The authority of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Waynec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Waynec

Guest
I am in a conversation with a JW on the authority of Jesus. I say that God , Jesus and the HS all have the same authority and are equal.
She says that Jesus is less than God because God gave Jesus all authority.
I would think that God gave Jesus authority when he was born of Mary because while Jesus was on earth he left his Godly power in heaven. So God gave Jesus authority to do all the things that he did while on earth.
Am I close? Any help will be appreciated.
thanks in advance.
 
Both of you have some misconceptions here. Hopefully I can hope clarify.

We believe in the Trinity. This means that there is one being of God, and that this being has manifested himself in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These persons are co-equal and co-eternal. What we mean by co-eternal is pretty clear, all three persons of the Trinity were alive from time eternal. They were not created. There are many passages that demonstrate the pre-existence of Christ (the person of the Trinity most at issue when dealing with JW’s) to include John 1:1-3 which states that Jesus was already existing at the beginning (of creation) and that all things through him were created. The Holy Spirit is also mentioned in the beginning (of creation) in Genesis 1. Co-equal means on an ontological level. Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the same divinity as the Father. They are substantially equal in their existence. Now, the issue that your JW friend confuses is the difference between the ontological equality of their divine nature, and the roles that each person of the Trinity assumes in the accomplishment of salvation (the economy of salvation). While they are all ontologically the same, the Son does assume an orthodox subservience (humility) to the Father when he takes on humanity (Philippians 2 describes this very well), dies for our sins, and becomes the mediator between man and God. The Holy Spirit likewise takes on a subservient role, being sent by the Father and the Son to accomplish his role in equipping and guiding the Church and bringing people to salvation through faith. Again, though, this is a distinction of roles assumed in the work of salvation, not their ontological existence as the one God.

JW’s who don’t believe in the Trinity (and they have to assume some very interesting readings of the passages that explicitly refer to Christ as God) confuse what we mean by co-equal (either purposefully or in ignorance).
 
Last edited:
This is very good. Thank you.
The problem I am having with my friend is that she does not believe that the three persons are co-eternal or co-equal. She does not beleive that the HS is a person. He is just Gods power. She believes that Jesus was created in heaven before he came down to earth. She does not beleive in the incarnation So we are at an impasse. At least now I have something that I can show her what we as Catholic beleive.

The people on Catholic Answers have never failed me yet.
Thank you again Hodos and God Bless
 
No one can deny that some biblical passages seem to show Christ to be inferior to the Father (“No one is good but God alone,”; “no one knows the day, not even the Son”).

I mean, cue the Arian controversy. Arius knew these passages!

But no one can also deny that some biblical passages expressly teach and demonstrate Christ’s co-equal divinity (I and the Father are one; Before Abraham was, I AM; The Word was God; In him is the fullness of divinity; “in the form of God,” etc.)

That’s why the first issue you should bring up is the whole endeavor of how we come to know the Christian Faith, in the first place. What is the nature of the Bible? Is it a completely delineated theological manual? Did Christ explicitly say he’s leaving behind written documents that we must consult to obtain definite answers to these kinds of questions?

You ought to start with what Chirst and the early church taught: That Christ granted his teaching authority to his disciples, specifically, the Apostles and their successors. “All authority has been given to me; therefore, make disciples of all nations…”

After all — and here’s a good example — the very New Testament your JW friend consults is a gathered collection precisely because of the authority of the Church, an authority given to it by Christ.
 
Last edited:
Hi Thebible
When I bring up this verse her reply is that Jesus and the Father agree on all things not that they are co equal and co eternal.

Thanks
 
RealisticCatholic,
When I tell her that before Abraham was I am she tells me yes because God created Jesus in heaven and through Jesus God created all “other” things.

She denies the fact that Jesus is eternal with the father.

When I tell her that it is through the authority of the Catholic Church that we have the NT she tells me “thank You”
When I ask her if she accepts the authority of the CC in regards to the NT why not the authority of Catholic teaching she tells me the Catholics are wrong.

People tell me that I shouldn’t discuss religion with her but I do learn because some of the things she says make no sense that I look them up for my self in Catholic books.

Thanks for your response.
 
My friend has just read your reply.
JW’s who don’t believe in the Trinity (and they have to assume some very interesting readings of the passages that explicitly refer to Christ as God) confuse what we mean by co-equal (either purposefully or in ignorance).

And she would like you to quote the scriptures that explicitly refer to Christ as God.

You state John 1:1-3 She has no problem with this verse because she believes first God created Jesus then through Jesus all other things. At this time Jesus name was the Word. She believes Jesus is considered a god by Jehovah but not the almighty God.
More help please?
Thanks
 
You state John 1:1-3 She has no problem with this verse because she believes first God created Jesus then through Jesus all other things. At this time Jesus name was the Word. She believes Jesus is considered a god by Jehovah but not the almighty God.
More help please?
Again, this reflects the JW misunderstanding of the predicate nominative in John 1:1 as discussed earlier. If you go back to Genesis 1 and 2, there is no account of God creating a god who then creates the world. God spoke (the logos) and by his expression all things came into being. Interestingly, Genesis 1 also speaks of the spirit of the God hovering over the waters during creation. In creation, we see the action of all three persons of the Trinity.

With regard to listing passages that point to Jesus divinity, I could give you a list, but I don’t think this would be helpful in increasing your understanding of the Trinity. I would much rather point you to a book that does a good job explaining the trinity and discussing the scriptural reasons why we believe in the Trinity. I highly recommend you read the book The Forgotten Trinity before you continue to engage her. It is an easy read, and does a nice job laying the scriptural case for the Trinity.
 
Sorry Wayne, I just realized I did not discuss John 1:1 in this thread. I will try to find the thread and post the Greek explanation for why her explanation is grammatically unsupported by the text of John.
 
Wayne, the following posts addressed a different question, but the same heresy. See my explanation below. It should help.

Now, let’s work through John 1:1. I will use phoenetic English spellings of the greek to illustrate.

Ev archn nv o logos, kai o logos nv pros tov Theov, kai Theos nv o logos.

The first clause means In the beginning was (was existing would be more appropriate) the word. Notice that the logos (word) is in the nominative case with the sigma at the end. The second clause means And the word (the subject of the clause) was (was existing) with (with, toward, facing) God (accusative case).†Note here the logos is in the nominative case as the subject of the clause, and God who is receiving the action of the verb is in the accusative as the direct object. Also note that at this point the word Theos is used in reference to the Father only (this is John’s normative, but not only use of the word Theos). The last clause is tricky because it uses a predicate nominative construction because the author is making an equative statement. He is saying this (one of the nouns) is the same as this (the other noun). This construction is frequently used in Greek when using the verb to be. Because he is saying that one thing is equal to another both nouns will be in the subjective case. However, the way a Greek speaker would distinguish which noun is actually functioning as the subject of the verb would be to place the definite article o before the noun. The noun that is modifying the subject would be anarthrous (the definite article is not used). So in John 1:1c, the translation is and God was the Word. However, the meaning of the sentence is properly translated so that the subject comes first for English readers as and the Word (subject) was (was being as, was existing as) God (equative noun). Note that here the author is communicating that in its nature the Logos is God (divine), yet it doesn’t confuse the Logos with the Father as if they are the same person. So the JW you are talking with doesn’t understand the predicate nominative or how it is used. Note also that the author has place the word for God in the emphatic position emphasizing The Word’s nature as God. This same construction is used in 1 John 4:8 where he says God is love (o Theos agape estiv) where God (the subject) is articular - uses the definite article to distinguish which noun is the subject - and the nominative case for love is anarthrous - the article is omitted to distinguish it as the equative noun. Ask him if the New World Translation translates it as God is a love and see if he goes into a tailspin. Same thing for 1 John 1:5 when John says God is light (not a light). His translation is breaking the rules of Greek grammar to make it say what he wants it to say.
 
Last edited:
Hi Jason
Thanks so much for your replies. I am not getting through to her but they have helped me a lot in understanding the Trinity better.
You mentioned The Forgotten Trinity. I actually read this book a while ago and shared much of it with her.
She always has an answer that seems to make sense to her. The entire book made much sense to me and it is worthy of another read.
No matter what I say to her I know I will not get through.(hard heart?)
I will show her your latest comment but she will beleive the Watchtower’s twisted explanation of the Greek in John 1.
I found this quote in a book that I can’t remember now but though much of it that I wrote it down just to show my friend.
" The fact that the mystery is mysterious can only be an objection to a small mind which refuses that which is deeper than its understanding"
I beleive you need faith to beleive the Trinity which I think she is lacking.

I thank you for your time and trouble. It has helped ME and I appreciate it.
God Bless
 
When I ask her if she accepts the authority of the CC in regards to the NT why not the authority of Catholic teaching she tells me the Catholics are wrong.
If i were her i would say the same thing. 😉

You will go round and round with her until you establish this…

What makes your interpretation more superior than any others and how do you know? If there is an answer to this question then the next question is “is this an infallible statment and what makes it infallible any more than the CC’s claim?”

The point is - you must make them dig deeper into actual historical events of how, who, when, why the 27 books became canonized. Anyone who digs to the very bottom of this history cannot avoid the obvious conclusion that it can only be the CC that gives us the 27 book NT. All other discussion, that stem from interpretational issues, begin here.

Peace!!!
 
Last edited:
Hmmm I will see her on Friday and ask her.

If they dug deeper into history, they would all be Catholics.
 
John 17:11 Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.

17:20-24 I make request, not concerning these only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me.

So, given these statements by our Lord, is it possible that John 10:30 is referring to the unity in thought and purpose of father and son, rather than any trinitarian ‘hypostatic union’ posited by the scholastics?
If not, isn’t Jesus saying, at John 17, that his eleven faithful disciples and those who would come later are also God?
In other words, “in union with” and “are one” are equivalent at ch. 17; why not at ch. 10?
 
Though Jesus was one with the Father, he did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 
We have discussed these verses to no avail. She still insists that Father and Son are of the same mind and not equal. I like the word that adf417 used obstinance.
 
I think she is not of a supernatural mind. There is the father and there is the son and they are not equal. Just as an earthly father and son are not equal. Father being father is greater than the son.
 
I mean, Saint Paul plainly states that Jesus is equal to God the father. It is only out of perfect humility that God the Son obeys the Father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top