JESUS IS NOT JEHOVAH

[onewithhim]

What do you all say about the following scriptures?

PSALM 110: 1,2:

"The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord [the Messiah] is: 'Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.' The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out of Zion, saying 'God subduing in the midst of your enemies.'" (Young's literal translation; American Standard Bible; NWT)

Does this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person? Do you think they are according to this?


ISAIAH 61: 1,2:

"The spirit of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah is upon me [the Messiah], for the reason that Jehovah has anointed me to tell the good news to the meek ones. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to those taken captive and the wide opening of the eyes even to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of goodwill on the part of Jehovah and the day of vengeance on the part of our God; to comfort all the mourning ones." (Young's; American Standard Bible; NWT)

Does this show that there is only one Person sending and anointing? Someone who sends and anoints himself? Jesus applied this verse's mention of the Messiah to himself at LUKE 4:18-21. Was he speaking ONLY of himself, or was there someone else involved to do the sending and the anointing?

[PinSeeker]

Hasn't this been discussed quite enough? My answer, as you know, is that Jesus is indeed part of the triune Jehovah, and these Scriptures are but a couple of proof texts. Why debate it yet again?

Grace and peace to you.

[onewithhim]

Hasn't this been discussed quite enough? My answer, as you know, is that Jesus is indeed part of the triune Jehovah, and these Scriptures are but a couple of proof texts. Why debate it yet again?

Grace and peace to you.

Your beliefs about this do not hold up, and I wish to see if anyone else cares to comment on my OP. How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus? Jehovah tells Jesus what to do. They are not equal, and equality for each member of your trinity is part of the definition of the Trinity.

[PinSeeker]

Your beliefs about this do not hold up...

And I say yours do not. Thanks for your opinion, and I am fine with anyone calling in like manner what I say my opinion.

How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus?

Because it's a misunderstanding that the Father is a higher "rank" than Jesus. Is your father (or mother) of a higher rank as a person than you? It's a difference of order, not rank.

Jehovah tells Jesus what to do.

Right, the Son does the Father's will. Just as you do your parents' will... or at least used to when you were a kid. And you still do, really, for the most part, you just don't have to be directed as you were when you were a kid. But regarding the Father and the Son, on a much higher level, of course.

They are not equal, and equality for each member of your trinity is part of the definition of the Trinity.

Oh but they are, in the same sense as you are equal in personhood with your parents. Again, on a much higher level, of course.

Yes, so, again, everything you're thinking of me and what I'm saying, rest assured that it is reciprocated in full.

Grace and peace to you.

[Difflugia]

Your beliefs about this do not hold up, and I wish to see if anyone else cares to comment on my OP.

OK. I'll bite.

Does this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person?

No, but the various forms of trinitarianism don't claim that the three members of the Godhead are the same person (three persons, one God, coequal, coeternal).

Does this show that there is only one Person sending and anointing? Someone who sends and anoints himself?

No. Again, all three members of the Trinity are God, but they're different persons.

How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus? Jehovah tells Jesus what to do.

The answer is that your premise is false; it's not true (let alone obvious) that Yahweh is of a higher rank than Jesus. Jesus doesn't do what Yahweh tells him, but the will of the Father and there's no indication that Jesus would do anything else. That's the kind of interpretive hair-splitting that I wouldn't think I'd need to explain to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If I may be blunt, few want to engage with you about any of this because you don't actually argue against any orthodox views of the Trinity. You say you do and belittle anyone that disagrees with what you claim ad nauseum to be "obvious," but without actually engaging with their arguments.

Let me give you the same bit of advice about theologians that I give creationists about scientists: theologians are smart. If your argument is actually that obvious, theologians recognized it as such a long time ago and have already accounted for it. If you think a single sentence or single prooftext somehow refutes something so fundamental to orthodox theology, then you are the one missing the obvious and not them.

Now let me give you another piece of advice. If you want to engage with the Trinity in a meaningful way, take the time to actually learn what the orthodox doctrines are and why they're held. If you can't explain what any verse means within a trinitarian framework, even if you don't agree that the explanation is valid, then you have more to learn. There are academic books that will offer you an excellent understanding of trinitarianism; The Trinity: A Guide for the Perplexed by Paul M. Collins is very good and is affordable as an ebook, at least as academic books go. If you don't want to pay for one, a lot of sectarian books are available for free. You won't get as broad or ecumenical overview, but you'd at least learn how one orthodox sect understands the Trinity. R. C. Sproul was a popular Calvinist theologian and his book What is the Trinity is surprisingly lucid and informative. It can be downloaded for free from Ligonier Ministries (PDF or epub). You could also do worse than reading Augustine's On the Trinity, multiple translations of which are in the public domain, like this one at Internet Archive.

To be sure, there are valid and challenging arguments to be made against the Trinity. You're just not making any of them.

[tam]

Peace to you all!

I have commented on the other threads about this topic, but I just wanted to point something out: the OP does not mention the trinity. The OP does not appear to be asking for a debate on the trinity. It is obviously going to turn into a debate on the trinity, but that is not what the OP asked about.


Just sayin'


Peace again!

[onewithhim]

Your beliefs about this do not hold up...

And I say yours do not. Thanks for your opinion, and I am fine with anyone calling in like manner what I say my opinion.

How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus?

Because it's a misunderstanding that the Father is a higher "rank" than Jesus. Is your father (or mother) of a higher rank as a person than you? It's a difference of order, not rank.

Yes, my father would be "higher in rank" than his children. The father runs the show. The children listen and obey.

[onewithhim]

Your beliefs about this do not hold up, and I wish to see if anyone else cares to comment on my OP.

OK. I'll bite.

Does this coincide with the belief that Jehovah and Jesus are the same Person?

No, but the various forms of trinitarianism don't claim that the three members of the Godhead are the same person (three persons, one God, coequal, coeternal).

Does this show that there is only one Person sending and anointing? Someone who sends and anoints himself?

No. Again, all three members of the Trinity are God, but they're different persons.

How can you say that Jehovah and Jesus are part of a Trinity when it is obvious that Jehovah is higher in rank than His Son Jesus? Jehovah tells Jesus what to do.

The answer is that your premise is false; it's not true (let alone obvious) that Yahweh is of a higher rank than Jesus. Jesus doesn't do what Yahweh tells him, but the will of the Father and there's no indication that Jesus would do anything else. That's the kind of interpretive hair-splitting that I wouldn't think I'd need to explain to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

If I may be blunt, few want to engage with you about any of this because you don't actually argue against any orthodox views of the Trinity. You say you do and belittle anyone that disagrees with what you claim ad nauseum to be "obvious," but without actually engaging with their arguments.

Let me give you the same bit of advice about theologians that I give creationists about scientists: theologians are smart. If your argument is actually that obvious, theologians recognized it as such a long time ago and have already accounted for it. If you think a single sentence or single prooftext somehow refutes something so fundamental to orthodox theology, then you are the one missing the obvious and not them.

Now let me give you another piece of advice. If you want to engage with the Trinity in a meaningful way, take the time to actually learn what the orthodox doctrines are and why they're held. If you can't explain what any verse means within a trinitarian framework, even if you don't agree that the explanation is valid, then you have more to learn. There are academic books that will offer you an excellent understanding of trinitarianism; The Trinity: A Guide for the Perplexed by Paul M. Collins is very good and is affordable as an ebook, at least as academic books go. If you don't want to pay for one, a lot of sectarian books are available for free. You won't get as broad or ecumenical overview, but you'd at least learn how one orthodox sect understands the Trinity. R. C. Sproul was a popular Calvinist theologian and his book What is the Trinity is surprisingly lucid and informative. It can be downloaded for free from Ligonier Ministries (PDF or epub). You could also do worse than reading Augustine's On the Trinity, multiple translations of which are in the public domain, like this one at Internet Archive.

To be sure, there are valid and challenging arguments to be made against the Trinity. You're just not making any of them.

I know what the orthodox doctrines are, sir, as I grew up in the churches of Christendom. I was taught in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and independent fundamentalist churches that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are ALL EQUAL. One is not to be listened to any more than another. That conflicts with Jesus saying that he is INSTRUCTED BY THE FATHER, and he does the Father's will. (John 5:19) He is anointed by the Father, and sent by the Father (Isaiah 61, Luke 4). If he was equal, he wouldn't say that he was sent by anyone. This IS obvious, and if you and your intelligent peers can't agree with that, it's no skin off of my nose.

[Difflugia]

I know what the orthodox doctrines are, sir, as I grew up in the churches of Christendom. I was taught in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and independent fundamentalist churches that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are ALL EQUAL.

My mistake, then.

One is not to be listened to any more than another. That conflicts with Jesus saying that he is INSTRUCTED BY THE FATHER, and he does the Father's will. (John 5:19)

He didn't say that. He said that he does what he sees the Father doing. Since Jesus is then doing the same thing the Father is doing and the Father sees all, then one could also accurately say the the Father does what he sees Jesus doing. Is that what the author (or even Jesus) meant? Maybe not, but this is Theology, Doctrine and Dogma where such minor things as authorial intent carry little weight.

He is anointed by the Father, and sent by the Father (Isaiah 61, Luke 4).

Both true. Precious few theologians would disagree.

If he was equal, he wouldn't say that he was sent by anyone.

Since when does "sending" someone imply a lack of equality? You've already mentioned that your father was above the other members of his family. If you were to send your father on a trip to Disney World as a Father's Day gift, would that suddenly put you above him?

This IS obvious, and if you and your intelligent peers can't agree with that, it's no skin off of my nose.

I'll hope so.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Difflugia in post #5]

The answer is that your premise is false; it's not true (let alone obvious) that Yahweh is of a higher rank than Jesus.

I don't know if rank would be the correct word or not.

What about higher authority?

Such as a Father to a Son?

Or the Most Holy One to the Holy One?

Jesus doesn't do what Yahweh tells him, but the will of the Father and there's no indication that Jesus would do anything else. That's the kind of interpretive hair-splitting that I wouldn't think I'd need to explain to one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

I apologize if I have misunderstood the point here, but are you personally saying the above (in bold), or are you calling the above (in bold) hair-splitting?

To the claim in bold, Christ came to do the will of His Father, yes, but Christ also does what His Father tells Him. If someone is saying there is a difference, that does sound like hair-splitting to me. But regardless, Christ does both (what His Father tells Him AND the will of His Father).

But I do exactly what the Father has commanded Me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. John 14:31

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. John 6:38


That second quote indicates to me that He and His Father each have their own will, but that Christ submits to the will of His Father.

Such as in the following example:

Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”


He wanted the cup to be taken from Him. But He asked only if possible, and if not possible, then the Father's will be done. Not His own will, but His Father's will.


If I missed the point, feel free to ignore the above (and/or explain what I missed).


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy