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?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

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.

"Christ is the means" seems to be how nearly every believer would put it.

I now put it as "Christ is the meaning".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

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.

"Christ is the means" seems to be how nearly every believer would put it.

I now put it as "Christ is the meaning".

I think that quote you provide here is from Shnarkle, it's not from me. The Shema has nothing to do with Christ, it is a Jewish statement of absolute Monotheism, not of some kind of "compound", Trinitarian Monotheism.

Faithful Jews who recite the Shema daily, hear no mention of "Christ" in their statement of faith. No mention of Christ as part of the Godhead, nor of the agent of Creation.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 9 by shnarkle]

To your and Checkpoint's point regarding John and the Word... I think John was taking the Proverbs 8 personification of the Wisdom principle, and to a certain extent, literalizing it and applying it to Jesus.

For John, "Word" = "Wisdom". To suppose and claim that YHVH relied on the 2nd person of any Trinity in order to create, is a leap, and casts doubt on His ability or willingness to create "ex nihilo", out of nothing, with a word.

God said "let there be light" and there was. He didn't "speak the Word into existance, then the Word spoke everything else into existance." That would be a redundancy.

According to Geneisis, YHVH created directly, not through an agent. And certainly not through a literalized poetic device, whether the "Word" or "Wisdom".

Those are qualities and actions of God, not Beings unto themselves. The Genesis poetry of YHVH speaking the universe into existance is simply for the purpose of conveying His power.

Now, can we get back to the topic of JWs vs Evangelicals regarding the nature of Jesus? And what it says about the "inerrancy" of the Bible? (in light of contradictions) Or continue this discussion on another thread?

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

This depends on our view of the Trinity. If someone views the Trinity as an irrational contradiction (EJ has suggested in the past that this is his view), then the Bible is indeed contradictory in important ways.

If someone views the Trinity as something which steps beyond logical definition to lead us to the God who knows Himself beyond human limitation and lifts us up to Him, then the Bible is in no way contradictory.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

This depends on our view of the Trinity. If someone views the Trinity as an irrational contradiction (EJ has suggested in the past that this is his view), then the Bible is indeed contradictory in important ways.

If someone views the Trinity as something which steps beyond logical definition to lead us to the God who knows Himself beyond human limitation and lifts us up to Him, then the Bible is in no way contradictory.

That's a non-sequitor, unless you can show where the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Let's focus on the question of Jesus supposed Divinity. JWs, for example, insist that Jesus is not God, and point to John 17.3 as evidence to support their position. I agree on this.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, point to the prologue of John, and insist that passage supports their position that Jesus is God.

How does one reconcile the two contradictory passages, these from the same Gospel!

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

This depends on our view of the Trinity. If someone views the Trinity as an irrational contradiction (EJ has suggested in the past that this is his view), then the Bible is indeed contradictory in important ways.

If someone views the Trinity as something which steps beyond logical definition to lead us to the God who knows Himself beyond human limitation and lifts us up to Him, then the Bible is in no way contradictory.

That's a non-sequitor, unless you can show where the Trinity is taught in the Bible. Let's focus on the question of Jesus supposed Divinity. JWs, for example, insist that Jesus is not God, and point to John 17.3 as evidence to support their position. I agree on this.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, point to the prologue of John, and insist that passage supports their position that Jesus is God.

How does one reconcile the two contradictory passages, these from the same Gospel!

There's nothing to interpret about John 17:3. There's no way to read that Jesus is God in John 17:3. So the problem lies within the diverse interpretations of the introduction to John's gospel. These diverse interpretations are the direct result of the assumptions which are fundamental to the interpretation. The most notable one being that eternal existence is an attribute of God when it is explicitly articulated to be related to the word while God is associated with the origin of everything that is or even existence itself. With that in mind, there is no contradiction


For all practical intents and purposes, Christ is God, but the fact is that the Icon of God isn't God. Although God cannot exist apart from the Icon. So while this may seem to be some sort of elaborate or intricate philosophical idea, it is simply based upon the rules of elementary grammar and the definitions of these words in the texts.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 9 by shnarkle]

To your and Checkpoint's point regarding John and the Word... I think John was taking the Proverbs 8 personification of the Wisdom principle, and to a certain extent, literalizing it and applying it to Jesus.

I'd go along with that, but I'm not sure I see how that proposition negates what I'm saying.

For John, "Word" = "Wisdom". To suppose and claim that YHVH relied on the 2nd person of any Trinity in order to create, is a leap, and casts doubt on His ability or willingness to create "ex nihilo", out of nothing, with a word.

I'm not relying on the second person of a trinity. I'm relying upon Paul's expansion of the Shema where he points out that everything that exists is "by" Christ. John says the same thing when he points out that everything that exists is by means of the word. The texts don't say that they are by means of God. There is no leap, nor am I casting doubt upon God's ability because there simply is no ability apart from the word.

God said "let there be light" and there was. He didn't "speak the Word into existance, then the Word spoke everything else into existance." That would be a redundancy.

I agree, the word is existence so it isn't literally spoken into existence. However it does originate in God. The word is not a "what" or a "thing". Everything that exists is created, but the word isn't created, therefore it isn't a thing. Existence just simply is.

According to Geneisis, YHVH created directly, not through an agent. And certainly not through a literalized poetic device, whether the "Word" or "Wisdom".

The texts are clear: "And God said...etc" The texts don't begin with "and there was light".

Those are qualities and actions of God, not Beings unto themselves.

Very true! I completely agree. Being only exists in existence which John refers to as "the word".

The Genesis poetry of YHVH speaking the universe into existance is simply for the purpose of conveying His power.

It's not simply to convey power. The title of the book should be a dead giveaway that it's about beginnings; just not the beginning of existence, and God has to exist in order to say, "let there be". He doesn't have to say, "Let there be being" because existence is a given, and God must exist in order to create. Notice that I say he "must" comply with that requirement. The texts are clear in showing that God is the origin of existence, and the origin cannot be what it originates. It would then exist, rather than the origin of being. Our language forces some confusion in that it would be easier to the ears to say, "rather than BE the origin of being" which is a contradiction in that to be is to exist already. Again, God is the origin of being, and the origin should never be conflated with what exists or existences itself.

Likewise the word cannot originate within being as it exists eternally. The origin of being must be distinguished from being, and John does this quite clearly by pointing out that "the word was with God'. Jesus takes that title to show that he does not originate within himself, but his origin is from God. Note that his origin "from" God isn't necessarily "in" God. God is "in" him though because the word is synonymous with existence (itself), and again Jesus prays that just as the father is in him so too...etc.

Now, can we get back to the topic of JWs vs Evangelicals regarding the nature of Jesus? And what it says about the "inerrancy" of the Bible? (in light of contradictions) Or continue this discussion on another thread?

The nature of Jesus is synoymous with the word of John's introduction as well as the "means" of Paul's expansion of the Shema. We are as well when we cast aside our personal identities in favor of reflecting God's image. When that happens then we speak God's will into existence. This doesn't make us God, anymore than it makes Jesus God. It spotlights that we aren't the things that are created. These are just things we have, but the icon of God is who we are.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

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.

"Christ is the means" seems to be how nearly every believer would put it.

I now put it as "Christ is the meaning".

That's pretty good! At first I immediately thought that can't be right because as the Symbol of God, it can't have any meaning or significance, but then again the meaning is the definition and there can be no definition for a transcendent God. The symbol is the definition or meaning which can't be conflated with what is signified.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by Elijah John]

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.

"Christ is the means" seems to be how nearly every believer would put it.

I now put it as "Christ is the meaning".

I think that quote you provide here is from Shnarkle, it's not from me. The Shema has nothing to do with Christ, it is a Jewish statement of absolute Monotheism, not of some kind of "compound", Trinitarian Monotheism.

Faithful Jews who recite the Shema daily, hear no mention of "Christ" in their statement of faith. No mention of Christ as part of the Godhead, nor of the agent of Creation.

I never said the Jewish statement has anything to do with Christ. I pointed out that Paul is expanding upon the Shema and he is pointing out that who the Shema refers to as "the Lord" is Christ. He is the one who mentions Christ as the means of creation. So for Paul, it has everything to do with Christ. It also agrees with what John says in his introduction. It also reconciles the confusion among so many Christians as to how Jesus can be God and not God at the same time in that he is the image or Icon of God, and as such exists eternally. To set aside one's personal identity is to see God's image. This is eternal life.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

When we look at the history of Christology in the early church we find one common denominator:

Polytheism is out!

Both sides defended monotheism. One side said no philosophical maneuver could get Jesus on the divine side of the equation without abandoning monotheism; the other side said, Yes, it is possible--and Trinitarianism was born.

And I find this very interesting. Both sides were obstinately protective of monotheism. And the easier course would be to join Arius. His position was philosophically clean and neat. It was so simple!

The question arises: if Arius' position successfully protected what was the common goal (monotheism) of all, and in such a tidy way, why did anyone object?

I think there were two problems: 1) the tradition of the church; 2) those problematic passages which contain what scholars call "High Christology".

As for the "tradition of the church", I merely mean that a High Christology appeared very early on in history of the movement; it was low Christology that was new, brought in especially to check any tendencies towards polytheism.

Put another way: granted that monotheism was central to the Christian movement, which historical trajectory makes the most sense?

1) Strict monotheists who never thought Jesus was God suddenly decided (why?!) that elevating Jesus to eternal divinity was so important, that devising extremely complex philosophical theorizing was required.

or

2) Monotheists who held that Jesus was God because that was what had been taught from the beginning of the ministry, suddenly started asking questions about this doctrine: some held to it, and worked out the philosophical problems; others abandoned it, and settled for a low Christology.


# 2 seems more historically plausible.



As for those problematic passages, I find it easier to reconcile low christological passages within a high christological framework, than vice versa.