Posts by Dean Porter

15

Existing in the nature of God

by ClassAvenger in

i preached to a jw and they used the following verse against me:

phi 2:6

"who existing in the nature of god, did not consider being equal to god something to be held onto," he said that this was one of the texts that disproved the trinity because it does not state that he was god, but that he existed in the nature of god: divine.

Dean Porter

Myxomatosis,

I was interested to read your last post that Jesus went round telling people that he was the ego eimi ho ohn.

Can you tell me where in scripture Jesus said he was or described himself as ' ego eimi ho ohn' ?

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

LittleToe, The subject of Covenent Theology sounds vaguely familiar from a long time ago. By all means, please refresh my memory of these matters. 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 appreciate the kind words.

I too am enjoying our discussions and in particular the fact that we can discuss these things in a respectful manner.

I used to get so frustrated at the Kingdom Hall when trying to develop deeper thoughts during meetings and realising that it was just going straight over the heads of most there.

By discussing these matters I am finding I am needing to reflect on scripture more deeply and really examine meaning of texts. Thus I am benefitting from the 'study ' I am having to do.

I hadn't picked up a bible in about 6 years before I started visiting this site. I have got the ' interest' again in knowing more about the scriptures and it is of benefit that I am not restricted to a set creed by some man made organisation to hinder my thinking.

Speak to you on your new thread. Lets see if we can agree on more than what we disagree on.

regards,

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

LittleToe,

I apologise if I am not making my point clear. I'll try to summarise what I am getting at in this thread.

First , the Timothy scripture. I believe that as the scripture says, Jesus is the Mediator between God and Man. As such I believe this argues against him actually being God as he could not mediate between the two parties if he was in fact one of the parties.

Secondly, the Galations scripture mentions the fact that a mediator is not required. However, I was attempting to explain that the Galations passage is not reffering to the same covenant that the Timothy scripture alludes to.

Galations is referring to the Abrahamic covenent which was in LEGAL TERMS a 'Unilateral Promise'. This did not require a mediator as only one party was obligated under its terms.

Unlike, the Law covenent and the New covenent which does require a mediator due to the fact that two parties are obligated under their terms.

I was merely pointing this out as you alluded to the Galations passage in an earlier thread and seemed to relate it to the Timothy passage.

I hope this makes my reasoning clearer ?

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,

a couple of thoughts on your last post.

1) you are right in saying that a Creative act is being spoken of here ; however,
(and I'm not taking issue with you here) I do find it interesting and a matter for further investigation , that the scripture says "let us MAKE man" the underlying hebrew word here is not (bara) create. Could it be that the angels were being addressed and invited to ' collaberate' as you expressed it earlier ? Something I will need to try to find time to look into.

2) I am not denying the 'feasability' that the seperate persons of the Godhead were having a discussion here. I am only saying that it is one option out of three possible options. ( the least likely option- that is )

3) I see why you don't particularly like the 'joined at the hips twin ' illustration. They do share the same nature and the same D.N.A. but they are 'seperate entities' really; they are not Zephod beeblebrox ( if thats how you spell it) from 'Hitchhikers Guide', if you know what I mean.

All in all, this scripture is actually very VAGUE ! None of us can really say with any certainty what the true meaning is. As we have both suggested there are several possible options of understanding but there is no certain explanation as not even the N.T. quotes it with any interpretation.

Therefore, I can see why certain trinitarians do not insist in using this scripture as a proof text because it really provides no proof of either position.

Shall we call it a 'no score draw' on this one.

By the way, I totally agree about that period of music. The Years '78 to '82 were the best period in british music to my mind.

What do you want to discuss next ?

You were interested in telling me about your understanding of the Holy Spirits personality and Godship ?

Do you want to start a fresh thread so we can discuss this and other lines of reasoning ?

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

LittleToe,

are you referring to Galations ? If you are, then the whole point of my post was that a mediator is not required with reference to the PROMISE that Paul is speaking about in Galations. There is only ONE party mentioned here , God. Christ is only mentioned in reference to being the Seed which was the result of the promise.

Thus I am saying that this Galations verse bears no relation to the completely different scenario / legal concept that Paul develops in Timothy regarding a mediator.

You ,in an earlier post, tried to link the Galations verse with the Mediator arguement in Timothy; I am trying to show that there is no link in thought as they address different concepts.

So, Christ is neither 'God', who made the promise nor 'man' who recieves the promise in Galations , he is the promise, the 'Seed'. The point being nonetheless that he stands separate, even here, from God and men.

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

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

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,

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

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,

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

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 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.