Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

"Truly I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43)

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

According to the Old Testament, all the dead arrive at a place called Sheol, which can also simply mean pit or grave/tomb (Psalms 16:10; 28:1; 30:4; 86:13, etc.; Isaiah 14:15; 38:17,18; cf. Jonah 2:7; Ezekiel 26:20), and sometimes even Abaddon. Originally, therefore, concepts relating to the underworld were closely connected with notions related to the grave, where the dead were buried. The Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament (in Greek) refer to the underworld as Hades (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23, etc.); in the modern translations, it is usually rendered as underworld or sometimes hell.

In Babylonian literature, the underworld is located under the earth, at the upper side of the world ocean. It can be reached by descending into the depths of the earth and going north as far as possible. Before arriving, one must cross a river, the water of death. In the Ugaritic texts and the Bible, the underworld is also beneath the earth, or deep within the earth (Psalms 63:10). Because the earth opened up, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, along with their people, fell alive into the underworld (Numbers 16:30-33). Job imagines the underworld as the lowest place of the created world (cf. Job 11:8), reachable through the bed of the primordial waters on which the earth floats (26:5; 38:16ff.). Thus, the underworld is the last part of the three-tiered universe (above the earth, on the earth, under the earth; or, heaven, earth, underworld; cf. Exodus 20:4; Philippians 2:10). The Bible does not mention that the entrance to the underworld is to be found in the north, nor does it speak of the river of the underworld. The rivers mentioned in 2 Samuel 22:5 and Psalms 18:5 symbolize trouble and misery, which accompany man on the way to the underworld, according to the parallelism of thought (18:6: snares).

The Babylonians imagined the underworld as a city surrounded by 7 walls, with 14 gates, and a palace in the center where the queen of the underworld, Ereshkigal, and her husband, Nergal, live. The gate of the underworld (or its key) is mentioned in Job 38:17; Psalms 9:14; 107:18; Wisdom 16:13; Sirach 51:6; Isaiah 38:10; Matthew 16:18; Revelation 1:18.

The Greek translation of Job 38:17 also mentions the guardian of the gate of Hades. The king of the underworld does not appear in the Scriptures, but Psalms 49:15 speaks of death as a shepherd. The Lord's dominion extends to the underworld as well (Job 26:6; Psalms 139:8; Proverbs 15:11; Isaiah 7:11; Amos 9:2). Complete darkness reigns in the underworld (Job 10:21ff.; 17:13; Psalms 88:7,13); its inhabitants never see the light of day again (49:20); night rises from the underworld (Wisdom 17:13). Besides darkness, its characteristics include dust (Job 17:16; 20:11; Psalms 30:10; 146:4; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2) and silence (Psalms 94:17; 115:17).

Just like in Babylon, in Israel too, the underworld is a country from which there is no return (Job 7:9; 10:21; cf. 14:12); its inhabitants are condemned to eternal inactivity (Ecclesiastes 9:10), they have no part in joy or pleasure (Sirach 14:11-17), they are unaware of the fate of the living or anything that happens on earth (Job 14:21ff.; 21:21; Ecclesiastes 9:5; Isaiah 63:16). God is not praised in the underworld (Psalms 6:6; 30:10; 115:17; Sirach 17:27; Isaiah 38:18). The dead have no vitality, they are "powerless," it can be said of them that they are no more (Psalms 39:14; Sirach 17:28). Like in the Epic of Gilgamesh, in Isaiah too, the dead are the prey of worms (cf. Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:48). The underworld is the place of oblivion (Psalms 88:13): neither the dead remember the living, nor do the living remember the dead. At best, rest can be found (Job 3:17ff.; Sirach 30:17), hence the underworld can sometimes seem more attractive than life.

The underworld is the final resting place for every person; rich and poor, lords, kings, and slaves, old and young, "all rest together" (Job 3:13-19; 30:23-24; Psalms 89:49; Ecclesiastes 6:6). Christ also descended to the underworld after His death (Romans 10:7; Ephesians 4:9; 1 Peter 3:19; The Harrowing of Hell). Although initially the fate of the good and the bad did not differ, Ezekiel 32:17-32 already makes a distinction between the fate of Israel's enemies and that of the ancient heroes. Isaiah 24:22; Sirach 21:10: the underworld has a punitive aspect (e.g., prison. Cf. 1 Peter 3:19; Jude 6; Revelation 20:7).

In the Old Testament, Sheol is not yet a place of punishment but simply the dwelling place of the dead. There is no mention of differing fates within it. However, with the development of the belief in resurrection, the concept also transforms. There is now a separate place for the righteous and for the wicked, with the latter suffering torments. Thus in later Judaism, the conception developed that God assigns different fates in the underworld to the righteous and the wicked. Therefore, the concept Sheol used to be understood as the universal gathering place for the dead; both the righteous and the wicked end up there, later distinguished from the concept of Gehenna (הִנֹּ֑ם גֵּ֥י Valley of Hinnom, southwest of Jerusalem, a detestable place due to the worship of Molech, which King Josiah defiled (2 Kings 23:10). Jeremiah places the punishment of rebellious Israel there (Jeremiah 7:31, 19:6); moreover, it generally serves as the place of punishment for God's enemies (Isaiah 66:24).

Consequently, it was assumed that the Sheol is divided into parts. The Ethiopian Book of Enoch recognizes 3 dark and 1 light parts (22:9), calling the dwelling place of the righteous the Garden of Life (61:12). In the late Jewish literature outside the Bible, Sheol is already the dwelling place of the wicked (Philo, Book of Enoch, 4 Maccabees). The writings of the Essenes already speak of fire and darkness. Another image is the fire of the Valley of Hinnom. Near Jerusalem, this valley was where garbage was burned, due to its already poor reputation. At one time, misguided Jews offered sacrifices there to Molech, the pagan deity. In the prophets, the fire of the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) became a symbol of God's punishment (Jeremiah 7:32; 19:6). From Isaiah 66:24 comes the assertion that "their fire shall not be quenched, and their worm shall not die" (Mark 9:47).

A similar idea is found in the New Testament. Luke 16:12: Lazarus rests in Abraham's bosom, separated by a chasm from the other part of the underworld where the rich man suffers. 23:43: the righteous go to Paradise (cf. Ethiopian Book of Enoch 60:8.23). In the New Testament, Gehenna is always the place of eternal punishment after judgment. According to Jesus' preaching, it was prepared not only for Satan and his angels but also for all who do not repent or persist in their sins (Matthew 25:41). Both John the Baptist and later Jesus mention the unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:12; 18:8). Hence we find such terms as the fire of Gehenna (Matthew 5:22; 18:9) or the fiery furnace (Matthew 13:42). The torments are characterized by weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12; 13:42; 22:13; 25:30). Revelation 14:20; 19:20; 21:8 also adds the image of the burning of Sodom and Gomorrah, hence the mention of the lake of fire and sulfur. Paul speaks more of eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 6:9), ruin (Romans 9:22; Philippians 3:19), and perdition (2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15). However, these expressions do not provide any closer detail about the state of the damned. The abyss (Revelation 9:1; 11:7; 20:1) and Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4) are more temporary prisons for fallen angels.

"Abraham's bosom" refers to Abraham embracing the saved believers, a motif based on the parable of the rich man and the poor man Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). The Greek word in Luke 16:22 means "womb," but the entire expression alludes to dining with Abraham (cf. John 13:23; Matthew 8:11) or, more generally, to the loving community that is the share of the pious person in the Kingdom of God. This is called in theology "limbus Patrum" or 'the limbo of the Fathers,' the place where the righteous who died before Christ resided, but could not enter into salvation before His crucifixion. However, Christ's descent into hell brought them redemption, and this limbus ceased to exist.

"Paradise," originally just the dwelling place of the first humans; on the Savior's lips, it could only be the place of the Old Testament saved (Luke 23:43), the same which elsewhere He calls Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22), which after the scriptural era is also called the limbo of the fathers (limbus Patrum). Since this realm ceases to exist after the entrance of the Old Testament saved into heaven, this term in later Christian usage, it refers to heaven.

Christ's Harrowing of Hell follows from His divinity: it signifies that He has always had, and continues to have, authority over death and the underworld. The term "Harrowing of Hell" does not refer to the place of punishment for the damned, but to the kingdom of the dead, where all deceased souls are found. According to Old Testament revelation, the dead are in Sheol, in the land of darkness, and their only claim to existence is that God knows and accounts for them ("I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob"). God's power is absolute even in the realm of the dead (Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:11). With the growth of belief in the resurrection and the coming of the Messiah, the messianic-eschatological hope extended to the world of the dead as well. In the New Testament, the premise was given at Jesus' resurrection that redemption also benefited those who had lived and died before Him. Relevant New Testament passages include: Mt 12:40; 27:51; Lk 23:42; Acts 2:24; Rom 10:7; 1Pt 3:18; 4:6; Heb 13:20; Rev 1:18.

Through His resurrection and escape from the kingdom of the dead, Christ broke the power of death and the underworld (the realm of the dead). That's why Revelation 1:18 states that He holds the keys to death and the underworld. According to Scripture, the underworld, which consists of several parts (cf. Lk 16:19-31; Hades), assigns different places (fates) to the righteous and the wicked (retribution). The Creed, in its traditional interpretation, states that Jesus descended to the part of the underworld where the Old Testament righteous awaited their redemption (limbus Patrum or edge of Hell).

The Church Fathers developed the theology of Jesus' Harrowing of Hell from both a soteriological and christological perspective. They distinguished between the righteous who died before Christ and the damned. Christ brought the good news to the righteous, thus saving them through the proclamation of the Word, and there is also a notion that He granted them baptism. According to another interpretation, while Christ's body lay in the tomb, the Logos, the Son, went to the dead (according to some Fathers, He went down to them in His full redemptive form), thus extending redemption to them as well.

The phrase "descended into hell" as part of the baptismal creed s first mentioned by Pontianus.

According to the full theological interpretation, Christ's "descent" is nothing other than the experience of death itself. The Church testifies through its faith that Christ truly died, specifically our death. He took on the entire human condition, and accepting death was the expression of complete obedience. He fully embraced the mission received from the Father, to glorify Him with His human life. At the same time, it also expressed that He is with us in death and can lead us out of the curse of death.

The Catholic Church did not accept Calvin's view that Christ's soul also took upon itself the torments of hell, and thus saved us from damnation by enduring punishment. When Christ, embracing death, shared in the fate of creation and then passed into the state of glorification, it also indicated that redemption has a cosmic effect: His resurrection leads the entire cosmos into glory.

With the crucifixion, the work of redemption on the merit-earning side was completed; thereafter, it was only about the allocation of the supernatural values matured in the sacrifice of the cross and their triumphant enforcement. Scripture (especially 1 Peter 3) leaves no doubt that the Savior proclaimed redemption to the souls in the underworld, that is, he made them feel and validated the first effects of the now completed redemption.

One should not think here of the damned, to whom God's mercy no longer speaks; but, according to the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers, it concerns those who were awaiting the beatific vision of God but were restrained from it before the objective work of redemption was completed (limbus Patrum). This state and fate are nicely symbolized by the law of the cities of refuge in the Old Testament: one who fled there was secured against pursuers, they could no longer be killed; but they could not leave the city of refuge until the high priest of that time died (Numbers 35:25).

When the Apostle Peter talks about the "unbelievers" in Noah's days, he likely refers to those who fundamentally turned to God under the weight of the unprecedented calamities of the flood. A good portion of the eastern Greek Church Fathers include among these the pagans who lived according to the law of reason and conscience (Socrates, Plato, etc.), while the western Latin Church Fathers, with Augustine, only consider the righteous of the Old Testament; and this view has become the general opinion. Thus, in the Harrowing of Hell, the Savior first distributes the fruits of redemption; he begins to exercise dominion earned through death over the treasures of redemption and the souls. The Harrowing of Hell is the first great act of Christ's royal beneficence. As soon as He appeared in the underworld, the land of sorrow became a paradise; as the Savior Himself told the thief on the right: "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43.)

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@Magnum

"It just makes more sense to me..."

In my opinion, what seems more reasonable is not relevant, but what the Scripture asserts about this. This interpretation above does not generate contradictions, at most it explains to someone who previously approached the Bible with a "hack at it with an axe" attitude. In fact, it eliminates contradictions entirely. Let's see a specific example: Scripture teaches that there is one God; yet, it claims, both explicitly and implicitly, that there are three persons who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the natural world, we might think this is not possible. Here comes the concept that dissolves the contradiction. Staying with this example: distinguishing concepts such as personhood (the being) and essence (nature, substance). These concepts describe a real existence, just not often needed in the created world, where person and essence coincide. However, if we want to organize the revelation of God found in Scripture, these concepts are very useful. In the first centuries, this was not as necessary; people were satisfied with the belief in one God, but God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most accessible way for human reason did not concern them. This was sufficient at that stage, but as certain heresies emerged, it became unavoidable to address these with a definitive formulation of faith. However, "basic vocabulary" is not enough; analytical-descriptive concepts are needed. The Jehovah's Witness response is satisfied to lament that the expressions Οὐσία and Ὑπόστασις have historical antecedents with ancient Hellenic philosophers. I responded, "It's foolish and stubbornly paganophobic to reject any Christian doctrine that ever used these concepts, simply because a Greek philosopher did (e.g., ousia, hypostasis, physis), as inherently false."

Another example: The statements about Jesus in the New Testament seem formally contradictory because, on one hand, they require us to profess that He is truly God, with all the implications thereof; on the other hand, there are statements that suggest He is not God, but merely a man. This is a formal logical impossibility, as this does not occur in the created world. Yet, this is what Scripture presents, so either we throw the Bible out the window, or we try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response is to absolutize the attributes that suggest one nature and to attack the other with chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, as you can see. Again, we are at a point where this needs to be harmonized, and Jesus' dual nature resolves this contradiction. So, was there a problem, or wasn't there? Do you understand? :)

If you make "common sense" the criterion for religious truth, not much would remain of Christianity, as it is full of miracles that simply do not comply with "common sense". I'm not referring to the quick answer that "God can do it", but to the question of how exactly. Here it is evident that if one has to explain miracles, then the wildest rationalist-biblicist can dismiss them as beyond reason, and it doesn't matter if it doesn't align with formal logic; however, when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, they fail to do the same. What an inconsistency! Russell's method was similar: he no longer started from what traditional theologians did, summarizing what is in the Bible and based on this, establishing certain regularities, etc., but rather like this: let's sit down and think whether it's reasonable for it to be so. If not, then this should be the starting point for Scriptural interpretation. This rationalism essentially excludes the possibility that mystery could exist.

The rationalist theology is a direction in scriptural interpretation and theology that, following the spirit of the Enlightenment, places human reason above Scripture; what it does not find "reasonable", it is unwilling to accept as the word of God, but attributes to the human weakness, error of the scribes or authors, or subsequent, intentional, detectable and correctable changes. Thus this epistemological view venerates the absolute authority of human reason and its limitless capacity for knowledge; a theological direction that accepts doctrines understandable through reason.

Their handling of the Bible is liberal: reason overrules revelation, so what does not seem "logical" (?) at first must be denied (e.g., the Trinity), cf. Acts 17:29. If there is still something "illogical" in the Bible for them, it is either due to the human error of the writers (Unitarians), or ancient Bible forgery (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus and God "became confusable"), cf. Matthew 24:35, 1Peter 1:23-25.

"that the Father and Son are two distinct entities"

The Scripture does not asser that the Father and the Son/Logos are different "entities" (?), but only that they are different persons.

"Is the son a created being ....?"

The Scriptures still clearly distinguish the birth of the only-begotten Son from the making/creating of creatures, and the Scipture never calls the Son a creature. It is just arianist WTS theology. The Son/Logos is the "only-begotten" Son of the Father, so He is unique in his kind, His sonship to the Father is qualitatively different, superior from that of the angels, since He alone is said to have been born / begotten by the Father, while the angels were created.

Revelation 3:14

Or where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the orign of the Son from the Father? Huh? Where does he say that He is a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis)? The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.

Does the New Testament say that the Son was begotten or born of the Father? Yes or no? Say the same of the creatures or not? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Holy Scriptures describe the origin of the Son from the Father, consistently with a different word it uses for the creatures?

gennao, tikto <-> ktizo, poio

the NT exclusively describes the Son’s orgin from the Father by terms derived from ‘gennao’ and ‘tikto’, and openly states that that in the beginning He already was, even the aeons made through him
the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two

It's particularly amusing that one of the most important Watchtower doctrines which they are 'ad nauseam' parroting, namely "the Son is a creature", is NOWHERE explicitly stated in the Bible, although they amusingly claim that all their teachings are "clearly" in the Bible! John 1:3 clearly proves that Jesus is not "made", but in accordance with John 1:1, he always "was". For if Jesus were a creature, this verse would claim about him that he was created with his own cooperation, which unleashes the conceptual monster of "self-creation" on the debater who tries this.

"(having a beginning)"

The Son does not have a beginning (in the), he (already) WAS (existed) in the beginning (cf. John 1:1a), and even more He IS the beginning (Col 1:18).

"When the son was on earth, did he pray to a completely separate superior father who was in heaven while the son was on earth?"

The key is the dual nature of Jesus, since the Incarnation the Son is not "only" God, but also man, this is what the hypostatic unity is about. As a man he could pray to himself as to God; that is, his human soul could glorify a deity closely related to him, but essentially completely different from him. There is no contradiction in this, in fact it is a natural consequence of dual nature.

"they're just too complex for most people to grasp."

Why should theology be adjusted to fit the comprehension of every average person? For someone with a less intellectual disposition, knowing the Nicene Creed is more than sufficient in this respect.

The focus was not on the "invented" technical terms by denominations (the fact of them), but on the fact that each article of faith is a definitive formulation of a declared truth, and in doing so, we inevitably use certain analytical expressions. Despite any extreme anti-intellectualism and biblicism, no denomination can halt its vocabulary at the Scripture. Even if we theoretically assume this, there remains the fact that the vocabulary used in Scripture does not form a closed set for Christians. This would be akin to Amish logic, who claim they use no technical tools not mentioned in Scripture. You'd agree this is an absurd thought: I find it equally absurd to scoff at the Trinity on the basis that technical terms are used to describe it.

Note, this was played out by the Arians in the 4th century as well. When they argued that the term "consubstantial" is not in the Bible, Athanasius responded: "Impiety must be prevented by all means, no matter how diversely and convincingly someone tries to defend it with words and reasoning. On the contrary, everyone can testify that piety is pleasing to God, even if someone uses new expressions, as long as the speaker's thoughts correspond to the faith and wishes to express themselves accordingly with words."

This is essentially the issue: not the individual theological expressions themselves, but the evangelical truths formulated in them are what's important. Once this is clarified, we can see how absurd the "charge with an axe" level of precision attitude is, saying I'm not interested, just give me simple Christianity, and that's fine.

I don't expect you to adopt this "jargon" as your own, only to understand what I'm talking about when I debate with you. We cannot discuss the Trinity without clarifying what it is – this is orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. This doctrine of the Trinity itself, not some arbitrary alternative imagined by its critics. We must distinguish it from the modalist heresy, professed by a man named Sabellius, after whom we call this direction Sabellianism. It's necessary to talk about this because often during debates, the nature of the difference in opinion becomes clear: modalism professes the personal identity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, claiming these three names are different manifestations, modes, forms of the same one divine hypostasis, subsistence. In contrast, it teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while forming an inseparable, essential unity, are distinguishable in terms of their personhood. This is very important to clarify, as we've already dismantled a bunch of objections that authors want to raise against the doctrine of the Trinity – e.g., one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' explanatory books asks under the heading 'Trinity': "Is the Bible in harmony with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinguishable persons?" After my previous explanation, perhaps I don't even need to write why this doesn't hit the mark against the doctrine of the Trinity: because what they're disputing here is not the doctrine of the Trinity (not even "a type of it"), but non-Trinitarianism, or modalism – which we ourselves also consider heresy.

Honestly, I don't understand this cult of ignorance (I can't call it anything else) that many of these neo-denominations seem to embrace. This must be some form of raw Rousseauism, which idealizes the "good old days" when everyone was an "ordinary person," there was no private property, and oh, how beautiful and good it was. Even Luther and his contemporaries didn't interpret "sola Scriptura" as handing the Bible to the average German peasant woman, expecting her to understand it easily because "the Bible was written for simple/avarage ordinary people" and "Scripture speaks for itself" (blah blah blah, how often I hear these empty, yet to be validated phrases). Instead, they meant that they, the theologians, could freely interpret it without the interference of the pope. That's all they said about it!

In contrast, this cult of ignorance (again) is a completely wrong and anachronistic attitude. When in the history of God's people was everyone given unrestricted biblical interpretation? When did every "ordinary person" have their own Bible? Where in the Bible does it say, "I was written for ordinary people"? Where? Where?! Well, I'll tell you: nowhere!

The language of Scripture and the language of theology relate to each other as the spoken, living (mother) tongue does to grammar. In everyday speech, we don't use words like noun, adjective, etc.; we just speak with the greatest of naturalness. The language of the Bible is not a formal logical theological treatise, but rather like the mother tongue, the speech of a small child, natural speech. The language of theology, however, is like school grammar, which is the formal logical description of the mother tongue. Sectarians, on the other hand, treat the Bible as a grammar book, not as the "living Word" they constantly emphasize. One should approach the Bible fundamentally through hermeneutics, not formal logic. But this is almost telling, because who learns a language through formal logic? Someone learning a foreign language. Thus, the Bible is not their mother tongue. Then, they even take pride in their naivety and in their inability to grasp the complexity of this entire system of thought, because, in their view, anyone who thinks a bit more deeply is philosophizing and walking on Satan's path. However, in many cases among ordinary Jehovah's Witnesses, it's not about simplicity or childlike innocence but about arrogant stupidity, when someone is conceited about being limited. Because my grandmother was a simple Catholic, a humble woman who acknowledged that she didn't know many things, but she was never proud of that.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

"The verse doesn’t say God transferred “all” his knowledge to his Son."

This one indeed doesn't, but according to Matthew 11:27, Christ said that the Father has given "all things" to Him (cf. John 13:), ergo all his knowledge, the fullness of his deity (cf. Col 2:9). So the fact that He received all his knowledge from the Father does not prove that He has less knowledge. And according to Jn 21:17, the apostle Peter specifically said to Jesus that "Lord, you know everything".

"Other verses show that God still knew things the Son didn’t know. (Matt 24.36; Rev 1.1)"

Regarding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) you may read my notes HERE. Augustine also gives a good explanation for this.

"that would still mean that the Son lacked that knowledge before being taught it."

This poetic description does not prove that this communication of the divine knowledge occurred in time, by a process different from the divine generation, which occurred not in time but before all "aeons". The actions that take place (with)in God do not take place in time, since God is not subject to temporality, and obviously the imperfect human language can only speak about God in an analogical way, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:29. It is clear from Hebrews 1:5 that the birth of the Son from the Father took place in the "today" of God. Hebrews 1:5 does not refer to the birth of Jesus as a human from Mary, but to his birth from the Father in the aions before "the beginning". Especially since it is clear from John 1:1a that he "was" already "in the beginning".

"Scripture shows that God cannot be taught by anyone"

Based on the context, this simply means that God is omniscient, not that there cannot be a real divine person who receives his person, his deity from another divine person.

"Therefore Jesus is distinct from and subordinate to God."

The Trinity does not even say that the Son is not a different person from the Father, and considering the Incarnation, the self-emptying, and the assumption of human nature, that justifies the subordination sufficiently.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

Non sequitur. If at the end of my teaching I have transferred all my knowledge to you, then you will have as much knowledge as I previously had. This only means that the Son's knowledge (just like his existence and deity) was also received from the Father, who is the source and principle of it, not that the final result is fragmented, imperfect, and less than the Father’s. In any case, these are human concepts, descriptions, necessarily approximate in nature, all of this happened before the beginning of every "aeon", not in time.

Scripture teaches the omniscience of the Son, look it up: Lk 2:46-47, Jn 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Col 2:3, Mt 25:31-45, Heb 4:12-13.

Regarding Matthew 24:36 (Mark 13:32) you may read my notes HERE, and check THIS too.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@Magnum

In fact, Scripture does not exclusively attribute Jesus' (body's) resurrection to the Father. John 2:19-21 explicitly teaches Jesus' active participation in His resurrection ("in three days I will raise it up"), and John 2:22 also teaches that His disciples understood this specifically in terms of resurrection from the dead. But the same is taught by Christ in John 10:17-18 ("...I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again...") and 11:25 (“I am the resurrection and the life."), thus Jesus was not merely a passive "sufferer" of the resurrection.

Sources:

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

That the Father "taught" the Son does not mean that He is lesser in knowledge, but that the origin of His knowledge is the Father. If the Father has given "everything" to the Son, including all His knowledge, then He is not lesser than Him. It is also a dogma that: "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle."

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

@Magnum

Let me tell you something that might surprise you: the Trinity does NOT teach that the Father and the Son are "the same" person, this is taught by Sabellianism, also known as modalism. Jehovah's Witnesses confuse Christian Trinitarianism with modalism. Only modalism identifies the person of the Son with the Father, not Trinitarianism. However, modalism, which regards the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three successive appearances of a single divine person, was rejected by the church in the 2nd-3rd centuries as heresy. Contrary to the Watchtower Society's portrayal, Trinitarianism also includes the distinction of persons and their submission to one another in the work of salvation. No "theological mystery" (Trinitarianism?) can or wants to change this. It has nothing to do with Trinitarianism to say "he was his own son, that he sent himself, and approved of himself." According to Trinitarianism, one person (the Father) sent another (the Son), on one hand, their relationship was always real in everything (not merely apparent), and on the other hand, all this happened within the Godhead (not between the Creator and one of his creatures). It's interesting to note the Society's line of reasoning: readers of their publications must always think of the Father when they see the word "god," but when the Bible names the Son as such (see Jn 1:1,18, 20:28, etc.), they must immediately think of the word "god" in a relativized sense as a "title" (?). However, the original Greek text and copies from before the 7th-8th centuries made no distinction between a capital "G" and a lowercase "g," since they used only capital letters.

The Church never professed modalism because it was deemed heretical at its emergence in the 2nd-3rd centuries. Modern modalists also do not call themselves Trinitarians but rather "Unitarians." It's not the Trinitarians, but they who claim that Jesus is God, and that Jesus is simultaneously the Father and the Spirit.

Those who profess this are modalists, and they indeed are not in accordance with the Bible. However, this is not an argument against Trinitarianism, which affirms the distinguishability of persons.

Naturally, part of Trinitarianism is that the divine persons have different roles in salvation history and act in submission to one another, and that the Son, having become human as the Messiah, was lesser than the Father. However, it's also part of the doctrine that despite their different roles, the persons testify about each other and act in perfect harmony, but this does not signify superiority or inferiority.

That the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, does not mean to the Trinitarian that there are three separate gods in one, but rather, within the one Godhead, three persons can be called God because, based on the data of the Bible, they see that all three possess attributes that only God could have, and do things that only God could do.

The Watchtower Society projects its own logic onto Trinitarianism. True, the name of the God of the Jews is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God, and God his Father. But only for the Society does it logically follow that the formula Jehovah / God = the Father. For "believers in the Trinity," the divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not just designate one person but the Godhead itself (theotokos, Col 2:9), within which they identify three persons. The second person is named "the Son" (ho huios), his human name is "Jesus," and according to his mission, "Christ." The third person indeed has a name, as the Bible speaks of only one "Holy Spirit," thus often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). "Believers in the churches of Christianity" worship the same God by the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, only they claim that Jehovah God is more than the Father: He is also the Son and the Holy Spirit.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

You may read: John 8:28

The fact that the Son was "sent" by the Father does not imply that the Son is ontologically inferior, that He is not God but merely a created archangel, as claimed by the WTS. There is a great difference between sending and being sent; a king can also be sent by his advisor on a diplomatic visit, or by his doctor to a spa, without this implying the superiority of the sender. It is also dogma, that there are so-called Trinitarian missions. According to Scripture, the Father sends the Son: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (Jn 3:16; cf. 5:23.) "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son." (Gal 4:4) The Father sends the Holy Spirit: "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate" (Jn 14:16), and the Son sends: "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father… he will testify about me." (Jn 15:26; cf. 16:7, Lk 24:49, Gal 4:6.) Following these passages, the Church Fathers discuss the missions, especially with deep and tender thoughts by the Cappadocians and Augustine (August. Trin. IV 20, 28; cf. Petav. Trinit. VIII).

As for the nature of these missions, human missions are mainly characterized by two aspects: the sent acts under the influence of the sender in his mission; and for its fulfillment, chooses a position and undertakes activities appropriate to the nature and content of the mission.

Regarding the sender's influence on the sent, this can generally be of three kinds. The sending can be a command, by which a superior sends a subordinate; advice, as when a doctor sends a prince to take a bath; or emanation, as when a mother gives birth to, "sends" her child into the world, or the sun sends its rays to the earth. When talking about the relationship of sending and mission among the divine persons, only the third type of mandate can be considered. The divine persons are completely equal in power and dignity, differing only in origin and (logical) succession; thus, this can only be the basis for the missions. It follows that only a begotten Trinitarian person can be sent, and only a begetting one can send, in the order appropriate to the nature of the origins. Indeed, according to Scripture, the Father is not sent but sends, both the Son and the Spirit; the Son is the sender of the Spirit and sent by the Father; the Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son but does not send. The mission corresponds as a relative (correlative) behavior to sending. Related concepts are going and coming; but they are not identical: one can come without being sent; as indeed the Savior says of the Father (Jn 14:23): "Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them." Roughly the same must be said of giving, which presupposes giving, but one can also give oneself; thus, the Father too.

Another aspect of sending is choosing a new position and activity corresponding to the mission's content and nature. Since new, previously unoccupied places are not applicable to the divine persons, and outwardly directed activities are common to all three persons, the endpoint of the mission (terminus missionis) for the divine persons can only be that, as a result of the mission, the sent person establishes a new relationship with creation, i.e., establishes a new mode of presence.

For a complete elaboration of the concept of Trinitarian mission, we should distinguish between internal and external Trinitarian missions. Internal missions are the processions, and the external ones are the continuations of these processions into the world. Thus, internal missions are eternal, necessary, and remain within God; external ones are temporal, subject to God's free decision, and extend into the world. When Trinitarian mission is mentioned without any qualifier, it always refers to the external; and in the sense of our previous conclusions, with Thomas Aquinas, it can be defined as: "The Trinitarian mission is the eternal procession of the Trinitarian person with the addition of a temporal effect, a new mode of presence or operation." (Thom I 43, 2 ad 3.)

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

aqwsed12345

"The sacrosanct Roman Church, founded by the voice of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes, and preaches one true God omnipotent, unchangeable, and eternal, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; one in essence, three in persons; Father unborn, Son born of the Father, Holy Spirit proceeding from Father and Son; that the Father is not Son or Holy Spirit, that Son is not Father or Holy Spirit; that Holy Spirit is not Father or Son; but Father alone is Father, Son alone is Son, Holy Spirit alone is Holy Spirit. The Father alone begot the Son of His own substance; the Son alone was begotten of the Father alone; the Holy Spirit alone proceeds at the same time from the Father and Son. These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, where no opposition of relationship interferes.
“Because of this unity the Father is entire in the Son, entire in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entire in the Father, entire in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning.” Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle."
(Council of Florence)

The problem is that although you use biblical language, you wish to derive non-biblical thoughts from it. From the expression 'Son of God,' you want to deduce that the Son is not God, although it does not mean that. One should just understand the expression "Son of God." When we say 'Son of God' referring to Jesus, it answers the question of who he is, and the statement that he is 'God' answers the question of what he is. It is entirely clear that a person whose father is God will himself be God. Just as the son of man is man, and the foal of a horse is a horse.

There are three senses in which someone can be "Son of God." In the broadest sense, every human is a child of God, that is, a creation of God's providential care. In a more narrow sense, sonship to God means being the possessor of supernatural grace, of supernatural rebirth in God, which comes about when God no longer regards us as servants, but as adopted sons. In the narrowest sense, "Son of God" refers to the second divine person, who in some way beyond our comprehension has been "begotten" by the Father from eternity, proceeds, emanates from Him; but in such a way that they are one in being, essence, one God. That Jesus was the Son of God in this last sense has been shown above. This sonship is expressed in Scripture as talking about the "only begotten Son," while we humans can only be God's adopted sons, metaphorically speaking, his children. Jesus himself feels a different relationship with the Father than we do; he never says, for example, "our Father," but rather "my Father and your Father." He is the "only begotten Son," who is "in the bosom of the Father." (John 1:18).

In Jewish tradition, a son inherited his father's name, title, and social position. If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus is the Almighty God. Jesus confirmed this himself.

The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'né Elohim) (Job 38:7, Psalm 36:9) and collectively refers to Judaism, the whole nation, as God's "son" (Hos 11:1). At the same time, no Jew could personally call God his own father, as if he were directly descended from God Himself, because this would have made him God as well (cf. Jn 10:33).

Jesus referred to himself with two specific expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "son of ...." structure, like in other languages, mostly expresses a genealogical relationship in Hebrew (e.g., Jonah's son, Simon), but it is also a unique grammatical phenomenon in Hebrew that does not relate but qualifies, for example, the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.

Firstly, therefore, when Jesus declared himself to be "the Son of Man" (Mt 16:13), it primarily means: "who is Man." Secondly, this expression is a figure from an Old Testament apocalyptic vision, one who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty One," and who, returning to earth, will be the king of the nations (Dan 7:13-14 cf. Mt 26:63-66, 25:31). From the reactions, it is clear that Jesus' contemporaries understood precisely the kind of authority Jesus claimed for himself with the title Son of Man.

On the other hand, Jesus also declared himself to be "the Son of God," which means: "who is God." In terms of his relationship with the Father, he is God's only Son (Jn 3:16; "only begotten" = unique), therefore he is the Son (1Jn 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12, etc.), to whom God personally is His own Father (Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, Jn 10:32-38), through whom the Father teaches and acts (Jn 14:10-11). As he said: "all that the Father has is mine" (Jn 16:15), since "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). Jews understood Jesus' self-proclamations as making himself "God, being a man" (Jn 10:33), because his words could not be understood differently with an Old Testament and Hebrew ear.

It is noteworthy that, according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Gal 3:27), but while the Son is inherently, eternally God by his own nature, believers become partakers of His divine nature – in character, immortality, glory – through God's grace (2Pt 1:4, 2Cor 3:18, 1Jn 3:2, 1Cor 15:53-54).

From the idea of "sonship" here, we naturally must distance ourselves from any notion derived from human life according to which the father exists first, and only after some time does the son come into being, which means the father is greater, stronger, wiser, and in comparison, the son is for a long time entirely subordinate. Instead, we should consider what "sonship" meant in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal conditions, where in the son, the entire household could see the father's alter ego, the heir to all his possessions, a sharer in all his authority. And we can think of the often-occurring phenomenon where the adult son often indeed appears as a carbon copy of the father. The same facial features, the same movements, the same way of speaking and thinking, as if the father lives a second life through the son. When the Father is God, not at a certain point in time, but from eternity to eternity, He pours out the life of the Son of God from Himself, in that He can contemplate a mirror image of His own being, and He projects His true likeness before us so that we may know Him from it. The Son is the same God but in a different manner: in the form of God revealing Himself. The Bible expresses this clearly and aptly when it refers to the Son with a different designation as the "Word," which – or rather who – was "with God" from eternity, and "was God." The Son of God is thus the living God in His articulation, the eternal Word, in which God expresses Himself.

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345