too.
  
  
  However, consider this, Moses was a Hebrew by birth, but, he was raised as a FREEMAN
  
  in fact as Royalty in the house of Egypt. He effectively was never a SLAVE like the hebrew nation held captive in Egypt.
  
  
  Thus Moses was not strictly part of that ENSLAVED NATION. Therefore, he could act as a middleman between God and this nation of Slaves.
  
  
  Likewise, Jesus , although he was born a man, he was born SINLESS and thus was 'seperated from the sinners' and therefore he did not need to be reconciled to God unlike the rest of Mankind who are ENSLAVED TO SIN.
  
  
  Thus he can truly be 'in the middle' being neither the Almighty God ( the Father ) nor part of SINFUL MANKIND.
  
  
  Why did Paul call him 'the man' ? Paul knows Jesus is now glorified in Heaven so Why emphasis his humanity here.
  
  
  Well Professor Barclay makes a fine point when showing that in Jewish minds there was " a deep awareness of the inbridgeable gulf between the divine and human, between God and Man.The jews came to think of ANGELIC INTERMEDIATION to convey their prayers to God".
  
  
  He goes on to say that the Angel Michael was called the MESITES, the MEDIATOR between God and Man. ( In fairness to him he later goes on to say he views Jesus as both God and Man)
  
  
  However, the point is Jews thought of the Angels as carrying our prayers or intercessions to God. Think of the account of Gabriel appearing to Zechariah. Zechariah and Elizabeth had 'prayed' for a child. Gabriel appeared to Zechariah whilst he was in the Holy of the Temple making the Incense offerring ( incense representing prayers).
  
  
  Therfore Man - prayer - angel - God.
  
  
  But now Paul says Man - prayer - Jesus - God.
  
  
  It is no longer an Angel who intercedes on our behalf; an angel cannot sympathise or empathise with our human nature or desires / temptations, but rather Jesus - a man who was human , tested , tempted and who can sympathise / empathise with us.
  
  
  Therefore, I think this fits the requirements of this verse for Jesus to be a true middleman. Being not a 'party' to the dispute but being fully qualified to be the acceptable arbitor between the parties.
  
  
  This distinction could not be true if he was GOD and a party to the dispute.
  
  
  Gal.3:20. bears a mention also but I will comment on that shortly as I don't want to say too much on this post.
  
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  LittleToe,
  
  
  I hope you are well this evening.
  
  
  Now to try and get back to some of the thoughts we were discussing.
  
  
  Eternally Begotten : Yes I think I do take a slightly different view of this term.
  
  A common dictionary defines Eternal as ' without beginning', yet begotten means a generation , a procreation and thus implies a beginning. Thus it appears to be an oxymoron.
  
  
  I have often thought about "Time" and what defines it for us. The fact the planets move and events occur through action; we see time demonstrated via these events and actions. If there were no events there would be no tangible evidence of the passing of time. Therefore when The Father was alone 'Time' had not begun. I think time began with the Generation or begetting of the Son.This being the first event , time began with the Son ? Actually re: reading your comments I think you indeed say much the same as this.
  
  
  However, with regard to Eternally Begotten, we must remember this is not a scriptural term.
  
  
  Some commentators make the point that Monogenes also has the meaning of 'Unique',
  
  'of sole descent' and even 'one of a KIND'. If he is UNIQUE in his begetting then this also implies some 'difference ' from the father and the holy spirit, a difference which is more than simply a difference in personality.
  
  
  Father Begotten: yes this is a non-starter of an idea but of course I meant to demonstrate that point by suggesting it. The Father is the Generator not the generated. So these father /son terms themselves imply difference of levels of existence and ,yes, even time.
  
  
  From our discussion, I can honestly say I think my appreciation of this matter and the term begotten has increased and I feel I have a more heightened understanding of it.
  
  
  Whilst I still see the Son as having a 'birth' and thus a 'beginning' I can also say that the Son is entirely different from the other Sons of God because he alone is Generated from the Father, from the Fathers own being ? Whereas, all other creation was brought into existence 'through' the Son. This means the Life of The Father and the Son is unique, thus Jesus words at John 5: 26 ( which states even the slight difference between them in that the Son was GIVEN life in himself).
  
  
  I've just read Barclays translation of this verse and I think it expresses the thought really well......" As the Father HIMSELF is the source of life, so he has GIVEN the Son power to be the source of life."
  
  
  I'm going to post some thoughts on the Mediator topic but will do so on that specific thread.
  
  
  I would appreciate your comments on those as I give weight to your opinion.
  
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus, So in other words you would rather just post all your views and your side of the arguement without people like me confusing the issues for you. Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus,
  
  thankyou for your reply, I appreciate the manner and tone. I am pleased that we and LittleToe have been able to offer alternative viewpoints on this and other scriptures and still maintain a respect for each others chosen stance.
  
  I realise that if you don't see things the way I do then that is your right and I cannot insist on my own viewpoint. Of course the same is true the other way.
  
  I hope we can continue to express alternative viewpoints in the same tone. Even if we are unable to change the others viewpoint at least the arguements we present may help any other parties who may read these post to make their own minds up one way or another.
  
  If I could mention a few other thoughts on your last post; you give a suggested alternative rendering of the scripture in a Unitarian style and say " it should read something like this". Well , the suggested reading you provide IS SOMETHING LIKE it actually is.
  
  The only difference with your version is that you use Lord twice but other than that it is exactly the same. Paul doesn't use Lord twice because he is reserving that title for Jesus to show the distinction of roles and positions between the Father and the Son. The Father is God, and the son is the Messianic Lord or King.
  
  This is the point Ziesler is making, rather than equate the two persons ,Paul is distinguishing them yet showing the proximity of them.
  
  Its a question of understanding what Lord means here, is it to identify Jesus as God
  or is it to show him as the Authority by which Jehovah will now express his rulership through, as he previously did, through the Davidic Lords i.e. Kings ?
  
  So is Jesus the Lord Jehovah of the Old Testament ?
  
  Does the use of Lord prove this ?
  
  Certainly there are scriptures relating to Jehovah that are fulfilled in Jesus but this need not necessarily prove that Jesus is Jehovah. In the same way that Malachi prophesises that ELIJAH would prepare the way of the Lord. This of course was fulfilled in John the Baptist. Was John really Elijah ?
  
  What I am leading to ( and what you are probably expecting ) is the use of the term
  Lord in Psalm 110:1. This is such an important verse for reasons you don't need me to tell you. So lets look at it again.
  
  If the Lord means Jehovah, then why isn't the tetragrammaton used twice in this verse. If the Father is the first Lord and the hebrew term is the tetragrammaton, then this identifies him as Jehovah. Jesus, when applying this verse, refers himself to the second Lord which is not the tetragrammaton. So whilst they are in one sense both Lords, only one of them is Jehovah !
  
  So Paul could refer to Jesus as Lord and yet not be meaning to identify him as Jehovah, but rather , identify him as the Davidic Lord King - the Messiah.
  
  What do you think ?
  
  regards,
  
  Dean.
• 
  133

  Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 1

  by hooberus in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Dean Porter

  Hooberus,
  
  I apologise to you if my posts to you are sometimes a little short and sharp. I have to admit I get a little frustrated with the fact that you present so much information at one go and quote scriptures here and there, that it is difficult to address all that you mention.
  
  You actually made the point at the start for every one to keep their comments short and focused on the subject text and not to wander off the subject. So I find it strange that you do just as you say not to.
  
  Also , I feel you don't always address arguements that are put to you but rather just re: quote the same comments again.
  
  However I appreciate that this time your reply is more focused and reasoned. I will try to address it as best I can. I make no apology if it is a bit wordy as your comments necessitate me to make it so.
  
  You qoute a portion of my earlier comments but your comments tell me that you have 'missed' the Rationale of what I was saying.You replied " each person is called God and Lord in scripture".
  
  So you agree that Father / Son / Holy Spirit are all God and Lord. So my point was , that being the case,if Paul is contrasting the pagan Lords and Gods with the Christian God then CONTEXTUALLY there is a NECESSITY for him to mention all three persons of the trinity in 1 Cor. 8: 5,6. Because if all three are equally God and Lord then he has to detail that here.
  
  It would be possible to elsewhere in certain contexts like John 20;28 to refer to one person with these terms. But here in 1 Cor. 8 the context must define all three as such for it to be fully the accurate description of the Christian Lord God incontrast to the Pagan Lords and Gods.
  
  Thus because it doesn't, I believe it shows that Paul had no intention of revealing a triune Godhead. So regardless of what you think the term Lord means applied to Jesus here, the fact there is no Holy Spirit defined here means ther is no TRINITY.
  Maybe a DUAL Godhead but not a TRIUNE one.
  
  The printed comments that you reproduced simply just repeat your dogma on the matter. It says nothing to refute the comments of John Ziesler that I quoted.
  
  Also the ISAIAH comments don't tell me anything that concerns my position.
  
  However, your use of ROM. 11: 36 is much more pertinent and interesting and shows the type of REASONING that I think merits discussion.
  
  I believe this verse refers to GOD the Father but for arguements sake lets say it means the triune Godhead.If the lord here means Father Son AND HOLY SPIRIT then it proves all three are the Lord of whom and through whom we are. You qoute it because it repeats the comments of 1 Cor. 8 5,6. However by doing so it actually shows the error that you make.
  
  Do you see why ?
  
  Becuase if all three members of the Trinity are included in this text then that just shows the necessity upon Paul to say exactly that at 1 Cor. 8. But as we have said he omits the Holy Spirit there !
  
  At 1 Cor. it is ONLY the Father and the Son who are spoken of in these terms about of whom and through whom. Thus if these two referrences explain each other it simply shows that the Holy Spirit is NOT the Lord and God of whom and through whom we are !
  
  Once again two persons, does not a trinity make.
  
  As I stated before, if Paul was making the arguement for the trinity at 1 Cor. 8:5,6
  it would have been so much easier and concise and accurate to say ONE LORD GOD, THE FATHER , THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT OF WHOM AND THROUGH WHOM WE ARE.
  
  He did not do so because his purpose was solely to show jews that Jesus was now an important part of our worship of the Father.
  
  Lastly, If the Father and Jesus are the same LORD AND GOD then why did he split up the phrase OF WHOM and THROUGH WHOM in 1 Cor.8. between the Father and Jesus.
  
  In Rom. 11 :37 the GOD there is spoken of with both these terms. But the terms are split in 1 Cor. Why ?
  
  Because in Rom. it is God the Father who we are indeed OF and THROUGH but in 1 Cor.8 Paul still shows we are OF the Father but only THROUGH Jesus. Jesus is not referred to as the one we are OF . ( the greek I believe is actually OUT OF )
  
  So although Jesus is expressed in exalted terms he is still not on a par with the Father. This is the point that Ziesler makes.
  
  What do you think ? I will appreciate your comments, but don't cut and paste , TALK to me, REASON with me.
  
  regards,
  
  Dean.