John 14.6 contradicted

[Elijah John]

Psalm 145.17-18

Upright in all that he does, Yahweh acts only in faithful love. He is close to all who call upon him, all who call on him from the heart.

NJB

vs.

John 14.6

Jesus said: I am the Way; I am Truth and Life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

NJB


For debate: How can one reconcile these two seemingly contradictory verses. And if they cannot be reconciled, which one do you support as more authentic, more a reflection of the will of God, and why?

[JehovahsWitness]

Psalm 145.17-18

Upright in all that he does, Yahweh acts only in faithful love. He is close to all who call upon him, all who call on him from the heart.

The key is "in truth". Some translations say "with sincerity" or "from the heart". Not in getting one's theology "right".

Are you saying that I implied otherwise?

God had such confidence in Jesus and the ransom he would provide, he credited it's value to his faithful servants ( and those that appeal to Him in sincerity) in advanced.

Did I say anything about their "getting ones theology right"?

[JehovahsWitness]

"Close". Plain meaning. Close does not mean "gulf" or "barrier".

This is true, thank you for sharing. However can you explain why you felt the need to share this with me in particular? Did my post indicate that I misunderstood or misused the meaning of either word?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

One does not reconcile them. One assesses the Scriptures as an historical story, and not as a rule book cast down from heaven. Real men wrote these books, under real circumstances; they were not static, timeless treatises.

The process of showing that the O.T. knows nothing of the N.T. is healthy, especially for Christian fundamentalists; but it still fails to assess the canon historically.

Consider the topic at hand, what historical context is relevant to the discussion that we may be overlooking?

Yes, the Bible did not drop in-tact from Heaven, though Fundamentalists often seem to treat it as infallible, as though it did. The canon was assembled over time, by men, inspired or not. (this forum would favor the position that they were at least inspired, if not infallible). At one point, direct-access was taught by King David and the Prophets. At a later time, (NT and beyond) mediated access to God was (and still is, by most Christians) dogma.

The two contrasting verses presented in the OP (hopefully) exemplify this as a dynmic tension, if not an outright contradiction.

[Elijah John]

Psalm 145.17-18

Upright in all that he does, Yahweh acts only in faithful love. He is close to all who call upon him, all who call on him from the heart.

The key is "in truth". Some translations say "with sincerity" or "from the heart". Not in getting one's theology "right".

Are you saying that I implied otherwise?

God had such confidence in Jesus and the ransom he would provide, he credited it's value to his faithful servants ( and those that appeal to Him in sincerity) in advanced.

Did I say anything about their "getting ones theology right"?

No, but you implied that simply calling on YHVH with sincerity or from the heart is not enough. Otherwise why allude to His "standards and requirements". I think we all know you meant the standard and requrement of Jesus blood-ransom theology. In other words, mediated access.

And referring to "Jesus and the ranson he would provide" is, yes, a theological position statement.

Allow me to turn it this way. If one does not accept the theology of "Jesus and the ransom he provides" does one still have access to God? My position is that the quoted verse from Psalms indicates that yes indeed, a person does have such access.

You and others are reading into the simple verse by imposing complex, NT "ransom theology" on it.

I never suggested that you do not understand plain meaning, only that you seem to be disregarding it.

There is no indication that King David knew or believed anything about the Messiah's (to put it in OT terms) impending "ransom payment" in order to provide mediated access to God.

On the contrary, the quoted verse (and others) is evidence that King David believed in, and taught direct access to God. And more universal, as opposed to exclusive access. "All" as opposed to " no one....but by me".

To suggest otherwise is revisionism, and retrospective projection.

[JehovahsWitness]

.. you implied that simply calling on YHVH with sincerity or from the heart is not enough. Otherwise why allude to His "standards and requirements".

No I did not, I said that I believe "calling on" Jehovah means, to appeal to him according to his standards and requirements. See below.

I would say that to "call on" Jehovah means to appeal to him according to his standards and requirements.

Is there anything in the Hebrew bible that indicates YHWH does not have standards and requirement?


JW

[Elijah John]

"Close". Plain meaning. Close does not mean "gulf" or "barrier".

This is true, thank you for sharing. However can you explain why you felt the need to share this with me in particular? Did my post indicate that I misunderstood or misused the meaning of either word?

Because you, and other apologists tend to disregard plain meaning. As in your response/explanation of Matthew 16.27, 28 where the passage seems to suggest that jesus was just plain wrong. (If one begins with the assumtion that Jesus could not possibly be wrong, about anything, then one concludes that the passage in question must mean something else.) My statement was not intended to apply exclusively to you, more of a "if the shoe fits.." situation.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think we all know you meant the standard and requrement of Jesus blood-ransom theology. In other words, mediated access.

Emphasis MINE


What do you think about the idea of simply asking me rather than assuming you know know what I meant? And who is the "we" you are refering to? Are you speaking on behalf of anyone but yourself?

[Elijah John]

.. you implied that simply calling on YHVH with sincerity or from the heart is not enough. Otherwise why allude to His "standards and requirements".

No I did not, I said that I believe "calling on" Jehovah means, to appeal to him according to his standards and requirements. See below.

I would say that to "call on" Jehovah means to appeal to him according to his standards and requirements.

Is there anything in the Hebrew bible that indicates YHWH does not have standards and requirement?


JW

Thanks for the distinction/clarification.

The standard and requirement spoken of in this verse for being close to YHVH is simply calling on Him with "sincerity, from the heart, in truth" depending on the translation.

Regarding God's "requirements" Micah 6.8 harmonizes quite nicely with the verse from Psalms.

He hath showed thee, O man, what is good and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, to love kindness and to walk humbly with thy God?

Nothing about blood ransom theology, or belief in the Messiah.

Both OT priestly protocal, and NT ransom theology makes approaching the Deity far more complicated than it needs to be.

[JehovahsWitness]

... referring to "Jesus and the ranson he would provide" is, yes, a theological position statement.

What is a "theological position statement" ? And how can a reference to something be equated to a "position" ? Does a reference to pedophilia equate as "a position statement"? If I refered to Zeus as commiting pedophilia would that be a "theological position statement"?

Please clarify.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

The standard and requirement spoken of in this verse for being close to YHVH is simply calling on Him with "sincerity, from the heart, in truth" depending on the translation.

Okay so we both agree that God has standards and requirements, so what is the problem with my refering to "standards and reqiurement"?

... why allude to His "standards and requirements"?

Because the God of the bible evidently has standards and requirements. What they are will depend on the circumstances; being sincere however has always and will always be one of God's requrements.