stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) (04/04/91)
In article <Apr.1.02.44.36.1991.7380@athos.rutgers.edu> c9037544@cc.newcastle.edu.au (David Williams) writes: >This is in response to some questions about the deity of Christ, and the >doctrine of the Trinity and such matters. >THE DEITY OF CHRIST. > E. Proved by Equality in the Trinity. > 1. With the Father (John 14:23; 10:30). > 2. With the Father and the Spirit (Matthew 28:19; II Corinthians 13:14). Is there equality in the Trinity? --------------------------------- With the Father? ---------------- You site John 14:23; 10:30 "In answer Jesus said to him: "if anyone loves me, he will observe my word, and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with him." "I and the Father are one." When saying this did Jesus mean that they formed some sort of Trinity? Some Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these instances. Obviously, Jesus' disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the same sort of oneness that unites Jehovah and Jesus. With the Father and the Spirit? ------------------------------- (2 Cor 13:14; Math 28:19; 1 Cor 12:4-6) --------------------------------------- "The undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the sharing in the holy spirit be with all of you." "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit" "there are many different gifts, but it is always the same Spirit; there are many different wasy of serving, but it is alwasy the same Lord. Ther are many different forms of activity, but in everbody it is the same God who is at work in them all." Do those verse say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal? No, they do not, no more than listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three in one. This type of reference, admits McClintock and Strongs Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named,...but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature and possess equal divine honor." Although a supporter of the Trinity, that source says of 2 Cor. 13:13 (14): "We could not justly infer that they possessed equal authority, or the same nature." And of Matthew 28:18-20 it says: "This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the *personality* or the three subjects mentioned, or their *equality* or *divinity*. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numberous times, but that does not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named togethere, but that does not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism With love, Steve Peterson stevep@cadence.com
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (04/06/91)
In article <Apr.4.01.18.53.1991.15327@athos.rutgers.edu> cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes: >When saying this did Jesus mean that they formed some sort of Trinity? Some >Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding >his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one >even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these >instances. Steve, If you're enough of a scholar to know the Greek word, you should be enough of a scholar to know that Jesus didn't use Greek words at all. He almost certainly spoke Aramaic. (He undoubtedly knew Hebrew -- knew in the Earthly, human way, I mean -- and may have used that in preaching. There is a vanishingly small chance that he might have used Latin, the language of the ruling conquerors. Greek is Right Out.) Since I don't know Aramaic, I don't know whether there are different words for "one" in it. I don't even know if there are different words for "one" in Greek. I do know that there are *not* different words for "one" in English. There are similar words, and there are circumlocutions, but there is no single word that means the same thing. Consider, then, Jesus' prayer that the disciples should be one. What does that mean? Loving each other, only? I can't see that this is the case; it means that they should make no difference among themselves. As St. Paul put it: "Honor one another above yourselves. . .Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position." [Romans 12:10, 16] Note if you please the "one another." This is a reflexive relation, equal on both sides. Paul emphasizes this by specifically rejecting the concept of social superiority/inferiority, "be willing to associate with people of low position." Now, if in fact as you say the relationship of "being one" between Jesus and the Father is precisely analogous to the relationship of "being one" that Jesus commanded and Paul explicated, then it is in fact a reflexive relationship of equals. The Son *is* then "socially" equal to the Father. You have, then, two choices: either there is someone who is not God, but who is God's "social equal" -- a position I reject as blasphemous -- or else Jesus was God. Yet He clearly is not "the same as" the Father. >From this, and from many other things, we can conclude that Father and Son are indeed two aspects of the one God. Hallelu Yah! Further, if you are going to take as evidence the use of the same word in different contexts, what of the word "Lord" used to describe YHWH continually throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus continually throughout (e.g.) Acts? >But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the >same sort of oneness that unites Jehovah and Jesus. The following is not intended as an insult to Jehovah's Witnesses, but since I'm talking about this I simply have to ask, for I've wondered for a long time: Why *do* the JW's insist on spelling YHWH as "Jehovah"? The Roach
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (04/08/91)
Re: Steve Peterson In article <Apr.4.01.18.53.1991.15327@athos.rutgers.edu> cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes, in response to David Williams: >Is there equality in the Trinity? >--------------------------------- >With the Father? >---------------- >You site John 14:23; 10:30 > > "In answer Jesus said to him: "if anyone loves me, he will observe my word, > and my Father will love him, and we shall come to him and make our abode with > him." > > "I and the Father are one." > >When saying this did Jesus mean that they formed some sort of Trinity? Some >Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding >his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one >even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these >instances. Obviously, Jesus' disciples do not all become part of the Trinity. >But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the >same sort of oneness that unites Jehovah and Jesus. Hi, Steve! I've read most of the correspondence between David and yourself concerning the Trinity. While I, personally, feel that any debate with the Trinity as its subject is doomed to "unresolvability", I'd like to interject a few points: 1. Be clear about which biblical translation is being used. There are examples of where different translations of the Bible differ remarkably in their specific translations of "trinity-related" passages (e.g. The New World Translation vs. the King James translations in John 1). 2. The doctrine of the Trinity is, in a sense, a "Scriptural extrapolation" (taught as dogma in the Catholic Church and many other Christian churches) in that it is never explicitly defined in Scripture with the clarity of, say, Jesus' role as "Son of God", in which the Bible is quite clear. Rather, it is a teaching that developed from the early Christian reading of the sacred texts; early Christians drew the conclusion that God must exist in Trinity (three divine Persons in one God). Note that this practice of extrapolation is not unwarranted, in general; for example, Scripture does not explicitly condemn child abuse; it is an extrapolation from the "spirit" (non-personal) of the Scriptures that leads Christians to condemn it. So, while it would be illogical to state that Scripture provides airtight PROOF of the Trinity, it would also be illogical to discount the strength of said Scriptural passages (concerning the Trinity) altogether. 3. When dealing with these Scripture references, it must be remembered that the "meaning" of these quotes may be altered, reversed, or destroyed altogether by lack of context. Simply "plucking" a Scriptural quotation for use is seldom a good way to operate in these debates. That said, a few minor technical points: > "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them > in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit" >Do those verse say that God, Christ, and the holy spirit constitute a >Trinitarian Godhead, that the three are equal? No, they do not, no more than >listing three people, such as Tom, Dick, and Harry, means that they are three >in one. I must take slight exception, here; the context of the phrase is critical, here. To "make disciples of all nations" is hardly a trivial happenstance. Christians, I believe, must assume that this proselytizing is important (if not paramount); after all, what was Jesus' purpose on earth, but that people be converted to Himself, and saved? Baptism seems to be the way to do that; thus, it would not be right to dismiss this quote of Jesus as merely an offhanded, indicative remark. To "baptize in the name of..." strikes me as a phrase which precedes a name of great importance. Also, it is common conversational convention to group items of similar importance together in sentences. Example: a speaker comes up to receive a movie award, and is listing the names of those he wishes to thank. He says, "And none of this would be possible without my producer, Phil Smith... my casting director, Sandra Philips, and the janitor, Fred Williamson." (neglecting to mention the tens or hundreds of people who had more critical roles in the moviemaking than the janitor did) Now, this would be just plain weird. In normal conversation, a speaker (or writer) sets apart groups of varying importance by grouping them in different sentences, paragraphs, chapters, or even whole books (or speeches). To group several things of wildly differing importance in the same phrase would be utterly inappropriate, especially if that group were small. The point being, it is NOT likely that the baptismal formula was meant to portray three beings of quite different significance (one infinite, one not, and one undefined). If that WERE the case, then Jesus could just as easily have said, "...in the name of the Father, and of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob." Why mention the Son and Spirit at all? In addition, if the Trinity *weren't* true, one might wonder why, in a supposedly infallible Bible, the blessed writers would leave such a glaring theological pitfall for people to fall into. (Granted, the formula could be referring to the three "forces" responsible for salvation; however, many Christian sects have considered the formula in the light of John 1:1 ("... and the Word was God."), John 1:18 ("...it is God the only Son"), John 8:58 ("'... I solemnly assure you; before Abraham came to be, I AM."), and other passages, and decided that the Trinity was the best interpretation. >Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mentioned together numberous times, but that does >not make them one. Peter, James, and John are named togethere, but that does >not make them one either. Furthermore, God's spirit descended upon Jesus at >his baptism Normally, I'd leave this comment alone; however, it includes a very common objection to Trinitarians: namely, how and why Jesus can interact with His Father, pray to Him, be submissive to Him, and call His Father "God". Please understand that this presents no real difficulty for Trinitarians. The doctrine of the Trinity is expressed by the following collection of equalities and inequalities: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Trinity doctrine does NOT teach that the Father and Son are identical, nor does it teach that they are the same person. Therefore, it would not be contradictory to talk of one person of the Trinity interacting with (and/or praying to) another. Jesus, in humbling Himself, chose submission over authority, when it is said in Phillipians 2:6-7... "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (NIV) ...suggesting that being God does not preclude being submissive. Keep in mind, also, that Jesus was fully human; His humbling of Himself was not false or halfhearted, but full and complete. Thus, Jesus (as fully human) was indeed inferior to the Father in power. This fact may well be what Scripture refers to when it talks of Jesus' lack of power when compared to the Father. And as far as calling His Father "God", this was factually true; God the Father is indeed God. It would also have been easier for His disciples and listeners to relate to His speeches if Jesus spoke of God the Father as simply "God"; had He come right out and said, "I'm God" everywhere He went, Jesus would doubtlessly have been too busy dodging rocks to say anything of importance! :) I hope this addresses the topic, somewhat! ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
sobarr@ucsd.edu (Carlos Saul Menem) (04/08/91)
In article <Apr.6.02.49.16.1991.4092@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: > >Why *do* the JW's insist on spelling YHWH as "Jehovah"? > > >The Roach(clip ?);-) Roachman, the Roachster,... Well, I'm no JW by anymeans, but I do happen to have the Atalaya (the Watchtower in spanish), and I assume it to be the official view of the JW's. In the March 1st 1991 edition, on page 26, there is an article entitled, "The New World Translation" scholarly and sincer" (Thats my translation of it atleast), and there is a part in it that says, "The personal name of God". First it points out that although, "its true that no ancient manuscript of the New Testement has survived containing the personal name of God" it appears in the NWT "more than 200 times". (Thats what I call scholarly translating!) But anyway, to get to your question, the article says (and excuse the poor translation, I don't want to take the time to make it a scholarly text...): In Europe, the form "Jehova" or "Jehovah" has been used for centuries, and is used in many Bibles, even in Jewish translations. It appears many times on buildings, coins, and other objects, as well as in printed works, and many religious hymns. For this reason, instead of trying to present the original Hebrew pronunciation, the New World Translation in all its different languages, uses the form of the name of God that is commonly accepted. This is exactly what other versions of the Bible do with the other names that appear in the Bible. This to me is fine because I think that Father is a more "personal" name of my Father in Heaven. I sure don't call MY earthly father by his first name, but rather I use the personal title of Father that only my brothers and sisters can use, and to me is a heck of a lot more personal. But to the JW's this should pose a problem, because the personal name of God is so important, and if it is said wrong, then it would offend, right? I mean if someone called me Stephan instead of Stephen, I would feel kind of upset right? (well I wouldn't care, but the JW's tell me that we MUST use the correct name of God. Why? How can we when we don't know what it is?) According to the article, to be correct, the members of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, or New York, or where ever should call themselves YHWH Witnesses. Until now they have done what they so outwardly hate, they have FOLLOWED TRADITIONS OF MEN. en cristo un pecador, y un mal traductor, steve flaco@ucsd.edu