• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus adherents only: How is a ''separate' trinity concept, not polytheism?

trinity distinction /in the Godhood

  • non-trinitarian, separate but not distinct persons

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .

Coder

Member
Take one of the trinitarian favorites...."before Abraham was I am". (John 8:58)
No. This is not "Trinitarian favorite", or at least only indirectly. This passage is more referred to in support of the divinity of Jesus.

...
...
...
...
So God's name didn't even mean "I am"...it literally means "he causes to be"...or to "become". It was never a declaration of his existence, but a declaration of his intention to "become" whatever was needed to fulfill his purpose. (Isaiah 55:11)
...

, but you have to know what you are looking for.
Yes, of course, once someone already "knows what they're looking for", they can twist Scriptures to make it say it.

I've already made my thoughts clear about Scripture especially the NT. However, if you are going to debate from Scripture, then my view is that your argument is absurd. It's very clear to anyone the connection between God referring to Himself as "I am" and Jesus saying "I am". Your explanation is absurd, the connection is so clear. The arguments are like a fish trying to wriggle off a hook. Perfect example of people making clear Scriptures say whatever they want it to say. You know, they say, people will believe many things if it's repeated enough.
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
No. This is not "Trinitarian favorite", or at least only indirectly. This passage is more referred to in support of the divinity of Jesus.



Yes, of course, once someone already "knows what they're looking for", they can twist Scriptures to make it say it.

I've already made my thoughts clear about Scripture especially the NT. However, if you are going to debate from Scripture, then my view is that your argument is absurd. It's very clear to anyone the connection between God referring to Himself as "I am" and Jesus saying "I am". Your explanation is absurd, the connection is so clear. The arguments are like a fish trying to wriggle off a hook. Perfect example of people making clear Scriptures say whatever they want it to say. You know, they say, people will believe a lot of nonsense if someone just keeps repeating it enough.

Coder, you are very welcome to your own interpretation of scripture, but are as guilty as anyone else of manipulating scripture to fit your own view.

Do you have a brotherhood with whom you meet for worship? Have you found one that believes everything you do? If you haven't, why do you think that is so?
 

Coder

Member
Coder, you are very welcome to your own interpretation of scripture, but are as guilty as anyone else of manipulating scripture to fit your own view.
OK, Deeje, I apologize, because I do see a Jewish explanation that is very similar to yours. I am sorry.
http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge...efore-abraham-came-into-being-i-amq-john-858/

Is Jewish literature where your congregation got this explanation?

However, I should also point out that I often refer to Jewish explanations especially of the Hebrew Scriptures but I don't necessarily give much weight to Jewish explanations of the New Testament and I still don't embrace that explanation which seems very similar to yours.


See:
http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8
* [8:58] Came to be, I AM: the Greek word used for “came to be” is the one used of all creation in the prologue, while the word used for “am” is the one reserved for the Logos.
Logos is clearly identified with divinity at the beginning of the Gospel of John.
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God and Jesus are always in the masculine gender whereas God's spirit is also in the neuter 'it '
- Numbers 11:17; Numbers 11:25
Some translations have changed ' itself ' to himself such as found at Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26
That does Not change God's spirit from being a neuter ' it' or 'itself'
Just as in English we call a car or a ship as a ' she' although it remains as a neuter ' it'.
So, God's spirit - Psalms 104:30 - to me is Not a person.
It's much worse when you call bull**** The Truth. Numbers 11:17 and Numbers 11:25 does not say :"it" in the original.
http://biblehub.com/text/numbers/11-17.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/numbers/11-25.htm

Str Translit Hebrew English Morph
3381 [e] wə-yā-raḏ-tî, וְיָרַדְתִּ֗י And I will come down
1696 [e] wə-ḏib-bar-tî וְדִבַּרְתִּ֣י and talk
5973 [e] ‘im-mə-ḵā עִמְּךָ֮ with you
8033 [e] šām שָׁם֒ there
680 [e] wə-’ā-ṣal-tî, וְאָצַלְתִּ֗י and I will take
4480 [e] min- מִן־ of
7307 [e] hā-rū-aḥ הָר֛וּחַ the spirit
834 [e] ’ă-šer אֲשֶׁ֥ר that [is]
5921 [e] ‘ā-le-ḵā עָלֶ֖יךָ on you
7760 [e] wə-śam-tî וְשַׂמְתִּ֣י and will put
5921 [e] ‘ă-lê-hem; עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם on them
5375 [e] wə-nā-śə-’ū וְנָשְׂא֤וּ and they shall bear
854 [e] ’it-tə-ḵā אִתְּךָ֙ with you
4853 [e] bə-maś-śā בְּמַשָּׂ֣א the burden
5971 [e] hā-‘ām, הָעָ֔ם of the people
3808 [e] wə-lō- וְלֹא־ and not
5375 [e] ṯiś-śā תִשָּׂ֥א shall bear
859 [e] ’at-tāh אַתָּ֖ה you
905 [e] lə-ḇad-de-ḵā. לְבַדֶּֽךָ׃ alone

3381 [e] way-yê-reḏ וַיֵּ֨רֶד And came down
3068 [e] Yah-weh יְהוָ֥ה ׀ the LORD
6051 [e] be-‘ā-nān בֶּעָנָן֮ in the cloud
1696 [e] way-ḏab-bêr וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר and spoke
413 [e] ’ê-lāw אֵלָיו֒ unto him
680 [e] way-yā-ṣel, וַיָּ֗אצֶל and took
4480 [e] min- מִן־ of
7307 [e] hā-rū-aḥ הָר֙וּחַ֙ the spirit
834 [e] ’ă-šer אֲשֶׁ֣ר that
5921 [e] ‘ā-lāw, עָלָ֔יו [was] on him
5414 [e] way-yit-tên וַיִּתֵּ֕ן and gave [it]
5921 [e] ‘al- עַל־ to
7657 [e] šiḇ-‘îm שִׁבְעִ֥ים the seventy
376 [e] ’îš אִ֖ישׁ men
2205 [e] haz-zə-qê-nîm; הַזְּקֵנִ֑ים elder
1961 [e] way-hî, וַיְהִ֗י and it came to pass
5117 [e] kə-nō-w-aḥ כְּנ֤וֹחַ rested
5921 [e] ‘ă-lê-hem עֲלֵיהֶם֙ on them
7307 [e] hā-rū-aḥ, הָר֔וּחַ the spirit
5012 [e] way-yiṯ-nab-bə-’ū וַיִּֽתְנַבְּא֖וּ and they prophesied
3808 [e] wə-lō וְלֹ֥א but not
3254 [e] yā-sā-p̄ū. יָסָֽפוּ׃ did so again

You should probably know [ ] means add on.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
OK, Deeje, I apologize, because I do see a Jewish explanation that is very similar to yours. I am sorry.
http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge...efore-abraham-came-into-being-i-amq-john-858/

Is Jewish literature where your congregation got this explanation?

Thank you.

Since we base our understanding of scripture on the entire Bible, we always allow scripture to interpret scripture. We are not a NT faith that ignores the very important Jewish viewpoint. Everything Jesus taught was to Jews initially, so understanding the Jewish aspect of Jesus' teachings allows us to go to the base of all of them. We reject Christendom's very limited understanding of what Jesus taught and how little they actually put his teachings into practice.

However, I should also point out that I often refer to Jewish explanations especially of the Hebrew Scriptures but not so much when they try to interpret the New Testament so I still don't embrace that explanation.

http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/8

I have to agree. We have to remember that the Jews rejected Jesus and his apostles as apostates to Judaism. But this does not invalidate the Hebrew scriptures and what God taught to his people through his mediator, Moses. If you have no understanding of what Jews believed, you will never understand what Christ and his apostles taught.

John 8 is a perfect example of Jews accusing Jesus of something that he never said. Those corrupt religious leaders said he claimed to be God, but he only ever said he was "God's son". They were determined to make their accusation stick, so that they could get rid of him. He was making them look bad.

Refer to the above and also that Logos is clearly identified with God at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Please read John 1:1 according to Jewish understanding, and with Greek language and phrasing.

In Greek, there is no indefinite article ("a" or "an") there is only the definite article ("the") so when Greek speaks of "gods" (theos) it was in a culture with many gods. So the word "theos" simply means "a divine mighty one", not necessarily any particular "god". For Jewish monotheists, this presented a problem. The only way to identify "the only true God" from any other was to use the definite article (the).

If you read John 1:1 in an Interlinear you can see that there is one who is identified as "ho theos" (the God) as opposed to the one who is identified as simply "theos". Since Jesus is certainly "a divine mighty one" he can rightly be called "theos" but he was "with" "ho theos" (the God) "in the beginning" and it was this divine mighty one who "became flesh", not "the God".

John 1:1 has been misinterpreted by Christendom' scholars to support their trinity. It never says Jesus is "the God" but is just "a god"....the divine son of God who was sent by him to redeem mankind.

Please check the Interlinear for confirmation of this. Nice chatting with you......
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I realize that nobody is going to be convinced differently from what they believe. I just enjoy the debate as the byproduct is that it helps me address questions for those who are still seeking.

I'm not a Trinitarian (but for different reasons than JW theology). It's plain to see that there are Scriptures that support the Trinity doctrine. However, I think that's because the Scriptures may have been influenced by Roman leaders (father-son gods) or used as a parable to teach pagans. Recommend see my thread on the oneness of God. Also, "Holy Spirit" could simply be another term for God or how He works, as always understood in Judaism. Also Ken, notice how you said "(part of God)", that shows a problem with Trinity doctrine IMHO, I don't believe that God has parts/persons.
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
"...the fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion..."

Yes, I once thought that. You might find this Jewish article helpful, about why God's name "Elohim" does not mean plural.
https://outreachjudaism.org/elohim-plural/
Yes, I have spoken to a Rabbi too... but at the same time, we must remember that they don't agree that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore, disagreements are quite common.

The Septuagint (translated by Jews) says a virgin will have a baby in Isaiah. Their updated version that they use today has the word change. I'm not surprised that positions have changed also.

But Paul, a Pharisee among Pharisees, had no problem with the Godhead position and neither did the Jews of that time.

I think many Christians and JWs interpret some parts of the Bible far too seriously/literally.
Certainly there are people all over spectrum for any position. Each believes they are right.

There may be whole passages fabricated/doctored by Roman leaders or many may be parables used for preaching to pagans.
That a BIG statement--do I have to accept that as truth?
Again, strongly recommend see my thread on the oneness of God. Also suggest read some of Joseph's Atwill's discussion. Mind blowing and eye opening. I don't necessarily agree with everything Joseph Atwill says but I really think it's time for Christians to stop having such an immature view of Scripture especially the NT.

I actually took a three hour course on the Oneness of God. Basically it was determined that just when you thought that God was one, we ended up with three. And just when we cemented that there was three, we ended up with one.

It really cemented the reality of one God in manifested in three persons.

People need to be realistic. It's Sacred Scripture, but one must understand in what sense it is "Sacred" and in what sense it is "Scripture". It amazes me to see Christians and JWs debating from Scripture when honestly I think you're missing so much - it was influenced by Greek and Roman pagan theology/philosophy and/or Roman leaders - yes that's right - Scripture itself!
We will just have to agree to disagree... mainly because the NT is found in the OT that was written before there were Romans.

Don't you think they would force their pagan theology into the Scriptures of the new movement in Judaism called Christianity?!
Which explains why they persecuted Christians for the first few hundreds of years. Christians (and Jews) just wouldn't go with the flow.

You might ask - why would Roman leaders care? Well, I think the Roman leaders believed that the success of the Roman Empire (battles etc.) was helped by "blessing" from their gods - like Jupiter. Maybe part of Constantine accepting Christianity was pagan "father-son god" terminology in the NT, then he could call a Council to "settle the matter". Notice the Latin "pater" (father) in the word "Ju-piter"? "Jupiter" means sky father. What's the sky? The heavens!. The Romans worshipped a god who was a "father in heaven/sky" - see?! Ever wonder why Catholics and other Christians look up to the sky when they pray? Do we really think that God is up there somewhere? God is an infinite Spirit, He's not in the "sky" anymore than He's in the ocean - where do you think we inherited this custom of "looking up" when we pray? I have a clue for you - "Roman". I only recently began to realize just how significant the term "Roman" is in the name "Roman Catholic Church".
The problem with these positions is that today with have scriptures that predate the Council and the Roman Catholic Church.

Enjoyed, however, your position.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some translations have changed ' itself ' to himself such as found at Romans 8:16; Romans 8:26
That does Not change God's spirit from being a neuter ' it' or 'itself'
Look and see αὐτό· (it or he) used at Acts of the Apostles 2:1 2 Now while the day of the Festival of Pentecost+ was in progress, they were all together at the same place. What do you think? Please look at Acts of the Apostles 1:15
Young's Literal Translation
And in these days, Peter having risen up in the midst of the disciples, said, (the multitude also of the names at the same place was, as it were, an hundred and twenty,)

15 During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (the number* of people was altogether about 120) and said: In that scripture the governing body just tore αὐτό· right out! Can they do that?
Just as in English we call a car or a ship as a ' she' although it remains as a neuter ' it'.
So, God's spirit - Psalms 104:30 - to me is Not a person.
Accordingly to me you call God "it" as God and Spirit are together as one, just like a human person and his soul is together as one. If The Holy Spirit is it, then God is it too.

So Romans 8:26 can be read: The SAME Spirit makes intercession with inexpressible groaning.
It means the Spirit which helps men in their weaknesses is the same Spirit which knows men's weaknesses.

And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself itself SAME maketh intercession for [us] with groanings which cannot be uttered
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Spirit which is strong, also is the same spirit which puts on weakness even while making intersession for us.

2 Corinthians 12:10 That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.

You see? Men like POWER. Paul knew that God is not that. The same Spirit that helps us we can help the same Spirit. Ephesians 4:30

Like the man said, someone had to explain that Jesus Christ does not come as they would like, in power but comes in weakness. Their gods had power over them. Obviously, The True God does not do it like that.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A pronoun follows a noun in a series of sentences to refer to the formerly referenced noun.
It and he floating around means nothing. When you see auto (transliteration) it refers to what was previously mentioned. It for non-humans and things and he or she for humans. OR "same" which is neither it, he or she, but is the word used to refer to what was previously mentioned.

Chocolate cake tastes delicious, but the same is chock full of empty calories and the same might be refused if you are watching your weight and taking good care of your health.

Please try to remember language changes over time.
 
Last edited:

Coder

Member
Unlike some passages, John 1:1 is one where the divinity of Jesus is indeed bound with the Trinitarian understanding. However, this is one of those areas (as I have said in general) about the Gospel of John where the real explanation may need not be a Trinity doctrine but simply Scriptures based on Greek/Roman/pagan father-son "gods" terminology that are taken too seriously/literally by Christians and JWs.

he was "with" "ho theos" (the God) "in the beginning" and it was this divine mighty one who "became flesh", not "the God".
Yes, Christians already agree with that in the sense that Christians don't believe that Jesus (the Son) is the Father. Christians are not claiming that the Father became flesh.


Jesus is "the God" but is just "a god"....
Well, it's pagans that believe in "gods", remember what I have been saying about Greek/Roman/pagan influence and JWs and Christians taking Scriptures too seriously/literally. Case in point.


....the divine son of God who was sent by him to redeem mankind.
Yes and this is where the distinction between "nature" and "person" must be understood in Trinitarian Christian theology. Christians interpret this as "Son of God" and that Jesus has the same infinite eternal/uncreated divine nature as the Father and therefore is equal with the Father in terms of nature but yet is a distinct person (related to the Trinity doctrine). JWs interpret this to mean that Jesus is a created being, "son" instead of "Son". I would say that if one interprets these Scriptures literally/seriously then it would be more of a stretch to say that a "divine" being is created than to say that He is equal in nature with the Father (God).

At any rate, in regards to John 1:1, I think the Trinity doctrine does the best it can to explain these Scriptures (again, for those Christians who interpret these Scriptures literally/seriously). To me, again, this is an example of Jewish theology mixed with Greek/Roman/pagan theology possibly also under pressure/influence of the Roman government so I am not sure how seriously anyone should take these Scriptures.

Here's the way I look at it. What happens when a messianic Jewish movement gets modified by the Roman government and pagan theology and centuries later a Roman Emperor says he wants these matters settled by the scholars at the time who have these Scriptures to go by? What happens? You get a Trinity doctrine in regards to the one true God understood by Jewish people but the doctrine could also apply conceptually to Saturn-Jupiter Zeus-Hercules and many other father-son "gods". (Council of Nicea)
 
Last edited:

Coder

Member
Hi Ken, I like your approach: Open, honest, sincere.

That a BIG statement--do I have to accept that as truth?
Certainly I mean no disrespect to Scripture, and I especially respect that the NT is the book of many who are serious about their faith and love of God. I would suggest try to put yourself in the reality of the time and place of the first few centuries including what religion 99% of the people around you had and how strongly the government wanted the blessing of their gods and the egos of Roman Emperors who also were referred to as "son of god" ("divi filius"). They even believed that their "gods" impregnated human women and so their offspring were human "sons of gods" (Hercules, just one example). Very eye-opening IMHO.

...scriptures that predate the Council...
Yes, absolutely. See my previous post. The Scriptures were formulated (as you point out) in the centuries leading up to the Council. Notice how the Gospel of John has much of the "Father-Son" "God" terminology that would be in line with pagan "father-son" "god" terminology? The Gospel of John is a later Gospel and why is it so different from the synoptic Gospels? I think because it was written after experience trying to teach pagans about God and/or after the Roman government influenced the Scriptures to make them more "politically correct" with pagan theology.


Christians (and Jews) just wouldn't go with the flow.
Perhaps to save lives they may have tolerated some Roman/pagan influence. Some even may say that Christian theology is a fabrication of the Roman government to some extent, to make Judaism more palatable or vice-versa. It's almost like a compromise in a major conflict, each side trying to be true to themselves: Messianic Jews trying to be true to the one true God (Amen), and Romans trying to be "true" to their egos, power, and blessings from Jupiter, Mars and many other pagan gods. I'm sure you've heard of "In hoc signo vinces." See, blessings/victory from pagans "gods" now transitioning to blessings from "God". This saying may have been propaganda either by Constantine and other Roman leaders - or for them to get them to be more accepting of Christianity. After all, if you're a Roman Emperor who believes that your power/victories are blessings from pagan "gods" and someone presents a new "god" to you who in this case is the one true God, and they say the true God can really help you with your victories/blessing, you might get their attention. :smile:
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Unlike some passages, John 1:1 is one where the divinity of Jesus is indeed bound with the Trinitarian understanding. However, this is one of those areas (as I have said in general) about the Gospel of John where the real explanation may need not be a Trinity doctrine but simply Scriptures based on Greek/Roman/pagan father-son "gods" terminology that are taken too seriously/literally by Christians and JWs.

Understanding Greek language in the context of Jewish teaching is what gives us the key.

John 1:1 (NASB)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Greek had no capital letters and nothing to identify the "one God" of Israel (because the divine name had vanished from Jewish speech) except by use of the definite article, especially in places where lesser "gods" (divine mighty ones) were spoken about. (John 10:34-35)

John 1:1 therefore reads in Greek....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos." (Mounce Interlinear)

So it says that the Word (Jesus in his pre-human existence) was with "the God" (ho theos) and the Word was god (a divine mighty one). Addition of the indefinite article "a" is used elsewhere in the scriptures to help with the English translation.....as seen in Acts 12:22 which in the Greek says...." But de the ho crowd dēmos began to shout epiphōneō, “It is the voice phōnē of a god theos, and kai not ou of a man anthrōpos!”

Verse 14 of John 1 says that "the Word became flesh" not "the God".

John 1:18 e.g. plainly says..."No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him."

Here we have a direct statement that "no one has seen God at any time" yet thousands saw Jesus. He is described as "the only begotten god" (no capitals in Greek) and we know that "the God" (YHWH) is not "begotten". As "the Word", (logos) he is, and always was a 'spokesman' for his God and Father....conveying God's word to others.

Yes, Christians already agree with that in the sense that Christians don't believe that Jesus (the Son) is the Father. Christians are not claiming that the Father became flesh.

Splitting God up into three different persons makes it possible to pretend that polytheism is in fact monotheism. But Christendom's God is not the God of the Jews....he is not the God of Jesus Christ. (John 20:17)

Well, it's pagans that believe in "gods", remember what I have been saying about Greek/Roman/pagan influence and JWs and Christians taking Scriptures too seriously/literally. Case in point.

And in the context of pagan Greek language usage, we can only understand what is written with a Jewish understanding of the true nature of their God. (Deuteronomy 6:4) There is a time to be literal and a time to be figurative.....the truth revealed in God's word allows us to discern the difference.

Yes and this is where the distinction between "nature" and "person" must be understood in Trinitarian Christian theology. Christians interpret this as "Son of God" and that Jesus has the same infinite eternal/uncreated divine nature as the Father and therefore is equal with the Father in terms of nature but yet is a distinct person (related to the Trinity doctrine). JWs interpret this to mean that Jesus is a created being, "son" instead of "Son". I would say that if one interprets these Scriptures literally/seriously then it would be more of a stretch to say that a "divine" being is created than to say that He is equal in nature with the Father (God).

And by what do you judge this to be so? The scriptures themselves tell us that Jesus is a created being.

Colossians 1:15-16: (NASB)
"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him."

The term "firstborn" means literally the first child in a family (used elsewhere in the scripture to describe other firstborn children)
"Only begotten" is "monogenes" and is used elsewhere to describe an only child. Neither of these terms take on special meaning outside of what was understood in Jewish life when applied to Jesus. Jews well understood his relationship to his Father. He was not God Almighty, but as God's "firstborn" ,he was next in line to his Father....but never his equal.
This firstborn son was used by the Father as the agency "through" which all other creation was fabricated.(Genesis 1:26-27; Proverbs 8:30-31)

Jesus calls himself "the Beginning of the creation of God" in Revelation 3:14.

At any rate, in regards to John 1:1, I think the Trinity doctrine does the best it can to explain these Scriptures (again, for those Christians who interpret these Scriptures literally/seriously). To me, again, this is an example of Jewish theology mixed with Greek/Roman/pagan theology possibly also under pressure/influence of the Roman government so I am not sure how seriously anyone should take these Scriptures.

Actually, Jewish theology had little to do with it.....Constantine's fusion "universal religion" was a mix of weakened apostate Christianity and pagan Roman sun worship. The pagan influence obviously being the stronger of the two in a world influenced by the devil. (1 John 5:19)

Here's the way I look at it. What happens when a messianic Jewish movement gets modified by the Roman government and pagan theology and centuries later a Roman Emperor says he wants these matters settled by the scholars at the time who have these Scriptures to go by? What happens? You get a Trinity doctrine in regards to the one true God understood by Jewish people but the doctrine could also apply conceptually to Saturn-Jupiter Zeus-Hercules and many other father-son "gods". (Council of Nicea)

I agree, except that the "Jewish messianic movement" wasn't a new form of Judaism....it was a return to the true worship that God had instituted on Mt Sinai. Christianity was not a new religion, but the same worship of the same God under a new covenant. The "weeds" of false Christianity were foretold and they took over the church as weeds usually do.
Jewish monotheism was modified by "the church" to incorporate the ancient Babylonian concept of a three in one godhead and all manner of other pagan concepts crept in with it. This is what forms the foundations of Christendom....a place where Christ has never set foot. (Matthew 7:21-23)
 

Coder

Member
...different persons makes it possible to pretend that polytheism is in fact monotheism.
I agree with you about monotheism in general but I find your views of the interpretation of John 1:1 by others to be unreasonable/unfair. I think sincere scholarship would admit, that if John 1:1 is interpreted seriously/literally then Jesus is spoken of as divine (as you yourself have stated). To accuse Christians of misinterpreting the word divine because they consider Jesus to be equivalent in nature/divinity to God is unfair. It's hardly off base to consider a divine being to be God! :smile:

You must admit, that it is an inconsistent theological concept to propose (as you do) that a divine being was created. Eliminates the meaning of "divine", wouldn't you say?

It also seems an inconsistent theological concept to propose (as you do) that a being was created and then created all else. God can create all by Himself, He doesn't need to create a creator.


So we'll just have to disagree about what is a reasonable interpretation of John 1:1 because although I'm not a believer in the Trinity, I think the Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1 is reasonable if those Scriptures are taken seriously/literally.


However, you see, I go a step further than you, I think the early Christians may have been put in an awkward position by the Roman government and forced to work with these Scriptures that had been influenced by the Romans.

I believe that a Christian can believe that God became man in Jesus with no need for a Trinitarian explanation i.e. no need to mix it with pagan father-son "god" terminology.

See, you say the understanding of Jesus was mistakenly elevated to the belief that Jesus is God, and that the correction is to understand Jesus as a created (divine?) being who is a lesser "god" or creature. However, I say that the pagan father-son "god" terminology may have lowered the understanding of Jesus to be the "Son of God". See, I believe that a Christian can simply believe that God Himself became man (Jesus). Further, I believe that Christians can believe that, while appearing in human form, God always remained infinite, just as when He appeared in the Burning Bush, He still remained infinite.

I am very opened-minded to truth and I have read what you wrote and I see no fault in the traditional interpretation of John 1:1. I believe that both JWs and Christians may be interpreting many Scriptures too seriously/literally for the reasons that I have stated (Roman pagan influences).


 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I agree with you about monotheism in general but I find your views of the interpretation of John 1:1 by others to be unreasonable/unfair. I think sincere scholarship would admit, that if John 1:1 is interpreted seriously/literally then Jesus is spoken of as divine (as you yourself have stated). To accuse Christians of misinterpreting the word divine because they consider Jesus to be equivalent in nature/divinity to God is unfair. It's hardly off base to consider a divine being to be God! :smile:

The Oxford Dictionary defines "divine" as ......

adjective
"Of or like God or a god."

Collins....
"1. of, relating to, or characterizing God or a deity
2. godlike
3. of, relating to, or associated with religion or worship ⇒ the divine liturgy
4. of supreme excellence or worth
5. informal splendid; perfect

So Jesus' being "divine" can simply mean that he came from God...he being "the image" of his Father....meaning that he is "godlike" or even "a god" in the Greek meaning of "theos" .

I have no problem with Jesus' divinity, what I cannot accept is that he is God as an equal part of a triune godhead. Nowhere will I find Jesus promoting that idea in the Bible.

You must admit, that it is an inconsistent theological concept to propose (as you do) that a divine being was created. Eliminates the meaning of "divine", wouldn't you say?

Your definitions are too narrow for me. I can see Jesus as a divinely created being, just as the Bible says. (Revelation 3:14)
His title of "only begotten" means that he is the only direct creation of his God and Father. All of creation was fashioned by the son, using the raw materials created by God, using the power of God's holy spirit. (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:15-16)


It also seems an inconsistent theological concept to propose (as you do) that a being was created and then created all else. God can create all by Himself, He doesn't need to create a creator.
There are two different words used in Genesis....the first one is "bara" (create) and the second is "asah" (make)

Bara means "to create, shape, form"

Asah means..."to do, fashion, accomplish, make"

So I see the Father as Creator and the son as a fabricator or master builder. I see a Father involving his son directly in this monumental project we call creation. I see them working side by side. (Proverbs 8:30-31; Genesis 1:26)

So we'll just have to disagree about what is a reasonable interpretation of John 1:1 because although I'm not a believer in the Trinity, I think the Trinitarian interpretation of John 1:1 is reasonable if those Scriptures are taken seriously/literally.
Considering all of John chapter one, I will agree to disagree. I believe that John 1:18 clarifies John 1:1

However, you see, I go a step further than you, I think the early Christians may have been put in an awkward position by the Roman government and forced to work with these Scriptures that had been influenced by the Romans.
I think your timing is off. By the time "Christianity" was put under any influence by the Roman Emperor, the "weeds" of Jesus' parable were well and truly overwhelming the 'garden'. First century Christianity is what Jesus began, and the Bible canon ended with John's last contribution. From the second century onward, it was a downward spiral until the takeover of Roman Catholicism in the 4th century.

I believe that a Christian can believe that God became man in Jesus with no need for a Trinitarian explanation i.e. no need to mix it with pagan father-son "god" terminology.

Can I ask you why you think God needed to become like one of his lower lifeforms? He had angels do that to deliver messages to his human servants, so why would he need to take on the role that his servants had? He is the Creator and there was no necessity at all for him to become a human.

See, you say the understanding of Jesus was mistakenly elevated to the belief that Jesus is God, and that the correction is to understand Jesus as a created (divine?) being who is a lesser "god" or creature. However, I say that the pagan father-son "god" terminology may have lowered the understanding of Jesus to be the "Son of God". See, I believe that a Christian can simply believe that God Himself became man (Jesus). Further, I believe that Christians can believe that, while appearing in human form, God always remained infinite, just as when He appeared in the Burning Bush, He still remained infinite.

Hmmmm. So it appears as if you are contradicting yourself a bit here. Is Jesus God or isn't he? I want to know why you think he needed to be? If neither the Father nor the son ever made the claim of equality with one another, why does Christendom? (John 14:28)
The offering of Jesus' life is described as a "ransom".

Matthew 20:28:
"even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (ESV)

According to Strongs a "ransom" is.....

  1. the price for redeeming, ransom
    1. paid for slaves, captives
    2. for the ransom of life
  2. to liberate many from misery and the penalty of their sins"
In order to pay the ransom, Jesus' life had to be equivalent of Adam's, not God's. Adam lost perfect life for all his children and Jesus came to buy back what Adam forfeited. If God came and offered his life, no ransom could apply because, 1) God is immortal and cannot die, and 2) the over-payment would have been ridiculous.
Jesus is called "the last Adam" because his life was the equivalent of Adam's. All he had to be was sinless, not God.

I am very opened-minded to truth and I have read what you wrote and I see no fault in the traditional interpretation of John 1:1. I believe that both JWs and Christians may be interpreting many Scriptures too seriously/literally for the reasons that I have stated (Roman pagan influences).

The "Roman pagan influences" are seen in the teachings and practices of Roman Catholicism, so you have that right. But the the "weeds" were planted long before that, from the second century onwards.

It is your opinion that we may be interpreting scripture incorrectly, and you can believe that if you wish....but we have over 8 million in our brotherhood, all of whom are preachers and teachers of God's word. We all believe the same truth and we all preach one united message in all nations. JW.ORG

Loners who want God to change his truth for them will come to disappointment because the preaching that Christ commanded cannot be done by loners. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20) Christianity was just a small band of preachers in the beginning but Jesus told them to beg his Father for more workers, since "the harvest was great but the workers were few". (Matthew 9:37-38)
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
T
Your definitions are too narrow for me. I can see Jesus as a divinely created being, just as the Bible says. (Revelation 3:14)
It is possible you misunderstand this scripture?

Young's Literal Translation
'And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;

My opinion is the chief always existed with Jehovah. Never not existed. YOU translate Rev 3:14 as the "the first of the creation of God". Might it mean the reason of the creation of God, the rule by which God created?


His title of "only begotten" means that he is the only direct creation of his God and Father. All of creation was fashioned by the son, using the raw materials created by God, using the power of God's holy spirit. (Genesis 1:1; Colossians 1:15-16)
There are two different words used in Genesis....the first one is "bara" (create) and the second is "asah" (make)
Bara means "to create, shape, form"

Asah means..."to do, fashion, accomplish, make"
There was no necessity in Jehovah to make anything at all. The love of God is the reason anything is created. What did God love before there was anything?

Can I ask you why you think God needed to become like one of his lower lifeforms? He had angels do that to deliver messages to his human servants, so why would he need to take on the role that his servants had? He is the Creator and there was no necessity at all for him to become a human.
It is your opinion that we may be interpreting scripture incorrectly, and you can believe that if you wish....but we have over 8 million in our brotherhood, all of whom are preachers and teachers of God's word. We all believe the same truth and we all preach one united message in all nations. JW.ORG
I agree with the JWs that Jehovah did not require that God become a man.

I believe the JWs are not better than any other religion because of their pitiful need to make God into an image ie explain him. Consider this. Every time anyone makes Jehovah into their personal idea of what God is/should be, they are actually making something for Jehovah to be jealous of. Is it not a sin?

Is bearing false witness not really a sin either? (I ask you again because you ignored me the first and the second time).
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Another word for chief is head. How is it that according to YOU, Jehovah at some time did not exist with his head? 1 Corinthians 11:3

Before time began, Jehovah had no head?????????

YOU say Jehovah created Jesus. We all know Jesus has a head. BUT GOD DOESN'T?
 

Prestor John

Well-Known Member
Dope..?...lol...what a misnomer that actually is..lol...Cannabis doesnt actually make you "dopey" Folks - it doesnt make you dumb or stupid at all - just read my long wordy posts for confirmation of that..lol. - .hash doesnt deserve such a disparaging label at all - for actually it does the complete opposite - it makes you THINK - deeply ;)

Ganja as I prefer to call it is a physical tool that allows the mind to finally be used in a whole and complete manner (most people are severely handicapped relying on surface mind access only and this is - not natural - but a side affect of society that causes us to adopt this limited Self perception as normal) - ganja is just a tool to redress that unnatural mode we adopt that is all it is - neither good nor bad - just an available tool if we so wish.
I cannot disagree with this enough.
 

Coder

Member
So Jesus' being "divine" can simply mean that he came from God...he being "the image" of his Father....meaning that he is "godlike" or even "a god" in the Greek meaning of "theos" .
Roman pagans believed that Jupiter was "a god".


...So I see the Father as Creator and the son as a fabricator or master builder...
...His title of "only begotten" means that he is the only direct creation of his God and Father...
"Son" and "begotten" are much more filial in nuance than "only direct creation". So, the Bible says "only begotten Son", and you speak of Jesus as "only direct creation"? I would see this as a possible example of someone putting their own spin on the Scriptures. Not to mention "only direct creation" sounds so cold - is that how people who subscribe to your theology refer to their children? - "Honey, are our 'only direct creations' in the car? - we're leaving now." :rolleyes:


If neither the Father nor the son ever made the claim of equality with one another, why does Christendom? (John 14:28)
Well, the term "Son of God" has some deep theological nuances whereby Father and Son in Christianity are considered "equal" in nature but "not equal" as distinct "persons" and also for example, the Son always does only the Father's will. I sort of agree with your views on this theology, but unlike you, I don't think it means that Jesus is a "created divinity" and/or a "created son". See my summary below (at the end in bold text).


If I'm not mistaken JWs also taught (still teach?) that Jesus is the archangel Michael?

1) God is immortal and cannot die
Christians believe that Jesus' body died, but Jesus' Spirit did not die.


At any rate, I will repeat that I propose that: a.) Both Christians and JWs are interpreting these Scriptures too seriously/literally due to the pagan influences and b.) This Greek/Roman/pagan (including Roman government) influence calls seekers of truth to question the extent of these pagan influences and what it may really mean about the Scriptures and Christian and JW theology.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Logos is clearly identified with divinity at the beginning of the Gospel of John.

Just a side note, because to me when John 1 was translated into English many versions omitted the letter 'a' but at the same time added the letter 'a' at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B. Yet, the same Greek grammar rule applies at both verses.

Being from Heaven, then sure Jesus is divine because the pre-human Jesus came to Earth from Heaven.
Having divinity of course does Not make Jesus as being un-created.
Only God was un-created being from everlasting - Psalms 90:2
Whereas the pre-human Jesus was the beginning of the creation by God - Revelation 3:14
So, only God was before the beginning, thus Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.
 
Top