Posts by herk

93

Is the man Jesus Christ also the LORD?

by hooberus in

on several earlier threads i posted scriptures showing that jesus christ is now a man, and is not an angel:

o give thanks to the lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

(note: this must be the lord alone see isaiah 44:24)

"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus in

"ye have heard how i said unto you, i go away, and come again unto you.

if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because i said, i go unto the father: for my father is greater than i.

" john 14:28 .

herk

hooberus,

Unitarians appeal to Thayer for lexical support for their beifs regarding John 14:28

Trinitarians also turn to Thayer. So what's your point? Somehow you lost me on this one.

herk

86

"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus in

"ye have heard how i said unto you, i go away, and come again unto you.

if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because i said, i go unto the father: for my father is greater than i.

" john 14:28 .

herk

hooberus,

Regarding my statement that the two articles you linked "misrepresent some of the published sources they cite and quote," you raised the challenge:

Please provide evidence for this claim.

The articles are lengthy, and you just threw them out there as if they supplied all the answers in this debate. I could just as easily have mentioned some books and articles that you ought to read which provide an opposing point of view. "Nice work if you can get it!" You don't have to lift a finger while you let the other guy do all the wading through material. You just sit there and wait for him to respond to each point.

I'm not going to waste my time by re-reading both articles. But I will show you at least one instance of where they misrepresent the original authors who are cited or quoted:

Grimm-Thayer, alone among modern lexicons, defines MEIZÔN in such a way as to suggest ontology may be in view: "is used of those who surpass others ... in nature and power, as God: Jn. 10:29, 14:28; Heb. 6:13; 1 Jn. 4:4; add, Jn. 4:12; 8:53" (emphasis added). The question arises whether "nature" in this definition is meant to signify nature of being, as it is used in Trinitarian formulas, or whether it may have a lesser sense ...

In that paragraph and what follows, the writer of the article takes on the role of a mind reader and tries to persuade us that "nature" in the minds of Grimm and Thayer does not really mean "nature."

I could give other examples if I wanted to spend the time at it, but overall I thought both articles were extremely biased and made strenuous efforts to complicate something the Bible makes very simple.

herk

86

"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus in

"ye have heard how i said unto you, i go away, and come again unto you.

if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because i said, i go unto the father: for my father is greater than i.

" john 14:28 .

herk

hooberus,

In quoting Robertson on John 14:28, you cut and pasted the following:

Not a distinction in nature or essence (cf. 10:30), but in rank in the Trinity. No Arianism or Unitarianism here. The very explanation here is proof of the deity of the Son (Dods).

However, Robertson was an inconsistent scholar. He also wrote:

As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-incarnate state the Logos was God, though the Father was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the Incarnate Logos was really "God only Begotten in the bosom of the Father" (1:18 correct text).--A. T. Robertson, The Minister and His Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977) pp. 67-68. (Underlining mine.)

I think all trinitarians are a bit confused. They say that John 14:28 teaches that the Father is greater than the Son only by position, yet a basic teaching of the Trinity is that the three Persons existed from eternity, and are co-equal in power and substance. If the Father is Almighty and the Son is Almighty and the Holy Ghost is Almighty, how is it possible for one or another to be less in position or rank than Almighty?

herk

86

"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus in

"ye have heard how i said unto you, i go away, and come again unto you.

if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because i said, i go unto the father: for my father is greater than i.

" john 14:28 .

herk

hooberus,

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." John 13:16. ... "Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. . . . " John 15:20. ... In the above verses in John the word translated "greater" clearly refers to position and not nature.

Look what Jesus said in John 13:16 and John 15:20. Since greater clearly refers to position and not nature in these verses, why is it a distortion to claim the same for John 14:28?

These two verses say nothing about the meaning of John 14:28. Additionally, they do not "clearly" refer "to position and not nature." In John 13, Jesus had just washed the feet of the disciples. In verse 16 he said each of them was a "servant" and he spoke of himself as their "Lord [kurios]." Your belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position. Thus you are inconsistent by saying "greater" does not mean "God by nature" when an intrinsic part of your personal belief is that "Lord" means God by nature as well as by position.

In John 15, Jesus was discussing persecution and said that the servant/disciple "is not greater than his Lord [kurios]." In trinitarian terms, Jesus was telling the disciples, "You are not greater than the One who is your God by nature as well as by position."

As to John 14:28, I've raised the following points in another thread you started. I'm waiting for you to address them:

Jesus did not say at John 14:28, "My Father is greater than I with respect to position but not to nature." He simply said, "My Father is greater than I." He did not in any way qualify his statement as if in some respects his Father was not greater.

Everything in John 14 argues against trinitarianism. If Jesus was God in the same way the Father is God, . . .

He would not have said "believe in God, believe also in me." (Verse 1)
He would not have said "In my Father's house" but in "our" house. (Verse 2)
He would not have said ""I am the way" but "I am the ultimate goal." (Verse 6)
He would not have said "from now on you know the Father, and have seen him." Jesus was not the Father, even as trinitarians acknowledge. He was the reflection or image of the Father, not because he was equal to the Father, but as he clearly explained: "The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves." (Verses 7-11) The disciples saw the Father in Jesus, not because Jesus was equal to God, but because he spoke "words" and performed "works" on God's behalf.
He would not have said "he who believes in me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do." He had just stated that it was his Father's "works" that proved others could see the Father when they saw him. Thus, others would see the Father in anyone who performed the "greater works" Jesus foretold. (Verse 12)
He would not have said "I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper." If he shared equality with God following his ascension, there would be no need to request anything from another member of the so-called "triune God." If any member of the Trinity was to be asked, and if the Holy Spirit was the "Third Person of the Trinity," and if all members shared equality, the Spirit should have been the one asked, not the Father. (Verse 16)
He would not have said "I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you." (Verse 20) He would not have so carelessly suggested that membership in the Trinity would be shared by his followers.
He would not have spoken of "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name." (Verse 26) If the Holy Spirit was an equal member of the Trinity, he would have betrayed a lack of equality since Jesus taught that "the one being sent is lesser than the one who sends him." And why would the spirit come in the name of Jesus if his own name was equal to that of Jesus' name?
He would not have said "I do exactly as the Father commanded me." If he had been an equal member of the Trinity before being born as a human, he would have known due to his own equal awareness without having a need to be commanded by the Father. (Verse 31)

There is nothing in the context that suggests Jesus' inferiority to the Father was by position only.

herk

10

Is Jesus inferior because He was "sent" by the Father?

by hooberus in

the watchtower implies that since jesus was "sent" by the father that therefore he must be inferior to the father: .

"is not the sender superior to the one sent?

" should you believe in the trinity.

herk

hooberus,

A human father can send a submissive son, yet this does not mean that his son is inferior by nature (ie. less human) than his father. In fact human sons are always considered equal by nature to their fathers !

It is also important to remember that the trinity teaches that while Jesus and the Father are the same God that they are different persons.

Your view is that a "divine person" is not an individual, that three persons are not three beings, entities, objects or organisms. On what basis then can you use the illustration of a human father sending his human son? In order for your illustration to make any sense, you have to block the Trinity idea from your mind, at least momentarily. Your belief in the Trinity is not only contrary to scripture, but hostile to sound logic and reason as well.

A human father is an individual being. So is a human son. But your theory says the heavenly Father is not an invidual being, that without the Son and without the Holy Ghost, God would not be God. In other words, the Father would not be God. I'm amazed that you can't see the blasphemy that is strikingly embodied in the teaching of the Trinity.

A son who comes to you sent by his father should be given equal honor as his father, and should not be demoted by claiming that he is some sort of lesser being by nature than his father.

The apostles were sent by Jesus. Should they have been given equal honor as Jesus their sender if he was God? If Jesus was God and they were not, were they not lesser than he by nature?

"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." John 5:23

You misunderstand what Jesus meant here. He was not saying men should "honour the Son, equally as they honour the Father." "Even as" does not mean "equally as." If it did, Jesus' intention would also have been that all his disciples become part of the Trinity:

John 17:11, 20, 21 - "Holy Father, keep them in your name, the name which you have given me, that they may be one even as [equally as?] we are. ... [I ask] that they may all be one; even as [equally as?] you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us."

herk

4

BEACON...........Who are they ????????????

by Aikon in

jw
friends

hi guys.

i have come accross a web site called "beacon"................ it is run by ex- jehovahs witnesses.

does any one know anything about this site??thanks.

herk

It's a great site. Check it out at

http://www.xjw.com/

12

Should You Believe in the Trinity?

by Tower Man in

jw
friends

i posted this about 1 year ago and people seemed to really enjoy it.

it's a simulated discussion about the watchtower's main anti-trinity booklet named, should you believe in the trinity.

the purpose of the article is not to validate or discredit the trinity, but solely to examine the watchtower's literary honesty or dishonesty.

herk

18

Jesus is the Lord

by hooberus in

note: "lord" all capitals =yhwh hebrew

the lord of hosts

"in the year that king uzziah died i saw also the lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

herk

86

"my Father is greater than I" and the Trinity

by hooberus in

"ye have heard how i said unto you, i go away, and come again unto you.

if ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because i said, i go unto the father: for my father is greater than i.

" john 14:28 .

herk

hooberus,

It's easy to resort to human sources for support of practically any idea that exists. The sources you linked distort the truth of what Jesus actually said. They also misrepresent some of the published sources they cite and quote. Some of the sources are obviously trinitarian and biased. Their etymologies place emphasis on the secondary definition of "greater," as found in John 14:28, but the primary definition does indeed allow for "greater by nature," something your referenced links try to hide. I'm not a JW, and I'm far from being one of their supporters, but I think it's dishonest and hypocritical for trinitarians to condemn JWs for using partial quotes to support their doctrines while doing the same sort of thing themselves.

stillajwexelder,

it is repugnant to them that there can be a Trinity

As you are probably aware, it's also repugnant to Jews, the people who first introduced the God of the Bible to the world. (John 4:22; Romans 9:4) Whenever the Jews forsook the true God, it was never a Trinity that they abandoned.

The majority of Christian denominations have walked away from the true God of primitive Christian monotheism just as the Jews often abandoned the God of their forefathers.

herk