Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: wjhill@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (william.hill) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Is Jesus God!! Message-ID: Date: 14 Feb 91 13:43:31 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 145 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God? Definition: The central doctrine of religions of Christendom. According to the Athanasian Creed, there are three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, none greater or less than another, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God. Other statements of the dogma emphasize that these three "Persons" are not separate and distinct individuals, but are three modes in which the divine essence exists. Thus some Trinitarians emphasize their belief that Jesus Christ is God, or that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are Jehovah. This is not a Bible teaching! The Holy Scriptures tell us the personal name of the Father is Jehovah! They also inform us that the Son is Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures is a personal name given to the Holy Spirit (Ghost). If Jehovah is a Trinity, as some in this newsgroup believe, How the do you explain the following scriptures? Acts 7:55, 56 reports Stephen was given a vision of heaven in which he saw "Jesus standing at God's right hand." But he made no mention of seeing the Holy Spirit. Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, `My Father, if it possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.'" (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father's will.) John 8:17,18 "...I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me." (So Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate from the Father.) 1 Peter 1:3 "Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" (Repeatedly, even following Jesus' ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as "the God" of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus' resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as "my God." Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression, but never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as "my God," nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the Holy Spirit as "my God.") Do any of the scriptures that are used by Trinitarians to support their belief provide a solid basis for that dogma? A person who is really seeking to know the truth about God is not going to search the Bible hoping to find a text that he can construe as fitting what he already believes. He wants to know what God's Word itself says. He may find some texts that he feels can be read in more than one way, but when these are compared with other Biblical statements on the same subjects their meaning will become clear. It should be noted at the outset that most of the texts used as "proof" of the Trinity actually mention only two persons, not three; so even if the Trinitarian explanation of the texts were correct, these would not prove that the Bible teaches the Trinity. John 1:1,2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God" (King James). However in the New World Translation John 1:1,2 reads: "In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God." Which translation of John 1:1,2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: "No one has ever seen God." Verse 14 clearly says that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us... we have beheld his glory." Also verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was "with God." Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as "the only true God"; so, Jesus as "a god" merely reflects his Father's divine qualities (Hebrews 1:3). Is the rendering "a god" consistent with rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, "The Word was God." But not all agree. Bible translator William Barclay states: "Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun....If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of and adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, `The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God' ...John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God." John 1:1 should be translated the word was with the God. W.J.Hill attbl!granjon!wjh Ref: Reasoning the Scriptures (1985), Watchtower Bible and Tract Socciety [It is not my purpose as moderator to convince you of the truth of the Trinity. However I would like to encourage the parties to the discussion to understand correctly what each other is saying. As a general comment, I do not like discussions that start with broadsides against some other group taken from some tract or other. The current example is far from the only such. It's common to see discussions start with similar attacks against Catholics, Mormons, etc. Rather than quoting tracts at each other, I'd much rather see people in this group start by trying to understand each other. While I do not expect Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JW's, etc, to accept each other's views as correct, it is obvious from our past discussions that *some* of the problems between these groups are based on misunderstanding of the other position, and thus that many of the arguments are simply irrelevant, because they attack positions that no one actually takes. The problem with this posting is that it is trying to examine the relationship between Jesus and God by using the Trinity. However in fact this relationship is the subject of the doctrine of the Incarnation. In order to apply the Trinity to this question, the author assume that traditional Christianity simply identifies Jesus with the second person of the Trinity, and then asks us how the Trinity can pray to itself. In fact traditional theology carefully maintains the distinction between Jesus, regarded as a human being, and God. The Incarnation says that God united a human being with himself. That union is close enough that we can say that Jesus' actions are God's. Thus we can say that God died for us. It is close enough that we can say that we see God through Jesus. But the two participants in the union retain their separate natures. Jesus is still a human being, subject to the limitations of human nature, and he is still dependent on God through prayer. Traditional Christianity certainly has a different view of Christ than the JW's. But the distinction may not be what this poster thinks it is. Traditional Christianity says that Christ reveals God himself (Jehovah, if you like). But he does so somewhat "indirectly". By indirectly I mean that Jesus retains a normal human nature, and is God only by the virtue of the fact that God took this human nature into a union with himself. The Arian position (which as far as I can tell is the same as the JW position -- I don't know the JW position firsthand) says that Jesus is "a god". That is, he is an entity that combines some of the attributes of humanity and divinity. The traditional position makes Jesus both closer and farther from being God. Closer, because Jesus is God, not a god. But farther, because Jesus is not God directly, but rather is united with God in the union of the Incarnation. (Those who understand technical theology will note that there are a number of related issues that I am not dealing with, in order to keep the comments as brief as possible. This is intended to be a presentation of the orthodox position, and you should not assume that because I've not mentioned something I am denying it.) --clh]