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?

[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.

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.

Yes, he did use the word "Lord". But Paul sometimes conflates. As in "the Lord Jesus Christ.

I wonder, does Paul use the same Greek word when he says "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" as he does when he refers to the Lord Jesus Christ?

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

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?

How do we explain the divide that occurs with almost any statement/phrase/writing even today? A politician, a leader, your next door neighbor, your spouse, etc. can say something and two different people hearing it can come to different conclusions regarding what was said. It happens all the time.

Words on a page cannot speak for themselves. Those words need to be interpreted. IMO, this is precisely why Jesus left us His Church, who we were told to listen. The Church has been given the authority to safeguard/interpret/proclaim and teach Sacred Scripture. Heck, the Church is even who compiled and decided what books would even be considered the Bible.

[2timothy316]

Heck, the Church is even who compiled and decided what books would even be considered the Bible.

Actually, the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were formed long before 'the Church' and the Greek Scriptures (NT) were being circulated around the congregations as scripture many years before both were complied into one book. So actually 'the Church' didn't determine what was scripture as it was already determined for them. That is until after the 1st century.

It was not until the 2nd century that there was a need to sort the letters. Letters claiming to be scripture had surfaced by the 2nd century and it had to be determined what actually was scripture and what was not. Many false letters had entered circulation and that had to be corrected. Their job was made easy when many of these 'gospels' had prophecies in them that just didn't come true.

I would be hesitant to claim 'the Church' decided as if they have total authority as to what goes into the Bible. 'The Church' has many of it's own writings yet with all of it's decrees and policies they claim come from God, they have not been added to Bible canon and dubbed 'Holy Scripture'. Interesting, when we think about who really has control over what goes into the Bible. The Bible seems to get better and clearer as time goes on, yet nothing new has been added.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

Actually, the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were formed long before 'the Church' and the Greek Scriptures (NT) were being circulated around the congregations as scripture many years before both were complied into one book.

Exactly. There were lots of ancient writings. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined what should comprise the bible. The Bible includes both the OT and NT. If you only listen to the OT writings, you aren't Christian and if you only accept NT writings you aren't Christian.

So actually 'the Church' didn't determine what was scripture as it was already determined for them.

That is like saying you did not choose to marry your spouse – God chose your spouse for you before the beginning of time. The one does not negate the other. Both are true.

Many false letters had entered circulation and that had to be corrected.

True indeed. Thank God for instituting the Church.

I would be hesitant to claim 'the Church' decided as if they have total authority as to what goes into the Bible.

Of course you would, because you do not believe the Church is ‘the pillar and foundation of truth’. You do not believe in the authority of the Church and yet Christ Himself did – “He who hears you, hears me�. He didn’t say, “He who hears the Bible, hears me� (the Bible did not yet exist). “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�. That’s quite a transfer of authority.

'The Church' has many of it's own writings yet with all of it's decrees and policies they claim come from God, they have not been added to Bible canon and dubbed 'Holy Scripture'.

Why should they need be? We have been instructed to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. There is no reason they need to be one and the same. In fact, like I said before, good thing they aren’t seeing how the Bible didn’t exist for people to hear until the Church gave it to us.

Interesting, when we think about who really has control over what goes into the Bible.

Isn’t it?

[2timothy316]

'The Church' has many of it's own writings yet with all of it's decrees and policies they claim come from God, they have not been added to Bible canon and dubbed 'Holy Scripture'.

Why should they need be?

When they don't follow what the Bible says and are contradictory. That means that decrees are man-made and not God inspired. In the Bible decrees like on whether circumcision was required were added as part of the Bible. Zero of the Church's decrees have been added....

[Elijah John]

'The Church' has many of it's own writings yet with all of it's decrees and policies they claim come from God, they have not been added to Bible canon and dubbed 'Holy Scripture'.

Why should they need be?

When they don't follow what the Bible says and are contradictory. That means that decrees are man-made and not God inspired. In the Bible decrees like on whether circumcision was required were added as part of the Bible. Zero of the Church's decrees have been added....

Likewise, the WTS adds man-made rules such as prohibition of birthdays, Christmas and Easter.

Is any religous organization immune from such non-inspired, man-made regulation?

[2timothy316]

'The Church' has many of it's own writings yet with all of it's decrees and policies they claim come from God, they have not been added to Bible canon and dubbed 'Holy Scripture'.

Why should they need be?

When they don't follow what the Bible says and are contradictory. That means that decrees are man-made and not God inspired. In the Bible decrees like on whether circumcision was required were added as part of the Bible. Zero of the Church's decrees have been added....

Likewise, the WTS adds man-made rules such as prohibition of birthdays, Christmas and Easter.

Is any/i] religous organization immune from such non-inspired, man-made regulation?

Birthdays, Christmas and Easter are pagan in origin and not found in the Bible. Do you know who made decrees that they should be celebrated? Give that some thought for a moment. The RCC on the other hand makes decrees that directly contradict the Bible. You'd have a point if there is was a law in the Bible that we must celebrate birthdays, xmas and Easter, but those are not found in the Bible because those were man-made in the first place. No decree needed on JWs part to have a rule that is already not found in the Bible. Tree worship, bunny worship and self-worship are all unapproved by the Bible. All we did was merely show what already there and not there and God's feelings on worship. The RCC however add things.

Yet here is one by the RCC, "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church, which is "the all-embracing means of salvation," that they can benefit fully from the means of salvation,," (Vatican 2, Decree on Ecumenism, 3).

JWs have no such decree as such a decree is not scriptural. So if the RCC is God's church and the above decree is so important as to eternal life, then why isn't the above decree in the Bible?

[Elijah John]

Tree worship, bunny worship and self-worship are all unapproved by the Bible.

And none of those things happen in the RCC's Mass. That is a very cynical way to view those holidays. Birthdays are not "self-worship", to celebrate a person by one's loved ones is not "worship". It can be viewed as an act of appreciation of God's most wonderous creation, namely that of a human being, made in the image of God.

And any pagan overtones to popular celebrations of Christmas and Easter, are just that, popular folk-ways, and not part of the official religous observance. Which by contrast celebrate the birth and resurrection of Christ, respectively. I've seen plenty of Christ-centered observance at holiday Mass, with ne'er a bow to tree or bunny.

[RightReason]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

When they don't follow what the Bible says and are contradictory. That means that decrees are man-made and not God inspired.

I couldn’t agree more. The Church cannot contradict Scripture nor can Scripture contradict the Church. It’s actually a beautiful checks and balance system. Should be major red flag if your church is teaching something contradictory to Scripture and or if your interpretation of Scripture does not match Christ’s Church.

In the Bible decrees like on whether circumcision was required were added as part of the Bible. Zero of the Church's decrees have been added....

Like I said – nor need they be. Once again, we have been instructed to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. What exactly do you think people did prior to the publication of the Bible – LOL!

Birthdays, Christmas and Easter are pagan in origin and not found in the Bible

The celebration of births, weddings, and Christ’s resurrection are most definitely seen in the Bible.

The RCC on the other hand makes decrees that directly contradict the Bible.

You mean contradict yourinterpretation of the Bible.

You'd have a point if there is was a law in the Bible that we must celebrate birthdays, xmas and Easter, but those are not found in the Bible because those were man-made in the first place

There is much that the Bible does not comment on. The Bible itself even tells us this would be the case . . .

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.� –John 16:12

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.� – 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Hmmmmm . . . kind of leaves the door open for Christ’s Church. We have been told to not only follow Sacred Scripture but Sacred Tradition as well.

No decree needed on JWs part to have a rule that is already not found in the Bible.

Except the decree to only do that which is directly stated in Scripture which actually contradicts Scripture

So if the RCC is God's church and the above decree is so important as to eternal life, then why isn't the above decree in the Bible?

Because the Bible itself tells us it need not be.

[2timothy316]

In the Bible decrees like on whether circumcision was required were added as part of the Bible. Zero of the Church's decrees have been added....

Like I said – nor need they be. Once again, we have been instructed to follow Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. What exactly do you think people did prior to the publication of the Bible – LOL!

Here's a question, when do you think the first Bible appeared? Next question, when has their ever been a separate law code to follow? I don't recall there being a law of Moses and then a law of Aaron.