Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't it work much better to see the Father-Son language as metaphor for "God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding" and "God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him"?

---

Not when God-as-we-can-comprehend-Him says to God-as-He-exists-beyond-all-human-understanding, "Nevertheless not my will, but Thy will, be done."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

12uthie wrote

(John 8:58) 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Trinity at least begins to explain how God can appear to have two wills. I don't see how on your theory that can be explained, Freddy?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
Except he was with the Father in the beginning, so the gradually-becoming-God thing doesn't float.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Trinity at least begins to explain how God can appear to have two wills. I don't see how on your theory that can be explained, Freddy?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
He was already as God as he was going to get. Of course in the flesh he might not have REALIZED that yet. Is that what you are saying?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The Trinity does look like tritheism. I see that there must be some mysterious difference between "being" and "person." This still amounts to no explanation.

---

quote:

---

I personally would say, as is said in the Athanasian Creed, that the three are like the soul, body, and activity of a single individual.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I've never heard a good defense for the NWT's inconsistent translation of kurios.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
The term "person" has undergone a vast change of meaning when it was used in the Athanasian creed. Ironically the term persona was taken from the theatrical world and had connotations to a mask.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Do you think that the trinity is a problem to be solved or a mystery which you experienced and be transformed by?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I only wish that this was clearer in the popular imagination. Then people wouldn't wonder which one to pray to.

---

One prays to the Father in the name of Jesus through the Holy Spirit

quote:

---

Good question. I guess I would go with problem to be solved, since a clear sight of God is an important part of transformation.

---

I just can't help myself. I have to show what my favourite saint, Ephraem the Syrian would say

Wrong
1. Mistaken confidence in reason as
all-competent: leads to presumption.
Right (Ephrem)
1. Acknowledge inadequacy of reason
and of all concepts: humility.
Wrong
2. Literalism and rationalism: failure to
distinguish levels of thought and find
the mean between equivocal and univocal;
subjects God to limited human
concepts; tends to determinism.
Right (Ephrem)
2. Prefer use of symbols, because of
their power to encourage heuristic
experience, in which free will is in
play. Prefer contemplation of
God’s Mystery.
Wrong
3. Over-confidence in argument leads to
quarrels and schisms.
Right (Ephrem)
3. Result: preservation of charity
and union.

quote:

---

Like Lyda Rose I'm hoping for an explanation of how the Messiah is the Everlasting Father of Isaiah 9. Isn't Jesus the "Our Father" that we pray to?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bonaventura:

quote:

---

Like Lyda Rose I'm hoping for an explanation of how the Messiah is the Everlasting Father of Isaiah 9. Isn't Jesus the "Our Father" that we pray to?

---

Nope,
the LXX does not have the four titles, but instead the one title: "Messenger of great counsel" (NETS Septuagint)

---

Wow. I never knew that. Well, I guess that solves it.

I guess no one ever told Handel.

I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

That would be the Orthodox.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I forget. Who is it exactly who accept the LXX?

---

That would be the Orthodox.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Do you have a link to an approved LXX English version so that I could look at the passage in context? Thanks, MT.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
Ley Druid said

quote:

---

I've never heard a good defense for the NWT's inconsistent translation of kurios.

---

Have a look at this site , which deals with translating the tetragrammaton. It's from a mainstream perspective, but includes an interesting discussion with Greg Stafford, a scholarly Witness.

---

quote:

---

The restoration of "Jehovah" into the New World Translation Christian Scriptures is the primary focus of our publications. This restoration of the divine name is based on the claim that the Tetragrammaton was used by the original inspired authors. However, after examining the extant manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures and evaluating the history of the period, there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the Tetragrammaton was removed from the circulating Christian Scriptures in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. From your own source

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

CE writes:
Rationalist critics lay great stress upon the text: "The Father is greater than I" (14:28). They argue that this suffices to establish that the author of the Gospel held subordinationist views, and they expound in this sense certain texts in which the Son declares His dependence on the Father (5:19; 8:28). In point of fact the doctrine of the Incarnation involves that, in regard of His Human Nature, the Son should be less than the Father. No argument against Catholic doctrine can, therefore, be drawn from this text. So too, the passages referring to the dependence of the Son upon the Father do but express what is essential to Trinitarian dogma, namely, that the Father is the supreme source from Whom the Divine Nature and perfections flow to the Son.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii).

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. <snip> This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature.

---

quote:

---

CE writes:
It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. <snip> Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

12uthie wrote

(John 8:58) 58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.”

---

This is one of those places where the difference between the version you use and the ones the rest of us use really matters. And as long as you use your version and the rest of us use any other version I have ever heard of, we're going to be split on what this means.

All versions I have seen translate the Greek of that verse as "Before Abraham was, I AM."

That matters, because I AM was the name God/the Father used to identify himself to Moses, and was the name by which God continued to be known throughout Jewish history. Jesus isn't saying he existed before Abraham -- a pointless thing to say in and of itself. He is identifying himself with the Name of God -- and in that culture, that meant identifying himself with God in a specific and blasphemous way -- unless he was in fact God.

John

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

It goes on to trace the Trinity to earliest church tradition, for example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
The information we possess regarding another heresy -- that of Montanus -- supplies us with further proof that the doctrine of the Trinity was the Church's teaching in A.D. 150. Tertullian affirms in the clearest terms that what he held as to the Trinity when a Catholic he still holds as a Montanist ("Adv. Prax.", II, 156); and in the same work he explicitly teaches the Divinity of the Three Persons, their distinction, the eternity of God the Son (op. cit., xxvii).

---

Modern errors attributed to the ante-Nicene Fathers, like claiming that the Son is a created being, are dealt with one by one.

Next it clarifies that the Trinity is a, perhaps the, mystery of revelation:

quote:

---

CE writes:
The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question.

---

Hence there will always be a "darkness" about this concept for us in this life, and reasons's job is not to thoroughly understand this mystery, but simply to show that there is no contradiction in what faith declares.

Next we find a very thorough and IMHO entirely fair assessment of the Greek Father's development of the Trinity doctrine. For example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
In Latin theology thought fixed first on the Nature and only subsequently on the Persons. Personality is viewed as being, so to speak, the final complement of the Nature: the Nature is regarded as logically prior to the Personality. <snip> This is entirely different from the Greek point of view. Greek thought fixed primarily on the Three distinct Persons: the Father, to Whom, as the source and origin of all, the name of God (Theos) more especially belongs; the Son, proceeding from the Father by an eternal generation, and therefore rightly termed God also; and the Divine Spirit, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Personality is treated as logically prior to the Nature.

---

Then we finally reach the Latin intepretation, which is not set over and above the Greek one, but rather as a different take which, following St Augustine, stresses unity. Obviously, the role of relations a la St Thomas Aquinas is discussed. For example:

quote:

---

CE writes:
It is urged that since there are Three Persons there must be three self-consciousnesses: but the Divine mind ex hypothesi is one, and therefore can possess but one self-consciousness; in other words, the dogma contains an irreconcilable contradiction. This whole objection rests on a petitio principii: for it takes for granted the identification of person and of mind with self-consciousness. This identification is rejected by Catholic philosophers as altogether misleading. <snip> Granted that in the infinite mind, in which the categories are transcended, there are three relations which are subsistent realities, distinguished one from another in virtue of their relative opposition then it will follow that the same mind will have a three-fold consciousness, knowing itself in three ways in accordance with its three modes of existence.

---

The text is lengthy, but quite readable. I hope the short quotes whet the appetite for reading the whole thing...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Modern errors attributed to the ante-Nicene Fathers, like claiming that the Son is a created being, are dealt with one by one.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
The two words rendered I AM therefore can not be directly equated unless we have anyone on the board who reads both languages and can enlighten us.

At John 8:58 Jesus used the Greek word explained in Strong's Dictionary thus:
G1510
εἰμί
eimi
i-mee'
First person singular present indicative; a prolonged form of a primary and defective verb; I exist (used only when emphatic): - am, have been, X it is I, was. See also G1488, G1498, G1511, G1527, G2258, G2071, G2070, G2075, G2076, G2771, G2468, G5600.


Whereas at Exo 3:14 he explains the Hebrew word thus

H1961
היה
hâyâh
haw-yaw'
A primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
As an illustration: the aforementioned verse: "he is the image of the invisible God" is a classic example. Perhaps a lurking scholar of Plato would like to pick up on exactly what St. Paul meant by it; he wrote in a culture strongly influenced by Plato, amongst others.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean D:
Doubtless discussion of this verse in the light of Platonism would be interesting but it would seem that most scholars these days tend to interpret Paul and the early church first and foremost in the light of the Judaism of the period and only secondarily in the light of Hellenistic philosophy.
This has led scholars such as Richard Bauckham to come up with a perhaps surprisingly radical reading of the 'highness' of NT Christology even in quite early texts.

---

quote:

---

You also say that we can't understand the words of the NT etc without understanding its cultural and philosophical background. I don't see anybody denying that.

---

quote:

---

But (assuming I understood your point correctly - apologies if I didn't) does reading it against such a background challenge the view that the NT presents Jesus as God? And if so, how?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Rest up, 12uthy.

And when you get back, I'd really like to hear your take on that passage of Isaiah that Freddy cited.

quote:

---

Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government shall he upon His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, God, Hero, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. (Isa. 9:6-7).

---

That one.

---

Sorry Freddy and Lyda*Rose, I've been doing some research, I wasn't ignoring you

Ok Freddy that is a long list so I will do my best:

Isaiah 9:6-7 I don't know what translation you are using so I will paste it in from the KJV that I used when I was a Catholic and most frequently use now since it has the Strong's no's listed:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
(KJV)
I can see how this impressive list of titles might suggest that the Messiah and ultimate King of God's Kingdom might be Jehovah God, however the term everlasting Father can rightly be atributed to Jesus since he was used to create man in the first instance (according to God's will and using his Spirit). Likewise the title Mighty God could suggest this, however it is conspicuously different from the term Almighty God. As brought out before the term God can be attributed to anyone, or anything that we choose to venerate, hence we could venerate anyone or thing including our own bodies (see Col 3:5). Thus Mighty God would give him a suitable title for his exulted position yet still inferior to the Almighty God, Jehovah.
Note also that it is the zeal (which could be translated spirit) of Jehovah that accomplishes this not the Messiah

Isaiah 25:9
Since Jehovah is the one who sent Jesus, then it is by Jehovah that we are saved, this merely lays the praise for doing so at the feet of the correct Saviour, our God and Father Jehovah.

Jeremiah 33:15,16 is particularly interesting according to which translation you use.
Jer 33:16

(ASV) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness.

(BBE) In those days, Judah will have salvation and Jerusalem will be safe: and this is the name which will be given to her : The Lord is our righteousness.

(CEV) In those days, Judah will be safe; Jerusalem will have peace and will be named, "The LORD Gives Justice."

(DRB) In those days shall Juda be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell securely: and this is the name that they shall call him , The Lord our just one.

(ESV) In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called : 'The LORD is our righteousness.'

(GB) In those dayes shall Iudah be saued, and Ierusalem shall dwell safely, and hee that shall call her , is the Lord our righteousnesse.

(GNB) The people of Judah and of Jerusalem will be rescued and will live in safety. The city will be called 'The LORD Our Salvation.'


(KJV+) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.

(Webster) In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety: and this is the name by which she shall be called, JEHOVAH our righteousness.

(YLT) In those days is Judah saved, And Jerusalem doth dwell confidently, And this is he whom Jehovah proclaimeth to her: `Our Righteousness.'

As you can see in the majority of cases the interpretation seems to be that the one who is being called "Jehovah our righteousness" is Jerusalem not the messiah.

The use of a derivative of Jehovah's name in other people's or place names is not uncommon in the Bible, for example Jeremiah means literally Jehovah Exalts or possibly Jehovah Loosens(such as from the womb).

I will get back to you on the other scriptures you cited as I don't want to overdo it and make myself unwell again.

hth

[ 02. May 2005, 08:58: Message edited by: 12uthy ]

--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
Isaiah 25:9
Since Jehovah is the one who sent Jesus, then it is by Jehovah that we are saved, this merely lays the praise for doing so at the feet of the correct Saviour, our God and Father Jehovah.

---

quote:

---

It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him that He may save us: THIS IS JEHOVAH we have waited for Him, we will rejoice and be glad in His salvation (Isa. 25:9).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It is also true that when the early Christians said "Jesus is Lord" they were actually affirming that Jesus is YHWH.

The Greek word for Lord is the word used by the LXX in place of YHWH in the OT.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
If the two persons were one, wouldn't the writer have used the same word.
Hence as I understand that verse, Jehovah is sending a messenger of the covenant, and that he will reign as King in his Kingdom, but not equal to himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:
I'd just like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion, this is the first time that I've actually come close to understanding how the Trinity doctrine came into being.
I confess that I did, to some extent, assume that those who believed in the Trinity did so out of ignorance. I now realise that not to be the case.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Contrary to the opinion of some here, I am not one of those JW's who believes that we alone have the keys to salvation. That is why I'm here.

---

I just wanted to say that that cheered me up immensely.

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The easiest and most logical conclusion is that the same person - Jesus, the Lord God Almighty, spoke them all.

---

Makes sense to me.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
12uthy, have you read St Athanasius' On The Incarnation ? The condemnation of Arianism by the Church was not an enforced political decision but based on these arguments.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by 12uthy:

PS On the point of using Jehovah's name in other names it is important to note that Jesus means "Jehovah Is Salvation"
which might explain Jer 23:6 use of the name "Jehovah, our righteousness" as the name of the Messiah

---