Put Your Thinking Caps ON
As some of you know I have been talking to some Jehovah Witnesses on a regular basis. Our discussion seems to always come back to the deity of Christ so indstead of addressing the issue at those times they have given me a watch tower magazine on the trinity to read. They have encouraged me to write down questions and comments as I read through it. So with that, I have come across a section in the book that the reasoning and theology seems wrong but besides the fact that they don’t recognize Jesus as God, I can’t pin point it so I’m hoping some of you know your Bible doctrin better than I. Below is the paragraph.
How Much was the Ransom?
One of the main reasons why Jesus came to earth also has a direct bearing on the Trinity. Th Bible states: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a corresponding ransom for all.” 1 Timothy 2:5,6.
Jesus, no more and no less than a perfect human, became a ransom that compensated exactly for what Adam lost- the right to perfect human life on earth. So Jesus could rightly be called “the last Adam” by the apostle Paul, who said in the same context: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45) The perfect human life of Jesus was the “corresponding ransom” required by divine justice-no more, no less. a basic principle even of human justice is that the price paid should fit the wrong committed.
If Jesus, however, were part of a Godhead, the ransom price would have been infinitely higher than what God’s own Law required. (Exodus 21:23-25; Leviticus 24:19-21) It was only a perfect human, Adam, who sinned in Eden, not God. So the ransom, to be truly in line with God’s justice, had to be strictly an equivalent-a perfect human, “the last Adam.” Thus, when God sent Jesus to earth as the ransom, he made Jesus to be what would satisfy justice, not an incarnation, not a god-man, but a perfect man, “lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:9; compare Psalm 8:5,6.) How could any part of an almight y Godhead-Father, Son, or holy spirit-ever be lower that angels?
January 10th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Here are some links that may help you…
http://www.contenderministries.org/biblestudy/trinityobj.php
http://contenderministries.org/mail/08082003trinity.php
http://www.probe.org/content/view/731/0/
I will pray for you!
January 10th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Thanks for the links and prayer :). Just glancing at one of the sites seems like it will be helpful.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Interesting question. I’d say that the assumption that the phrase “corresponding ransom” requires an exact equivalent (no more, no less) is a false one. (I don’t think anyone charging a ransom or price for something would object too strongly if their “customer” overpaid). But even if it were true, it could still be possible.
If the price was the equivalent of one perfect human, then God is the only one that could step in and fulfill that position, since there are no perfect humans. Yes, he lowered himself in order to do that, but I guess the issue is whether he could do that while still maintaining his identity as God. They would obviously say that he could not, but that’s where this argument falls apart.
I’m assuming they would say that they believe that God is the omnipotent author of all reality, including the laws of physics and logic, and is above them (or at least above our understanding of them). Just because we can’t perceive HOW He could make himself both God and man doesn’t mean that it’s impossible for Him to do, any more than it would be impossible for God to do any number of things that they probably also still believe He did (create the universe from nothing, exist eternally outside of the constraints of time, etc.) Just because we can’t explain in our understanding the logic behind something like this (which is pretty much by definition beyond our ability to comprehend) does not mean that it can’t be true.
The “lower than the angels” thing is just in reference to God making himself a man, since men are in that position. This is still fine as long as you accept the possibility that God being fully human and fully God is possible, despite violating some kind of logical rule that they made up and are trying to apply to this situation.
January 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
You can’t prove them wrong,because they are right.Always look up the scriptures in your bible,don’t over look any of them.Pray before they show up.I did and I saw things clearer.Using the bible!!!
The Trinity is not supported by the Bible.Truly I say”Read ,Read,Read!!!
What ever you decide to believe make shore the Bible backs you up.I’m glad you are caring about your spiritual need.Today,some don’t even care.
January 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Who’s Dana?
January 10th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Jared, those are some good points thank you. They often do say stuff like: Gods not the author of confusion and base there argument off of that. The link Kristi gave me quoted this verse
“Now we see but a poor reflection; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.†– 1 Corinthians 13:12 and there are other verses that are similar. Clearly we can’t fully grasp an infinite God.
The angel reference from Hebrews I thought was pretty elementary being that Hebrews chapter one is dedicate to showing Christ superiority to the angels.
Dana, the more I read my Bible the more I am convinced that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. There are so many verses that point to His deity that its over whelming at times. For example I’ve been reading Isaiah in verse 44:24 says “Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “ I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;” then in Colossian 1:15-17 the Bible says Jesus created all things. If God alone created everything than Jesus being the creator of all things clearly indicates that Jesus and God are one in the same. I don’t see how its deniable.
January 10th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Dana: just a few points of clarification -
The “trinity” as a word does not show up in the Bible; you are correct. However, it is a term that is used to describe a truth that is clearly taught throughout the whole of scripture. Scripture doesn’t specifically mention lots of words that we use when discussing theology (it probably doesn’t mention “theology” either), but that doesn’t invalidate them or the principles they describe.
Similarly, as Kristen stated above, the Bible (when taken in context as a whole) clearly teaches that Jesus is God. Taking single passages out of context (like the Hebrews one above) can certainly be used to create confusion (which God isn’t the author of, remember :) ) but overall there is a mountain of scriptural evidence that points to Jesus being God, and no clear evidence that states that He isn’t.
Jesus could never have been the perfect man if he were not God, because that would imply that mere humans have the potential to be perfect, even if Jesus was the only one to ever achieve that perfection. There are clearly all sorts of places in the Bible that illustrate the inherent fallen nature of man, and the impossibility of any man on their own to achieve perfection.
One clear thing that jumped out at me from your comment was the sentence “Whatever you decide to believe make sure the Bible backs you up.”. I’d suggest that we should approach things the other way around. Instead of deciding to believe something and then searching for support for it, we should probably base our belief on the foundation of scripture in the first place, because doing it the other way around will tend to encourage hunting for individual scriptures that appear to say whatever you want them to, but don’t match up with the fuller context of the Bible.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Here is a great video for you to watch, they believe some bogus none Biblical stuff.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5ecI_eD2rY&mode=related&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C7U4i8LnOow
If they believe the Bible, they can’t really think only 144,000 people will be save when it clear says that 144,000 people are the 12 tribes of Israel and in heaven their is a great multitude of all people that was no one could count. This is found in Revelation 7: 3-10
3. saying, “Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads.†4. And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
5. of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed;
6. of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed;
7. of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8. of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed;
of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.
9. After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10. and crying out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!â€
They also believe that God created Jesus who was also Michael the Arc angel.
Kristen, I will be praying for you that you can witness the truth the them.
Here are some verses: (1 John 5:6-7) This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(1 Peter 1:1-2) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2. Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:46 am
I’m finding this to be an interesting discussion, especially since I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jared, our problem with the Trinity doctrine is not that the term “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but that the doctrine itself is not there. You have said that it is clearly taught throughout the Bible, but the ‘proof texts’ given in support of it usually attempt to prove that Jesus is God, not mentioning anything about ‘three persons in one God.’ Where is that verse? And even these verse that supposedly prove that Jesus is God can be shown, by the context, to say no such thing. Jesus called his Father “the only true God” and then mentioned himself separate from that one. (John 17:1,3) The New Catholic Encyclopedia candidly states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299.)
Kristen, as support for your belief that Jesus if fully God and fully man, you cite Isaiah 44:24 and then follow it up with Colossians 1:15-17. The problem with this is that this argument fails to consider that Jesus was acting as God’s agent in creation. (1 Cor. 8:6; Prov. 8:22,30) He was not a false god of the nations, which is what Jehovah is being compared to in Isaiah. For example, Isaiah 43:11 says, “It is I, I the LORD [Jehovah]; there is no savior but me.” But Judges 3:9 says, “But when the Israelites cried out to the LORD [Jehovah], he raised up for them a savior, Othniel, son of Caleb’s younger brother Kenaz, who rescued them.” Othniel was not God even though God is called the only savior. Othniel acted as God’s agent, he was the one through whom Jehovah provided salvation for Israel.
As for the ransom, this is what the Mosaic Law instilled in God’s people as perfect justice: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, soul for soul. Notice the price paid for the offence is always equal. When the perfect man Adam sinned against God, only the sacrifice of a perfect man could buy back what Adam had lost for all of mankind. God sent, not himself, but his Son to pay this ransom. Jesus had no human father, his birth was miraculous, so he did not inherit the corrosive effects on sin. This made him perfect or of equal worth to Adam (legally).
Thanks,
TJ
January 11th, 2007 at 10:51 am
What about John 1:1-4
1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. KJV
Their false assumption is that Jesus is not God in flesh, but Michael the archangel who became a man. Therefore, since they deny that Jesus is divine, they have altered the Bible in John 1:1 so that Jesus is not divine in nature. The New World Translation has added the word “a” to the verse so it says, “…and the Word was a god.” The correct translation for this verse is “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” This is how it is rendered in the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, etc.
The New World translation is incorrect in its translation of this verse for several reasons. First of all, the Bible teaches a strict monotheism. To say that Jesus is “a god” is to suggest that there is another god besides YHWH, which is contrary to scripture (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8, etc.). Of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses will respond that Jesus is not the Almighty God, but a “lesser” kind of God. He is the “mighty God” as is referenced in Isaiah 9:6, “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us, and the government will rest on His shoulders, and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Therefore, they say that Jesus is the mighty god, but not the Almighty God.
The immediate problem with this explanation is that YHWH is also called the Mighty God in Jeremiah 21:18 and Isaiah 10:20. In all three verses, including Isaiah 9:6, the Hebrew word for “mighty” (gibbor) is used.
Isaiah 10:20-21, “Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel. 21A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.”
Jer. 32:18, “who showest lovingkindness to thousands, but repayest the iniquity of fathers into the bosom of their children after them, O great and mighty God. the LORD of hosts is His name.”
We can see that the Jehovah’s Witness explanation is not valid. Both the Son and God are called the Mighty God.
January 11th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Those are perfect examples Mike, I simply can not comprehend how the a person can deny that God is three persons, each person is fully God and there is one God. To add to the John 1 reference for the education of everyone, the reason they justify the translation “the Word was a god” is because the definite article in Greek (Gk ho, “the”) is not present before the word God (GK theos). One problem with this is that there is no consistency in translation, if you were to translate “a god” in verse 1 than that would also be required for verses 6,12 and 18 in the same chapter but that is not the case. Verse six reads “There was a man sent from God” and the others are similar. Besides the translation problem Verse 1 follows a regular rule of Greek grammar, the absence of “the” merely indicates “God” is the predicate rather than the subject. If this isn’t convincing enough we can look at John 20:28 which reads in NKJ “And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my God!’” in the Greek it literally reads “The Lord of me and the God (ho theos) of me.” so it doesn’t really matter that John didn’t use “the” in 1:1. Clearly Thomas is equating Jesus to God and Jesus doesn’t rebuke him but pronounces blessing on those of use who have not seen and believe what Thomas proclaimed.
January 11th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
TJ first lets start by addressing the fact that I disagree with you interpretation of Proverb 8. “Wisdom” seems to be more of a personification of the attributes of God not Jesus. The passage is implying that Gods work is characterized by wisdom. If we were to assume that “wisdom” is Jesus than we would have to assume that for the entire book of Proverbs and that is very unlikely. Moving on, when considering the trinity it is easy to see that each person has different functions in relation to the world. We see this in creation, God the Father spoke the words but it was God the Son (Colossians 1:16)the eternal Word of God who carried out the decree. We can also see the Holy Spirit in creation Genesis 1:2 “…And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” So it is easy to see that “all things were made through Him,”(John 1:3) Jesus not being a false God does not change what the Isaiah wrote or what Paul wrote. YHWH clearly is the only one involved in creation. If Jesus was a created being, an agent of God, than Paul would have emphasized that Jesus created all other things but that is not what Colossians says. It clearly say “all things” with the Greek word “panta” translated “all.” Panta is never translated “all other”. If Jesus created all things that must indicate that He Himself is not created. The verses also indicate that Jesus was the creator of angels and the hierarchy of the angelic world which means Jesus could not have been an angel Himself. I think we would agree that a main focus of the Old Testament is that salvation can only come through God Jonah 2:9 “… Salvation is of the LORD.” I would also agree that God provided temporary deliverance for His people when they called on Him as in the example of Judges. However the book of Isaiah focuses on judgment and then deliverance of His people with much of the hope focused on the future coming of Jesus the messiah who would be the savior of the world as Isaiah 9:6 (see comments above) and Isaiah 53 indicate. Therefore it is against this back drop that we can read Isaiah 43:11 and be convinced that there is no savior but YHWH and Christ being fully God and fully man is that savior. (Colossians 2:9 and Luke 2:11)
January 11th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Well said Kristen:)
January 11th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
The places in the Bible that refer to Jesus as separate from God do not discount the doctrine of the Trinity unless you also ignore all the places (like Mike and Kristen pointed out) that also say that Jesus IS God. That’s the whole basis for the doctrine of the Trinity: that Jesus is both a unique person as well as being God, and that both statements or perspectives are true. In fact, it’s the only way to explain them both being true, without ignoring many parts of scripture.
January 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hi Kristen and Mike,
You brought up John 1:1, which is a scripture in which many people have heard negative things about Jehovah’s Witnesses supposedly changing. First, as to the inclusion of the indefinite article. The indefinite article was not used simply because of the lack of the definite article in the Greek, but because the word theos (god) is a preverbal singular anarthrous predicate noun. This grammatical construct is often used throughout the New Testament to express indefiniteness or qualitativeness and therefore makes it quite different from the nouns in verse 6,12, and 18. All of the versions Mike listed, the NASB, NIV, KJV, NKJV, ASV, and RSV, render these types of nouns with indefinite articles in places like Mark 6:49 (”a spirit/ghost”), Mark 11:32(”a prophet”), John 4:19 (”a prophet”), John 6:70 (”a devil”), John 8:44 (twice, “a murderer,” “a liar”), John 9:17 (”a prophet”), etc., etc. The Translator’s New Testament, a work produced by “a team of thirty-five scholars, seventeen being New Testament specialists in British universities and theological colleges,” says in its footnote to John 1:1, “there is a distinction in the Greek here between ‘with God’ and ‘God’. In the first instance the article is used and this makes the reference specific. In the second instance there is no article and it is difficult to believe that the omission is not significant. In effect it gives an adjectival quality to the second use of Theos (God) so that the phrase means ‘The Word was divine’.” Robert Young’s Concise Critical Comments says regarding this verse, “AND THE WORD WAS GOD,] more lit. ‘and a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word.’”
Mike, you go on to say that Jesus cannot be ‘a god’ because of the Bible’s teaching of monotheism. To support this, you appeal to Isaiah 43:10. But as I pointed out to Kristen in my last post, I could use your logic here to ‘prove’ that the judge Othniel is God. (Isaiah 43:11; Judges 3:9) The context of those chapters in Isaiah is a comparison between Jehovah and the false gods of the nations that do not exist. They are not really gods at all. But Jehovah can delegate his authority and power to his servants so that they can take on similar titles in a relative sense. Thus we find that when speaking of man, the Bible says, “You also proceeded to make him a little less than godlike ones.” (Psalm 8:5) Who are these “godlike ones” (or elohim in Hebrew)? They are angels! (Hebrews 2:7) Angels are ‘gods’ in the sense that they have real power, but their godship is relative to the Almighty God. Speaking of human judges in Israel, Jehovah himself says, “I said, ‘You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.’” (Psalm 82:6) Again, they are called gods because they have real power, which they received from God. Even Moses received this title, “Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘See, I make you as God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.’” (Exodus 7:1) So the Bible’s form of monotheism does not rule out ‘gods’ with a relative amount of power given them by Jehovah God. Indeed Jesus is a “Mighty God,” but the only one ever referred to as the “Almighty” is his Father Jehovah. (Genesis 14:22; 17:1)
Kristen, you brought up John 20:28, which is another common Trinity ‘proof text’ (though again there is no three persons mentioned). The use of the definite article along with theos does not in itself make the reference the only true God, who is the Father. (John 17:1,3) Even Satan is referred to as “(the) god” at 2 Corinthians 4:4. So how should we interpret this verse? We do not have to guess, as John tells us explicitly just three verses later. “These have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” (John 8:31) He is the Son of God, not ‘God the Son.’
As to “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8, aside from the fact that Jesus is called the wisdom of God by Paul, “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8 takes on more of a personality than other uses of it throughout Proverbs. (1 Corinthians 1:24,30) Let me just ask you this, if “Wisdom” here merely represents an attribute of God, do you really believe that there was a time when God did not have wisdom? “The LORD brought me [Wisdom] forth as the first of his works . . . When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth.” (Proverbs 8:22,24,25)
In regards to what is written at Colossians 1:16, you say that panta is never translated as “all other.” This is incorrect. As just one such example, Luke 13:2 says, “Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?’” The Greek word panta here has been rendered ‘all other,’ because the word “other” is implied in the Greek.
By the way Mike, in your previous post, you have quoted from 1 John 5:7 and used the so-called Johannine Comma, which is a spurious addition to the text and is left out of most modern translations. Why do you think such a statement was added?
Thanks for your patience with me everyone. Most of these topics are actually covered in the brochure Kristen quoted from in the original blog post. You can check out the relevant section online at http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_08.htm
TJ
January 12th, 2007 at 8:58 am
We could go back and forth to prove or disprove each other with probable hundreds of version, interpretations, greek and hebrew text etc. If you guys teach that we should READ, READ, READ then thats all we need to do, we need to ask the LORD to reveal his Word to us and that by His Holy Spirit. God’s word is perfect, if we are like the Bereans, they searched the scriptures daily to see whether what paul said was true. We need to seek the scriptures rather that the opinion of man. What’s great about the bible is how simple it is. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. If we believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose again and is coming back to rule and reign, if we believe the integrity, consistency, authority, historical of the Bible, its the truth that will set us free. The love that God gave is beyond our physical thinking, we will never know how much it really cost him, but he continues to love us.
There is that God shaped void in our lives that we are trying to fill, only the Holy Spirit can fill it with the absolute truth. If we trying to fill it with our knowledge, our things, our sinful flesh we will never be able to fill it. God loves the whole world, he wishes that all mankind would be saved, all we have to do is believe. What is amazing is that he gives us the choice whether to deny Christ or follow Him. My prayer is that the truth will be in our hearts not because we did all the studying or researching, but because the love of Christ revealed it to us. Let me leave you with one verse from Philippians 2:1-11:
1. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, 2. Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. 3. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6. Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8. And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10. That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11. And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
January 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Mike has a good point about the back and forth; at some level it is futile to debate citing scripture references when we’re working off of two different “translations” or versions of that scripture, which have fundamental and irreconcilable differences in the key areas that are pertinent to this discussion. In order to use scripture as a foundation, you first have to establish which “scripture” you’re talking about. I (and many others) do not accept the New World Translation as a valid authoritative source, so it will be difficult to come to an agreement based on that interpretation.
In addition, thanks Mike for reminding us to focus on the core message of the Gospel, which is very clearly presented to us. Part of this message will always involve a step of faith, realizing that we as humans are incapable of fully understanding the nature of God and His ways. While it can be fun to theorize about some of the issues that are discussed in scripture, we must also acknowledge that ultimately there are things that we can never comprehend because God is so far above us. I believe we must resist the intellectual temptation to fill in the gaps in such cases with our own interpretations and understandings and in doing so hold our own opinions at the same level as the clear words of scripture.
When it comes to such issues that may seem unclear, let us discuss and debate among ourselves in humility, acknowledging that our own opinions can always be wrong, but may we never overstep our bounds and contradict the fundamental truths that are presented to us in God’s word, and the plain and simple message of the gospel.
January 12th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi Mike,
Yes, reading scripture is extremely important, as is praying for God’s holy spirit. But the scriptures also direct us to become teachers of truth so that we can lead others to an accurate knowledge of that truth. (Romans 10:14,15; 1 Peter 3:15) In the case of the Bereans, they first heard Paul discuss the fulfillment of the scriptures in Jesus Christ, which they then checked out for themselves by reading. When Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos preaching sincerely, but with some misunderstandings, “they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26) So the meaning of God’s Word is not only revealed to us by reading and praying alone, but also by the help of fellow believers. (see also Acts 8:26-38)
You quoted Philippians 2:1-11, which is a great passage. In verse 6, where your translation reads that Jesus “thought it not robbery to be equal with God,” that passage can be and is (I would say more accurately) translated differently, with the idea that Jesus did not try to grasp at equality with God. This shows the full contrast when he goes the opposite direction and humbles himself. For example, the New Jerusalem Bible has, “Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped,” and Today’s English Version has, “He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” At John 5:18, the Jews trying to kill Jesus accuse him of “making Himself equal with God” (they also accuse him of breaking the Sabbath, which is false). But take a look at Jesus’ response to this charge: “Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing.’” (John 5:19) It sure doesn’t sounds like he is claiming equality with God, does it?
And finally, at Philippians 2:11, “every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Just to draw out a point on this from elsewhere, when we recognize Jesus’ position as Lord, it is “to the glory of God the Father” because he is the one that gave him that position. “Let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ–this Jesus.” (Acts 2:36) So, as Paul points out, “for us [Christians] there is but one God, the Father . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 8:6)
Thanks,
TJ
January 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Hi Jared,
Throughout the discussion, I have been quoting from several translations of the Bible, including the NASB, NIV, and NAB. I think I only quoted from the NWT once. When we witness to people at their homes, we always encourage them to use their personal copy of the Bible. I personally own and use many different translations myself, and I find the same truth presented in all of them. So our understanding of the relationship between Jehovah and Jesus has never been contingent on using a particular translation. Indeed, we had the same understanding long before the NWT was made.
All translations vary in places, but this does not necessarily mean that one is ‘right’ and another ‘wrong’; both can be proper translations (but perhaps one is preferrable over or more accurate than another). Similarly, if the bulk of translations (which are usually made by those who believe in the Trinity) put forth one rendition of a particular verse, this proof in and of itself does not necessitate that it is the most accurate one.
As can be seen above, the common Trinity ‘proof texts,’ despite how exactly they are translated, will contradict or cause problems elsewhere in the scriptures when the Trinitarian doctrine is forced into them. As The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology points out, “Primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds.” It was only centuries later that it was developed.
TJ
January 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
If everyone will answer 3 questions regarding 1 Timothy 3:16, we will see why there is miscommunication/misunderstanding between our two opposing sides.
1. Who is 1 Timothy 3:16 referring to?
2. What is the English word that refers directly to this person?
3. What is the original language (Greek) word behind this English word?
To find the answer:
Those heeding the watchtower may use the “Kingdom Interlinear Translation†(published by the watchtower)
Other’s may use a “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordanceâ€
Let me know what you find.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
1. Jesus
2. God
3. Theos
January 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
We could continue to debate these individual Scriptures and at this point I don’t have the time or expertise needed for a quality debate. Quick notes: The majority of recognized Greek scholars agree that the translation of John 1:1 as seen in The King James Version is the most accurate. John 20:28 I would again only point to the fact that Jesus would have strongly rebuked this proclamation if it wasn’t true. The whole chapter of Proverbs 8 is showing mans need for wisdom. The chapter is clearly poetic in nature and just because wisdom is pictured as being born does not mean that Gods wisdom did not exist prior to creation but only that wisdom had a significant role in it. In Luke 13:2 the word other is noted as not being in the original text but added for clarity.I would not consider that being translated, merely added. Further more in that context it does not change the meaning of the passage as it would in Colossians. In the context of Colossians every translation I have seen has not added “other” for clarity. In the few Greek dictionaries I’ve used, “panta” has no other definition besides “all any and every.”
I will again affirm that the Bibles clear teaching is that God is three persons, there is one God and there is a three-in-oneness with in the Godhead and though I may not have a full understanding of this now I look forward to the day that I stand before my God and Savior and have full understanding. With that I would like to get back to the original post of required ransom for sin. I have heard and read what the Watchtowers reasoning’s are but am not convinced. I thought Jareds point of the ransom not having to be the exact same was reasonable. The NKJV reads 1 Timothy 2:6″ who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,” so to me that does not indicate it had to be “corresponding” as quoted from the magazine.
January 12th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
1. Jesus
2. God
3. theos
I totally agree with Kristen, through all this dialoging and referencing I have found out what I believe is totally true. I hope this all you need to show the JW’s when they come back. Isn’t it great to really dig deep into the Word and study what you believe.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Part of me hesitates to keep this going, for fear of it turning into an argument, but (In the spirit of getting back to the main topic of this post) I did have a few more thoughts today regarding the supposed demand for an EQUAL ransom.
Of course, this concept of the requirement for exact equality is promoted (as TJ has done above) by referencing the “eye for an eye” passage. However, there are many, many places in which the Torah requires a much higher payment than a simple eye-for-an-eye.
The following is a list of offenses punishable by DEATH according to Moses’ law. I’d dare say that these would all be examples of the “ransom” or “price” being much higher than the transgression.
Following another religion: Ex. 22:20
Stranger entering a temple: Num. 1:51
Proselytizing: Deut. 13:1-10
Communicating with the dead (or attempting to do so): Lev. 20:27
Black magic: Ex 22:18
Adultery: Lev. 20:10
Prostitution: Lev. 20:13
Sex before marriage: Deut. 22:13-21
Kidnapping (for slavery): Ex. 21:16
Cursing Parents: Ex. 21:17
Working on Saturday: Ex. 35:2
Not being circumcised: Gen. 17:14
Gluttony and excessive drinking: Deut. 21:20
Thankfully, Christ in His extension of grace to us, reversed this trend and on many occasions called for no punishment at all to be applied to people who committed some of these acts, and ultimately of course forgave us all fully and completely.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:06 am
Hi Daniel,
1 Timothy 3:16 is a clear reference to Jesus Christ, as the description matches what is said of him elsewhere. The English word that refers to him is the pronoun “he” or “he who,” not “God.” Like 1 John 5:7, which was used as evidence for the Trinity above, later manuscripts contained a spurious addition in the text changing the Greek relative pronoun hos to theos. Some older Bible translations, like the KJV have retained this insertion, but most modern ones reject it.
As the NET Bible points out with this passage, “intrinsically, the rest of 3:16, beginning with [hos], appears to form a six-strophed hymn. As such, it is a text that is seemingly incorporated into the letter without syntactical connection. Hence, not only should we not look for an antecedent for [hos] (as is often done by commentators), but the relative pronoun thus is not too hard a reading (or impossible, as Dean Burgon believed). Once the genre is taken into account, the relative pronoun fits neatly into the author’s style.” So we should not try to connect “he” to God who is described in previous verses, since verse 16 is “without syntactical connection.”
Like I asked Mike above when he quoted 1 John 5:7, why do you think this verse was altered to say “God”?
TJ
January 13th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Hi Kristen and Jared,
I have a question for each of you (not rhetorical).
Kristen, if wisdom in Proverbs 8 is simply an attribute of God, does that mean there was a time that he was without it, since it is something that is brought forth and born?
Jared, why do you think Jesus is called “the last Adam”? (1 Cor. 15:45)
Again, thanks for your patience with me.
TJ
January 13th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Hi Kristen,
I missed the part of your post that dealt with Proverbs 8. You said that because the writing is poetic it does not mean that wisdom did not exist prior to it being “born” and the ‘first of God’s works.’ So let me ask you this instead, why did the verse say that? What is its poetic meaning?
Thanks,
TJ
January 13th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Look TJ, I have done an in depth study on this passage of scripture and have answered your questions. I am not a polemicist and do not have time to debate every scripture you choose. I posted this blog because I wanted to talk about the necessary ransom for our sins. If you are truly interested in what we believe and why about the Trinity and Jesus Christ then I will direct you to Bible Doctrine by Wayne Grudem.
January 13th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Hi Kristen,
You sound upset, so perhaps we should end our discussion. It was not my intent to upset you, but rather just bring out simple points from the Bible that are commonly ignored or not known about when the Trinity is being discussed.
Take care,
TJ
January 13th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
http://www.contenderministries.org/jehovahswitnesses/nwt.php
January 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
I’m not upset. I just want the conversation to stay focused. As said before the amount of proof text for the deity of Christ and the trinity is numerable starting with Genesis and ending with Revelations and unfortunately I can’t continue an in depth conversation on every one of those verses. You continued to give your commentary on Philippians when Mike was clearly just leaving it to be considered on a personal level and instead of just answering the questions left by Daniel you gave more commentary. Again I can not continue to address every verse. I will say that as far as 1 Timothy goes most Bibles have a foot note saying that “God” is also translated “Who” and list the manuscripts were this is the case. We obviously don’t base our whole belief system off of this one verse and are educated in the differences.
January 13th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Side Note : I would like everyone to notice the amount of comments I’ve had. I think its a record. Who new!?!
January 13th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I was just going to say that! I have thoroughly enjoyed reading them. Thanks everyone.
January 13th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Kristen,
I didn’t think I sidetracked the discussion, it was already on the subject of the Trinity when I first posted. So I thought it would be allowable to bring another viewpoint to the evidence being given. The reason I gave ‘commentary’ was to give our position on verses that are commonly misunderstood. They are valid points. Mike quoted Philippians that says that Jesus is Lord and that everyone will bend their knee to him. From experience, I know that most people will read this and understand it as clear proof that he is God, forgetting that Jesus was made Lord by his Father, God. Daniel asked his questions about a verse with a spurious history, which is sometimes used as a Trinity ‘proof’ text. He never said that we must give one word answers, rather, “let me know what you find.” I thank you for allowing the discussion on your blog.
Have a great day,
TJ
January 13th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Your view points on the specific scriptures being discussed were more than welcome. What I am saying is I would mostly disagree with your points on Philippians and Timothy but unfortunately I don’t have the time to debate the issues and I want to get back to the original post. Anyway, as Mike pointed out intellectual discussions are not going to change the heart of a person but only the working of the Holy Spirit so lets leave it at that.
January 14th, 2007 at 2:56 am
TJ’s point on the ransom was valid to a point; eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Exodus 21:24-25 - Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So, the penalty for sin (separation from God or second death) had to be paid by death. But only God could pay for that sin because he is perfect. God could not just create another perfect human being especially outside of Adam and all the promises and covenants to Abraham and David saying that through their seeds the messiah would come. Acts 2:30-36 - 30. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31. He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35. Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
God is the only LORD, but Jesus made a claim in Matthew 22:41-45 - 1. While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42. Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. 43. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45. If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? 46. And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
His ransom was more than just a penalty but a sacrifice and a prophecy, he paid it in our place willingly, to save those whom he loved; us ( the world ), every person, you and me. By his power he able to overcome death. 1 Corinthians 15:55-57 - O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. God’s ransom can only be of himself, through his Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
God’s ransom was a gift to us, For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. Mark 10:45.
Romans 5:6-21 - 6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18. Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
3. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6. Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. 1 Timothy 2:3-6
So, In my conclusion to Christ’s ransom. God who is Jesus loves us, Jesus who is God willingly paid our penalty, a just and perfect penalty. He died for everybody who believes; not just the 144,000, not just the jews, not just one person. His ransom is his Love for us, an amazing free gift that only God could give. His Word is truth and it sanctifies us, corrects us, blesses us, comforts us and much much more. If Jesus was no more than a perfect man created by God, then all the claims and gospel are false, God created Adam as as a perfect man and he couldn’t remain sinless, Jesus had to be God . Jesus is the Word, his perfect Word is divinely authoritative and inspired. Love you all.
January 15th, 2007 at 9:04 am
Thanks Jared and Mike, those are some good insights.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
What do you think of this answer to the question “How Much was the Ransom?”
1. The transgression of sin is infinite (i.e. it transgresses God - whom is infinite)
2. The payment for sin is infinite (i.e. eternal seperation from God)
3. Thus if a FINITE being pays the penalty, it must be paid for an INFINITE amount of time AND if an INFINITE being pays the penalty, it can be paid in a FINITE amount of time.
The only satisfactory conclusion was for God to come pay the penalty and then we can live happily ever after with Him.
January 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Great point Daniel, thanks