Sarah Kanary wrote:

> >>
> >> When did the topic of this conversation become "the constructs of
the
> >> universe" and who is "we"?

> It still doesn't specify who "we" is.  You said "Why should we
believe...."
>
At least you are asking questions.  Thank you.  According Rom 1:20,
what is the principle that all men may operate under? The great
doctrines of creation, revelation, redemption and judgment all imply
that man has an inescapable duty both to think and to act upon what he
thinks and knows.  I also see in you a pursuit for right thinking.  Too
often people have dismissed the pursuit of right thinking of the
Pharisees.  The pursuit is a good thing.  It is what we were designed
for and called to.  So, the greatest task and burden set at all mens
feet is to think rightly about God.

This again brings me back to Rom 1:20.  God created the universe
(uni-verse: unity diversity) to reflect its Creator.  This not only
extends to the cosmological universe, but also to the human.  All the
billions of people, one race, yet each individuals with different
appearances, different fingerprints, different DNA allignments.  And
yet, all of the same race.  Both the cosmological and human race
reflect multiplicity and yet singularity.  It reflects the nature of
God.  He too is unity and diversity.  According to Rom 1:20, it would
be a lie for God to so extensively create a uni-verse and not have it
reflect who He is by nature.

Proof?  No.  It does not speak to number of persons.  However, it does
substantiate that He is a uni-plural God by nature.  To dismiss this
basic tenent is to discount that which He specifically created to
reflect and witness His nature.
>
> All this assumes that God. . . is a 'Godhead' in the first place.

No, it is not correctly defined as an assumption.  Man can look at
God's general revelation and recognize that is uni-plural.  That is all
he can conclude, but he can conclude at least that from that which is
open to investigation.

> >> Btw, Arius believed Christ to be God.  Jehovah's Witnesses do
*not*.
> >>
> > Obviously you have never read any of his letters.
>
> And, unlike Arius, the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
does
> not believe in any such thing as a "Godhead" in the first place.
>
Yes, Sarah.  Do you think we do not already know that?  But you made a
statement about Arius and I counter it.  Where is your comment on that
point?
> >
> > Arius and his followers held that the Logos
>
> And, unlike Arius, Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT believe "Logos" to be
an
> incorrect title, and DO believe that the meaning of 'begat' is
clearly
> spelled out in the Bible already.
>
You define it in modern Western terms.  You do not define it using
Scripture.  For Ps 2 clearly teaches that "today" is outside and prior
to chronological time.  The "decree" establishes and determines all
that comes into being outside of God.  Between Jn1:1-2 and Ps 2:7 it is
clear that the Logos was prior to the time that anything out side of
God came into being.  The Arians defined their conception of the Person
of the Son, and of His relationship to the Father, by the use of the
word "similar" essence.  It was a matter of profound importance to
decide whether Jesus Christ was of the "same" or "similar"
essence or substance with the Father.  Christianity itself was the
issue involved.  The deity of Jesus Christ, His equality and oneness
with the Father, is the keystone in the arch of Christian truth. The
conclusion reached by the Council of Nicea was that "the Son is
begotten out of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God, begotten not created, consubstantial with the
Father."

In Jn 1 it is revealed that Jesus was the Only Begotten of the Father
from all eternity, having no other relation to time and creation as He
is the Creator of them.  It is evident that the Father and Son
relationship sets forth only the features of emanation and
manifestation and does not include the usual conception of derivation,
inferiority, or distinction as to the time of beginning. The Son, being
very God, is eternally on an absolute equality with the Father.  On the
other hand, the First Person became the God of the Second Person by the
incarnation.  Only from His humanity could Christ address the First
Person as "My God." This He did in that moment of supreme
manifestation of His humanity when on the cross He said, "My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?" And again, after His resurrection,
He said, "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God,
and your God" (Jn 20:17).  On this point, of His eternal Sonship, Dr.
Van Oosterzee says: "This relation between Father and Son had not a
beginning, but existed from all eternity. Clearly enough is this
assured to us by the Lord Himself (Jn 8:58; 17:5, 24), and by His first
witnesses (Jn 1:1; Rev 22:13; Col 1:17, and many other places).

There is as little ground here for accepting a purely ideal
pre-existence, as for speaking of a period of time before the Creation,
at which the Son-previously not existing-was called into existence by
the Father.  Arianism, which asserts this last, is properly regarded
exegetically absolutely unsupported.  A sound exposition of Col 1:15,
16 shows, not that the Son is here placed on a level with the creature
as opposed to the Father, but on a level with the invisible God as
opposed to the creature.  As a legitimate consequence of all that has
been said, it may be deduced that the Father gives the most perfect
revelation of Himself in and through the Son.  If the Father dwells in
a light unapproachable, in the Son the Unseen has become visible (Jn
1:18). In the Father we adore in like manner the Hidden One, in the Son
we contemplate the God who reveals Himself (Heb 1:3).
>
> And, unlike Arius, Jehovah's Witnesses do not deny the divinity of
Christ.
> The word translated 'divinity' or 'divine' as used in the Bible is
our
> guideline for what that means, not a creed.
>
This is why you are essentually poly-theistist.  "You shall have no
other God before Me" will not allow such a reduction of Christ's claims
to Deity.
> >
> Call it what you wish, we(Jehovah's Witnesses) let the Bible define
'deity'
> or 'divinity' not post-biblical creeds.

No you do not.  And in this very sentence you reveal it by refusing to
capitalize Deity.  You are poly-theistic in doing this.

> Or Arius.  Or Athanasius.  Truth is
> not determined by who comes out on top in a violent religio-political

> battle.  Jesus loved truth, and Jesus is/was the Prince of Peace.
Where
> Jesus Christ truly rules, there is peace.  Where there is no peace,
there is
> no following of Jesus.
>
For one to believe what one believes simply because one believes it or
to argue that one's opinion is true simply because it is one's opinion
is the epitome of arrogance. If one's views cannot stand the test of
objective analysis and verification, humility demands that such a one
abandon them. But the subjectivist has the arrogance to maintain one's
position with no objective support or corroboration. To say to someone,
"If you like to believe what you want to believe, that's fine;
I'll believe what I want to believe," only sounds humble on the
surface.

The science of hermeneutics and exegesis has always been somewhat
dynamic, in that there has always been a progressive development of
each. But even as early as and before Augustine there have been certain
core convictions which serve as a foundation for proper Bible study.
These core convictions embody orthodox hermeneutics.

To be orthodox is to hold to the normal, classical doxia or
understanding of Christian theology. It is to inseparably link one's
mind and heart to the theological and practical knowledge of the Bible
through accurate hermeneutics ("the how to") and exegesis ("the
what is"). Orthodox Christianity demands that its followers believe
the Bible to be the source of spiritual truth, only being properly
understood by a correct methodology of Scriptural interpretation.  The
JW methodology has been well documented as being inconsistent with
itself and with standard linguistic analysis.

I know you bristle at the mention of it, but you are a Russlite even
though a sect of it.  You do not have a historical position to which to
cling other than Arianism.

>
> >
> > Again, you have no answer for the implication of Heb 1:3.
>
> The Bible has an answer, it is simply not one you prefer.  Heb. 1:3
clearly
> says the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is an *image*.  Thus, not the
> original.  A copy.  If God says in His inspired writings that His Son
is an
> 'image' then that's what he is.
>
You do not consider this far enough.  Again, is encourage you to think
rightly and to quote accurately.  "Exact image."  Again I will put it
to you, how can the finite "exactly" represent the infinite?  The
concept of Logos is that Jesus in the visual representative of God.
Thus He claims that to know Him is to know the Father.  You treat too
lightly God's jealous nature.  He and He alone is to be worshipped.
Christ is certainly worshipped in His triumphal entry.  He never, like
the angels, tells men not to worship Him.  John worships Him in Rev 1
and reveals all the saints worshipping Him in 4 & 5.

Sarah, stop and look at the big picture.  You pull a verse out of its
context and think it can stand alone as a proof.  This is were your
hermeneutics is shown as not allowing scripture to interpret scripture.


> >How could
> > the Logos "exactly represent" God, who is by nature, infinite, if
He
> > Himself is not infinite?  This goes against all the laws of the
natural
> > universe.  The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics establishes the fact that
the
> > lower power cannot ascend to the higher power of its own accord.
> > Mathematics establishes the fact that a finite number can never
truly
> > transcend into infinity.  I've stated this sociologically in the
> > ethical dilemma of absolute law where if we have every human being
who
> > ever lived believing murder was wrong, that such a belief does not
> > establish a transcendental ethich, but rather a sociological
> > statistical average.  Finity can NEVER produce infinity.  Infinity
can
> > cloak itself but finity can never, even temporarily, pretend to
> > represent exactly infinity.
>
> No one is claiming that it did.

Heb 1:3 is.

> When Jesus Christ walked the earth, did he
> teach abstract philosophy, or did he kindly find and feed God's lost
sheep?
> What did Jesus learn while on earth?  He *learned* *obedience* to his
God.
> (Heb. 5:8)  Jesus shows us what the focus of our teaching should be
by his
> own teaching.
>
Yes, mind blowing isn't it.  Phil 2.  Study it in the Greek, Sarah.  He
who was God wasn't worried about losing His claim to Deity when
becoming incarnate.  Rather, He set aside His Divine attributes and
learned what it was to be not only a creature, but a man.  This is
significant in the terms of Mediatorship.  This is why He is at once
Prophet, Priest, and King.
> >
> > Absolute singularity of persons in the Godhead simply doesn't
reflect
> > the design of the universe, which as initially pointed out, is a
> > divinely established standard by which judgment of the creature is
> > based.
>
> I doubt very much if the fishermen and housewives who followed Jesus
in
> the first century had any such wranglings with such impersonal
theology.
>
????  Address the point.
>
> They
> were all raised as Jews, just like Jesus was, and worshiped the God
of the
> Jews, whose name is/was Jehovah.  No one is saying that a 'lower
power'
> transcended to a 'higher power'.  Philippians chapter 2 shows it to
be the
> opposite.
>
Deity condenscended.  That is what Phil 2 teaches.  Again, study it in
the Greek.  Couple it with Jn 1:1-2.  The Logos has to be God because
He is the Creator of ALL things.  There is nothing which came into
existence which He did not create.  You force the Logos to create
Himself.

> Btw, out of curiosity, what do you believe happens when a human goes
to
> heaven?
>

Not here and now.  This is too long already.

> > You have no answer for such things.  Your theology is an airplane
> > without wings.  That it does not conform to what is, it cannot fly,
> > therefore it is a lie.
>
> Call it what you wish, God's Word is truth and no lie.  (John 17:17)


Then why will you not address the Truth revealed within it?

I'm not going to respond to any more replies in this thread.  Take them
over to "Sarah's Christology."

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 6:04:18 PM ---