A Curious Question For Non-Trinitarians

[Aunty Jane]

This piece seems to detail the differences between Russell's teachings and the JWs, but not the commonalities.

We believe that Russell’s death was actually a measuring stick to see who were followers of the man rather than followers of the Bible’s teachings. When Rutherford took the helm after Russell’s death many chose to end their association with the Bible Students and retain the teachings of Russell. But the revelation of truth is progressive and things must move forward as JW’s have always done. If there were adjustments in our understanding as time and knowledge progressed, we made them. But some got stuck in the past and did not want to move forward. I believe that God does his sifting from time to time to test whether we are genuine followers of Christ and the Bible.....or followers of men.

Concerning Russell, Wiki also states:

His Scriptural interpretations differed from those of Catholics, and many Protestants, in the following areas:

- Hell: He said there was a heavenly resurrection of 144,000 righteous, as well as a "great multitude", but believed that the remainder of mankind slept in death, awaiting an earthly resurrection, rather than suffering in a literal Hell...

Just to clarify.....the 144,000 are those “bought from among mankind as firstfruits” (Revelation 14:1-5) whereas the “great multitude” (Revelation 7:9-10; 13-14) are survivors of the “great tribulation” which occurs on earth. The remaining ones of the 144,000 are taken to heaven before Armageddon, and the tribulation survivors come out of that turmoil to form the nucleus of the “new earth”. (2 Peter 3:13)
Those of the 144,000 are raised to heavenly life to be “kings and priests” for mankind on earth. (Revelation 20:6) These are resurrected “first”. A general resurrection was to follow, whereby the ruling king Christ Jesus would call all the dead, both “righteous and unrighteous” from their graves. (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15)

- Christ's Second Coming. Russell believed that Christ had returned invisibly in October 1874, and that he had been ruling from heaven since that date. He believed that a 'time of trouble' began then that would mark a gradual deterioration of civilized society leading up to the end of the "Gentile Times" with a climactic multi-national attack on a restored Israel, worldwide anarchy, and the sudden destruction of all world governments in October 1914. After the outbreak of World War I, Russell reinterpreted 1914 as the beginning of Armageddon.

Russell was on the right track, but like the apostles in the first century, got the timing a bit mixed up.
They came to understand that 1914 was not the end of the system of things, but the beginning of the last days, and as the events unfolded they saw all the features that Jesus has foretold. Unprecedented war, food shortages, pestilence and great earthquakes. Increasing lawlessness and the love of people, one for another, growing cold (Matthew 24:1-14; Luke 21:5-18) Often prophesy is only fully discernible after the fact.

Aren't these two teachings that are still retained by Jehovah's Witnesses to this day, or no? I appreciate the heads up, btw. I'm not a Jehovahs Witness, and have had to study them only because there are several JW members on this forum now, making it unavoidable if I wish to converse with them.

Ask and you will receive.....

 

[Aunty Jane]

Yes, I did some study on darnel a few years back. But the analogy fits much better with the Gnostics. Jesus said in His parable that the Devil had sown them into the church, and again, the Gnostics practiced witchcraft and taught that fornication was pleasing to "God," and their religion essentially turned early Christianity into what we would generally refer to as Satanism today.

Time moved on and the “weeds” did too....overtaking the world. The RCC was the catalyst for taking the weeds into the rest of the world....as Jesus said to the Pharisees....
Matthew 23:13-15...
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the Kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.
15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you travel over sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one, you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves.”

The Gnostics claimed superior knowledge through secret revelation and boasted that they were the “correctors of the apostles.” Gnosticism intertwined philosophy, speculation, and pagan mysticism with apostate Christianity. Irenaeus refused to share in any of this. Rather, he embarked on a life-long struggle against heretical teachings. No doubt he was well aware of the need to apply the apostle Paul’s warning: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 4:7)

LoL! It looks like a tough life. And the locals should be happy.

Are you saying those kangaroos are locals?

Absolutely...there are lots of roos where I live....all part of the scenery outside of the cities. They still have habitat in the rural areas....but the cities are spreading like a cancer and destroying the natural land we were meant to share with them...we should not be robing them of it and forcing them into extinction.....humans will pay for their greed and selfishness.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Alright. Are you sure your position isn't still Trinitarian, however? Most non-Trinitarians do not acknowledge that Jesus is God, at least not with a capital G anyway.

Hmm...I know from John that Jesus is God and is the Creator. He states it so unmistakably that it puzzles me when someone can't see it. What I have trouble with is that God is Spirit and I think this is the Holy Spirit. I don't think the Holy Spirit is another Spirit. So I just gave up at some point trying to think about it and just see God/the Holy Spirit and God/Jesus.

 

[APAK]

Hmm...I know from John that Jesus is God and is the Creator. He states it so unmistakably that it puzzles me when someone can't see it. What I have trouble with is that God is Spirit and I think this is the Holy Spirit. I don't think the Holy Spirit is another Spirit. So I just gave up at some point trying to think about it and just see God/the Holy Spirit and God/Jesus.

So you are a Binit-Arian then? The divine essence consisting of two persons—Father and Son? Or is it just Jesus who is the one true God?
Back to John, where you say states Jesus is God, very clearly. Was it John 1:1-2 and 14 that cleared it up for you? It can be a 'heavy' subject to discuss, though should not be.....

 

[stunnedbygrace]

So you are a Binit-Arian then? The divine essence consisting of two persons—Father and Son? Or is it just Jesus who is the one true God?
Back to John, where you say states Jesus is God, very clearly. Was it John 1:1-2 and 14 that cleared it up for you? It can be a 'heavy' subject to discuss, though should not be.....

Yes, it is from John that I saw it. I saw that even the first words of what he wrote were crafted to have the reader make a connection to the beginning of Genesis, saying Jesus was that first light being spoken of, the light that God called everlasting.

 

[amadeus]

Yep, not a single trinitarian translation got it right.....I wonder why?

That depends on who you believe I guess. Jews are the best judge of what their scripture means....

"God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

I am certainly no student of the original languages, but I have noticed a similar difference in my German Bibles.

First see the older translation by Martin Luther:

Gott sprach zu Mose: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Und sprach: Also sollst du den Kindern Israel sagen: ICH WERDE SEIN hat mich zu euch gesandt. [Ex 3:14 by Martin Luther... Pentateuch completed in the year 1523]

The German word, "werden", is an infinitive meaning "to become" but it is also used as in the present instance as the helping verb in the German future tense [with the meaning of "will" (shall) in English].

"ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE" [the word, der, is a relative pronoun]
"I will be who (could be that which or that or what or the one) I will be"

Then see my much later German Bible:

Gott sprach zu Mose "Ich bin , der ich bin!" Und er sprach: So sollst du zu den Kindern Israels sagen: "Ich bin", der hat mich zu euch gesandt. [Ex 3:14 by Franz Eugen Schlacter in the year 2000]

The German word, "sein", is an infinitive meaning "to be" formed into the German 1st person singular tense as follows:

"Ich bin , der ich bin!" [the word, der, is a relative pronoun]
I am, who (could be that which or that or what or the one) I am

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am certainly no student of the original languages, but I have noticed a similar difference in my German Bibles.

First see the older translation by Martin Luther:

Gott sprach zu Mose: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Und sprach: Also sollst du den Kindern Israel sagen: ICH WERDE SEIN hat mich zu euch gesandt. [Ex 3:14 by Martin Luther... Pentateuch completed in the year 1523]

The German word, "werden", is an infinitive meaning "to become" but it is also used as in the present instance as the helping verb in the German future tense [with the meaning of "will" (shall) in English].

"ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE" [the word, der, is a relative pronoun]
"I will be who (could be that which or that or what or the one) I will be"

Then see my much later German Bible:

Gott sprach zu Mose "Ich bin , der ich bin!" Und er sprach: So sollst du zu den Kindern Israels sagen: "Ich bin", der hat mich zu euch gesandt. [Ex 3:14 by Franz Eugen Schlacter in the year 2000]

The German word, "sein", is an infinitive meaning "to be" formed into the German 1st person singular tense as follows:

"Ich bin , der ich bin!" [the word, der, is a relative pronoun]
I am, who (could be that which or that or what or the one) I am

Well spotted Amadeus.

Also the German Word “Geist” got translated as “ghost” in the KJV to give the Holy Spirit personhood. But there are no such things as “ghosts” in the Bible. “Geist” in German simply means “spirit”.....

 

[stunnedbygrace]

there are no such things as “ghosts” in the Bible.

Are you sure about that? I’m thinking of at least three verses. Do you mean they should say spirit instead of ghost? Like when my translation says they were frightened because they thought a ghost was walking toward them on water, it should say spirit instead? Or like when Jesus said, a ghost does not have flesh and bone as I do, yeah, okay spirit would be better.
But He didn’t seem to correct them that they could not see a spirit…

 

[Wrangler]

Hmm...I know from John that Jesus is God and is the Creator. He states it so unmistakably that it puzzles me when someone can't see it.

John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the entire Bible. What John clearly say in 20:31 is that everything he wrote was to prove something else than what you are using his words to prove.

This means that nothing John wrote can be used to prove what you say John clearly and unmistakably said.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the entire Bible. What John clearly say in 20:31 is that everything he wrote was to prove something else than what you are using his words to prove.

This means that nothing John wrote can be used to prove what you say John clearly and unmistakably said.

sometimes you just gotta laugh.

Tell that to Thomas 3 verses up from that one! And Jesus didn’t correct him.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Are you sure about that? I’m thinking of at least three verses. Do you mean they should say spirit instead of ghost? Like when my translation says they were frightened because they thought a ghost was walking toward them on water, it should say spirit instead? Or like when Jesus said, a ghost does not have flesh and bone as I do, yeah, okay spirit would be better.
But He didn’t seem to correct them that they could not see a spirit…

The Jews were forbidden to communicate with spirits, not because they were "ghosts" of dead people, but because they were demonic spirits who could impersonate the dead. Spirit mediums were expelled from the land because of this. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) It was a deception from satan who told the first lie in Eden...."you surely will not die"....so when the humans did die, he convinced them that a spiritual part of them lived on.....but the Jews never believed such a thing. They saw life and death as opposites and were taught that only God could restore life via a resurrection. (like Jesus did with Lazarus. John 11:11-14)

Jesus said that he was not a spirit and showed them his "flesh and bones"....notice not "flesh and blood".
Spirit beings have the ability to materialize as angels had done in the past, so in human form, the disciples were not compromised by communication with the "spirit" of their departed Master.

Since the flood, demons were prevented from materializing, so this measure stopped any deception on their part....but they would still try to influence human beings by speaking through clairvoyants and fortune tellers. They could even take over the bodies of individuals as was demonstrated in the first century when demon possession was prevalent.Jesus and the apostles expelled them.

So yes, "spirit" is the more appropriate word because there are no such things as "ghosts" of the dead, which is what you immediately think of. Satan is crafty.....

 

[amadeus]

Are you sure about that? I’m thinking of at least three verses. Do you mean they should say spirit instead of ghost? Like when my translation says they were frightened because they thought a ghost was walking toward them on water, it should say spirit instead? Or like when Jesus said, a ghost does not have flesh and bone as I do, yeah, okay spirit would be better.
But He didn’t seem to correct them that they could not see a spirit…

Sister, we have in English two words which in their original languages, I believe, meant the same thing. In the German Bible, the word, Geist, is used each time either the word, ghost, or the word, spirit, is used in English.

In the Spanish Bible, the word, espíritu [from the Latin, spiritus], is used each time the word, ghost, or the word, spirit, is used in English.

I have been reading the Bible in the three languages for many years and, of the three, only the English uses two different words. English speaking people have certainly developed at least slightly and perhaps drastically different meanings for the two words.

Did those different usages develop in our culture and get transferred to the Bible? That seems to be most likely, but I have not studied it that way.

The original Greek has apparently one word [pneuma] for each of your situations. Did the Greek have the two meanings in the one word... or did English pick the two words which were synonyms and gradually develop different meanings for two words? I pose it as a question, but I have stated my own opinion on it.

The Geneva Bible [1560] shows the same as the King James. The Wycliffe Bible [1380] shows "Hooli Goost " instead of Holy Ghost and "good spirit" instead of Holy Spirit.

 

[Aunty Jane]

sometimes you just gotta laugh.

I wish it was funny....but changing the nature of God is a serious business.

When you said..."I know from John that Jesus is God and is the Creator. He states it so unmistakably that it puzzles me when someone can't see it."
I can see why you believe that, but Jesus is not the Creator.....he was the assistant for sure because Jehovah created all things "through" his son...IOW he used his son to fabricate the raw materials that were brought into existence by God's great power.
Everything in heaven and on earth came from God through his son, by means of his holy spirit.

If you do something "through" the agency of another person, you become their representative. Only Jehovah is the Creator.

If you read John 1:1-3 in Greek, it doesn't say what is translated into English.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos. 2 He houtos was eimi in en the beginning archē with pros · ho God theos. 3 All pas things were created ginomai by dia him autos, and kai apart chōris from him autos not oude a single thing heis was created ginomai that hos has been created ginomai."

In verses 1 & 2 you can see that that "ho theos" is used for Jehovah, but not for ho logos, who is just called "theos" without the definite article. That in Greek means just a god-like personage, or one with divine power or authority. The Logos was not "the God" but "a god".
Theos means any kind of god....even satan is called "theos".

The book of John was not written with a trinity in mind because, in the first century there was no trinity except in pagan religions.
The Jews did not believe in a triune god (and still don't) and never once did Jesus claimed equality with his Father.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I wish it was funny....but changing the nature of God is a serious business.

When you said..."I know from John that Jesus is God and is the Creator. He states it so unmistakably that it puzzles me when someone can't see it."
I can see why you believe that, but Jesus is not the Creator.....he was the assistant for sure because Jehovah created all things "through" his son...IOW he used his son to fabricate the raw materials that were brought into existence by God's great power.
Everything in heaven and on earth came from God through his son, by means of his holy spirit.

If you do something "through" the agency of another person, you become their representative. Only Jehovah is the Creator.

If you read John 1:1-3 in Greek, it doesn't say what is translated into English.....
"In en the beginning archē was eimi the ho Word logos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi with pros · ho God theos, and kai the ho Word logos was eimi God theos. 2 He houtos was eimi in en the beginning archē with pros · ho God theos. 3 All pas things were created ginomai by dia him autos, and kai apart chōris from him autos not oude a single thing heis was created ginomai that hos has been created ginomai."

In verses 1 & 2 you can see that that "ho theos" is used for Jehovah, but not for ho logos, who is just called "theos" without the definite article. That in Greek means just a god-like personage, or one with divine power or authority. The Logos was not "the God" but "a god".
Theos means any kind of god....even satan is called "theos".

The book of John was not written with a trinity in mind because, in the first century there was no trinity except in pagan religions.
The Jews did not believe in a triune god (and still don't) and never once did Jesus claimed equality with his Father.

You can’t convince me. I don’t care about a trinity, I can’t even see one. But I worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit and it hasn’t hurt me any. And it also doesn’t seem to hurt them in heaven that they worship Him either.

 

[Wrangler]

never once did Jesus claim equality with his Father.

Indeed, Jesus said his father is greater than him and that his father is the only true God.

 

[Wrangler]

You can’t convince me.

Which begs the question of why you enter threads like this?

I don’t care about a trinity, I can’t even see one. But I worship Jesus

How do you reconcile that with John 4:23-24, where Jesus says true worshippers worship the Father?

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

It doesn’t make sense to you because you are putting your doctrine before God’s word.

For instance, putting aside this one point, the overwhelming Biblical evidence is against the trinity. Just 3 points of consideration:

1. The trinity is not in the Bible - not the word, not the doctrine.
2. The entire Bible is written by monotheist Jews who reject the trinity to this day.
3. The 1C prohibits a non-unitarian God, which was not lost in translation.

From this solidly Scriptural basis, it should make sense to you that historical and politically motivated support for trinitarianism in God’s word would not hold up to scrutiny.

While the trinity isn't supported by the Bible, you err in your understanding of the 1st commandment. The 1st commandment prohibits the worship of anything or anyone that is not God. What it clearly doesn't do is say there is only 1 Being called God. Jesus had to come and reveal the existence of the God that became the Father because as John said, no human has ever seen the Father or heard His voice.

One of the primary reasons that the Orthodox Jews couldn't understand a thing Christ taught was they assumed that there was only 1 God Being, even when the very first chapter in the Law plainly showed multiple God Beings talking to each other. If unitarianism is biblical, Gen. 1:26 should show Elohim saying "I'm going to make man in My image and My likeness". But that's not what the passage says. It shows Elohim saying "let Us make man in Our image". That statement and the term "Elohim" automatically implies the existence of more than 1 God Being.

 

[Aunty Jane]

You can’t convince me. I don’t care about a trinity, I can’t even see one. But I worship Jesus and the Holy Spirit and it hasn’t hurt me any. And it also doesn’t seem to hurt them in heaven that they worship Him either.

Can you give me examples of where Jesus is worshipped in heaven please....I think you are seeing the word "worship" which is a translation of "pro·sky·neʹo".... a word that simply means to bow down. It does not always mean "worship" in the English understanding of the word. It can mean homage or obeisance, so the context indicates how the word is rendered in English.

For example.....the magi who came to give gifts to the child Jesus...it says in most Bibles that they "worshipped" him...but that is not what the Bible says. They were paying their respects to a new king...they did not think he was a god.

When angels bowed before God's son, (Hebrews 1:6) they were acknowledging his superior position over them, they were not worshipping him as God but as the son of God who was rightly due their honor and respect.

Translation errors are so misleading, but we each have to make our own decision about what to believe. There is a big picture and its wonderful...but Christendom has lost it. Does that mean that we can each make up our own religion, based on what we want to believe? Has God ever operated that way? He has always had his representatives on earth to guide and direct his people.....he still does, but the devil makes them look like fakes, and the fakes look like the real thing......its how he operates...buyer beware....

 

[Wrangler]

you err in your understanding of the 1st commandment. The 1st commandment prohibits the worship of anything or anyone that is not God.

OMG! Your error is to disregard the singular pronoun, ‘me.’ The trinity is a blatant violation of this loyalty to a unitarian, singular (not 3 in 1) God.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Which begs the question of why you enter threads like this?



How do you reconcile that with John 4:23-24, where Jesus says true worshippers worship the Father?

Before Abraham was, I Am. Jesus said that, in obvious reference to the OT
where God said, tell them I AM sent you.

The Jews tried to stone Him because they said, You, a mere man, claim to be God.

Thomas said to Jesus, my Lord and my God. Jesus didn’t correct Him.

In Revelation, they worship the Lamb. Yet God says only He is to be worshipped.

Titus says to wait for the coming of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

If you’ve seen Me, you have seen God. Jesus said that.

And now Father, glorify Me with the glory I had with You before the world existed.

Hebrews 1 says the whole universe was made through Jesus.

Another says everything we see was created through Him and nothing we see was created except through Him.

John says He is the word and the light and says He was with God in the beginning and that He WAS God.

I could go on and on. So just as with the verses I gave about no Eternal Torment, you have to take ALL of the words of God and make them fit.

When the Word became flesh, He had to rely on God just as we do, and some of what He said was as a human and some of what He said was as God. But He came from heaven and was in heaven with God before the world even existed.