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,

[Replying to post 5 by tam]

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

Ask to hear His voice. Ask for ears to hear so that you can hear. And listen.

Keep knocking, keep seeking.



One should also want to hear and to know the truth. People often say that this is what they want, when what they actually want is to hear confirmation of their own beliefs, their own religion, etc. If a person does not truly want to hear or know the truth, then they probably will not.




But this is the promise that my Lord made that I know is true (as are all His words and promises):


"Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.�


and,

“If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make Our home within him."

How accurately does the Bible reflect the voice of Christ?

The Bible holds more than just words that Christ spoke, so I do not know how to answer this question.

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

Yes, those passages that are of Him speaking.


Yes, there are passages in the OT (in the Psalms for instance) that are Christ speaking through David. One may need Him to open the scriptures in order to hear that though.



But at the very least, one can read His words as recorded in the gospels (as well as in Revelation).

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

What did He say and teach about this? Did He ever say that He was God (JAH)? Or did He instead say that He was the Son of God? Did He not call God, 'my God'; both before He ascended and after He ascended?


Before:


"Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" John 20:17


After (from the letter to the Church in Philadelphia):

"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name."



He is the One who is the Teacher, right? So why would we not just listen to Him? To His words? Spoken if we hear His voice, or written at least, if we do not (yet) hear His voice?



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the truth of these things, and to also hear as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come!" Let anyone who thirsts, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of life!"



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

[shnarkle]

[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.

Interesting post. In addition to polythesim, there's another common denominator that is out as well; doctrine. The early church wasn't really about doctrine because at the core of Christ's message was the manifestation of God's will. Loving God and neighbor isn't just about presenting it as a doctrine. It's about manifesting it in the world.

So Christ's message was presented not just by his words, and actions, but along with the spirit. The logos manifests along with the pneuma so we're not dealing with a Christology, but a Christophany. Christophanies are about manifesting the divine will and power of God. Christ didn't go around teaching theology, he went around teaching divinity by manifesting God's divine will and power.

As they say, the medium is the message, and in communicating "the light that is the life of men" he is not only the light of the world, but in communicating that light, he spreads that light into others which is why he says to his disciples, "You are the light of the world".

Christ doesn't just show the way, he invites all to enter into it, but the price of entry is "yourself" which must be denied completely. There's just no room for yourself on the narrow path. There's only room for Christ which is why one must be in Christ to enter into the way.

[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.

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!

The doctrine of the Trinity is that there is one God, that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are all different, and that the Father and the Son and Spirit are all God.

To focus on the issue at hand, the Bible teaches that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), that the Father and the Son are different (John 17:3), and that Jesus is God (the prologue of John).

The doctrine of the Trinity is a direct formulation of what is taught in the Bible.

So it seems that my first statement stands. If we accept the trinity as true then the Bible is consistent in its teaching. If we reject the doctrine of the trinity then the Bible is filled with contradictions.

[shnarkle]

the Bible teaches that there is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4),

Not exactly. Here's what the Shema states: " Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:"

The word "God" in the Hebrew is the plural form of God "Elohim", and it is this plural form that is one "Lord". It is not God that is one, but the Lord that is one. It doesn't state that the lord is one God, but that the Elohim is one Lord.

that the Father and the Son are different (John 17:3), and that Jesus is God (the prologue of John).

Nope. There is no place in the prologue to John's gospel that states that Jesus is God.

If we accept the trinity as true then the Bible is consistent in its teaching.

Not really. I don't accept the Trinitarian doctrine that the Father is a person, and there is nothing in the texts that becomes contradictory because of that denial. The introduction to John's gospel points out that everything that exists is created, and God isn't created. Therefore God doesn't exist. John backs this up by pointing out that "in the beginning was God", Wait. John doesn't say that does he? Nope. He points out that it is the word that exists, not God. It is the word that exists eternally, not God. That is how the bible defines the word, not God. The bible defines God as "of whom are all things" God is the origin of all things. That is how Paul defines God.

If we reject the doctrine of the trinity then the Bible is filled with contradictions.

I reject the doctrine of the trinity and there are no contradictions. One must assume that God exists for there to be contradictions within the biblical texts. The bible points out that God is "incomparable" which is synonymous with transcendence. There is no effective difference betwen transcendence and non existence.

[onewithhim]

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?

No, the different viewing of the Scripture verses is not due to the Bible being contradictory. The Bible has been jumbled up by sly clerics and copyists who have made changes in the texts---some slight and some bold---to seem to uphold the idea that Jesus is God. If we actually studied these instances where the text seems to say that Jesus is God, we would see that such is not the case.

John 1:1 has been discussed here quite thoroughly. Manuscripts show that John wrote that the Word was "a god" and not God Almighty. Yet translators have capitalized "god" there and refused to place "a" before it. This goes against the normal way that Greek is translated to English.

John 8:58 has been shown to have been made into a mangled, ungrammatical, syntactically strained mess. Jesus never said that he was "I Am." He was saying that "before Abraham was born, I existed." His listeners would not have thought that he was claiming to be God.

I could go on and on. Verses that say, for example, that Jesus is "our great God and Savior," have been subtly tampered with to exclude any reference to who Paul was actually talking about in Titus 2:13. He was writing about TWO PERSONS in that verse, not just Jesus. Other translations say this: "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God AND of the Savior, Christ Jesus." Both the Father and Jesus are spoken about here. See how easy it is to subtly change the meaning of a verse? This happens repeatedly.


The Bible is not to blame for confusion. Men have done a hatchet job on it to make it say what they want. We have to do research. It takes time and effort. God didn't want it that way. Men have gone against Him.

[onewithhim]

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?

No, the different viewing of the Scripture verses is not due to the Bible being contradictory. The Bible has been jumbled up by sly clerics and copyists who have made changes in the texts---some slight and some bold---to seem to uphold the idea that Jesus is God. If we actually studied these instances where the text seems to say that Jesus is God, we would see that such is not the case.

John 1:1 has been discussed here quite thoroughly. Manuscripts show that John wrote that the Word was "a god" and not God Almighty. Yet translators have capitalized "god" there and refused to place "a" before it. This goes against the normal way that Greek is translated to English.

John 8:58 has been shown to have been made into a mangled, ungrammatical, syntactically strained mess. Jesus never said that he was "I Am." He was saying that "before Abraham was born, I existed." His listeners would not have thought that he was claiming to be God.

I could go on and on. Verses that say, for example, that Jesus is "our great God and Savior," have been subtly tampered with to exclude any reference to who Paul was actually talking about in Titus 2:13. He was writing about TWO PERSONS in that verse, not just Jesus. Other translations say this: "while we wait for the happy hope and glorious manifestation of the great God AND of the Savior, Christ Jesus." Both the Father and Jesus are spoken about here. See how easy it is to subtly change the meaning of a verse? This happens repeatedly.


The Bible is not to blame for confusion. Men have done a hatchet job on it to make it say what they want. We have to do research. It takes time and effort. God didn't want it that way. Men have gone against Him.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

When Paul wrote that "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved".

Was he speaking of the Lord Jehovah? Or the Lord Jesus.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

When Paul wrote that "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved".

Was he speaking of the Lord Jehovah? Or the Lord Jesus.

At Romans 10:13 Paul was quoting Joel 2:32 where it says, according to Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Scriptures, "Every one who calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered."

Peter also quoted Joel 2:32 in his speech at Acts 2:21.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

When Paul wrote that "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved".

Was he speaking of the Lord Jehovah? Or the Lord Jesus.

At Romans 10:13 Paul was quoting Joel 2:32 where it says, according to Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Scriptures, "Every one who calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered."

Peter also quoted Joel 2:32 in his speech at Acts 2:21.

In the context of Paul's usage, (not the quote he lifted) do you think Paul meant Jesus or Jehovah?

This could be a good topic unto itself. There are ramifications either way.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

When Paul wrote that "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved".

Was he speaking of the Lord Jehovah? Or the Lord Jesus.

At Romans 10:13 Paul was quoting Joel 2:32 where it says, according to Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Scriptures, "Every one who calleth in the name of Jehovah is delivered."

Peter also quoted Joel 2:32 in his speech at Acts 2:21.

In the context of Paul's usage, (not the quote he lifted) do you think Paul meant Jesus or Jehovah?

This could be a good topic unto itself. There are ramifications either way.

I have posted my thoughts on this to you before. I believe that Paul was referring to Jehovah, otherwise he would not have lifted the quote from Joel. He always distinguished God (Jehovah) from the Lord Jesus.