The resurrected Lord Christ Jesus utters these words to the first-century Christian congregation in Philadelphia (western Asia Minor):
"qui vicerit faciam illum columnam in templo Dei mei et foras non egredietur amplius et scribam super eum nomen Dei mei et nomen civitatis Dei mei novae Hierusalem quae descendit de caelo a Deo meo et nomen meum novum" (Revelation 3:12 Biblia Vulgata)
"Whoever wins, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will not go outside anymore, and I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which has come down from heaven from my God, and my new name."
ReplyDeleteWe see something in Ephesians 1:3, 17.
Ephesians ch.1:3NKJV"3Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, "
ReplyDeleteEphesians ch.1:17NKJV"that the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, "
Right, and texts like this shape how other texts are to be understood. Since we know that the Son has one who is God to him, yet YHWH has no one who is God to him, it follows necessarily that the Son is not YHWH ontologically.
ReplyDeleteOne common argument I've seen offered by Trinitarians more times than I can count in an attempt to sidestep such clear texts is the use of Isa. 44:24 to suggest that the Son must be the creator, since God "alone" created.
Trinitarians are so used to their own equivocations that they often aren't even aware when they're equivocating. This popular use of Isa. 44:24 is self-refuting, and here's why:
Only persons speak, not natures.
It was therefore a person who spoke at Isa. 44:24, not a nature.
That person said that he created "alone".
The Trinitarian disagrees, and says that he was not in fact "alone" as s/he claims that two other persons were creating with him.
The popular argument is self-refuting and logically incoherent, since it depends on an exception-less application for its force, yet the Trinitarian paradigm requires two exceptions. Whether one wants to argue that the speaker was the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit, that person was not in fact "alone" in creating in the trinitarian paradigm, as *who*ever that speaker was, he couldn't have created "alone" yet the Trinity be true.
The JW view isn't saddled with these logical problems, as my preferred analogy reveals (to reiterate):
Mozart alone created the wonderful composition Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and every orchestra that has performed it since was not the creator, but a tool used to bring it from the conceptual stage to its physical/audible realization. God is Mozart; the Son is His orchestra.
Amen and amen
Deletehttps://www.drbo.org/chapter/73003.htm#:~:text=12%20He%20that%20shall%20overcome,God%2C%20and%20my%20new%20name.
ReplyDeleteYes in previous post I spoken about the son saying my God. The son says my God and the holy spirit says nothing and the father never says my God. Yet somehow scolars convince themselves that God is a trinity. It can only mean they have gone beyond scripture. Paul said not to teach another "good news" about Jesus yet they have. See also John 20:17, Gal.1:7-9.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a well educated contributor, more of an interested reader. But to speak from the background briefly:
ReplyDeleteIt's apparent Jesus has a God. For me, that seems a short leap describing that God as the Father, named YHWH, Jehovah.
But in the last thread an interesting claim was made: "While the TTetragrammaton is typically used in the Old Testament to refer to the covenant name of God, the New Testament reveals the Trinitarian nature of God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully and equally God."
This statement seems to be in error- Ps 2:7 clearly uses YHWH in a reference to the Father. That's a critical text quoted from in 3 areas in the NT- 1 in Acts, 2 in Hebrews. Context indicates God raised Christ (13:30), i.e. the Father raised the Son. Or referring back to OT/Psalms-- YHWH raised Jesus.
Jesus' God is YHWH.
Apologies if this brings back too much from that thread- it did take a while to process...
-NC
Psalm ch.2:7ASV"I will tell of the decree: JEHOVAH said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee."
ReplyDeleteMy new simple answer to anyone: John 8:54
ReplyDeleteWho did the Jews claim was their God? The father
I notice no church father ever comments on this text especially the part about who is in the role of “god”
John ch.8:54KJV"Jesus answered, IF I honour myself, my honour is NOTHING: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: "
ReplyDeletehttps://shorturl.at/UkxcE Bernardinus De Moor about Prov. 8:22, Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14.
ReplyDeleteDear Nincsnevem, I am allowing your post, but please remember the focus of this thread.
DeleteMy only off topic comment: I now know where Ninc gets their arguments from… nothing original, all recycled..
ReplyDeleteAnd that guy don’t suppose Jesus was begotten by the dead? Because?
And Ninc where did I misquote someone? You claimed recently I misquoted and that has affected my credibility, please cite where and how
The way I quoted Origen and Tettulian had no bearing on the meaning of the text…
I have confirmed this with specifically Catholics ( practising) I know.. ( who concede I at least have a point)
And again Bdag is the authoritative lexicon - Thayers doesn’t cite a biblical text for the philosophical meaning of beginning yet I can cite 2 parallel uses in the lxx and Barnes
( send me a just paste link, don’t spam Edgar’s forum)
And Bernardinus De Moor is a Protestant and “offshoot” or “derivative” of Catholics
ReplyDeleteYour citation of JW.org is better ( tho doesn’t prove your point, as We here have all proven and can go further to prove)
Things aren’t as cut and dry as in “Ninc world” about these things..
The dung bettle method as you call it - is no better ( when done selectively, which it is not, as you can’t cite a credible source for it) than your as I call theologically motivated method.