The Trinity, from the JW view.

[wil]

Have to accept the same point. Jesus gave up his godhead (divinity, authority), to walk and live as a man. The ultimate in obedience and submission to the will of the Father, by choice.Then he raise hands and died as a man (perfect man), and took on all the sins of man from the beginning to the end.

Will, the perfect man with no sin, took on all the sins of the world (it is a very Jewish/Hebrew concept. He died as a lamb brought to slaughter. But when he rose...he won, and he was no longer man. He took his crown as was given him. He took his rightful place once again.

He owns our marker. He wants to cash in, and it is us the prize he wants.

p.s. I don't understand the marriage concept of God and church (being a man). But I do understand this, I love when my father and brothers hold me, in love. And I love when my mother and sisters hold me in love.

I suspect it is a combination and culmination and beyond, when God holds us, in love.

So at this time ..The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28).. Jesus was man, seperate from G!d in his mind? vs. the I and the Father are one? vs. don't you scriptures say ye are gods?

herein lies the dichotomy does it not. What was Jesus meaning when he said The Father is greater than I am? It appears he was thinking he was human or he is a lesser G!d, or diminished in his humanity, but still some seperation must exist for one to be greater than the other...

The Father is greater than I am indicates that he is not the Father, and he is lesser. How do you reconcile that with trinitarian thought?

 

[mee]

Just reading that scripture again, And he says that his kingdom isn't of this world... It's source isn't coming from the Earth?

My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source. john 18;36



Jesus said this because he knew that his kingship would be in the heavenly kingdom .


Jesus would have to wait for his kingship at a future time , but it would not be happening on the earth it would be happening in the heavenly kingdom .


and yes you have guessed it he had to wait at the side of God until 1914 ,then he was given great aurthority Daniel 2;44 daniel 7;13-14

The year when the descendant of King David with the legal right should come and when Jehovah should give the kingship to that one would be at the close of the Gentile Times, or at the end of the "appointed times of the nations."



Those Gentile Times did not end in the days of Jesus Christ when on earth in the first century of our Common Era.


No; for Jesus said that Jerusalem must be destroyed a second time and thereafter the Gentile Times must continue on still farther until they are fulfilled. That is why Jesus Christ did not seek any kingship in his days on earth. (John 6:14, 15)


This is why Jehovah did not give to Jesus Christ the Davidic kingship at his sacrificial death, resurrection and ascension to Jehovah’s right hand in heaven.—Acts 1:6, 7; 2:29-37.



but he had to wait

after his ascension to heaven in 33 C.E., Jesus Christ must wait in heaven until those Gentile Times ended.

Then was God’s appointed time for the Gentile nations to be brought low and for God’s Messianic kingdom of a descendant of King David to be put on high.


Then was the due time for Jesus Christ to come with his legal right to the kingship and ask Jehovah and for Jehovah to give him the kingship.

This is what the Hebrew Christians were told, in Hebrews 10:12, 13, concerning Jesus Christ:


"This man offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet." (Psalm 110:1, 2; 2:7-9; Acts 2:34-36)

Knowing from Daniel’s prophecy (4:16-27) the length of those "appointed times of the [Gentile] nations" enabled Jesus Christ to calculate when they would end, namely, in 1914 C.E.

 

[mee]

The Father is greater than I am indicates that he is not the Father, and he is lesser. How do you reconcile that with trinitarian thought?

it seems to me that the whole of the bible harmonizes when we read the bible as it is .


Jesus was not God as the bible teaches us .



Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER and your Father and to MY GOD and your God.’" john 20;17

 

[wil]

it seems to me that the whole of the bible harmonizes when we read the bible as it is .


Jesus was not God as the bible teaches us .



Jesus said to her: "Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But be on your way to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER and your Father and to MY GOD and your God.’" john 20;17

I've got the same questions for you mee. What is your interpretation of "I and the Father are one"?

 

[mee]

I've got the same questions for you mee. What is your interpretation of "I and the Father are one"?

I and the Father are one.
(Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation. )
JOHN 10;30



And just as Jesus said to his followers that they would be one in
JOHN 17;21

in order that they may all be one,
Or, "at unity." Lit., "one (thing)." Gr., hen, neuter, to show oneness in cooperation.
just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, in order that the world may believe that you sent me forth. JOHN 17;21



so it is not meaning that they were the same ,they were in unity and oneness of purpose

 

[wil]

ok, how about the instruction that we shall do things greater than he?

 

[mee]

The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD , the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from MY GOD , and that new name of mine. revelation 3;12



this is Jesus saying this
This shows clearly that Jehovah and Jesus are two separate persons and not two parts of a triune God, or Trinity.

 

[mee]

ok, how about the instruction that we shall do things greater than he?

that was refering to the preaching of the good news , and now it is being made known in all the inhabited earth matthew 24;14. GLOBAL

 

[Quahom1]

So at this time ..The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28).. Jesus was man, seperate from G!d in his mind? vs. the I and the Father are one? vs. don't you scriptures say ye are gods?

herein lies the dichotomy does it not. What was Jesus meaning when he said The Father is greater than I am? It appears he was thinking he was human or he is a lesser G!d, or diminished in his humanity, but still some seperation must exist for one to be greater than the other...

The Father is greater than I am indicates that he is not the Father, and he is lesser. How do you reconcile that with trinitarian thought?

Jesus gave up his divinity to become a man.

Once he paid the price for our "sins", he took up his divinity once again. While a man and without his divinity the Human Jesus was correct in saying the Father was greater than he.

 

[wil]

Jesus gave up his divinity to become a man.

Once he paid the price for our "sins", he took up his divinity once again. While a man and without his divinity the Human Jesus was correct in saying the Father was greater than he.

there we go. Now a response from mee would be in order. Of course if I indicated that is what we all do, and then traverse through 3d till we realize our divinity, would that throw a wrench in it?

 

[Quahom1]

there we go. Now a response from mee would be in order. Of course if I indicated that is what we all do, and then traverse through 3d till we realize our divinity, would that throw a wrench in it?

mee has already stated that Jesus never had divinity at par with the Father, and does not believe in the viability of the Holy Spirit.

He just gets a kick out of making fun of trinitarians for his/her own gain, which of course is to get more JWs into the fold.

 

[Quahom1]

there we go. Now a response from mee would be in order. Of course if I indicated that is what we all do, and then traverse through 3d till we realize our divinity, would that throw a wrench in it?

Let me ask you something. If angels are a little above man, but are not redeemed, and Jesus came to earth as a man (not an angel), what would that logically tell you about God's affinity for man?

 

[cyberpi]

Genesis 3:22 And the Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...

As one of us... as one of us... as one of us... hmmm.

 

[Quahom1]

Genesis 3:22 And the Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...

As one of us... as one of us... as one of us... hmmm.

Yes,. Must be very careful on that one.

 

[mee]

He just gets a kick out of making fun of trinitarians for his/her own gain, which of course is to get more JWs into the fold.

mee just likes to make known what the bible REALLY teaches , its not about making fun of anyone its about the truth of what the bible teaches .


and everyone at the end of the day has to go with what the bible really teaches, or go with later things that men formulated. such as the trinity doctrine.

everyone has a choice

 

[mee]

there we go. Now a response from mee would be in order. Of course if I indicated that is what we all do, and then traverse through 3d till we realize our divinity, would that throw a wrench in it?

so what about what Jesus said in revelation, he was back in heaven then .revelation 3;12

 

[mee]

Jesus gave up his divinity to become a man.

Once he paid the price for our "sins", he took up his divinity once again. While a man and without his divinity the Human Jesus was correct in saying the Father was greater than he.

revelation 3;12 Jesus was back in heaven then and he was saying MY GOD

 

[mee]

Genesis 3:22 And the Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever...

As one of us... as one of us... as one of us... hmmm.

Yes, as Jesus was the first- born of creation ,the first one that was created by Jehovah, it was Jesus in his pre-human life in heaven that was with Jehovah, and as we know from the bible everthing else in the whole universe was created through Jesus .

so he was talking to his first-born son when he said LET US MAKE MAN



At Genesis 1:26, we read that Jehovah said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."


To whom was he addressing these words? Referring to the spirit creature who became the perfect man Jesus, the apostle Paul said: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth." (Colossians 1:15, 16)

Yes, it seems logical that at Genesis 1:26, Jehovah was speaking to his only-begotten Son, the "master worker," who was at his side during the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

The similarity of the expression at Genesis 3:22 suggests that Jehovah was again speaking to the one closest to him, his only-begotten Son.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Mee —

so he was talking to his first-born son when he said LET US MAKE MAN

You're confusing texts here ... the Son is the only begotten of the Father, and the firstborn of all creation ...

It is a nonsense to think the author of the Pentateuch knew or assumed it was the Son of God. Where does the Father introduce the Son to the sacred scribe?

Also, by your own analogy, as God spoke before anything was created, to whom was He speaking? By your own argument, it must be to an uncreated being, His only-begotten Son, and by this same argument, Christ being uncreated, and therefore God.

At Genesis 1:26, we read that Jehovah said: "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness."

Said to whom? And what is the likeness that God, and to whom He spoke, share in common, other than Divinity?

To whom was he addressing these words? Referring to the spirit creature who became the perfect man Jesus...

Really? That doesn't make sense, because 'God' and a 'spirit creature' (which is an angel) are not alike at all, are they? One is created, one is uncreated. Again and again you fall foul of your own flawed logic — God and an angel is not the same thing at all.

the apostle Paul said: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth." (Colossians 1:15, 16)

Precisely ... 'firstborn' means that all creation was born in Him (first) before it appeared to itself (in creation) ... that is why St John calls Christ the Logos of God. 'Firstborn' does not mean 'created' as you constantly and erroneously assume, as the next verse goes on to say:
"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him and in him. And he is before all: and by him all things consist." (Colossians 1:16-17).

Yes, it seems logical that at Genesis 1:26, Jehovah was speaking to his only-begotten Son, the "master worker," who was at his side during the creation of the heavens and the earth. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

Yes it does. I wonder why you then fail to see the obvious implication. You keep reading things that are not there into the text, to distort the things that are. If Jesus was at His Father's side during the creation, He was not created, was He?

"Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me: that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world" John 17:24

The similarity of the expression at Genesis 3:22 suggests that Jehovah was again speaking to the one closest to him, his only-begotten Son.

Your principle error is to assume God begets as creatures do.

God begat His Son of Himself, through no other agency. So the Son is nothing other than the Father (there is no mother), the Son is nothing more, the Son is nothing less ... because the Father is perfect, the Son is perfect, and the measure of the Son's perfection is all that the Father is ...

Whomsoever is begotten is the same in essence and substance as the begetter ... so the Son is the same in essence and substance as the Father.

To say the Son does not share in all that the Father is, and all that the Father has, is to deny the very word of Scripture: "Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell" (Colossians 1:19)

That "the Father is greater than I" is because the Father precedes the Son, but "I and the Father are one" because what proceeds from the Father is the essence and substance of the Father, by which the Son is constituted, or begotten, and it is the the Father's Divinity.

Everything the Father is, the Son is also.

Thomas

 

[17th Angel]

You keep reading things that are not there into the text, to distort the things that are.

I think we all do that from time to time...