AS.CEC@stanford.bitnet (Charlie Channel, Jr.) (09/18/89)
More: This is, actually, a continuation of the first. [fibercom!lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) tells us that the "Should you believe in the Trinity" booklet contains at least some misinformation. They quote Tertullian and Justin Martyr (among others) as not holding the doctrine of the Trinity. Lance quotes passages from Tertullian and Justin which he believes support the Trinity. The passage from Justin uses the analogy of one fire that is kindled from the other. The fact that a second one is kindled does not remove anything from the first. --clh] Scripture aside for a moment, common sense tells you that fire # 1 ain't fire # 2, even though both are fires. Moroever, that quotation clearly states that it was by the Father's will and power, e.g. the Father started and consummated the matter. The Trinity brochure simply pointed to the fact that the ante-Nicean Christian writers did NOT conceive of a trinity as it is formulated today. And, if I may venture an opinion in this matter, I see not one scripture cited in that paragraph, above, to prove otherwise. A soure was cited in the Trinity brochure. You may want to argue with it. Just keep in mind that the source, to my knowledge, is not a Jehovah's Witness or a member of the WTBTS. >My wife and I just completed a four week "discussion" with a JW >couple, so I may be able to offer some insight on their beliefs and >theologies. Hopefully, you will be able to convince your wife that >they do deny some very obvious Biblical truths. Better still, allow your wife to make up her own mind. That, after all, is how God created us -- with free will! >I assume that your wife has decided that the Bible has the answers >to her questions. That is good. But I would encourage her to >examine God's word for herself, rather than rely on the teachings >of men. We should "Study to show thyself approved unto God, >workmen that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word >of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15) Concur. >As far as the Trinity goes: > >There have been some good points brought up on this newsgroup since >your article first appeared. Unfortunately, the JW's can tear most >of them to shreds; so I'll list those passages and then the JW's >arguments. I'll also try to list some passages that the JW's are >unable to explain away as easily. Finally, I will list some other >areas (not nearly as major as the deity of Christ) in which your >wife will at least be able to see that the JW's deny certain parts >of scripture. Again, this is more for the benefit of your wife >than to try to convince the JW's. > >John 1:1 may not be a totally lost cause. At least not when it >comes to talking with your wife. The JW's claim that Jesus is "a >god", a lesser God than Jehovah. This violates their own claim >that there is only one God (Isa 43:10). They are quick to point >out that Satan is referred to as a god-- the god of this world. >This is because people, either knowingly or unknowingly, follow >him. The question is, does Jehovah God recognize any created being >as a god? I would think that the answer is "no". 1 Cor 5:8,6 >tells us that even if there were many gods, for us (believers) >there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet >Jesus is called God by Thomas (John 20:28). While you're making things perfectly clear, be sure to explain that there are others who are NOT Jehovah's Witnesses who translate that passage a bit differently too. The New English Bible reads: "When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was. The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be". The sense here is that of co-existence and location and nature (or essence). However, it says NOTHING about whether or not Jesus was a created being. One may assume, based on that scripture, that he was not created. One may, likewise, reasonably assume the opposite since it is silent on that issue. >Phil 2:6-8 was mentioned. This is a good one but the JW's refer >to vs 5 which says "Let this mind be in you which was also in >Christ Jesus", they say that even though Jesus was in the image >of God (as we are created in God's image), He didn't try to be God. > >But I have read that the Greek word translated "form" in vs 6, >actually means something like "the very essence". Not knowing >Greek, I can't verify this. >Gen 1:1, telling of God's act in creation was compared to Col 1:16, >telling of Jesus' part in creation. This is enough evidence for >most people; however, the JW's believe that the very first act of >creation God did was to create Jesus. After that, He created >everything else through Jesus and with Jesus. It boggles my mind >to even think that God would put that much emphasis on a created >being; but it doesn't seem to bother the JW's. > >John 1:3 was then used to show that nothing was made that Jesus did >not make. Therefore, if He was made, He would have had to have >made Himself. This is very good and I wish I would have seen that >when my wife and I were having our discussions. I can see how that would indicate that Jesus was the means by which all things came into being. That clearly shows he had a part in creation. It does not show that he was the ultimate source of creation, or the first cause. The interestig thing about this verse, and those which come before it, is the manner in which it is translated in the New English Bible. "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." (NEB) "Through him all things came into being". _The Twentieth Century New Testament_ "All creation took place through him". American Translation by Goodspeed "All creation took place through him". _The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips) The difference seems to be between the preposition *by* and *through*. The Greek preposition is _dia_, or _di'_, which means "through." It is translated, as mentioned above, as such. In my mind "by" connotes the cause of the occurance. "Through," on the other hand, means in one side and out the other, or at least the means by which something happens, but that means is not necessarily the cause of it happening. I also took some time, last night, to look up some Greek in the _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures_, which has Greek and word-for- word English underneath. On the side, it has the English, written in a manner to make English sense. The results of my research was interesting: John 1:3 in Greek: Panta di' autou Interlinear English: Thing (all) through him Venacular English: all things through him John 1:10 in Greek: ho kosmos di' autou Interlinear English: the world through him Venacular English: the world through him I am no Greek scholar. Cain't hardly talk English. I do see that the constuction of the sentences in both Greek and English is exactly equivalent, between John 1:3 and 1:10. I also find that other translations use the word "through" rather than "by" in John 1:3. I feel it is reasonable to state that there is a split of opinion over which preposition applies, but the weight to indicate "through" is the English word that is appropriate. [Actually the Greek word is used for both, so you have to depend upon context. I think everybody agrees that "through" is the right word in these contexts. --clh] > >1 John 5:7,8 were used. Let's look at this (from my New King >James): > 7 For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the water and the blood; and these three agree as one. > >The parts that I have underlined are not in any ancient Greek >manuscript, only in later Latin manuscripts. So the verse really >says, "For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water >and the blood; and these three agree as one." Unfortunately, this >just adds fuel to the "the trinity is a doctrine of men" fire. Let's be clear. It means it was changed later on. >John 10:30 "I and my Father are one." The JW's will quickly say >that this does not mean that the Son is God because John 17:21 >says, "that they all may be one, as You, Father are in Me, and I >in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe >that You sent Me." Therefore, if Jesus being "one" with the Father >means that He is God, us being "one" with the Father and Son would >mean that we are God. >Some passages that they can not explain away as easily (many of >these have already been mentioned): > >Col 2:9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. > >All is all, full is full. Would God let ALL of the FULLNESS of >deity dwell in a created being? Col 6:1 begins by speaking of a disciple's union with Christ and context shows that Paul is speaking about Christ as God's Agent of salvation. Moreover, that verse presents Trinitarians with an interesting question. If the Godhead is Christ --- and it clearly cannot mean physically embodied since those in heaven have a spiritual body --- where does that leave the Father? At Revelation 4, written *after* Colossians, we find a heavenly vision and only the One sitting on the throne. The One on the throne is identified as "the Lord God, the Almighty" in verse 8. That is attributed to YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures. Verse 11 indicates that One created heaven and earth. OK? Now, get this: The One on the throne has a scroll in his right hand and nobody *dares* come take it. Nor is anyone qualified to take it, neither in heaven or on earth. Not even John, in his vision, even contemplates taking it. Keep in mind, this was written *after* Peter, James, Paul and the other Apostles had died. Where were they? What's going on? In Chapter 5, you find the answer: The Lamb! Jesus shows up, and takes the scroll. (see verse 9 of Chapter 5) Verse 12 also show Jesus *receives* "power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." Now, if he received it it was given. Compare Revelation 2:26,27 (your version of the Bible) where Jesus so much as says he received authority from the Father. But there's more: In verse 13 John hears a universal proclamation that the "blessing and honor and glory and dominion" be to (guess who?): "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." (Note: The Holy Ghost never makes the scene. This is very interesting in light of Matthew 12:31,32 where Jesus states blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven at all. From a Trinitarian perspective, his words contradict the notion that neither is more loving, merciful or almighty than the other. It only gets worse when you look at Col 2:6, since that would mean that they were not separate, but all in Jesus. Revelation shows the Father's still actively on the scene.) Considering Revlation documents things to take place in the future, (see Revelation 4:1) and considering the Holy Ghost never shows up as someone worthy to take the scroll, nor is he even mentioned amongst everything else that bombards our senses in that vision, I'll take the scriptural explanation any day. >Terms that identify Jehovah in the O.T. and Jesus in the N.T.: >1. "I Am" > a. Jehovah - And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And > He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, > 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Ex 3:14 > > b. Jesus - Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to > you, before Abraham was, I AM." John 8:58 For the sake of brevity, I may delete other points. Suffice to say, assuming Jesus=YHWH, then I fail to perceive what the problem one would have with Jehovah's Witnesses. Seems to me a rose is a rose. The concusion is that JW's worship the right God. And, since I've never read in scripture that belief in the Trinity is a condition of salvation, it seems to me someone's got a problem with nothing. > >The JW's translation says that "Before Abraham was, I have been" >Thus, denoting the fact that He existed before Abraham existed, but >not they He existed from old, from everlasting (Micah 5:2). But >if John had wanted to convey that thought, the Greek would read >"Before Abraham was, I was." > >2. Savior > a. Jehovah - "I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there > is no savior. Isa 43:11 > > b. Jesus - "For there is born to you this day in the city > of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. Luke 2:11 Note: Luke 2:11 does not say, "God the Son." >The JW's will immediately point to the fact that man is sometimes >referred to as a savior. My question is, "When is man ever >referred to as the 'Savior of the World' as Jesus is? (John 4:42)" Jehovah's Witnesses also quickly point to Psalm 2. It shows how one is vested with kingly authority by YHWH. >3. First and Last > a. Jehovah - "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, and > his redeemer the Lord of hosts: "I am the First and I am > the Last;" Isa 44:6 > > b. Jesus - But he laid His right hand on me, saying to me, > "Do not be afraid, I am the First and the Last." > Rev 1:17 > > "...'These things says the First and the Last, who was > dead, and came to life:...'" Rev 2:8 Simply because the same words are used in different places in the Bible does not mean they represent equivalency in identity. Also, some of these passages self identify. As an example, in Revelation 1:8, God Almighty identifies himself. >The pre-existence of Christ > "But to you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among > the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me > the One to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been > from old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 > >Jesus accepted worship, even though worship is only for God (Matt >4:10) [1] > 1. And behold, a leper came and worshiped Him, saying, > "Lord, if you are willing, You can make me clean." > Matt 8:2 > > 2. Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, > saying, "Truly You are the Son of God." Matt 14:33 Yes, and you notice that they worshipped his as "the Son of God," not God, the Son. >Jesus is worshiped by angels (by the order of God the father) > But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He > says, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." Heb 1:6 Right. That proves the angels of God worshiped Jesus, not that the angels of God were granted permission to worship the Father. Obviously, they were and are at liberty to worship their Creator. >God (the Father) refers to Jesus as God > But to the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and > ever;" Heb 1:8 The scripture at Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45. It also says that God, his God, anointed him in verse 9. Seems to me there is a note of reverence to a superior God in these passages. >Jesus said that whoever has seen Him has seen the Father. > "And he who sees Me sees Him who sent Me." John 12:45 > > Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you > have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the > Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?" John 14:9 Jesus also acknowledged he has a God by his own lips *after* his death and resurrection and ascention into heaven. Compare Rev. 3:12. >Stephen prayed to Jesus. > And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, > "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts 7:59 > >John the baptist was the one sent to "prepare the way of the Lord >(Jehovah)." But the N.T. is clear that he was preparing the way >of Jesus. Mark 1:1-3 Right. He prepared the way for him who would represent the only True God, YHWH. (John 17:3) >Jesus is omnipresent (present in all places) > "...and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the > age." Matt 28:20 I think you're playing a little loose with context here. Jesus was speaking about the preaching and teaching work and disciple making work of Christians. > "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I > am there in the midst of them." Matt 18:20 >He is omniscient (having all knowledge) > 1. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew > all men, and had no need that anyone should testify of > man, for He knew what was in man. John 2:24,25 Again, the context seems to be that although there were many who put faith in Jesus due to observing his works, Jesus did not rely upon them for support, favor, nor acceptance. He knew all men are sinful and fall far short of the glory of God in a way that a perfect man could. > 2. ...And he (Peter) said to Him, "Lord, You know all > things; You know that I love You." John 21:17 > >[1] The word `worshiped' in Matt 8:2 and 14:33 is the same that > is translated `worship' in Matt 4:10. (proskuneo, pros-koo- > neh'-o) > Furthermore, this same word describes the action of Cornelius > in Acts 10:25, "As Peter was coming, Cornelius met him and > fell down at his feet and worshiped him." This action of > worship or `obeisance' was rebuked by Peter. In Acts 10:26 > we read, "But Peter lifted him up saying, `Stand up; I myself > am also a man.'" Obviously, if the word translated `worship' > simply meant paying respect for a high authority, such as a > king, Peter would not have rebuked him. After all, being one > of the Apostles (the foundation of the church [Eph 2:19,20]), > Peter was definitely deserving of respect. > > We read of a similar circumstance happening twice in > Revelation, once in 19:10 and again in 22:8,9. Both times > John falls down at the feet of the Angel to worship. Both > times he is told "Worship God." (The same greek word is used > for `worship' in these two passages as is used above) > > It seems clear from these passages that this `worship' is much > more than showing respect, and should be reserved for God and > God alone. The fact that Jesus repeatedly accepted this > worship, is evidence that He was either (A) God or (B) > Violating God's will. We can rule out (B) because we know > that Jesus Christ lived a life in complete harmony with the > will of God the Father. Therefore, He must be God. There is a third reasonable alternative that you have not considered. By his actions he *earned* the right to receive worship as the Son of God. In that he fulfilled God's purposes by doing God's will while under test and trial, and that God's will necessarily included that Jesus could succeed -- that is, there was freedom of choice. Compare Revelation 5:9 and 12. Note: the word "worthy" has a connotation that it is right due to something. >I am out of time for today. Hopefully, I will be able to post >something tomorrow that will show how JW's are wrong about some >obvious biblical truths. I have not responded on the issue of worship, because it is a discussion topic in itself. Moreover, I'm out of time for the week and probably for the months. Why are there so many people selling books for the guy making his living writing about cults? Better use of your money would be to contribute to a worthwhile charity. Try that! [You say you have heard that the word "form" in Phil 2:6-8 could be >translated "the very essence". The Greek is "morphe". It seems to >have a variety of meanings. It may mean that here. However it can >also be used for external form, as in Mk 16:12, so I wouldn't push >this too far. --clh] In conclusion, I quote James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, "Trinity" at 1015: "The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proof". It says other things, including that the notion of the Trinity is somehow an implicit assumption in the scriptures. One can assume that the implicity was that the Trinity is not. The most significant comment, however, is the fact that the Dictionary writer states the Christian *experience* (emphasis mine) "led to the fullest possible express of (the scriptures) implications, in creeds...". In other words, professed Christians living and speculating and experiencing life as Christians has more to do with the formulation of the Trinity than scripture. That seems to say that Jehovah's Witnesses (or anyone else) may, in fact, reject the notion of a Trinity since their value system and world view preclude that which is not based on Holy Scripture. Moreover, it can be honestly and historically said that the dogma of the Trinity has caused much bitterness, dissention, oppression, violence and even death to be inflicted on those that have not believed it. On that ground alone, I'd think a thoughtful person would conclude that perhaps its utility is questionable as an expression of Christian expeience. If it has caused one innocent man to lose his life, then it is not an expression of God's will. Not only is it incomprehensible to Jews and Moslems, those also adhereing to monotheism, but it is even confusing to those who profess to believe in it. Why else all the various creeds and experessions of it (I know, there are many expressioin, yet there is but one expression)? Moreover, if the Trinity were essential to salvation, why did not the Great Teach, Jesus Christ, clarify this business since he must have known many sincere folks would simply degenerate into shouting matches and even violence over the subject? I find that the Great Teacher did talk about his relationship with God. He called him Father. Even the simplest, humblest, uneducated and poorest person on the face of the earth can understand that concept and reality. And that is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. The Christian principle is clear: "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you". (Matthew 5:29) "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruiit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." (Matthew 7:16-18) Thank you for the opportunity to share my understanding of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Best regards, Charlie [I haven't read this infamous booklet on the Trinity, so I don't know what it actually says about the Church Fathers. Tertullian is the originator of the term "trinitas", and is the source of several of the concepts involved in the final doctrine. One can see how his doctrine, as well as Justin's, was on the path between the NT and the final concept of the Trinity. But it would be wrong to say that either Tertullian or Justin held exactly the doctrine as finally formulated. So if this booklet is simply pointing out that the final doctrine moves beyond what the earlier Fathers said, it is right. If it says that their views oppose the final doctrine, I'd say it is wrong. --clh]