Yorick?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Absynthe: Hmmm.... Scratch the surface of gamers and what do you find? Theologists, scholars, debaters, linguists... some very thought-provoking stuff in this thread, and all presented very well without any rancor or pedantry. Although I haven't got much to contribute myself, I have very much enjoyed following this thread. I've recommended this thread to some fellow pagans who have a hard time discussing religious matters without getting overly passionate. For what it's worth, you folks are giving Christians a good name in part of the local pagan community.

Absynthe! Nice to see you in here! Please feel free to comment about anything any of us say!

BTW - I personally am a pagan as well! Well - not so much a pagan, I suppose, since that implies belief in some god - more an atheistically inclined agnostic! But you are right about us being able to discuss without tempers fraying, no matter how passionately we feel - and that IS because we all follow the example of Jesus - whether we believe he is god or not. Everyone who has posted in here is a person I am proud to know.

------------------

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Everyone who has posted in here is a person I am proud to know.

Even Me, Miss Fljostdale? (sorry I didn't quote in entirety sp?) Fljostdale is right we can comunicate without animosity. Miss Fljostdale, I'm proud to know you too. (said in slow southern draw, tipping hat to the Lady as taught by mother)




------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Everyone who has posted in here is a person I am proud to know. Even Me, Miss Fljostdale? (sorry I didn't quote in entirety sp?) Fljostdale is right we can comunicate without animosity. Miss Fljostdale, I'm proud to know you too. (said in slow southern draw, tipping hat to the Lady as taught by mother)

Giggle! Sure thing, John D! And here is my response to your comments on Leonidas post:
From John D Harris
I'll wiegh in on this. I believe in the trinity and agree with Yorick's quotes for the sake of brevity I'll not repeat them.

An observation there is little if any disagreement on man being three in one (spiritual, physical, and mental) are we not created in the image of God?

Spiritual, physical, mental: could you detail exactly what you mean by these terms and define what you perceive as (a) the difference between them and (b) how each is separate from the other?
Without these definitions it is difficult to fully comprehend or respond to your point.


Gen.1:26 (side note "let US make man in Our Image" new american standard translation) Why is it hard to believe that the Creator, who (or whom) is greater than us is not capable of the same three in one?

Since Jesus, the angels and the universe had already been created by the time God got to the creation of man, he could have been talking to ANY of the spirit creation. However, since Jesus in his pre-human existence was the one through whom god created all other things it stands to reason he was talking to Jesus.
As for man being ‘in god’s image’ as the bible says - are you saying that god has a physical form? I was under the impression from the scriptures that ‘God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24)

Are His ways are ways? Are not His ways higher then our ways? Who amuongst (sp?) us can understand eternity? we have a grasp of the concept but do not understand.

Yes, god’s ways ‘are higher than our ways’ (Isaiah 55:8) but if you look at the context you will see he was talking about moral superiority (Isaiah 55: 6-9) not about his complexity of being, be it solo, duo or trio.

Eternity? Eternity can only be seen in relation to time. Remove time (which pretty well equates to motion in some form or another) and you have eternity. Before anything (other than the creator) existed there could be neither time nor motion…
I wrote tons on this topic but it is all speculative so I cut most of it out!

Regards


------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Yorick and Leonidas: later... I have almost finished response to Yorick - Leonidas will take longer..
BTW, Leonidas - very good argument! I have to work harder this time, lol!

------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Your turn, Yorick!

From Yorick
Well there you go. Thanks Leonidas, and you too John D.
Fjlotsdale, Leonidas puts forth a good argument. The olnly thing I would add is that your supposition of "through" meaning "conduit" is that you are reading a word or two that is not there. "Through him all things were made" (by God). Whereas in interpreting "through" to mean "by" or "because of" we are using a precedent in the English lanuage as well as interpreting in a fashion consistent with the existing tone and intent of the Bible.

Hehe! GOT YOU! First off – we are talking GREEK here, not using English precedents! And in Greek the word translated ‘through’ is di’ or dia which means, according to Souter’s ‘A Pocket Lexicon to the Greek New Testament’:
‘through, throughout; by the instrumentality of: denoting mediate and not original authorship (eg Matt 1:22, John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6); on account of, by reason of, for the sake of, because of.

Jesus is therefore shown in scripture NOT to be the ORIGINATOR of the universe but THE INSTRUMENT USED by the originator. That scripture at
1 Corinthians 8:6 is VERY good on this point, since it shows the distinction clearly. I take in v 5 as well, for interest:
‘For though there are, indeed, Gods so called, whether in Heaven or on Earth; (as they are many Gods and many Lords); yet to us there is but One God, the Father, out of whom are all things, and we for him; and One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.’

Nowhere does it say Jesus is A god.

Actually Jesus may very well be called a ‘god’ at another place than John 1:1. If you look at John 1:18 in your various versions of the bible you may be able to find another reference. It will depend on which MSS was used in the translation. I only have two Interlinear translations myself. One is the Benjamin Wilson, which uses the Vatican Mss 1209, and the other is the Westcott and Hort text modified by several scholars (including Jesuits Jose Maria Bovar and A Merk).
The Wilson text reads: ‘The only-begotten Son (Greek: uios)’
The Westcott & Hort reads: ‘The only-begotten god (theos)’
It would be interesting to see what is written in other MSS and translations. It would be interesting to find out which MSS are the older, and what the oldest ones say. It is a great pity that old texts, while being generally consistent, can sometimes throw a spanner like this in the works!

Nowhere does it say there are THREE gods. However the Bible is quite clear that there is one God that made all, yet without Jesus nothing was made.

No! It certainly does NOT! It wasn't ME who said god was 3 persons, lol! And yes, as I showed above, God DID make all – THROUGH (Gr. DIA) Jesus!,

There is the argument that Jesus never said "I am God and part of the Trinity" (although he did say "I and the father are one" etc), but for me this is a stronger case. That those who lived with him for three years, saw him die, saw him rise again and were filled with his spirit afterwards, went on to spread the good news (gospel) throughout the Roman world and die for their beliefs that God had lived amongst them and given them eternal life.

Oh, come on, Yorick! Quote me a single scripture that says the Apostles said GOD had lived among them!
Take note of these scriptures, some of which I believe I have pointed out to you previously in this thread:
John 20:17b ‘I ascend to my Father and your Father; even my God and your God.’
1Peter 1:3a ‘Blessed be that God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’
Mark 15: 34b ‘My God! To what hast thou surrendered me?’
Revelation 1:1 ‘A revelation of Jesus Christ… Rev 3:12 ‘… I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, … I will write on him the name of my God… coming down out of the heaven from my God; and my new name’

All the words of Jesus, except for the one at 1 Peter. (All from the Benjamin Wilson Diaglott.)

Remember that Paul, was one who put Christians to death before encountering HIS GOD (YHWH) who asked him why he was persecuting HIM. Not his son, his creation or his brother God or even his people. HIM.

Huh!?? What bible did you read that in? Let me quote what it says in each of my copies at Acts 9:4,5:

‘and having fallen to the earth, he heard a Voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute Me?” And he said, “Who art thou ,Sir?” And HE said, “I am Jeus whom thou persecutest.” (Benjamin Wilson Diaglott)

‘He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, Lord?” he asked. “I am Jesus whom you persecute,” the voice said. (Good News Bible)

‘and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” He said “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (Interlinear Translation of Westcott & Hort’s text)

'and he fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” He said “Who are you, Lord?” He said: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” (New World Translation)

(as you can see, JW’s favour the Westcott & Hort Translation!)

God resides in the Christian. Gods spirit resides in a Christian just as my spirit resides in my music. The difference between Gods creation and mine is as obvious as the differences between Gods spirit and mine, Still, the analogy makes sense to me. Though it is a "captured" spirit, a moment of time caught in repetition rather than constant everflowing interraction, I can communicate in the emotional language of music with one who is willing to hear.

Hm. That looks like a purely subjective viewpoint! I do not think your ‘spirit’ resides in your music, Yorick – though what do I know? I’m not a musician! – but it seems to me that both the one who writes the music and the one who plays it are putting their feelings, their emotions, into the music. Do you equate emotion with spirit?
But I am not implying that god’s spirit does NOT reside in you!

Regards!


------------------






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-07-2001).]

[John D Harris]

Spiritual, physical, mental: could you detail exactly what you mean by these terms and define what you perceive as (a) the difference between them and (b) how each is separate from the other?
Without these definitions it is difficult to fully comprehend or respond to your point.

Fair enough. I can give you some examples. Steven Hawkins (SP?) the noted quantum physist (sp?). While his physical body would be said to be lacking, due to handicaps. His mind is one of the greatest that ever exsited.
The spirit thats the hard one, it's intangible sometimes translated as the will, spirit.(IMHO) It is what drives us, makes who we are.
Hebrews 4:12 " For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercinng as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart.
spirit
physical
mental
Side note: I like the quoting of posts it allows me to see how everybody does those fancy colors. Thanks John D.

Since Jesus, the angels and the universe had already been created by the time God got to the creation of man, he could have been talking to ANY of the spirit creation. However, since Jesus in his pre-human existence was the one through whom god created all other things it stands to reason he was talking to Jesus.
As for man being ‘in god’s image’ as the bible says - are you saying that god has a physical form? I was under the impression from the scriptures that ‘God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24)

Yes that is what I am saying in a sense. If I remeber correctly doesn't "Immanuel" translate into "God is with us". Jesus was called "Immanuel" (sorry I can't recall the verse right now but I will try to get it to you. Maybe one of the others may know it off the top of their heads)
Hebrews 4&5 are writen about how Christ was phsyical (paraphased by me)


Yes, god’s ways ‘are higher than our ways’ (Isaiah 55:8) but if you look at the context you will see he was talking about moral superiority (Isaiah 55: 6-9) not about his complexity of being, be it solo, duo or trio.

Since His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways not our ways. I am not sure it is limited to only moral superiority.

Eternity? Eternity can only be seen in relation to time. Remove time (which pretty well equates to motion in some form or another) and you have eternity. Before anything (other than the creator) existed there could be neither time nor motion…
I wrote tons on this topic but it is all speculative so I cut most of it out!

Regards
We agree on this point, hey Yorick I got another to back me on "our first debate" Ney, ney, ney, ney, ney, (now's the time to use that "Raiper of Twian"
Fljostdale I'd be willing to read your thoughts on Eternity E-mail me if you don't want to post, But be warned I'll bet the farm we probably agree on it

------------------

"the memories of a man in his old age,
are deeds of a man in his prime"

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 07-07-2001).]
EDITED "IMMANUEL" I accidently spelled it "Emanuel" like the prono movies. Boy do I have egg on my face

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 07-07-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Finally finished this one Leonidas! I'm afraid you will have to refer to my last few posts for some info, though as it seemed silly to post it over again so soon after posting it before.

From Leonidas
It's amazing what one can run into when one is not looking...
I would like to step in here, if I may, Fljotsdale, as it appears to me that one statement you made is self-contradicting, with respect to your interpretation of John 1. For the sake of brevity, I will cite all passages from the NIV.
Specifically, I refer to v3 - "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If, as per JW doctrine, Jesus was a separate being from God, that makes this statement false, with reference to Isaiah 42:5 "This is what God the LORD says - he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it."; and 43:1 "But now this is what the LORD says - he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine."; again, later in v7 "...everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."; and in 44:24-25 "This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense,..."
These passages quite clearly state the LORD (YHWH) is the sole creator. Solitary, unitary, one... It says nothing about an agent or a tool.

Yes, you are correct, God, YHWH/YHVH, is indeed the biblical creator and I have never sought to deny that. Only that Jesus is not the creator. Does this mean that I believe that Jesus in his pre-human existence had no part in creation? Certainly not. Read my answer to Yorick, just above, on the word ‘through’. You may also find it helpful to read Proverbs 8:22-31 where Wisdom is personified. Although this scripture is speaking of Wisdom, it provides a good illustration of Jesus’ role and position. I will quote it in part, but I recommend reading it all:
“YHVH produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. …. Then I came to be beside him as a master worker, (or architect) and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time…”
Jesus’ involvement in creation did not make him the creator. All things were ‘out of’ God ‘through’ Jesus. (See explanation in my last post to Yorick). A conduit of power is not the power itself, nor the originator of that power. Jesus, both as a man, and after his resurrection, called his Father ‘my God’. (See same post to Yorick – or was it to John D?)

For a further glimpse, let's look at Matthew 15:16-18, and glean a lesson: 16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean'."...
What lesson is to be learned from this? Quite simply, the relationship between the Word and the Father. Man was created in God's image, and if the word of a man is from his heart, it is quite clearly abiding there as a part of the man. The proper analogy to draw is that Jesus Immanuel (God indwelling) - the Word - was not separate from God the Father, but an intimate part of God before, during, and after creation. There is no other interpretation that preserves the truth of both John 1:3 and these passages in Isaiah.


Hm. I see the point you are making, but it just does not tie in with the scriptural facts. How can Jesus call his Father his God, refuse to grasp equality with God, and yet be considered God himself? It makes no sense.

Another passage that I would like to direct your attention to is in Isaiah 43:10-13 "...Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. 12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed - I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?"
When you add this to the other passages, it quite clearly states that the LORD (YHWH) is creator, savior, and redeemer, all at once.

I see no contradiction in this. The provider of the Ransom Sacrifice is just as much a Redeemer and just as much a Saviour of mankind as is the sacrifice itself – more so, in fact, because HE ‘gave his only-begotten Son’. The Son is ALSO a Redeemer and Saviour because he was a WILLING sacrifice. An UNWILLING sacrifice would not be a redeemer and saviour (remember the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law which prefigured Jesus’ sacrifice).
Look at it this way: you have an item in a pawn shop that you cannot afford to redeem (or buy back). Someone gives you the cash so you go and redeem (buy back) your item. You have redeemed it. You have ‘saved’ it. But the person who gave you the cash PROVIDED THE PRICE OF THE REDEMPTION. Is he not also the saviour and redeemer of your item? YOU did the job – but HE did the providing.
This is not an exact analogy, but I am sure you see the point I am making – that both God and Christ can be seen as Redeemers and Saviours without them having to be the same person.

Look now at Hebrews 1. In it, it states that the Son is the appointed heir (Not heir by primogeniture), that through that same Son he made the universe, and that Son is the EXACT representation of the being of YHWH. Later, in the same chapter, it shows the Son getting worship from angels, being enthroned, and having laid the foundations of the earth.

A ‘representation’ is NOT the original. Not even an ‘exact representation’ is the original. A clone of you is an ‘exact representation’ as far as it is possible to be exact (origin, birth, life, etc are different) but the clone is not you.
And why should the Son NOT be enthroned and worshipped? He had obeyed his Father to the letter and to the spirit! He had triumphed! What King would not have his courtiers bow down to a Prince who had done such great things for him? It would not make the Prince the King, though, would it?
A Prince is the heir of a King, but not in the same way that Jesus is called an heir. Yes. It would imply that the Father would die, would it not? And since God is eternal Jesus would never inherit the position of his father. Note, though, that an heir is separate from the one he inherits from!

Taken as a whole, I believe this shows that Jesus and the Father are one in being, not just in spirit, and that this shows a weakness in the JW argument about Jesus being created, that this is a misinterpretation that presupposes an earthly primogeniture, and not simply a representation of authority.

Hm? JW’s are not misrepresenting anything by saying Jesus was created. The bible said it first, lol! He is ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. Nor have they ever suggested an earthly primogeniture! I should know! I was one for 25 years!
But I have made this point about his being created over and over in this thread and quoted the scriptural evidence so I don’t want to go into it again.

Jesus Immanuel is to be treated as an authority equal to God. I believe that this also shows a weakness in the JW interpretation of John (note the little g god in Isaiah 43:10).

All authority has been GIVEN to Jesus. GIVEN. By his Father. It was not his originally, it was GIVEN.

Further indication of the Son's true nature can be found in Phillipians 2:5 and following, where it states that Christ Jesus was in very nature God, did not hold fast to his equality with God, made himself nothing, and took for himself the very nature of a servant. God the Father did not make it so, he made it true for himself, submitting himself to the will of the Father. This only makes sense if he was an intimate, equal part of the Father, and not a separate being, for all of creation is subject to God the Father.

This is a huge misquote of Philippians 2. I guess you are quoting from memory. Let me give you several translations. I quote verses 5 & 6 but recommend you also read to verse 11:
‘The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God… ‘ (Good News Bible)

‘Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God…’ (Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott)

‘Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God…’ (Westcott & Hort)

I also view with great suspicion the argument that the true name of the Lord was removed by scribes who otherwise faithfully reproduced, letter by letter, everything else. Furthermore, I can find no direct equivalent for the Tetragrammaton (sp?) in any discussion or lesson about Greek translation.

I was speaking about the OT here, not the Greek NT. It is pretty well-documented regarding scribal practice regarding the OT.
The only places you may find the Divine Name in the NT are in quotes from the OT. You will notice throughout the bible that the word LORD in capital letters denotes the places where YHVH (or YHWH) occurred in the text.

As to your argument that there is no Spirit evident in any of the visions or glimpses of heaven, I would say that you are mistaken in the extreme. It is the Spirit that enabled the viewers to see the vision in the first place.

Ok, you’ve got me there! But it is still not proof of it being part of a trinity!

One of the attributes of God is that He is invisible... But Moses might have seen the face of God the Father if he were not placed in the cleft,

God himself told Moses that if he saw His face he would die.

and Jesus stated you have seen the Father, because you have seen me...

In the same way you can look at a man’s son and the way he conducts himself and say ‘He’s exactly like his dad!’ But he is NOT his dad, is he? You cannot use such a statement as proof of a trinity. I have often mistaken my friend's daugher for my friend! They are alike as two peas in looks apart from one being older, and the similarity in personality is remarkable!

What does this mean, but that God can work unseen when He wishes. In fact, I think that the scripture teaches that this is how the Trinity works -
God the Father - the visible aspect of Law, Justice, Love, revealer of sin
God the Son - the heart of God, Savior, Redeemer, friend, living sacrifice
God the Holy Spirit - teacher, confidante, securer of the believer's soul
Why? Because no sinful man can look into the face of pure justice and law and survive, and scripture already cited clearly identifies YHWH as all of the above, and more.

Well, I think I have answered this above!

Respectfully submitted,

Enjoyably replied!

However, my next posts will contain a lot of quotes from external ‘authorities’ regarding the Trinity doctrine, so keep watching this space!



------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by John D Harris: [Regards We agree on this point, hey Yorick I got another to back me on "our first debate" Ney, ney, ney, ney, ney, (now's the time to use that "Raiper of Twian" Fljostdale I'd be willing to read your thoughts on Eternity E-mail me if you don't want to post, But be warned I'll bet the farm we probably agree on it [/B]

LOL!! Wouldn't be surprised! Speculation is easier than facts!
I'll get back to you on this post - done too much study and writing the past few days! Fljotsdale is exhausted!

------------------






[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-07-2001).]

[Leonidas]

A riposte, Fljotsdale, any suggestions on how to shorten it for the future? BTW - I had to find out how to do colors to do this!!! It appears that, as usual, the pursuit of truth shows unexpected results!

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Finally finished this one Leonidas! I'm afraid you will have to refer to my last few posts for some info, though as it seemed silly to post it over again so soon after posting it before. From Leonidas It's amazing what one can run into when one is not looking... I would like to step in here, if I may, Fljotsdale, as it appears to me that one statement you made is self-contradicting, with respect to your interpretation of John 1. For the sake of brevity, I will cite all passages from the NIV. Specifically, I refer to v3 - "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If, as per JW doctrine, Jesus was a separate being from God, that makes this statement false, with reference to Isaiah 42:5 "This is what God the LORD says - he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it."; and 43:1 "But now this is what the LORD says - he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine."; again, later in v7 "...everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made."; and in 44:24-25 "This is what the LORD says - your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who foils the signs of false prophets and makes fools of diviners, who overthrows the learning of the wise and turns it into nonsense,..." These passages quite clearly state the LORD (YHWH) is the sole creator. Solitary, unitary, one... It says nothing about an agent or a tool. Yes, you are correct, God, YHWH/YHVH, is indeed the biblical creator and I have never sought to deny that. Only that Jesus is not the creator. Does this mean that I believe that Jesus in his pre-human existence had no part in creation? Certainly not. Read my answer to Yorick, just above, on the word ‘through’. You may also find it helpful to read Proverbs 8:22-31 where Wisdom is personified. Although this scripture is speaking of Wisdom, it provides a good illustration of Jesus’ role and position. I will quote it in part, but I recommend reading it all: “YHVH produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. …. Then I came to be beside him as a master worker, (or architect) and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time…” Jesus’ involvement in creation did not make him the creator. All things were ‘out of’ God ‘through’ Jesus. (See explanation in my last post to Yorick). A conduit of power is not the power itself, nor the originator of that power. Jesus, both as a man, and after his resurrection, called his Father ‘my God’. (See same post to Yorick – or was it to John D?) Again, the passage quoted does not refer to any agent, tool, or conduit. Alone is alone, and this apparent contradiction can only be resolved if God the Father and Jesus are one entity, and Jesus was 'put forth' as the Word of God. And wisdom is also an intimate part of God, installed does not equate with created. A car is assembled (or repaired) from pre-exsisting parts... For anything to exist before Creation, it by definition is not created. For a further glimpse, let's look at Matthew 15:16-18, and glean a lesson: 16 "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17 "Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean'."... What lesson is to be learned from this? Quite simply, the relationship between the Word and the Father. Man was created in God's image, and if the word of a man is from his heart, it is quite clearly abiding there as a part of the man. The proper analogy to draw is that Jesus Immanuel (God indwelling) - the Word - was not separate from God the Father, but an intimate part of God before, during, and after creation. There is no other interpretation that preserves the truth of both John 1:3 and these passages in Isaiah. Hm. I see the point you are making, but it just does not tie in with the scriptural facts. How can Jesus call his Father his God, refuse to grasp equality with God, and yet be considered God himself? It makes no sense. Yes, it makes sense, in this way - Jesus was/is/always will be an integral part of God, as shown by the above quote from Matthew. As shown in the quote from Philippians below, he humbled himself, and refused to hold on to (not grab or snatch) his equality, and made himself as a servant to God, and showed deference to God in humility, and continues to show deference to God in heaven in his role as chief priest and mediator for the believers (Hebrews). Furthermore, it is in accordance with the scriptural facts, as I have only used scripture, in context, to come to this conclusion. Another passage that I would like to direct your attention to is in Isaiah 43:10-13 "...Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. 12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed - I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "that I am God. 13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?" When you add this to the other passages, it quite clearly states that the LORD (YHWH) is creator, savior, and redeemer, all at once. I see no contradiction in this. The provider of the Ransom Sacrifice is just as much a Redeemer and just as much a Saviour of mankind as is the sacrifice itself – more so, in fact, because HE ‘gave his only-begotten Son’. The Son is ALSO a Redeemer and Saviour because he was a WILLING sacrifice. An UNWILLING sacrifice would not be a redeemer and saviour (remember the animal sacrifices of the Mosaic Law which prefigured Jesus’ sacrifice). Look at it this way: you have an item in a pawn shop that you cannot afford to redeem (or buy back). Someone gives you the cash so you go and redeem (buy back) your item. You have redeemed it. You have ‘saved’ it. But the person who gave you the cash PROVIDED THE PRICE OF THE REDEMPTION. Is he not also the saviour and redeemer of your item? YOU did the job – but HE did the providing. This is not an exact analogy, but I am sure you see the point I am making – that both God and Christ can be seen as Redeemers and Saviours without them having to be the same person. Can be, but should be? I think not, as Jesus was the price of redemption in himself, as only one who is pure as God the Father is pure could provide that price. It is the penalty for all sinful men to die as a result of their sin, and the price that was paid could only be paid by sinless God-as-man, not mortal man that represents God. The contradiction I referred to is your contention that Jesus is 'a god - little g' in John 1, but in Isaiah, it clearly states that there are no 'little g' gods exisisting before, or created after, God the Father. Another difficulty in separating a divine Christ from a divine Father. Look now at Hebrews 1. In it, it states that the Son is the appointed heir (Not heir by primogeniture), that through that same Son he made the universe, and that Son is the EXACT representation of the being of YHWH. Later, in the same chapter, it shows the Son getting worship from angels, being enthroned, and having laid the foundations of the earth. A ‘representation’ is NOT the original. Not even an ‘exact representation’ is the original. A clone of you is an ‘exact representation’ as far as it is possible to be exact (origin, birth, life, etc are different) but the clone is not you. But, the point is, only Jesus is stated to be an exact representation of all people to ever have existed on Earth. To look on him is to see the Father on earth. I think that this refers to Genesis, when God walked on the Earth and talked with Adam, that it was Jesus in some form that talked to Adam and anywhere else in the scripture that says someone was face-to-face with God. That incarnation repeatedly accepted worship intended for God, and for anyone to receive such worship without being God would be blasphemous. The response of a faithful, created heavenly being to such a mistake was to refuse it, and to tell the offender to redirect it to God. But in the OT, we do see an entity walking the earth multiple times, receiving worship and not refusing it. And why should the Son NOT be enthroned and worshipped? He had obeyed his Father to the letter and to the spirit! He had triumphed! What King would not have his courtiers bow down to a Prince who had done such great things for him? It would not make the Prince the King, though, would it? But who does the worshipping? *All* in heaven and earth and below the earth. Jesus is given the Name above all names. I should think that you, as a former JW, know the only Name that is above all other names... YHWH! This gets back to my earlier post, if God has knees and a tongue, then this passage states that He bows to Jesus!!! God bowing to a lesser? God will never give His glory to another, and so I again contend that Jesus Christ is one with God in a way that mortal man finds difficult to accept, and cannot truly understand. A Prince is the heir of a King, but not in the same way that Jesus is called an heir. Yes. It would imply that the Father would die, would it not? And since God is eternal Jesus would never inherit the position of his father. Note, though, that an heir is separate from the one he inherits from! Not in the sense that occurred in middle eastern oriental culture - Co-regents took the form of king and prince ruling at the same time. You state that Jesus would never inherit, because his Father would not die. That would mean that the position of heir is empty and false... Just what do you think that he inherits? The male heads of families could give the portion due to an heir (see the story of the Prodigal Son) before their deaths. In this case, it is re-establishment of his former position in heaven upon his return from the realm of the dead, and eventually, at the end of days, as ruler over the recreated and renewed Earth, all of which he gave up willingly. Again, see Hebrews 1:3, he inherited his name, the name above all names. And yes, an Earthly heir is separate, but a heavenly one need not be, and clearly isn't in light of all I have written. Taken as a whole, I believe this shows that Jesus and the Father are one in being, not just in spirit, and that this shows a weakness in the JW argument about Jesus being created, that this is a misinterpretation that presupposes an earthly primogeniture, and not simply a representation of authority. Hm? JW’s are not misrepresenting anything by saying Jesus was created. The bible said it first, lol! He is ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. Nor have they ever suggested an earthly primogeniture! I should know! I was one for 25 years! But, the whole argument for Christ being a creature is the title 'Firstborn of all Creation'. But I have made this point about his being created over and over in this thread and quoted the scriptural evidence so I don’t want to go into it again. This is the scripture that you refer to, right? Revelation 3:14 bears this out. Rev 1:1 says of itself that it is ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ…’ and in Ch. 3:14 Jesus, in heaven, years after his resurrection, says this: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…’ Duay, AV, AS. So, the Word, theos, Jesus, was a creation – the FIRST creation of God. But, the NIV has it this way... 14 ...These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. The corresponding Greek interlinear has that same passage as: 14 ...These things says the Amen, the witness - faithful and true, the chief of the creation of God. In context, then, the proper understanding is not one of temporal order or sequence, but of authority, so that chief in the greek is best understood as ruler, in the same way, as I contended above, that the title Firstborn of all Creation is one of position of authority, not temporal order, time sequence, or indicative of primogeniture - rulership by right of position of birth (first created). Jesus Immanuel is to be treated as an authority equal to God. I believe that this also shows a weakness in the JW interpretation of John (note the little g god in Isaiah 43:10). All authority has been GIVEN to Jesus. GIVEN. By his Father. It was not his originally, it was GIVEN. Given, or given back? He (Jesus) *made himself nothing*, see my quote of Philippians below. Further indication of the Son's true nature can be found in Phillipians 2:5 and following, where it states that Christ Jesus was in very nature God, did not hold fast to his equality with God, made himself nothing, and took for himself the very nature of a servant. God the Father did not make it so, he made it true for himself, submitting himself to the will of the Father. This only makes sense if he was an intimate, equal part of the Father, and not a separate being, for all of creation is subject to God the Father. This is a huge misquote of Philippians 2. I guess you are quoting from memory. Let me give you several translations. I quote verses 5 & 6 but recommend you also read to verse 11: ‘The attitude you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had: He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God… ‘ (Good News Bible) ‘Let this disposition be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, though being in God’s form, yet did not meditate a usurpation to be like God…’ (Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott) ‘Keep this mental attitude in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God…’ (Westcott & Hort) Sorry, I was tired, and did not take the time to quote this directly, however I do not think that it was a misquote of the meaning. I will now, and to make the context more plain, will back up to v3... Philippians 2:3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. The NIV Greek Interlinear shows it this way: 3 nothing by way of rivalry nor by way of vainglory, but - in humility one another deeming surpassing themselves, not the things of themselves each looking at, but also the things of others each. 5 This think ye among you which also in Christ Jesus, 6 who in form of God subsisting not robbery deemed to be equal with God, 7 but himself emptied the form of a slave taking, in likeness of men becoming; and in fashion being found as a man 8 he humbled himself becoming obedient until death, and death of a cross. 9 Wherefore also - God him highly exalted and gave to him the name - above every name, 10 in order that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of heavenly and earthly and under the earth, 11 and every tongue should acknowledge that Lord Jesus Christ to glory of God Father. How should this passage be understood? Remember, the context is believers showing humility as Christ did, and considering others as being better. Remember Paul's admonition that all believers are equal in Christ (and by extension, unbelievers, too - only with respect to sinfulness and entitlement to sin's penalty) before God, and the punishment/penalty all mortal men deserve). With that in mind, and looking at the interlinear text, I believe that v6 states that Jesus Christ did not believe it to be unusual or blasphemous or a usurpation of authority to be equal with God, and that he willingly released his grasp on this equality, to fulfill the will of God, taking the form of an earthly, mortal man to become a willing sacrifice for sin, and taking the proper position of a mortal man relative to God, submitting himself to his Father, so as to be faithful and an example to the faithful on Earth. I also view with great suspicion the argument that the true name of the Lord was removed by scribes who otherwise faithfully reproduced, letter by letter, everything else. Furthermore, I can find no direct equivalent for the Tetragrammaton (sp?) in any discussion or lesson about Greek translation. I was speaking about the OT here, not the Greek NT. It is pretty well-documented regarding scribal practice regarding the OT. The only places you may find the Divine Name in the NT are in quotes from the OT. You will notice throughout the bible that the word LORD in capital letters denotes the places where YHVH (or YHWH) occurred in the text. I would like to have the titles of your references, please, on the removal of God's name, as I am not a formal theology student, and have no information on this... As to your argument that there is no Spirit evident in any of the visions or glimpses of heaven, I would say that you are mistaken in the extreme. It is the Spirit that enabled the viewers to see the vision in the first place. Ok, you’ve got me there! But it is still not proof of it being part of a trinity! But blasphemy against the Spirit of God will not be forgiven, and it cannot be blasphemy unless it is God being blasphemed. This doesn't mean that Christ is not God, because blasphemy against him is forgivable, as Jesus was sent to be reviled, persecuted, and sacrificed. God is spirit, as stated in John 4:24, and in II Corinthians 3:17, it states: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. The NIV Interlinear text has it thus: 17 Now the Lord the Spirit is; and where the Spirit of Lord is, freedom. At other places in the scripture we see it is the Spirit that indwells the believer as evidence (or a securer) of salvation, and who makes it possible for man to understand the things of God. Furthermore, when you compare it to scripture that states that God dwells in the heart of the believer, Christ dwells in the heart of the believer, and the Spirit also dwells in the heart of the believer, then it seems to me that one has a bit of a problem if they don't accept the concept of the Trinity. One of the attributes of God is that He is invisible... But Moses might have seen the face of God the Father if he were not placed in the cleft, God himself told Moses that if he saw His face he would die. and Jesus stated you have seen the Father, because you have seen me... In the same way you can look at a man’s son and the way he conducts himself and say ‘He’s exactly like his dad!’ But he is NOT his dad, is he? You cannot use such a statement as proof of a trinity. I have often mistaken my friend's daugher for my friend! They are alike as two peas in looks apart from one being older, and the similarity in personality is remarkable! The point I was trying to make originally is that God is often described in scripture by apparently contradictory qualities. I understand your analogy, but it fails in this respect, if the son is exactly like his dad, thinks exactly like his dad, knows everything his dad knows, reacts to everything as his dad would react, and the dad had never existed without the son (which, I grant, is indeed impossible on Earth - but not in Heaven), then, I think that they are indeed one and the same. The doctrine of the Trinity is expressly stated in scripture, it is just stated in context, not verbatim with the title Trinity, just as you will not see the term 'spiritual Jew', but glean it from the context, albeit a little more directly, via a shorter passage. Why? For the same reason Jesus taught priniples and precepts in parable form, to 'confound the wisdom of the wise', and to humble the self-righteous person who clings to their own knowledge instead of accepting the wisdom of God. Again, the only way to resolve the apparent contradictions in scripture about seeing God and dying, and those who were said to have seen God face-to-face is to accept that there is a representation of God that has the authority of God, and is worthy of the worship, glory, and honor of God, and therefore, is God, as God gives His Glory to no other being, nor will He allow others to give worship to any other being guiltlessly. What does this mean, but that God can work unseen when He wishes. In fact, I think that the scripture teaches that this is how the Trinity works - God the Father - the visible aspect of Law, Justice, Love, revealer of sin God the Son - the heart of God, Savior, Redeemer, friend, living sacrifice God the Holy Spirit - teacher, confidante, securer of the believer's soul Why? Because no sinful man can look into the face of pure justice and law and survive, and scripture already cited clearly identifies YHWH as all of the above, and more. Let me add, here, that this is in no way intended to say that this is the only way in which each of the three can work, since they are all facets of the same God! Well, I think I have answered this above! But, I believe, with interpretations that are not warranted in context, and not with the full weight of the entirety of the scripture. Respectfully submitted, Enjoyably replied! However, my next posts will contain a lot of quotes from external ‘authorities’ regarding the Trinity doctrine, so keep watching this space!

------------------
Be careful! I think it's a tr...


[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 07-08-2001).]

[Leonidas]

Sorry, Fljotsdale, but it appears that some of my original material got colored along with my additions. I have tried to fix it twice, but obviously don't know how... Before you reply, could you (or anyone else willing to wade through it) take a look and see what I did wrong? Thanks!!!

------------------
Be careful! I think it's a tr...