JWs vs Evangelicals

[Elijah John]

There are a few verses from the New Testament that support the notion that Jesus is God. A position favored by Evangelicals and Trinitarians.

Then there are some that support the notion that Jesus is NOT God. A position favored by Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians (small "u") and other Arians.

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

I am not a JW, or an 'evangelical' (as it seems to be used as a denomination), nor a biblical inerrantist.


But the Bible never comes out and states that "Jesus is God". Men have only inferred or interpreted this from what is written. So I do not see how this particular 'divide' can be blamed on an actual contradiction in the Bible.



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

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by tam]

Hi Tammy. How then do you account for the divide?

[Overcomer]

Elijah John wrote:

There are a few verses from the New Testament that support the notion that Jesus is God. A position favored by Evangelicals and Trinitarians.

There are more than a few. There are a thousand of them.

http://irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity

EJ wrote:

Then there are some that support the notion that Jesus is NOT God. A position favored by Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians (small "u") and other Arians.

Jehovah's Witnesses re-wrote the Bible, removing verses that claimed Jesus is God, to fit their theology. The most obvious one is John 1:1 where they change "God" to "a god". Their wonky exegesis of that verse has been refuted by many Bible scholars including Dan Wallace and William Mounce whose texts I used when studying Greek at seminary.

There are many others such as Col. 2:9 where they change "the fullness of deity" to "the fullness of the divine quality" and Titus 2:13 where they change "our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ" to "the glorious manifestation of the great God and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ."

And what the Jehovah's Witnesses didn't re-write, they misinterpret. For example, in John 14:28, Jesus says the father is greater than he is. He isn't speaking ontologically, but of his position on earth. Yet, JWs fail to see this.

See here for a brief article on the New World Translation of the JWs:

https://www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html

EJ wrote:

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

Not at all. It just shows that some people misinterpret it.

EJ wrote:

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

The Bible isn't flawed, but the people who read it are. Please don't try to discredit the Bible by pointing out that different people interpret some of it in different ways. That isn't the Bible's fault. It's the interpreter's.

The gospel itself is simple and clear -- even a child can understand it. But if one wants to understand the Bible at its deepest level, it requires a commitment to study it using proper exegetical techniques with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

[tam]

[Replying to post 2 by tam]

Hi Tammy. How then do you account for the divide?

Listening to men (and/or religion and/or our own reasoning), all of which make mistakes and teach things that are untrue... instead of hearing and listening to Christ (the Truth), and allowing HIM to lead us into all truth.

Listening to and following tradition (again over Christ Himself). Tradition does not equal truth.

Not questioning or testing the inspired expression (whether it is something you heard yourself, or something someone else claims to have heard).

Even choosing the Bible as one's Teacher, instead of (and over) Christ Himself.


**


Religion does not lead us into all truth. The Bible does not lead us into all truth (or people who depend upon the bible would come to the same conclusions). Men cannot lead us into all truth.


Christ is the One who leads us into all truth. Yet He is the One who is listened to the least. And this is so very sad.





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

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 5 by tam]

So then, how does one hear the voice of Christ?

How accurately does the Bible reflect the voice of Christ?

Do certain portions of the Bible better reflect the voice of Christ than other portions? Which are those portions, verses or passages?

Which side of the divide do you think Christ comes down on? That he is, or is not "God"?

[shnarkle]

There are a few verses from the New Testament that support the notion that Jesus is God. A position favored by Evangelicals and Trinitarians.

Then there are some that support the notion that Jesus is NOT God. A position favored by Jehovah's Witnesses, unitarians (small "u") and other Arians.

For debate, isn't this divide major evidence that the Bible is indeed contradictory in some very important ways?

If not, how do you explain the divide, as both camps claim the Bible is infallible and without contradiction?

The divide is explained by both sides operating under false assumptions and interpreting the texts based upon those assumptions.

The first assumption which both parties claim is that God exists. The authors of the texts point out that God is synonymous with transcendence. With this as a given, what the authors are then talking about can't be literally interpreted because one cannot articulate anything about trancendence. The authors must then approximate by presenting words which can have no referent, e.g. "God" etc.

Another problem is one of identification. The texts state that identification will be of no use. Demons can identify God, and they're damned, yet both sides claim that they as well as the entire rest of the world needs to identify God if they want to have eternal life.

Both sides will attribute characteristics to God which the biblical authors don't. This is especially evident in the new testament where the Introduction to John's gospel points out that God essentially doesn't exist, but is the origin of existence, and this is where both sides of the debate lose their way. Both assume that God exists when the texts state God is the origin of existence, and the origen of existence cannot exist or it would be existence itself.

Then they assume that if existence be eternal, it must be a characteristic of God when it isn't at all. According to John, existence is an attribute of the "word"; sometimes called "the word of God", and yet God's word isn't God. For some reason people don't seem to understand that what one has is not what one is. What one has is not who one is either.

God speaks the world into existence by his word. His word is the means by which the world comes into being, and yet no one would conflate God's word with God, yet this is precisely what both sides are doing. Those who think God's word is God are wrong, and those who don't, think God exists. They're both wrong for different false assumptions. Their assumptions are contradictory, not the text itself.

Christ comes down on the side of being the Icon of God. So he's not God, but at the same time, he's the only way to approach the transcendent. He's the symbol for God. For all practical intents and purposes, he's God, yet he can't be because a Symbol cannot be what it is substituted for. Symbols are like signs, they point to what they're substituted for. They signify something else, yet can't be significant in and of themselves or they wouldn't be a sign in the first place. They are only significant insofar as what is signified. So Christ would be fairly significant, yet he will always be the Icon of God.

Here again, one should be cognizant of the difference between an icon and an idol. An icon is the only way one may objectively worship legitimately whereas an idol is to believe what one is worshipping is actually God. Those who worship the icon know that what they see isn't God, but God's image. It's the only image there is or can be so there's no other game in town. If you want to worship God you have to worship his icon. There is no other way to objectively worship God.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 7 by shnarkle]

With all due respect, I think you are way overthinking this. Delving far deeper into the philosophical than Bible authors did, with the exception perhaps of John.

Not convinced he thought of the "Word" as you do, or as the Greeks think of Logos.

I doubt any Bible author would deny that "God exists" or would make the distinction that God was beyond existance. That may or may not be true on a philosophical/theological level, but again, I doubt that notion would have occured to anyone except perhaps John. And I'm not convinced John himself went quite that far.

I doubt Jesus himself would have thought of it that way, or would have put it in such deep, philosophical terms.

And Jesus the only way to approach trancendent God? Perhaps, according to John, again with John.

But that would be news to Moses, the Prophets and King David. They seemed to have found YHWH God without going through Jesus, or the Messiah (OT equivelent of Jesus)

Though we disagree, thank you for your always thougtful and thought-provoking posts.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

I would definitely agree that John's "logos" has nothing to do with the Greek ideas. I can't help but see John as a mystic. They're all mystics, and as such they know they can't articulate ultimate reality so they do the best they can with what they've got which can't be anything other than what's revealed to them.

I really don't feel like I'm reading anything into this or overthinking it at all. Paul takes the Shema and unpacks it quite nicely to show us that God is the origin of everything that exists while Christ is the means of everything that exists. I can't help but ask why anyone would feel the need to think that anything could possibly happen prior to "the beginning". The fact is that the text indicates the word "was" as well as is the beginning. I don't see what other options there can be.

If i accept your conclusion, just what is the other option? The word has to exist eternally so what other explanation is there? I'm not suggesting that anyone has to agree with the authors, just to acknowledge what they're explicitly stating as well as the necessary conclusions from those statements. If God is the origin of all that exists, and Christ is the means by which everything exists, then Christ can't be God. The word can't be God either. Again, this doesn't have to be our conclusion, but I don't see how anyone can deny that this is what the authors are presenting.

I don't know how or why they would think that eternal existence isn't a quality of God except if one considers the qualities of God to be distinct from God himself. What other reason could there be?

I don't mean to beat this idea to death, and it isn't that big of a deal, although I do appreciate it when someone can come up with something better than what I've presented. I refer to it as what I've presented rather than something I thought up myself because I don't see any personal thought involved at all.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

Not convinced he thought of the "Word" as you do, or as the Greeks think of Logos.

What, if anything, do you make of those relevant statements in John 1?