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.
Dean Porter
JoinedPosts by Dean Porter
-
14
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5
by hooberus inthis 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
-
14
Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 5
by hooberus inthis 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 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,
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 inthis 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 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,
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 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,
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. -
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, 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.
-
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.