Posts by Dean Porter

72

Troublesome Trinity Verses Part 2

by hooberus in

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.