Questions that Jehovah's Witnesses do not like
Roy Si
Questions that Jehovah's Witnesses do not like
to be asked.
1. If the organization did not actually prophesy the end in 1925 and
1975, then how come so many
Witnesses left the faith immediately afterwards? ("They lost
roughly three-quarters of the
movement between 1925 and 1928, then suffered huge losses after
1975, when the end didn't
come as they had implied over and over again," said Jim Penton, an
ex-Witness who writes entries
on Jehovah's Witnesses for the Encyclopedia Americana.)
2. If the Watchtower organization rejects others calling them
"inspired" yet the Watchtower
organization does call themselves "God's Spirit-directed Prophet"
what is the difference? Is there
such a thing as an "uninspired prophet"? See Organization claims
inspiration
3. Has the Society ever taught anything scripturally incorrect? See
Prophecy Blunders of the
Organization
4. Might the Society be teaching anything scripturally incorrect now?
5. Since the Organization has received "new light" regarding the 1914
generation, and completely
changed their view on this, does this mean that all the former
Jehovah's witnesses who were
disfellowshipped years ago for the same view the organization is
now teaching will automatically be
accepted into fellowship again? Were these Ex-Jw's in fact
disfellowshipped for truth and knew
things that the governing body did not? See Jw's were
disfellowshipped for rejecting generation
doctrine
6. Can Jehovah's Witnesses hold and discuss openly with other
Jehovah's Witnesses opinions that
differ from orthodox Watch Tower doctrine?
7. Can individuals read & understand the Bible alone, or do they need
an organization and it's
publications to do so? Click here find the answer!
8. How do you prove from the Bible that 1935 was the year for the
selection to heaven stopped due to
being filled? What is the difference between a Catholic appealing
to "what the organization tells him"
about December 25 being the date of Jesus’ birthday and a Jw’
appealing to "what the organization
tells him" about the date 1935? Is it not hypocritical when you
chide the "poor deluded Catholic"
that his faith cannot find a Bible passage to support it, when the
same goes for you and 1935?
9. How do you know that there were any vacancies, if any, in the
144,000 class if Jesus offered this
to first century Christians? How can the organization know the
exact number of vacancies today
without any records from the first century?
10. Why are you called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" and not "Christians"?
Since Jehovah's Witnesses appeal
to Isa 43:12; 44:8 for scriptural support that they should be
called, "Jehovah's Witnesses" then
what was the "new name" prophesied in Isa 62:2? Can't be "Jehovah's
Witnesses", for God already
used it 20 chapters earlier. Could the new name be "Christian"
after our savior "Christ"?
11. Why would the name God gave to His people not be "Christians"
since Acts 11:26 says, "The
disciples were first called Christians in Antioch"? Why is the name
"Jehovah's Witness" found
nowhere in the New Testament, if that is God's divine name for His
people under the new
covenant? Why would God wait almost 2000 years to suddenly start
using the name "Jehovah's
Witness". Does this mean that first century Christians were not
known as Jehovah's Witnesses"?
12. If the name Jehovah is so important, then why is it never used in
the entire Greek New Testament?
If men edited out the name of God, "YHWH" when they copied the New
Testament, as only the
Watchtower organization claims, then how can we have any confidence
in any of the New
Testament? Should we discard the New Testament or the Watchtower
organization as unreliable?
13. If the name "Jehovah" is so important, then why does Acts 4:12
say, "There is salvation in no one
else; for there is no other name [v10 Jesus Christ] under heaven
that has been given among men,
by which we must be saved"? Would this not have been the logical
place for God to have used the
name "YHWH"?
14. What is the correct spelling of God's proper name "Yahweh" or
"Jehovah"? If Jehovah's Witnesses
maintain that "Yahweh" is more proper, why do they misspell it
"Jehovah"? If the name of God is
so important, then should you not only pronounce it correctly, but
spell it correctly too? Is not
spelling more important than pronunciation?
15. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization currently rejects most of
the teachings of its founder
Charles Taze Russell (who was president of the organization from
1879-1916), and since they also
reject "Judge" Joseph Franklin Rutherford, who succeeded Russell as
president from 1916 - 1942,
how can we be sure that in 25 more years, Jehovah's Witnesses won't
also reject the current
president, Milton G. Henschel (1992 - present), as they did Russell
and Rutherford?
16. What kind of confidence can anyone have in an organization that
rejected its founder and first two
presidents for the first 63 years of its existence? This represents
about 53% of the time they have
existed!
17. Since the Watchtower organization claims "apostolic succession"
who was it that "passed the torch
of God's Spirit" to C. T. Russel when he founded the organization?
What was the name of this
individual?
18. In the NWT, every time the Greek word "proskuneo" is used in
reference to God, it is translated as
"worship" (Rev 5:14, 7:11, 11:16, 19:4, Jn 4:20, etc.). Every time
"proskuneo" is used in reference
to Jesus, it is translated as "obeisance" (Mt 14:33, 28:9, 28:17,
Lk 24:52, Heb 1:6, etc.), even
though it is the same word in the Greek (see Gr-Engl Interlinear).
Especially compare the Greek
word "prosekunhsan" used with reference to God in Rev 5:14, 7:11,
11:16, and 19:4 and used with
reference to Christ in Mt 14:33, 28:9, and 28:17. What is the
reason for this inconsistency? If the
NWT was consistent in translating "proskuneo" as "worship", how
would the verses above
referring to Christ read?
19. The NWT translates the Greek word "kyrios" as "Jehovah" more than
25 times in the New
Testament (Mt 3:3, Lk 2:9, Jn 1:23, Acts 21:14, Rom 12:19, Col
1:10, 1Thess 5:2, 1Pet 1:25, Rev
4:8, etc.). Why is the word "Jehovah" translated when it does not
appear in the Greek text? Why is
the NWT not consistent in translating kyrios (kurion) as "Jehovah"
in Rom 10:9, 1Cor 12:3, Phil
2:11, 2Thess 2:1, and Rev 22:21 (see Gr-Engl Interlinear)?
20. To what was Jesus referring to by the term "this temple" in Jn
2:18- 19? See Jn 2:21.
21. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, why does he
directly speak and refer to himself
as "I" and "me" in Acts 13:2?
22. The NWT translates the Greek words "ego eimi" as "I am" every time
it appears (Jn 6:34, 6:41,
8:24, 13:19, 15:5, etc.), except in Jn 8:58 where it is translated
as "I have been". What is the reason
for the inconsistency in this translation? If "ego eimi" was
translated in Jn 8:58 the same way it is
translated in every other verse in which it appears, how would Jn
8:58 read?
23. In Rev 22:12-13, Jesus Christ, the one who is "coming quickly",
says of himself, " I am the Alpha
and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end".
In Rev 1:17-18, Jesus, the one
who "became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever", refers
to himself as the first and the
last. Rev 21:6, in speaking of God, says, "...I am the Alpha and
the Omega, the beginning and the
end ...". God is also referred to as the "first" and the "last" in
Isa 44:6 and Isa 48:12. How can this
be since by definition of these words there can only be one first
and one last?
24. Jn 1:3 says that Jesus created "all things", but in Isa 44:24, God
says that he "by myself" created
the heavens and the earth and asks the question "Who was with me?"
when the heavens and the
earth were created. How can this be since if Jesus was created by
God, then he would have been
with God when everything else was created?
25. Col 1:16, in talking about Jesus, says that "... All [other]
things have been created through him and
FOR HIM". If Jesus was Michael the Archangel at the time of
creation, would an angel have
created all things for himself? Isa 43:7 says God created "everyone
.... for my OWN glory...".
26. The Watchtower Society teaches that the 144,000 of Rev 7:4 is to
be taken literally. If chapter 7 of
Revelation is to be taken literally, where then does the Bible say
that the 144,000 will come from?
(See Rev 7:5- 8).
27. If the soul is the body, why does Jesus make a distinction between
the body and the soul in Mt
10:28?
28. The NWT translates Jn 1:1 as "... and the Word was WITH God, and
the Word was a god". How
can the Word (Jesus) be "a god" if God says in Deut 32:39, "See now
that I-I am he, and there are
NO gods together WITH me ..."?
29. Jesus Christ is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 9:6 ("For there
has been a child born to us, there
has been a son given to us ... And his name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God ...").
Jehovah is referred to as "Mighty God" in Isa 10:20-21. How can
this be if there is only one God
(1Cor 8:4, Isa 43:10, 44:6)?
30. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together
over his head, why does Jn
20:25 say "...Unless I see in his hands the print of the nailS
....", indicating that there was more than
one nail used for his hands?
31. Jesus uses the phrase "Truly I say to you, ..." over 50 times in
the Bible. In the NWT, the comma
is placed after the word "you" every time except in Lk 23:43, where
the comma is placed after the
word "today". Why is the comma placed after "today" instead of
after "you" in this verse? If the
translation of this phrase in Lk 23:43 was consistent with the
translation of this phrase in all the
other verses in which it appears (see concordance), and the comma
was placed after the word
"you", how would it read?
32. The NWT translates the Greek word "esti" as "is" in almost every
instance in the New Testament
(Mt 26:18, 38, Mk 14:44, Lk 22:38, etc.). See Greek-English
Interlinear. Why does the NWT
translate this Greek word as "means" in Mt 26:26-28, Mk 14:22-24,
and Lk 22:19? Why the
inconsistency in the translation of the word "esti"? If the NWT was
consistent and translated the
Greek word "esti" as "is" in these verses, what would these verses
say?
33. In Jn 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus in Greek as "Ho kyrios moy kai
ho theos moy". This translates
literally as "the Lord of me and THE God of me". Why does Jesus, in
Jn 20:29, affirm Thomas for
having come to this realization? If Jesus really wasn't the Lord
and THE God of Thomas, why
didn't Jesus correct him for making either a false assumption or a
blasphemous statement?
34. If Christ will not have a visible return to earth, then how will
he be seen by "ALL the tribes of the
earth" (Mt 24:30) and by "EVERY eye" (Rev 1:7) when he returns?
35. If the Holy Spirit is God's impersonal active force, how could he:
Be referred to as "he" and "him"
in Jn 16:7-8 and Jn 16:13-14; Bear witness - Jn 15:26; Feel hurt -
Isa 63:10; Be blasphemed against
- Mk 3:29; Say things - Ezek 3:24, Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 21:11,
Heb10:15-17, Rev 2:7; Desire -
Gal 5:17; Be outraged - Heb 10:29; Search -1Cor 2:10; Comfort -
Acts 9:31; Be loved - Rom 15:30
; Be lied to and be God - Acts 5:3-4?
36. What is the meaning of Rev 14:9-11, which says, "... If anyone
worships the wild beast ... he shall
be tormented with fire and sulphur ... And the smoke of their
torment ascends forever and ever
...". Where could "anyone" be "tormented ... forever and ever"?
37. Jn 1:3 says in reference to Christ, "All things came into
existence through him, and apart from him
not even one thing came into existence". How could Christ have been
a created being if ALL things
came into existence through him? If Jesus was a created being, then
according to Jn 1:3, Jesus
would have had to create himself.
38. If the spirit of a man has no existence apart from the body, why
does Stephen just before his death
in Acts 7:59, pray to Jesus to "receive my spirit"? How could Jesus
receive Stephen's spirit if a
man's spirit ceases to exist when the body dies?
39. If the great crowd is to have everlasting life on paradise EARTH,
why does 1Thess 4:17 say, "...we
the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught
away in clouds to MEET THE
LORD IN THE AIR; and thus we shall always be with the Lord"?
40. If there are 144,000 spirit anointed people who have a heavenly
hope, and a great crowd of people
who have another hope of everlasting life on paradise earth, why
does Paul say that there is only
ONE hope (Eph 4:4), instead of two?
41. If there is no conscious awareness after death, how could the
"spirits in prison" be preached to by
Christ after his death (1Pet 3:18-20) and how could the good news
be "declared also to the dead"
(1Pet 4:6)?
42. In Phil 2:9, the NWT inserts the word "other", even though it
doesn't appear in the original Greek
(see Gr-Engl Interlinear). What is the reason for inserting this
word? Is the word "Jehovah" a
name? See Ex 6:3, Ps 83:18, and Isa 42:8. How would the verse read
if the word "other" had not
been inserted? What does scripture say about adding words to the
Bible? See Prov 30:5-6.
43. Heb 9:28, speaking of Christ, says "... and the second time he
appears..." How can Christ APPEAR
a second time if he will not have a visible return to earth?
44. Amos 4:11 says, "'I caused an overthrow among you people, like
God's overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrah. And you came to be like a log snatched out of [the]
burning; but you did not come back
to me,' is the utterance of Jehovah." How can Jehovah speaking in
this verse refer to another
person as God ("... like GOD'S overthrow of Sodom ...")?
45. In Rev 19:1, where does it say that the "great crowd" will be?
46. If Christians are persecuted for the sake of Jehovah's name, why
did Christ tell the first Christians
that they would be persecuted for the sake of his (Jesus') name
instead of Jehovah's (Mt 24:9, Mk
13:13, Lk 21:12, 17, Jn 15:21, and Acts 9:16)?
47. In Col 1:15-17, the NWT inserts the word "other" 4 times even
though it is not in the original Greek
(see Gr-Engl interlinear). Why is the word "other" inserted? How
would these verses read if the
word "other" had not been inserted?
48. In 2Pet 1:1, the NWT inserts the word "the". Why is it inserted?
How would the verse read if the
word "the" was not inserted? What does scripture say about adding
words to the Bible? (See Prov
30:5-6).
49. In the sermon on the mount, when Jesus was addressing the "great
crowd" (Lk 6:17), why did he
tell them in Lk 6:22-23, "...your reward is great in heaven ..."?
50. In Mt 1:23, who is Matthew referring to here that has been given
the name which means "With Us
Is God"?
51. In Rev 14:13, how can the dead be "happy" and find "rest" if there
is no conscious awareness after
death?
52. If Jesus was executed on a torture stake, with both hands together
over his head, instead of on a
cross with both hands outstretched, why does Mt 27:37 say that the
sign "This is Jesus the King of
the Jews" was "posted above his HEAD" instead of being posted above
his hands? How could it
have been posted above his head if his arms were stretched out over
his head?
53. In Lk 4:12, the NWT translates "kyrios" (Gr-lord) as "Jehovah",
which makes the verse read "...
'You shall not put Jehovah your God to the test.'" See Gr-Engl
Interlinear. Why is kyrios translated
as "Jehovah" in this verse? Was the devil, in Lk 4:9-11, putting
Jehovah to the test or JESUS to the
test?
54. The Bible says that ONLY God is our savior (Hos 13:4, Isa
43:11,45:21, etc.). How can it be then,
that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus Christ is our savior (Lk
2:11, Phil 3:20, Tit 2:13, 3:6, 2Pet
1:1, 2:20, 3:18, etc.)?
55. Referring to Isa 14:9-17, if there is no conscious awareness after
death, how could Sheol "...
become agitated at you in order to meet you on coming in..." (v.9),
how could the souls in Sheol
"... speak up and say to you..." (v.10-11), how could the souls in
Sheol when "...seeing you will
gaze even at you; they will give close examination even to you,
[saying,] 'Is this the man'..." (v.
16-17), and how would you be aware that this was happening?
56. Heb 3:1 refers to "holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly
calling". In Mk 3:35, Jesus says,
"Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother ...".
Therefore, according to the Bible,
whoever does the will of God is a brother of Jesus and a partaker
of the heavenly calling. How can
this be if the Watchtower Society teaches that only 144,000 people
go to heaven?
57. Heb 11:16, in speaking about some of the faithful people of the
Old Testament (Abel, Noah,
Abraham, etc.) says, "But now they are reaching out for a better
[place], that is, one belonging to
heaven..." and, "... their God for he has made a city ready for
them." The footnote on the word
"city" refers to HEAVENLY Jerusalem of Heb 12:22 and Rev 21:2. How
can this be since
according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, the only
people who will go to heaven are
the 144,000 spirit anointed who have been chosen from people who
lived after Christ died?
58. Rev 20:10 says, "And the Devil ... the wild beast and the false
prophet [already were]; and they will
be tormented day and night forever and ever." Where will the devil,
the wild beast, and the false
prophet be "tormented day and night forever and ever"?
59. In Lk 24:36-39 and in Jn 20:26-27, Jesus showed his disciples the
wounds in his body as proof of
his resurrection. If Jesus' body had been destroyed by God after he
died, how could Jesus show
the disciples his body which had the wounds in his hands, feet, and
side and claim that he is not
just a spirit, "because a spirit does not have flesh and bones just
as you behold that I have" (Lk
24:39)?
60. If Christ was created by God and was the wisdom of God (Prov
8:1-4, 12, 22-31), then before
Jesus would have been created, God would have had to have been
without wisdom. How is it
possible that God could have ever been without wisdom?
61. Rev 7:11 says that "before the throne" is in heaven where "all the
angels were standing". Rev 14:2-3
says "And I heard a sound out of heaven ... And they were singing
as if a new song before the
throne ...". Rev 7:9 says, "... look, a great crowd ... standing
before the throne...". Rev 7:14-15
says, "...There are the ones that come out of the great tribulation
.... That is why they are before the
throne of God ...". Therefore, if "before the throne " means in
heaven (Rev 7:11, 14:2-3), and the
"great crowd" is "before the throne" (Rev 7:9, 7:14-15), where does
that mean that the great crowd
will be?
62. If Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, how can Mt 25:31 say,
"When the Son of man arrives in
his glory, and ALL the angels with him, ...". Since "all the
angels" would certainly include Michael
the Archangel, is it possible that Jesus could return with himself?
63. In Lk 20:37-38, how could Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be "all living
to him (God)", since they all
died hundreds of years before Jesus said this?
64. If the soul dies when the body dies, how could the "souls" of Rev
6:9- 11, who were of those who
had been "slaughtered" (i.e., killed), cry out "with a loud voice,
saying: 'Until when Sovereign Lord
..."?
65. In Mt 28:19, Jesus tells his disciples to baptize "people of all
the nations ...in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the holy spirit". Why would the disciples be
instructed to baptize in the name
of anybody or anything who was not God? Do Jehovah's Witnesses
follow the command of Jesus
and baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
holy spirit"?
66. If the human soul IS the person, how could the soul go out of a
person (Gen 35:18) or come back
into a person (1Kings 17:21)?
67. The Watchtower Society teaches that the earth will never be
destroyed or depopulated. How can it
be, then, that God says in Isa 51:6, "... the earth itself will
wear out, and its inhabitants will die like
a mere gnat ...", and that Jesus says in Mt 24:35, "Heaven and
earth will pass away...", and that
John says in Rev 21:1 that he saw "... a new heaven and a NEW
earth, for the former heaven and
the FORMER earth had passed away, and the sea is no more."?
68. Referring to Lk 12:4-5, what would be left of a person after they
were killed that could be thrown
into Gehenna?
69. Who or what does the spirit of Christ (Phil 1:19, Gal 4:6, Rom
8:9) refer to? In Gal 4:6, how is it
possible that the spirit of Christ could come into our hearts? How
is it possible that the spirit of
CHRIST could reside in someone? If what the Watchtower Society
teaches is true, how could Paul
make this statement if Christ was a spirit person residing in
heaven?
70. In Jn 8:56, Jesus says, "Abraham your father rejoiced greatly in
the prospect of seeing my day, and
he saw it and rejoiced". Since Abraham died hundreds of years
before Jesus said this, how could
Jesus say that Abraham "saw it and rejoiced", if there is no
conscious awareness after death?
71. In Jn 6:51, Jesus says that a person must eat "of this bread" in
order to "live forever", and that "the
bread that I give IS my flesh". In Jn 6:63, Jesus says "... Unless
you eat the flesh of the son of man
and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." In Jn
6:54-55, Jesus says, "He that feeds on
my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life..." and "... for
my flesh is true food and my blood
is true drink." Do you partake of the flesh of Christ , as Jesus
commanded, in order to have life in
yourself and in order to live forever?
72. Every true Christian would agree that we should follow the
commands of God. In Mk 9:7, God the
Father commands us to listen to Jesus. Do you follow this command
and listen to Jesus? After all,
Jesus died for your personal sins (1Jn 2:2, 1Pet 2:24). Jesus tells
us to go directly to him (Mt
11:28-30), and the Father commanded us to listen to Jesus. Why?
Because JESUS gives us
everlasting life (Jn 10:28), and so that JESUS will enter our house
and be with us and give us the
right to sit on his throne (Rev 3:20- 21). Do you pray to Jesus as
Paul and the early Christians did
(1Cor 1:2)? Do you partake of the flesh of Christ as Jesus
commanded (Jn 6:51)? If not, then are
you following the command of the Father who said "Listen to him"?
73. Series of questions?
As many are aware, JW's have for years had a two-tier class system in
place. In fact, when I was at Bethel,
Freddy used to tell us for years they called them "Secondary Christian"
aka "second class". According to the
boys in writing, God put this second class system in FULL SWING OR
place in 1935. So this afternoon I get
a call from this non-JW I have known for some years. I told him the
next time a JW stopped by to ask them
this question: "How do you prove from the Bible that 1935 was the year
that the selection to heaven stopped
due to being filled?" On Saturday, 2 friends stopped by his house in
service. He and his wife invited them in
and allowed them to go through their little funky CANNED presentation
from this month's KM. After their
friends finished, they said, "We have a question," and they asked them
to show them from their KJV or their
JW Bible where it indicates that in 1935 the door to heaven was shut?
We all know what happened. They
could not take them to the Bible and show them that, so they asked to
return on Sunday with someone who
was more INFORMED ON EXPLAINING THE DEEEEEEEPER THINGS IN THE BIBLE so
the couple
agreed. Today the brother returned with one of the ELDERS. YEP they get
to COUNT it as a RV. Anyway
the elder prepared himself before they came. JW's have a very
up-to-date Kingdom Hall, you see. They have a
computer in the Elder's Office at the hall so the elder printed out a
ton of WT publications to take over. I
guess to show the non-JW that it does states 1935 as the year the door
was closed "IN PRINT". Due to the
fact that I had prepared him, the non-JW was ready. The elder went into
the talk that Rutherford gave in DC,
and showed him all the articles that stated the door shut in 1935. The
non-JW was ready with his questions.
SO HE ASKED HIM a series of questions:
1. Were ANY of the publications that stated 1935 as the year, INSPIRED?
2. Was the Writer of those articles INSPIRED?
3. WAS J.F. Rutherford INSPIRED WHEN he gave that talk in DC stating
that 1935 was the date?
We all know what the poor elder had to say to ALL those questions 1. NO
2. NO 3. NO. SO THEN MY
MAN said he asked the elder again, "Could you take me to the Inspired
Word of God using either your Bible or mine and show me where it
indicates 1935 as the year the door to heaven was shut? Once again the
poor elder couldn't do it. So my friend asked him, "Since you can't
take me directly to the Bible and show me this, unlike if I asked is
stealing ok then would you agree that it calls for some form of
INTERPRETATION?" OUR DEAR ELDER MADE a serious mistake here for he
said, "Yes it does." So my dear friend asked him, "Who in the JW
religion does the interpretation? In my faith, it's the Pope, who does
it for you?" Well, the bro told him the FDS helps us to understand the
deeper meaning of things. So he asked him, "Are you saying that they
INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR YOU?" and the elder said, "Yes they do." I had
already told him that JW's normally say (if they are UP-TO -DATE): "We
don't try to interpret the Bible, the Bible says interpretation belong
to Jehovah." So the dear elder opened his mouth and inserted his foot.
So the non-JW told him that he had spoken to a former Bethelite who
worked at the World Headquarters of JW's aka "1" who indicated to him
that, "As JW's, we don't do interpretations since it only belongs to
Jehovah." So he said at this point, the poor elder just started to get
bent out of shape. He was lost, so the elder told him that what he
needed was A BIBLE STUDY. THIS WAY HE COULD LEARN THE DEEEEPER THINGS IN
the Bible; but first he needed to learn the basics. So my man asked him,
"If I have a Bible study, will I then be able to turn to the Inspired
Word of God and find the 1935 date showing that God shut the door?" The
poor elder told him, "No, he would not. BUT you would understand how we
came to understand that 1935 was the date according to the Bible."
You've got to feel sorry for the dear elder and especially the poor
publisher who saw an elder bring a ton of UNINSPIRED printouts and
couldn't just take the Word of God and answer the man's question. So the
next time a JW stops by, ask for Inspired Word of God Bible text that
says that in 1935 the door was shut. Don't settle for anything less than
the real Inspired Word of God, not some Knock off brand called the WT
publications. Is it not amazing how when a non-JW knows just a little
about the organization and WT teachings how they can bring your average
20-40 year JW to his knees just by asking a few simple questions.
How sad!
http://home.earthlink.net/~silverwitnes/Home.htm
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://www.enteract.com/~bible for details about this group. )))
Bob
Those are some great questions. I am saving them for future reference.
Unfortunately has anyone had any success in convincing them of the truth?
My experience is that they are so brainwashed that they never change their
minds.
Bob
mark sornson
Bob wrote in message <973bip$s1u$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>Those are some great questions. I am saving them for future reference.
I've not only saved them, but (as a JW) am composing
replies to them. However, since there are 73(!) of them --
if you can call the 73rd item a single question(!!) -- it
may take me a while to get through them all. In fact, I
expect Rob Si's original posting to expire on my newsserver
before I finish them all, so ... if anyone would like to
read my reply, send me e-mail and I'll copy you when I'm
done.
>Unfortunately has anyone had any success in convincing them of the truth?
JWs would say "yes", that's why they are now JWs, because
they were convinced of the truth.
>My experience is that they are so brainwashed that they never change their
>minds.
Bob, do you anticipate ever changing your mind about
your faith? If not, then wouldn't your comment here suggest
that you are brainwashed too (into your own faith)?
Keep in mind that many who become JWs do so after a
consider period of time studying and associating with them,
'changing their minds' as to their former beliefs (or lack
thereof). Some even have joined or at least sampled many
other religions before deciding to join JWs. So, in light
of such experiences, a charge of "brainwashing" doesn't
wash. Charging us with being "brainwashed" is just an
easy way of washing your own hands of the obligation you
have to afford us the dignity you no doubt treasure for yourself,
namely, to be viewed as one who has given due consideration
to the evidence and made a choice of your own free will.
Ultimately, comments like this suggest a lack of experience
in viewing JWs with genuine Christian charity, and conversing
with us as real people.
-mark.
Bob
"Mark Sornson" <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:97h2ri$evt$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>
> Bob,
>
> > >
> > > Bob, do you anticipate ever changing your mind about
> > > your faith? If not, then wouldn't your comment here suggest
> > > that you are brainwashed too (into your own faith)?
> >
> > You make some assumptions here. See below.
>
> Actually I was just asking a question to see where you
> draw the line between strongly held convictions that have
> been arrived at by a rational process and what you
> call "brainwashing".
>
> > [snips]
> >
> > Mark,
> > First of all this message was not intended for JW's or anticipated to be
> > discussed by a JW. So no disrespect was intended.
>
> Ah, well ... you never know who might be passing by in
> newsgroups (which are quite public). I'm sure you wouldn't
> have said what you did to my face, but I think it indicates
> that privately you harbor little respect for JWs.
>
Sorry Mark, It's not a lack of respect. It's called pity. I truely feel
sorry for you. I ask God to stop satan from blinding you.
> >
> > It does appear to Christians that JW's are brainwashed. Perhaps a better
> > term would be a quote from the Bible. That they are blinded by the god
of
> > this world, satan.
>
> What you mean to say is that it appears to YOU that
> JWs are brainwashed.
>
I see you like to use caps. Sorry, Mark but I'm not the only one who feels
that YOU are brainwashed. You seem to react to the word brainwashed as
being a put down. Actually very smart people are capable of being
brainwashed. I don't understand why you think it is so offensive. I
believe that you have got it wrong. That it is an eternal decision that you
have wrong. And that you will regret it for eternity. So I feel sorry for
you.
> But funny you should mention this scripture, as
> JWs like me feel that it applies to you. So, how
> about that?
So, how about what? You think that I am blinded by satan. I guess then
that millions of us evangelical protestant Christians have all got it wrong.
That only YOU through your englightenment from a recently created religion
has got it right. What happens to all the people who lived before Russell
came along?
>
> > I have had experience with JW's but let me give you
a
> > bit of background. I was not raised a Christian. I was raised Catholic
but
> > found no satisfaction or conection with God. I went in search of Him
and
> > tried new age (wasn't called that then) ideas. I ultimately had an
> > encounter
> > with Jesus Christ when I accepted him as my Savior. Meaning I trust in
Him
> > and Him alone for my salvation. You cannot sample this experience as
you
> > mention. Attending a church can be a sample but an experience with
Christ
> > is a life altering event.
>
> For what it's worth, I always respect a person
> who makes a deliberate effort to seek God and 'find
> the truth', even if I don't agree with their
> conclusions.
>
> Your experience is common to many. But some
> have begun at exactly the same starting point,
> but have become JWs, or have become Mormons, or
> have become something else. So, merely recounting
> a start at point A and one's arrival at point B
> doesn't prove that point B is any more the correct
> position to be in than A.
>
> I do agree with you, however, that Jesus Christ
> doesn't 'call a person' to make a part-time committment
> to following him, and doesn't offer salvation as
> though it is something merely to be sampled like
> a piece of candy in a free-sample display, with
> mere token visits to church.
I thought you believe that Jesus is an alias for the archangel Michael. Why
would an angel offer salvation?
>
> > I had contact with JW's and attended their Bible Studies. They agreed
to
> > attend my church and see my point of view. It was a one sided
exchange.
> > They never attended my church or looked at any other point of view.
>
> The Bible gives evidence that the first Christians were
> willing to discuss (and learn about) other viewpoints
> [i.e., pagan ones] to a certain extent, but there's no
> evidence that they'd ever agree to actually enter a temple
> of false worship to see what was going on.
>
Well, the JW's I spoke with agreed to go to my temple of false worship as
you call it. They were liars. My friend and I made it extremely clear,
that is extremely clear, that it was a quid pro quo exchange. They agreed
to attend. Maybe I should capitalize that sentence. I can only say what
happened. They lied.
> JWs are usually more than willing to discuss anyone's
> point of view [or, at least I am], but since we not searching
> for the truth, but rather are looking to draw others to
> (what we believe to be) the truth, we don't typically
> attend other churches as though we're merely searching
> for another viewpoint.
>
See previous.
> Just out of curiousity, though, how did you happen
> to have "contact with JWs?" Did they come to you first,
> or did you search for them? If they came to you
> first, then it doesn't surprise me that they extended
> an invitation to you to attend (what was probably a
> meeting -- a "Bible Study" is usually a one-on-one discussion
> at a person's home), and it was your perogative to
> accept (for whatever your reasons were).
>
> I'm a little surprised to read that they actually
> agree to attend your church (perhaps you misunderstood
> them), but I'm not surprised that they didn't. I
> wouldn't trade my meeting time at the Kingdom Hall for
> time at another church. But then, again, I'm not
> searching as you once were. And we don't typically
> treat our message as though it is something only
> to 'swap' for someone else's viewpoint.
>
Yea, I guess if they said they would attend my church then that couldn't be
possible. I must have misunderstood them. Your making excuses. They lied
to me and to my friend. I was there, we made an agreement, we complied with
our portion of the agreement, they didn't. They made no attempt to comply
and they made no excuse even thought you do now.
I spent a lot of time with them. Don't tell me what was said or wasn't
said. You were not there.
> Plus, you probably wouldn't say you are still searching,
> right? You once had 'another point of view', but you
> really don't know what 'other point of view' those
> other Witnesses might have had themselves, do you? Like
> you they might have made quite a search themselves before
> becoming JWs, and they might even have investigated
> or have been in your current form of religion, but
> found it unsatisfying. Hence, your invitation to them
> to attend your church may have held no swaying power
> because they already knew they had chosen something better.
>
I told you little about myself to let you know that I did not accept my
"new" religion without a through search first. It was stated to let you
know a little about myself and to let you know that I did not accept
Evangelical Christianity just because I was told about it once.
If my invitation to them held no swaying power then they should have been
truthful right up front. They were willing to gree to terms they knew that
they would not keep just to get us to their bible studies. What word would
you use here?
> > Other contacts over the years have shown that they are not allowed to or
are
> > willing to question their own religion. The Bible states we are to test
the
> > Scriptures and teachings we hear to ensure that what we hear is correct
and
> > not a deception. The JW's do not appear to be able to do that. The
> > churches I > listen to and attend always tell us to question and test
the things we hear.
>
> It's one thing to "test the Scriptures" on individual
> matters of doctrine, to see if one's understanding needs
> correction and/or refinement, but it's another thing to
> "test the Scriptures" to question one's entire religion
> [i.e., the entire framework of belief and practice].
>
What's wrong with questioning your "entire" religion? If my pastor started
teaching or quoting false doctrine which is contrary to the Bible he would
find an empty church or be removed from office.
> Bob, do YOU, on a regular basis, question your entire
> religion, and entertain doubts that the most fundamental
> things that you've learned and accepted to be true
> about Christianity are false? Even though you did it
> once before (as a Catholic), do you do it even now, now
> that you are (as you believe) a true Christian?
>
Mark, Do YOU ever question your relgion? Are you afraid to? Have you
invested to much time and effort into it? Yes, I have entertained doubts
about certain doctrines. I have changed my mind about certain doctrines in
the Protestant beliefs. But you see whether or not I believe in these
doctrines or not does not effect my Salvation which has been already
established.
> JWs are "allowed to question their own religion" right
> up front, BEFORE THEY CHOOSE TO BECOME JWS (and before
> they are accepted by the congregation as JWs). The
> personal Bible study that each one is encouraged (and
> effectively required) to have is the time to question
> everything. Then, if one is satisfied with the answers,
> a person is invited to join. We (JWs) don't want people
> to join us who haven't made a full inquiry so that they
> are sure they are acting based on a knowledge of the
> truth. This up-front inquiry has been a feature of our
> faith right from its (modern-day) beginning -- and we
> dare say it was a first-century feature of Christianity
> too.
>
> But, should a person be "allowed", or encouraged, after having
> joined, to develop severe doubts about the most fundamental
> aspects of our faith and practice? Well, how would you
> answer this about your own faith, Bob?
I just did see previous.
At what point does
> the 'right to question everything' become a loss of faith in
> the truth and possibly even a deflection into apostasy (or
> heresy)? And what does the Bible itself say? Does it too
> encourage a true Christian to "question their religion" to
> the point of questioning the validity of its most basic
> tenets?
>
> It's one thing to grump that you personally can't seem
> to get anywhere with Jehovah's Witnesses (as they can't
> seem to get anywhere with you). But it's another thing
> to make assertions about the need to 'question everything'
> without either holding your own faith to the same standard,
> or draw a clear line between questioning to improve one's
> faith and questioning which may ultimately lead to a loss
> of faith [for don't forget, as you yourself quoted, Satan
> is the god of this world and not only blinds the world,
> but seeks to draw Christians back into the world by 'reblinding'
> them, does he not?].
>
Wow, that's a long long sentence. Again, what's wrong with testing
everything against the Bible. I'm not afraid to do that and I encourage it.
> >
> > Again, this post was not intended for JW's.
>
> Sorry, but my newsreader doesn't screen out posts
> not intended for JWs. You'll have to be more explicit,
> perhaps marking your posts "JWs - do not read!".
>
From now on I will label every message, Not for JW's. Ha ha
You shouldn't be so quickly offended. You are here in a Christian
newsgroup. I don't see any JW's conducting discussions here or having bible
studies. So, I wouldn't be so offended. If I don't want to be offended by
atheists then I would not go to an atheist newgroup. If you don't want to
be offended....
> > If you want to discuss things then we can give it a try. I should be
able
> > to respond every few days or so.
>
> Like I said before, I'm (slowly) working on replies
> to the original post of 73 questions. I'll e-mail my
> replies to anyone who expresses interest in them via
> e-mail.
>
> >
> > Bob
> >
> > Here is a portion quoted from the book "Kingdom of the Cults".
>
> 'Thanks' for the quote, but I'm not interested in
> being pummeled by professional Witness bashers (or
> by their quotes) right at this moment. At this point
> in my life there's almost nothing that the full-time
> anti-JWs have said that I haven't heard before and
> investigated (to my own satisfaction, at least), so,
> to be blunt, it's pointless for you to bother with
> such tactics against me.
See, Mark, you take everything as critisizm. The portion I pasted is about
the famous John 1:1 verse that JW's always like to point to. It was not
bashing, it was not anti-JW and it wasn't a tactic. But I don't think you
would ever believe me anyway.
I am sorry that you won't even listen to an opposing view. I do feel sorry
for you and I will pray for you. However you seem angry and it seems you
want to lash out to defend your religion.
>
> Your action of tossing this quote in my direction,
> however, tends to support my contention that viewing
> JWs as "brainwashed" goes hand-in-hand with a disposition
> (or prejudice) to view us as other than real people,
> but instead, to view us merely as 'enemy targets'
> that are only worthy of a good 'shelling' -- the goal
Boy, are you full of anger. I didn't target you at all. Your
characterization is ridiculous. Your turning into a "basher".
> being not to convince us, but merely to leave us
> in a smoldering heap of ruin (and to give yourself
> something to cheer about - you know, the way the
> audience is made to cheer when the enemy gets creamed
> in a good war movie).
>
"smoldering heap of ruin"? Boy, you are going way to far here.
"war movie"? Wow, what can I say?
> Plus, passing along cut-and-pastes from such works
> doesn't prove to me that YOU, Bob, possess the
> Bible knowledge or teaching skill to personally
> convince me that what you believe is true, and it
> certainly doesn't prove to me (or any JW) that you really
> have any interest in a making a personal effort to
> do so.
Wow, I didn't know that I had to prove to "YOU" that I was a scholar. I
don't have to be a scholar. Jesus didn't pick scholars to be his disciples.
He told us we were to be witnesses not scholars. So I told you what I
witnessed. I was lost, I searched, I asked God to direct me to the truth,
He did.
>
> Now, I don't mean to turn this into a personal attack
> on you, Bob ... you just happened to step forward
> and express a common negative opinion of JWs when
> I was 'passing by' to pick up on it ... as it's really
> the general attitude [that literature like the Kingdom
> of the Cults encourages] I'm taking issue with.
>
You are making it personal. But this is supposed to be a discussion that is
personal. It just doesn't need attacks. What's wrong with the article I
pasted? Nothing! It is a pretty clear explaination that the JW point of
view is wrong. I guess that got your dander up and think that you can take
your revenge against me. It is clear that most people think that JW's have
gone too far. But most people won't listen to my view of the gospel either.
JW's give the impression that they nit pik verses apart. They use a corrupt
version of the Bible that no Greek scholar recognizes as being accurate. If
these views offend you don't take it out on me. That seems to be a general
public view that most people have. I WAS willing to discuss things with
you. You state that all I am doing is throwing a quote in your direction
etc. You talk about "smoldering heap of ruin" and "war movies". I think
that you are a "basher" yourself when you go way over the edge like that.
>
> I appreciate your invitation to "discuss things". I'm
> up for that. But I think I'd first like to tackle
> the initial 73 questions, which perhaps can then serve
> as a springboard of discussion. On the other hand,
> if you're really not interested in my attempt to
> answer them, just say so, and I'll bother you no more
> (unless you live in my town, in which case I might
> accidently come to your door :-).
>
> -mark.
>
I think we should just end it and agree to disagree.
Bob
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_d6.2ec4904.27cdc230_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A number of post between Mark and Bob regarding respect for the JW, while I=20
hope that all would show respect for the individual JW, it is hard to respec=
t=20
the organization.
As an organization there are so many areas where the organization has shown=20
itself=20
to be not an organization that gets it teaching from Yahweh, or Jehovah.=20
=A0Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower publication=
s=20
has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the world was coming to an=20
end or some other prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or 1975.=20
=A0Forget even that in WW II when the=20
Watch Tower while not choosing a particular year spoke of the coming end wit=
h=20
in the coming months.=20
Forget even how the organization has tried to separate itself from its=20
founder Pastor
Charles Russell. =A0This is despite the fact that prior to 1927, in more tha=
n=20
one Watch Tower publication he was referred to as filling the office of the=20
wise and faithful servant. =A0Forget even that the founding _Reasoning From=20=
the=20
Scriptures_ was written by Russell,
and still constitute the core of today's JW teaching. =A0This publication fr=
om=20
a man who was proven in a court of law to be a grifter and a fraud, who sold=
=20
supposed "miracle grain seed." =A0A man who in a court of law, during his ow=
n=20
testimony was proven that he did not have any knowledge of biblical Greek or=
=20
Hebrew, yet claim the ability to translate scripture.
As I say forget all that and just focus in on how the organization has=20
misrepresented the writing of legitimate bible scholars in order to arrive a=
t=20
their failed translation and teaching regarding John chapter 1. =A0In=20
particular Philip B. Harner, and his now famous=20
article in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, who contrary as is=20
represented said that =A0
"the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to meant that "the Word (Jesus=
)=20
was God in the same sense as the Father." =A0We culd also examine the=20
misrepresentation and misquoting Of Julius R. Mantey, author of _The Manual=20
Grammar of the Greek New
Testament_. =A0The misquoting of John L. McKenzie to make it appear that he=20
supported the _New World Translation_ of John 1. 1, taking a small portion o=
f=20
his statement out of=20
context to make it appear that Jesus was less than Yahweh when in fact he=20
calls Yahweh a divine personal being, the same as Jesus. =A0=A0
How can anyone have respect for an organization who claims to speak for=20
Jehovah, Himself, but plays so fast and loose with the way it misrepresent=20
honest scholars? =A0=A0
Sabbatismos
--part1_d6.2ec4904.27cdc230_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>A number of post between=20=
Mark and Bob regarding respect for the JW, while I=20
<BR>hope that all would show respect for the individual JW, it is hard to re=
spect=20
<BR>the organization.
<BR>As an organization there are so many areas where the organization has sh=
own=20
<BR>itself=20
<BR>to be not an organization that gets it teaching from Yahweh, or Jehovah.=
=20
<BR>=A0Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower publica=
tions=20
<BR>has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the world was coming to=20=
an=20
<BR>end or some other prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or 19=
75.=20
<BR>=A0Forget even that in WW II when the=20
<BR>Watch Tower while not choosing a particular year spoke of the coming end=
with=20
<BR>in the coming months.=20
<BR>
<BR>Forget even how the organization has tried to separate itself from its=20
<BR>founder Pastor
<BR>Charles Russell. =A0This is despite the fact that prior to 1927, in more=
than=20
<BR>one Watch Tower publication he was referred to as filling the office of=20=
the=20
<BR>wise and faithful servant. =A0Forget even that the founding _Reasoning F=
rom the=20
<BR>Scriptures_ was written by Russell,
<BR>and still constitute the core of today's JW teaching. =A0This publicatio=
n from=20
<BR>a man who was proven in a court of law to be a grifter and a fraud, who=20=
sold=20
<BR>supposed "miracle grain seed." =A0A man who in a court of law, during hi=
s own=20
<BR>testimony was proven that he did not have any knowledge of biblical Gree=
k or=20
<BR>Hebrew, yet claim the ability to translate scripture.
<BR>
<BR>As I say forget all that and just focus in on how the organization has=20
<BR>misrepresented the writing of legitimate bible scholars in order to arri=
ve at=20
<BR>their failed translation and teaching regarding John chapter 1. =A0In=20
<BR>particular Philip B. Harner, and his now famous=20
<BR>article in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, who contrary as is=20
<BR>represented said that =A0
<BR>"the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to meant that "the Word (J=
esus)=20
<BR>was God in the same sense as the Father." =A0We culd also examine the=20
<BR>misrepresentation and misquoting Of Julius R. Mantey, author of _The Man=
ual=20
<BR>Grammar of the Greek New
<BR>Testament_. =A0The misquoting of John L. McKenzie to make it appear that=
he=20
<BR>supported the _New World Translation_ of John 1. 1, taking a small porti=
on of=20
<BR>his statement out of=20
<BR>context to make it appear that Jesus was less than Yahweh when in fact h=
e=20
<BR>calls Yahweh a divine personal being, the same as Jesus. =A0=A0
<BR>
<BR>How can anyone have respect for an organization who claims to speak for=20
<BR>Jehovah, Himself, but plays so fast and loose with the way it misreprese=
nt=20
<BR>honest scholars? =A0=A0
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos</FONT></HTML>
--part1_d6.2ec4904.27cdc230_boundary--
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
> >
> > Ah, well ... you never know who might be passing by in
> > newsgroups (which are quite public). I'm sure you wouldn't
> > have said what you did to my face, but I think it indicates
> > that privately you harbor little respect for JWs.
> >
>
> Sorry Mark, It's not a lack of respect. It's called pity. I truely feel
> sorry for you. I ask God to stop satan from blinding you.
Thanks Bob.
> > What you mean to say is that it appears to YOU that
> > JWs are brainwashed.
> >
> I see you like to use caps. Sorry, Mark but I'm not the only one who feels
> that YOU are brainwashed. You seem to react to the word brainwashed as
> being a put down. Actually very smart people are capable of being
> brainwashed. I don't understand why you think it is so offensive. I
> believe that you have got it wrong. That it is an eternal decision that you
> have wrong. And that you will regret it for eternity. So I feel sorry for
> you.
I'll let you in on a secret, Bob ... this isn't
the first time I've heard people say they think
JWs are brainwashed. But my faith isn't based on
popular opinion, so it doesn't really matter to
me how many feel I am brainwashed. My main point
in commenting was simply to point out that your
remarks promote a prejudice that justifies treating
JWs with a measure of disrespect that, so far, you
haven't otherwise repudiated.
I do agree, whoever, that very smart people are
capable of being brainwashed. If we're just talking
about possibilities, you could be brainwashed too.
That I commented at all doesn't mean I was offended.
But, if that's your way of offering an apology, I
accept.
I also agree that the issues at stake have eternal
ramifications. I can understand your regret and
sorrow as that's the way JWs feel about you. Regardless
of how previous encounters with JWs that you've
had worked out, I'm fairly certain that that's
what motivated them to come to your door.
>
> > But funny you should mention this scripture, as
> > JWs like me feel that it applies to you. So, how
> > about that?
>
> So, how about what? You think that I am blinded by satan. I guess then
> that millions of us evangelical protestant Christians have all got it wrong.
You yourself effectively say that millions of Catholics have
got it wrong, so how is my view that millions of you evangelical
protestant Christians have got it all wrong all that much
different?
Besides, "evangelical protestant Christians" aren't a single,
unified bloc. At times they may emphasize things they have in
common or unite against a common enemy, but the divisions
among evangelical protestants indicates that each division
feels the others "have got it wrong" in some respects - enough
to justify the divisions, in any case.
Furthermore, what happens to all (besides JWs and Catholics
whom you have already rejected) who do not profess to be
evangelical protestant Christians? Suppose they are only
protestant Christians, but not evangelicals?
> That only YOU through your englightenment from a recently created religion
> has got it right. What happens to all the people who lived before Russell
> came along?
What happens to all the people who lived before the
recently created evangelical protestant Christian movement
came along? Even if you can trace any form of protestantism
to a time prior to Russell, protestantism still had a
beginning well past the middle ages. And, surely you aren't
arguing that a measure of antiquity is the decisive factor
in measuring what is true, are you? After all, the Catholic
church was around longer than your "enlightenment", too,
and you have already rejected it.
But to answer your question directly, what happens to all the
people who lived before Russell came along is up to God and
Christ, JWs believe that the vast majority of mankind (who
died long ago) will be brought back to life on earth in the
"resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Act 24:15).
At that time, any who died in ignorance will have an opportunity to
learn the truth in perfect circumstances. What their future
beyond that point is will be determined by their choices at that
time.
So it doesn't really matter to us if those before Russell got
it right, wrong, or somewhere in between. What's most important
is for the living to be prepared when God brings judgment upon
the world. What happens to those who die beforehand is up to God
and Christ to decide.
> > I do agree with you, however, that Jesus Christ
> > doesn't 'call a person' to make a part-time committment
> > to following him, and doesn't offer salvation as
> > though it is something merely to be sampled like
> > a piece of candy in a free-sample display, with
> > mere token visits to church.
>
> I thought you believe that Jesus is an alias for the archangel Michael. Why
> would an angel offer salvation?
My goodness, that's quite a context switch.
I don't believe I or any JW ever said Jesus was an
"alias" for the archangel Michael. But, for your
information, the belief that Michael was the heavenly
identity of Christ is very ancient, and dates back to
the writings of the church 'fathers'. E.W. Hengstenberg's
_Christology of the Old Testament_ provides quite a bit
of evidence on this [but you have to read the unabridged
version - the abridged version cuts a lot of this
interesting stuff out].
As you probably know, Michael was identified as the heavenly
"prince" of Israel (Dan 10:3 NASB). Daniel chp 12 is
understood by Jewish and Christian scholars alike as being
set in the 'end times'. Verse one reads:
"Now at that time Michael, the great prince who
stands guard over the sons of your people, will
arise. And there will be a time of distress such
as never occurred since there was a nation until
that time; and at that time your people, everyone
who is found written in the book, will be rescued."
(NASB)
Like it or not, the Bible makes it clear that Michael is
directly involved in the "rescue" or salvation of God's
people in the time of the end, saving them from the
"distress" that Jesus, when on earth, called the "great
tribulation" (Matt 24:21 RSV). The expression that Michael
"will arise" or "stand up" (NKJV) signifies his acting
with commanding authority.
The Bible doesn't say Michael (even if viewed as a 'mere
angel') "offers" salvation -- it says that as the "guard
over the sons of your people", who would obviously be
faithful Christians in the last day, he is "arises" to
rescue or "deliver" (NIV) them. To me, that is identical
to the action that the NT says Jesus will take when
saving God's people.
Even if you choose to insist that Michael and the risen
Christ are distinct, you can't negate the truth that
Daniel foretells Michael's prominant involvement in the
salvation of God's people through the great tribulation,
that even Jesus himself said that his "angels" were actively
involved in the "harvest" at "the end of the age" (Matt 13:39ff
NASB), and Paul wrote that on the day of judgment the
"Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his
might angels" (2Th 1:7 NASB). So there's every good
reason to respect the role of angels in the salvation
of mankind.
I could say more, but let me ask you this, Bob -- do you
believe that Jesus appeared to faithful men before he
came to earth? If so, can you cite me which appearances
you believe were Jesus?
> >
> > The Bible gives evidence that the first Christians were
> > willing to discuss (and learn about) other viewpoints
> > [i.e., pagan ones] to a certain extent, but there's no
> > evidence that they'd ever agree to actually enter a temple
> > of false worship to see what was going on.
> >
> Well, the JW's I spoke with agreed to go to my temple of false worship as
> you call it. They were liars. My friend and I made it extremely clear,
> that is extremely clear, that it was a quid pro quo exchange. They agreed
> to attend. Maybe I should capitalize that sentence. I can only say what
> happened. They lied.
Then, at the very least, they made a serious mistake.
But what you describe here only involves those individuals.
There's no sense trying to pin the rap for what they
said, did, or didn't do on me or all JWs. They're accountable
on their own for any broken 'agreements' they made with
you.
Additionally, at first they may have been sincere in
offering to attend your church, but thought better of
it later. So, it may have been a broken agreement, but
it doesn't prove that right from the outset they were
deliberately lying to you.
> > I'm a little surprised to read that they actually
> > agree to attend your church (perhaps you misunderstood
> > them), but I'm not surprised that they didn't. I
> > wouldn't trade my meeting time at the Kingdom Hall for
> > time at another church. But then, again, I'm not
> > searching as you once were. And we don't typically
> > treat our message as though it is something only
> > to 'swap' for someone else's viewpoint.
> >
> Yea, I guess if they said they would attend my church then that couldn't be
> possible. I must have misunderstood them. Your making excuses. They lied
> to me and to my friend. I was there, we made an agreement, we complied with
> our portion of the agreement, they didn't. They made no attempt to comply
> and they made no excuse even thought you do now.
See above. Maybe at first they did intend to visit
your church. But maybe after spending more time with
you, the way you interacted with them gave them second
thoughts, and they decided it was better for them just
to break their agreement (without even making excuses
to you) and leave you be.
If so, I can see why they might have felt that way.
> I spent a lot of time with them. Don't tell me what was said or wasn't
> said. You were not there.
Who's angry now? Still touchy about this, I see.
Since you are the real Christian who feels so sorry
for us, you should find it in your heart to be
a bit more magnanimous with your Christ-like forgiveness.
After all, your claim is that all JWs are being mislead
by Satan. Thus, you shouldn't take it so personally that
you couldn't get them to your church.
> >
> I told you little about myself to let you know that I did not accept my
> "new" religion without a through search first. It was stated to let you
> know a little about myself and to let you know that I did not accept
> Evangelical Christianity just because I was told about it once.
Good ... but what you say about yourself is what many
who become JWs say about themselves, too, that they didn't
decide to join JWs "just because [they were] told about
it once."
And, of course, this doesn't mean that you still couldn't
be brainwashed yourself, as brainwashing often takes more
than one "rinse", no?
> If my invitation to them held no swaying power then they should have been
> truthful right up front. They were willing to gree to terms they knew that
> they would not keep just to get us to their bible studies. What word would
> you use here?
I quite agree that they should have been more truthful
(if truthfulness is really an issue). If they made this
agreement, then at the very least it was an error in judgment.
But how about your motives? Did you make the agreement
just to get them to go to your church? Since I'm guessing
that you probably had no intention of considering JW
teachings as a possibility of being true, why did you
attend their meetings and make the offer yourself?
By attending their meeting, were you merely leading them
on in the hopes that they would attend your church?
What word would you use here?
> > It's one thing to "test the Scriptures" on individual
> > matters of doctrine, to see if one's understanding needs
> > correction and/or refinement, but it's another thing to
> > "test the Scriptures" to question one's entire religion
> > [i.e., the entire framework of belief and practice].
> >
> What's wrong with questioning your "entire" religion? If my pastor started
> teaching or quoting false doctrine which is contrary to the Bible he would
> find an empty church or be removed from office.
This scenario isn't a form of questioning your
entire religion. It is based on the notion that
you and your congregation already have a firm grasp
on what your "religion" is, what you believe the truth
to be, which in turns gives you the ability to spot
serious deflection in an instant. In the case you spin
above, you really aren't questioning your "religion" but
only your pastor's faithfulness to it. That you'd be willing
to get up and go (in this scenario) only means that
you'd go look for some other pastor who teaches what
you already believe.
>
> > Bob, do YOU, on a regular basis, question your entire
> > religion, and entertain doubts that the most fundamental
> > things that you've learned and accepted to be true
> > about Christianity are false? Even though you did it
> > once before (as a Catholic), do you do it even now, now
> > that you are (as you believe) a true Christian?
> >
> Mark, Do YOU ever question your relgion? Are you afraid to? Have you
> invested to much time and effort into it? Yes, I have entertained doubts
> about certain doctrines. I have changed my mind about certain doctrines in
> the Protestant beliefs. But you see whether or not I believe in these
> doctrines or not does not effect my Salvation which has been already
> established.
Let me make the obvious even more plain to you Bob.
The fact that I've publically expressed a willingness
to tackle Robert Si's 73 'questions' about my religion
proves that I'm NOT "afraid" to consider questions
that challenge my beliefs.
You clearly don't know me, Bob, or know that in years
past I spent quite a lot of time considering and answering
critical questions about my beliefs on the usenet,
including posts to this very group.
You also don't know that while in college, before I
decided to become a baptized Witness, that I had
some non-trivial association (run-ins) with the
evangelical protestant Christian 'campus crusaders'
who were not only VERY critical of JW beliefs, but
were quite aggressive toward me personally, in their
'loving efforts' to get me to see the error of JWs.
Have I ever wondered if certain accusations were true?
I don't think I ever was struck by any of them to the
point of feeling I'd been misled, but I can state for
a fact that some questions sure made me do a lot of
digging, to prove (or reprove) to myself the (overall)
truthfulness of my beliefs.
> > But, should a person be "allowed", or encouraged, after having
> > joined, to develop severe doubts about the most fundamental
> > aspects of our faith and practice? Well, how would you
> > answer this about your own faith, Bob?
>
> I just did see previous.
Thanks for the response.
> >
> > It's one thing to grump that you personally can't seem
> > to get anywhere with Jehovah's Witnesses (as they can't
> > seem to get anywhere with you). But it's another thing
> > to make assertions about the need to 'question everything'
> > without either holding your own faith to the same standard,
> > or draw a clear line between questioning to improve one's
> > faith and questioning which may ultimately lead to a loss
> > of faith [for don't forget, as you yourself quoted, Satan
> > is the god of this world and not only blinds the world,
> > but seeks to draw Christians back into the world by 'reblinding'
> > them, does he not?].
> >
> Wow, that's a long long sentence. Again, what's wrong with testing
> everything against the Bible. I'm not afraid to do that and I encourage it.
I don't think I ever disagreed that there
was anything wrong with 'testing everything
against the Bible'. In my experience, JWs do
a pretty good job of that. That is probably
exactly why you don't seem to get anywhere with
JWs, because they have done such a thorough
job of testing their beliefs against the Bible
that (to them) your points of contention simply
fall flat.
[Of course, you might have more success with
any JWs who haven't been as thorough as they
should have been in their studies.]
---
More than a few people know that at least from
a top-down perspective, the entire JW organization
has changed its views on a number of matters, and
it goes without saying that when individuals leave
one religion to become JWs they change their minds
on many things.
But let me ask you more about yourself Bob.
Which Protestant beliefs did you question and
change your mind on? And how many of those beliefs
were absolutely core to your beliefs, as opposed
to being 'fine details' that one might expect to
make adjustment on?
Going from the Catholic church to a protestant one
didn't change your position on the trinity,
the soul, or hellfire, did it? If not, to what
extent did you ever put these particular beliefs
to the test?
>
> > >
> > > Again, this post was not intended for JW's.
> >
> > Sorry, but my newsreader doesn't screen out posts
> > not intended for JWs. You'll have to be more explicit,
> > perhaps marking your posts "JWs - do not read!".
> >
> From now on I will label every message, Not for JW's. Ha ha
Yes, Ha ha indeed.
> You shouldn't be so quickly offended.
Thanks; and I wasn't. (You shouldn't be so quick
to assume that I am offended.)
> You are here in a Christian
> newsgroup.
The newsgroup is labled soc.religion.christian.bible-study,
but I know for a fact that over the years many flavors
of 'Christian beliefs' have been discussed in it. One of the
things I've appreciated about the moderator is that he
has been (at least in my opinion) fairly even-handed in
passing along posts from people of various faiths which
differ, even though each one considers itself to be 'true
Christian'.
> I don't see any JW's conducting discussions here or having bible
> studies. So, I wouldn't be so offended. If I don't want to be offended by
> atheists then I would not go to an atheist newgroup. If you don't want to
> be offended....
I don't expect to see any (or many) JWs conducting
discussion here or having Bible studies. But you
shouldn't expect that no JWs will ever drop by.
And again I'm not offended in the least. I hope
that doesn't dissappoint you.
> See, Mark, you take everything as critisizm. The portion I pasted is about
> the famous John 1:1 verse that JW's always like to point to. It was not
> bashing, it was not anti-JW and it wasn't a tactic. But I don't think you
> would ever believe me anyway.
Bob, let's be realistic. Something as blatantly
directed against JW beliefs as your quote on John 1:1
isn't anything BUT a "criticism"; however whether
I want to take it personally or not is up to me.
We both know John 1:1 happens to be a verse that LOTS
of people (including non-JWs) "like to point to" for
one reason or another. However, it's often the case
that the 'pointing' is very one-sided. I won't say
that there are no JWs who aren't guilty of having a
less-than-mind-numbingly-complete grasp of all the
issues which have ever been raised about this verse.
BUT, if I had a nickel for every less-than-comprehensive,
one-sided, anti-JW/pro-trinity 'treatment' of this verse
that I've ever seen, I might not be able to retire early,
but I'd still have a lot of nickels.
You say were weren't "bashing" or being "anti-JW"
or using a "tactic". I could find reason to believe
you are sincere, that you really believe this, but
it wouldn't change my mind one bit that the prejudice
that allows you to freely assert that JWs are
"brainwashed" blinds you from realizing that you
are coming across in this way. Perhaps it's so
ingrained that it's reflex.
>
> I am sorry that you won't even listen to an opposing view. I do feel sorry
> for you and I will pray for you. However you seem angry and it seems you
> want to lash out to defend your religion.
If I seem angry, maybe it's the limits of
the medium we're using. Or maybe it's some
other limits.
Do you feel "lashed out" against because I
caught you by surprise by posting a response?
Maybe you're the one who is angry (at me) --
or are still angry at those JWs who broke their
agreement to go to your church.
I'm willing to 'poll the audience', though, and
ask if others feel I "lashed out" - though the reply
I've seen by Don Stanwyck would suggest otherwise.
Or we could drop this rather pointless digression
on feelings and get back to the issues of greater
importance.
> >
> > Your action of tossing this quote in my direction,
> > however, tends to support my contention that viewing
> > JWs as "brainwashed" goes hand-in-hand with a disposition
> > (or prejudice) to view us as other than real people,
> > but instead, to view us merely as 'enemy targets'
> > that are only worthy of a good 'shelling' -- the goal
>
> Boy, are you full of anger. I didn't target you at all. Your
> characterization is ridiculous. Your turning into a "basher".
Boy, are you misreading me completely.
I might, however, plead guilty to an excess
of hyperbole for the sake of getting a reaction,
to see how practiced you are at demonstrating
the "fruits of the spirit" (Gal 5:22,23), as I
know that they are more comprehensive than
mere sorrow and pity.
>
> > being not to convince us, but merely to leave us
> > in a smoldering heap of ruin (and to give yourself
> > something to cheer about - you know, the way the
> > audience is made to cheer when the enemy gets creamed
> > in a good war movie).
> >
> "smoldering heap of ruin"? Boy, you are going way to far here.
> "war movie"? Wow, what can I say?
See above.
>
> > Plus, passing along cut-and-pastes from such works
> > doesn't prove to me that YOU, Bob, possess the
> > Bible knowledge or teaching skill to personally
> > convince me that what you believe is true, and it
> > certainly doesn't prove to me (or any JW) that you really
> > have any interest in a making a personal effort to
> > do so.
>
> Wow, I didn't know that I had to prove to "YOU" that I was a scholar. I
> don't have to be a scholar. Jesus didn't pick scholars to be his disciples.
> He told us we were to be witnesses not scholars. So I told you what I
> witnessed. I was lost, I searched, I asked God to direct me to the truth,
> He did.
I didn't claim you had to prove you were a "scholar",
but only that you yourself actually know what the issues
are and can yourself convey them (if boiled down in
lay-terms) in a convincing (and even a 'Christian') manner.
I mean, we are talking about "brainwashing", right?
A brainwashed person cannot speak for himself, and
typically relies exessively on 'quotes from authorities'
to do his talking, right?
Anyone can cut-and-paste large quotes from anti-JW
literature, just as I could (but won't) cut-and-paste
quotes from Watchtower publications to let the
quotes do all my talking for me (which wouldn't prove
that I really knew anything myself, or was really
concerned with a real dialogue with you as an
individual).
I also agree 100% that Jesus didn't pick scholars to
be his disciples, which makes it all the more ironic
when literature like the Kingdom of the Cults purports
to represent the allegedly unassailable view of 'scholars'
to argue against JW views.
In fact, Bob, if you are called to be a witness, and not
a scholar, then why did you not "witness" to me about
John 1:1 on your own instead of quoting at length the
KotC with its heavy reliance on the word of a judiciously
picked handful of scholars? By your very use of this
rather lengthy quote, how can you deny having to rely
on 'scholars' to bear witness to (or against) JWs in
place of doing so yourself?
Have you done any research at all into this quote
yourself? Just to take one item from the many, do you
know for yourself what other (more recent) scholars
have said about E.C. Colwell's 'rule' about
John 1:1, which pretty much renders appeal to Colwell
against JWs pointless (or at least highly questionable)?
Have you done any research yourself into works by
pro-trinity scholars which completely disproves the
assertion that the NWT's rendition of John 1:1 is
"ungrammatical"?
I have. And the truth is that grammer is NOT the issue.
Theology is.
Forgive me for being even blunter than I may have been
already, but if God was truly directing you to "the truth",
he wouldn't have directed you to the one-sided _Kingdom
of the Cults_.
> >
> > Now, I don't mean to turn this into a personal attack
> > on you, Bob ... you just happened to step forward
> > and express a common negative opinion of JWs when
> > I was 'passing by' to pick up on it ... as it's really
> > the general attitude [that literature like the Kingdom
> > of the Cults encourages] I'm taking issue with.
> >
> You are making it personal. But this is supposed to be a discussion that is
> personal. It just doesn't need attacks. What's wrong with the article I
> pasted? Nothing!
I didn't notice anything like the following:
Bob> Mark, I've done lots of reading about JWs. May
I share a rather lengthy quote from _the Kingdom of
the Cults_ with you on John 1:1, and get your response?
I can only speak for myself, but your total lack
of 'Christian grace' and good manners was simply
appalling.
> It is a pretty clear explaination that the JW point of
> view is wrong.
It is 'clear' that it is a one-side explanation of
why Walter Martin (and his revisers) think the JW
point of view is wrong.
But Martin's whole thrust attempting to prove that
grammar is the issue is just dead wrong. Grammar
justifies the JW rendition. The issue, again, is
one of theology -- which grammatically correct
rendition among many accurately conveys what John
originally (the theologically) had in mind.
> I guess that got your dander up and think that you can take
> your revenge against me. It is clear that most people think that JW's have
> gone too far. But most people won't listen to my view of the gospel either.
I think I got your dander up.
I'm not really interested in what "most people"
think about JWs.
I am, however, glad to see that you have experience
with people (and presumably not just JWs) not listening
to your view of the gospel. Perhaps there's hope that
this experience *might* make you more willing to
listen to others whose view you don't agree with.
> JW's give the impression that they nit pik verses apart.
That could be true, that some JWs give that impression --
but this is a rhetorical argument that cuts both ways.
Just about any scholarly work that purports to analyze
Bible verses to get down to the 'real meaning' could be
accused of 'nit-picking' verses apart.
What justifies calling JWs nit-pickers but NOT calling
evangelical Christains the same when they go to the
same lengths to explain the 'proper translation'
of parts of key Bible verses?
Really, that's just name-calling.
> They use a corrupt
> version of the Bible that no Greek scholar recognizes as being accurate.
Let's see ... let me scroll back several lines and
quote you directly, Bob:
"Jesus didn't pick scholars to be his disciples.
He told us we were to be witnesses not scholars."
Are you speaking out of both sides of your mouth, or
what?
Wouldn't it be logical to assume, given what you just
said, that if Jesus' true disciples, in modern times,
produced a Bible translation, it *just might reflect
the fact* that "Jesus didn't pick scholars to be
his disciples"?
> If
> these views offend you don't take it out on me. That seems to be a general
> public view that most people have. I WAS willing to discuss things with
> you. You state that all I am doing is throwing a quote in your direction
> etc. You talk about "smoldering heap of ruin" and "war movies". I think
> that you are a "basher" yourself when you go way over the edge like that.
You are the one who is offended, Bob.
If so, I truly am sorry that I offended you.
But what I see is you relying on the opinions
of "most people", plus a 'bad experience' (that
strikes me as showing a lack of wisdom on the
part of all involved), to formulate and justify
a highly prejudicial view of JWs as a whole.
Why get your back up, Bob, instead of accepting
the possibility that, from at least a personal
standpoint, you could be wrong in your view of
JWs as individuals? Does not a woman or a black
person or the member of any minority know prejudice
and/or discrimination when they see it, hear it,
and/or experience it? Well, isn't it concievable
that a passing JW might know it when he sees it,
too, even when it's coming from you?
Why can't you say, "You know, I didn't realize I
was coming across that way?"
I know I've had plenty of practicing coming to
this conclusion. Why is it so hard for you?
> >
> > I appreciate your invitation to "discuss things". I'm
> > up for that. But I think I'd first like to tackle
> > the initial 73 questions, which perhaps can then serve
> > as a springboard of discussion. On the other hand,
> > if you're really not interested in my attempt to
> > answer them, just say so, and I'll bother you no more
> > (unless you live in my town, in which case I might
> > accidently come to your door :-).
> >
> > -mark.
> >
> I think we should just end it and agree to disagree.
Since you haven't sent me e-mail saying so,
it would seem you really aren't interested in reading
my answers to the 73 questions.
Thus, despite my many questions above, it's OK by
me if you and I drop any further exchange between us.
But if you change your mind, let me know.
I'm willing to bet that I'm at least as willing to
forgive as you can be (cf. Matt 6:14).
-mark.
mark sornson
Sabba...@aol.com wrote in message <97j89m$guj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>
>--part1_d6.2ec4904.27cdc230_boundary
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>A number of post between Mark and Bob regarding respect for the JW, while
I=20
>hope that all would show respect for the individual JW, it is hard to
respec=
>t=20
>the organization.
I appreciate the vote in favor of respecting the individual.
I'm also familiar with a plethora of complaints against the
JW organization. But if it's fair to give high priority to
complaints against the JW organization, surely it's also
fair to give high priority to complaints against the organizations
that define the various denominations of Christendom,
and then ask whether it is equally easy to find reasons to
disrespect them.
Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of
government, except for every other form (perhaps I've
paraphrased - if there's a more correct quote, kudos to the
one who supplies it). Well ... I think one might justify
borrowing this phrase and applying it to whatever 'flavor'
of 'true Christianity' one cares to make one's own. Each
one can be criticized, so the question is, which one
can be criticized least? Or which one has pros which outweigh
or otherwise offset its cons?
Are you, Sabbatismo, actually inferring, if obliquely, that
your particular form of Christianity is truly pure and above
any fault which might cause others to find it hard to respect?
If so, I'd be keen to know which form it is, and what its
history is.
>As an organization there are so many areas where the organization has
shown=20
>itself=20
>to be not an organization that gets it teaching from Yahweh, or Jehovah.=20
A person with an ax to grind might look back on
the history of ancient Israel, and pick on the major
sins of King Saul, or the adultery of King David, or
his census sin which brought death upon tens of
thousands, or the gross sins of King Mannaseh, or
the sins of nearly all the kings of Judah, and infer just
from them alone that Israel was not gettings "its teachings
from Yahweh", because of the sinful behavior of these
individuals.
But obviously this is selective editing of all the facts.
A look at the 'big picture' puts those sins in perspective
and brings a person of faith to conclude that that ancient
'organization' did, indeed, originate with God, and was used
by him to accomplish his will, despite the serious flaws
of individuals that the Bible candidly preserves.
So ... are you, Sabbatismo, willing to consider the pluses
of JWs in addtion to the minuses? Or at the very least, are
you willing to be forthcoming about the things that reveal your
'church' to be less than perfect, so that others can assess them
with the same fairness that you assess the flaws (or alledged
flaws) of JWs?
>=A0Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower
publication=
>s=20
>has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the world was coming to
an=20
>end or some other prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or
1975.=20
>=A0Forget even that in WW II when the=20
>Watch Tower while not choosing a particular year spoke of the coming end
wit=
>h=20
>in the coming months.=20
Funny how you don't seem to be forgetting any of these
things at all.
And funny how you don't mention that the Bible itself
shows evidence that the Christians lived as though
the end was near. Paul wrote:
"The night is nearly over; the day is almost here ..."
(Rom 13:12 NIV)
"The God who gives peace will soon crush Satan
under your feet." (Rom 16:20 NIV)
And John's Revelation contains as part of its conclusion
this statement:
"... The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets,
sent his angel to show his servants the things that
must soon take place." (Rev 22:6 NIV)
And then there's the evidence in Paul's writings that some
clearly did have premature expectations, so that he
had to counsel them not to be "disturbed either by a
spirit [or prophesy - NIV] or a message or a letter
as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has
come." (2Th 2:2 NASB).
They might not have set dates in the first century, but
they clearly lived as though seeing the Lord's day was
a possibility in their lifetime (that it would come "soon").
And of course there is the command of Jesus for
his disciples to "be on the alert", and "be ready"
(Matt 24:42,44 NASB) for the "day your Lord is coming"
(v.42). That's equivalent to living every day as though
that day will be tomorrow.
>
>Forget even how the organization has tried to separate itself from its=20
>founder Pastor
>Charles Russell.
JWs are pretty realistic about Russell, in my opinion.
We still think, speak, and write highly of him.
But we don't view him as a prophet who dictated our
'starting tenets' the way Moses dictated the Law under
inspiration.
In our view Russell was the start of a progressive recovery
of the truth, which included a progressive acquisition of
understanding of Bible prophesies.
In the real world, people make true advancement by
a) making an effort to advance, and b) learning from
the mistakes one inevitably makes along the way.
Any group who claims 'we have no sin' is not only a
liar, but is probably not even making an effort to advance.
(cf 1John 1:8)
> =A0This is despite the fact that prior to 1927,
in more tha=
>n=20
>one Watch Tower publication he was referred to as filling the office of
the=20
>wise and faithful servant.
An idea that didn't really have that long of an existence,
and an idea they quickly got over. However, the Witnesses
who knew Russell personally surely felt that he was both
wise and faithful.
> =A0Forget even that the founding _Reasoning From=20=
>the=20
>Scriptures_ was written by Russell,
Wrong title. _Reasoning From the Scriptures_ is a modern
publication (from 1985). You must mean "Studies in the
Scriptures." [Would it be unsporting to say that this
error of yours suggests your own reliability in relaying the
facts about JWs is suspect?]
>and still constitute the core of today's JW teaching.
A specious over-generalization, especially since Witnesses
do not even keep them in print (though individuals may collect
them, if they can find them). Still, Witnesses retain the truths
taught by Russell that have stood the test of time, and leave
behind those that clearly were erroneous. There's nothing
intrinsically odious about that.
>=A0This publication fr=
>om=20
>a man who was proven in a court of law to be a grifter and a fraud, who
sold=
>=20
>supposed "miracle grain seed."
Actually he was NOT "proven in court" to have been a
"fraud" over the "miracle wheat" seed that some donated
to the Watchtower Society so that they could resell it
and keep the procedes in lieu of direct cash donations.
The whole miracle wheat thing is a mole-hill that was
made into a mountain by the anti-Russell (and later
anti-JW) press.
Aware of the criticism, however, Russell offerred a complete
refund of all funds connected with the wheat seed. No one
took him up on it, so evidently no one really felt defrauded.
=A0A man who in a court of law, during his ow=
>n=20
>testimony was proven that he did not have any knowledge of biblical Greek
or=
>=20
>Hebrew, yet claim the ability to translate scripture.
Russell never claimed the ability to translate scripture.
He never produced a translation, either (another common
mistaken notion). You are in error.
But, if you believe I am, please cite me the claim Russell
made of possessing the ability to translate scripture.
Give me an exact quote and a reference.
There's a brief article in the 1953 Watchtower that addresses
the above false charges. I'll send anyone a copy who asks
by e-mail (mark.s...@compaq.com).
>
>As I say forget all that and just focus in on how the organization has=20
>misrepresented the writing of legitimate bible scholars in order to arrive
a=
>t=20
>their failed translation and teaching regarding John chapter 1. =A0In=20
>particular Philip B. Harner, and his now famous=20
>article in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, who contrary as is=20
>represented said that =A0
>"the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to meant that "the Word
(Jesus=
>)=20
>was God in the same sense as the Father."
Again, an amazing display of 'forgetfullness.'
It just so happens that I have not forgotten that I possess
a copy of Harner's article. The WTS did not misrepresent
him when it fairly quoted his conclusion that "In John 1:1
I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so
prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Harner is explicitly refuting the conclusion of Collwell that
the anarthrous _theos_ is definite. The WTS agrees with
this particular refutation.
I also examined the entire article, and I cannot find the
quote that you present above, in these exact words.
Can you please cite me the page number so that I
can look again with closer scrutiny? I did, however, find
this statement that is very similar, and is a comment
on a quote by another scholar:
Bruce Vawter explains the meaning of the clause
succinctly and lucidly: "The Word is divine, but he
is not all of divinity, for he has already been distinguished
from another divine Person." But in terms of our
[that is Harner's] analysis it is important that we [i.e.,
Harner and the reader] understand the phrase "the
Word is divine" as an attempt to represent the meaning
of clause B [theos en ho logos, p.84] rather than D
[ho logos en theos] or E [ho logos en theios].
Undoubtedly Vawter means that the Word is "divine"
in the same sense that _ho theos_ is divine. But the
English language is not as versatile at this point as
Greek, and we can avoid misunderstanding the
English phrase only if we are aware of the particular
force of the Greek expression that it represents. [pp. 85-6]
Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
divine [=theos]" must be understood as meaning
"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
have to say that God [=ho theos] IS "all of divinity".
A thorough reading of Harner shows that he certainly
does believe in the trinity, and that John 1:1 supports
trinitarian notions, but he carefully qualifies his opinion
of how the anarthrous _theos_ should be understood
[so that it is NOT though of as "God" in the unqualified
sense that the English in and of itself conveys], with
it primarily being qualitative rather than definite.
Harner actually gives his opinion of how the clause
could be translated: "the Word had the same nature
as God." This certainly jibes with trinitarian thought
which attempts to justify the trinity doctrine, but it is
quite different than claiming that it means "the Word
was God" in the sense that "the Word" is being
personally identified with "God" ("theos" as though
it was interchangable with "ho theos").
=A0We culd also examine the=20
>misrepresentation and misquoting Of Julius R. Mantey, author of _The
Manual=20
>Grammar of the Greek New
>Testament_. =A0
I'd be happy to examine this allegation as I
possess a copy of this work as well.
I do, however, suggest that you examine your
own accusation first for complete accuracy.
> The misquoting of John L. McKenzie to make it appear that
he=20
>supported the _New World Translation_ of John 1. 1, taking a small portion
o=
>f=20
>his statement out of=20
>context to make it appear that Jesus was less than Yahweh when in fact
he=20
>calls Yahweh a divine personal being, the same as Jesus. =A0=A0
And, to complete a hat-trick of coincidence, I happen
to own a copy of this work as well.
The WTS has actually quoted him on a number of issues,
and has made it clear that he is a Jesuit scholar.
The quote you take issue with comes from the article
on "God" (pp 315-318). Most of the article is devoted
to the meaning of the words for God in the OT. The
section on the OT begins:
The existence of a divine being is never a
problem in the OT, and no discussion or
demonstration is required. This conviction
Israel shared with other peoples of the ancient
Near East; the difference between Israel and
these peoples turned on the identity of the
divine being, not upon his reality and existence.
McKenzie then goes on to eventually discuss
the identity of this divine being by the proper name
YHWH, or Yahweh.
In his section on the NT, he begins by saying:
"The word theos is used to designate the gods of
paganism. Normally the word with or without the
article designates the God of the Old Testament
and of Judaism, the God of Israel: Yahweh. But
the characteristic of God is revealed in an original
way in the NT; the originality is perhaps best
summed up by saying that God reveals Himself in
and through Jesus Christ. The revelation of God
in Jesus Christ does not consist merely in the
prophetic word as in the OT, but in an identity
between God and Jesus Christ. ... In Jesus the
personal reality of God is manifest in visible and
tangible form."
Except for one sentence that's the entire opening
paragraph. The quote you take issue with is in the
next paragraph, which reads:
In the words of Jesus and in much of the rest of
the NT the God of Israel (Gk ho theos) is the Father
of Jesus Christ. It is for this reason that the title
ho theos, which now designates the Father as a
personal reality, is not applied in the NT to Jesus
Himself; Jesus is the Son of God (of ho theos). This
is a matter of usage and not of rule, and the noun
is applied to Jesus a few times. Jn 1:1 should
rigorously be translated "the word was with God
[=the Father], and the word was a divine being."
...
McKenzie then cites Jn 20:28, Tt 2:13, Rm 9:5,
2Pt 1:1, with the possibility of including 1Jn 5:20,
as other instances where the noun theos is applied
to Jesus. I'm not going to address each of these
verses for issues I have with their interpretation --
but its sufficient to say that McKenzie doesn't cite
them to prove that Jesus and Yahweh share the
same identity.
His next paragraph deals with the fact that "The identity
of ho theos (theos) with the Father appears in a large
number of texs in which the word is joined with father ..."
He cites many of those texts which show "God sends
Jesus" ... "seals Him" ... "exalts Him" ... "God pardons
Jesus" ... "empowers Him" ... "reconciles in Him."
The paragraph after than begins by saying:
The revelation of God in and through Jesus Christ
is often expressed in the complete union of Jesus
with God and of the entire integregation of the mission
of Jesus with the will of God.
The remainder of the paragraph is citations which
support this [none of which are particularly objectionable
to JWs].
The last paragraph of the article says this:
In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word
of God is made flesh, but all of the saving attributes
of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is known in
a new and more intimately personal manner,
and through Him God is attained more nearly;
for He speaks of "my Father and your Father,
my God and your God" (Jn 20:17).
You state that the WT makes it "appear that Jesus
was less than Yahweh", but the truth is that McKenzie
himself does not equate Jesus with Yahweh himself,
but rather (primarily) proves that Jesus is linked with
Yahweh in a "complete union with God" in the sense
that his "mission" is clearly integrated with the
"will of God."
His concluding paragraph highlights the fact that
Yahweh's "attributes" were "made flesh" in the
person and personality of Jesus. But his final
sentence quotes Jesus as refering to his Father
[whom McKenzie says is the "God of Israel" --
obviously Yahweh from his previous section on the
OT] as "my God". Thus, the fact that Jesus'
Father, Yahweh, is his God, does, in fact, make
Jesus less than Yahweh.
You also seem to claim the "fact he calls Yahweh
a divine personal being, the same as Jesus"
means that McKenzie actually said that
Jesus was the same "divine personal being"
that Yahweh is. This is false. McKenzie only
says that Yahweh/the God of Israel is more
personally revealed through Jesus. Otherwise
Yahweh/the God of Israel is the father of Jesus.
McKenzie does clearly call both of them divine
beings, but he no more equates their identities as
being one and the same than saying that my son and I
are both human beings means that we share the
same identity. (Actually I have two sons ... but
the point is the same.)
All things considered, it's pretty amazing that
McKenzie AVOIDS dogmatic assertions that
Jesus is God or that he is Yahweh.
You should read McKenzie's article in that same
work on the Trinity, where he candidly admits,
"The belief as so defined was reached only
in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is
not explicitly and formally a biblical belief." (p.899)
>
>How can anyone have respect for an organization who claims to speak for=20
>Jehovah, Himself, but plays so fast and loose with the way it
misrepresent=20
>honest scholars? =A0=A0
How can anyone respect a critic who doesn't
accurately cite the sources he claims he is defending?
-mark.
Bob
> Besides, "evangelical protestant Christians" aren't a single,
> unified bloc. At times they may emphasize things they have in
> common or unite against a common enemy, but the divisions
> among evangelical protestants indicates that each division
> feels the others "have got it wrong" in some respects - enough
> to justify the divisions, in any case.
>
Sorry, Mark, you've got it wrong. Evangelical Christians all agree
that you must be born again to receive salvation. The doctrines they
disagree on does not change that fact. It doesn't matter what they
believe on periperal things.
> Furthermore, what happens to all (besides JWs and Catholics
> whom you have already rejected) who do not profess to be
> evangelical protestant Christians? Suppose they are only
> protestant Christians, but not evangelicals?
Again, Mark, all that matters is the salvation issue. The rest is
just personal preference. You can be wrong on the doctrine of
speaking in tongues etc as that just does not matter when it comes
to salvation. So if you are pentacostal evangelical or a prespyterian
evangelical
Christian it just does not matter. Shocking right.
> What happens to all the people who lived before the
> recently created evangelical protestant Christian movement
> came along?
Mark, You are re-writing history. You talk like it is some new movement.
>
> But to answer your question directly, what happens to all the
> people who lived before Russell came along is up to God and
> Christ, JWs believe that the vast majority of mankind (who
> died long ago) will be brought back to life on earth in the
> "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Act 24:15).
> At that time, any who died in ignorance will have an opportunity to
> learn the truth in perfect circumstances. What their future
> beyond that point is will be determined by their choices at that
> time.
>
So according to this then everyone will be able to make a second choice.
Gee, I wonder if anyone will make the wrong choice after getting a second
chance.
With this logic even Hitler can get into heaven.
> >
> > I thought you believe that Jesus is an alias for the archangel Michael.
Why
> > would an angel offer salvation?
>
> My goodness, that's quite a context switch.
Hey, your the one jumping around when it comes to contexts. Remember
"smoldering heap of ruin" etc etc
>
> I don't believe I or any JW ever said Jesus was an
> "alias" for the archangel Michael. But, for your
> information, the belief that Michael was the heavenly
> identity of Christ is very ancient, and dates back to
> the writings of the church 'fathers'. E.W. Hengstenberg's
> _Christology of the Old Testament_ provides quite a bit
> of evidence on this [but you have to read the unabridged
> version - the abridged version cuts a lot of this
> interesting stuff out].
So, is this where your theology comes from. Someone never heard of who wrote
a book. Why do you give him so much credibility. Because he agrees with
your
opinion. Sounds like you have picked and chosen someone who can justify
your
position. I can show you more books that will say that Hengstenberg is
wrong.
But that won't matter will it?
>
> Additionally, at first they may have been sincere in
> offering to attend your church, but thought better of
> it later. So, it may have been a broken agreement, but
> it doesn't prove that right from the outset they were
> deliberately lying to you.
I didn't pin the wrap on you or any other JW. I didn't break the
agreement. They did. All I have heard from you is one justification
after another. I must have misunderstood, or they changed their
mind, or ... or... or... or... or...
Do you want to give me the definition of what the word "is" is?
> > I spent a lot of time with them. Don't tell me what was said or wasn't
> > said. You were not there.
>
> Who's angry now? Still touchy about this, I see.
No, you just don't get it. You keep making excuses for them breaking
a promise. An agreement that they entered into. I have to keep repeating
myself. So maybe you think it sounds like I'm touchy, but I'm not. I just
have
to keep coming back to this over and over for you.
> Since you are the real Christian who feels so sorry
> for us, you should find it in your heart to be
> a bit more magnanimous with your Christ-like forgiveness.
> After all, your claim is that all JWs are being mislead
> by Satan. Thus, you shouldn't take it so personally that
> you couldn't get them to your church.
The written form definitely is not conducive to great communication.
After all studies show that the tone and body language communicate
at least 80% of the message. Thus only 20% of the communication
is getting through. So there is a lot of room for misunderstanding.
> But how about your motives? Did you make the agreement
> just to get them to go to your church? Since I'm guessing
> that you probably had no intention of considering JW
> teachings as a possibility of being true, why did you
> attend their meetings and make the offer yourself?
> By attending their meeting, were you merely leading them
> on in the hopes that they would attend your church?
Here we go again. They knew that my friend and I felt strongly
about our belief. We knew they felt strongly about their belief as
well. We both entered into a mutual agreement. They knew that my
friend and I also conducted street witnessing. So they were not
unaware of our strong beliefs.
> More than a few people know that at least from
> a top-down perspective, the entire JW organization
> has changed its views on a number of matters...
Yes, but why have they changed their views. I mean the
Bible doesn't change. Why would they have to change
their views? Because the prophecies for the end of the
world or the second comming didn't happen as predicted?
>
> But let me ask you more about yourself Bob.
> Which Protestant beliefs did you question and
> change your mind on...
Mark, Why should I bring these matters up with you?
After all you don't agree with me on anything so far. Why
bring up anything new.
> Going from the Catholic church to a protestant one
> didn't change your position on the trinity,
> the soul, or hellfire, did it?
Sure it did. There is some great differences between Catholic
beliefs and Evangelical beliefs. The Catholics are similar to
you JW's. They belief everyone will be saved after spending
some eons in pergatory paying the price of their own sin.
> know for yourself what other (more recent) scholars
> have said about E.C. Colwell's 'rule' about
> John 1:1, which pretty much renders appeal to Colwell
> against JWs pointless ...
I can find plenty of people who will say that your ec colwell is wrong.
So, now what?
> Forgive me for being even blunter than I may have been
> already, but if God was truly directing you to "the truth",
> he wouldn't have directed you to the one-sided _Kingdom
> of the Cults_.
I don't get it. You say I shouldn't be directed to the one sided
K of the C. but you constantly direct us to your "scholars" who are
one sided.
> I can only speak for myself, but your total lack
> of 'Christian grace' and good manners was simply
> appalling.
Well, well, well,
Coming from someone who talks about "smoldering heap of ruin"
"war movies" "shelling" the enemy and bashers. It sure sounds
funny that now you talk about grace and good manners.
Appalling, just appalling. :->
I'm taking a break from this for a few days as I have some projects to
work on. So if I don't reply, it's only because I'm unavailable for a
while.
It's been fun bashing it out with you. :-)
Bob
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_f9.7c6386e.27d1b73d_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I had to edit a great deal to keep the post on the major issues so as not
produce a reply that is to large to be managable, though I will try to reply
to all in a one on one.
M (Mark) ask :
> Are you, Sabbatismo, actually inferring, if obliquely, that
your particular form of Christianity is truly pure and above
any fault which might cause others to find it hard to respect?
If so, I'd be keen to know which form it is, and what its
> history is.
S:
No, I am not saying anything is pure and above fault, but what I am
saying that few are so erroneous as the JW organization.
M asked:
> So ... are you, Sabbatismo, willing to consider the pluses
of JWs in addtion to the minuses? Or at the very least, are
you willing to be forthcoming about the things that reveal your
'church' to be less than perfect, so that others can assess them
with the same fairness that you assess the flaws (or alledged
> flaws) of JWs?
S:
I am willing to consider the plus and minuses of the organization,
but how I can I not be impressed by the way the JWO has so distorted
the truth of the NT
> > Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower
> publications has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the
> world was coming to an end of some other
> > prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or1975. . .
M:
> Funny how you don't seem to be forgetting any of these
> things at all.
S:
I admit that it is pretty hard to forget that an organization that claims to
be God's organization could be so prophetically wrong in setting so many
dates that never were fulfilled.
At this point Mark attempts to analogize the teaching of immediacy in the
NT with the failed prophecy of the Watch Tower.
M:
> And funny how you don't mention that the Bible itself
shows evidence that the Christians lived as though
> the end was near. . .
S:
The fact that all Christians should live their lives as though Jesus
could return today does not have anything to do with the fact that
the JWO (Jehovah Witness Organization) has repeatedly taught error
regarding the return of Jesus and the end of this system of things.
Regarding the Watch Tower founder Pastor Charles Russell, some
of the following items are much in dispute between Mark and myself
but to my charge that:
> > . . . that prior to 1927,
> in more than one Watch Tower publication
> he was referred to as filling the office of
> > wise and faithful servant.
Mark agrees to the following:
> An idea that didn't really have that long of an existence,
> and an idea they quickly got over.
However in an attempt to cloud the issue Mark says:
> However, the Witnesses
who knew Russell personally surely felt that he was both
> wise and faithful.
S:
Mark you are too clever by half. You know the office of the wise and
faithful
servant, is too important in JW teaching to try such a deceit.
S:
> > As I say forget all that and just focus in on how the organization has
> misrepresented the writing of legitimate bible scholars in order to arrive
at
> their failed translation and teaching regarding John chapter 1.
> particular Philip B. Harner, and his now famous
> article in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, who contrary as is
> represented said that "the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to
> > meant that "the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."
M:
> Again, an amazing display of 'forgetfullness.'
> It just so happens that I have not forgotten that I possess
a copy of Harner's article. The WTS did not misrepresent
him when it fairly quoted his conclusion that "In John 1:1
I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so
prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
Harner is explicitly refuting the conclusion of Collwell that
the anarthrous _theos_ is definite. The WTS agrees with
> this particular refutation. . .
S:
Mark, in my 1985 edition of the _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
Greek Scriptures_ published by the WT there is no discussion of Collwell,
or Vawter. Harner is made to appear that he agrees with the NWT that the
Logos is "a god," which is theme of pages 1139 and 1140 of the cited text
under the heading of 2a. I object to you trying to change the focus of this
discussion to one examining issues not raised in the WT publication that I
cited, which is the _ Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
Scriptures_.
Mark continues his excursion into other issues as a cover for
misrepresenting Harner.
> Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
> have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
S:
Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
Actually, if I may be so bold to speak for Trinitarians-since at best I am
a most reluctant Trinitarian, Trinitarians would argue that the Logos, or
the Son is only one person of the of the Godhead, which is also true of
the Father.
My objection is that the way Harner and the others are cited as if they
agreed
with the view that the WT has regarding the Logos. I object to the way you
tried
to reframe the point regarding John L. McKenzie away from the objection I
raised,
which was the WT attempts to make it appear that Mckenzie did not believe that
the Logos or Jesus was less than Yahweh, to a distinction between the Logos
and
Yahweh. I think that we can save some time if you will concede that like
Harner,
both Julius R. Mantey and John L. McKenzie are orthodox in their teaching
regarding
the person of the Logos or Jesus. In fact all three are Trinitarian, who
adamantly
reject the teachings of JWO. The fact is that you have already conceded the
point
regarding Harner when you posted:
> A thorough reading of Harner shows that he certainly
does believe in the trinity, and that John 1:1 supports
> trinitarian notions. . .
A ready example of my dispute with Mark is how Mark misrepresent
Harner when Mark appears to read more into Harner when he said:
> . . . but he carefully qualifies his opinion
of how the anarthrous _theos_ should be understood
[so that it is NOT though of as "God" in the unqualified
sense that the English in and of itself conveys], with
> it primarily being qualitative rather than definite.
S:
While technically true, Harner, is ultimately saying that when
John tells us that the "theos" is the Logos, this means that
the Logos has the same qualities as God, and that therefore
the Logos has the same nature and qualities that makes the
Father intrinsically deity, and this intrinsic nature is also intrinsic
to the nature of the Logos. What ever quality is found in the
Father is found in the Logos. The father is timeless without a
beginning so is the Son.
Mark continues and tries to say that the title "ho theos"
cannot be applied to Jesus:
> Harner actually gives his opinion of how the clause
could be translated: "the Word had the same nature
as God." This certainly jibes with Trinitarian thought
which attempts to justify the trinity doctrine, but it is
quite different than claiming that it means "the Word
was God" in the sense that "the Word" is being
personally identified with "God" ("theos" as though
> it was interchangable with "ho theos").
S:
Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
question is: Is Jesus good? If he is, he is "ho theos." In the later
half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
verse 18.
Peace,
Sabbatismos.
--part1_f9.7c6386e.27d1b73d_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I had to edit a great deal to keep the post on the major issues so as not
<BR>produce a reply that is to large to be managable, though I will try to reply
<BR>to all in a one on one.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>M (Mark) ask :
<BR>> Are you, Sabbatismo, actually inferring, if obliquely, that
<BR>your particular form of Christianity is truly pure and above
<BR>any fault which might cause others to find it hard to respect?
<BR>If so, I'd be keen to know which form it is, and what its
<BR>> history is.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>No, I am not saying anything is pure and above fault, but what I am
<BR>saying that few are so erroneous as the JW organization.
<BR>M asked:
<BR>> So ... are you, Sabbatismo, willing to consider the pluses
<BR>of JWs in addtion to the minuses? Or at the very least, are
<BR>you willing to be forthcoming about the things that reveal your
<BR>'church' to be less than perfect, so that others can assess them
<BR>with the same fairness that you assess the flaws (or alledged
<BR>> flaws) of JWs?
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>I am willing to consider the plus and minuses of the organization,
<BR>but how I can I not be impressed by the way the JWO has so distorted
<BR>the truth of the NT
<BR>> > Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower
<BR>> publications has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the
<BR>> world was coming to an end of some other
<BR>> > prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or1975. . .
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> Funny how you don't seem to be forgetting any of these
<BR>> things at all.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>I admit that it is pretty hard to forget that an organization that claims to
<BR>be God's organization could be so prophetically wrong in setting so many
<BR>dates that never were fulfilled.
<BR>
<BR>At this point Mark attempts to analogize the teaching of immediacy in the
<BR>NT with the failed prophecy of the Watch Tower.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> And funny how you don't mention that the Bible itself
<BR>shows evidence that the Christians lived as though
<BR>> the end was near. . .
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>The fact that all Christians should live their lives as though Jesus
<BR>could return today does not have anything to do with the fact that
<BR>the JWO (Jehovah Witness Organization) has repeatedly taught error
<BR>regarding the return of Jesus and the end of this system of things.
<BR>
<BR>Regarding the Watch Tower founder Pastor Charles Russell, some
<BR>of the following items are much in dispute between Mark and myself
<BR>but to my charge that:
<BR>> > . . . that prior to 1927,
<BR>> in more than one Watch Tower publication
<BR>> he was referred to as filling the office of
<BR>> > wise and faithful servant.
<BR>
<BR>Mark agrees to the following:
<BR>> An idea that didn't really have that long of an existence,
<BR>> and an idea they quickly got over.
<BR>
<BR>However in an attempt to cloud the issue Mark says:
<BR>> However, the Witnesses
<BR>who knew Russell personally surely felt that he was both
<BR>> wise and faithful.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark you are too clever by half. You know the office of the wise and
<BR>faithful
<BR>servant, is too important in JW teaching to try such a deceit.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>> > As I say forget all that and just focus in on how the organization has
<BR>> misrepresented the writing of legitimate bible scholars in order to arrive
<BR>at
<BR>> their failed translation and teaching regarding John chapter 1.
<BR>> particular Philip B. Harner, and his now famous
<BR>> article in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, who contrary as is
<BR>> represented said that "the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to
<BR>> > meant that "the Word (Jesus) was God in the same sense as the Father."
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> Again, an amazing display of 'forgetfullness.'
<BR>
<BR>> It just so happens that I have not forgotten that I possess
<BR>a copy of Harner's article. The WTS did not misrepresent
<BR>him when it fairly quoted his conclusion that "In John 1:1
<BR>I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so
<BR>prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
<BR>Harner is explicitly refuting the conclusion of Collwell that
<BR>the anarthrous _theos_ is definite. The WTS agrees with
<BR>> this particular refutation. . .
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark, in my 1985 edition of the _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
<BR>Greek Scriptures_ published by the WT there is no discussion of Collwell,
<BR>or Vawter. Harner is made to appear that he agrees with the NWT that the
<BR>Logos is "a god," which is theme of pages 1139 and 1140 of the cited text
<BR>under the heading of 2a. I object to you trying to change the focus of this
<BR>discussion to one examining issues not raised in the WT publication that I
<BR>cited, which is the _ Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
<BR>Scriptures_.
<BR>
<BR>Mark continues his excursion into other issues as a cover for
<BR>misrepresenting Harner.
<BR>> Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
<BR>clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
<BR>does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
<BR>divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
<BR>"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
<BR>> have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
<BR>
<BR>Actually, if I may be so bold to speak for Trinitarians-since at best I am
<BR>a most reluctant Trinitarian, Trinitarians would argue that the Logos, or
<BR>the Son is only one person of the of the Godhead, which is also true of
<BR>the Father.
<BR>
<BR>My objection is that the way Harner and the others are cited as if they
<BR>agreed
<BR>with the view that the WT has regarding the Logos. I object to the way you
<BR>tried
<BR>to reframe the point regarding John L. McKenzie away from the objection I
<BR>raised,
<BR>which was the WT attempts to make it appear that Mckenzie did not believe that
<BR>the Logos or Jesus was less than Yahweh, to a distinction between the Logos
<BR>and
<BR>Yahweh. I think that we can save some time if you will concede that like
<BR>Harner,
<BR>both Julius R. Mantey and John L. McKenzie are orthodox in their teaching
<BR>regarding
<BR>the person of the Logos or Jesus. In fact all three are Trinitarian, who
<BR>adamantly
<BR>reject the teachings of JWO. The fact is that you have already conceded the
<BR>point
<BR>regarding Harner when you posted:
<BR>
<BR>> A thorough reading of Harner shows that he certainly
<BR>does believe in the trinity, and that John 1:1 supports
<BR>> trinitarian notions. . .
<BR>
<BR>A ready example of my dispute with Mark is how Mark misrepresent
<BR>Harner when Mark appears to read more into Harner when he said:
<BR>> . . . but he carefully qualifies his opinion
<BR>of how the anarthrous _theos_ should be understood
<BR>[so that it is NOT though of as "God" in the unqualified
<BR>sense that the English in and of itself conveys], with
<BR>> it primarily being qualitative rather than definite.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>While technically true, Harner, is ultimately saying that when
<BR>John tells us that the "theos" is the Logos, this means that
<BR>the Logos has the same qualities as God, and that therefore
<BR>the Logos has the same nature and qualities that makes the
<BR>Father intrinsically deity, and this intrinsic nature is also intrinsic
<BR>to the nature of the Logos. What ever quality is found in the
<BR>Father is found in the Logos. The father is timeless without a
<BR>beginning so is the Son.
<BR>
<BR>Mark continues and tries to say that the title "ho theos"
<BR>cannot be applied to Jesus:
<BR>> Harner actually gives his opinion of how the clause
<BR>could be translated: "the Word had the same nature
<BR>as God." This certainly jibes with Trinitarian thought
<BR>which attempts to justify the trinity doctrine, but it is
<BR>quite different than claiming that it means "the Word
<BR>was God" in the sense that "the Word" is being
<BR>personally identified with "God" ("theos" as though
<BR>> it was interchangable with "ho theos").
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
<BR>But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
<BR>called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
<BR>eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
<BR>something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
<BR>question is: Is Jesus good? If he is, he is "ho theos." In the later
<BR>half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
<BR>to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
<BR>in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
<BR>according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
<BR>calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
<BR>verse 18.
<BR>
<BR>Peace,
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_f9.7c6386e.27d1b73d_boundary--
mark sornson
Sabba...@aol.com wrote in message <97rpsu$gpr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>M (Mark) ask :
>> Are you, Sabbatismo, actually inferring, if obliquely, that
>your particular form of Christianity is truly pure and above
>any fault which might cause others to find it hard to respect?
>If so, I'd be keen to know which form it is, and what its
>> history is.
>
>S:
>No, I am not saying anything is pure and above fault, but what I am
>saying that few are so erroneous as the JW organization.
So, you're being picky and choosy about which faults you
choose to accept. How convenient for you alone to have
that privilege.
"Few" and "so erroneous" are measures that depend on the eye
of the beholder, I think. (cf Matt 7:3-5; Luke 6:41-42)
>M asked:
>> So ... are you, Sabbatismo, willing to consider the pluses
>of JWs in addtion to the minuses? Or at the very least, are
>you willing to be forthcoming about the things that reveal your
>'church' to be less than perfect, so that others can assess them
>with the same fairness that you assess the flaws (or alledged
>> flaws) of JWs?
>
>S:
>I am willing to consider the plus and minuses of the organization,
>but how I can I not be impressed by the way the JWO has so distorted
>the truth of the NT
That's not exactly an impartial starting point for making
a judgement, is it? Really, your position makes any attempt
by you to judge JWs a forgone conclusion, since you're
predetermined to arrive at your current viewpoint no
matter what.
>> > Forget the number of times that from pages of the Watch Tower
>> publications has pronounced that the Jesus was returning, or the
>> world was coming to an end of some other
>> > prophetic event, such as 1874, or 1914, or 1925, or1975. . .
>
>M:
>> Funny how you don't seem to be forgetting any of these
>> things at all.
>
>S:
>I admit that it is pretty hard to forget that an organization that claims
to
>be God's organization could be so prophetically wrong in setting so many
>dates that never were fulfilled.
If you choose wrongly to view the JW organization as
claiming that their choice of dates were prophesies (as
though they claim God told them those dates by inspiration),
then I won't force you to believe otherwise.
My viewpoint, however, is that (though laboring under
some misconceptions) they were attempting to discern
the meaning of prophesies in the Bible that had
chronological elements. Nothing I've ever read in JW
literature that directly comments on them convinces me
otherwise.
>
>At this point Mark attempts to analogize the teaching of immediacy in the
>NT with the failed prophecy of the Watch Tower.
>
>M:
>> And funny how you don't mention that the Bible itself
>shows evidence that the Christians lived as though
>> the end was near. . .
>
>S:
>The fact that all Christians should live their lives as though Jesus
>could return today does not have anything to do with the fact that
>the JWO (Jehovah Witness Organization) has repeatedly taught error
>regarding the return of Jesus and the end of this system of things.
It's not an error to teach that Jesus will 'return' and bring
about the end of this system of things. As far as I'm
concerned, their focus on Bible prophesies about the
nearness of the end has helped them correctly to separate
themselves from the world -- and particularly its politic
systems -- that will end when Jesus brings about 'the end'.
The dates, erroneous as they were, gave them impetus
to make needed changes in other matters.
When I look at evangelical religions, the main thing I see is them
hopping into bed with every politician who claims he is going provide
them with political clout and favors to superimpose 'Christian
values' on society by political means if they vote for them. The main
thing I see so-called evangelicals truly evangelizing are the false
prophets of politics (and certain political 'messiahs' who come
and go, often in disgrace). I'll gladly accept a history of
overzealous date setting in place of a history of spiritual
prostitution with worldly politics.
>
>Regarding the Watch Tower founder Pastor Charles Russell, some
>of the following items are much in dispute between Mark and myself
>but to my charge that:
>> > . . . that prior to 1927,
>> in more than one Watch Tower publication
>> he was referred to as filling the office of
>> > wise and faithful servant.
>
>Mark agrees to the following:
>> An idea that didn't really have that long of an existence,
>> and an idea they quickly got over.
>
>However in an attempt to cloud the issue Mark says:
>> However, the Witnesses
>who knew Russell personally surely felt that he was both
>> wise and faithful.
>
>S:
>Mark you are too clever by half. You know the office of the wise and
>faithful
>servant, is too important in JW teaching to try such a deceit.
I'm not really sure what kind of points you think you've
scored with this statement ... but as far as I'm concerned
the JWs had an opportunity to make a serious (and
permanant) mistep in their view of the wise and faithful
servant, and they succeded in correcting an error that
kept them from elevating Russell to a position of undue
prominance (that really would have been creature worship).
Paul had to correct the Corinthians who were starting to
show undue favor to prominant ones like Paul, Apollos,
and Cephas (1Cor 1:12), which shows that even in the
beginning the potential was there to elevate faithful
men above their rightful place.
There's no deceit involved in JWs having 'returned Russell
to his place' by rejecting the short-lived notion that he,
personally, was the 'wise and faithful servant'. You're
just digging up a bone for the sake of worrying it.
If you have the 1985 KI, then you can see for yourself that it
never says that Harner agrees that the Logos is "a god".
Here is the entire quote from his JBL article [including the lead
in by the KI]:
... Harner said that such clauses as the one in
John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding
the verb, are primilary qualitative in meaning. They
indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There
is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite."
On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John
1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate
is so prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as
definite."
That's it. The KI NEVER said that Harner believed that
the anarthrous theos should be transated "a god". However,
they have correctly quoted him as saying that the noun
in question is "qualitative" rather than definite.
This grammatical fact is a) the reason to reject translating
it as "God" (the way the definite ho theos is also translated
"God"), and b) the NWTs reason for choosing to render it
it as "a god" to bring out the qualitative force of the noun.
The KI then provides a chart of other verses, selected from
Harner's footnote on pp 82-3 (of his article), which are
given as examples of singular anarthrous predicate nouns
occuring before the verb that are viewed (by Harner) to
be *qualitative* -- like John 1:1 -- which the KJV, NIV, RSV,
and TEV all render as "a <noun>".
Again, the NWT cites Harner to prove that John 1:1c is qualitative,
and that in other verses qualitative nouns of the same form
[in the same syntatic position in relation to the verb] may
justifiably be rendered "a <noun>". It's for these reasons that
the NWT justifies its choice to render John 1:1c as "a god."
>
>Mark continues his excursion into other issues as a cover for
>misrepresenting Harner.
>> Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
>clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
>does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
>divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
>"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
>> have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
I presume this is one of the issues you object to me
allegedly raising because they weren't discussed in the
KI. Well, in case you have forgotten more quickly than
all the other JW-stuff you enumerated as things to forget
about, YOU raised the issue that came from Harner's
quote of Vawter. You made a claim that Harner said
this (which YOU put in quotes):
>"the verse (John1. 1) can only be interpreted to meant that "the Word
(J=esus)=20
<BR>was God in the same sense as the Father."
I went looking for this quote, and couldn't find it.
Instead I found the quote by Vawter, which was
different. Your quote was in error. If anyone should
be objecting it should be me objecting that you are
falsifying quotes from Harner in your quest to
make accusations against JWs, the WTS, and
the NWT.
But, to be honest, I'm guessing that you read this
quote somewhere -- possibly from Walter Martin or
some other anti-JW counter-cult writer -- and took
the quote at face value rather than verifying it for
yourself.
And, as a final point, I see no reason for you to
cry foul about me saying anything at all about Collwell.
Anyone who has done any serious study about John
1:1 and the NWT knows that "Collwell's Rule" gets
dragged into the picture [such as by Walter Martin,
and many others]. Harner's article specifically addressed
Harner and refuted his conclusions [or conclusions
that have been drawn against Collwell's article].
Even though the 1985 KI didn't cite Collwell, it is
clear that the issues raised by Collwell were being
addressed.
>
>S:
>Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
Trinitarians have been inventing definitions for
centuries to "define" God and divinity so that
their definitions all conveniently fit within the
non-scriptural, dogmatic definition of the trinity.
Suprisingly, however, one CAN find a definition of "divine"
by TRINITARIAN scholars that isn't exclusively applied
to God. Take Ps 97:7, for instance. The Roman
Catholic New American Bible renders it this way:
"You, LORD, are the Most High over all the earth,
exalted far above all gods."
It then provides this footnote:
"All gods; divine beings thoroughly subordinate to
Israel's God. The Greek translates "angels," an
intepretation adopted by Heb 1:6."
So "angels" were "gods" and "divine beings" in ancient
Jewish thought.
Modern Jewish translators confirm this notion that there
are other divine beings who are lesser than God. The
JPS TANAKH reads,
"... you are exalted above all divine beings."
It may grate the teeth of trinitarians the wrong way to speak
about "divine beings" other than God, but the truth is that in
Bible times the Jews had no problem viewing the faithful
angels (who were clearly lesser than God) as "divine."
Since angels are divine, it is not an insult to speak of
the heavenly Son of God as divine as well, and to use the
term in a sense that is less than the sense that Jehovah
God himself is divine.
>
>Actually, if I may be so bold to speak for Trinitarians-since at best I am
>a most reluctant Trinitarian, Trinitarians would argue that the Logos, or
>the Son is only one person of the of the Godhead, which is also true of
>the Father.
Boldly speak away. But this is only a restatement of
trinitarian dogma that is not found in Scripture.
>
>My objection is that the way Harner and the others are cited as if they
>agreed
>with the view that the WT has regarding the Logos.
See above. Harner most definitely was NOT cited as though
he agreed with the WT on the translation "a god". He was ONLY
cited to prove that respected scholars (such as he) agree
that the anarthrous theos is a qualitative noun that should NOT
be rendered as "God", and thus given a definite sense in English.
I object to your failure to pay attention to the point
the WTS is really making.
>
I object to the way you
>tried
>to reframe the point regarding John L. McKenzie away from the objection I
>raised,
>which was the WT attempts to make it appear that Mckenzie did not believe
that
>the Logos or Jesus was less than Yahweh, to a distinction between the Logos
>and
>Yahweh.
I quoted McKenzie at length to prove that nowhere did
his article state that Jesus was equal to Yahweh, which is
the antithesis of your objection that he allegedly doesn't
believe that Jesus was less than Yahweh. How do you know
that McKenzie "did not believe that the Logos or Jesus
was less than Yahweh"? If we only have his article, and
it doesn't support your claim that he believes this, then your
objection has no support in fact.
Even if some other source states that McKenzie objects
to WTS quoting him, it doesn't nullify the point [of the WTS
quote of McKenzie] that he really did say that John 1:1
should be "rigorously translated ... the word was a divine
being." It's a fair and accurate quote. Saying he was "a
divine being" is the same as saying he is "a god", for gods
were divine beings.
> I think that we can save some time if you will concede that
like
>Harner,
>both Julius R. Mantey and John L. McKenzie are orthodox in their teaching
>regarding
>the person of the Logos or Jesus. In fact all three are Trinitarian, who
>adamantly
>reject the teachings of JWO. The fact is that you have already conceded
the
>point
>regarding Harner when you posted:
The fact that they ARE trinitarians is why the WTS chose
to quote from them, meaning that the WTS couldn't be
accused of only quoting from scholars who support their
alledged bias (a common charge -- one side of the damned
if you do damned if you don't situation of the WTS being
accused of bad quotes when they quote trinitarians, and
accused of biased quotes if and when they quote non-
trinitarians). When trinitarians truthfully state facts about
Greek word meaning and grammar that the WTS feels support
some view of theirs, they are as free to quote those facts
as they'd be free to quote a dictionary for facts about words
without worrying whether the author of the dictionary agreed
with their theology.
The WTS is also free to sift the *opinions* of trinitarians
scholars from the basic facts that they present. The
facts speak for themselves, whereas the opinions only
speak for the translators. As a case in point, the shift
of OPINION among *trinitarian scholars* away from claiming
the anarthrous _theos_ of Jn 1:1 is definite (based on use of
Collwell's JBL article) is exactly why the WTS does not worry about
opinions that are interwoven into grammar texts and the like,
for over time, opinions do change (sometimes in surprising
ways).
Thus, in conclusion, your objection is pointless because
JWs aren't obligated to convey what are merely matters
of doctrinal opinion by trinitarian scholars. The only issue
that has merit is whether matters of pure fact are properly
quoted. In all of the cases you've cited, the WTS has
correctly quoted the facts about Greek grammar and usage.
>
>> A thorough reading of Harner shows that he certainly
>does believe in the trinity, and that John 1:1 supports
>> trinitarian notions. . .
>
>A ready example of my dispute with Mark is how Mark misrepresent
>Harner when Mark appears to read more into Harner when he said:
>> . . . but he carefully qualifies his opinion
>of how the anarthrous _theos_ should be understood
>[so that it is NOT though of as "God" in the unqualified
>sense that the English in and of itself conveys], with
>> it primarily being qualitative rather than definite.
Please quote from Harner to prove that what I
said is false. Harner certainly does carefully qualify
his opinion of how the anarthrous _theos_ should
be rendered.
>
>S:
>While technically true, Harner, is ultimately saying that when
>John tells us that the "theos" is the Logos, this means that
>the Logos has the same qualities as God, and that therefore
>the Logos has the same nature and qualities that makes the
>Father intrinsically deity, and this intrinsic nature is also intrinsic
>to the nature of the Logos. What ever quality is found in the
>Father is found in the Logos. The father is timeless without a
>beginning so is the Son.
When Harner says that the usage of _theos_
is an indication of the qualities of the Logos, he
is stating a fact about Greek grammar and usage.
Everything else is his (or your) opinion of
what it means for the Logos to be _theos_.
Whether it was the inspired apostle John's
opinion isn't something that dogmatic statements
by trinitarians proves.
>
>Mark continues and tries to say that the title "ho theos"
>cannot be applied to Jesus:
I not only "try" to say it, but it's a fact that John 1:1
does not apply the title "ho theos" to Jesus.
>> Harner actually gives his opinion of how the clause
>could be translated: "the Word had the same nature
>as God." This certainly jibes with Trinitarian thought
>which attempts to justify the trinity doctrine, but it is
>quite different than claiming that it means "the Word
>was God" in the sense that "the Word" is being
>personally identified with "God" ("theos" as though
>> it was interchangable with "ho theos").
>
>S:
>Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
Correct for this particular verse.
>But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
>called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
>eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
>something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
>question is: Is Jesus good?
In my opinion, citing this particular point is quite
self-defeating, for Jesus was obviously rejecting
the flattery of the man, doing so in a way that
deflected attention away from him and focused
it on God, his Father. That Jesus so plainly stated
that the only one who was "good" in the sense
that the man meant was God draws a clear
distinction between Jesus and God.
Asking "Is Jesus good?" is sophistry, as it fails
to take into account that Jesus was objecting to
a particular use of the term, but wasn't making
a claim or admission that he was therefore "bad"
and that there weren't other ways that he could
rightly be viewed as good.
> If he is, he is "ho theos."
Jesus made it clear that he did NOT consider
himself to be good the way God (ho theos -
Mark 10:18) is:
"Why do you call Me good? No one
is good except God (ho theos) alone."
(NASB)
In fact, even the Roman Catholic NAB footnote
says, "Jesus repudiates the term "good" for
himself and directs it to God, the source of
all goodness who alone can grant the gift
of eternal life". Thus, this particular passage
is more proof that Jesus is NOT God (ho theos)
than proof that he is.
Since Jesus is clearly repudiating the term "good"
for himself in this instance, he is either saying
that he is NOT good, or that only God (and not himself)
is "good" in a particular way.
> In the
later
>half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
>to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
>in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
>according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
>calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
>verse 18.
These two verses do not directly bear on the meaning
of John 1:1. But of the two, John 1:18 [of which there are
textual variants that replace "theos" with "uios"/son, which
indicate some controversy over the meaning of the
text] helps distinguish Jesus from God, for it reads,
"No man has seen God at any time; the
only begotten God, who is in the bosom
of the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB)
If no man has seen God at any time, then obviously
Jesus wasn't God, for men clearly did see him. It
is fitting for him to be called "monogenes theos",
however, as he surely was _theos_ (John 1:1c),
and he was "unique" in being "the image of the
invisible God" and "the firstborn of all creation"
(Col 1:15 NASB).
John 20:28 is the ONLY place in the NT where
"ho theos" *might* be viewed as being applied to
Jesus, but looking at the whole situation, the
issue at hand wasn't whether Thomas was doubting
that Jesus was God, but he was doubting that he
was alive (i.e., doubting that he had been resurrected).
Jesus' reply to him in v.29 only addresses the
matter of Thomas having seen him in person to have
believed his resurrection. And then, there is
John's own explanation in vs 30-31 of why he wrote
his Gospel:
"Many other signs therefore Jesus also
performed in the presence of his disciples
which are not written in this book; but these
have been written that you may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and
that believing you may have life in His name."
(NASB)
This would have been the perfect place to confirm
the notion that John was proving that Jesus was God
(ho theos) in the trinitarian sense. But instead we
have only the simple affirmation that he is "the
Son of God."
>
>Peace,
Peace to you, too.
-mark.
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
>
> > Besides, "evangelical protestant Christians" aren't a single,
> > unified bloc. At times they may emphasize things they have in
> > common or unite against a common enemy, but the divisions
> > among evangelical protestants indicates that each division
> > feels the others "have got it wrong" in some respects - enough
> > to justify the divisions, in any case.
> >
> Sorry, Mark, you've got it wrong. Evangelical Christians all agree
> that you must be born again to receive salvation. The doctrines they
> disagree on does not change that fact. It doesn't matter what they
> believe on periperal things.
The Bible says:
Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no
divisions among you, but that you be made complete in
the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Cor 1:10 NASB)
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that
there may be no divisions among you and that you may be
perfectly united in mind and thought. (1Cor 1:10 NIV)
I didn't say that Evangalical Christians didn't agree on some
basic issues (like salvation), but the Bible doesn't say that
"it doesn't matter what they believe on perip[h]eral things".
It says "no divisions" and "be perfectly united in mind and
thought."
Jesus himself said, "... a house divided against itself will fall"
(Luke 1:17b NIV). Agreement on a few core issues is no guarantee
that divisions on other issues will not cause the "fall" Jesus
predicted.
>
> > Furthermore, what happens to all (besides JWs and Catholics
> > whom you have already rejected) who do not profess to be
> > evangelical protestant Christians? Suppose they are only
> > protestant Christians, but not evangelicals?
>
> Again, Mark, all that matters is the salvation issue. The rest is
> just personal preference. You can be wrong on the doctrine of
> speaking in tongues etc as that just does not matter when it comes
> to salvation. So if you are pentacostal evangelical or a prespyterian
> evangelical
> Christian it just does not matter. Shocking right.
This view doesn't surprise me (or shock) me in any way.
It does, however, contradict the Scriptures which assert
that true Christianity does not exist divided.
>
> > What happens to all the people who lived before the
> > recently created evangelical protestant Christian movement
> > came along?
>
> Mark, You are re-writing history. You talk like it is some new movement.
The Evangelical Protestant Christian movement traces its
history back to Luther, but it has had to reorganize at least
twice in recent history (in the USA), in 1912 (as the Evangelical
Protestant Church of North America) and 1999 (as the General
Conference of Evangelical Protestant Churches).
It isn't a united movement, but a series of mergers, splits,
and remergers. Plus there are other forms of evangelical
Christianity that claim autonomy from any of these movements.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa4/GeneralConference/history.html
is one URL I found on Evangelical Protestant history.
Even though Luther's split from the RCC isn't "new", it
wasn't in any way a return to the Christianity of the
first century.
And your answers don't address my question of what happens
to all the other 'Christians' in Christendom who are
not "evangelical" (like the Roman Catholic Church, which
you left), and are not so-called 'cults' (that is, they are
still 'mainstream' in the eyes of many).
Even though JWs have the audacity to view the millions of
evangelical Christians as wrong, you view millions of others
(like Catholics) as wrong. Why doesn't that invalidate
your view in some way? Doesn't this really prove that you
agree with me that 'true Christianity' is not subject to
confirmation by popularity polls?
>
> >
> > But to answer your question directly, what happens to all the
> > people who lived before Russell came along is up to God and
> > Christ, JWs believe that the vast majority of mankind (who
> > died long ago) will be brought back to life on earth in the
> > "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous" (Act 24:15).
> > At that time, any who died in ignorance will have an opportunity to
> > learn the truth in perfect circumstances. What their future
> > beyond that point is will be determined by their choices at that
> > time.
> >
> So according to this then everyone will be able to make a second choice.
> Gee, I wonder if anyone will make the wrong choice after getting a second
> chance.
> With this logic even Hitler can get into heaven.
There's an old internet proverb that says sooner or later
everything is connected to Hitler. Thank you for keeping
my faith in this proverb alive.
Hitler, as you may not know, severely persecuted Jehovah's
Witnesses as soon as he came to power. They were one of the
first groups the Nazi's tried to stamp out. They were even
sent to the concentration camps before the Jews were.
Jehovah's Witnesses were the only religious group (other than
Jews) to be forced to wear an identity label (in the camps)
sewn into their clothing. Jehovah's Witnesses wore purple
triangles.
So-called "Evangelical Protestant Christians" were missing
from the camps, as a bloc, as both the Catholic and mainstream
Protestant churches (primarily Lutheran) eventually capitulated
to Hitler and fully cooperated with his regime. For persecuting
JWs I'd expect the evangelical Christians to make him a saint (if
we're going to talk such nonsense).
Getting back to the real Biblical issues, however, you'll
notice - if you more carefully read my reply - that I did
NOT say that we believed that ALL who had lived in the past
were going to be resurrected. Jesus spoke of those who
would (or could) commit the following sin:
"whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall
not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the
age to come." (Matt 12:32b NASB)
God will judge whether Hitler truly 'spoke against Holy Spirit'
and thus sinned beyond the point of forgiveness both "in this
age" and "in the age to come".
>
> > >
> > > I thought you believe that Jesus is an alias for the archangel Michael.
> Why
> > > would an angel offer salvation?
> >
> > My goodness, that's quite a context switch.
>
> Hey, your the one jumping around when it comes to contexts. Remember
> "smoldering heap of ruin" etc etc
That comment of mine was quite in context with my
overall objections to your prejudiced branding of
all JWs as "brainwashed".
I take this, however, as an admission from you that
you are jumping around out of context.
>
> >
> > I don't believe I or any JW ever said Jesus was an
> > "alias" for the archangel Michael. But, for your
> > information, the belief that Michael was the heavenly
> > identity of Christ is very ancient, and dates back to
> > the writings of the church 'fathers'. E.W. Hengstenberg's
> > _Christology of the Old Testament_ provides quite a bit
> > of evidence on this [but you have to read the unabridged
> > version - the abridged version cuts a lot of this
> > interesting stuff out].
>
> So, is this where your theology comes from. Someone never heard of who wrote
> a book.
No ... I didn't say this was where "my theology comes from."
I only said that this scholar provides proof that the view
that Michael and Jesus are the same is very ancient. Who is
this scholar whom you have never heard of?
He happens to be viewed as one of the foremost 19th century
LUTHERAN scholars in Germany. Thus, in a manner of speaking,
he is a theological cousin of yours.
> Why do you give him so much credibility. Because he agrees with
> your
> opinion. Sounds like you have picked and chosen someone who can justify
> your
> position. I can show you more books that will say that Hengstenberg is
> wrong.
> But that won't matter will it?
See above. Hengstenberg was a Lutheran, and thus a trinitarian.
He explicitly states that he believed that Michael was more than
'just an angel' - that he was 'divine' in a superior sense to that
of other lesser angels, such that he was divine as part of the
trinity - but he nonetheless documents the facts that ancient Christians
identified Michael with the heavenly Jesus Christ.
I also noticed that you completly avoided any comment on my
citation of Daniel 12, where Michael is shown having a prominant
role is saving God's people in the last day. Why did you
avoid commenting on the Bible itself?
Since you believe the Bible to be God's word, how can both
Michael and Jesus Christ have such a prominant role in
the salvation of the faithful without either equating the
two, or giving Michael credit that you would otherwise give
only to Jesus Christ?
>
> >
> > Additionally, at first they may have been sincere in
> > offering to attend your church, but thought better of
> > it later. So, it may have been a broken agreement, but
> > it doesn't prove that right from the outset they were
> > deliberately lying to you.
>
> I didn't pin the wrap on you or any other JW. I didn't break the
> agreement. They did. All I have heard from you is one justification
> after another. I must have misunderstood, or they changed their
> mind, or ... or... or... or... or...
> Do you want to give me the definition of what the word "is" is?
That's OK ... I know what "is" means.
If you could, would you also prosecute them for this
breach of agreement?
Can you say, "let it go"?
>
> > > I spent a lot of time with them. Don't tell me what was said or wasn't
> > > said. You were not there.
> >
> > Who's angry now? Still touchy about this, I see.
>
> No, you just don't get it. You keep making excuses for them breaking
> a promise. An agreement that they entered into. I have to keep repeating
> myself. So maybe you think it sounds like I'm touchy, but I'm not. I just
> have
> to keep coming back to this over and over for you.
You just want to keep coming back to this over and over
for me (or for yourself). You can't let it go. It's
as though they are smoldering in the hellfire of your
own personal ire for having dared to break their 'agreement'
with you.
I also noticed that you refused to answer my question
to you about why you went to their meeting when you
weren't sincerely interested, and you refused to tell
me whether your agreement was only for the purpose of
getting them to your meeting.
If they had gone to your meeting, what would have
happened? Would they have only observed an ordinary
meeting, or would there have been a special 'welcoming
committee' waiting for them, to have barraged them with
anti-JW info and sentiments (such as a wolloping helping
of passages from the Kingdom of the Cults)? Maybe the
felt they would have been walking into a trap. I know
I would have felt that way.
>
> > Since you are the real Christian who feels so sorry
> > for us, you should find it in your heart to be
> > a bit more magnanimous with your Christ-like forgiveness.
> > After all, your claim is that all JWs are being mislead
> > by Satan. Thus, you shouldn't take it so personally that
> > you couldn't get them to your church.
>
> The written form definitely is not conducive to great communication.
> After all studies show that the tone and body language communicate
> at least 80% of the message. Thus only 20% of the communication
> is getting through. So there is a lot of room for misunderstanding.
Actually the written form, if wielded properly, is
a great way to communicate. But I agree that there's
a lot of 'body language' that obviously can't be conveyed.
>
> > But how about your motives? Did you make the agreement
> > just to get them to go to your church? Since I'm guessing
> > that you probably had no intention of considering JW
> > teachings as a possibility of being true, why did you
> > attend their meetings and make the offer yourself?
> > By attending their meeting, were you merely leading them
> > on in the hopes that they would attend your church?
>
> Here we go again. They knew that my friend and I felt strongly
> about our belief. We knew they felt strongly about their belief as
> well. We both entered into a mutual agreement. They knew that my
> friend and I also conducted street witnessing. So they were not
> unaware of our strong beliefs.
This is a dodge, Bob. Why not answer the question
directly? Why did you offer to go to their meeting when
you weren't sincerely interested in their beliefs?
Since you even admit that an agreement with a "friend" of
yours was involved, what were your ultimate goals (between
you and your friend)? Did they agree to attend a specific
meeting at a specific time, or just a meeting at some time
convenient to their choosing? Given your "strong beliefs,"
exactly what where you planning for them that has caused
you such dissapointment (and anger) for their having
stood you up?
I know Witnesses often make visits in pairs, but it's
usually on lone individuals or on families. Who was
this "friend" of yours? Was there a 'set up' being
arranged that the Witnesses foiled by not showing up?
I don't mean to offend by asking, but I have seen this
sort of thing (in person) before.
>
> > More than a few people know that at least from
> > a top-down perspective, the entire JW organization
> > has changed its views on a number of matters...
>
> Yes, but why have they changed their views. I mean the
> Bible doesn't change. Why would they have to change
> their views? Because the prophecies for the end of the
> world or the second comming didn't happen as predicted?
>
> >
> > But let me ask you more about yourself Bob.
> > Which Protestant beliefs did you question and
> > change your mind on...
>
> Mark, Why should I bring these matters up with you?
> After all you don't agree with me on anything so far. Why
> bring up anything new.
I think these two comments of yours go together.
I agree that the Bible doesn't change, but you clearly
(though reluctantly) admit that you personally
have changed your views.
The fact that you have (for whatever reason) yourself
changed your views answers why JWs have changed theirs.
At some point you have said to yourself, 'what I thought
was right was wrong, so I need to change.' Well, as
individuals and collectively, JWs have said the same
thing.
Do you believe that the "end of the world" and "the
second coming" will happen, Bob? Do believe that
we are near the end, and are living in the "last days"?
If so, then like it or not you share a belief with JWs.
The only difference then is that JWs felt they had
reasons to expect 'the end' to come sooner than it has,
but are otherwise still holding faith in seeing the
end come in God's due time.
>
> > Going from the Catholic church to a protestant one
> > didn't change your position on the trinity,
> > the soul, or hellfire, did it?
>
> Sure it did. There is some great differences between Catholic
> beliefs and Evangelical beliefs. The Catholics are similar to
> you JW's. They belief everyone will be saved after spending
> some eons in pergatory paying the price of their own sin.
Since the differences between Catholics and Evangelics
are "great", are Catholics (as a group) saved, Bob? Or
are they all destined to spend eternity in hell unless they
'get saved' by becoming evangelical?
Catholics also believe in hell, as you do, and that people
who go there do not get out (or get saved). It is true
that Catholics believe in purgatory, but JWs do not. JWs
do not believe a person can "pay the price of their own sin"
by suffering long enough to buy their way to heaven (or
life on earth). JWs believe that all whom God resurrects to
earth through Christ will not be resurrected to suffer, in
order to keep paying a penalty for past sin. All resurrections
are done on the basis of Christ's ransom sacrifice which paid
the price for sin.
>
> > know for yourself what other (more recent) scholars
> > have said about E.C. Colwell's 'rule' about
> > John 1:1, which pretty much renders appeal to Colwell
> > against JWs pointless ...
>
> I can find plenty of people who will say that your ec colwell is wrong.
> So, now what?
I'd love it if you could "find plenty of people who
will say that *my* ec colwell is wrong" because I already
believe him to be wrong (about John 1:1).
What you say here suggests that you aren't even reading
your own material, Bob. E.C. Colwell was quoted (actually
misquoted) by Walter Martin (in his Kingdom of the Cults)
as 'scholarly evidence' AGAINST the NWT. For you to
suddenly go out of your way to "find plenty of people
who will say ... ec colwell is wrong" would be a wonderful
excerise in back-peddling for you since your quote
to refute me (or the NWT) contained the reference to him.
Really, he is your ec colwell.
Frankly, the fact that you don't seem to know what
your quote from Kingdom of the Cults really said
seems to support my previous (hyperbolic) contention
about shelling tactics against JWs. Without even
reading what you were sending, you just sort of said
"fire away", figuring that if Walter Martin said it
is must be true, and was good enough for you.
>
> > Forgive me for being even blunter than I may have been
> > already, but if God was truly directing you to "the truth",
> > he wouldn't have directed you to the one-sided _Kingdom
> > of the Cults_.
>
> I don't get it. You say I shouldn't be directed to the one sided
> K of the C. but you constantly direct us to your "scholars" who are
> one sided.
Since you suddenly think "ec colwell" is "my ec colwell",
I don't think you know whose side which scholars are really
on.
To let you in on another secret, when I do research
for posts like this, I go out of my way to quote from
scholars who are on YOUR side, Bob (or who are from the
ranks of 'orthodox scholars') -- but who just happen
to make a statement or two about historical or grammatical
facts that I know (or believe) to be true.
>
> > I can only speak for myself, but your total lack
> > of 'Christian grace' and good manners was simply
> > appalling.
>
> Well, well, well,
> Coming from someone who talks about "smoldering heap of ruin"
> "war movies" "shelling" the enemy and bashers. It sure sounds
> funny that now you talk about grace and good manners.
> Appalling, just appalling. :->
I'm at least glad to see that you're following
some of what I've written.
>
> I'm taking a break from this for a few days as I have some projects to
> work on. So if I don't reply, it's only because I'm unavailable for a
> while.
> It's been fun bashing it out with you. :-)
Come back whenever you have time. I may or may not be
in the neighborhood. (I also have to make some more
progress on my answers to the "73".)
-mark.
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_bf.c3d9b82.27d83800_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I, S(Sabbatismom) had posted:
> > Mark, in my 1985 edition of the _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
>Greek Scriptures_ published by the WT there is no discussion of Collwell,
>or Vawter. Harner is made to appear that he agrees with the NWT that the
>Logos is "a god," which is theme of pages 1139 and 1140 of the cited text
>under the heading of 2a. I object to you trying to change the focus of
this
>discussion to one examining issues not raised in the WT publication that I
>cited, which is the _ Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
> > Scriptures_.
Mark:
> If you have the 1985 KI, then you can see for yourself that it
never says that Harner agrees that the Logos is "a god".
Here is the entire quote from his JBL article [including the lead
> in by the KI]:
> . . . Harner said that such clauses as the one in
John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding
the verb, are primilary qualitative in meaning. They
indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There
is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite."
On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John
1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate
is so prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as
> definite."
> That's it. The KI NEVER said that Harner believed that
the anarthrous theos should be transated "a god". However,
they have correctly quoted him as saying that the noun
> in question is "qualitative" rather than definite.
S:
Mark, the KIT, as all WT publication that have dealt with this issue,
is simply dragging as many red herrings into the issue of the Logos
as God. The proof of the issue is that in ever conversation with a JW
that the issue of Jesus deity is raised and Dr. Harner is cited, it is used
as proof that Jesus cannot be God. This is my experience and I would
bet is true an overwhelming percentage of the times the discussion occurs
with others.
Mark continues:
> > > Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
>clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
>does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
>divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
>"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
> > > have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
S, I had written:
> >Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
Mark responds, by quoting that other have used the term divine to refer to
angels. The fact that others have misused the term divine proves nothing.
S:
> > Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
>But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
>called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
>eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
>something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
> > question is: Is Jesus good?
Mark:
> In my opinion, citing this particular point is quiteself-defeating,
for Jesus was obviously rejectingthe flattery of the man, doing so
in a way thatdeflected attention away from him and focusedit on
God, his Father. That Jesus so plainly statedthat the only one
who was "good" in the sensethat the man meant was God draws
> a cleardistinction between Jesus and God.
> Asking "Is Jesus good?" is sophistry, as it failsto take into account
> that Jesus was objecting toa particular use of the term. . .
S:
Jesus is not obviously rejecting Deity, he is only asking if the man
understands
what it means to be called good. Jesus did not say that he was not, good or
God, only that God is good. If Jesus shares the qualities of God then he is
not
a god, but he is true God. This is not sophistry but right on focus
regarding the quality of Deity.
If Jesus is good he shares the qualities of God and is therefore is God.
Mark tries to avoid the consequence of this by saying:
> If he is, he is "ho theos."Jesus made it clear that he did NOT
considerhimself to be good the way God (ho theos -Mark 10:18) is: "Why do
you call Me good? No one > is good except God (ho theos) alone."
I, S, had posted:
> > In thelater
>half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
>to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
>in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
>according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
>calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
> > verse 18.
Mark:
> These two verses do not directly bear on the meaningof
John 1:1. But of the two, John 1:18 [of which there aretextual variants that
replace "theos" with "uios"/son, whichindicate some controversy over the
meaning of thetext] helps distinguish Jesus from God, for it reads, "No man
has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of
the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB)If no man has seen God at any time,
then obviouslyJesus wasn't God, for men clearly did see him. Itis fitting
for him to be called "monogenes theos",however, as he surely was _theos_
(John 1:1c),and he was "unique" in being > "the image of theinvisible God"
and "the firstborn of all creation"(Col 1:15 NASB).
S:
What a mental leap you have made. Up until the only God who came from the
bosom of the Father no one had ever seen God, it was the only Jesus came that
he revealed God to them. Even when people looked at Jesus except for the
transfiguration they did not see him in his glory. There is nothing disputed
about this
passage, the Logos, Jesus is clearly referred to as the only God who came
from
the bosom of the Father. It is true that the Latin Fathers who were
Trinitarians,
were afraid that some people might they confuse this passage and end up with
Trithism, so that when they translated the passage into Latin they changed
this
section to read that the only Son has revealed the Father. No, Greek scholar
will
dispute what appears in the oldest and best Greek ms. I find it passingly
strange
that you want to accept the Latin Fathers on this portion of scripture, but
reject
them on other scripture.
Mark post:
> John 20:28 is the ONLY place in the NT where"ho theos" *might* be viewed as
being applied toJesus, but looking at the whole situation, theissue at hand
wasn't whether Thomas was doubtingthat Jesus was God, but he was doubting
that hewas alive (i.e., doubting that he had been resurrected).Jesus' reply
to him in v.29 only addresses thematter of Thomas having
> seen him in person to havebelieved his resurrection.
S:
Mark there is no might about it Thomas call Jesus "Ho Theos" and all your
attempt
to avoid that is only to self evident.
Sabbatismos.
--part1_bf.c3d9b82.27d83800_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I, S(Sabbatismom) had posted:
<BR>> > Mark, in my 1985 edition of the _Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the
<BR>>Greek Scriptures_ published by the WT there is no discussion of Collwell,
<BR>>or Vawter. Harner is made to appear that he agrees with the NWT that the
<BR>>Logos is "a god," which is theme of pages 1139 and 1140 of the cited text
<BR>>under the heading of 2a. I object to you trying to change the focus of
<BR>this
<BR>>discussion to one examining issues not raised in the WT publication that I
<BR>>cited, which is the _ Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
<BR>> > Scriptures_.
<BR>
<BR>Mark:
<BR>> If you have the 1985 KI, then you can see for yourself that it
<BR>never says that Harner agrees that the Logos is "a god".
<BR>Here is the entire quote from his JBL article [including the lead
<BR>> in by the KI]:
<BR>
<BR>> . . . Harner said that such clauses as the one in
<BR>John 1:1, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding
<BR>the verb, are primilary qualitative in meaning. They
<BR>indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There
<BR>is no basis for regarding the predicate as definite."
<BR>On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John
<BR>1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate
<BR>is so prominant that the noun cannot be regarded as
<BR>> definite."
<BR>
<BR>> That's it. The KI NEVER said that Harner believed that
<BR>the anarthrous theos should be transated "a god". However,
<BR>they have correctly quoted him as saying that the noun
<BR>> in question is "qualitative" rather than definite.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark, the KIT, as all WT publication that have dealt with this issue,
<BR>is simply dragging as many red herrings into the issue of the Logos
<BR>as God. The proof of the issue is that in ever conversation with a JW
<BR>that the issue of Jesus deity is raised and Dr. Harner is cited, it is used
<BR>as proof that Jesus cannot be God. This is my experience and I would
<BR>bet is true an overwhelming percentage of the times the discussion occurs
<BR>with others.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Mark continues:
<BR>> > > Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
<BR>>clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
<BR>>does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
<BR>>divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
<BR>>"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
<BR>> > > have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
<BR>
<BR>S, I had written:
<BR>> >Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
<BR>
<BR>Mark responds, by quoting that other have used the term divine to refer to
<BR>angels. The fact that others have misused the term divine proves nothing.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>> > Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
<BR>>But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
<BR>>called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
<BR>>eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
<BR>>something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
<BR>> > question is: Is Jesus good?
<BR>
<BR>Mark:
<BR>> In my opinion, citing this particular point is quiteself-defeating,
<BR>for Jesus was obviously rejectingthe flattery of the man, doing so
<BR>in a way thatdeflected attention away from him and focusedit on
<BR>God, his Father. That Jesus so plainly statedthat the only one
<BR>who was "good" in the sensethat the man meant was God draws
<BR>> a cleardistinction between Jesus and God.
<BR>
<BR>> Asking "Is Jesus good?" is sophistry, as it failsto take into account
<BR>> that Jesus was objecting toa particular use of the term. . .
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Jesus is not obviously rejecting Deity, he is only asking if the man
<BR>understands
<BR>what it means to be called good. Jesus did not say that he was not, good or
<BR>God, only that God is good. If Jesus shares the qualities of God then he is
<BR>not
<BR>a god, but he is true God. This is not sophistry but right on focus
<BR>regarding the quality of Deity.
<BR>
<BR>If Jesus is good he shares the qualities of God and is therefore is God.
<BR>
<BR>Mark tries to avoid the consequence of this by saying:
<BR>> If he is, he is "ho theos."Jesus made it clear that he did NOT
<BR>considerhimself to be good the way God (ho theos -Mark 10:18) is: "Why do
<BR>you call Me good? No one > is good except God (ho theos) alone."
<BR>
<BR>I, S, had posted:
<BR>> > In thelater
<BR>>half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
<BR>>to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
<BR>>in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
<BR>>according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
<BR>>calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
<BR>> > verse 18.
<BR>
<BR>Mark:
<BR>> These two verses do not directly bear on the meaningof
<BR>John 1:1. But of the two, John 1:18 [of which there aretextual variants that
<BR>replace "theos" with "uios"/son, whichindicate some controversy over the
<BR>meaning of thetext] helps distinguish Jesus from God, for it reads, "No man
<BR>has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of
<BR>the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB)If no man has seen God at any time,
<BR>then obviouslyJesus wasn't God, for men clearly did see him. Itis fitting
<BR>for him to be called "monogenes theos",however, as he surely was _theos_
<BR>(John 1:1c),and he was "unique" in being > "the image of theinvisible God"
<BR>and "the firstborn of all creation"(Col 1:15 NASB).
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>What a mental leap you have made. Up until the only God who came from the
<BR>bosom of the Father no one had ever seen God, it was the only Jesus came that
<BR>he revealed God to them. Even when people looked at Jesus except for the
<BR>transfiguration they did not see him in his glory. There is nothing disputed
<BR>about this
<BR>passage, the Logos, Jesus is clearly referred to as the only God who came
<BR>from
<BR>the bosom of the Father. It is true that the Latin Fathers who were
<BR>Trinitarians,
<BR>were afraid that some people might they confuse this passage and end up with
<BR>Trithism, so that when they translated the passage into Latin they changed
<BR>this
<BR>section to read that the only Son has revealed the Father. No, Greek scholar
<BR>will
<BR>dispute what appears in the oldest and best Greek ms. I find it passingly
<BR>strange
<BR>that you want to accept the Latin Fathers on this portion of scripture, but
<BR>reject
<BR>them on other scripture.
<BR>
<BR>Mark post:
<BR>> John 20:28 is the ONLY place in the NT where"ho theos" *might* be viewed as
<BR>being applied toJesus, but looking at the whole situation, theissue at hand
<BR>wasn't whether Thomas was doubtingthat Jesus was God, but he was doubting
<BR>that hewas alive (i.e., doubting that he had been resurrected).Jesus' reply
<BR>to him in v.29 only addresses thematter of Thomas having
<BR>> seen him in person to havebelieved his resurrection.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark there is no might about it Thomas call Jesus "Ho Theos" and all your
<BR>attempt
<BR>to avoid that is only to self evident.
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_bf.c3d9b82.27d83800_boundary--
Mark Sornson
Like many WT critics, you refuse to view the evidence
objectively (when it goes against you), and therefore
disparage it (as "red herrings") rather than address it
head-on.
When JWs cite Harner, it is to convey HIS scholarly opinion
(even though he IS a trinitarian) that John 1:1 should not
be rendered "... the Word was God" because it doesn't convey
the proper qualitative sense of the Greek to the ordinary
(i.e., non-scholarly) English reader (who hasn't been
prepped with all the qualifiers that are added to John 1:1
by trinitarian scholars who admit that the Greek doesn't
really say "the Word was God", but that if _theos_ is
*understood* in an impersonal, qualitative sense, it's
OK to put "God" in the English translation as long as
the reader allegedly understands that it doesn't mean
_ho theos_, like the first occurance, but is more like
"divine", or "deity", or "the nature of God").
Even if it were true that "Jesus is God" (i.e. God is a
trinity of which Jesus is part), it isn't proved by John 1:1,
for Harner proves that that's NOT what John was saying
with this verse. Saying John 1:1 must be translated "...
the Word was God" BECAUSE 'Jesus is God' is circular
reasoning.
To quote (of all sources) Monty Python, "argument is an
intellectual process" and "an argument is a connected series
of statements intended to establish a proposition."
Your proposition is "Jesus is God" (i.e. God is a trinity
of which Jesus is one 'person'). For it to be true it
must be supported by proof (i.e., clear statements supporting
it found in the Bible).
Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
from God (ho theos).
The problem is that you always start with your conclusion
that 'Jesus is God', or with negative of it that Harner
isn't saying that "Jesus cannot be God", rather than starting
with an open mind and asking, first, what do verses like
John 1:1 REALLY say? What conclusion does it lead us toward
(rather than what conclusion can be superimposed on all
the evidence to bring us to what we've already made up
our minds about)?
Again, the issue is what does John 1:1, by itself, really
say, and not, what greater conclusion of faith made aforehand
(such as your trinitarian view that Jesus is God) must serve
as a lense through which to view all of the evidence?
>
> Mark continues:
> > > > Harner doesn't provide either his own or Vawter's
> >clear definition of what he means by "divine," but he
> >does quote Vawter as saying that "the Word is
> >divine [theos]" must be understood as meaning
> >"he is NOT all of divinity". Surely a trinitarian would
> > > > have to say that God IS "all of divinity".
>
> S, I had written:
> > >Divine, is not that hard to define, like good only God is divine.
>
> Mark responds, by quoting that other have used the term divine to refer to
> angels. The fact that others have misused the term divine proves nothing.
Proof by contradiction, eh?
You are forced to conclude that "others have misused the term"
because you refuse to accept anything that contradictions your
dogmatic conclusions about the trinity.
The truth is that the "others" (i.e., the Jews) who lived
while the Bible was being written, BEFORE trinitarians came
on the scene, had the advantage of knowing first-hand what
they believed "divine" meant. Your gainsaying doesn't disprove
the historically established truth that the Jews (including
the inspired Jews) understood the angels to be "gods" and
"divine" beings.
>
> S:
> > > Grammatically, "theos" and "ho theos" cannot be interchanged.
> >But only, God has the qualities of God, as Jesus said when a man
> >called him to him "good teacher, what good things can I do to merit
> >eternal life." Jesus went past what the man was asking to tell us
> >something about the quality of God. Only God is good. The
> > > question is: Is Jesus good?
>
> Mark:
> > In my opinion, citing this particular point is quiteself-defeating,
> for Jesus was obviously rejectingthe flattery of the man, doing so
> in a way thatdeflected attention away from him and focusedit on
> God, his Father. That Jesus so plainly statedthat the only one
> who was "good" in the sensethat the man meant was God draws
> > a cleardistinction between Jesus and God.
>
> > Asking "Is Jesus good?" is sophistry, as it failsto take into account
> > that Jesus was objecting toa particular use of the term. . .
>
> S:
> Jesus is not obviously rejecting Deity,
He's obviously not claiming divinity, and he
is obviously rejecting something.
> he is only asking if the man
> understands
> what it means to be called good.
No, he wasn't asking the man anything. He was rejecting
flattery outright, and Jesus was telling the flatterer that
the title "Good" that he was applying to Jesus in a
particular sense only applied to God.
> Jesus did not say that he was not, good or
> God, only that God is good. If Jesus shares the qualities of God then he is
> not
> a god, but he is true God. This is not sophistry but right on focus
> regarding the quality of Deity.
We can't go by what Jesus didn't say, but only by
what he did say. "Good" wasn't just being used as
a quality in this context, but was an elevated title
that Jesus rejected for himself, and applied only
to God.
You say Jesus is "true God" (an expression never found
in the Bible in direct application to Jesus), but Jesus
himself said that his Father was "the only true God"
(John 17:3 KJV). "Only true God" is both specific
and definitive. Only the Father is called "the true God".
>
> If Jesus is good he shares the qualities of God and is therefore is God.
This is specious reasoning (from the general to the specific).
Genesis says that God looked at his creation on earth
and declared it "good". By your reasoning, since creation
is good, it shares the qualities of God; and therefore
creation is God.
Man shares the qualities of God, at least in a limited
sense, since it says that man was made in God's "image"
(Gen 1:27), but obviously an "image" of anything is not
the original. Jesus Christ is also called "the image of
the invisible God" (Col 1:15 NIV); thus he obviously shares
the qualities of God to an even greater degree than
man does. But again, the "image" of something is not the
same as the originator of the image.
>
> Mark tries to avoid the consequence of this by saying:
> > If he is, he is "ho theos."Jesus made it clear that he did NOT
> considerhimself to be good the way God (ho theos -Mark 10:18) is: "Why do
> you call Me good? No one > is good except God (ho theos) alone."
Rather than avoiding the "consequence" of this saying,
I'd say I'm addressing it head on. YOU are avoiding
the consequence by refusing to admit the clear distinction
that Jesus drew between himself and God.
>
> I, S, had posted:
> > > In thelater
> >half of the 20th chapter of John Thomas falls on his knees and says
> >to Jesus, "the Lord of me and "ho theos" of me." Not only that but
> >in the 1st chapter, John uses the term "monogenes" which
> >according to 1st century Koine means "only one" or "unique." John
> >calls Jesus the only one God bing in the bosom of he Father. See
> > > verse 18.
>
> Mark:
> > These two verses do not directly bear on the meaningof
> John 1:1. But of the two, John 1:18 [of which there aretextual variants that
> replace "theos" with "uios"/son, whichindicate some controversy over the
> meaning of thetext] helps distinguish Jesus from God, for it reads, "No man
> has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of
> the Father, He has explained Him" (NASB)If no man has seen God at any time,
> then obviouslyJesus wasn't God, for men clearly did see him. Itis fitting
> for him to be called "monogenes theos",however, as he surely was _theos_
> (John 1:1c),and he was "unique" in being > "the image of theinvisible God"
> and "the firstborn of all creation"(Col 1:15 NASB).
>
> S:
> What a mental leap you have made. Up until the only God who came from the
> bosom of the Father no one had ever seen God, it was the only Jesus came that
> he revealed God to them.
No, I insist ... the leap is all yours.
John didn't say that it was only until "God who came from
the bosom of the Father" that no one had ever seen God.
John 1:18 says plainly that Jesus "who is in the bosom
of the Father ... has EXPLAINED him" (NASB), or "made
him known" (NIV), or "declared him" (NJKV).
In fact, John stated this truth about no one having
seen God a second time, in 1John 4:12 -
"No one has ever seen God ..." (NIV)
"No one has seen God at any time..." (NASB)
If Jesus were God, then this statement would have been
false, for John would have "seen God", as would the
other apostles (and everyone else who saw him in person).
John is very definite about his. "No one has ever
seen God." Therefore, since people have seen Jesus,
Jesus is not God.
> Even when people looked at Jesus except for the
> transfiguration they did not see him in his glory. There is nothing disputed
> about this
> passage, the Logos, Jesus is clearly referred to as the only God who came
> from
> the bosom of the Father.
Jesus is the only _theos_ who came from the bosom of the Father.
This makes him "god/divine" or "a god/a divine being", with
a unique relationship to the Father. Trinitarian translations
which translate this as "God" obscure the point that the
Greek doesn't call him "ho theos" either in this verse or
verse 1.
> It is true that the Latin Fathers who were
> Trinitarians,
> were afraid that some people might they confuse this passage and end up with
> Trithism, so that when they translated the passage into Latin they changed
> this
> section to read that the only Son has revealed the Father. No, Greek scholar
> will
> dispute what appears in the oldest and best Greek ms. I find it passingly
> strange
> that you want to accept the Latin Fathers on this portion of scripture, but
> reject
> them on other scripture.
I'll take your word for it that the Latin says "son" [actually
a NWT footnote also makes this observation]; but many Greek
manuscripts do as well. The NWT (and JWs) have no problem
accepting the word _theos_ in the Greek text. Jesus is the
"only begotten god" (NWT) in the bosom of the Father.
Unlike the Latin Fathers, JWs aren't afraid of tritheism or
polytheism, as the Bible itself pays no heed to these terms.
Jehovah God, the Father, is the "only true God", but other
heavenly beings, from the Son to the angels, are also divine
beings or "gods" (Heb. elohim) in a lesser, but nonetheless
heavenly sense that applies to the residence of the spirit
realm.
>
> Mark post:
> > John 20:28 is the ONLY place in the NT where"ho theos" *might* be viewed as
> being applied toJesus, but looking at the whole situation, theissue at hand
> wasn't whether Thomas was doubtingthat Jesus was God, but he was doubting
> that hewas alive (i.e., doubting that he had been resurrected).Jesus' reply
> to him in v.29 only addresses thematter of Thomas having
> > seen him in person to havebelieved his resurrection.
>
> S:
> Mark there is no might about it Thomas call Jesus "Ho Theos" and all your
> attempt
> to avoid that is only to self evident.
Assuming Thomas was actually speaking Greek (and not Hebrew
which John translated), as a vocative statement the definite
article was idiomatically correct. The truth is that we
only know this to be an expression of astonishment by Thomas
upon learning, in person, that Jesus was resurrected.
But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that Thomas
really did call Jesus "my God." To Thomas, Jesus was
God, or represented God.
If this is the case, what did Jesus' words to Mary mean?:
"I am ascending to my Father and your
Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 RSV)
Notice that when given the opportunity himself to say
something about the relationship between man and God,
Jesus said (to Mary) that his Father was her God, and did
not say that he (Jesus) was her God. And also notice
(even more significantly) that Jesus' Father was
also HIS God (for Jesus said he was "my God"). Since
Jesus, that that point, was resurrected (and was no
longer a mere human Jew under the Law), what did it mean
for Jesus to say that he has a God?
If Jesus is God, what does it mean for him to have
a God of his own, and for that God to be the same God
of Mary? How can Jesus be God and yet share a God
with mere humans? How can God (if Jesus is God and is
equal to the other two 'persons' of the trinity) have
a God? And if the Father and Son are equal partners
in the trinity, how can his Father be his God? After
all, doesn't having a God mean that he is less than
that God?
If you're going to quote verses from John to prove
that Jesus is God, then you have to explain (and
really, explain away) all the verses in John that
provide evidence that Jesus is not God.
-mark.
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_53.35f730f.27daa8b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark in a very long post, over 16,600 bytes, states:
> Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
> sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
S:
John 1.1 is supported by John 1. 18. John clearly indicates Jesus as not
only
having the very qualities of God, but also he calls him the one unique God
who
came from the bosom of the Father to reveal Him.
I have on numerous occasions over the last 3 years have stated that
Trinitarianism
is the worst possible explanation for the fact that God is one, yet God has
an only one unique Son, save for all the other explanation.
Mark:
> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
> supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
S:
Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
Mark complete statements is as follows:
> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
> from God (ho theos).
S:
If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the teachings
of
Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
Sabellius."
before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be able
to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and Trinitarianism.
This is part and parcel of the WT and the JWO distortion of Harner writings
which has to be understood as a defense of Trinitarianism from Modalism.
Sabbatismos.
--part1_53.35f730f.27daa8b1_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Mark in a very long post, over 16,600 bytes, states:
<BR>> Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
<BR>Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
<BR>_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
<BR>> sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>John 1.1 is supported by John 1. 18. John clearly indicates Jesus as not
<BR>only
<BR>having the very qualities of God, but also he calls him the one unique God
<BR>who
<BR>came from the bosom of the Father to reveal Him.
<BR>
<BR>I have on numerous occasions over the last 3 years have stated that
<BR>Trinitarianism
<BR>is the worst possible explanation for the fact that God is one, yet God has
<BR>an only one unique Son, save for all the other explanation.
<BR>
<BR>Mark:
<BR>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
<BR>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
<BR>> supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
<BR>have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
<BR>
<BR>Mark complete statements is as follows:
<BR>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
<BR>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
<BR>supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
<BR>for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
<BR>and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
<BR>be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
<BR>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
<BR>> from God (ho theos).
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
<BR>you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
<BR>said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the teachings
<BR>of
<BR>Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
<BR>Sabellius."
<BR>before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be able
<BR>to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and Trinitarianism.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>This is part and parcel of the WT and the JWO distortion of Harner writings
<BR>which has to be understood as a defense of Trinitarianism from Modalism.
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_53.35f730f.27daa8b1_boundary--
Bob
Mark,
I would like to continue our talks however these multi-page question and
answer novels have to end. I think we should limit the discussion to one
topic at a time. I just don't have the time to put into these extremely
long messages.
I am going to only ask about one topic you brought up in our last message.
It's in regards to your statement:
> The Evangelical Protestant Christian movement traces its
> history back to Luther, but it has had to reorganize at least
> twice in recent history (in the USA), in 1912 (as the Evangelical
> Protestant Church of North America) and 1999 (as the General
> Conference of Evangelical Protestant Churches).
>
So now you are saying that Evangelical Christianity came after Russell?
Are you trying to say that after Jesus rose that there was no true Church
until Russell came along in the late 1800's?
So there were no Christians in that 1800 years?
That Luther "created a new religion?
If I can suggest that you check out this site:
http://www.reachtheworldforjesus.homestead.com/JehovahWitnesses.html
Bob
mark sornson
Bob wrote in message <98d1oi$rrr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>Mark,
>
>I would like to continue our talks however these multi-page question and
>answer novels have to end. I think we should limit the discussion to one
>topic at a time. I just don't have the time to put into these extremely
>long messages.
I agree that they are a time sink.
>
>I am going to only ask about one topic you brought up in our last message.
>It's in regards to your statement:
>
>> The Evangelical Protestant Christian movement traces its
>> history back to Luther, but it has had to reorganize at least
>> twice in recent history (in the USA), in 1912 (as the Evangelical
>> Protestant Church of North America) and 1999 (as the General
>> Conference of Evangelical Protestant Churches).
>>
>
>So now you are saying that Evangelical Christianity came after Russell?
If I may preface my reply with an editorial remark ... I'm surprised
that of all the things we talked about, you chose something
as relatively trivial as this to focus in on.
What I'm saying is that Evangelical Christianity doesn't
have a single, unified history that can be traced back to
the first century. Even if its roots sprouted earlier than
Russell's day, it still isn't the Christianity of the first century.
And it's need to reorganize after Russell's day suggests
that it needed to 'get its act together' more than once.
However, rather than have me continue to make statements
about the history of Evangelical Christianity (that I don't claim to
be an expert on), I invite you to take the initiative here and
tell the group here whatever you think is most important
about Evangelical Christian history, and what you think
its history proves about itself.
>Are you trying to say that after Jesus rose that there was no true Church
>until Russell came along in the late 1800's?
I think the best answer comes from the Bible itself.
Matthew 13:24-43 is the "Parable of the Weeds" (NIV
heading). The jist of it is that weeds (the "sons of
the evil one", v.38 NIV, sown by the "devil", v.39) were
sown among the wheat (the seeds of which are the
"sons of the kingdom" v.38 NIV), and are only sorted
out in "the harvest" at "the end of the age" (v.39 NIV)
by the harvesters, who are the angels (v.39). Jesus
concluded his explanation by saying:
"Then the righteous will shine like the sun
in the kingdom of their Father. He who has
ears, let him hear." (v.43 NIV)
You are welcome to tell me your interpretation of this,
Bob, but I (and JWs) take it to mean that this prophesy
indicates that true Christianity would be oversown
by "weeds" -- counterfeit Christianity -- which would be
allowed to grow unchecked until the time of the final
harvest. Even though the "wheat" would evidently
exist, in some measure, for the duration, the point is
that it wasn't until "the end of the age" that God would
direct the angels to sort out the "wheat" from the "weeds"
so that the identity of the "wheat" would become clear.
Jesus' words "THEN the righteous will shine like
the sun" suggests that before that time, the identity
of the 'true church' would not be clearly known on the
world scene.
Paul later wrote that "the day of the Lord" ... "will
not come unless the apostasy comes first" (2Th 2:3 NASB).
That "apostasy" would become a prominant feature
(characterized as the "man of lawlessness") also
indicates that it was, in fact, expected that the 'true
church' would be overshadowed by the false, at least
for a time.
>So there were no Christians in that 1800 years?
I don't believe I said this. There have been those
along the way who made an effort to really live their
faith as the first century Christians did, but I
certainly don't believe that the major ecclesiastical
'powers' in Christendom that have been in the majority
demonstrated that they were true Christians.
>That Luther "created a new religion?
That Luther came to the fore is usually taken as
proof (of some sort) that 'Christianity' by his day
was in serious need of reform. Your own personal
history (that you've recounted) suggests that
you also saw the need in your own life to 'reform'
your own faith, by leaving the Catholic Church
and joining the Evangelical Church.
If Luther didn't create a new religion, then what
did he create, or what was created as a result
of his efforts? How do YOU catagorize them?
>If I can suggest that you check out this site:
>http://www.reachtheworldforjesus.homestead.com/JehovahWitnesses.html
Thanks for the reference. For now, however,
I'd prefer to hear directly from you, to hear your
own personal witness.
What would interest me in particular would be
your witness for the truth, i.e., your beliefs, rather
than your witness against my beliefs (or pointers
to canned arguments against them). After all,
attempts to deconstruct my religion don't prove
that you have anything better to offer in its stead.
-mark.
mark sornson
Sabba...@aol.com wrote in message <98bjps$a7h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>Mark in a very long post, over 16,600 bytes, states:
>> Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
>Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
>_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
>> sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
>
>S:
>John 1.1 is supported by John 1. 18. John clearly indicates Jesus as not
>only
>having the very qualities of God, but also he calls him the one unique God
>who
>came from the bosom of the Father to reveal Him.
>
>I have on numerous occasions over the last 3 years have stated that
>Trinitarianism
>is the worst possible explanation for the fact that God is one, yet God has
>an only one unique Son, save for all the other explanation.
I'm familiar with this paraphrased quote from Churchill, as
I myself sometimes muse (when faced with severe criticism of JWs)
that 'JWs are the worst choice except for every other
choice.' In reality, though, I hardly think of my faith (and
my 'belief system') as a least-of-all-evils offering. I do agree,
however, that trinitarianism is about "the worse possible
explanation" of the relationship between Jehovah God
and his unique Son.
Frankly, given just the words you say here, I see no
contradiction between the notions that "God is one"
and that "God has an only one unique Son."
That God, Jehovah (YHWH) is "one" signifies his
personal uniqueness as the "Most High" and his
being The God of the whole earth. There's no
inconsistency between this aspect of his being
"one" and his having brought forth a unique Son
that John describes as being _theos_, or divine.
The Scriptures make it clear that God's Son is neither
his superior nor his equal, but rather is subordinate
to him in all respects.
>
>Mark:
>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
>> supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
>
>S:
>Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
>have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either ... but
to the contrary, I think I have a pretty good idea of what
Trinitarianism is (though it seems that no two people give
the exact same explanation), which is why I don't believe
it for one second.
Regardless of my view, however, if you have something
constructive to say that would provide me with knowledge
that you feel I lack, I encourage you to be forthcoming
in providing it rather than merely asserting that I don't know
what you know.
>
>Mark complete statements is as follows:
>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
>supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
>for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
>and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
>be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
>> from God (ho theos).
>
>S:
>If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
>you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
>said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the
teachings
>of
>Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
>Sabellius."
>before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be
able
>to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and
Trinitarianism.
Quoting Calvin is irrelevant, for he doesn't represent John's view,
but rather his own view as a trinitarian. This is a form of anachronism,
over-laying trinitarian patterns of thought onto the Bible as though
the Bible writers themselves were anticipating the trinity-related
controversies that would follow centuries later. Even though we might
point to statements in John (and elsewhere) to refute arguments
made by later figures of history, it's an error to assume that the Bible
writers really had in mind the issues of the later centuries. Instead
it's far more appropriate (and really necessary) to consider the
issues that were contemporary to John's time, as they provide
the true context by which to interpret his meaning.
[As an aside, I agree that John 1:1 disproves Sabellius and his
doctrine of Modalism, but again, it's an unfounded assumption
to say that John had that in mind. I'd say John 1:18, rather than
John 1:1, helps disprove Arius' teaching that the Son was God's
son by adoption (a teaching JWs differ from Arius over -- one of
several points of difference, actually), but again, it's doubtful that
this later issue was really in the mind of John. I don't believe that
John 1:1 disproves Arius' belief that the Word was created by
God.]
To requote a verse from John from a previous post, John
tells us exactly why he wrote his gospel:
"Jesus did many other miraculous signs in
the presence of his disciples, which are not
recorded in this book. But these are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God, and that by believing you
may have life in his name." (John 20:30,31 NIV)
John isn't defending the trinity or teachings against
it, but rather, he is defending the teachings that
"Jesus is the Christ," that he is "the Son of God,"
and that those that believe this may be "life in his
name." Thus, the question to ask is, what teachings
and/or undercurrents of thought in his day were
threatening or undermining these truths?
Since John wrote at the end of the first century, he may
have been writing to counter the gnostic notion that Jesus
never actually came in the flesh (John 1:14). Plus, he
was probably also writing to emphasize the fact that Jesus
was not simply a human like any other, but did, in fact,
exist prior to coming to earth, no doubt a point denied by
Jewish unbelievers, and somewhat unusual to Roman ears
as well (though Romans paid lip-service to the notion that
humans could be deified, or viewed as divine, after death).
The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that pre-Christian Jewish
thought anticipated that the Messiah would be "angelic
or of a divine nature" (_Exploring the New Testament World_,
by Albert Bell Jr., 1998, p. 42 -- though it's true that some
texts portray him only as a divinely anointed human, which
does happen to be an experience Jesus underwent at his
baptism), so John may also have been writing to confirm
the truth of that view. [Note that in some modern translations,
the Messianic title in Isa 9:6 often rendered "Mighty God" is
rendered "divine hero" (Moffatt), "God-Hero" (NAB), "divine
in might" (Oxford Annotated NRSV ftn); thus John's gospel
provides the historical confirmation that the Messiah of
Isaiah had a divine origin.]
We could probably explore this -- the issues of importance
at the time of John's writing -- at greater length (e.g. Caligula
decided he was a god and demanded to be addressed as
dominus et deus, "master and god" -- the Greek equivalent
of dominus being kyrios (lord) [Bell, p.128], and Domitan
likewise appropriated those titles for himself [Bell, p. 128,
also _The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament_,
by James Jeffers, 1999, p.101]); but the main point is that
John must be understood in the light of his time, rather
than in the light of church theologians writing -- and inventing
theological ideas -- centuries later.
>
>
>This is part and parcel of the WT and the JWO distortion of Harner writings
>which has to be understood as a defense of Trinitarianism from Modalism.
Again, JWs have not distorted Harner's writings.
JWs have simply extracted a point of fact about
Greek from Harner's writings that is independant
from his theological opinions.
Also, as I mentioned before, I have a copy of Harner's
article. He is NOT specifically making an argument
against Modalism, and neither is he specifically
writing in defense of the trinity. His article is an analysis
of "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns," and while
he does consider the theological implications of various
renderings, his main point is to focus on the significance of
the grammar as a means of expressing qualitative ideas.
His conclusion about this aspect of expressing thought
in Greek is what the WTS/JWs rightly takes from his work.
-mark.
Bob
Mark wrote:
> What I'm saying is that Evangelical Christianity doesn't
> have a single, unified history that can be traced back to
> the first century. Even if its roots sprouted earlier than
> Russell's day, it still isn't the Christianity of the first century.
> And it's need to reorganize after Russell's day suggests
> that it needed to 'get its act together' more than once.
>
> However, rather than have me continue to make statements
> about the history of Evangelical Christianity (that I don't claim to
> be an expert on), I invite you to take the initiative here and
> tell the group here whatever you think is most important
> about Evangelical Christian history, and what you think
> its history proves about itself.
>
No, Mark I won't. You keep re-writing history. How can you argue with
anyone that does that?
I do want to thank you for our discussions it has prompted me to do some
more research on JW's. I have revised my opinion about "brain washing". I
no longer believe that JW's are brain washed. Brainwashing is done in a
coercive environment. I now believe that JW's have been influenced more by
"mind control" techniques. They are very subtle but very powerful. I know
that your blood pressure just went up but after my research I believe it to
be an accurate assessment which you have proven to me.
When you first were thinking of becoming a JW I suppose that they predicted
that "Christians" would come to you and try to talk you out of it. When
this happened, it validated in your mind, what the JW's said.
This is a subtle method of mind control. In and of itself it is not
decisive but it is one thing that helps "validate" their beliefs to a
prospective convert.
After all if you are honest with yourself can you tell me which you read
more; Watchtower materials or the Bible. I'm sure that it is material
provided by the JW's. The only time you "read" the Bible is to look up one
verse here or there which validates what you have read from provided
materials. Why can't you just sit down and read the Bible and learn from it
alone. The influence of the JW's has forced you to change your way of
thinking. You cannot view anything in the Bible until after it is filtered
by the Watchtower organization.
How's this for proof. The Watchtower organization has made predictions that
have not come true. However this does not change your opinion of the
organization you just find excuse after excuse to justify that they are
correct even after they have been proven wrong. That's mind control. You
will believe what they say even in spite or evidence that proves them wrong.
Why won't you check out the web site I mentioned? It's because you have
already made up your mind and are afraid you might find something that
proves you wrong. But it won't matter will it. Because no matter what you
find out you are afraid that you will be disfellowshipped, or shunned. Now
tell me what religion does that other then a cult. JW's and Mormon's have a
lot in common there as they also practice shunning.
Bob
Matthew Johnson
In article <98jf90$bdu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>
>
>
>
>Sabba...@aol.com wrote in message <98bjps$a7h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>>
>>
>>Mark in a very long post, over 16,600 bytes, states:
>>> Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
>>Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
>>_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
>>> sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete isolation, ignoring the rest of
Scripture, I suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_ "identify Jesus as
God". But why do this? Even when they explicitly refer only to one verse, such
as this one, the great 4th century Trinitarians never did this.
Rather, when the luminary St. Basil the Great, commenting on this very verse,
says that this one verse disproves both Arius and Sabellius, he still has in
mind Gen 1:1 and the many passages where the OT asserts that God alone created
all things. So keeping in mind the oneness of God revealed in the OT, but also
the diversity of God revealed clearly only in the NT, he says:
For we contemplate one image, as it were, expressed in
the unchangeability of Divinity, in God the Father and
in God the Only-Begotten. For the Son is in the Father,
and the Father is in the Son. For what the Father is,
the Son is; and what teh Son is, the Father is. In this way,
they are one. So by the sistinction of persons, they are one
and one, but by the commonality of essence
they are both one. (Ad Amphilochium, ch 18)
[snip]
>I think I have a pretty good idea of what
>Trinitarianism is (though it seems that no two people give
>the exact same explanation), which is why I don't believe
>it for one second.
If you really did 'have a pretty good idea of what it is', you could not
possibly 'not believe it for one second'.
>Regardless of my view, however, if you have something
>constructive to say that would provide me with knowledge
>that you feel I lack, I encourage you to be forthcoming
>in providing it rather than merely asserting that I don't know
>what you know.
You expect this after posting that you "don't believe
it for one second"?
>>Mark complete statements is as follows:
>>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
>>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
>>supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
>>for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
>>and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
>>be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
>>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
>>> from God (ho theos).
But this paragraph reads like a surprising amalgam of Trinitarian and
anti-Trinitarian dogma. For it says OTH, 'IF Jesus really were God...', but
OTOH, 'Jesus is distinct in identity from God'. But this latter, (at least if
'in identity' is dropped), is perfectly Trinitarian; the persons are distinct,
of course, but not _separate_ from each other in the Trinity.
This distinction between 'distinct' and 'separate' is r-e-a-l-l-y basic to
Trinitarian theology. It is not clear to me that you understand this.
>>S:
>>If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
>>you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
>>said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the
>teachings
>>of
>>Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
>>Sabellius."
>>before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be
>able
>>to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and
>Trinitarianism.
>Quoting Calvin is irrelevant, for he doesn't represent John's view,
>but rather his own view as a trinitarian.
But John is a Trinitarian, too, even though the word 'Trinity' had not yet been
coined. So although Calvin was not the best quote, his is still relevant.
> This is a form of anachronism,
>over-laying trinitarian patterns of thought onto the Bible as though
>the Bible writers themselves were anticipating the trinity-related
>controversies that would follow centuries later.
Oh, so we are supposed to believe that asserting the Evangelists were
Trinitarians is an 'anachronism', but asserting they were JW's is not? Give me a
break!
>Even though we might
>point to statements in John (and elsewhere) to refute arguments
>made by later figures of history, it's an error to assume that the Bible
>writers really had in mind the issues of the later centuries.
But no matter what notion of 'inspiration' you believe in, you must believe that
it means we can count on more than _this_ in the inspired writings!
After all, if we accept your line of reasoning, and allow Scripture to be
understood only in terms that the writer immediately had in mind, we have to
also reject many of the prophecies that the NT writers accept as prophecy.
Do you do this?
>Instead
>it's far more appropriate (and really necessary) to consider the
>issues that were contemporary to John's time, as they provide
>the true context by which to interpret his meaning.
Even in purely secular writings, commentators look for meanings beyond what the
author had in mind. Why do you deny this right to Scriptural commentators?
Bob
Here is some information about the JW religion. The disregard for all
these failed prophecies and predictions show how the JW religion has
convinced it's membership that it is right despite all the evidence to the
contrary.
Bob
>>>
They have predicted that the start of Armageddon would occur in 1914, 1918,
1920, 1925, and 1941. None of the prophecies have come true. Each failed
estimate caused some disillusioned members to leave the organization.
The WTS reported that 1975 was the 6000th anniversary of the creation of
Adam in the Garden of Eden in 4026 BCE. This prompted much of the WTS
membership to assume that 1975 was a likely date for Armageddon. The WTS
seems to have done little to suppress that expectation. That year also
passed uneventfully.
Some of the membership, without official WTS sanction, interpreted Psalms
90:10 as defining the length of a generation to be 80 years. Since 1914 plus
80 equals 1994, they predicted Armageddon would occur around that year. That
prophecy, like so many by other faith groups, also failed.
Some Jehovah's Witnesses now believe that the end will happen exactly 6000
years after the creation of Eve. They believe that Eve may have been created
many years after Adam, at an unknown date. This belief contradicts an
article in a 1968 issue of Awake magazine, which stated that: "According to
reliable Bible chronology, Adam and Eve were created in 4026 B.C.E." 26 That
would have placed the end back in 1975 -- an event that didn't happen.
Until recently, the WTS taught that Armageddon will start soon, before the
last of generation of Jehovah's Witnesses born around the time of Christ's
enthronement in 1914 died off. This concept of the generation of 1914 has
recently been abandoned, as described in the 1995-NOV-1 issue of Watchtower.
This change effectively removes precise dates from the WTS prophetic
predictions. They still anticipate an end in the near future. But as a
matter of policy, they are not estimating when it will happen.
mark sornson
Bob wrote in message <98jf8v$bdr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>Mark wrote:
>> What I'm saying is that Evangelical Christianity doesn't
>> have a single, unified history that can be traced back to
>> the first century. Even if its roots sprouted earlier than
>> Russell's day, it still isn't the Christianity of the first century.
>> And it's need to reorganize after Russell's day suggests
>> that it needed to 'get its act together' more than once.
>>
>> However, rather than have me continue to make statements
>> about the history of Evangelical Christianity (that I don't claim to
>> be an expert on), I invite you to take the initiative here and
>> tell the group here whatever you think is most important
>> about Evangelical Christian history, and what you think
>> its history proves about itself.
>>
>
>No, Mark I won't. You keep re-writing history. How can you argue with
>anyone that does that?
I keep rewriting history? That's a ridiculous accusation.
That you keep making up stuff like this is what makes
it hard to argue.
But I tell you what. You show me where I "rewrote
history" and I'll say, "Gee thanks for setting me straight,
Bob."
Besides, I'm not asking you to "argue" history. I was
only asking you to tell me about Evangelical Protestant
Christian history from your point of view, as proof that
it is true Christianity. But, I guess that would just be
too much trouble (despite 1Pet 3:15), or else I, as
a 'brainwashed JW' just aren't worth the trouble.
>
>I do want to thank you for our discussions it has prompted me to do some
>more research on JW's. I have revised my opinion about "brain washing".
I
>no longer believe that JW's are brain washed. Brainwashing is done in a
>coercive environment. I now believe that JW's have been influenced more by
>"mind control" techniques. They are very subtle but very powerful. I
know
>that your blood pressure just went up but after my research I believe it to
>be an accurate assessment which you have proven to me.
Yeah, well ... you're quite 'welcome' for the 'help' in changing
your opinion about JWs from seeing us as being "brainwashed"
to seeing us as "mind controlled" (a distinction without a difference,
I'd say).
I'll admit that the 'techniques' JWs are "very powerful",
but here's why. Paul said:
"the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,
but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
We are destroying speculations and every lofty
thing [arguments and every pretention - NIV; arguments
and every proud obstacle - NRSV; proud arguments
and rebellious ideas - NLT] raised up against the
knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought
captive to the obedience of Christ, ..." (2Cor 10:4,5 NASB)
The truth has the power to "destroy" false arguments
and also to protect the thoughts of believers so that
they are "captive" only "to the obedience of Christ."
Paul also wrote:
"my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable ..."
(1Cor 15:58 NASB; "stand firm" "Let nothing move
you" NIV; cf Col 1:23)
Since true Christian faith is supposed to be "immovable,"
to unbelievers it may look like 'mind control', but really,
it is meant to make a person "steadfast" in their convictions.
I think I asked you this once before, but if not,
I'll ask it now -- how strong are your own convictions,
Bob? Are they shakey, or are they strong so that you
too are "immovable" in your beliefs? If the latter,
why isn't your faith due to "powerful mind control
techniques?"
.... and one last thing ... please be assured that my
blood pressure is just fine (or at least unaffected by
your 'research'). But thanks for being concerned about
my health.
>
>When you first were thinking of becoming a JW I suppose that they predicted
>that "Christians" would come to you and try to talk you out of it. When
>this happened, it validated in your mind, what the JW's said.
>This is a subtle method of mind control. In and of itself it is not
>decisive but it is one thing that helps "validate" their beliefs to a
>prospective convert.
You don't know anything about me or my personal
history, Bob.
But really, all of your rhetorical arguments could be turned
back on yourself. You got your 'validation' of your faith your
way, and I got validation of my faith my way, and there probably
were similarities in the process. Why cast aspersions about
me over what you've done for yourself? Weren't you told that
people would try to talk you out of becoming an Evangelical
Christian? Or is your faith so indistinct from all others that
no one cares that you changed it, and that no one even noticed
the change?
In any case, being told others will try to talk people interested
in JWs out of it isn't "mind control", Bob, it's a simple fact
that past experience has borne out well. It happens all the time
and will continue to happen. However, as the saying goes,
being forewarned is to be forearmed. There's nothing
particularly odious about that.
>
>After all if you are honest with yourself can you tell me which you read
>more; Watchtower materials or the Bible. I'm sure that it is material
>provided by the JW's. The only time you "read" the Bible is to look up one
>verse here or there which validates what you have read from provided
>materials. Why can't you just sit down and read the Bible and learn from
it
>alone.
Bob, show me from the Bible where Jesus taught
his disciples to simply give 'Bibles' to people and have
them sit down and read it on their own, and learn from
it alone. I know for a fact that you can't do that, for Jesus
taught, right from the beginning, that Christian truth
was to be passed along from person to person, so that
one person would teach and make a disciple of another
(Matt 28:19-20). There were no lone-ranger Christians in
the beginning.
The one place I can think of in the Bible of a person sitting
down by himself to read the Bible involved an angel directing
Philip the evangelizer to join him to teach him what he
needed to know that he couldn't learn just by reading on
his own (cf Acts 8:26ff).
Did you really even do for yourself what you say JWs should
do, Bob? I mean, you are now a member of an organized
religion, right? The Evangelical Protestant Christian church,
correct? If so, you surely can't tell me with a straight face that
you never took instruction from church members or church
publications before you joined.
Are you really saying that all you did was read the Bible
and decide to quit the Catholic Church and join the
Evangelical Protestant Church with no influence from
anyone in that church, and with no influence of any
printed material from the Evangelical Church? I find
that hard to believe.
And as for your questions and insinuations about my
reading the Bible on my own ... you don't have any idea
what my personal study habits are, do you?
But I'm sure it suits you to believe only what you say,
so to use your words, how can I argue with a person who
has the audacity to rewrite my own personal history
for me?
[And, of course, there really is nothing wrong with looking up
any verse cited in our literature, to see whether it really
makes the point the literature says it makes. So this is
really a pointless thing to argue about. Too bad for you
if you don't have church literature and/or study guides
that regularly direct you to look up Bible verses on various
subjects.]
> The influence of the JW's has forced you to change your way of
>thinking. You cannot view anything in the Bible until after it is filtered
>by the Watchtower organization.
You already admitted above that JWs don't use coercive
tactics. You aren't even paying attention to yourself,
Bob, much less to me. This just validates my point that
you are refusing to deal with me as a real person, and
are only reading what you want to see into my words to
maintain the imaginary basis for your prejudice. You
see me as an object to oppose, a 'cult figure,' and not
as someone to reason with, to show kindness toward,
and to treat with a shred of dignity.
Also, please note that I'm giving you the opportunity to
view "anything in the Bible" from YOUR point of view,
as born witness to by you to me. Unfortunately, you are
refusing to make the best of this opportunity, and choose
only to direct me elsewhere so that you don't have to
do any work yourself to explain the truth to me as you
understand it. [And I don't consider cutting-and-pasting
from the Kingdom of the Cults, or typing in a few URLs
to be real "work" in this regard.]
>How's this for proof. The Watchtower organization has made predictions
that
>have not come true.
The Watchtower organization has attempted to interpret
Bible prophesies in ways that did not come true. But that
doesn't mean they should have given up trying to figure
out what the truth is just because they were wrong before.
Being wrong is only a 'crime' if you refuse to admit a view
was wrong and refuse to make corrections.
Some of the greatest leaps forward in knowledge have sprung
from false ideas having been proven wrong, as the realization
that one was wrong allows one to identify and clear away
one's faulty preconceived ideas.
And besides, I believe they are quite right about many doctrines,
including the trinity. [The falseness of the trinity was something
Isaac Newton discovered when he investigated the teachings
of the church when faced with having to accept religious orders
in order to retain his fellowship at Cambridge. Newton actually
came to call it a "fornication." -- See Richard Westfall's biography
of Newton, _Never At Rest_] Being right about the trinity puts
them well ahead of your religion on the 'scoreboard', as far as
I am concerned.
> However this does not change your opinion
of the
>organization you just find excuse after excuse to justify that they are
>correct even after they have been proven wrong. That's mind control.
You don't seem to get the point that being wrong about some things
doesn't mean one is wrong about everything. This all-or-nothing
never-wrong-about-anything view of yours simply isn't realistic for
ANY human endevour that seeks knowledge of the truth. Even on
a personal level you admited that you were wrong (to have been
a Catholic) and that you needed to make changes in you beliefs.
[But, when pressed for details, I noticed how quickly you avoided
the topic ...]
What you call mind control I call being realistic. No one is right
about everything all of the time. Not even you, Bob. What's more
telling is how people (and organizations) act when they realize
they are wrong, and what they are willing to do to correct themselves.
JWs know how to eat humble pie when they have to, Bob. The
question is do you? Does your religion?
What you call "mind control" I call having mercy.
Are you a merciful person, Bob?
>
You
>will believe what they say even in spite or evidence that proves them
wrong.
Oh ... you mean throw out the baby with the bathwater.
An honest, humble person who is seeking to know the truth
knows the difference between an honest mistake (no matter
whether it's one or many) and deliberate deception. When
Peter asked Jesus, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against
me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus replied, "I do not
say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
(Matt 18:21,22 NASB) Since I consider the JWs in the Watchtower
Society to be my brothers, I'm willing to forgive them "up
to seventy times seven" times, if necessary. That's not "mind
control" but Christian charity.
Are you willing to forgive errors in your own religion up to
that limit? If not, what is your limit? [Obviously your limit for
JWs is zero ... but what about for yourself and your own faith?]
>
>Why won't you check out the web site I mentioned? It's because you have
>already made up your mind and are afraid you might find something that
>proves you wrong.
Why won't you spend the time to give me a witness
yourself? Is it because you are afraid to, or unable to?
Why do you insist on having someone else do your
witnessing for you?
If you are so keen on checking out websites, however,
I suggest you check out www.jw-russia.org, and read
about the Moscow trial that was just recently decided in
favor of JWs. You might recognize the accusations of
JWs being 'brainwashed' as being familiar. Or would
you be afraid that something you might read there would
prove you wrong?
> But it won't matter will it. Because no
matter what you
>find out you are afraid that you will be disfellowshipped, or shunned.
You sure have a funny way of trying to win me over, Bob.
Do you really feel that by what you say you are honestly doing
your utmost to attract me to the real truth?
Do you really feel that an argument like this will make me
want to join in fellowship with you?
I think my previous analogy of you only trying to 'shell
me into submission' was pretty on-target. There's absolutely
nothing about your approach that suggests to me that
you truly have the slightest bit of sincere interest in me
or any JW. Your only interest is in having yourself
declared the winner, and if some website can 'bomb' me
into submission, so much the better.
>
Now
>tell me what religion does that other then a cult. JW's and Mormon's have
a
>lot in common there as they also practice shunning.
Whatever other faults Mormons might have, the Mormons
that I have met and talked to at length have a major positive
aspect that you sorely lack, namely, a willingness to show
respect to others who believe differently than they do. But
then, that lack seems to be a common trait among evangelical
Christians. Why is that, do you suppose?
Since you bring it up, I can think of a good reason to
practice a little 'shunning' right now, if that's really
what you'd prefer.
Thanks for humoring me (if you have a sense of humor,
that is).
-mark.
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_f4.809322f.27e1217b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I, S, had quoted Mark when he mistakenly said:
> > > If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
> > > supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
S:
> > Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
> > have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
Mark replied:
> I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
> do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
S:
Mark that does not give you any excuse.
You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was deity
in
the same sense as the Father.
John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of a
longer
statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the Prologue
of
John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning, which is
statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
statement
two. John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
the
third and last statement. This is very conclusive. The Logos was at or in
the
beginning, he was with the Theos and the qualities by which we can identify
the
Theos is true for the Logos. Now just in case you missed it John repeats
himself
for emphasis. In John 1.2, he restates the first two statements of John 1.
1, to
whit the Logos was already at the beginning and in the present of the Theos.
Then
John again deals with the qualities of the Logos, for he tells us that the
one who
identifies as the Logos is the creator, for he tells that all things that
were created,
or that came into existence did so by him. And again, just if you missed it,
John
repeats himself by asserting the same thing by this time by using a negative
construction-there is nothing that was not created, or brought into existence
with
out him. All things that were created, or brought into existence were
authored by
him. This is totally conclusive that he is not one of the things that was
created
or brought into existence. He is the fount of all life, for he is the very
essence of
life. In him, or internal to him was life, or self recognition; for all men
he is the light
by which they are able to see themselves as alive. All humanity has two
goals,
one to recognize that they are alive and live in a state of utter depravity
in which
they are inextricably bound, leaving them with a feeling of complete despair.
The
second purpose or goal is to seek the purpose for their own existence, to
come to
the author of life and find the reason for their life, and to be made whole.
All men,
the very life within them draws them to Jesus, to find the light of his
purpose in our
lives.
Sabbatismos.
At the end of the prologue John writes a contradiction, when he tells us that
no one
has ever seen God and it is only through the one and only God who came from
the
bosom of the Father to explain him. Without this one and only God who is
able to
reveal the purpose of our life which is to seek knowledge of God. No one is
able to
see God, no matter how much we strive we are unable to understand him, it is
only
the one and only God the one from the bosom of the Father who is able to
enable us
have any understanding of God. Only then is our purpose revealed which is to
seek
after the God, who on our own we could not even see much less find.
--part1_f4.809322f.27e1217b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I, S, had quoted Mark when he mistakenly said:
<BR>> > > If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
<BR>>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
<BR>> > > supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>> > Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
<BR>> > have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
<BR>
<BR>Mark replied:
<BR>> I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
<BR>good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
<BR>> do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark that does not give you any excuse.
<BR>
<BR>You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was deity
<BR>in
<BR>the same sense as the Father.
<BR>
<BR>John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of a
<BR>longer
<BR>statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the Prologue
<BR>of
<BR>John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning, which is
<BR>statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
<BR>statement
<BR>two. John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
<BR>the
<BR>third and last statement. This is very conclusive. The Logos was at or in
<BR>the
<BR>beginning, he was with the Theos and the qualities by which we can identify
<BR>the
<BR>Theos is true for the Logos. Now just in case you missed it John repeats
<BR>himself
<BR>for emphasis. In John 1.2, he restates the first two statements of John 1.
<BR>1, to
<BR>whit the Logos was already at the beginning and in the present of the Theos.
<BR>Then
<BR>John again deals with the qualities of the Logos, for he tells us that the
<BR>one who
<BR>identifies as the Logos is the creator, for he tells that all things that
<BR>were created,
<BR>or that came into existence did so by him. And again, just if you missed it,
<BR>John
<BR>repeats himself by asserting the same thing by this time by using a negative
<BR>construction-there is nothing that was not created, or brought into existence
<BR>with
<BR>out him. All things that were created, or brought into existence were
<BR>authored by
<BR>him. This is totally conclusive that he is not one of the things that was
<BR>created
<BR>or brought into existence. He is the fount of all life, for he is the very
<BR>essence of
<BR>life. In him, or internal to him was life, or self recognition; for all men
<BR>he is the light
<BR>by which they are able to see themselves as alive. All humanity has two
<BR>goals,
<BR>one to recognize that they are alive and live in a state of utter depravity
<BR>in which
<BR>they are inextricably bound, leaving them with a feeling of complete despair.
<BR> The
<BR>second purpose or goal is to seek the purpose for their own existence, to
<BR>come to
<BR>the author of life and find the reason for their life, and to be made whole.
<BR>All men,
<BR>the very life within them draws them to Jesus, to find the light of his
<BR>purpose in our
<BR>lives.
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.
<BR>
<BR>At the end of the prologue John writes a contradiction, when he tells us that
<BR>no one
<BR>has ever seen God and it is only through the one and only God who came from
<BR>the
<BR>bosom of the Father to explain him. Without this one and only God who is
<BR>able to
<BR>reveal the purpose of our life which is to seek knowledge of God. No one is
<BR>able to
<BR>see God, no matter how much we strive we are unable to understand him, it is
<BR>only
<BR>the one and only God the one from the bosom of the Father who is able to
<BR>enable us
<BR>have any understanding of God. Only then is our purpose revealed which is to
<BR>seek
<BR>after the God, who on our own we could not even see much less find. </FONT></HTML>
--part1_f4.809322f.27e1217b_boundary--
Mark Sornson
Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> In article <98jf90$bdu$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
> >
> >Sabba...@aol.com wrote in message <98bjps$a7h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >>
> >>Mark in a very long post, over 16,600 bytes, states:
> >>> Does John 1:1 in the Greek support the notion that
> >>Jesus is God? No, for it only asserts that Jesus is
> >>_theos_ in, as Harner (and others) says, a qualitative
> >>> sense. John 1:1 does not *identify* Jesus as God (ho theos).
>
> If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete isolation, ignoring the rest of
> Scripture, I suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_ "identify Jesus as
> God". But why do this? Even when they explicitly refer only to one verse, such
> as this one, the great 4th century Trinitarians never did this.
Matthew - thanks for admitting at least this much.
What I'm mostly interested in doing is isolating John 1:1
from the trinitarian interpretations that have been read
back into it. I do believe that John 1:1 should be read
in connection with the rest of John's gospel, to put it
in context with his own first-century inspired thinking.
>
> Rather, when the luminary St. Basil the Great, commenting on this very verse,
> says that this one verse disproves both Arius and Sabellius, he still has in
> mind Gen 1:1 and the many passages where the OT asserts that God alone created
> all things. So keeping in mind the oneness of God revealed in the OT, but also
> the diversity of God revealed clearly only in the NT, he says:
>
> For we contemplate one image, as it were, expressed in
> the unchangeability of Divinity, in God the Father and
> in God the Only-Begotten. For the Son is in the Father,
> and the Father is in the Son. For what the Father is,
> the Son is; and what teh Son is, the Father is. In this way,
> they are one. So by the sistinction of persons, they are one
> and one, but by the commonality of essence
> they are both one. (Ad Amphilochium, ch 18)
Thanks for the quote, but quoting St. Basil the Great is
just as irrelevant as quoting Calvin, as he too adds his
after-the-fact interpretations onto the gospel message.
Plus St. Basil the Great has to resort to post-Biblical
terminology to make his point, terminology that is far
more obtuse than the simple inspired prose of John the
Gallilean fisherman.
The Bible says that the Son is the "image" of the Father,
but it doesn't say "what the Father is, the Son is", at
least not without qualification.
The Father, for instance, is Almighty, but the Son is not.
The Son, while on earth, was mortal, and capable of dying,
but the Father is not capable of dying. The Father had
knowledge (about the future) that the Son did not. Jesus
himself said his Father was greater than he was, and that
the Father was even his "God." So, while the Son has been
given many of the qualities of the Father, there's no
equality between the Father and Son so that "what the
Father is, the Son is" is always true without qualification.
As I said before, I do agree that John 1:1 disproves Sabellius.
What in particular does John 1:1 disprove about Arius's teachings?
[I'm not saying I completely agree with Arius, either -- I'm
only asking for you to hone in on the specific point of Arius
that John 1:1 refutes.]
>
> [snip]
>
> >I think I have a pretty good idea of what
> >Trinitarianism is (though it seems that no two people give
> >the exact same explanation), which is why I don't believe
> >it for one second.
>
> If you really did 'have a pretty good idea of what it is', you could not
> possibly 'not believe it for one second'.
You're right. A second is too long.
Not that you can't knock my quotes, too -- but can
you tell me why Isaac Newton, after studying the trinity
at *great length*, rejected it as a "fornication" authored
by Athanasius? [See _Never At Rest_ by Richard Westfall]
Given that he invented calculus, optics, and discovered
the laws of classical mechanics, is it likely that his
study would have been less than thorough? Although
early in life he swore to uphold the teachings of the
church, including the trinity, why was his rejection of
it so adamant once he studied it at length?
>
> >Regardless of my view, however, if you have something
> >constructive to say that would provide me with knowledge
> >that you feel I lack, I encourage you to be forthcoming
> >in providing it rather than merely asserting that I don't know
> >what you know.
>
> You expect this after posting that you "don't believe
> it for one second"?
I "expect" nothing. You are free to interpret my
sincerety as you see fit and decline my invitation
if you choose.
>
> >>Mark complete statements is as follows:
> >>> If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
> >>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
> >>supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored --
> >>for it says "the Word was with (pros) God (ho theos)",
> >>and anyone "with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
> >>be that other -- but in reality all of John 1:1 really
> >>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct in identity
> >>> from God (ho theos).
>
> But this paragraph reads like a surprising amalgam of Trinitarian and
> anti-Trinitarian dogma. For it says OTH, 'IF Jesus really were God...', but
> OTOH, 'Jesus is distinct in identity from God'. But this latter, (at least if
> 'in identity' is dropped), is perfectly Trinitarian; the persons are distinct,
> of course, but not _separate_ from each other in the Trinity.
But the rub is that you can't drop "in identity" from the
sentence. That's what trinitarians do all the time, dropping
out the point that John 1:1 really proves that the Word (ho
logos) and God (ho theos) are distinct in identity, for
ho logos is pros ho theos -- the Word is 'toward' [the] God,
and not just 'toward' the Father. Trinitarian scholars claim
that John is really referring to the Father in John 1:1
in distinction from the Word, but that's not what John says.
That's why John 1:1 disproves Sabellius' modalism, which
asserts that Father, Son, and Holy spirit are simply different
'modes' by which God manifests himself. John 1:1 juxtaposes
the Son (as the Word) and God in a way that makes it obvious
that the Son and God exist separately at the same time.
>
> This distinction between 'distinct' and 'separate' is r-e-a-l-l-y basic to
> Trinitarian theology. It is not clear to me that you understand this.
The trinity claims to accept that the Father and
Son are distinct, but it obfuscates the truth that
they truly are separate beings. They are "one" in
purpose, as the Son does the will of God the Father,
but they are truly separate. On the other hand, the
trinity claims that they are not separate, because
that would violate the non-Biblical rule of admiting
other heavenly beings may be called "gods", and thus
seemingly leave Christianity open to the charge of
polythetheism [which was never a worry in NT times;
in fact, it wasn't a worry of Justin Martyr, either,
who wasn't shy about admitting that Jesus was 'a second
god' (I'll have to dig up the exact quote on this)].
>
> >>S:
> >>If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
> >>you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
> >>said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the
> >teachings
> >>of
> >>Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
> >>Sabellius."
> >>before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be
> >able
> >>to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and
> >Trinitarianism.
>
> >Quoting Calvin is irrelevant, for he doesn't represent John's view,
> >but rather his own view as a trinitarian.
>
> But John is a Trinitarian, too, even though the word 'Trinity' had not yet been
> coined. So although Calvin was not the best quote, his is still relevant.
To be kind, I'd say that is an excessively optimistic view
to say one truly can find real trinitarianism in John.
To be not so kind, that's revisionism at its finest.
At least a fair number of pro-trinity scholars admit that the
doctrine of the trinity, as it is known today, did not come
into existence until the 4th and 5th centuries. The Jesuit
scholar John McKenzie -- whom I quoted elsewhere in this topic
thread -- is one, for instance.
John was the writer who recorded - both in his gospel and
in Revelation - that the Father was also the God of the Son
(post-resurrection, in fact). There's absolutely no place
in real trinitarianism for such a proposition. Even though
John applies the noun _theos_ to Jesus, the fact that in John
the Father is the God of the Son makes it clear that John was
not promoting trinitarianism.
>
> > This is a form of anachronism,
> >over-laying trinitarian patterns of thought onto the Bible as though
> >the Bible writers themselves were anticipating the trinity-related
> >controversies that would follow centuries later.
>
> Oh, so we are supposed to believe that asserting the Evangelists were
> Trinitarians is an 'anachronism', but asserting they were JW's is not? Give me a
> break!
You may believe what you wish. I happen to believe
what I said, that it's anachronistic to overlay trinitarian
thought (that wasn't fully formulated until after the 5th
century) onto John (and the other Bible writers). To
use a non-Biblical expression, that puts the cart before
the horse for sure.
I also didn't say the Evangelists were "JWs", which is
the modern identifier my religion has chosen for itself
[as 'Christian' is no longer truly a distinct label].
What I do believe, however, is that JWs take their
(core) beliefs from the Bible writers. Since they weren't
trinitarians, neither are JWs.
Hypothetically, one might ask, if John came back to earth
as a human today, which would he identify with more readily?
I don't happen to think it would be trinitarianism. But
you can answer the question as it pleases you.
>
> >Even though we might
> >point to statements in John (and elsewhere) to refute arguments
> >made by later figures of history, it's an error to assume that the Bible
> >writers really had in mind the issues of the later centuries.
>
> But no matter what notion of 'inspiration' you believe in, you must believe that
> it means we can count on more than _this_ in the inspired writings!
Your point is unclear to me.
But perhaps I was unclear as well. I DO believe that the
Bible is forward-looking in many ways, for it is clear that
it lays out, in prophesy, the future of mankind (under the
rulership of Christ in God's Kingdom). Thus it relates in
plain language many things that apply to us today, plus it
also relates things in symbolic language that apply to us today
(but which are a bit harder to figure out).
The Bible warns, however, that right from the beginning, certain
ones were attempting to "distort" (2Pet 3:16 NIV, NASB; "twist"
NKJV, RSV, NWT) the meaning of the Christian writings [Peter
was referring specifically to Paul, but we can probably safely
generalize the warning to all the inspired Christian writings].
Thus, it behooves us today to be on the lookout for distortions
or twists that have crept in over time.
Though people say JWs are twisting the Scriptures, I happen
to believe the opposite, that JWs are identifying the twists
that have been added to the Scriptures over time and are
(sometimes gradually) straightening them out.
>
> After all, if we accept your line of reasoning, and allow Scripture to be
> understood only in terms that the writer immediately had in mind, we have to
> also reject many of the prophecies that the NT writers accept as prophecy.
> Do you do this?
John 1:1 has nothing to do with prophesy. It is a simple
(or simply stated, though quite profound) declaration
of a truth about the Word and God. A little further along
John said that the Word was the one who came to 'explain'
God (John 1:18 NASB, or 'make him known' NIV, RSV). So
we can be fairly certain that John was probably the most
clear on the relationship between the Word and God that
any human could be, particularly since John was the 'disciple
whom Jesus loved' (John 19:26).
Going back in time further than John to Daniel, Daniel
admitted that he didn't understand the meaning of what
he was shown (and what he wrote), but he was told by
the angel that its meaning was 'closed' and 'sealed'
until "the time of the end" (Dan 12:4 NIV). So we have
'in print' a fact about prophesy that at least some
of it would NOT be understood at the time it was written,
but would only be understood at, or soon before, the
time of its fulfillment.
> >Instead
> >it's far more appropriate (and really necessary) to consider the
> >issues that were contemporary to John's time, as they provide
> >the true context by which to interpret his meaning.
>
> Even in purely secular writings, commentators look for meanings beyond what the
> author had in mind. Why do you deny this right to Scriptural commentators?
You mean, why should I draw a distinction between the
way people treat the works of mere men (say, of literature
or art), and the way they should treat the inspired
works/writings of God?
In so many words I already answered this. Paul warned about
the danger of imposing 'philosophy' and the 'traditions of
men' onto scriptural thoughts, and Peter bore witness to the
fact that it was already happening at the time the Scriptures
were still being written (that they were being distorted,
or twisted).
So, I do not deny anyone the right to study the
Scriptures and seek their meaning. But I deny that
a 'right' exists to superimpose with impunity
ideas that are truly contrary to the truths that
the Bible teaches.
Your objection to JWs must stem, in part, from a belief
that JWs are twisting the scriptures. But would you
accept our views if we used your words and said we
were only 'looking for meanings beyond what the
author had in mind,' and that we are merely exercising
our 'right to be Scriptural commentators'?
It was Paul's hope that by his counsel the Corinthians
would "learn ... the meaning of the saying, "Do not go
beyond what is written."" (1Cor 4:6 NIV) Obviously
a line has to be drawn somewhere.
-mark.
mark sornson
Matthew Johnson wrote in message <98rpm5$acr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>In article <98o86u$6df$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>
>[snip]
>>I'll admit that the 'techniques' JWs are "very powerful",
>>but here's why.
>
>No, that is not why.
>
>> Paul said:
>>
>> "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,
>> but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
>> We are destroying speculations and every lofty
>> thing [arguments and every pretention - NIV; arguments
>> and every proud obstacle - NRSV; proud arguments
>> and rebellious ideas - NLT] raised up against the
>> knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought
>> captive to the obedience of Christ, ..." (2Cor 10:4,5 NASB)
>>
>>The truth has the power to "destroy" false arguments
>>and also to protect the thoughts of believers so that
>>they are "captive" only "to the obedience of Christ."
>
>But the Truth Paul was talking about was certainly not the "truth" you
publish
>in this NG.
That's a matter of opinion. If I had said the Truth Paul was
talking about was not the "truth" you publish, but had said
it first, would that make me right instead of you?
[And, as an aside, my original intent wasn't to "publish"
all that much in this newsgroup, but was primarily to declare
that I was working on answers to the questions posted
in the base-note, and would send them via e-mail to
anyone who asks via e-mail. But I admit that I added some
criticism that seems to have cracked open the dam.]
My point was that the truth Paul possessed -- irregardless
of our arguments over what it was -- was strongly
entrenched in his (and other Christians') thinking, so strongly
entrenched, in fact, that it would probably have been labeled
as 'brainwashing' if the term was in use back then. As it
was, when Paul stood before Festus and gave a strong
witness about the truth, Festus said,
"... in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind!
Your great learning is driving you mad."" (Act 26:24 NASB)
Paul replied:
"I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus,
but I utter words of sober truth." (.v25 NASB)
Bob is insisting that JWs are "brainwashed" and "mind-controlled",
which is pretty much akin to the accusation made against Paul
that he was "out of [his] mind." Whether I am right or wrong, I
believe I can properly claim that JWs are not 'out of our minds',
and are neither brainwashed nor mind-controlled, but simply
convinced that our beliefs are based on "sober truth".
To claim we are all brainwashed and mind-controlled is
a blatant form of ad hominem attack, and is very much akin
to the accusations made against Jesus himself by his
opposers, who said:
"He has a demon, and is insane; why do you
listen to him?" (John 10:20 NASB)
Like it or not, those with the weakest positions often
depend upon ad hominem attacks as their foremost
form of offense.
My purpose in quoting 2Cor was to point out that
Paul himself professed that Christians were not 'free
thinkers' in the haughty, 'we-think-for-ourselves-which-
proves-we-aren't-brainwashed" sense, but rather,
that their beliefs were so strong and so focused that
it was appropriate to say their thoughts were "captive".
Again, such "captive" thinking could easily have been
labeled as "brainwashing" by opposers who weren't
'getting anywhere' with them.
Nothing that I said ruled out the point of greater context
that you observed, and nothing I said conflicts with it.
>
>Indeed, when I look at the context of this 2 Cor citation, I am shocked at
the
>difference. For the "weapons of our warfare" Paul refers to are not mere
words,
>but his own practice of his Apostolic ministry: not only preaching, but
doing
>good works and - even more important for this passage - exercising his
office in
>the Church including discipline.
Again, nothing that I said excluded the value of putting faith
into practice, not only preaching, but doing good works.
It's just that this wasn't a point I thought necessary to
emphasize (particularly since JW critics are all too willing
to jump on our case with the accusation that we are
working for our salvation as soon as we mention
good works that we ourselves are engaged in). My goal
was to show from the Bible that the first Christians had
a faith that was locked down pretty tight, so tight, in
fact, that it could have been viewed as a form of mental
deficiency (or mind control) by opposers who were
too prejudiced, and too shallow, in their own thinking to
grant the Christians even the slightest benefit of the
doubt when it came to their state of mind.
You're just looking to take offense (or be "shocked")
so that you can get all in a huff.
>
>For discipline is what he is referring to in the very next verse when he
>threatens to excommunicate any still remaining in disobedience when he
finally
>arrives in person, saying:
>
> And being in readiness to punish all disobedience,
> when your obedience shall be fulfilled (2 Cor 10:6)
>
>So why do I see this as so very different from your interpretation? Because
the
>things Paul did as an Apostle were so very different from what you call 'JW
>techniques'.
What sort of "disobedience" was going to be fixed by
excommunication? According to the footnote in the
Oxford Annotated NRSV, the "disobedient" ones were
those Paul mentioned a little further along, in 11:4, who
were coming along with the proclamation of "another
Jesus than the one we [the apostles] proclaimed." The
truth was being challenged right in the beginning, but
Paul was urging them to stand firm.
Since you wish to pull more of the context of 2Cor into
the discussion, I think it appropriate to comment at greater
length about a statement Bob made:
Bob>When you first were thinking of becoming a JW I suppose that they
predicted
>that "Christians" would come to you and try to talk you out of it.
When
>this happened, it validated in your mind, what the JW's said.
>This is a subtle method of mind control. In and of itself it is not
>decisive but it is one thing that helps "validate" their beliefs to a
>prospective convert.
It's with no small measure of irony that on the one hand, Bob
says it's mind control for JWs to warn interested ones that someone
would come and try to talk them out of further investigation,
to 'lead them astray' from their newly found sincere pursuit
of 'pure devotion to Christ,' and to see on the other hand that
Paul says to the Corinthians, in connection to those who would
preach something else to them:
"But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived
by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow
be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion
to Christ." (2Cor 11:3 NIV)
It's certainly not "mind control" to warn those pursuing the
truth about Christ that others might try to come along and
lead them astray with other teachings.
Sure we could keep debating, "no, JWs are wrong,
and evangelicals are right," or "no evangelicals are
wrong and JWs are right" -- or give two blanks to be
filled in with any two other opposing beliefs -- but to
insist that one side saying 'watch out that someone
doesn't try to talk you out of looking into our side' is
"mind control" is just another instance of ad hominem
argument. It's a scare tactic to claim that warning
a person of inevitable opposition is mind control, when
the truth is that nearly every 'side' does it and sincerely
believes itself to be in the right.
> So, for example, Paul never inflicted a false
translation of
>Scripture on the world, yet the JWs still persist in using the NWT, despite
its
>universal condemnation from Biblical Scholars and translators of almost
every
>denomination and country.
Jesus said:
"Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets."
(Luke 6:21 NIV)
The day the alleged "universal condemnation" turns to
favor is the day I'll be worried.
I like the NWT, for it's a great poke-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp
stick that is needed to pop the myopic bubble of dogma that
clouds all the translations from the orthodox world that only
tell people what they want to hear.
Yes indeed, it is an "opposing view", but it one that
needs to be heard, as it opposes the "apostacy" that
has permiated Christendom and made it part of the
"world" that Jesus Christ is going to destroy when he
sets up God's Kingdom over the earth.
>
>I could list other shocking differences, but this is enough, it is so
dishonest.
I'm sure you are sincere, Matthew. But I am equally
sincere.
Frankly I think the way Christendom has corrupted true
Christianity is truly "shocking", but I personally see little
value in playing for sympathy of being so "shocked".
In fact, when anyone puts 'shock' first as justification
for rejecting doctrinal ideas, it makes me think of
the way many of Jesus' disciples reacted when he
spoke to them a rather 'hard' teaching. Depending
on which translation you read, their reaction was:
"This is more than we can stand! How can
anyone listen to such talk?" (John 6:60 REB)
"This is more than we can stomach! Why
listen to such talk?" (NEB)
"Offensive and intolerable is this discourse.
Who is able to be hearing it?" (Wuest - An Expanded Translation)
"This is intolerable language. How could
anyone accept it? (NJB)
"This speech is shocking; who can listen
to it?" (NWT -- obviously why this scripture
comes to mind)
Other translations say it is a "hard" or "harsh"
or "difficult" saying, but as B.F Wescott says,
it is "difficult to receive, accept, appropriate.
The idea is not that of obscurity. The discourse
was offensive, and not unintelligble" (_Gospel
of St John_, by Wescott, p.109). According to
the NIV, Jesus himself then asked,
"Does this offend you?" (John 6:61)
or,
"Is this shocking to you?" (Williams)
"Does this upset you?" (Beck)
If we can take this particular case as an object
lesson that can be generalized, surely a point
to take away is that being "shocked" by a teaching
doesn't necessarily mean the teaching is wrong.
Another point we might take away is that
some teachings that are true are purposely
'shocking,' to see what kind of spiritual mettle
we possess. And finally, being "shocked"
just might mean you are in the wrong, and are
unwilling to wait for further clarification of some
initial saying.
Jeff Shirton
Mark Sornson <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:98oktp$c5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete
> > isolation, ignoring the rest of Scripture, I
> suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_
> "identify Jesus as God".
I would disagree. But even so, you've demonstrated the important point,
that those who deny that Jesus is God tend to try to "isolate" each
verse, and knock them down separately, for when taken as a whole, the
entire Biblical message, Jesus is undeniably God.
> What I'm mostly interested in doing is isolating
> John 1:1 from the trinitarian interpretations that
> have been read back into it.
Why do anti-Trinitarians always try to disprove the Trinity instead of
dealing with the deity of Christ? I'll be the first to admit that the
Trinity cannot be true if one denies that Jesus is God. So it seems
pointless to argue in favour of or against the Trinity without first
settling the issue of the deity of Christ.
> I do believe that John 1:1 should be read in
> connection with the rest of John's gospel, to put
> it in context with his own first-century inspired
> thinking.
That's an excellent idea!
From the prologue, we have John putting the Word with God at the
beginning of existence, and proclaiming Him to *be* God ("In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word *was*
God."). That Word taking an active part in the creation process,
linking Him with the identity of Creator, rather than part of creation.
Then, throughout the gospel, we see various claims of Jesus to be God
(John 5:17,18, 8:58,59, 10:30-33, etc.)
Finally, the climax of the gospel is Thomas' identification of the true
identity of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28).
If there is one main theme to John's gospel, this is it.
And in the spirit of interpreting John 1:1 in the context of the entire
gospel, let's also interpret John in the context of the entire Bible:
Act 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole
flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed
you overseers, in which you tend the church
of God that he acquired with HIS OWN blood.
Rom. 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is
traced the human ancestry of Christ, WHO IS
GOD OVER ALL, forever praised! Amen.
Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
OF THE CHRIST AND GOD.
2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
to the grace OF OUR GOD AND LORD Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR
Jesus Christ,
Heb 1:8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O GOD, stands
forever and ever; and a righteous scepter
is the scepter of your kingdom.
2Pet 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
precious faith with us in the righteousness
OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOUR Jesus Christ:
Seems pretty clear to me...
> Thanks for the quote, but quoting St. Basil the Great is
> just as irrelevant as quoting Calvin, as he too adds his
> after-the-fact interpretations onto the gospel message.
Okay, so we can't quote from Basil or Calvin, but it's apparently okay
for you to quote from Newton, McKenzie,
> > >>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be
> > >>viewed as supporting that notion IF John 1:1a
> > >>is completely ignored -- for it says "the Word
> > >>was with (pros) God (ho theos)", and anyone
> > >>"with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
> > >>be that other --
That sounds like a Watchtower argument.
John apparently disagreed with you, else he wouldn't have written it.
Your argument sounds like those atheists who claim that Prov. 26:4,5 are
contradictions, imagining that the author forgot what he wrote in verse
4 before going on to verse 5.
> > >>but in reality all of John 1:1 really
> > >>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct
> > >>in identity
> > >>> from God (ho theos).
It proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct from the Father (as God).
Let's be consistent, okay?
> But the rub is that you can't drop "in identity" from
> the sentence. That's what trinitarians do all the
> time, dropping out the point that John 1:1 really
> proves that the Word (ho logos) and God (ho theos) are
> distinct in identity, for ho logos is pros ho theos --
> the Word is 'toward' [the] God,
It shows the Son ("logos") is distinct from the Father ("theos").
> John 1:1 juxtaposes the Son (as the Word) and God
> in a way that makes it obvious
> that the Son and God exist separately at the same time.
In a way that makes it obvious that the Son and the Father exist
distinctly at the same time.
> The trinity claims to accept that the Father and
> Son are distinct, but it obfuscates the truth that
> they truly are separate beings.
Your statement *assumes* that "they truly are separate beings" is a
"truth".
> They are "one" in purpose, as the Son does the will
> of God the Father, but they are truly separate.
So you say.
> in fact, it wasn't a worry of Justin Martyr, either,
> who wasn't shy about admitting that Jesus was 'a
> second god' (I'll have to dig up the exact quote on
> this)].
Okay, Justin Martyr is also an "approved" source?
It's hard to keep track...
> John was the writer who recorded - both in his gospel
> and in Revelation - that the Father was also the God
> of the Son (post-resurrection, in fact). There's
> absolutely no place in real trinitarianism for such
> a proposition.
Why is that?
And why do you make yourself out to be the authority on a belief you are
not only against, but also that the extent of your knowledge on the
subject is questionable?
> Even though John applies the noun _theos_ to Jesus,
> the fact that in John the Father is the God of the
> Son makes it clear that John was
> not promoting trinitarianism.
It doesn't make it clear to me.
How about you explain it?
> Hypothetically, one might ask, if John came back to
> earth as a human today, which would he identify with
> more readily? I don't happen to think it would be
> trinitarianism. But you can answer the question as
> it pleases you.
More readily? At least Trinitarians recognize the absolute deity of
Christ, which John's gospel had as its main theme.
> -mark.
Jeff Shirton
Mark Sornson
Sabba...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I, S, had quoted Mark when he mistakenly said:
> > > > If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
> >John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
> > > > supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
>
> S:
> > > Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
> > > have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
>
> Mark replied:
> > I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
> good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
> > do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
>
> S:
> Mark that does not give you any excuse.
I'm not claiming an "excuse" for my views on the
trinity. This statement of mine was mostly of a
by-the-way nature, as the trinity is poorly understood
(due to it being poorly taught) among many
members of trinitarian faiths.
What excuse do you have for clipping my comments
which show the rest of my answer?
>
> You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was deity
> in
> the same sense as the Father.
I wish you'd quote me directly.
I quoted trinitarian scholars who admit
that John 1:1 implies that Jesus is deity
in a sense less than the sense that God is
deity. As a trinitarian you have to admit
that Jesus is not all of God - it takes all
three 'persons' of the trinity to be viewed
collectively as God.
My argument is that John 1:1 juxtaposes
Jesus with God, and not just Jesus with
the Father. Even though I believe that the
Father is God, the specific juxtaposition of
Jesus (as the Word) with God (ho theos)
proves that John is not equating the two,
and that he's not merely talking about
the relationship between the Father and
the Son within a trinity-God-combo.
>
> John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of a
> longer
> statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the Prologue
> of
> John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning, which is
> statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
> statement
> two.
Correct so far. He is "with God", and thus
is not God.
> John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
> the
> third and last statement. This is very conclusive.
Yes indeed, John says he is theos (or THEOS -- the Greek of
John was written in 'call caps' -- John didn't use the
typographical convention of capitalization to place
added emphasis on the meaning of the word; instead he
used position in the sentence, placing it before the
verb).
> The Logos was at or in
> the
> beginning, he was with the Theos and the qualities by which we can identify
> the
> Theos is true for the Logos.
"the Theos" is correctly understood as a proper title
for the God of the Jews, whom Jesus himself identified
as his Father (John 8:54) Theos without the article
is understood, in this context, to be qualitative, roughly
what we would consider "god" (with a lower-case g) or
"divine" to mean. While in heaven he was _theos_, or
'god', or 'a god', while on earth he was "flesh" (I don't
have my interlinear with me to give the Greek word --
though I recall TEV renders it as "a human being").
> Now just in case you missed it John repeats
> himself
> for emphasis. In John 1.2, he restates the first two statements of John 1.
> 1, to
> whit the Logos was already at the beginning and in the present of the Theos.
Thanks for pointing out the repeat of the first
two points. We have double confirmation that the
Logos is a distinct being, with an identity distinct
from "the God".
> Then
> John again deals with the qualities of the Logos, for he tells us that the
> one who
> identifies as the Logos is the creator, for he tells that all things that
> were created,
> or that came into existence did so by him.
No, it doesn't call the Logos "the creator".
It says, "Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made"
(John 1:3 NIV).
John was not the first one to write that Jesus
was the one "through" whom all things were made.
Note what Paul wrote under inspiration several
decades earlier:
"yet for us there is but one God, the
Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we live; and there is but one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom
all things came and through whom we live."
(1Cor 8:6 NIV)
Obviously John is not contradicting Paul, but
rather is writing in harmony with earlier expressed
inspired Christian thought. To Christians like
Paul and John, there was "one God, the Father."
His position as Creator, or originator of all
things is declared by Paul as the one "from
whom all things came." Jesus was involved
in creation, but as the agent "through whom"
the heavens and the earth were created. Paul,
writing prior to John, makes it clear that God
and Jesus Christ were distinct.
John is simply confirming earlier statements of
Christian belief about God and Jesus Christ.
> And again, just if you missed it,
> John
> repeats himself by asserting the same thing by this time by using a negative
> construction-there is nothing that was not created, or brought into existence
> with
> out him. All things that were created, or brought into existence were
> authored by
> him.
You are not quoting the scripture properly. It doesn't
say the Word "authored" everything. It only says they
came into existence "through" him. As Paul wrote,
the real author was God the Father. God the Father
was the one "from whom" all things came into existence.
[If I was dictating my replies to someone, I'd still
be the author, even though they were literally written
"through" the person taking dictation for me.]
> This is totally conclusive that he is not one of the things that was
> created
> or brought into existence.
Before John wrote his gospel, Paul wrote that
Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15 NIV).
Before John wrote, the Christians already believed
that Jesus was part of creation, albeit a special
part, being "firstborn".
Notice what John quotes Jesus as saying:
"Just as the living Father sent me
and *I live because of the Father,*
so the one who feeds on me will live
because of me." (John 6:57 NIV)
Jesus himself admits that his life originated
with the Father. "I live because of the Father."
In turn, others would live because of him --
specifically, because of putting faith in him.
(As you may recall, Jesus was aluding to the
manna given miraculously by God to the Israelites
in the wilderness.)
On another occassion, also quoted by John,
Jesus said,
"For as the Father has life in
himself, so he has granted the
Son to have life in himself."
(John 5:26 NIV)
Jesus possesses "life in himself" due to
it being "granted" by the Father. If Jesus
were without origin, like the Father,
his life would not be dependant on the
Father.
Jesus himself confirmed to John in the Revelation
that he was 'created', when he referred to himself
as "the beginning of God's creation" (Rev 3:14 RSV).
And then, there is the point that is almost too
obvious to mention, that Jesus' relationship to
God is conveyed to mankind as that of a Son to a
Father. Fathers are first; sons originate second.
Even though the Father is without beginning, the
fact that God publicly identified him as His
"Son" (Mat 17:5) is proof that that's the most accurate
way for humans to comprehend the relationship between
God and Jesus Christ.
> He is the fount of all life, for he is the very
> essence of
> life. In him, or internal to him was life, or self recognition; for all men
> he is the light
> by which they are able to see themselves as alive. All humanity has two
> goals,
> one to recognize that they are alive and live in a state of utter depravity
> in which
> they are inextricably bound, leaving them with a feeling of complete despair.
You're mixing things up here. It is true that
man is elevated with the promise of life through
Jesus Christ. But it is God the Father who is
the Source of this arrangement.
> The
> second purpose or goal is to seek the purpose for their own existence, to
> come to
> the author of life and find the reason for their life, and to be made whole.
> All men,
> the very life within them draws them to Jesus, to find the light of his
> purpose in our
> lives.
This is all well and good. But it is not directly
related to our discussion of what the Bible says about
the relationship between God and Jesus Christ.
>
> Sabbatismos.
>
> At the end of the prologue John writes a contradiction, when he tells us that
> no one
> has ever seen God and it is only through the one and only God who came from
> the
> bosom of the Father to explain him. Without this one and only God who is
> able to
> reveal the purpose of our life which is to seek knowledge of God. No one is
> able to
> see God, no matter how much we strive we are unable to understand him, it is
> only
> the one and only God the one from the bosom of the Father who is able to
> enable us
> have any understanding of God. Only then is our purpose revealed which is to
> seek
> after the God, who on our own we could not even see much less find.
I believe we've covered this before.
No one (i.e., no human) has ever seen God.
As Paul said, he is "invisible" (Col 1:15).
Therefore, by implication Jesus is not God.
But we can get to know God because Jesus
Christ has "explained" him. I suppose we can
come close to agreement on this.
-mark.
Bob
> >> What I'm saying is that Evangelical Christianity doesn't
> >> have a single, unified history that can be traced back to
> >> the first century. Even if its roots sprouted earlier than
> >> Russell's day, it still isn't the Christianity of the first century.
> >> And it's need to reorganize after Russell's day suggests
> >> that it needed to 'get its act together' more than once.
So, none of these people where Christians then:
Polycarp ad 69-156 a pupil of Apostle John
Papias 70-110 Another pupil of John
Ignatius 67-110 A pupil of John
Justin Martyr 100-167
Iranaeus 130-200
Origen 185-254
Tertullian 160-220
Eusebius 264-340
John Chrysostom 345-407
Jerome 340-420
Augustine 354-430
The Albigenses or Carthara of France and Spain who were martyred in the
inquisition of 1229.
Waldenses 1176
John Wyclif 1324-1384
John Huss 1369-1415
Savonarola 1452-1498
Anabaptists who appeared through the middle ages.
Erasmus 1466-1536
Martil Luther 1483-1546
etc etc etc.
What about all the people listed in the book "Foxes Book of Martyrs"
> I keep rewriting history?
Yes you do. See above, your claim of no unified history is wrong. All of
these people continuously proclaimed the Gospel of the Grace of Jesus. The
wrongs of
the Catholic church,etc etc.
>
> But I tell you what. You show me where I "rewrote
> history" and I'll say, "Gee thanks for setting me straight,
> Bob."
Your welcome.
> Besides, I'm not asking you to "argue" history. I was
> only asking you to tell me about Evangelical Protestant
> Christian history from your point of view, as proof that
> it is true Christianity. But, I guess that would just be
> too much trouble (despite 1Pet 3:15), or else I, as
> a 'brainwashed JW' just aren't worth the trouble.
>
Sure, your asking me to argue everything. I'm not going to be drawn into
argueing every jot and tittle with you day in and day out.
How about this quote:
It is Finished. John 19:30
But you don't believe that. You figure that you have to add your works to
reach salvation because Jesus didn't really finish it.
John 16:18
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My
church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
But according to you and the JW philosphy the gates of hell did prevail
against the church. That the church fell away until Russell founded the one
and only true church. Why didn't Jesus address this "gap". Was Jesus
lieing when he said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the
Chruch he started?
> The truth has the power to "destroy" false arguments
> and also to protect the thoughts of believers so that
> they are "captive" only "to the obedience of Christ."
So, you live a Christlike life then. You are not concerned with rules set
up by religious pharisees like your elders. If anyone sets more rules and
rules upon more rules it's the JW's. Jesus broke the Sabbath to heal the
ill. He
broke the Sabbath to eat grain from the fields and talked to the shunned
Samaritans.
But you are held captive to rules set up by the watchtower organization.
Like the rule about blood transfusions. But of course hemophiliacs can take
blood products and then there are other execeptions. More pharisee rules.
> Paul also wrote:
>
> "my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable ..."
> (1Cor 15:58 NASB; "stand firm" "Let nothing move
> you" NIV; cf Col 1:23)
>
> Since true Christian faith is supposed to be "immovable,"
> to unbelievers it may look like 'mind control', but really,
> it is meant to make a person "steadfast" in their convictions.
>
> I think I asked you this once before, but if not,
> I'll ask it now -- how strong are your own convictions,
> Bob? Are they shakey, or are they strong so that you
> too are "immovable" in your beliefs? If the latter,
> why isn't your faith due to "powerful mind control
> techniques?"
Because I test the teaching and spirits;
1 John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are
of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
I have tested your Russell and Rutherford and have found that they do not
measure up against the scriptures.
>
> .... and one last thing ... please be assured that my
> blood pressure is just fine (or at least unaffected by
> your 'research'). But thanks for being concerned about
> my health.
Your quite welcome.
> >
> >When you first were thinking of becoming a JW I suppose that they
predicted
> >that "Christians" would come to you and try to talk you out of it. When
> >this happened, it validated in your mind, what the JW's said.
> >This is a subtle method of mind control. In and of itself it is not
> >decisive but it is one thing that helps "validate" their beliefs to a
> >prospective convert.
I gave one example. I am not going to write a 300 page novel explaining
every nuance of mind control techniques. You just miss the point.
> You don't know anything about me or my personal
> history, Bob.
Ok, so what is this point supposed to mean?
>
> But really, all of your rhetorical arguments could be turned
> back on yourself. You got your 'validation' of your faith your
> way, and I got validation of my faith my way, and there probably
> were similarities in the process. Why cast aspersions about
> me over what you've done for yourself? Weren't you told that
> people would try to talk you out of becoming an Evangelical
> Christian? Or is your faith so indistinct from all others that
> no one cares that you changed it, and that no one even noticed
> the change?
REFER to previous. I test the spirits and teaching to deterimine how
they match up with the scriptures. I'm trying to get you to think. Think
that you
might just be wrong. But you are convinced that you are right and nothing
will
ever shake you. You will not check out a web site that has interesting
information
about JW's and about Ex-JW's and their experiences. You refuse to
acknowledge
that there are a lot of JW's who left the JW's and now have a LOT to say
about the JW organization and religion
> In any case, being told others will try to talk people interested
> in JWs out of it isn't "mind control", Bob, it's a simple fact
> that past experience has borne out well. It happens all the time
> and will continue to happen. However, as the saying goes,
> being forewarned is to be forearmed. There's nothing
> particularly odious about that.
>
> >
> >After all if you are honest with yourself can you tell me which you read
> >more; Watchtower materials or the Bible. I'm sure that it is material
> >provided by the JW's. The only time you "read" the Bible is to look up
one
> >verse here or there which validates what you have read from provided
> >materials. Why can't you just sit down and read the Bible and learn from
> it
> >alone.
>
> Bob, show me from the Bible where Jesus taught
> his disciples to simply give 'Bibles' to people and have
> them sit down and read it on their own, and learn from
> it alone. I know for a fact that you can't do that, for Jesus
> taught, right from the beginning, that Christian truth
> was to be passed along from person to person, so that
> one person would teach and make a disciple of another
> (Matt 28:19-20). There were no lone-ranger Christians in
> the beginning.
So all this teaching was lost until Russell discovered it again? When was
it lost?
What about the verse about the gates of hell not prevailing against the
Church?
> The one place I can think of in the Bible of a person sitting
> down by himself to read the Bible involved an angel directing
> Philip the evangelizer to join him to teach him what he
> needed to know that he couldn't learn just by reading on
> his own (cf Acts 8:26ff).
Since you are so Biblical and follow the Bible in every way. Where does it
say that you must read Watchtower publications in the Bible to receive the
one and only true interpretation of the Scriptures. Where did the disciples
use Bible commentaries to teach?
2 Tim 4:2 says "Preach the Word."
It doesn't say preach the watchtower.
Galatians 1:8
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than
what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Russell, Rutherford etal, have preached another gospel. The gospel of the
watchtower organization.
> Did you really even do for yourself what you say JWs should
> do, Bob? I mean, you are now a member of an organized
> religion, right? The Evangelical Protestant Christian church,
> correct? If so, you surely can't tell me with a straight face that
> you never took instruction from church members or church
> publications before you joined.
Sure, but you just don't get it. There is not one and only one Protestant
church that is the one and only true chuch in the universe as the JW's
preach.
Said with straight face.
> Are you really saying that all you did was read the Bible
> and decide to quit the Catholic Church and join the
> Evangelical Protestant Church with no influence from
> anyone in that church, and with no influence of any
> printed material from the Evangelical Church? I find
> that hard to believe.
You still just don't get it. What is taught by the Evangelical Christians
is what is found in the Bible. That Jesus paid the price for our sins.
That It is finished and that
all we have to do is receive his gift of eternal life that is offered to us.
This is clear in the Bible and does not have to be filtered through the
Watchtower organization to tell us that Jesus didn't really mean it when he
said it is finished, and that it's not a gift of grace, it's really
something we have to strive for and be good JW's and keep rules about blood
etc to get this eternal life because the Bible doesn't really mean what it
says until after you become a JW and learn that the JW interpretation has
the only true interpretation.
>
> And as for your questions and insinuations about my
> reading the Bible on my own ... you don't have any idea
> what my personal study habits are, do you?
>
> But I'm sure it suits you to believe only what you say,
> so to use your words, how can I argue with a person who
> has the audacity to rewrite my own personal history
> for me?
Well, it suits you to only believe what you say.
>
> [And, of course, there really is nothing wrong with looking up
> any verse cited in our literature, to see whether it really
> makes the point the literature says it makes. So this is
> really a pointless thing to argue about. Too bad for you
> if you don't have church literature and/or study guides
> that regularly direct you to look up Bible verses on various
> subjects.]
"Too bad"? Your blood pressure is rising. But just because there may
be a commentary us Evangelicals consult doesn't mean we cannot think for
ourselves and decide if the commentary is right or wrong. How many times
have you disagreed with an interpretation from the Watchtower organization?
Are you allowed to disagree and still be in good standing. We know the
answer to that don't we?
> > The influence of the JW's has forced you to change your way of
> >thinking. You cannot view anything in the Bible until after it is
filtered
> >by the Watchtower organization.
>
> You already admitted above that JWs don't use coercive
> tactics. You aren't even paying attention to yourself,
> Bob, much less to me. This just validates my point that
> you are refusing to deal with me as a real person, and
> are only reading what you want to see into my words to
> maintain the imaginary basis for your prejudice. You
> see me as an object to oppose, a 'cult figure,' and not
> as someone to reason with, to show kindness toward,
> and to treat with a shred of dignity.
Yup, you are a cult figure. I have delt with you as a real person or would
have
told you I'm tired of casting my pearls before you a loooooong time ago.
Anything
I say validates your preconcieved ideas in your mind, I'm sure to your total
satisfaction. You think that because I don't lay down and believe
everything you say and concede every point to your superior intellect that
I'm not being kind or having and shred of dignity. Well, I'm not buying
the philosphy that your selling. So because I'm not a convert of yours I'm
not reasoning with you. Give me a break.
>
> Also, please note that I'm giving you the opportunity to
> view "anything in the Bible" from YOUR point of view,
> as born witness to by you to me. Unfortunately, you are
> refusing to make the best of this opportunity, and choose
> only to direct me elsewhere so that you don't have to
> do any work yourself to explain the truth to me as you
> understand it. [And I don't consider cutting-and-pasting
> from the Kingdom of the Cults, or typing in a few URLs
> to be real "work" in this regard.]
Well, there is a lot of interesting resources out there that any JW can
consult from people who used to be a JW. A lot of it is fascinating and
very revealing. If your afraid to read it ok, just don't keep pretending
that you have an open mind. Let's face it your afraid to find out anything
bad about the Watchtower organization because you have too much time and
effort put into it. If it isn't true you may have wasted a large part of
your life. That if they find out you visited those sites or questioned
anything about the JW religion you might be disfellowshipped. Your just
afraid, admit it, come on, you can do it,
>
> >How's this for proof. The Watchtower organization has made predictions
> that have not come true.
>
> The Watchtower organization has attempted to interpret
> Bible prophesies in ways that did not come true. But that
> doesn't mean they should have given up trying to figure
> out what the truth is just because they were wrong before.
> Being wrong is only a 'crime' if you refuse to admit a view
> was wrong and refuse to make corrections.
Your re-writing history again. The watchtower is a false prophet that has
failed the
test over and over again. But now all you can give is excuses and
re-interpret things that contradict what the watchtower said at the time.
>
> Some of the greatest leaps forward in knowledge have sprung
> from false ideas having been proven wrong, as the realization
> that one was wrong allows one to identify and clear away
> one's faulty preconceived ideas.
So now JW is a science, one that can be proven in a laboratory by
experimentation? Well, the experiments proved that the JW predictions
about the end of the world and the return of Jesus were wrong not once, not
twice, not three times, etc How about getting rid of your preconcieved
ideas that the JW's are right in spite of , that's in spite of the evidence.
>
> And besides, I believe they are quite right about many doctrines,
> including the trinity. [The falseness of the trinity was something
> Isaac Newton discovered when he investigated the teachings
> of the church when faced with having to accept religious orders
> in order to retain his fellowship at Cambridge. Newton actually
> came to call it a "fornication." -- See Richard Westfall's biography
> of Newton, _Never At Rest_] Being right about the trinity puts
> them well ahead of your religion on the 'scoreboard', as far as
> I am concerned.
Now you are quoting Newton. Yes, he sure is a highly rated Bible scholar.
Ha ha
Give me a break. You will search high and low to find anyone you can quote
to back up your beliefs.
> > However this does not change your opinion of the
> >organization you just find excuse after excuse to justify that they are
> >correct even after they have been proven wrong. That's mind control.
>
> You don't seem to get the point that being wrong about some things
> doesn't mean one is wrong about everything. This all-or-nothing
> never-wrong-about-anything view of yours simply isn't realistic for
> ANY human endevour that seeks knowledge of the truth. Even on
> a personal level you admited that you were wrong (to have been
> a Catholic) and that you needed to make changes in you beliefs.
> [But, when pressed for details, I noticed how quickly you avoided
> the topic ...]
They don't even equate with each other. This bit about details is
ridiculous.
I gave a lot of details including a short history of myself. Have you done
that? NO
But I'm just supposed to roll over and beg everytime you pose a question.
Sorry, many of your statements and questions don't make sense.
> What you call mind control I call being realistic. No one is right
> about everything all of the time. Not even you, Bob. What's more
> telling is how people (and organizations) act when they realize
> they are wrong, and what they are willing to do to correct themselves.
> JWs know how to eat humble pie when they have to, Bob. The
> question is do you? Does your religion?
Mark, Mark, Mark, First you say that it's ok that the predicions of the
JW's were wrong, then you say that this is a plus, something that gives it
more validity.
That's a contradiction. They are proven wrong, therefore they are more
right. Say what?? Then because they are wrong they are more humble?
> What you call "mind control" I call having mercy.
>
> Are you a merciful person, Bob?
>
Are you, Mark, I don't see it Mark, I see someone clinging to beliefs that
are based on Russell, and Rutherford, that your own organization now says
were wrong.
>
> You
> >will believe what they say even in spite or evidence that proves them
> wrong.
>
> Oh ... you mean throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Yes, throw out the JW religion, it's false teaching.
>
> An honest, humble person who is seeking to know the truth
> knows the difference between an honest mistake (no matter
> whether it's one or many) and deliberate deception.
You won't even read on a web page about the many deceptions committed by the
Watchtower organization. You don't want to be exposed to the truth. That's
blind faith.
When
> Peter asked Jesus, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against
> me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus replied, "I do not
> say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
> (Matt 18:21,22 NASB) Since I consider the JWs in the Watchtower
> Society to be my brothers, I'm willing to forgive them "up
> to seventy times seven" times, if necessary. That's not "mind
> control" but Christian charity.
> Are you willing to forgive errors in your own religion up to
> that limit? If not, what is your limit? [Obviously your limit for
> JWs is zero ... but what about for yourself and your own faith?]
>
No, I wouldn't want to forgive errors in my relgion. Because a relgion that
is wrong will condemn someone to hell for eternity. So, I would want to
make sure that my relgion was right. How about you, Mark?
> >
> >Why won't you check out the web site I mentioned? It's because you have
> >already made up your mind and are afraid you might find something that
> >proves you wrong.
>
> Why won't you spend the time to give me a witness
> yourself? Is it because you are afraid to, or unable to?
> Why do you insist on having someone else do your
> witnessing for you?
Yes Mark, I'm soooo afraid. I have given you a witness, a history of my
conversion etc etc. But you just can't see it or won't see it. I figure
that if you won't listen to me that you might read what some ex-JW's have to
say. But you won't do that either. Now you want to say I'm having someone
else do my witnessing for me. Your not paying attention.
> If you are so keen on checking out websites, however,
> I suggest you check out www.jw-russia.org, and read
> about the Moscow trial that was just recently decided in
> favor of JWs. You might recognize the accusations of
> JWs being 'brainwashed' as being familiar. Or would
> you be afraid that something you might read there would
> prove you wrong?
>
I'll go to this web site if you go to the sites I mentioned.
> > But it won't matter will it. Because no matter what you
> >find out you are afraid that you will be disfellowshipped, or shunned.
>
> You sure have a funny way of trying to win me over, Bob.
>
Well, what's your excuse? Your trying to win me over, I'm trying to win you
over. I can say the same thing about you. You sure have a funny way of
trying to win me over, Mark. Mark, Your here because your trying to win
us Christians over to your way of thinking. Because your not succeding are
you getting frustrated?
> Do you really feel that by what you say you are honestly doing
> your utmost to attract me to the real truth?
>
> Do you really feel that an argument like this will make me
> want to join in fellowship with you?
>
> I think my previous analogy of you only trying to 'shell
> me into submission' was pretty on-target. There's absolutely
> nothing about your approach that suggests to me that
> you truly have the slightest bit of sincere interest in me
> or any JW. Your only interest is in having yourself
> declared the winner, and if some website can 'bomb' me
> into submission, so much the better.
Your going way overboard. But that's your style. Maybe I should remind you
that
you alluded to war and being shelled, you said I was the enemy and that I
was a basher. But it's ok when you say anything you want, isn't it? I'm
just supposed to lay down and play dead from your superior arguements and
concede that you are always right and I am always wrong. Give me a break.
> >
> Now
> >tell me what religion does that other then a cult. JW's and Mormon's
have
> a
> >lot in common there as they also practice shunning.
>
> Whatever other faults Mormons might have, the Mormons
> that I have met and talked to at length have a major positive
> aspect that you sorely lack, namely, a willingness to show
> respect to others who believe differently than they do. But
> then, that lack seems to be a common trait among evangelical
> Christians. Why is that, do you suppose?
>
> Since you bring it up, I can think of a good reason to
> practice a little 'shunning' right now, if that's really
> what you'd prefer.
>
> Thanks for humoring me (if you have a sense of humor,
> that is).
>
No problem, It's been a kick and you have caused a lot of laughs. I think I
will use one JW trick in the book too and practice some shunning too. That
is if you have a sense of humor, Mark, because Mark, I really wonder, I
wonder why you cannot realize that you are in a false cult relgion that has
blinded you to the fact that
"It is finished"
Bob
Matthew Johnson
In article <98oktp$c5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Mark says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>> If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete isolation, ignoring the rest of
>>Scripture, I suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_ "identify Jesus as
>>God". But why do this? Even when they explicitly refer only to one verse, such
>> as this one, the great 4th century Trinitarians never did this.
>
>Matthew - thanks for admitting at least this much.
>
>What I'm mostly interested in doing is isolating John 1:1
>from the trinitarian interpretations that have been read
>back into it.
I _know_ you are "interested" in doing this. My point is that it is not
possible; it is not possible because these intepretations were NOT 'read back
into it'. They were there from the beginning. What you have done instead is
isolate Jn 1:1 from the rest of John's Gospel. This is not a valid hermeneutic.
> I do believe that John 1:1 should be read
>in connection with the rest of John's gospel,
So why do you refuse to do it?
> to put it
>in context with his own first-century inspired thinking.
But this is not what you do. Instead, what you do is put it 'in context' with a
revisionist history of 'first-century inspired thinking'.
Yes, it is 'revisionist'. For your claims concerning 'first-century inspired
thinking' are patently false.
>
>>
>> Rather, when the luminary St. Basil the Great, commenting on this very verse,
>> says that this one verse disproves both Arius and Sabellius, he still has in
>> mind Gen 1:1 and the many passages where the OT asserts that God
>> alone created all things. So keeping in mind the oneness of
>> God revealed in the OT, but also the diversity of God revealed
>> clearly only in the NT, he says:
>>
>> For we contemplate one image, as it were, expressed in
>> the unchangeability of Divinity, in God the Father and
>> in God the Only-Begotten. For the Son is in the Father,
>> and the Father is in the Son. For what the Father is,
>> the Son is; and what teh Son is, the Father is. In this way,
>> they are one. So by the sistinction of persons, they are one
>> and one, but by the commonality of essence
>> they are both one. (Ad Amphilochium, ch 18)
>
>Thanks for the quote, but quoting St. Basil the Great is
>just as irrelevant as quoting Calvin, as he too adds his
>after-the-fact interpretations onto the gospel message.
His interpretation is NOT 'after-the-fact'. Why do you rush to make this charge
without ANY substaniating evidence? Why, you don't even show any evidence of
having understood the quote!
>Plus St. Basil the Great has to resort to post-Biblical
>terminology to make his point, terminology that is far
>more obtuse than the simple inspired prose of John the
>Gallilean fisherman.
Well, if his terminology is 'more obtuse', then why do you misunderstand the
'simple inspired prose' that says exactly the same thing?
>The Bible says that the Son is the "image" of the Father,
>but it doesn't say "what the Father is, the Son is", at
>least not without qualification.
Oh, but it does. This is an example of what I meant when I said that St. Basil
the Great kept ALL of Scripture in mind when he commented on John 1:1. But you
do not do this. You insist on cutting up Scripture into little pieces.
Scripture says "what the Father is, the Son is" in those famous words:
Believe that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father (Jn 10:38)
What did you THINK this meant, if not that "what the Father is, the Son is"? And
where is your vaunted 'qualification'?
>The Father, for instance, is Almighty, but the Son is not.
Yes, he is.
[snip]
>As I said before, I do agree that John 1:1 disproves Sabellius.
>What in particular does John 1:1 disprove about Arius's teachings?
It disproves Arius's claim (for example) that "there was when He was not". For
John 1:1 says "in the beginning", i.e., when things that have a beginning began,
the Word already was.
>Not that you can't knock my quotes, too -- but can
>you tell me why Isaac Newton, after studying the trinity
>at *great length*, rejected it as a "fornication" authored
>by Athanasius?
Yes, I can. Isaac Newton did this because he was mistaken, just as he was
mistaken when he insisted that light is particles, not waves.
>[See _Never At Rest_ by Richard Westfall]
>Given that he invented calculus, optics, and discovered
>the laws of classical mechanics, is it likely that his
>study would have been less than thorough?
But "thoroughness' is no guarentee of infallibility. The Pharisees were thorough
in their study of Scripture too, as Christ Himself says (Jn 5:39), yet they
remained condemned.
Besides: we could apply the same reasoning to Einstein, who was barely less
thorough in his contributions to science. Yet he rejected both Christianity and
Arianism.
>early in life he swore to uphold the teachings of the
>church, including the trinity, why was his rejection of
>it so adamant once he studied it at length?
Because apostates have a particularly fierce hatred when they are oath-breakers
as well?
>> This distinction between 'distinct' and 'separate' is r-e-a-l-l-y basic to
>> Trinitarian theology. It is not clear to me that you understand this.
Now it clear; you do not understand this distinction.
>The trinity claims to accept that the Father and
>Son are distinct, but it obfuscates the truth that
>they truly are separate beings.
No, Trinitarianism does not 'obfuscate' this. Modalism and Monarchism
'obfuscate' this. So do ill-informed critics of Trinitarianism.
>They are "one" in
>purpose, as the Son does the will of God the Father,
>but they are truly separate.
Their oneness is much deeper than this. John showed this, for example in:
Who sees Me sees Him who sent me (Jn 12:45)
WHY do you continue to turn a blind eye to this?
> On the other hand, the
>trinity claims that they are not separate, because
>that would violate the non-Biblical rule of admiting
>other heavenly beings may be called "gods", and thus
>seemingly leave Christianity open to the charge of
>polythetheism
It does violate this and much more; it denies the true meaning of ALL the
passages I quoted above, and of many others.
> [which was never a worry in NT times;
>in fact, it wasn't a worry of Justin Martyr, either,
>who wasn't shy about admitting that Jesus was 'a second
>god' (I'll have to dig up the exact quote on this)].
This quote sounds vaguely familiar. But the last time I saw this quote mentioned
it WAS being misread. BTW: I find it hard to believe this was 'never a worry' in
NT times. How did you reach THIS conclusion?
>> >>S:
>> >>If the Logos was not distinguished from the one with whom he is with, then
>> >>you would have John making a Sabellius argument. Let me quote Calvin who
>> >>said: "'God is the Logos' drives a stake through the heart of the
>> >teachings
>> >>of
>> >>Ariaus. 'The Logos is with God' drives a stake through the heart of
>> >>Sabellius."
>> >>before you spend so much time attacking Trinitarianism, you ought to be
>> >able
>> >>to study so that you can distinguish Monarchian Modalism and
>> >Trinitarianism.
>>
>> >Quoting Calvin is irrelevant, for he doesn't represent John's view,
>> >but rather his own view as a trinitarian.
>> But John is a Trinitarian, too, even though the word 'Trinity'
>> had not yet been coined. So although Calvin was not the best
>> quote, his is still relevant.
>
>To be kind, I'd say that is an excessively optimistic view
>to say one truly can find real trinitarianism in John.
How can you expect anyone to believe you when you claim this? After you showed
that you do not even understand the basics of Trinitarian theology, you make it
clear that you are in no position to back this up.
>To be not so kind, that's revisionism at its finest.
No, claiming that Trinitarians 'obfuscate' the truth is revisionism at its
boldest (if not its finest).
>At least a fair number of pro-trinity scholars admit that the
>doctrine of the trinity, as it is known today, did not come
>into existence until the 4th and 5th centuries. The Jesuit
>scholar John McKenzie -- whom I quoted elsewhere in this topic
>thread -- is one, for instance.
John McKenzie is not entirely free of Modalism. So he is a poor choice for
'pro-trinity scholar'.
>John was the writer who recorded - both in his gospel and
>in Revelation - that the Father was also the God of the Son
>(post-resurrection, in fact). There's absolutely no place
>in real trinitarianism for such a proposition.
Sure there is, since the Father is the font of being in the Trinity.
That is all that means.
> Even though
>John applies the noun _theos_ to Jesus, the fact that in John
>the Father is the God of the Son makes it clear that John was
>not promoting trinitarianism.
No, all it means is that the Father is the font of being in the Trinity.
>> > This is a form of anachronism,
>> >over-laying trinitarian patterns of thought onto the Bible as though
>> >the Bible writers themselves were anticipating the trinity-related
>> >controversies that would follow centuries later.
>>
>> Oh, so we are supposed to believe that asserting the Evangelists were
>>Trinitarians is an 'anachronism', but asserting they were JW's is not? Give me a
>> break!
>
>You may believe what you wish.
I am not in the habit of 'believing what I wish'. No thoughtful honest person
is. I am in the habit of believing what has been established, by a careful
process of honest reasoning, to be most likely to be true. You should learn to
do this too.
> I happen to believe
>what I said, that it's anachronistic to overlay trinitarian
>thought (that wasn't fully formulated until after the 5th
>century) onto John (and the other Bible writers).
But it is not true that "trinitarian thought wasn't fuly formulated until after
the 5th century". This is one of those reckless assertions that lead me to
believe that you do NOT understand even the basics of Trinitarian theology.
But I will be generous and give you a chance to redeem yourself from such a
condemnation: show me that you DO understand these basics. Do you know in what
century the word "Trinity" was first applied to God and by which writer? Do you
know what the difference is between 'distinct' and 'separate'? Can you explain
why some manuscripts read "only-begotten God" and some "only-begotten Son" in
John 1:18 if not because of a _second_ century Trinitarian copyist?
>To
>use a non-Biblical expression, that puts the cart before
>the horse for sure.
Well, if it really were 'revisionism' as you say, this would be apt. But since
it is not 'revisionism', your 'non-biblical expression' is as out-of-place as it
is 'non-Biblical'.
>I also didn't say the Evangelists were "JWs",
I didn't say you did. So what IS your point?
>which is
>the modern identifier my religion has chosen for itself
>[as 'Christian' is no longer truly a distinct label].
>What I do believe, however, is that JWs take their
>(core) beliefs from the Bible writers.
No they don't. They take their core beliefs from the badly tinted glasses they
use to read Scripture, the delusional ramblings of the Watchtower Society.
>Since they weren't
>trinitarians, neither are JWs.
Ah, but they were Trinitarians. That is why Paul referred to the Son as the
"radiance of the Father" and as having "the form of God".
>Hypothetically, one might ask, if John came back to earth
>as a human today, which would he identify with more readily?
Now this is a curious speculation. You say 'come back to earth as a human'. Why?
What else would he come back as, if not as a human?
>I don't happen to think it would be trinitarianism.
Of course you don't. But that is because you have swallowed the JW deception
hook line and sinker.
[snip]
>But perhaps I was unclear as well. I DO believe that the
>Bible is forward-looking in many ways, for it is clear that
>it lays out, in prophesy, the future of mankind (under the
>rulership of Christ in God's Kingdom). Thus it relates in
>plain language many things that apply to us today, plus it
>also relates things in symbolic language that apply to us today
>(but which are a bit harder to figure out).
Plain language? What 'plain language'? Why this obsession with 'plain language'?
Do you really believe Christ was speaking in 'plain language' when he spoke in
parables? Remember that only a very few of His parables are explained in 'plain
language' in the Gospels. They are stated in riddle-like language, the listener
must learn to understand it. That is the 1st century way.
How can you claim to be capable of viewing Scripture from a 1st century
perspective while you still hold on to this modern obsession with 'plain
language'?
>The Bible warns, however, that right from the beginning, certain
>ones were attempting to "distort" (2Pet 3:16 NIV, NASB; "twist"
>NKJV, RSV, NWT) the meaning of the Christian writings [Peter
>was referring specifically to Paul, but we can probably safely
>generalize the warning to all the inspired Christian writings].
>Thus, it behooves us today to be on the lookout for distortions
>or twists that have crept in over time.
That is why we must reject JW dogma, remembering all the passages I quoted above
instead of trying to understand Jn 1:1 in isolation.
>Though people say JWs are twisting the Scriptures, I happen
>to believe the opposite, that JWs are identifying the twists
>that have been added to the Scriptures over time and are
>(sometimes gradually) straightening them out.
Then why do you insist on ignoring all the other citation that show that John
was referring to the oneness of essence of Father and Son?
>
>>
>> After all, if we accept your line of reasoning, and allow Scripture to be
>> understood only in terms that the writer immediately had in mind, we have to
>> also reject many of the prophecies that the NT writers accept as prophecy.
>> Do you do this?
>
>John 1:1 has nothing to do with prophesy.
I didn't say that it did.
> It is a simple
>(or simply stated, though quite profound) declaration
>of a truth about the Word and God.
If it is so 'simple', why do you persist in misunderstanding it?
> A little further along
>John said that the Word was the one who came to 'explain'
>God (John 1:18 NASB, or 'make him known' NIV, RSV).
'Explain' is a really bad translation here. After all, in modern English
'explain' is a purely rational, intellectual activity. But this is not what John
had in mind at all. 'Revealed' would have been better.
>we can be fairly certain that John was probably the most
>clear on the relationship between the Word and God that
>any human could be, particularly since John was the 'disciple
>whom Jesus loved' (John 19:26).
Why, yes. We can. Especially when he says, as you seem determined to ignore,
that:
Who sees Me sees Him who sent me (Jn 12:45)
which clearly shows the great extent of the unity of Father and Son.
[snip]
>
>> >Instead
>> >it's far more appropriate (and really necessary) to consider the
>> >issues that were contemporary to John's time, as they provide
>> >the true context by which to interpret his meaning.
I am still waiting for you to prove in deeds that you really mean this. For what
you have posted so far is certain NOT "considering the issues contemporary ro
John's time".
>>
>>Even in purely secular writings, commentators look for meanings beyond what the
>> author had in mind. Why do you deny this right to Scriptural commentators?
>
>You mean, why should I draw a distinction between the
>way people treat the works of mere men (say, of literature
>or art), and the way they should treat the inspired
>works/writings of God?
No. That is not what I mean. You race to twist my words. But why should I be
surprised, when you race to twist the words of Scripture as well?
>
>In so many words I already answered this.
All that means is that you answered the wrong question.
>Paul warned about
>the danger of imposing 'philosophy' and the 'traditions of
>men' onto scriptural thoughts,
Again, you are relying on a dangerous mistranslation. "Philosophy" in that
passage, does NOT mean any and all "philosophy". How could it, when Paul himself
quotes Greek writers, writers who were inspired by the Stoic tradition?
>and Peter bore witness to the
>fact that it was already happening at the time the Scriptures
>were still being written (that they were being distorted,
>or twisted).
Peter pointed out that they were being distorted, yes, but he did not forbid the
use of careful philosophical reasoning. By no means!
>So, I do not deny anyone the right to study the
>Scriptures and seek their meaning. But I deny that
>a 'right' exists to superimpose with impunity
>ideas that are truly contrary to the truths that
>the Bible teaches.
And I deny that Trinitarians 'superimpose with impunity' at all.
>Your objection to JWs must stem, in part, from a belief
>that JWs are twisting the scriptures. But would you
>accept our views if we used your words and said we
>were only 'looking for meanings beyond what the
>author had in mind,' and that we are merely exercising
>our 'right to be Scriptural commentators'?
Of course not. Why would I? Because even if you used my words, your deeds would
betray you. For you do NOT 'exercise your right to be Scriptural commentators'.
You distort the Scriptures, as you have shown by ignoring Jn 12:45 and insisting
on interpreting Jn 1:1 in total isolation.
>It was Paul's hope that by his counsel the Corinthians
>would "learn ... the meaning of the saying, "Do not go
>beyond what is written."" (1Cor 4:6 NIV) Obviously
>a line has to be drawn somewhere.
But not where you have drawn it. For you have not yet shown that you have even
gone as far as what is written.
Matthew Johnson
In article <98o86u$6df$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
[snip]
>I'll admit that the 'techniques' JWs are "very powerful",
>but here's why.
No, that is not why.
> Paul said:
>
> "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,
> but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
> We are destroying speculations and every lofty
> thing [arguments and every pretention - NIV; arguments
> and every proud obstacle - NRSV; proud arguments
> and rebellious ideas - NLT] raised up against the
> knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought
> captive to the obedience of Christ, ..." (2Cor 10:4,5 NASB)
>
>The truth has the power to "destroy" false arguments
>and also to protect the thoughts of believers so that
>they are "captive" only "to the obedience of Christ."
But the Truth Paul was talking about was certainly not the "truth" you publish
in this NG.
Indeed, when I look at the context of this 2 Cor citation, I am shocked at the
difference. For the "weapons of our warfare" Paul refers to are not mere words,
but his own practice of his Apostolic ministry: not only preaching, but doing
good works and - even more important for this passage - exercising his office in
the Church including discipline.
For discipline is what he is referring to in the very next verse when he
threatens to excommunicate any still remaining in disobedience when he finally
arrives in person, saying:
And being in readiness to punish all disobedience,
when your obedience shall be fulfilled (2 Cor 10:6)
So why do I see this as so very different from your interpretation? Because the
things Paul did as an Apostle were so very different from what you call 'JW
techniques'. So, for example, Paul never inflicted a false translation of
Scripture on the world, yet the JWs still persist in using the NWT, despite its
universal condemnation from Biblical Scholars and translators of almost every
denomination and country.
I could list other shocking differences, but this is enough, it is so dishonest.
Matthew Johnson
In article <98tk4u$ofj$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote in message <98rpm5$acr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>>
>>In article <98o86u$6df$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>>
>>[snip]
>>>I'll admit that the 'techniques' JWs are "very powerful",
>>>but here's why.
>>
>>No, that is not why.
>>
>>> Paul said:
>>>
>>> "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh,
>>> but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses.
>>> We are destroying speculations and every lofty
>>> thing [arguments and every pretention - NIV; arguments
>>> and every proud obstacle - NRSV; proud arguments
>>> and rebellious ideas - NLT] raised up against the
>>> knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought
>>> captive to the obedience of Christ, ..." (2Cor 10:4,5 NASB)
>>>
>>>The truth has the power to "destroy" false arguments
>>>and also to protect the thoughts of believers so that
>>>they are "captive" only "to the obedience of Christ."
>>
>>But the Truth Paul was talking about was certainly not the "truth" you
>publish
>>in this NG.
>
>That's a matter of opinion.
No, it is not 'a matter of opinion'.
> If I had said the Truth Paul was
>talking about was not the "truth" you publish, but had said
>it first, would that make me right instead of you?
Of course not. But this is irrelevant, since I never claimed that this was the
reason for my cliam being true and yours being false.
>
>[And, as an aside, my original intent wasn't to "publish"
Then you really don't know what you are doing, because by the definition of the
verb 'to publish',
>all that much in this newsgroup,
Then you really don't know what you are doing, because by the definition of the
verb 'to publish', posting ANYTHING in a NG is publishing.
[snip]
>My point was that the truth Paul possessed -- irregardless
>of our arguments over what it was -- was strongly
>entrenched in his (and other Christians') thinking, so strongly
>entrenched, in fact, that it would probably have been labeled
>as 'brainwashing' if the term was in use back then.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that when moderns meet people having
the same attitude Paul had, these moderns _would_ be overly hasty to brand them
'brainwashed'.
But I am still not convinced that you understand what Paul's attitude really
was.
> As it
>was, when Paul stood before Festus and gave a strong
>witness about the truth, Festus said,
>
> "... in a loud voice, "Paul, you are out of your mind!
> Your great learning is driving you mad."" (Act 26:24 NASB)
But unfortunately, what most people today, including JWs, call 'strong witness'
is not the same as what Paul did. So 'strong witness' is actually not a very
good term for what Paul did.
>
>Paul replied:
>
> "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus,
> but I utter words of sober truth." (.v25 NASB)
>
>Bob is insisting that JWs are "brainwashed" and "mind-controlled",
>which is pretty much akin to the accusation made against Paul
>that he was "out of [his] mind."
No, I don't think so. Remember that what prompted Festus's outbreak was Paul
mentioning that we would all be resurrected from the dead. Greek/Roman pagans
had no such belief, this was then a purely Jewish belief.
> Whether I am right or wrong, I
>believe I can properly claim that JWs are not 'out of our minds',
>and are neither brainwashed nor mind-controlled, but simply
>convinced that our beliefs are based on "sober truth".
But wait! You have slurred together two separate issues. I never questioned the
second issue, ie. that you and the JWs you personally know are convinced that
your beliefs are based on "sober truth". You most likely really are convinced.
But that is where the real tragedy lies. You are convinced, but you are very
mistaken.
>
>To claim we are all brainwashed and mind-controlled is
>a blatant form of ad hominem attack,
No, this is not an 'ad hominem' attack at all. I think you should look up this
term in a good dictionary before you use it on somebody again in this NG.
>and is very much akin
>to the accusations made against Jesus himself by his
>opposers, who said:
>
> "He has a demon, and is insane; why do you
> listen to him?" (John 10:20 NASB)
So why couldn't you look a few verses further to see where JW dogma is refuted?
I mean:
The Father and I are one (Jn 10:30)
What clearer proof could you ask for for the dogma that the Father and the Son
are one God?
>
>Like it or not, those with the weakest positions often
>depend upon ad hominem attacks as their foremost
>form of offense.
>My purpose in quoting 2Cor was to point out that
>Paul himself professed that Christians were not 'free
>thinkers' in the haughty, 'we-think-for-ourselves-which-
>proves-we-aren't-brainwashed" sense, but rather,
>that their beliefs were so strong and so focused that
>it was appropriate to say their thoughts were "captive".
And my point on commenting that I found this 'shocking' is that Paul means one
thing when he says 'captive', but you insist on reading it as something else.
Paul does NOT support the JW attitude.
>Again, such "captive" thinking could easily have been
>labeled as "brainwashing" by opposers who weren't
>'getting anywhere' with them.
>
>Nothing that I said ruled out the point of greater context
>that you observed, and nothing I said conflicts with it.
>
>>
>>Indeed, when I look at the context of this 2 Cor citation, I am shocked at
>the
>>difference. For the "weapons of our warfare" Paul refers to are not mere
>words,
>>but his own practice of his Apostolic ministry: not only preaching, but
>doing
>>good works and - even more important for this passage - exercising his
>office in
>>the Church including discipline.
>
>Again, nothing that I said excluded the value of putting faith
>into practice, not only preaching, but doing good works.
True, you did not _exclude_ it, but by de-emphasizing it, you made it look like
you might exclude it.
>It's just that this wasn't a point I thought necessary to
>emphasize (particularly since JW critics are all too willing
>to jump on our case with the accusation that we are
>working for our salvation as soon as we mention
>good works that we ourselves are engaged in).
That would be a good topic for a separate thread.
> My goal
>was to show from the Bible that the first Christians had
>a faith that was locked down pretty tight, so tight, in
>fact, that it could have been viewed as a form of mental
>deficiency (or mind control) by opposers who were
>too prejudiced, and too shallow, in their own thinking to
>grant the Christians even the slightest benefit of the
>doubt when it came to their state of mind.
Well, you did not show this. The most important thing you missed was in what way
that belief is 'locked'. It is not 'locked' by JW preachers telling you what you
should believe, it is 'locked' by the teaching authority of the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church.
That was my point in saying that Paul was acting as his office in the Church
allowed.
>
>You're just looking to take offense (or be "shocked")
>so that you can get all in a huff.
Mind-reading now?
>
>>
>>For discipline is what he is referring to in the very next verse when he
>>threatens to excommunicate any still remaining in disobedience when he
>finally
>>arrives in person, saying:
>>
>> And being in readiness to punish all disobedience,
>> when your obedience shall be fulfilled (2 Cor 10:6)
>>
>>So why do I see this as so very different from your interpretation? Because
>the
>>things Paul did as an Apostle were so very different from what you call 'JW
>>techniques'.
>
>What sort of "disobedience" was going to be fixed by
>excommunication? According to the footnote in the
>Oxford Annotated NRSV, the "disobedient" ones were
>those Paul mentioned a little further along, in 11:4, who
>were coming along with the proclamation of "another
>Jesus than the one we [the apostles] proclaimed."
Didn't you just answer your own question?
[snip]
>It's with no small measure of irony that on the one hand, Bob
>says it's mind control for JWs to warn interested ones that someone
>would come and try to talk them out of further investigation,
>to 'lead them astray' from their newly found sincere pursuit
>of 'pure devotion to Christ,'
Perhaps you noticed that I did not join Bob in saying this. I could easily see
the weakness in that approach, I am not surprised at all by your response.
Really, Bob should have forseen it too.
> and to see on the other hand that
>Paul says to the Corinthians, in connection to those who would
>preach something else to them:
But I don't see this as _irony_, because by believing what the JWs teach, you
HAVE believed a different Gospel from what Paul preached.
[snip]
>
>It's certainly not "mind control" to warn those pursuing the
>truth about Christ that others might try to come along and
>lead them astray with other teachings.
True. But it _is_ mind control to warn those pursuing a false path, claiming
that the true path is the false one. But JWs do this as a matter of course.
Now why wouldn't we believe that this is exactly what happened in your case?
After all, you have ducked too many questions concerning John 1:1 for us to
believe that your path is the true one. Even more important, you would have to
have been living in a cave to fail to know that the NWT has been roundly
condemned as the most tendentious translation of the Bible since Marcion.
>
>Sure we could keep debating, "no, JWs are wrong,
>and evangelicals are right," or "no evangelicals are
>wrong and JWs are right" -- or give two blanks to be
>filled in with any two other opposing beliefs -- but to
>insist that one side saying 'watch out that someone
>doesn't try to talk you out of looking into our side' is
>"mind control" is just another instance of ad hominem
>argument. It's a scare tactic to claim that warning
>a person of inevitable opposition is mind control, when
>the truth is that nearly every 'side' does it and sincerely
>believes itself to be in the right.
But do YOU believe that JW dogma allows this belief? I mean the belief that
"every 'side' does it and sincerely believes itself to be in the right"?
>
>> So, for example, Paul never inflicted a false
>translation of
>>Scripture on the world, yet the JWs still persist in using the NWT, despite
>its
>>universal condemnation from Biblical Scholars and translators of almost
>every
>>denomination and country.
>
>Jesus said:
>
> "Woe to you when all men speak well of you,
> for that is how their fathers treated the false prophets."
> (Luke 6:21 NIV)
But He was speaking to people who were determined to teach His Gospel, not to
people like the JWs who deny the plain words of the Gospel showing that Christ
is God.
But the lying translation of the NWT has long been one of the main JW weapons
for denying this basic GOspel truth.
>
>The day the alleged "universal condemnation" turns to
>favor is the day I'll be worried.
You are trying to evade the topic.
>
>I like the NWT, for it's a great poke-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp
>stick that is needed to pop the myopic bubble of dogma that
>clouds all the translations from the orthodox world that only
>tell people what they want to hear.
No it isn't. It is the most dishonest translation of the Bible published in
English in recent centuries. It does not 'pop the myopic bubble of dogma', it
LIES about the text and its meaning. John 1:1 is only one example.
>Yes indeed, it is an "opposing view", but it one that
>needs to be heard,
So you say, but you have still said nothing to convince anyone that this could
be true. WHY does this 'opposing view' need to be heard? Why would any lying
translation ever 'need to be heard'?
> as it opposes the "apostacy" that
>has permiated Christendom and made it part of the
>"world" that Jesus Christ is going to destroy when he
>sets up God's Kingdom over the earth.
So you delight in repeating. But this simply isn't true.
>>I could list other shocking differences, but this is enough, it is so
>dishonest.
>
>I'm sure you are sincere, Matthew. But I am equally
>sincere.
You can be sincere and still be very wrong. Paul was sincere, for example, when
he was still persecuting Christians. Peter was sincere when he cut off the
High-priest's servant's ear. But they mended their ways.
>Frankly I think the way Christendom has corrupted true
>Christianity is truly "shocking", but I personally see little
>value in playing for sympathy of being so "shocked".
>
>In fact, when anyone puts 'shock' first as justification
>for rejecting doctrinal ideas,
Nice try, but this is not what I did. I think it is time for you to reread my
previous post.
>it makes me think of
>the way many of Jesus' disciples reacted when he
>spoke to them a rather 'hard' teaching.
Then you are confusing oranges with apples.
[snip]
>If we can take this particular case as an object
>lesson that can be generalized, surely a point
>to take away is that being "shocked" by a teaching
>doesn't necessarily mean the teaching is wrong.
I never said that it did. So why do you go on and on on this instead of
answering the questions I put to you concerning John 1:1?
So, for example, I said:
> After all, if we accept your line of reasoning, and allow Scripture to be
> understood only in terms that the writer immediately had in mind, we have to
> also reject many of the prophecies that the NT writers accept as prophecy.
> Do you do this?
To which you 'answered' "John 1:1 has nothing to do with prophecy".
But this is not an answer at all! I never said it _was_ prophecy. Either you
didn't understand the question, or you are being evasive. But what is 'sincere'
about such evasion?
So if you really want me to believe you are sincere, go reread the entire
paragraph in which the question occurs and try to answer it again. If you don't
do this, I won't be the only one who assumes you are insincere.
>Another point we might take away is that
>some teachings that are true are purposely
>'shocking,' to see what kind of spiritual mettle
>we possess. And finally, being "shocked"
>just might mean you are in the wrong, and are
>unwilling to wait for further clarification of some
>initial saying.
Now this is the kind of specious reasoning that leaves me doubting your
sincerity. Can you really believe that this is even pertinent? After all, even a
child know that "being 'shocked' might mean you are wrong", but anyone who has
reached the age of discretion should already know quite well that it can mean
many other things as well.
You need to devote more time to considering these other things. For throughout
this thread, when you should have seen many possibilities, you have replied as
if only considering the JW party-line, turning a blind-eye to all other
possibilities. Even worse, you accuse Athanasius of being the one who turned a
blind-eye, when in fact, he and St. Basil and the many other great Trinitarian
Theologians considered FAR more possiblitiles than you and your JW friends even
know about.
Bob
Mark, Mark, Mark,
I dare you to read these books. I double dare you.
But we already know the answer, don't we Mark. You have your beliefs and
you will cling to them in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. Your
afraid of being shunned or disassociated especially since you have been
responsible for causing so many people to be disassociated and shunned. So
with the many years of study and effort and the pride you have in being an
elder who has risen through the ranks of the watchtower organization you
will in no way entertain any doubt. You won't allow any doubt to creep in
because you fear that after all these years you might have been wrong. Also
you have all those people you have been teaching over the years. You will
be responsible for leading them into error. You will be held accountable
for the teaching that you have done that has led others away from the truth,
and that Mark, scares you. It scares you so much that you suppress the fear
and lash out.
These are the books:
Crisis of Conscience by Raymond Franz
Paperback - 425 pages 2nd edition (September 1992); Commentary Press; ISBN
0914675044
(Available for $11.95 from Amazon.com)
... and ...
Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman
Paperback - 304 pages Reprint edition (May 1997); Harper San Francisco; ISBN
0060630353
(Available for $11.20 from Amazon.com)
A ex-Jw who now is a counselor says:
"It is typical, in an article like this, to ask that the reader approach the
recommended books "with an open mind". Well, that expression means a lot of
things. Most Witnesses think that they have an open mind because they allow
themselves to be compelled by the logic of the Watchtower literature, rather
than swallowing everything it says with no thought whatsoever. Many of them
also believe that they listen objectively to contrary opinions.
In all the years I've been counseling ex-Witnesses, I have yet to meet one
who continues to believe that he or she had a truly "open mind" while a
Witness. Apparently, the meaning of "open mind" changes when you leave the
JW's.
In any case, everybody likes to think they have an open mind. So asking a
person to have one is a waste of time.
So I won't use that expression. Rather, I will ask that you read both books
carefully and thoughtfully, all the while remembering that the author has
reflected for decades before writing what he did."
"What's So Special About These Two Books?
Can these two books, by themselves, destroy your faith in the Watchtower
Society? I have seen many books that purport to "answer" Jehovah's
Witnesses, and most of them get bogged down in arcane doctrinal debates.
These two books, however, go to the heart of the matter by showing that the
Society has some severe problems, both in its internal politics and in its
fundamental assumptions about the Bible.
Will people who read these books stop being Jehovah's Witnesses?
Not necessarily. They may lose their blind faith in the Organization, but
may continue to respect the Society's efforts. As such, they may dismiss the
Governing Body's errors as mere human foibles, which hopefully can be
overcome in the long term."
Mark wrote>>>>
> Bob is insisting that JWs are "brainwashed" and "mind-controlled",
> which is pretty much akin to the accusation made against Paul
> that he was "out of [his] mind." Whether I am right or wrong, I
> believe I can properly claim that JWs are not 'out of our minds',
> and are neither brainwashed nor mind-controlled, but simply
> convinced that our beliefs are based on "sober truth".
>
> To claim we are all brainwashed and mind-controlled is
> a blatant form of ad hominem attack, and is very much akin
> to the accusations made against Jesus himself by his
> opposers, who said:
>
> "He has a demon, and is insane; why do you
> listen to him?" (John 10:20 NASB)
>
> Like it or not, those with the weakest positions often
> depend upon ad hominem attacks as their foremost
> form of offense.
Mark, maybe you should look up the definition of ad hominem. You have
posted a lot of ad hominem's yourself. But of course you can't see that.
You only see what you want to see.
> Bob>When you first were thinking of becoming a JW I suppose that they
> predicted >that "Christians" would come to you and try to talk you out of
it.
> When > >this happened, it validated in your mind, what the JW's said.
> >This is a subtle method of mind control. In and of itself it is not
> >decisive but it is one thing that helps "validate" their beliefs to a
> >prospective convert.
>
> It's with no small measure of irony that on the one hand, Bob
> says it's mind control for JWs to warn interested ones that someone
> would come and try to talk them out of further investigation,
> to 'lead them astray' from their newly found sincere pursuit
> of 'pure devotion to Christ,'
Mark, here you go again. Come on Mark, I posted one example of a mind
control technique. I stated that in and of it self it does not mean much at
all. But it is only one,, repeat one,, example that is used. Then Mark, you
take one example and nit pick it apart, which is typical of JW's, and cite
it to be proof you are right. Well, it's obvious Mark, that you will see
proof that you are right in everything you read. Anyone who tells you that
the Watchtower organization is wrong is viewed as an attack, that proves you
are right. That brings us to your wonderful example that because the JW's
predicted the return of Jesus wrong so many times that this proves that
they are right. And, then because they are wrong, that they are more humble
then anyone else. Isn't that some kind of contradiction? [I'm more humble
then you] But according to you even when proven wrong that proves that they
are more right. Mark, Doesn't that show blindness to the truth? Doesn't
that show how you are willfully blind to anything that questions your
complete faith in the WT organization.
Bob
Matthew Johnson
In article <98rpm2$ac7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Mark says...
>
>
>
>Sabba...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> I, S, had quoted Mark when he mistakenly said:
>> > > > If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
>> >John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as
>> > > > supporting that notion IF John 1:1a is completely ignored . . .
>>
>> S:
>> > > Mark all you have proven by your above statement is that you do not
>> > > have a clue as to what Trinitarianism is.
>>
>> Mark replied:
>> > I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
>> good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
>> > do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
>>
>> S:
>> Mark that does not give you any excuse.
>
>I'm not claiming an "excuse" for my views on the
>trinity.
But you HAVE claimed to KNOW that the dogma of the Trinity is false. How can you
claim this if you don't even know what it IS? So Sabbatismo's question is a good
one.
> This statement of mine was mostly of a
>by-the-way nature, as the trinity is poorly understood
>(due to it being poorly taught) among many
>members of trinitarian faiths.
Sad but true.
>
>What excuse do you have for clipping my comments
>which show the rest of my answer?
>
>>
>> You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was deity
>> in
>> the same sense as the Father.
>
>I wish you'd quote me directly.
Is it really necessary? Other readers of this thread remember it well. Why, you
even gave another example of this denial below.
>
>I quoted trinitarian scholars who admit
>that John 1:1 implies that Jesus is deity
>in a sense less than the sense that God is
>deity.
Well, you quoted a number of allegedly 'trinitarian' scholars.
I am not sure what you mean by 'in a sense less'; the only 'sense less'
admissible for a true Trinitarian is that the Father alone is the sole source of
divine being in the Trinity.
>As a trinitarian you have to admit
>that Jesus is not all of God - it takes all
>three 'persons' of the trinity to be viewed
>collectively as God.
"All" of God? What God is, the Son is, except (as mentioned above) being Father
(i.e., the source of being).
>My argument is that John 1:1 juxtaposes
>Jesus with God, and not just Jesus with
>the Father.
What else would you have John call the Father, if not God? That WAS the standard
terminology then.
> Even though I believe that the
>Father is God, the specific juxtaposition of
>Jesus (as the Word) with God (ho theos)
>proves that John is not equating the two,
No, it proves nothing of the sort.
>and that he's not merely talking about
>the relationship between the Father and
>the Son within a trinity-God-combo.
It certainly doesn't disprove this.
>>
>> John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of a
>> longer
>> statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the Prologue
>> of
>> John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning, which is
>> statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
>> statement
>> two.
>
>Correct so far. He is "with God", and thus
>is not God.
No, this does not follow. Indeed, it is precisely to show that He is both with
God and IS God that John wrote John 1:1. Please recall that the whole sentence
is:
In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word WAS God. (Jn 1:1)
>
>> John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
>> the
>> third and last statement. This is very conclusive.
>
>Yes indeed, John says he is theos (or THEOS -- the Greek of
>John was written in 'call caps' -- John didn't use the
>typographical convention of capitalization to place
>added emphasis on the meaning of the word; instead he
>used position in the sentence, placing it before the
>verb).
As Robertson argued so many years ago, here the real reason for the word order
is to make clear which is subject, which is object. Thus he wrote "KAI QEOS HN O
LOGOS", to show that "O LOGOS" (The Word) is the subject.
>
>> The Logos was at or in
>> the
>> beginning, he was with the Theos and the qualities by which we can identify
>> the
>> Theos is true for the Logos.
>
>"the Theos" is correctly understood as a proper title
>for the God of the Jews, whom Jesus himself identified
>as his Father (John 8:54) Theos without the article
>is understood, in this context, to be qualitative, roughly
>what we would consider "god" (with a lower-case g) or
>"divine" to mean.
No, no, no. This does not follow at all. Indeed, if this were so, why did the
Greeks never read it this way?
> While in heaven he was _theos_, or
>'god', or 'a god', while on earth he was "flesh" (I don't
>have my interlinear with me to give the Greek word --
>though I recall TEV renders it as "a human being").
Again, if it means "a god", why did the Greeks never read it this way? On the
contrary: St. Basil (who I quoted earlier), a native speaker of Koine Greek,
always interpreted it as not 'a god' but 'God'. So did many others. Even Arius
never made this argument of yours.
>
>Thanks for pointing out the repeat of the first
>two points. We have double confirmation that the
>Logos is a distinct being, with an identity distinct
>from "the God".
If you said 'distinct person' instead of 'distinct being', and dropped this
un-biblical 'identity', this would be perfect Trintarian dogma.
Stop, stop stop! Scripture never uses the word 'agent' to describe Christ's
involvement in Creation. That is your interpolation.
Why is the interpolation OK when you and your JWs do it, but wrong when
Trinitarians do it?
>the heavens and the earth were created. Paul,
>writing prior to John, makes it clear that God
>and Jesus Christ were distinct.
Distinct yes, but not separate.
>
>John is simply confirming earlier statements of
>Christian belief about God and Jesus Christ.
Certainly. He confirms that the Father is God, the Son is God, they are
distinct, but not separate, so that there is only one God.
>
>> And again, just if you missed it,
>> John
>> repeats himself by asserting the same thing by this time by using a negative
>> construction-there is nothing that was not created, or brought into existence
>> with
>> out him. All things that were created, or brought into existence were
>> authored by
>> him.
>
>You are not quoting the scripture properly. It doesn't
>say the Word "authored" everything. It only says they
>came into existence "through" him.
Good. Now you got it right. So why did you insert the word 'agent' above?
> As Paul wrote,
>the real author was God the Father.
For that matter, why did you insert the word 'author' here? Paul never used this
word 'author'.
> God the Father
>was the one "from whom" all things came into existence.
>[If I was dictating my replies to someone, I'd still
>be the author, even though they were literally written
>"through" the person taking dictation for me.]
>
>> This is totally conclusive that he is not one of the things that was
>> created
>> or brought into existence.
>
>Before John wrote his gospel, Paul wrote that
>Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15 NIV).
True. But they understood this word 'firstborn' in a special way. After all,
only the Word was Begotten of the Father, all 'the rest of' creation was
created, not born/begotten.
So even the word 'firstborn' is a reference to the Only-Begotten Son of the
Father.
>Before John wrote, the Christians already believed
>that Jesus was part of creation, albeit a special
>part, being "firstborn".
And I just described above in what _way_ this is 'special'. It is not as you
read it.
>
>Notice what John quotes Jesus as saying:
>
> "Just as the living Father sent me
> and *I live because of the Father,*
> so the one who feeds on me will live
> because of me." (John 6:57 NIV)
>
>Jesus himself admits that his life originated
>with the Father.
Right. But all this means is that the Father, as I said above, is the source of
divine being in the Trinity.
> "I live because of the Father."
>In turn, others would live because of him --
>specifically, because of putting faith in him.
>(As you may recall, Jesus was aluding to the
>manna given miraculously by God to the Israelites
>in the wilderness.)
>On another occassion, also quoted by John,
>Jesus said,
>
> "For as the Father has life in
> himself, so he has granted the
> Son to have life in himself."
> (John 5:26 NIV)
>
>Jesus possesses "life in himself" due to
>it being "granted" by the Father. If Jesus
>were without origin, like the Father,
>his life would not be dependant on the
>Father.
Not true. Yes, it is granted by the Father, but it is granted pre-eternally. As
with the Father, there was no time when He was not, so He has been called
"co-unoriginate"; but the Father is the source of divine being.In this sense
only does His life have 'origin'. But certainly not in time.
>Jesus himself confirmed to John in the Revelation
>that he was 'created', when he referred to himself
>as "the beginning of God's creation" (Rev 3:14 RSV).
But that does NOT mean that He was Himself created!
>And then, there is the point that is almost too
>obvious to mention, that Jesus' relationship to
>God is conveyed to mankind as that of a Son to a
>Father. Fathers are first; sons originate second.
But only with created beings does this imply that the father is first with
respect to time. In the Trinity, all three are co-eternal.
>Even though the Father is without beginning, the
>fact that God publicly identified him as His
>"Son" (Mat 17:5) is proof that that's the most accurate
>way for humans to comprehend the relationship between
>God and Jesus Christ.
It can be the 'most accurate' and yet still leave much to be desired. This is
why Scripture gives us _so many_ figures of speech to describe the relationship,
not just 'father/son'.
>This is all well and good. But it is not directly
>related to our discussion of what the Bible says about
>the relationship between God and Jesus Christ.
Really? I always thought that the relationship between the Father and the Son
tells us a lot about what relationship we are supposed to have with each other.
After all, Christ Himself said:
As the Father loved Me, so I loved you (pl)
Remain in my love (Jn 15:9)
And he follows this almost immediately with:
This is My commandment: that you (pl) love each
other as I have loved you (Jn 15:12).
So as the Father loved the Son, so we are to love each other.
This, in a nutshell, is why the dogma of the Trinity is S-O-O-O important if we
are to fulfill this most famous commandment of Christ.
Bob
Mark,
The founder of your religion bases much of his theology on measurements
taken from the great pyramid in Egypt. Were you aware of this information?
Have the JW's backtracked and contradicted what he said? If he was wrong
about the pyramids couldn't he be wrong about other things too?
Russell and Pyramids--
Russell introduced occultism into his religion by teaching that the pyramids
in Egypt are divine omens. He taught that they contained prophetic secrets
known only to him. According to Russell, only by reading his books can one
understand the "Divine Plan." One of the strangest "revelations" from the
pyramids was his calculated date of 1914. The date was based on his
measurements of the interior passageways of the pyramids. He said that 1914
would be the end of the world and God had revealed it to him exclusively.
However, when his 1914 date for the end of the world failed, he tried to
cover his tracks. The calulations were first printed in 1897 where he
stated: "...this measurement is 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years.... This
calculation shows A.D. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of
trouble...." (Thy Kingdom Come, Series III, p. 342, 1897 edition) Then in
the 1916 edition it was changed to read: "We find it to be 3457 inches,
symbolizing 3457 years....This calculation shows that the close of 1914 will
be the beginning of the time of trouble...." Russell's pyramid actually grew
41 inches in 19 years!
Bob
Bob
Mark,
When I stated that it was my belief that JW's use brainwashing techniques or
mind control techniques you took great offense to that. As I have never
been a JW I speak from limited experience. I can only state my own
observation. Although I spent many hours with JW's I still was never a JW to
see it from the inside. So here is a web page where an EX-JW states that
the JW's use brainwashing. I know you won't go there, but for the benefit
of others who are reading these messages they might be interested in another
point of view.
Bob
http://wildfern.net/personal/caution.htm
http://wildfern.net/personal/brainwash.htm
Bob
Mark,
You stated that Martin Luther created a new religion.
Mark, I quote you saying:
>>The Evangelical Protestant Christian movement traces its
>> history back to Luther, but it has had to reorganize at least
>> twice in recent history (in the USA), in 1912 (as the Evangelical
>> Protestant Church of North America) and 1999 (as the General
>> Conference of Evangelical Protestant Churches).
>>
You therefore reject Luther and this religion right? He was wrong according
to the JW's religion.
Well, you contradict Russell who founded the JW religion. Russell stated
and refered to himself as the Seventh Laodician Messenger.
"Note that he was viewed as the seventh, or "Laodician Messenger" to the
Churches (Revelation 3:14) The first six are listed as: St. Paul, St. John,
Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther. (The Finished Mystery, Karatol edition,
1918, p. 64)"
Now, why did Russell find that Luther was credible and that Luther himself
was a messenger but now you discredit Luther and Evangelical Christianity?
Isn't this a contradiction? Who is right, Mark? Did the watchtower change
it's mind again?
Bob
Bob
Mark,
http://home.powertech.no/festus/j/jwe/shassan.shtml
From this site a former "Moonie" discusses mind control.
What do you think about what this man says?
Bob
In Reply to: JW are **Not** a Cult posted by Becki on November 01, 1997 at
00:04:37:
You raise some interesting points. The issue might be better discussed and
understood in terms of mind control and how it works, instead of whether or
not JW's are a cult.
Can mind control be identified? What are the characteristics of mind
control? Are you a victim of mind control? If you were, how would you know?
The following are some excerpts copied from a book by a man who was
recruited into the Moonies while he was in college. He rose fairly high in
the Moonie organization. He is now a cult exit-counselor, which is different
than a deprogrammer. He thinks society is served by making people aware of
mind control methods, so as to be able to protect themselves. Here are
excerpts from his book:
Telling about how he got involved with the Moonies: "I enjoyed the
stimulating conversations and energetic atmosphere: at the meeting. These
people related to each other as easily as brothers and sisters and clearly
felt they were part of one global family. They seemed very happy with their
lives. After my depression of the previous month, I was invigorated by all
that positive energy. I went home that night feeling lucky to have met such
nice people. (p.13) "I was elated at the thought that I was "chosen" by God
and that my life's path was now on the only "true track". I was emotionally
high on the thought that God was actively working to bring about the Garden
of Eden. No more war, no more poverty, no more ecological destruction. Just
love, truth, beauty, and goodness. (p. 19) "Moonies believe the world's only
salvation lies in Moon and in the establishment of a theocratic form of
government which will replace secular democracies. (p.9)
"We truly identified with the early Christians: the more people opposed us,
the more committed we felt. It was as if we were God's army in the middle of
a spiritual war - the only ones who could go to the front lines and fight
Satan every day. (p.24) "Every person but us was being controlled by Satan.
We truly believed that we were saving the world from Satan and Communism by
selling those products, and that we were giving people the opportunity to
help the Messiah create the Garden of Eden on earth. (p. 26) [The author of
the book fell asleep at the wheel, had an accident and broke his leg. He
stayed with his sister, and his parents called in former Moonies to talk to
him.] "The Moonies do a very thorough job of convincing people that former
members are satanic and that even being in their presence could be
dangerous." (p. 3) "As a committed member, fought to keep from hearing their
words. I wasn't going to allow my faith in God to be broken by Satan. I knew
that what I had been doing was right. I knew that God wanted me to remain in
the group. I knew the Divine Principle by heart. What did I have to fear7
Besides, believed that I could prove to my parents once and for all that I
wasn't brainwashed... The former members were not at all what I expected. I
assumed, because of my training, that they would be cold, calculating,
unspiritual and abusive. They were warm, caring, idealistic, and spiritually
minded, and they treated me with respect. As former members, they should
have been miserable and guilt-ridden. They weren't. They were very happy
that they were out and free to lead their lives as they were doing. All of
this was very perplexing... The fantasy I had used to inspire myself day
after day and month after month was gone. I was sad and missed my friends in
the group, particularly my "spiritual children", the people I recruited. I
missed the excitement of feeling that what I was doing was cosmically
important. I missed the feeling of power that single mindedness brought. I
was broken. I felt tremendous embarrassment about having fallen for a
cult...I read for months. For me, the burning issue was how the Moonies had
ever managed to convert me and indoctrinate me so thoroughly that I could no
longer think for myself. (p.29)
"Often, people look at a cult victim and say mistakenly, "What a weak-
minded person; he must have been looking for a way to escape responsibility
and have someone control his life." In that way people deny the reality that
the same thing could happen to them. This kind of behavior is called blaming
the victim.
"Since my departure from the Moon cult, I have spoken with more than one
thousand former members of cults of all kinds. The great majority were
stable, intelligent, idealistic people... Many men and women have a genuine
impulse to work together with others as a team for a variety of social or
religious causes. Relatively few communities offer such organized activity
to idealistic people. Cult life gives them just such an opportunity, along
with the apparent benefits of the "togetherness" that comes from an intense
group experience. (P.76)
"in cults, members are systematically made to be phobic about ever leaving
the group. They implant vivid negative images deep within members'
unconscious minds, making it impossible for the member to even conceive of
ever being happy and successful outside of the group. When the unconscious
is programmed to accept the negative images, it behaves as if they were
true. The unconscious mind is made to contain a substantial image-bank of
all of the bad things that will occur if anyone should ever betray the
group.(p.45.)
"Members are so conditioned to suppress their real selves that they aren't
even aware of their desire to leave. They think they are so happy in the
group that they would never want to leave. Such people can't generate
positive images of themselves after leaving the group. Members truly believe
they will be destroyed if they leave the safety of the group. They think
there are no other ways for them to grow spiritually, intellectually, or
emotionally. They are virtually enslaved by mind control.(p.46)
"When lecture at colleges, I usually challenge my audience with the question
"How would you know if you were under mind control?" After some reflection,
most people will realize that if one were under mind control, it would be
impossible to determine it without some help from others. In addition, one
would need to understand very clearly what mind controls. (p.53)
"The. essence of, mind: control is that it encourages dependence and
conformity, and discourages autonomy and individuality. ...seeks to
undermine an individual's integrity in making his own decisions. (p.55)
"The three basic components of mind control (as described by Festinger, a
psychologist) are control of behavior, control of thoughts, and control of
emotions. Each component has a powerful effect on the other two: change one,
and the others will tend to follow. However, from my experience in
researching destructive cults, I have added one additional component which
is vital: control of information. If you control the information someone
receives, you restrict his free ability to think for himself... Cognitive
dissonance refers to the conflict which occurs when a thought, a feeling, or
a behavior is altered in contradiction to the other two. A person can
tolerate only a certain amount of discrepancy between his thoughts,
feelings, and actions. If any one of the three components changes, the other
two will shift to reduce the dissonance. The important thing to remember
about cult groups is that they deliberately create dissonance in people and
exploit it to control them. (p.59)
"In totalistic cults, the ideology is internalized as "the truth", the only
"map" of reality. All that is good is embodied in the group. All that is bad
is on the outside. The doctrine claims to answer all questions to all
problems and situations. A member need not think for himself because the
doctrine does the thinking for him. A destructive cult typically has its own
"loaded language" of words and expressions... which puts up an invisible
wall between believers and outsiders. The language helps to make members
feel special and separates them from the general public. It also serves to
confuse newcomers, who want to understand what members are talking about,
and think they merely have to study hard in order to "understand" the truth.
In reality, by incorporating the loaded language they learn how not to
think. They learn that understanding means believing.
"Another key aspect of thought control involves training members to block
out any information which is critical of the group. "if information
transmitted to a cult member is perceived as an attack on either the leader,
the doctrine, or the group, a hostile wall goes up. Members are trained to
disbelieve any criticism. Critical words have been explained away in advance
as "the lies about us that Satan puts in peoples' minds". Paradoxically,
criticism of the group confirms that the cult's view of the world is
correct. The information presented does not register properly.
"in many cults, people have minimal access to non-cult information. This is
partly because they are kept so busy they don't have free time. When they do
read, it is primarily cult- generated propaganda or material that has been
censored to "help" members stay focused. Information control also extends
across all relationships. People are not allowed to talk to each other about
anything critical of the leader, doctrine, or organization. Members must spy
on one another and report improper activities or comments to leaders. Most
importantly, people are told to avoid contact with ex-members or critics.
Those who could provide the most information are the ones especially to be
shunned. Information is usually compartmentalized to keep members from
knowing the big picture. A member in one city will therefore not necessarily
know about an important legal decision, media expose' or internal dispute
that is creating turmoil in the group somewhere else. Cult members naturally
feel they know more about what's going on in their group than outsiders do,
but in counseling ex-members I find that they often know the least. (p.65)
"The group now forms the member's "true" family; any other is just his
"physical" family. The new member is typically assigned to proselytizing
duty as soon as possible. Research in social psychology has shown that
nothing firms up one's beliefs faster than trying to sell them to others.
Making new members do so crystallizes the cult identity quickly... These
experiences become a form of glorious martyrdom that helps freeze commitment
to the group... Thus, the victim becomes victimizer, to perpetuate the
destructive system. (P.72)
"Whenever recruits leave the group environment long enough to discover
revealing books, articles, or testimonies by former members, they almost
always break away. The problem occurs when people rely on the group for all
key information. Not knowing any better, they give the cult members or
leaders the benefit of the doubt. They may assume that any problem is merely
the result of one member's idiosyncratic behavior, not the system itself.
(P.78)
"There is no room in a mind control environment for regarding the group's
beliefs as mere theory.., the doctrine is reality. Cult doctrine always
requires that a person distrust his own self. The doctrine becomes the
"master program" for all thoughts, feelings, and actions... The doctrine
allows no outside group to be recognized as valid (good, godly, real)
because that would threaten the cult's monopoly on truth. There is also no
room for interpretation or deviation. (p.79) "Members are made to feel part
of an elite corps of mankind. This feeling of being special, of
participating in the most important acts in human history with a vanguard of
committed believers, is strong emotional glue to keep people sacrificing and
working hard. ironically, members of cults look down on anyone involved in
any other cult groups. "THEY are the ones who are brainwashed". They are
unable to step out of their own situations and look at themselves
objectively. (P.80)
"One of the most attractive qualities of cult life is the sense of community
that it fosters. The love seems to be unconditional and unlimited at first,
and new members are swept away by a honeymoon of attention. But after a few
months, the flattery and attention are turned away toward newer recruits.
The cult member learns that love is not unconditional but depends on good
performance. Behaviors are controlled through rewards and punishments.
(P.81) "Indeed, the sheer number of sincere, committed members whom a
newcomer meets is probably far more attractive to a prospective convert than
any doctrine or structure. The large cults.., indoctrinate members to show
only the best sides of the organization. Members are taught to suppress any
negative feelings they have about the group and always show a continually
smiling, "happy" face...
"Real friendships are a liability.., of course, when anyone does leave the
group, the "love" formerly directed to him turns into anger, hatred, and
ridicule. Relationships are usually superficial within these groups because
sharing of deep personal feelings, especially negative ones, is highly
discouraged. This feature of cult life prevails even though a member may
feel he is closer to his comrades than he has ever been to anyone before.
Indeed, when cult members go through hardship or persecution, they do feel a
depth of camaraderie and shared martyrdom that is exceptional. But because
the only real alle- giance is to the leader, a closer look shows that such
ties are actually shallow and sometimes just private fantasy. (p. 82) It
becomes particularly difficult when a former member realizes that the
friendships he thought were so good were conditional on contin- ued
membership. A former member can quickly see the strength of mind control
bonds when his closest friend in the group refuses to see him. (p. 183)
"in a destructive cult, there is never a legitimate reason for leaving.
Unlike non-cult organizations that recognize a person's inherent right to
choose to move on, mind control groups make it very clear that there is no
legitimate way to leave. Members are told that the only reasons why people
leave are weakness, insanity, temptation, brainwashing, pride, sin and so
on. (p.84) "Many mistakenly assume that people must live together in a
closed community to be adversely affected by group involvement. Those
persons who are forbidden to think "negative thoughts" or have contact with
critics or former members, even though they may have outside jobs and live
separately, may still be under mind control, though perhaps not as highly
controlled as someone who is a full-time, completely devoted member. (P.104)
"The final criterion for judging a group is the member's freedom to leave.
To put it simply, members of destructive cults are psychological prisoners.
Destructive cults plant phobias into members' minds so that they fear ever
leaving the group. By doing so they shut the door on free choice. People had
the freedom to join, but people don't have the freedom to leave a
destructive group. In fact, in the eyes of a destructive cult, there is no
"legitimate" reason for a person to ever leave the group. (p.104)
"in the case of destructive cults, being an educated consumer can save your
mind. If you are ever approached by someone who invites you to participate
in a program, you can ask some very specific questions which will help you
avoid over 90% of all cult recruiters. These questions work best if you ask
them in a very direct yet friendly manner and demand very specific answers.
(P.106)
"Although most groups use deception, it is important to realize that most
cult members don't realize they are lying in the process of recruitment. For
that reason, by asking these direct questions one after another, you can
usually discover that either you are not being told a straight story, or the
cult member doesn't have the straight story to begin with.
"Here are some of the questions I have found to be most effective:
How long have you (the recruiter) been involved Are you trying to recruit me
into any type of organization) Often they will say, "No, 1 just want to
share this information with you. What you do with it is up to you."
What does your group believe?
Any legitimate group will be able to summarize its central beliefs. (Of
course, cults have two levels of "truth", bland generalities for the general
public and new recruits, and "insider" beliefs that are doled out gradually,
only as fast as the person is deemed ready to assimilate it.)
What are members expected to do once they join? Do I have to quit school or
work, or cut myself off from family members and friends who might oppose my
membership
If you are being approached by a destructive cult, the person you meet may
tell you that you will be expected to do little or nothing once you join.
However, this question will make most cult members very uncomfortable and
defensive. Watch the recruiter's non- verbal reaction carefully when you ask
this question.
Is your group considered controversial by anyone? If people are critical of
your group, what are their main objections?
How do you feel about former members of your group? Have you ever sat down
to speak with a former member to find out why he left the group? If not, why
not Does your group impose restrictions on communicating with former
members?
This is one of the most revealing sets of questions you can ask any cult
member. Any legitimate organization would never discourage contact with
former members. Likewise, legitimate groups would support any member's
decision to leave, even though they might not like it.
Destructive cults, on the other hand, do not accept any reasons for person's
departure no matter what they are. Likewise, cult groups make sure to
instill fear in members, insuring that they stay away from critics and
former members.
What are the three things you like the least about the group and the leader?
I can't remember how many times I have seen reporters and television hosts
ask cult members whether they were brainwashed. The cult member usually
smiles and says, "Of course not, that's ridiculous." It is absurd, however,
to expect an objective answer from someone under mind control. A much better
challenge for such people would be "Tell me three things you don't like
about the group." If you get an opportunity to catch a cult member off guard
and ask that question, I suggest you watch his face very carefully. The
pupils will dilate, and he will act momentarily stunned. When he does
answer, he will very likely say that their is nothing he can think of that
he doesn't like.
The clincher question is whether or not the person has taken the time to
talk with former members and read critical literature in order to make up
his own mind. (p. 107-111)
"Former members report a variety of psychological difficulties after they
leave a cult. Probably the most common is the depression they feel during
the first few months after leaving. It is difficult to describe the pain of
realizing that you have been lied to and enslaved in a mind control
cult--when you discover your "dream" is really a nightmare.
"Many of the people I have met described the experience as having fallen
deeply in love, giving every ounce of love, trust, and commitment to
someone, and then finding out that person was a false lover and was just
using them. The pain and sense of betrayal is enormous.
"When people are depressed, they tend to only see the bad side of things.
Their pain can be so great that it blots out the hope of a positive future.
It is essential that former members acknowledge and work through their pain,
and go through the necessary grieving period. What seems to help the most is
to enable people to realize that positive things did come out of their
involvement, and to show them how they can now be much stronger because of
the experience. (p. 173)
"Former members need to learn how to trust themselves again. They have to
realize that they didn't choose of be lied to or abused. They are not at
fault. Eventually, as they learn to trust themselves and their own inherent
wisdom and instincts, they learn that it's okay to begin trusting others.
(p.182)
"At some point, the person may begin a voracious research project to find
out everything he can about his group and answer every one of his questions,
to his satisfaction. This is a very positive therapeutic step. (p.183)
"Eventually, when all the questions are answered, and all the cult issues
are addressed, the ex-member reaches a saturation point. He gets to the
point of saying "They're not going to take the rest of my life!" and starts
making plans for the future. (p.183)
(The rest of the book is about strategies for recovery.)
The name of the book is "Combatting Cult Mind Control", by Steven Hassan
(Park Street Press) Mr. Hassan is not, nor has ever been one of Jehovah's
Witnesses.
It can be ordered over the Internet at Amazon books:
If you would like to talk with Steven Hassan, visit his site:
http://www.shassan.com/index.html
Personally, I find the similarities between the Moonies, and the Watchtower
Society to be very evident, though by no means identical. Can you see how
many of the same techniques are used within the organization?
In His Love,
The Liberal Elder
Bob
For those who want to find out more about the Jehovah Witnesses here are
several interesting web sites that have a lot of information. The sites
that have stories of what Ex-Jw's went through is fascinating. This list is
not exhaustive but is well worth the time looking at what others say about
this "religion".
Bob
http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/russell.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulblizard/test.html
http://www.geocities.com/japchap/home.htm
http://www.onroaduk.org/home.html
http://www.christianexjehovahswitnesses.com/
http://www.quotes.jehovahswitnesses.com/
http://www.psnw.com/~awaketothewt/links1/
http://www.psnw.com/~awaketothewt/read1/
http://www.serve.com/larryi/menu.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~Hull_R/Watchtowerhistory.html
http://members.tripod.com/~Hull_R/index.html
http://xjw.virtualave.net/why/index.html
http://xjw.virtualave.net/why/index2.html
http://home.powertech.no/festus/j/jwe/
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_f3.85fb3a1.27e4f422_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark replied:
> > > I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
> good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
> > > do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
I, S (Sabbatismos) replied:
> > Mark that does not give you any excuse.
M (Mark):
> I'm not claiming an "excuse" for my views on the
trinity. This statement of mine was mostly of a
by-the-way nature, as the trinity is poorly understood
(due to it being poorly taught) among many
> members of trinitarian faiths.
> What excuse do you have for clipping my comments
> which show the rest of my answer?
S:
Mark it would help if you let me write my post and I allow you to
write your post. Now if I miss quote you, or misrepresent you then
point that out but don't try to dictate to me how I write my post. I
repeat that if some Trinitarians have a faulty view of Trinitarianism
does not excuse you from not knowing the essentials of it to engage
in discussion in this ng. From your own words we have you saying
"If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
(the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as supporting that notion
IF John 1:1a is completely ignored," which indicates that you have trouble
distinguishing between the teachings of Trinitarianism and the teaching of
Sabellius.
M:
> I quoted trinitarian scholars who admit
that John 1:1 implies that Jesus is deity
in a sense less than the sense that God is
deity. As a trinitarian you have to admit
that Jesus is not all of God - it takes all
three 'persons' of the trinity to be viewed
> collectively as God.
S:
I do not recall that quote. I do recall you quoting
Harner (I believe) as saying that the Logos was not
all of deity, which is a qualitatively different from saying
that Jesus is a deity less than the sense that God is
deity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, I do not need to
have all three person in order to apply the term God.
I had previously said:
> > You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was
deity
> > in the same sense as the Father.
M replied:
> I wish you'd quote me directly.
S:
I sometimes have to reframe from quoting you for two reasons:
1) for clarity sake, and
2) to keep you from framing the debate in a way that disadvantages my
position,
but I always try to keep from misrepresenting you, or take an unfair
advantage of you.
I, S, had written:
> > John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of
a
> longer statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the
Prologue
> of John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning,
which
> is statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
> > statement two.
M:
> Correct so far. He is "with God", and thus
> is not God.
S:
No, he is with another also called God, which does not mean that what is true
about God, is also true about the Logos. If God is eternal then the Logos is
eternal, which is why I wrote:
> > John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
> > the third and last statement. This is very conclusive.
S:
> > Now just in case you missed it John repeats himself
> for emphasis. In John 1.2, he restates the first two statements of John 1.
> 1, to whit the Logos was already at the beginning and in the
> > present of the Theos.
M:
> Thanks for pointing out the repeat of the first
two points. We have double confirmation that the
Logos is a distinct being, with an identity distinct
> from "the God".
S:
The Logos, as Harner argues, has the qualities that make God, God, which is
why I wrote:
> > Then John again deals with the qualities of the Logos, for he tells us
that the
> one who [is] identifies as the Logos is the creator, for he tells [us] that
all things
> > that were created, or that came into existence did so by him.
If all things that came into existence equals all creation, which it does,
and he
created all things then he is the creator. The Logos is the author of all
creation.
M:
> No, it doesn't call the Logos "the creator".
It says, "Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made"
> (John 1:3 NIV).
S:
Mark I never said that John referred the title of "the creator"
to the Logos, but I am saying that John 1. 3, is saying that
those qualites that we attribute to the creator is true of the
Logos. The Logos is the creator is not implied but explicit to
the fact that all things were brought into existemce by him. If
he was created then John could not tell us that without him
nothing was made that has been made.
M:
> Yes indeed, John says he is theos (or THEOS -- the Greek of
John was written in 'call caps' -- John didn't use the
typographical convention of capitalization to place
added emphasis on the meaning of the word; instead he
used position in the sentence, placing it before the
> verb).
S:
Mark please stop this silliness, I am using standard English capitalization
to denote a proper title.
> > The Logos was at or in the beginning, he was with the Theos and the
> > qualities by which we can identify the Theos is true for the Logos.
M:
> "the Theos" is correctly understood as a proper title
for the God of the Jews, whom Jesus himself identified
as his Father (John 8:54) Theos without the article
is understood, in this context, to be qualitative, roughly
what we would consider "god" (with a lower-case g) or
> "divine" to mean. . .
No, Mark, "ho Theos" or simply "Theos" is currently understood as
a proper title for the God of the Jews. Theos without the article only
applies to a noun before the verb that is not thought to be the subject
of the sentences-please see Harner, which is where we came in.
Mark:
> Before John wrote his gospel, Paul wrote that
Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15 NIV).
Before John wrote, the Christians already believed
that Jesus was part of creation, albeit a special
> part, being "firstborn".
S:
Prototokos, which is translated as first born does not mean first created,
in fact it is more correctly defined as preeminent heir. In the Greek
Septuagint, David in Psalm 89. 27, is called the firstborn, but he was the
youngest son of his father, also in Jeremiah 31. 9, Ephram is called the
first born but Manasseh is his older brother, in both of these cases
Prototokos is the "preeminent heir." Ishmael is the first borned but it is
Isaac who is the preeminent heir. Cain is the first borned of creation but
Jesus is the preeminent heir of all creation.
M:
> And then, there is the point that is almost too
obvious to mention, that Jesus' relationship to
God is conveyed to mankind as that of a Son to a
Father. Fathers are first; sons originate second.
Even though the Father is without beginning, the
fact that God publicly identified him as His
"Son" (Mat 17:5) is proof that that's the most accurate
way for humans to comprehend the relationship between
> God and Jesus Christ.
S:
Since both you and I believe that Jesus existed as the Logos prior to his
birth, there is no need to belabor that point, but John tells us that Jesus
by calling God his Father was making himself equal to God. See John
5. 18.
Jesus is the origin of all creation, which is why I posted:
> > He is the fount of all life, for he is the very essence of life.
> In him, or internal to him was life, or self recognition; for all men
> he is the light by which they are able to see themselves as alive.
> All humanity has two goals, one to recognize that they are alive
> and live in a state of utter depravity in which they are inextricably
> > bound, leaving them with a feeling of complete despair.
> > The second purpose or goal is to seek the purpose for their own
> existence, to come to the author of life and find the reason for their
> life, and to be made whole. All men, the very life within them draws
> them to Jesus, to find the light of his purpose in our
> > lives.
> > At the end of the prologue John writes a contradiction, when he tells us
> that no one has ever seen God and it is only through the one and only God
> who came from the bosom of the Father to explain him. Without this one
> and only God who is able to reveal the purpose of our life which is to seek
> knowledge of God. No one is able to see God, no matter how much we
> strive we are unable to understand him, it is only the one and only God the
> one from the bosom of the Father who is able to enable us have any
> understanding of God. Only then is our purpose revealed which is to seek
> > after the God, who on our own we could not even see much less find.
M:
> I believe we've covered this before.
S:
Mark, your last fail attempt to deal with this verse was the claim that it
was a
variant reading, but Mark the reading you refer is a variant from the Latin
and
is not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek ms. I am quoting the
reading
that is from the oldest and best Greek ms. We know from the earliest fathers
why the variant that you have chosen to espouse, came into existence. In fact
the variant you have chosen is an addition, much like the one that appears in
the KJV of 1st John 5. 8.
Unable to deal with the words in context Mark resorts to trying to build an
argument by implication.
> No one (i.e., no human) has ever seen God.
As Paul said, he is "invisible" (Col 1:15).
> Therefore, by implication Jesus is not God.
Mark until you can deal with the explicit words of John 1. 18, why would I
buy into your attempt to build an argument which overlooks the fact that
Paul tells that Jesus is the seen image of the invisible God, or as Jesus
said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
Sabbatismos.
--part1_f3.85fb3a1.27e4f422_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Mark replied:
<BR>> > > I wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that a
<BR>> good many members of 'orthodox' brands of Christianity
<BR>> > > do not have a clue about what Trinitarianism is either
<BR>
<BR>I, S (Sabbatismos) replied:
<BR>> > Mark that does not give you any excuse.
<BR>
<BR>M (Mark):
<BR>> I'm not claiming an "excuse" for my views on the
<BR>trinity. This statement of mine was mostly of a
<BR>by-the-way nature, as the trinity is poorly understood
<BR>(due to it being poorly taught) among many
<BR>> members of trinitarian faiths.
<BR>
<BR>> What excuse do you have for clipping my comments
<BR>> which show the rest of my answer?
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark it would help if you let me write my post and I allow you to
<BR>write your post. Now if I miss quote you, or misrepresent you then
<BR>point that out but don't try to dictate to me how I write my post. I
<BR>repeat that if some Trinitarians have a faulty view of Trinitarianism
<BR>does not excuse you from not knowing the essentials of it to engage
<BR>in discussion in this ng. From your own words we have you saying
<BR>"If Jesus really were God (in the orthodox trinitarian sense),
<BR>(the Word was _theos_) might still be viewed as supporting that notion
<BR>IF John 1:1a is completely ignored," which indicates that you have trouble
<BR>distinguishing between the teachings of Trinitarianism and the teaching of
<BR>Sabellius.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> I quoted trinitarian scholars who admit
<BR>that John 1:1 implies that Jesus is deity
<BR>in a sense less than the sense that God is
<BR>deity. As a trinitarian you have to admit
<BR>that Jesus is not all of God - it takes all
<BR>three 'persons' of the trinity to be viewed
<BR>> collectively as God.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>I do not recall that quote. I do recall you quoting
<BR>Harner (I believe) as saying that the Logos was not
<BR>all of deity, which is a qualitatively different from saying
<BR>that Jesus is a deity less than the sense that God is
<BR>deity. Jesus is God, the Father is God, I do not need to
<BR>have all three person in order to apply the term God.
<BR>
<BR>I had previously said:
<BR>> > You also said that nothing in John 1. 1, would support that Jesus was
<BR>deity
<BR>> > in the same sense as the Father.
<BR>
<BR>M replied:
<BR>> I wish you'd quote me directly.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>I sometimes have to reframe from quoting you for two reasons:
<BR> 1) for clarity sake, and
<BR> 2) to keep you from framing the debate in a way that disadvantages my
<BR>position,
<BR>but I always try to keep from misrepresenting you, or take an unfair
<BR>advantage of you.
<BR>
<BR>I, S, had written:
<BR>> > John 1. 1, consist of three statements which appears at the beginning of
<BR>a
<BR>> longer statement from verse 1 through 18, that is often referred to as the
<BR>Prologue
<BR>> of John. John identifies Jesus as the Logos as being in the beginning,
<BR>which
<BR>> is statement one. John then identifies him as being with God, which is
<BR>> > statement two.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> Correct so far. He is "with God", and thus
<BR>> is not God.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>No, he is with another also called God, which does not mean that what is true
<BR>about God, is also true about the Logos. If God is eternal then the Logos is
<BR>eternal, which is why I wrote:
<BR>> > John then identifies his characteristics -Theos is the Logos, which is
<BR>> > the third and last statement. This is very conclusive.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>> > Now just in case you missed it John repeats himself
<BR>> for emphasis. In John 1.2, he restates the first two statements of John 1.
<BR>> 1, to whit the Logos was already at the beginning and in the
<BR>> > present of the Theos.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> Thanks for pointing out the repeat of the first
<BR>two points. We have double confirmation that the
<BR>Logos is a distinct being, with an identity distinct
<BR>> from "the God".
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>The Logos, as Harner argues, has the qualities that make God, God, which is
<BR>why I wrote:
<BR>> > Then John again deals with the qualities of the Logos, for he tells us
<BR>that the
<BR>> one who [is] identifies as the Logos is the creator, for he tells [us] that
<BR>all things
<BR>> > that were created, or that came into existence did so by him.
<BR>If all things that came into existence equals all creation, which it does,
<BR>and he
<BR>created all things then he is the creator. The Logos is the author of all
<BR>creation.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> No, it doesn't call the Logos "the creator".
<BR>It says, "Through him all things were made;
<BR>without him nothing was made that has been made"
<BR>> (John 1:3 NIV).
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark I never said that John referred the title of "the creator"
<BR>to the Logos, but I am saying that John 1. 3, is saying that
<BR>those qualites that we attribute to the creator is true of the
<BR>Logos. The Logos is the creator is not implied but explicit to
<BR>the fact that all things were brought into existemce by him. If
<BR>he was created then John could not tell us that without him
<BR>nothing was made that has been made.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> Yes indeed, John says he is theos (or THEOS -- the Greek of
<BR>John was written in 'call caps' -- John didn't use the
<BR>typographical convention of capitalization to place
<BR>added emphasis on the meaning of the word; instead he
<BR>used position in the sentence, placing it before the
<BR>> verb).
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark please stop this silliness, I am using standard English capitalization
<BR>to denote a proper title.
<BR>> > The Logos was at or in the beginning, he was with the Theos and the
<BR>> > qualities by which we can identify the Theos is true for the Logos.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> "the Theos" is correctly understood as a proper title
<BR>for the God of the Jews, whom Jesus himself identified
<BR>as his Father (John 8:54) Theos without the article
<BR>is understood, in this context, to be qualitative, roughly
<BR>what we would consider "god" (with a lower-case g) or
<BR>> "divine" to mean. . .
<BR>
<BR>No, Mark, "ho Theos" or simply "Theos" is currently understood as
<BR>a proper title for the God of the Jews. Theos without the article only
<BR>applies to a noun before the verb that is not thought to be the subject
<BR>of the sentences-please see Harner, which is where we came in.
<BR>
<BR>Mark:
<BR>> Before John wrote his gospel, Paul wrote that
<BR>Jesus was the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15 NIV).
<BR>Before John wrote, the Christians already believed
<BR>that Jesus was part of creation, albeit a special
<BR>> part, being "firstborn".
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Prototokos, which is translated as first born does not mean first created,
<BR>in fact it is more correctly defined as preeminent heir. In the Greek
<BR>Septuagint, David in Psalm 89. 27, is called the firstborn, but he was the
<BR>youngest son of his father, also in Jeremiah 31. 9, Ephram is called the
<BR>first born but Manasseh is his older brother, in both of these cases
<BR>Prototokos is the "preeminent heir." Ishmael is the first borned but it is
<BR>Isaac who is the preeminent heir. Cain is the first borned of creation but
<BR>Jesus is the preeminent heir of all creation.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> And then, there is the point that is almost too
<BR>obvious to mention, that Jesus' relationship to
<BR>God is conveyed to mankind as that of a Son to a
<BR>Father. Fathers are first; sons originate second.
<BR>Even though the Father is without beginning, the
<BR>fact that God publicly identified him as His
<BR>"Son" (Mat 17:5) is proof that that's the most accurate
<BR>way for humans to comprehend the relationship between
<BR>> God and Jesus Christ.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Since both you and I believe that Jesus existed as the Logos prior to his
<BR>birth, there is no need to belabor that point, but John tells us that Jesus
<BR>by calling God his Father was making himself equal to God. See John
<BR>5. 18.
<BR>
<BR>Jesus is the origin of all creation, which is why I posted:
<BR>> > He is the fount of all life, for he is the very essence of life.
<BR>> In him, or internal to him was life, or self recognition; for all men
<BR>> he is the light by which they are able to see themselves as alive.
<BR>> All humanity has two goals, one to recognize that they are alive
<BR>> and live in a state of utter depravity in which they are inextricably
<BR>> > bound, leaving them with a feeling of complete despair.
<BR>
<BR>> > The second purpose or goal is to seek the purpose for their own
<BR>> existence, to come to the author of life and find the reason for their
<BR>> life, and to be made whole. All men, the very life within them draws
<BR>> them to Jesus, to find the light of his purpose in our
<BR>> > lives.
<BR>
<BR>> > At the end of the prologue John writes a contradiction, when he tells us
<BR>> that no one has ever seen God and it is only through the one and only God
<BR>> who came from the bosom of the Father to explain him. Without this one
<BR>> and only God who is able to reveal the purpose of our life which is to seek
<BR>> knowledge of God. No one is able to see God, no matter how much we
<BR>> strive we are unable to understand him, it is only the one and only God the
<BR>> one from the bosom of the Father who is able to enable us have any
<BR>> understanding of God. Only then is our purpose revealed which is to seek
<BR>> > after the God, who on our own we could not even see much less find.
<BR>
<BR>M:
<BR>> I believe we've covered this before.
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Mark, your last fail attempt to deal with this verse was the claim that it
<BR>was a
<BR>variant reading, but Mark the reading you refer is a variant from the Latin
<BR>and
<BR>is not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek ms. I am quoting the
<BR>reading
<BR>that is from the oldest and best Greek ms. We know from the earliest fathers
<BR>why the variant that you have chosen to espouse, came into existence. In fact
<BR>the variant you have chosen is an addition, much like the one that appears in
<BR>the KJV of 1st John 5. 8.
<BR>
<BR>Unable to deal with the words in context Mark resorts to trying to build an
<BR>argument by implication.
<BR>> No one (i.e., no human) has ever seen God.
<BR>As Paul said, he is "invisible" (Col 1:15).
<BR>> Therefore, by implication Jesus is not God.
<BR>
<BR>Mark until you can deal with the explicit words of John 1. 18, why would I
<BR>buy into your attempt to build an argument which overlooks the fact that
<BR>Paul tells that Jesus is the seen image of the invisible God, or as Jesus
<BR>said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_f3.85fb3a1.27e4f422_boundary--
mark sornson
Jeff Shirton wrote in message <98rpm3$acb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>
>Mark Sornson <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
>news:98oktp$c5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> > If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete
>> > isolation, ignoring the rest of Scripture, I
>> suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_
>> "identify Jesus as God".
>
>I would disagree. But even so, you've demonstrated the important point,
>that those who deny that Jesus is God tend to try to "isolate" each
>verse, and knock them down separately, for when taken as a whole, the
>entire Biblical message, Jesus is undeniably God.
Hello Jeff.
I could say this:
Surely you are familiar with the point that those who
insist that Jesus is God typically ignore all of the other
verses which prove that he is not, and stand only on
a few key verses that even trinitarian scholars admit
have alternate renderings (i.e., translations) that, where
they to be taken as valid instead, would leave no evidence
that Jesus was God.
.... but that would be starting off on the wrong foot, no?
To you, I'm "denying that Jesus is God" because you
believe it to be true. To me, I'm not "denying" a truth,
but not believing an untruth. I could say that you are
denying that the trinity is a false doctrine, and thus
frame all my arguments to put you on the defensive.
It's also ridiculous to say I am 'trying to "isolate"
each verse" as though that's a 'devilish tactic', when
I'm just doing what everyone who studies the Bible has
to do sooner or later, namely look at the verses, one
at a time, to discern what they really do say. Just like
when putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you can't get to
the 'big picture' without seeing the proper meaning and
position of the 'little pieces,' first.
As I'll quote more than once, John himself says that
his message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God.
>
>> What I'm mostly interested in doing is isolating
>> John 1:1 from the trinitarian interpretations that
>> have been read back into it.
>
>Why do anti-Trinitarians always try to disprove the Trinity instead of
>dealing with the deity of Christ? I'll be the first to admit that the
>Trinity cannot be true if one denies that Jesus is God. So it seems
>pointless to argue in favour of or against the Trinity without first
>settling the issue of the deity of Christ.
Why do trinitarians typically package all discussions about
the deity of Christ with their arguments that God is a
Trinity? Even the way you talk, there is virtually no
distinction between the saying "Jesus is God" and
"God is a Trinity". We might as well pose the counter
question, why do trinitarians always try to prove the
Trinity when they try to prove the deity of Christ?
There's also an additional problem of terminology that
has been stamped, and overstamped, with dogmatic meaning
so that it's virtually impossible to talk about things
like 'the deity of Christ' in a positive way without giving
the impression that one has succumbed to the stamp of dogma.
Unfortunately, the most popular way to address this problem
is to say, "Well, duh! Proof of the deity of Christ is proof
of the Trinity." Hence, the circular argument is closed.
There's no room for further discussion. All terminology has
been conveniently defined to match dogma, with no right of
appeal allowed! Case closed.
I realize that I can't avoid sounding vexatious, here;
but the truth is that JWs believe in 'the deity of Christ'
(though we don't use this particular expression because
it has been taken over by trinitarians to mean Christ
is a 'person of the Trinity'). But attempts to say much
more are usually met with sputters and much foot stomping,
and cries of "heretic", "shocking", and etc., etc.. When
it comes to talking to JWs, trinitarians aren't interested
in hearing another point of view that shows a different
way to "settle the deity of Christ" than that which they have
already accepted.
Plus, most trinitarian arguments (in English) rely heavily
on English spelling conventions that now heavily abet the
promotion of the Trinity. You readily write (and no doubt
say aloud) "Jesus is God", which has all the implications
of the assertion [that the Bible does make] that the
Father, Jehovah, is God. Let's stack them up:
Jehovah is God.
The Father is God.
Jesus is God.
Do they all mean the same thing? Do they look like
they mean the same thing? Do they sound like they
mean the same thing? If a completely ignorant person
were passing by and looked at the above, could he
help but come to the obvious, [at least] superficial conclusion
that they all mean essentially the same thing? And
when Trinitarians (particularly laymen who simply go
to church and read their KJV or NASB or NAB when the
minister/pastor/preacher says, "Let's read John 1:1") say
that "Jesus is God," do they really draw any significant
distinction between this saying and the first two?
You might argue that they should, but do they in practice?
And do you?
There's no denying that in English Bibles, in nearly all
cases, "God" stands for THE God, ho theos, in Greek,
ha Elohim in Hebrew. When we see the word, with a capital
G, "God", we think of the 'one God' of the Bible. The
word stands for the being we identify as "God." If the
saying "Jesus is God" does NOT mean that Jesus is being
identified as The God (which is in contrast to the fact that
when the Bible says the Father is God, it means to identify
him as The God), then there is obviously a fault, or at
least an ambiguity, with the use of the capitalization of
"G"od when it is applied to Jesus.
Thus, if you want to "settle" the issue of the "deity of Christ,"
you first have to settle on what is truly the correct way of
speaking (and writing) about his deity.
>
>> I do believe that John 1:1 should be read in
>> connection with the rest of John's gospel, to put
>> it in context with his own first-century inspired
>> thinking.
>
>That's an excellent idea!
Thanks.
>
>From the prologue, we have John putting the Word with God at the
>beginning of existence, and proclaiming Him to *be* God ("In the
>beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word *was*
>God."). That Word taking an active part in the creation process,
>linking Him with the identity of Creator, rather than part of creation.
I agree that John 1:1 links him with the creation of
"the heavens and the earth", which is what "the beginning"
refers to, it being a reference to the opening of the
Bible at Gen 1:1.
The whole point of my case (so far) about John 1:1 is
that it does NOT "link him with the *identity* of Creator".
That is you reading the trinity into it. It only links him
with the proximity and activity OF the Creator, ho theos.
It says nothing one way or another about his origin before
the creation of the heavens and the earth began. And again,
the declaration that the Logos was _pros_/"with"/"toward"
God (ho theos, the Creator) makes him distinct from God.
The translation, "the Word was God" is the very thing that
is suspect [and the subject of debate even among trinitarian
scholars] as it implies something to the average reader,
that "the Word was [the] God", that the Greek doesn't assert.
This is why other trinitarian scholars are willing
to give alternative renderings such as:
"the Word was divine" (Moffatt)
"the nature of the Word was the same as
the nature of God" (Barclay)
"the Word had the same nature as God" (Harner)
"What God was the Word was" (NEB)
"the Word was deity" (Dana and Mantey)
Although they surely believe 'Jesus is God,' they
admit that the Greek of John 1:1 is saying something
different than what the most popular English translation
implies.
>
>Then, throughout the gospel, we see various claims of Jesus to be God
>(John 5:17,18, 8:58,59, 10:30-33, etc.)
John 5:17,18 documents two distortions based on
Jesus' words and actions. Jesus said, "My Father is
working until now, and I Myself am working," which
was then taken as implying two distortions of the truth,
that, "He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also
was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal
to God" (NASB).
Jesus never broke the Mosaic sabbath law, as that would
have been a true sin, and the Bible declares Jesus to have
been "without sin" (Heb 4:15 NIV). Jesus did call God his
own Father, but Jesus never claimed to be equal to God.
John himself recorded Jesus' assertion that His Father
was the God of the Jews:
"it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom
you say, 'He is our God' (John 8:54 NASB)
and John recorded Jesus' own confession that,
"the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 NASB)
Thus, Jesus was not himself claiming to be equal
to God, for his Father WAS the God his opposers
claimed he was making himself equal to.
If you do a little more research on John 8:58, you'll
find that various respected trinitarians translations
render Jesus words as:
"I existed before Abraham was born" (Williams)
"I was before Abraham" (Beck)
"before Abraham was born, I <came into being>"
(NASB w/ marginal reading)
He was claiming pre-existence, but he was not
claiming to be God.
John 10:33 -- again, if you do a bit of research, you
will see Jesus was NOT claiming to be God, or at least
see how it can be understood that Jesus was not making
such a claim. Jesus claimed God was his Father, and
this was turned into an accusation that most trinitarian
translations render as a claim to "be God" (NASB), but
which others say was a claim to be:
"a god" (NEB)
"a god" (REB ftn)
"deifying [himself]" (Wuest)
Theos in anarthros, without the Greek definite article,
and stands in parallel with the fact that he stood before
them as "a man".
In this particular case, Jesus turned the tables on his
accusors by quoting the Psalm (as part of the "law") which
portrayed God speaking to the judges of ancient Israel
saying, "You are gods". Since they claimed to be the
judges in their day, Jesus then said to them:
"It is to those who God's word came who
are called gods -- and scripture cannot be
set aside. Then why do you charge me with
blasphemy for saying, "I am God's son," I
whom the Father consecrated and sent into
the world?" (35,36 REB)
Since they themselves, "who God's word came [to]
are called gods", they had no grounds for arguing
against Jesus saying he was "God's son". As you'll
notice if you read without bias, in that whole passage
Jesus never said anything like "I am God".
>
>Finally, the climax of the gospel is Thomas' identification of the true
>identity of Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" (20:28).
That may be the "climax of the gospel" in some respects,
but note what the actual conclusion of the gospel is:
"these have been written so that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:31 NASB)
John's conclusion is that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God," not that "Jesus is God."
John also quotes plain-language statements by Jesus
which prove in what sense John meant that Jesus was
_theos_. He said:
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the
one who came from heaven--the Son of Man."
(John 3:13 NIV)
"For the bread of God is he who comes down
from heaven and gives life to the world."
(John 6:33 NIV)
"For I have come down from heaven not to do
my will but to do the will of him who sent me."
(John 6:38 NIV)
"You are from below; I am from above. You
are of this world; I am not of this world."
(John 8:23 NIV)
John also quotes those who heard him in person, who
repeated back what they heard him say:
"At this the Jews began to grumble about him
because he said, "I am the bread that came
down from heaven." They said, "Is this not
Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and
mother we know? How can he now say, `I came
down from heaven'?"" (John 8:41,42 NIV)
Jesus "came down from heaven." That is why John
properly says he was _theos_. This same account
also provides proof that Jesus was not claiming to
be God:
"No one has seen the Father except the
one who is from God; only he has seen
the Father." (John 6:46 NIV)
but rather that he was claiming to be "from God."
>
>If there is one main theme to John's gospel, this is it.
See above re John 20:31. That Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God is the one main theme of John's gospel.
John says so himself.
-------
For this next section, I am going to quote at times
from a recent trinitarian work, _Jesus as God_, by
Murray J. Harris, 1992 (hardcover; 1998 paperback),
pub. by Baker Book House, a well-respected evangelical
book publisher. If you read the book, you'll see
there is no doubt that Harris is NOT a supporter of
the NWT. However, he does a pretty fair job of
laying out all of the issues (pros and cons) that
pertain to your list of verses. While he does agree
that some of the verses you cite apply the noun/title
_theos_ to Jesus, not all of them do.
You can disagree with him as you wish (as I don't
agree with his anti-NWT conclusions), but I quote
him as a 'hostile witness', meaning that he would
more likely be against my views as a JW than against
yours as a trinitarian, and thus not deliberately
come to a conclusion just to support JWs
>
>And in the spirit of interpreting John 1:1 in the context of the entire
>gospel, let's also interpret John in the context of the entire Bible:
>
>Act 20:28 Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole
> flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed
> you overseers, in which you tend the church
> of God that he acquired with HIS OWN blood.
Harris, p. 141 ("Conclusion"):
"the most appropriate translation of these
words is "the church of God which he acquired
through the blood of his own one" or "the
Church of God which he bought with the blood
of his own Son" (NJB)"
The RSV says:
"to care for the church of God which he obtained
with the blood of his own Son."
>
>Rom. 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is
> traced the human ancestry of Christ, WHO IS
> GOD OVER ALL, forever praised! Amen.
Harris concludes that it's most likely that Jesus is
called _theos_, but note the last point of 6 in his
conclusion:
"Given the high Christology of the Pauline
letters, according to which Jesus shares the
divine name and nature, exercises divine
functions, and is the object of human faith
and adoration, it should generate no suprise
if on occasion Paul should refer to Jesus
by the generic title theos." (p.171)
Earlier in his section on this verse, in the subsection
on the meaning of theos in this verse, he asks:
"First, would a Jewish monotheist such as
Paul ever contemplate using theos of a figure
other than Yahweh, the God of Israel? In chapter
I [one], we discovered that in Pauline usage
theos was a sufficiently broad term to allow
for its applications to figures other than
Yahweh." (p.167-8)
After reviewing other usages of theos in Paul [to false
gods, selfish cravings, and Satan], he says:
"... there is no a priori reason why
he [Paul] should not use the term of a
being whom he considered to have identity
and nature and parity of status with the
one true God, particularly because theos
could be used qualitatively and as a
generic title as well as the personal
name of God the Father." (p. 168)
So, there clearly is a sense in which Jesus could
be considered to be _theos_, or divine in nature,
which doesn't equate him with Yahweh.
A review of modern translations shows that not all
trinitarian scholars take the view that Jesus is
being called _theos_ in this passage, however. Some
the translations I have in my library (which the
1984 NWT Reference Bible Appendix D also quotes)
say:
"and from whom by physical descent the
Christ came. God who is over all be blessed
through the ages! Amen" (The Riverside NT, 1934)
"and theirs too (so far as natural descent
goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore
be the God who is over all! Amen.)" (Moffatt, 1935)
"and of their race, according to the flesh,
is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed
for ever. Amen." (RSV, 1952)
"and from them, in natural descent, sprang the
Messiah. My God, supreme above all, be blessed
for ever! Amen." (NEB, 1961)
"and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their
race. May God, who rules over all, be praised
for ever! Amen." (TEV, 1966)
"and from them came the Messiah (I speak of his
human origins). Blessed forever be God who is over
all! Amen." (NAB, 1970)
>
>Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
> or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
> idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
> OF THE CHRIST AND GOD.
Harris has a rather short section on this verse
which rejects this as a place where Christ is called
theos.
In his first paragraph, although he admits that
gammatically it could mean "in the kingdom of
Christ who is God," he notes that "there must
be weighty reasons why none of the twenty major
English versions reflects thise sense..." (p.261).
He notes that "several notable scholars of the
last century espoused the view" [that Paul was
saying Christ is God], his article refutes these
reasons.
His second to last paragraph begins:
"It is highly improbable that Paul would
introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal
affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental
manner, in a context where the assertion is
not crucial to the flow of argument." (p.262)
The last two sentences of his concluding paragraph
say:
"One and the same kingdom belonged to
and was ruled by both Christ and God. Such
an emphasis serves to intensify Paul's
warning that no immoral person will ever
gain a place in that holy, consummated
kingdom." (p.263)
So, Paul is treating Christ and God seperately
here. He is neither identifying Christ as ho theos,
nor speaking about him qualitatively as being theos.
>
>2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
> be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
> to the grace OF OUR GOD AND LORD Jesus Christ.
Harris has another short article on this. He begins
by saying:
"There are two possible translations of
the last phrase of 2 [Th] 1:12 (1) "according
to the grace of our God and Lord, namely
Jesus Christ" or (2) "according to the grace
of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."
"The first rendering has a few supporters,
although no English version find a single
referent in the verse." (p.265)
He then references this footnote [34]:
"Most English versions have "of our God
and the Lord Jesus Christ." At least
four versions even more explicitly
exclude the possibility of a single referent
by inserting "of" before "the Lord Jesus
Christ" (Weymouth, Berkeley, GNB, NAB)"
He does talk a little about the evidence put forth
by the "supporters" of the view that there is a single
referrent, but overall his argument is against it.
What translation did you quote? Not even the KJV
says "of our God and Lord", and again, Harris says that
"no English version" treats it that way.
I'm not saying you are lying here, but maybe you
either misread the verse, or are quoting from a
source that misread it.
>
>Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
> of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR
> Jesus Christ,
Harris agrees that Jesus is called _theos_ in
this verse. His concluding paragraph reads:
"In light of the foregoing evidence, it seems
highly probable that in Titus 2:13 Jesus Christ
is called "our great God and Savior," a verdict
shared, with varying degrees of assurance, by
almost all grammarians and lexicographers, many
commentators, and many writers on NT theology
or Christology, although there are some dissenting
voices." (p.185)
In a footnote he discusses the "dissenting voices", like
the grammarian Winer, and a number of commentators, but
clearly [trinitarian] scholars mostly agree that Jesus
is called "theos" here.
Earlier in his article, he does take note of
other translations which present a different view.
He cites the NIV, Goodspeed, and Berkely as
renderings which "may refer to either one or two
persons" (p.175), and quotes the KJV with an
inserted word:
"the glorious appearing of the great
God and [of] our Savior Jesus Christ."
and cites the following versions as providing
renderings that treat the passage as referring to
two persons (p.176):
RSV mg, RV mg, ASV, Moffatt, NEB mg,
NAB-1 and NAB-2.
in support of the rendering, "the appearing of the
glory of the great God and [the glory of] our
Savior Jesus Christ."
The NWT Appendix also cites _The Riverside NT_ and
Phillips as supporting mention of two persons.
[I'm just getting too tired to type them all in.]
>
>Heb 1:8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O GOD, stands
> forever and ever; and a righteous scepter
> is the scepter of your kingdom.
[Editorial note: I've actually put off addressing this until
last -- meaning the rest of my reply was written before
this bit -- as there were many issues to sort through,
this reply is already really long, and I wanted to pare
things down to bare essentials.]
As you may know, this verse is a quote from
Ps 45 (in the Heb. mms, Ps 44 in the LXX).
That Psalm is considered by many scholars to
be a wedding song composed for "for some
unspecified royal marriage and ... was included
within the Psalter probably because it epitomized
an ideal king of the Davidic dynasty, the royal
Messiah" (Harris p.188-9).
There are translations which render Ps 45:6(7) as
"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" (NASB),
but many exist which give renderings similar to
the following examples:
"your divine throne is everlasting" (JPS Tanakh)
"God has enthroned you for all eternity" (REB)
"Your throne is a throne of God" (NRSV ftn reading)
"God is your throne" (Harris -- I couldn't find a
translation in my collection that says this, but
I've seen this myself before, and I admit that
I didn't search every one I have.)
After considering all of the issues, Harris concludes
(about the translation of the Hebrew):
"The traditional rendering, "Your throne, O God,
is for ever and ever," is not simply readily defensible
but remains the most satisfactory solution to the
exegetical problems posed by the verse." (p.202)
In his section on "Your throne, O God," he notes that
some who admit the Hebrew elohim is addressed
to "some contemporary king" feel it has a meaning
more akin to those in the following list:
"o Ruler ... o majesty ... o divine one ...
o Divine one ... O god and O Elohim" (p.197)
It so happens that the NAB is one that reads "O god"
(with a lower-case "g"). Its footnote on this verse
says:
"O god: the king, in courtly language, is called
"god," i.e., more than human, representing God to
the people."
Harris also analyzes the verse from the Greek LXX,
and also concludes it should read "O God", being
a vocative (p.204).
In view of the above, it's no surprise that Harris concludes
that Heb 1:8 applies _theos_ to Jesus. This doesn't,
however, mean Harris believes Jesus fully identified as
"God" here [and note, v.9 says "God, thy God, hath anointed
thee" (NASB) -- so the immediate context helps dispel
that notion]. I'm skipping all of his analysis, however,
and will just relate the final few sentences of his conclusion.
He writes:
"The appelation ho theos that was figurative
and hyperbolic when applied to the king was
applied to the Son in a literal and true sense.
Jesus was note merely superior to the angels.
Equally with the Father he shares in the divine
nature (ho theos, v.8) while remaining distinct
from him (ho theos sou, v.9). The author places
Jesus far above any angel with respect to nature
and function, and on par with God with regard to
nature but subordinate to God with respect to
function. There is an "essential" unity but a
functional subordination." (p.227)
I'm not going to quibble with minor points that I
disagree with in the above, for I quote it to show
that even though Harris concludes that ho theos
is applied to Jesus in v.8, he is still subordinate
to God ("with respect to function").
Therefore, my conclusion is, *if* v. 8 is to be
understood as applying _theos_ to Jesus,
it's in a subordinate sense than the sense
that we say Jehovah is God. He is, at this
point, in heaven, having (1:3):
"sat down on the right hand of the Majesty
on high" (KJV)
"[taken] his seat at the right hand of God
in heaven" (NT in Basic English)
"sat down in highest honor beside the
Great God of heaven" (Living Letters, by Taylor)
Being in heaven, Jesus, like Jehovah God,
possess 'divine nature.' But he is both separate
from God as a being (being at his "right hand")
and is subordinate to him (as God is "his God" v.8).
A few translations supply footnotes or endnotes
to Heb 1:8 to indicate the alternate translation:
"Thy throne is God ..." (ASV)
"God is thy throne ..." (Barclay)
"God is your throne ..." (NRSV)
and the (19th century) scholar B.F. Wescott, in
his _The Epistle to the Hebrews_ concluded,
"it seems best to adopt in the first clause the
rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is
God)" (p.25). I'm skipping most of his analysis,
but in summary he feels:
"In whatever way then ho theos be taken,
the quotation establishes the conclusion
which the writer wishes to draw as to the
essential difference of the Son and the
angels. Indeed it might appear to many
that the direct application of the divine Name
to the Son would obsure the thought." (p.26)
Thus, in this view, the intro to Hebrews isn't
meant to establish that Jesus is God, but to
make it clear that he is superior to the angels.
[And note: I'm obviously skipping the rat-hole
of the Michael-Jesus debate which I actually
touched on earlier in this thread.]
He can still be viewed as divine due to his position
in heaven, but he is not being described as part
of the trinity. He is subordinate to God, at God's
right hand.
One last point about this (as if the above isn't
enough) is an interesting observation/assertion
made by the Anchor Bible volume on Hebrews.
Regarding v.7 it says [*asterisks* denote italics]:
"The Greek for "[with reference] to the angels
is pros ... tous aggelous, literally, "to ... the angels,"
but this makes no sense. The message was not
*to* the angels but *about* them. Therefore the
pros might be understood as a Semetism ... used
to mean "with regard to," "with reference to," or
"in respect to." (p.19)
Then regarding v.8 it says:
"As the pros in v.7 means "in reference to," and it
seems most likely that pros in v.8 should be rendered
the same way, so it is *in reference to* the Son that
the author quoted a scripture dealing with the eternity
of God's throne, *upon which the Son would sit.*
When Solomon, who was God's Son (IISam 7:14),
ruled over the Lord's kingdom (IChron 29:11), he
sat on the Lords' thone ('al kisse Yhwh) ... That did not
mean that Solomon was God. It means that Solomon
ruled over God's kingdom when he ruled over Palestine,
and he sat on God's throne when he ruled from
Jerusalem. Therefore, it is just as proper to speak of
the eternity of God's throne with reference to the Son
Jesus who was to sit on it as it was to speak of God's
throne when Solomon, the son, sat on it. ..." (p.20)
Skipping to the last sentence of the section on v.8,
it reads:
"For the author, the Son was the first-born, the apostle
of God, the reflection for God's glory, and the stamp
of his nature (1:3,6), but he was not God *himself*." (p.21)
The Anchor Bible's copyright date is 1972. It so happens
that the NWT rendered vss.7 & 8 as "in reference to" in 1950.
Needless to say, I find a lot to agree with in this particular
section of commentary.
>
>2Pet 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
> Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
> precious faith with us in the righteousness
> OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOUR Jesus Christ:
Harris definitely believes that Jesus called _theos_
in this verse. He does present opposing arguments
for renderings that make this a reference to two persons,
but only for the sake of rebutting them.
In his conclusion he asks:
"What function does this title of Christ serve in the
salutation? At both the beginning ... and ... end
of the letter, the author draws attention to his readers'
need to advance in their knowledge of Jesus Christ;
this is the principal protection he offers his readers
against the specious arguments and ethical libertinism
of false teachers who were harassing them. An early
reminder of the deity and saving power of that Lord
would have been totally apt." (p.238)
Hence, if we do view this as an application of _theos_
to Jesus, it is not to equate him with God in a trinitarian
formula, but to emphasize the fact that Jesus was
now in heaven, and thus divine, and that no matter who
was "harassing" them, he was in a position to save them
(for v.3 speaks of his "divine power" NASB).
The Anchor Bible makes a similar comment about him
being "presented as the divine Savior, a concept well
known in the Hellenistic world" (Vol 37, pp 150-1).
[The Anchor Bible just prior to this says "here the
second person of the Godhead is meant", in
constrast to the next verse in which "God and Jesus
are distinguished" - but this is another example of
trinitarian superposition of dogma ('the second
person of the Godhead') onto Scripture that is not
otherwise so expressed in the Bible.]
Though Harris rejects the rationale for viewing this
expression as representing two persons, there are
a few translations that admit this other view, either
in their main text or footnotes (or cross references).
The one's I could find (in my home library) are:
" ... and [our] Savior..." (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible)
"... of our God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (20th Century NT, 1st ed.)
"... of our God and of our Savior Jesus Christ" (Weymouth)
"... of our God, and the Savior Jesus Christ" (Concordant Version)
"... of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" (ASV)
"... of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" (RV mg)
"... of our God and of the Savior Jesus Christ" (NJB ftn)
"... of our God and the savior Jesus Christ" (NAB-2 ftn)
"... of our God and of our Deliverer Yeshua the Messiah"
(Stern's Jewish New Testament)
The NASB Reference Edition's marginal note cross-references
Titus 2:13, for which there is a marginal reading, "the great
God and our Savior" (I didn't mention this before). The
Oxford Anotated NRSV likewise cross-references this verse
with Titus 2:13, the footnote for which reads, "of the great God
and our Savior."
One of two final translations to consider is _The New
Testament_ by Catholic scholars Kleist and Lilly. It
claims to translate the original Greek, but note that it's
main text reads:
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
In its footnote on the verse, it does point out that other
manuscripts read: "of God and our Lord Jesus Christ,"
but it then goes on to say:
"The reading here preferred seems to be
required by the singular pronoun in the next
verse, and has good support in ancient
versions. ..."
The next verse only makes reference to "knowledge
of our Lord", and doesn't say, like all other translations
that I've looked at, "... knowledge of God and of
Jesus our Lord" (REB).
I don't know how many "ancient versions" they
feel support the reading, but the NWT Reference
Bible footnote cites two that just say "our Lord,"
namely:
- Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century
- Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, 6th & 7th centuries
The last translation is Lamsa's Holy Bible translated
from the Peshitta, "The Authorized Bible of the East",
which reads:
"our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:1)
"knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:2)
[note that it omits "God" from both verses.]
I have to admit that before now I had never looked
into this verse with quite this much detail, and
thus didn't myself know about the manuscript
variation (and I note that the Codex Sinaiticus is
not an obscure text). So I thank you for the impetus
to do a little research in which I really did learn
something new.
[A final note - Harris, nor any of my other sources
say anything about the manuscript variations for
2Pet 1:1,2 of this sort. So if anyone knows more,
please chime in.]
>
>Seems pretty clear to me...
>
>> Thanks for the quote, but quoting St. Basil the Great is
>> just as irrelevant as quoting Calvin, as he too adds his
>> after-the-fact interpretations onto the gospel message.
>
>Okay, so we can't quote from Basil or Calvin, but it's apparently okay
>for you to quote from Newton, McKenzie,
I was quoting (or referring to Newton) in the
context of the issue of JWs being "brainwashed."
The insinuation is that the reason individual JWs
don't believe in the trinity is that the WTS manages
to "brainwash" us into it, and/or exerts "mind
control" techniques to force us to into this view.
I think Newton is an outstanding counter-example
to the assertion that disbelief in the trinity is
due either to 'brainwashing' or ignorance, for
Newton was neither brainwashed nor otherwise coerced
by anyone or any group into his position, nor was
he ignorant of the facts. In fact, Newton
came to his conclusions despite the very great
pressure to assent to the trinitarian view as his
future as an academic depended on it. Although he
kept his conclusions to himself from a public standpoint
(for he did publish anonymously), he was under
very great circumstantial pressure to give in to
the majority (trinitarian) view.
Plus, Newton started out as a member of the Anglican
Church, and swore to uphold its teachings at one
time. It was only when faced with having to study
to take on religious orders in order to retain his
fellowship at Cambridge that he began to acquaint
himself with all the evidence pertinant to the topic.
His personal studies were of much greater depth
that most modern run-of-the-mill laymen undertake
before swearing their faith in trinitarianism. And
that he did it in isolation (or near complete
isolation) is further evidence against the notion
that the more one knows about the trinity the
greater the likelihood that one will have to
believe it.
I quoted McKenzie because others brought up
the accusation that JWs were misquoting him.
Also, please note that McKenzie was a Jesuit.
Thus he isn't a person picked by JWs because
he is on 'our side' the way Calvin and Basil
are obviously on the side of trinitarians.
>
>> > >>John 1:1c (the Word was _theos_) might still be
>> > >>viewed as supporting that notion IF John 1:1a
>> > >>is completely ignored -- for it says "the Word
>> > >>was with (pros) God (ho theos)", and anyone
>> > >>"with" (_pros_, lit. "toward") another cannot
>> > >>be that other --
>
>That sounds like a Watchtower argument.
That sounds like a canned anti-JW retort.
I'm not quoting any Watchtower or any other
Watchtower publication here. In fact, I've
kept my quotes from WTS material to a minimum,
citing only quotes from NWT appendices which
cite other scholarly, trinitarian sources which
happen to coincide with its renderings.
Everything else is either from my library of
non-JW material, or my personal summation of my
view of the facts. If I'm not clear, I'm
willing to elaborate. If I have made an error,
sooner or later I'll get around to admitting it
[once I see that it is an error].
>
>John apparently disagreed with you, else he wouldn't have written it.
John didn't know me, so obviously he neither agrees
nor disagrees with me. It's up to me to understand him
and then agree or disagree with him.
Your assertion is without a substantial point, however.
Please elaborate on how I am either misunderstanding
him, or understanding him but disagreeing with him.
>Your argument sounds like those atheists who claim that Prov. 26:4,5 are
>contradictions, imagining that the author forgot what he wrote in verse
>4 before going on to verse 5.
4 Do not answer a fool according to his
folly, or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes. (NIV)
Sorry that you feel that way. But thanks for the
put-down (or is this a 'promotion' from being
"brainwashed and mind-controlled" to merely being
"a fool"?).
If I am a fool, I take it then that you are
"wise in your own eyes" (Prov 3:7)? [See?
We can both trade clever scriptural put-downs.
Not very productive, is it?]
>
>> > >>but in reality all of John 1:1 really
>> > >>proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct
>> > >>in identity
>> > >>> from God (ho theos).
>
>It proves that Jesus (as the Word) is distinct from the Father (as God).
>Let's be consistent, okay?
It's consistent for trinitarians to diminish the
meaning of "ho theos" in John 1:1 to ONLY refer
to the Father as though God were more than
just the Father. But the Bible gives more than ample
support to the fact that the Father, and the Father
alone, is identified as "ho theos".
If you are willing to be consistent about this
truth, then I'm willing to be consistent with
you.
>
>> But the rub is that you can't drop "in identity" from
>> the sentence. That's what trinitarians do all the
>> time, dropping out the point that John 1:1 really
>> proves that the Word (ho logos) and God (ho theos) are
>> distinct in identity, for ho logos is pros ho theos --
>> the Word is 'toward' [the] God,
>
>It shows the Son ("logos") is distinct from the Father ("theos").
There you go again. John isn't merely making a
distinction between the Son and the Father, he is
making it between the Son and God (ho theos).
It is true that the Father is God (theos), but that's
because he also is _ho theos_, or THE God.
God is the Father. God is not the Son.
>
>> John 1:1 juxtaposes the Son (as the Word) and God
>> in a way that makes it obvious
>> that the Son and God exist separately at the same time.
>
>In a way that makes it obvious that the Son and the Father exist
>distinctly at the same time.
Nope ... John is not just saying the Father is
distinct from the Son, but that God is. John
uses the term "ho theos", not merely the Greek
for 'the Father'.
>
>> The trinity claims to accept that the Father and
>> Son are distinct, but it obfuscates the truth that
>> they truly are separate beings.
>
>Your statement *assumes* that "they truly are separate beings" is a
>"truth".
But it's an "assumption" based on the statements
of fact in the Bible that God and the Father are
the same being, and that Jesus and the Father
and Jesus and God are distinct beings.
>
>> They are "one" in purpose, as the Son does the will
>> of God the Father, but they are truly separate.
>
>So you say.
So many say. So says the Jesuit McKenzie, whom
I quoted at length on this point.
>
>> in fact, it wasn't a worry of Justin Martyr, either,
>> who wasn't shy about admitting that Jesus was 'a
>> second god' (I'll have to dig up the exact quote on
>> this)].
>
>Okay, Justin Martyr is also an "approved" source?
>It's hard to keep track...
Please, do me a favor and skip the fatuous
categorizations of things as "approved sources"
or not. This is really pointless sniping (except
for rhetorical affect, for the sake of the put-down).
In fact, it's another form of ad homimen attack,
as though this put-down invalidates the truth of
my point, that early post-Biblical Christians
who were considered 'orthodox' didn't have a
problem with freely using the word _theos_ in
a lesser, secondary (and numerically distinct)
sense from the use of it toward the Father.
Justin Martyr is a valid source to consult as he
lived before the trinity doctrine was formulated.
Thus his views shed valuable light on how
such terms as _theos_ were understood and applied
in the early, post-Biblical years. I don't
have to agree with all of his views to find things of
religio-historical value in his writings.
>
>> John was the writer who recorded - both in his gospel
>> and in Revelation - that the Father was also the God
>> of the Son (post-resurrection, in fact). There's
>> absolutely no place in real trinitarianism for such
>> a proposition.
>
>Why is that?
>And why do you make yourself out to be the authority on a belief you are
>not only against, but also that the extent of your knowledge on the
>subject is questionable?
More ad hominen argumentation. Rather than
merely insinuate that my knowledge and beliefs
are at fault, prove it.
And, as far as making myself "out to be an
authority" goes -- aren't you overstating things
a bit? When have I said, "Hey, I am an AUTHORITY!"
I may not be wishy-washy about it, but I am
only speaking for myself here, and why I hold
the views I do, and reject the views I reject.
That's what everyone who posts a message does.
I could just as easily say that you are making
yourself out to be an authority. But so what?
>
>> Even though John applies the noun _theos_ to Jesus,
>> the fact that in John the Father is the God of the
>> Son makes it clear that John was
>> not promoting trinitarianism.
>
>It doesn't make it clear to me.
>How about you explain it?
Trinitarian dogma asserts that the Father, Son,
and Holy spirit are "co-equal", right? But
the relationship between a person who has a God
and the person who is that God is not one of
equality, right? Worshipper and worshipee are
never the same being (except for those who
selfishly worship themselves -- unless you are
saying that within the Trinity God worships himself),
right?
How does the Trinity allow for Jesus to call his
Father 'his God' ("my God"), given that his Father
is also the God of mankind? That's really what I
would like to see you explain to me.
>
>> Hypothetically, one might ask, if John came back to
>> earth as a human today, which would he identify with
>> more readily? I don't happen to think it would be
>> trinitarianism. But you can answer the question as
>> it pleases you.
>
>More readily? At least Trinitarians recognize the absolute deity of
>Christ, which John's gospel had as its main theme.
We did start off talking about the deity of Christ,
didn't we.
JWs do believe in the "deity of Christ," but in the
conditional, subordinate, qualitative sense that the
Bible represents him has having. John 1:1 identifies
him as divine, and it's possible that Paul and Peter
*might* have applied the noun _theos_ to him also
in a sense that he was divine. But nowhere in the Bible
does it declare Jesus to be "absolute deity". Only
the Father is "absolute" in his position. "The
absolute deity of Christ" is yet another man-made
dogmatic expression that is superimposed on top of
the Bible message.
Nice talking with you Jeff.
-mark.
Matthew Johnson
In article <995ac6$fgo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>
>Jeff Shirton wrote in message <98rpm3$acb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>>Mark Sornson <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
>>news:98oktp$c5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>
>>> > If you insist on reading John 1:1 in complete
>>> > isolation, ignoring the rest of Scripture, I
>>> suppose I could agree that it does not _alone_
>>> "identify Jesus as God".
>>
>>I would disagree. But even so, you've demonstrated the important point,
>>that those who deny that Jesus is God tend to try to "isolate" each
>>verse, and knock them down separately, for when taken as a whole, the
>>entire Biblical message, Jesus is undeniably God.
>
>Hello Jeff.
>
>I could say this:
>
> Surely you are familiar with the point that those who
> insist that Jesus is God typically ignore all of the other
> verses which prove that he is not, and stand only on
> a few key verses that even trinitarian scholars admit
> have alternate renderings (i.e., translations) that, where
> they to be taken as valid instead, would leave no evidence
> that Jesus was God.
>
>.... but that would be starting off on the wrong foot, no?
More importantly, it would be dead wrong.
>To you, I'm "denying that Jesus is God" because you
>believe it to be true. To me, I'm not "denying" a truth,
>but not believing an untruth.
But truth is not relative. Only very imperfect understandings of it are
relative. So if what you believe to not be true, is in fact, true, then you are
not 'not believing an untruth', but 'not believing a truth'. This is 'denying
the truth'.
Once you start out on such a very wrong foot, what good does it do to pile up
heaps of quotes?
Because of this, I will deal with only a few of your revisionist
interpretations. I will leave it to the reader to conjecture that the rest of
your fallacies are just as weak.
>It's also ridiculous to say I am 'trying to "isolate"
>each verse" as though that's a 'devilish tactic', when
>I'm just doing what everyone who studies the Bible has
>to do sooner or later, namely look at the verses, one
>at a time, to discern what they really do say.
There are two problems here:
1) That is not really what you are doing
2) That is not how to understand the Bible, anyway.
> Just like
>when putting together a jigsaw puzzle, you can't get to
>the 'big picture' without seeing the proper meaning and
>position of the 'little pieces,' first.
But in a jigsaw puzzle the pieces do not depend as heavily on the other pieces,
nor on so many of them (as in the Bible). Sure each piece depends on up to, oh,
about 7 other immediately surrounding pieces, but the Gospel writers expect much
more from the reader; they expect that the reader knows the Psalms almost by
heart, if not by heart. They expect the reader to know the language of the
Gospel very well, well enough to know that John 1:1 really does mean Christ is
God, despite all the rationalizations of modern day 'scholars', none of whom
speak Greek like a native.
This may sound like an irrelevant point, but in fact, we have a great deal of
commentary on John 1:1 written by native speakers of Koine Greek. They all agree
that it really does mean 'the Word was God'.
>As I'll quote more than once, John himself says that
>his message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
>God.
No doubt you would. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But what
kind of son would God have if not God? Or if he meant "a son of God", why did he
write "THE son of God"?
[snip]
We might as well pose the counter
>question, why do trinitarians always try to prove the
>Trinity when they try to prove the deity of Christ?
But this is easy to answer: because the one follows from the other. Once you
realize that Christ is divine, since you already should know that there is only
one God, and 'the Son does what He sees the Father doing' and 'He who sees Me
sees the Father', you realize that Christ's divinity implies Trinity.
[snip]
>Unfortunately, the most popular way to address this problem
>is to say, "Well, duh! Proof of the deity of Christ is proof
>of the Trinity." Hence, the circular argument is closed.
>There's no room for further discussion. All terminology has
>been conveniently defined to match dogma, with no right of
>appeal allowed! Case closed.
But this is what you yourself have done. Wherever there is a verse that could be
interpreted as Trinitarian, or could be interpreted as not, you choose the not
and dismiss the evidence of the Trinitarian view.
Besides: this is really a complaint more about the _methodology_ of the
Trinitarians you have encountered. But this is a really poor measure of
Trinitarianism itself.
>but the truth is that JWs believe in 'the deity of Christ'
>(though we don't use this particular expression because
>it has been taken over by trinitarians to mean Christ
>is a 'person of the Trinity').
I don't believe that is the real reason you don't use this particular
expression. You don't use it because the 'deity' you attribute to Christ is so
_different_ from what the entire monotheist world uses it to mean.
But attempts to say much
>more are usually met with sputters and much foot stomping,
>and cries of "heretic", "shocking", and etc., etc..
Well, it _is_ shocking. You'll just have to get used to that.
It is shocking because by splitting the indivisible Trinity into a greater God
and a lesser God, you have ditched the very essence of Christianity.
Trinitarians feel this instinctively, even if they don't quite know why. But you
are completely insensitive to this loss. Now that is what is the most shocking.
>When
>it comes to talking to JWs, trinitarians aren't interested
>in hearing another point of view that shows a different
>way to "settle the deity of Christ" than that which they have
>already accepted.
And the JW does not do this? Really, now. Give us a break. Once they get you
committed to believing that only the JWs understand the truth, they twist you
around their little fingers. You too will refuse to listen to any other point of
view other than what you, as a JW, have already accepted. What is more, you will
be threatened with disfellowship for even listening to other points of view.
But even more important than this, this "different way to 'settle the deity of
Christ'" was disproved centuries ago. All you JWs do is bring back old errors in
a modernist, distorted form. Why, the distortion is so bad you even bring up
arguments that all the great heretics of the fourth century rejected!
>Plus, most trinitarian arguments (in English) rely heavily
>on English spelling conventions that now heavily abet the
>promotion of the Trinity.
I had hoped you would have noticed by now that a few of us do NOT rely on
'English spelling conventions'.
[snip]
>Thus, if you want to "settle" the issue of the "deity of Christ,"
>you first have to settle on what is truly the correct way of
>speaking (and writing) about his deity.
This is why I rely not on modernist writings, whether of JWs or Evangelicals,
but on the fourth century luminary bishops of the Church, who sacrificed so much
and risked so much and worked so hard to defend the life-saving truth of
Trinitarian dogma. For they left no stone unturned in their search for the
'correct way of speaking(and writing) about his deity'. Their result was the
Trinitarian language of the Nicene Creed and the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.
[snip]
>The whole point of my case (so far) about John 1:1 is
>that it does NOT "link him with the *identity* of Creator".
Well, I am still not sure what you mean by 'identity'. I suspect that you mean
something inconsistent with Trinitarian dogma, which is why I keep repeating
that if you drop it, your statements are actually sometimes perfectly correct
statements of Trinitarian dogma.
>That is you reading the trinity into it. It only links him
>with the proximity and activity OF the Creator, ho theos.
But we already know from so many other places in Scripture that the Creator
created by Himself, without help from a separate being (Gen 1:1, Ps 103:24).
That is one reason why Trinitarians insist that the persons of the Trinity are
one being, indivisible, but in three persons (NOT three individuals).
>It says nothing one way or another about his origin before
>the creation of the heavens and the earth began.
Oh, but it does. Remember what you said about making arguments based on English
spelling conventions? Well, now you are doing almost the same thing: you are
making an argument based on the _English_ text, ignoring the difference from the
Greek. In fact, as I pointed out to you already, this verse shows that even when
all created things were just being created, the Word already was. Since nothing
is co-eternal with God except God Himself, this too shows that the Word is God.
>And again,
>the declaration that the Logos was _pros_/"with"/"toward"
>God (ho theos, the Creator) makes him distinct from God.
Distinct, yes. But not separate. This is _important_ for Trinitarian theology.
>This is why other trinitarian scholars are willing
>to give alternative renderings such as:
>
>"the Word was divine" (Moffatt)
>"the nature of the Word was the same as
>the nature of God" (Barclay)
>"the Word had the same nature as God" (Harner)
>"What God was the Word was" (NEB)
>"the Word was deity" (Dana and Mantey)
All of these are _much better_ than the NWT translation. But several of these
suffer from the same anachronism you accuse us of in 'the Word was God'. After
all, the use of the term 'nature' to describe the oneness of the Trinity is
rather late.
>John 5:17,18 documents two distortions based on
>Jesus' words and actions.
I wish I knew why you are so sure that these are, in fact, _distortions_. After
all, Scripture never says they are. And if they were, refuting the Pharisees
would have been so much easier than what Christ actually said.
> Jesus said, "My Father is
>working until now, and I Myself am working," which
>was then taken as implying two distortions of the truth,
>that, "He was not only breaking the Sabbath, but also
>was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal
>to God" (NASB).
>
>Jesus never broke the Mosaic sabbath law, as that would
>have been a true sin, and the Bible declares Jesus to have
>been "without sin" (Heb 4:15 NIV).
No, it would not have been a sin, and for the reason He gave, namely:
The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mt 12:8)
Jesus did call God his
>own Father, but Jesus never claimed to be equal to God.
Why do you keep repeating this claim even after so many have shown you so many
cases where he implicitly claimed to be equal to God? Why, this is one of those
cases. Who else could be Lord of the Sabbath except He who gave the Law through
Moses?
>John himself recorded Jesus' assertion that His Father
>was the God of the Jews:
And He is. But there is nothing in this quote that denies that Christ is that
same God of the Jews. Again: who else could be Lord of the Sabbath?
[snip]
>"It is highly improbable that Paul would
>introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal
>affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental
>manner, in a context where the assertion is
>not crucial to the flow of argument." (p.262)
Well, clearly that author thought it was 'highly improbable'. But I don't think
so. Neither did many other scholars who were just as familiar with the context
and the flow of the argument as this man, who, however, had the advantage of
speaking Koine Greek as their mother tongue. So this argument is not worth much.
In fact, St. Basil the Great quotes this verse specifically in "On the Holy
Trinity" as evidence that Christ is God. Can any of your scholars claim to know
Koine Greek as well as he did?
Another of his favorites was the one I used to use as a sigfile, namely:
Waiting for the blessed hope and the glorious coming
of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tit 2:13)
Goose7569
i think ur both wrong.. col 1 and ch 3 both state that in jesus all the
fulness of the godhead does rest in him .. jehovah of the old testament is
jesus of the new.. 1 tim 3:16 john n1:1 and vs 14 there is only one lord
and god of us all.. goose
Phil
"Matthew Johnson" <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:99812v$k62$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >As I'll quote more than once, John himself says that
> >his message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
> >God.
>
> No doubt you would. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But
what
> kind of son would God have if not God? Or if he meant "a son of God", why
did he
> write "THE son of God"?
>
Matthew,
I believe that Mark has already answered this question. But just the clear
and simple
term "of" , has the primary meaning "used to indicate origin or derivation".
Whom begot
God's Son ? (John 1:18). Jesus is an image and not the God (Col 1:15),
that's why
he worshiped his God setting an example for us (1 Pet 2:21). We can worship
God
*through* Jesus for he is the highpriest (Hebrews 8). To me the Trinity
doctrine pushes
to one side the many important roles Jesus plays, such as mediator, so that
we can
approach God. By just approaching Jesus, then we miss the whole point of his
teachings.
Phil.
Keith Robichaud
Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
> In article <995ac6$fgo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Surely you are familiar with the point that those who
> > insist that Jesus is God typically ignore all of the other
> > verses which prove that he is not, and stand only on
> > a few key verses that even trinitarian scholars admit
> > have alternate renderings (i.e., translations) that, were
> > they to be taken as valid instead, would leave no evidence
> > that Jesus was God.
As this is supposed to be a "Bible study" group, I thought I'd list some
Bible verses which to me are evidence that Jesus is not God (Yahweh) (this is
taken from my web page). I can find lots of verses to discredit the Trinity
teaching, but virtually none that support it or would lead me to believe it:
Acts 5:31 :
Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for
to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
How can God exalt himself with his right hand? This does not make sense
if Jesus is God, but does make sense if Jesus is God's son.
Acts 8:36,37 :
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch
said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
In order to be baptised the eunuch had to believe that Jesus was the son of
God, not that Jesus was God.
1 John 4:14 :
We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour
of the world.
It does not make sense for God to send himself, it does make sense for
him to send another being, in this case his son (remember John 3:16 - "For God
so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son, that whoever believes
in HIM shall not perish but have eternal life."?).
1 Tim 2:5 :
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus;
Again we have a distinction between God and Jesus. If Jesus is the
mediator between God and men, then how can Jesus be God?
Titus 3:4-6 :
But after that the kindness and love of God our saviour toward man
appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Spirit, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
Saviour;
Note the Holy Spirit "which" - not whom - God "shed" or "poured upon".
This implies that the Holy Spirit is not a person and is not God. It does not
make sense for God to shed his spirit through himself, it does make more sense
if it is shed through his son, or representative.
Colossians 1 :
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are upon
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may have the preeminence.
{in...: or, among all}
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile
all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they are things on earth, or
things in heaven. {having...: or, making}
Jesus' own words :
------------------
John 3:17-18 [NIV] :
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save
the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
name of God's one and only Son.
Again, Jesus distinguishes between his father and himself. He is also
saying that those who do not believe that Jesus is God's only begotten son
are condemned.
John 5:
19 Then answered Jesus and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you,
The Son can do nothing by himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for
whatever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself
doeth: and he will show him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth the dead, and giveth life to them; even so the
Son giveth life to whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He
that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who hath sent him.
24 Verily, verily, I say to you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on
him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into
condemnation [judgement]; but hath passed from death to life.
25 Verily, verily, I say to you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall
live.
26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to
have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the
Son of man.
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the
graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, to the resurrection of damnation.
30 I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is
just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who hath
sent me.
This makes it quite plain that Jesus is not God.
John 8 :
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness concerning myself, and the Father that sent me
beareth witness concerning me.
This can only be a valid thing for Jesus to say if he and God are two
separate persons, otherwise there are not two witnesses.
John 8 :
28 Then said Jesus to them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall
ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father
hath taught me, I speak these things.
29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I
do always those things that please him.
John 20:21 :
... as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
Jesus can only send his disciples "as his father sent him" (i.e. in a like
manner) if Jesus was sent by somebody other than himself, therefore Jesus is
not God.
John 8:42 :
Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded
forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Mark 13:32 :
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are
in heaven, neither the Son, but the father.
If Jesus is God then he would have known this information. Note that
after his resurrection God exalted him to a higher position than he had
before, and also revealed to him more of His plan and of the timing. Jesus
then revealed some of this information to his disciple John; this is the book
of Revelation.
John 10:25 :
... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
If Jesus was God (and equal to God according to the Trinitarian creeds)
then why would he do works in God's name and not his own?
Luke 24:49 :
.. I send the promise of my Father upon you;
Clearly states that Jesus has a father (Yahweh).
John 5:43 :
I am come in my Father's name,
Ditto.
John 12:50 :
... whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
speak.
This implies a communication between Jesus and his father, Yahweh, and
that Jesus was following orders. This communication would not be necessary if
Jesus was Yahweh, and contradicts the Trinitarian view that Jesus and Yahweh
are equal.
John 14:28 :
If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:
for my Father is greater than I.
Very clearly states that Jesus and Yahweh are not equal. Also if Jesus
is going unto the Father then this clearly implies a separation from the
Father and that Jesus is not the Father.
John 20:17 :
... I ascend unto my Father, and your father; and to my God, and your God.
If Yahweh is Jesus' God then Jesus cannot be God.
John 17:3 :
And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus
Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Revelation 3:14 :
And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the
Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
Also the following :
Hebrews 1 :
1 God, who at many times and in many ways spoke in time past
to the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he
hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image
of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,
when he had by himself made purification for our sins, sat down
on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by
inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
5 For to which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a
Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and
his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy
kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore
God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness
above thy companions.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation
of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall
become old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be
changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my
right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister
for them who shall inherit salvation?
[Note verse 4 - "being made" and verse 9 "thy God, hath anointed thee".]
1 Cor 8:6 :
Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we
in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
{in: or, for}
1 Cor 11:3 :
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head
of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 John 4:9 :
In this was revealed the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only
begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
1 John 4:15 :
Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and
he in God.
1 John 5:5 :
Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
Son of God?
Ephesians 1:17 :
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you
the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Eph 3:14 :
For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Peter 1:3 :
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his
abundant mercy hath begotten us again to a living hope by the resurrection of
Jesus Christ from the dead,
1 Cor 15:28 :
And when all things shall be subdued to him, then shall the Son also himself
be subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Rev 1:1 :
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show to his servants
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his
angel to his servant John:
Proverbs 8 :
22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before
his works of old.
23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever
the earth was.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there
were no fountains abounding with water.
25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I
brought forth:
26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor
the highest part of the dust of the world. {fields: or, open places}
{the highest...: or, the chief part}
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a
circle upon the face of the depth:
28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened
the fountains of the deep:
29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his
commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was
daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights
were with the sons of men.
Acts 3:26 :
Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in
turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
Acts 7:55-56 :
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw
the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said,
Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand
of God.
Clearly Stephen did not think Jesus was God!
To help counter the mistranslation of John 1:1 :
1 John 1 :
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of
the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and
shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may
have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and
with his Son Jesus Christ.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_a3.13191ca6.27ea5b29_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gosse posted:
> i think ur both wrong.. col 1 and ch 3 both state that in jesus all the
fulness of the godhead does rest in him .. jehovah of the old testament is
jesus of the new.. 1 tim 3:16 john n1:1 and vs 14 there is only one lord
> and god of us all.. goose
I do not dispute that the Jehovah of the OT and Jesus of the new are the one
and same, but I do dispute that the Father is Jesus.
Sabbatismos.
--part1_a3.13191ca6.27ea5b29_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>Gosse posted:
<BR>> i think ur both wrong.. col 1 and ch 3 both state that in jesus all the
<BR>fulness of the godhead does rest in him .. jehovah of the old testament is
<BR>jesus of the new.. 1 tim 3:16 john n1:1 and vs 14 there is only one lord
<BR>> and god of us all.. goose
<BR>
<BR>I do not dispute that the Jehovah of the OT and Jesus of the new are the one
<BR>and same, but I do dispute that the Father is Jesus.
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_a3.13191ca6.27ea5b29_boundary--
Jeff Shirton
mark sornson <mark.s...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:995ac6$fgo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >I would disagree. But even so, you've demonstrated
> >the important point, that those who deny that Jesus
> >is God tend to try to "isolate" each verse, and knock
> >them down separately, for when taken as a whole, the
> >entire Biblical message, Jesus is undeniably God.
>
> Surely you are familiar with the point that those
> who insist that Jesus is God typically ignore all
> of the other verses which prove that he is not,
No, not at all.
In all my years of studying the Bible, and all my years in discussions
with Jehovah's Witnesses, I have not found *ONE* verse which "prove[s]
that he is not".
> and stand only on a few key verses that even
I don't take the position of downplaying many independent testimonies
that Jesus is God, to call them "a few key verses".
> trinitarian scholars admit have alternate renderings
> (i.e., translations) that, where they to be taken as
> valid instead, would leave no evidence that Jesus was
> God.
Yet these *same* scholars agree that while your translation is
"possible", the disagree that it is the *correct* translation.
Just because something is "possible", doesn't make it true. For
instance, if a couple of people are talking about a poodle they know,
"Suzie", and they talk to each other, "Suzie is cuddly", "Suzie is a
finnicky eater", "Suzie needs to go the vet", "Suzie is shedding too
much", and then one of them says, "Suzie is a bitch."
It is *POSSIBLE* that this person is making a derogatory remark about a
human female that they weren't previously talking about. But it is
*clear* and *correct* that he was still referring to the poodle.
> To you, I'm "denying that Jesus is God" because you
> believe it to be true.
To me, you're "denying":
"...and the Word was God."
"...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
"...the church of God, which he shed with his *own* blood."
"...the grace of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
> As I'll quote more than once, John himself says that
> his message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
> God.
I agree completely!
So does every Trinitarian I know!
But you seem to think that there is some "hidden message" in there, that
says, "Jesus is not God." I don't see any such hidden message.
The Bible repeatedly testifies that Jesus is God.
The Bible *never* asserts that Jesus is *not* God.
What is the problem?
You want to believe something the Bible never teaches, which is contrary
to what the Bible *does* explicitly teach, and repeatedly so!
> Why do trinitarians typically package all discussions
> about the deity of Christ with their arguments that
> God is a Trinity?
Since I don't know that to be true, I cannot answer about the "why" of
something that I don't know to be true.
> Even the way you talk, there is virtually no
> distinction between the saying "Jesus is God" and
> "God is a Trinity".
Since I haven't even *spoken* of the Trinity to you, I find it amazing
that you could even make such a statement!
> Unfortunately, the most popular way to address
> this problem is to say, "Well, duh! Proof of the
> deity of Christ is proof of the Trinity."
I don't believe that to be true, and have never seen a Trinitarian make
that statement. The Trinity also requires a belief that the Holy Spirit
is God, which doesn't necessarily follow Jesus being God.
> Hence, the circular argument is closed. There's no
> room for further discussion. All terminology has
> been conveniently defined to match dogma, with no
> right of appeal allowed! Case closed.
This appears to be a straw-man argument.
> When it comes to talking to JWs, trinitarians aren't
> interested in hearing another point of view that shows
> a different way to "settle the deity of Christ" than
> that which they have already accepted.
Well, not only is your remark insulting, and too much of a
generalization, but it seems to be that it describes most (but not all)
JW's I've come across. So as a constructive comment it appears to have
little, if any value.
> Plus, most trinitarian arguments (in English) rely
> heavily on English spelling conventions that now
> heavily abet the promotion of the Trinity.
I don't believe that to be true.
Is this another straw-man argument?
> You readily write (and no doubt say aloud) "Jesus
> is God", which has all the implications of the
> assertion [that the Bible does make] that the
> Father, Jehovah, is God. Let's stack them up:
Well, yes. That's what John 1:1 is saying.
> him as The God), then there is obviously a fault, or
> at least an ambiguity, with the use of the
> capitalization of "G"od when it is applied to Jesus.
This appears to be another straw-man argument.
I for one don't "rely" on capitalization. It doesn't matter to me
whether we talk about "god" or "God". The only reason for the
capitalization is out of respect for God, for the same reason we
capitalize "He".
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Jesus being "God", or
Jesus being "god", the Bible is clear that there only exists *one*
"theos/elohiym/god".
> Thus, if you want to "settle" the issue of the "deity
> of Christ," you first have to settle on what is truly
> the correct way of speaking (and writing) about his
> deity.
If He *has* "deity", then He *is* "deity". He is g/G-od.
> The whole point of my case (so far) about John 1:1 is
> that it does NOT "link him with the *identity* of
> Creator".
> That is you reading the trinity into it.
No, that is my reading of the Greek *out* of it.
I don't eisegete, I exegete.
> It only links him with the proximity
No, "and the Word was *with* God" links him with the proximity. "...and
the Word *was* God" links Him with identity.
> and activity OF the Creator, ho theos.
No, John 1:3 links him with the "activity OF the Creator", John 1:1c
links Him with *identity*.
> It says nothing one way or another about his origin
> before the creation of the heavens and the earth began.
That's the point. There's nothing to "report", for He *had* no
"beginning".
> And again, the declaration that the Logos was
> _pros_/"with"/"toward" God (ho theos, the Creator)
> makes him distinct from God.
"And again", you make John out to be an idiot, for John wrote, "And <A>
was with <B>, and <A> *was* <B>".
So obviously you *can* be with something, and be that something, at the
same time. Of course, the Trinity makes it very easy to interpret. The
Son was "with" the Father, both being "god".
> The translation, "the Word was God" is the very thing
> that is suspect [and the subject of debate even among
> trinitarian scholars] as it implies something to the
> average reader, that "the Word was [the] God", that
> the Greek doesn't assert.
My extensive studies on this particular clause lead me to a conclusion
that differs from yours.
> This is why other trinitarian scholars are willing
> to give alternative renderings such as:
>
> "the Word was divine" (Moffatt)
> "the nature of the Word was the same as
> the nature of God" (Barclay)
> "the Word had the same nature as God" (Harner)
> "What God was the Word was" (NEB)
> "the Word was deity" (Dana and Mantey)
.... all of which are consistent with the teaching of the Trinity, and
which contradict JW teaching.
But it never ceases to amaze me how JW's think it strengthens their case
to go out in a biased search of translations which support their
theology (instead of searching for theology which agrees with the
Bible), and end up with some "listing" of Bible versions, such as you
have given us above.
There are three problems with this thinking. First of all, the need to
search out obscure Bible versions (who are Harner, and Dana and Mantey?)
Even citing such sources provokes people to ask themselves, "Why can't
the JW's support their beliefs with Bibles of good reputation?"
The second is in terms of consistency. It appears that the argument
here is, "See, Greek scholars such as NEB, Harner, Dana & Mantey, and
Moffatt know their Greek, so we see the *true* translation here." But
it is quite obvious that JW's don't really mean that idea, since I'm
quite sure you don't accept your *same* translators in the following:
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"
-- Titus 2:13 (NEB)
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"
-- 2 Peter 1:1 (NEB)
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ"
-- 2 Peter 1:1 (Moffatt)
These are translated by the same scholars you cite above, yet you
evidently reject them. So in truth, we see that what you accept as
"correct translation" has nothing to do with scholarship, but only to do
with how well a particular verse in a particular translations matches
your preconceived doctrine.
The third problem seems to be in the implied argument of "majority
rule". You seem to list your translations, as if saying, "Look how many
Greek scholarly minds know the true translation, they are all agreed."
Well, what do we say about the following?:
"...and the Word was God." -- NIV
"...and the Word was God." -- NASB
"...and the Word was God." -- KJV
"...and the Word was God." -- NKJV
"...and the Word was God." -- Darby
"...and the Word was God." -- ASV
"...and the Word was God." -- Weymouth
"...and the Word was God." -- RSV
"...and the Word was God." -- Modern Language Version
"...and the Word was God." -- New English Translation
"...and the Word was God." -- WEB
"...and the Word was God." -- World Wide English
"...and the Word was God." -- Young's Literal Transl.
"...and the Word was God." -- ISV
"...and the Word was God." -- Douay-Rheims
"...and the Word was God." -- Literal Translation Vers.
"...and the Word was God." -- Analytical Literal Vers.
"...and the Word was God." -- WEBS
"...and the Word was God." -- NRSV
"...and the Word was God." -- RV
"...and the Word was God." -- Bible Union Version
"...and the Word was God." -- Anchor Bible
"...and the Word was God." -- New Testament (J. Lilly)
"...and the Worde was God." -- Tyndale
"...and that Worde was God." -- Geneva
"...and the Word was God Himself." -- Amplified
"...He has always been alive and is himself God."
-- Living Bible
"...and the Word was in relation with God and was God."
-- Bible in Basic English
"That personal expression, that word, was with God and was God," --
Phillips
> but Jesus never claimed to be equal to God.
> John himself recorded Jesus' assertion that His Father
> was the God of the Jews:
>
> "it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom
> you say, 'He is our God' (John 8:54 NASB)
You word this as if they are two mutually exclusive claims. They are
not. All Trinitarians that I know believe John 8:54.
> and John recorded Jesus' own confession that,
>
> "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 NASB)
>
> Thus, Jesus was not himself claiming to be equal
> to God,
No, He wasn't making the claim in 14:28, but He certainly was making the
claim in 5:17, 8:58, and 10:30.
> If you do a little more research on John 8:58, you'll
> find that various respected trinitarians translations
> render Jesus words as:
>
> "I existed before Abraham was born" (Williams)
> "I was before Abraham" (Beck)
> "before Abraham was born, I <came into being>"
> (NASB w/ marginal reading)
Why do you quote the marginal reading, and ignore the main text?
Two problems here.
First:
NET .before Abraham came into existence, I am!"
Douay-Rheims .Before Abraham was made, I am.
NIV .Before Abraham was born, I am!
NASB .before Abraham was born, I am.
KJV .Before Abraham was, I am.
NKJV .before Abraham was, I AM."
RSV .before Abraham was, I am."
Young .Before Abrham's coming -- I am;'
Darby .Before Abraham was, I am.
ASV .Before Abraham was born, I am.
MLV ..Before Abraham was born, I am.
WEB
WEBS Before Abraham was, I am.
Weymouth "I tell you that before Abraham came into existence, I am."
LiTV Before Abraham came to be, I AM!
The second problem is that the original Greek reads:
"...prin Abraam genesthai, egw eimi."
The phrase, "egw eimi" means "I am", and is undeniably in the *present*
tense. Both with choice of verbs, and tenses, there is a clear parallel
with Ps. 90:2.
> He was claiming pre-existence, but he was not
> claiming to be God.
Such an interpretation would have the Jews trying to stone Him for
having poor grammar?
> John 10:33 -- again, if you do a bit of research, you
> will see Jesus was NOT claiming to be God, or at least
Please don't be so condescending.
I've been researching this for years, and I see it as very clear that He
*was* claiming to be God. The Jews saw it just as clearly for they
tried to stone Him.
> see how it can be understood that Jesus was not making
> such a claim. Jesus claimed God was his Father, and
> this was turned into an accusation that most trinitarian
> translations render as a claim to "be God" (NASB), but
Doctrine has nothing to do with it.
The Greek says,
"...wn (the) poieis (make) seauton (yourself) theon.(god)"
The "poieis seauton", that Jesus "makes himself", is to be "wn theon",
"the god". Who is "*the* god"?
Note also that Jesus doesn't respond with, "No I'm not", or "you're
misunderstanding me."
> which others say was a claim to be:
>
> "a god" (NEB)
> "a god" (REB ftn)
> "deifying [himself]" (Wuest)
> Theos in anarthros, without the Greek definite article,
You are mistaken. The article is there.
> Since they themselves, "who God's word came [to]
> are called gods", they had no grounds for arguing
> against Jesus saying he was "God's son". As you'll
> notice if you read without bias, in that whole passage
> Jesus never said anything like "I am God".
If I may point out, it is *you* who are reading the Bible with "bias".
How can you deny God, without "bias", and still read and claim to
accept:
"...and the Word was God."
"...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."
"...the church of God, which he shed with his *own* blood."
"...the grace of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
> >Finally, the climax of the gospel is Thomas'
> >identification of the true identity of Jesus,
> > "My Lord and my God!" (20:28).
>
> That may be the "climax of the gospel" in some respects,
> but note what the actual conclusion of the gospel is:
>
> "these have been written so that you may believe
> that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
> believing you may have life in His name."
> (John 20:31 NASB)
What you seem not to understand, what the Jews of the first century
*did* understand, was that claiming to be *the* "Son of God", is
claiming to be God. So rather than denying that Jesus was God, John was
here confirming what he initially wrote in 1:1, concluded with 20:28,
and supported along the way with 5:17, 8:58, and 10:30.
(To be continued...)
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
mark sornson <mark.s...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:995ac6$fgo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
(Continuing...)
> Jesus "came down from heaven." That is why John
> properly says he was _theos_.
A "theos" isn't simply one who "comes down from heaven".
Such is a ridiculous argument.
> This same account also provides proof that Jesus
> was not claiming to be God:
>
> "No one has seen the Father except the
> one who is from God; only he has seen
> the Father." (John 6:46 NIV)
How is this "proof" that Jesus isn't God?
It seems that you are the one reading this with a bias, for the only way
I can see your point being made, would be if the Scripture said:
"No one has seen *GOD* except the one who is
from God; only he has seen *GOD*."
But of course, it doesn't say that. It says "the Father".
And we all agree that the Son isn't the Father.
> but rather that he was claiming to be "from God."
But how does that "prove" that "Jesus isn't God"?!?!?
> You can disagree with him as you wish (as I don't
> agree with his anti-NWT conclusions), but I quote
> him as a 'hostile witness', meaning that he would
> more likely be against my views as a JW than against
> yours as a trinitarian, and thus not deliberately
> come to a conclusion just to support JWs
My purpose here is *not* to argue "the Trinity". My purpose is to point
out that Jesus is God.
You have to learn to crawl before you're able to run...
> The RSV says:
>
> "to care for the church of God which he obtained
> with the blood of his own Son."
"Son" ("uios") isn't in any Greek text. It was *added*.
> >Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
> > or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
> > idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
> > OF THE CHRIST AND GOD.
>
> Harris has a rather short section on this verse
> which rejects this as a place where Christ is called
> theos.
The translation, which renders Christ being called,
"the-Christ-and-God", is demanded by a rule of Greek Grammar called
"Granville Sharp's Rule". The phrase, "Christ and God", is a collective
phrase referring to one person (and we know who the Christ is, right?)
> In his first paragraph, although he admits that
> gammatically it could mean "in the kingdom of
> Christ who is God,"
No, grammatically it *must* mean that.
> "It is highly improbable that Paul would
> introduce a profound, unqualified doctrinal
> affirmation (Christ is theos) in an incidental
> manner, in a context where the assertion is
> not crucial to the flow of argument." (p.262)
Such was the collective belief not only of Paul, but of Thomas (John
20:28), John (John 1:1), Luke (Acts 20:28), and Peter (2 Pet. 1:1), and
testified by the early Church Fathers as well. It was hardly a "novel"
idea.
> So, Paul is treating Christ and God seperately
> here.
The grammar rejects such an interpretation.
> >2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
> > be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
> > to the grace OF OUR GOD AND LORD Jesus Christ.
>
> Harris has another short article on this. He begins
> by saying:
Again, it's a Granville Sharp construction, and "our God and Lord" is
undeniably referring to "Jesus Christ".
> What translation did you quote?
I quoted my translation from the Greek. If you want other "citations"
of this rendering, you could check the Bible de Semeur, or Greek
scholars such as James White (www.aomin.org). Again, it is undeniably a
Sharp construction, and the phrase "tou theou Emwn kai kuriou" refers
singly to "IEsou xristou".
> >Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
> > of the glory of OUR GREAT GOD AND SAVIOUR
> > Jesus Christ,
>
> Harris agrees that Jesus is called _theos_ in
> this verse. His concluding paragraph reads:
>
> "In light of the foregoing evidence, it seems
> highly probable that in Titus 2:13 Jesus Christ
> is called "our great God and Savior," a verdict
> shared, with varying degrees of assurance, by
> almost all grammarians and lexicographers, many
As well they should, as the construction is (again) a Granville Sharp
construction, and *must* be interpreted as referring singly to Jesus
Christ.
> Earlier in his article, he does take note of
> other translations which present a different view.
> He cites the NIV, Goodspeed, and Berkely as
> renderings which "may refer to either one or two
> persons" (p.175), and quotes the KJV with an
> inserted word:
Not only do we have the main and compelling Greek grammar construction
to determine the correct rendering, but outside of that, there are the
following supporting arguments: for "God and Saviour Jesus Christ":
"But there are stronger arguments for referring
['our great God and Savior'] to Christ alone:
(1) Grammatically this is the most natural view
since both nouns are connected by one article
as referring to one person. (2) The combination
'god and savior' was familiar to the Hellenistic
religions. (3) The added clause in v.14 refers
to Christ alone and it is most natural to take
the entire preceding expression as its antecedent.
(4) In the Pastorals the coming epiphany is
referred to Christ alone. (5) The adjective
'great' of God is rather pointless but highly
significant if applied to Christ. (6) This view
is in full harmony with other passages such as
John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.
(7) It is the view of the majority of the church
fathers. This view takes the statement as an
explicit assertion of the deity of Christ. Under
the other view his deity is assumed, for the
intimate association of his glory with that of
God would be blasphemous for a monotheist like
Paul if he did not accept Christ's deity."
-- Expositor's Bible Commentary, Titus
> and cites the following versions as providing
> renderings that treat the passage as referring to
> two persons (p.176):
>
> RSV mg, RV mg, ASV, Moffatt, NEB mg,
> NAB-1 and NAB-2.
And of course the ones that have the "two person" rendering in the "mg"
obviously have the one-person rendering in the main text. Those who
have the one-person rendering in the main text include:
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NIV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NET
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- NKJV
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Young
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Darby
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Weymouth
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NASB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- RSV
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- LiTV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NLT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- ALT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- TEV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- ML
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- LB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NRSV
"...of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- NJB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- REB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NEB
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- RV
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Ampl.
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- J. Lilly
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Goodspeed
"...of Jesus Christ, our great God and savior." -- Anchor
....and of course, if I were to include marginal readings, this list
would be *much* larger.
> >Heb 1:8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O GOD, stands
> > forever and ever; and a righteous scepter
> > is the scepter of your kingdom.
> There are translations which render Ps 45:6(7) as
> "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever" (NASB),
> but many exist which give renderings similar to
Once again, your use of terminology is misleading, you say, "there are
translations", as if to comment that, yes, if you look hard enough, you
will find one or two, and then say of yours, "but many exist" (again,
implying that those which support my rendering are "few". If you want
to argue quantity, at least please be honest. The majority view among
Greek scholars does *not* support your view.
> "The appelation ho theos that was figurative
> and hyperbolic when applied to the king was
> applied to the Son in a literal and true sense.
> Jesus was note merely superior to the angels.
> Equally with the Father he shares in the divine
> nature (ho theos, v.8) while remaining distinct
> from him (ho theos sou, v.9). The author places
This, of course, addresses the JW argument that, "Since Jesus has a god,
he can't himself be god!"
> >2Pet 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
> > Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
> > precious faith with us in the righteousness
> > OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOUR Jesus Christ:
>
> Harris definitely believes that Jesus called _theos_
> in this verse.
Again, another Sharp construction, and undeniably referring to Jesus.
> "... of our God and the Savior Jesus Christ" (RV mg)
Again, you seem to think that making lists of agreeing translations
makes some sort of point. But of your translations which support you
here, the same scholars contradict you *elsewhere*, so you have no
consistency. Besides, you quote *margin* notes to support your
position. What does that tell you? That tells you that they have the
opposing rendering in the *MAIN* *TEXT*.
So when you remove your "mg" references from your list, and compare it
to the following:
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NIV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NKJV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- RSV
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- WEB
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- TEV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ALT
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ML
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NRSV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- BUV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Anchor
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Amplified
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Goodspeed
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Douay-Rheims
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NASB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Young
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Darby
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NJB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- REB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- NEB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Moffatt
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- RV
"...of our God and savioure Iesus Christ." -- Tindale
"...of our God and Saviour Iefus Chrift." -- Geneva
"...our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- WWE
"...by Jesus Christ, our God and Savior," -- NLT
"...that Jesus Christ our God and Savior..." -- LB
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NIV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NKJV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- RSV
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- WEB
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- TEV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ALT
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ML
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NRSV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- BUV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Anchor
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Amplified
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Goodspeed
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Douay-Rheims
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NASB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Young
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Darby
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NJB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- REB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- NEB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Moffatt
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- RV
"...of our God and savioure Iesus Christ." -- Tindale
"...of our God and Saviour Iefus Chrift." -- Geneva
"...our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- WWE
"...by Jesus Christ, our God and Savior," -- NLT
"...that Jesus Christ our God and Savior..." -- LB
.... then it seems pretty clear what Peter wrote, according to the
concensus of scholarly knowledge.
> I don't know how many "ancient versions" they
> feel support the reading, but the NWT Reference
> Bible footnote cites two that just say "our Lord,"
> namely:
>
> - Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century
I have to question the accuracy of this comment, as the only variant
reading in the Greek of verse 1 is "Symeon" vs. "Simon", according to my
UBS 3. According to it, Sinaiticus is in agreement with all other Greek
evidence that the text reads, "...tou theou Emwn kai swtEros iEsou
xristou".
> - Philoxenian-Harclean Syriac Version, 6th &
> 7th centuries
I choose to accept the weight of the Greek manuscripts of the 4th and
5th centuries, rather than depending on later *translations*.
> [A final note - Harris, nor any of my other sources
> say anything about the manuscript variations for
> 2Pet 1:1,2 of this sort. So if anyone knows more,
> please chime in.]
Again, my UBS 3 mentions the only variant here is in the name, "Symeon"
vs. "Simon".
> Sorry that you feel that way. But thanks for the
> put-down (or is this a 'promotion' from being
> "brainwashed and mind-controlled" to merely being
> "a fool"?).
I've never called you "brainwashed" or "mind-controlled", nor did I use
the example of Prov. 26 to try to "call" you a "fool".
But it looks like you *want* to be insulted.
> But the Bible gives more than ample
> support to the fact that the Father, and the
> Father alone, is identified as "ho theos".
Eph 5:5 ...in the kingdom of Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 ...the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 ...the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ,
2Pet 1:1 ...our God and savior Jesus Christ:
The Biblical testimony forces me to disagree with you.
> God is the Father. God is not the Son.
That's right. And that's *precisely* the reason that you don't see the
definite article in John 1:1c. God is not the Son. But the Son *is*
God.
> Nope ... John is not just saying the Father is
You keep making claims about what "John is not saying", as if John told
you personally what he meant. I don't think John told you personally
what he meant. Therefore your statements are worthless.
> Please, do me a favor and skip the fatuous
> categorizations of things as "approved sources"
> or not. This is really pointless sniping (except
> for rhetorical affect, for the sake of the put-down).
Can you do me a favour, please? Read your last post to me, and pretend
I wrote it to you. Then please take not of all the "pointless sniping
for rhetorical affect[sic]", and act accordingly. Thank you.
> >Why is that?
> >And why do you make yourself out to be the authority
> >on a belief you are not only against, but also that
> >the extent of your knowledge on the
> >subject is questionable?
>
> More ad hominen argumentation. Rather than
> merely insinuate that my knowledge and beliefs
> are at fault, prove it.
And how many times did *you* post to me, "If you study this thoroughly
you will find...". Isn't that insuating that *my* "knowledge and
beliefs are at fault"?! Please take the beam out of thine own eye.
> Trinitarian dogma asserts that the Father, Son,
> and Holy spirit are "co-equal", right?
Right.
> But the relationship between a person who has
> a God and the person who is that God is not one
> of equality, right?
Wrong.
> How does the Trinity allow for Jesus to call his
> Father 'his God' ("my God"), given that his Father
> is also the God of mankind? That's really what I
> would like to see you explain to me.
It seems to me that you reject the Trinity, not because Scripture denies
it (it doesn't), but because you don't *understand* it. This seems
evident because you are asking me "how" it can be.
I don't think ignorance is a very good reason to reject Biblical truth.
Do you?
> JWs do believe in the "deity of Christ," but in the
> conditional, subordinate, qualitative sense that the
> Bible represents him has having. John 1:1 identifies
> him as divine, and it's possible that Paul and Peter
> *might* have applied the noun _theos_ to him also
> in a sense that he was divine. But nowhere in the Bible
> does it declare Jesus to be "absolute deity". Only
<Chuckle> "Absolute deity"?!
As if there exist "relative" deities?
There *is* only one deity. That has been universal and consistent
Judeo-Christian teaching since the time of Moses. If Jesus is deity,
then He *is* "absolute deity".
Because there aren't any *other" "deities".
> -mark.
Jeff Shirton
Matthew Johnson
In article <99a2h1$5qh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Phil" says...
>
>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:99812v$k62$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> >As I'll quote more than once, John himself says that
>> >his message is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
>> >God.
>>
>> No doubt you would. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But
>what
>> kind of son would God have if not God? Or if he meant "a son of God", why
>did he
>> write "THE son of God"?
>>
>
>Matthew,
>
>I believe that Mark has already answered this question.
Well, _I_ still haven't seen an answer to it.
> But just the clear
>and simple
>term "of" , has the primary meaning "used to indicate origin or derivation".
>Whom begot
>God's Son ? (John 1:18).
But this doesn't answer it either. What does it mean to 'beget' when God does
the begetting? Clearly it cannot mean the same as for men!
Jesus is an image and not the God (Col 1:15),
Really? Let's take a close look at Col 1:15 and see if this is what it says. Be
ready for a surprise, if you really believe it says He is 'not the God'.
The verse reads:
[Christ] who is the image of the invisible God
and the firstborn of creation (Col 1:15)
But what _kind_ of an image is He? This verse alone does not answer the
question. In fact, He is an image is a way that is without parallel in all
created things. That is why John, who went into more detail about what kind of
an image He is, called Him 'the Word', and said:
In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word WAS God.
So John clearly indicates both the identity of essence (the Word WAS God) and
the distinction of persons (the Word was with God).
But how could have have ever said 'the Word WAS God', if, as you say, Col 1:15
says He is not God?
>that's why
>he worshiped his God setting an example for us (1 Pet 2:21).
You really do like to quote verses out of context, don't you? There is nothing
in 1 Pet 2:21 about Christ worshipping the Father, nor about this being an
example for us. On the contrary, it should have been clear to you from the
context that the example referred to here is Christ's SUFFERING. For the verse
reads:
To this therefore you are called, since even Christ
suffered for you, leaving you an example that you
might follow in his footsteps (1 Pt 2:21)
> We can worship
>God
>*through* Jesus for he is the highpriest (Hebrews 8).
Another amazing misquote. We not only _can_ worship Christ, we _must_ do so. But
this has NOTHING to do with his being highpriest. How could it? Was the
highpriest ever worshipped under the Old Testament Law? So why do you think
there is a connection?
> To me the Trinity
>doctrine pushes
>to one side the many important roles Jesus plays, such as mediator, so that
>we can
>approach God.
But it pushes aside none of these roles! Why do you think it does?
> By just approaching Jesus, then we miss the whole point of his
>teachings.
I don't think you meant what you wrote here.
Matthew Johnson
In article <99ai0b$65t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Keith says...
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>
>> In article <995ac6$fgo$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "mark says...
>> >
><snip>
>> >
>> > Surely you are familiar with the point that those who
>> > insist that Jesus is God typically ignore all of the other
>> > verses which prove that he is not, and stand only on
>> > a few key verses that even trinitarian scholars admit
>> > have alternate renderings (i.e., translations) that, were
>> > they to be taken as valid instead, would leave no evidence
>> > that Jesus was God.
>
> As this is supposed to be a "Bible study" group, I thought I'd list some
>Bible verses which to me are evidence that Jesus is not God (Yahweh) (this is
>taken from my web page).
I am glad you are perceptive enough to say '_supposed_ to be a "bible study"
group'.
> I can find lots of verses to discredit the Trinity
>teaching, but virtually none that support it or would lead me to believe it:
If only you had been as perceptive with the meaning of those verses! For
contrary to your reading, most of these verses are actually classic proof-texts
of the divinely-inspired dogma of the Trinity. Those great heroes of the faith
who had memorized entire Gospels and even all of Scripture (Origen) showed that
all these verses are really excellent proofs of the Trinity. I can only
recapitulate a small portion of their excellent proofs here.
>Acts 5:31 :
>Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for
>to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
>
> How can God exalt himself with his right hand?
Easily. For God is one God, but three persons. So the Father exalts the Son at
His right hand. I assume you know that 'at his right hand' must not be
understood in a crudely literal, physical sense. For God the Father does not
have a human body, or anything like a _physical_ hand.
Let's not also forget that this verse is addressed to the Jews in the Sanhedrin.
So rather than stressing His divinity, Peter is stressing that He is Messiah,
without trying to explore _all_ that that entails.
>This does not make sense if Jesus is God,
Sure it does. But you must remember that Divine Being is not subject to the same
limitations as created being. In particular, God is three persons, yet still one
God.
> but does make sense if Jesus is God's son.
But what other kind of Son would God have except God? Only in the pagan
religions do the gods have sons that are demi-gods or other gods.
>Acts 8:36,37 :
>And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch
>said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
>And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he
>answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
>In order to be baptised the eunuch had to believe that Jesus was the son of
>God, not that Jesus was God.
But the eunuch knew that THE Son of God is divine, yet not a separate God. BTW:
what words do you think the eunuch heard when Philip baptized him. Don't you
think Philip obeyed the commandment of Christ to
baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19)?
So the eunuch heard that he was being baptized in ONE name, THE name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the ONE name of the ONE God. That sounds like a
pretty clear reference to the Trinity to me.
>1 John 4:14 :
>We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour
>of the world.
>
>It does not make sense for God to send himself, it does make sense for
>him to send another being, in this case his son (remember John 3:16 - "For God
>so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son, that whoever believes
>in HIM shall not perish but have eternal life."?).
You insist on using 'being' and 'individual' as interchangeable terms. But this
is not valid when discussing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It makes perfect
sense for the Father to send the Son, both being two persons of the one Triune
God.
>1 Tim 2:5 :
>For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
>Jesus;
>
>Again we have a distinction between God and Jesus. If Jesus is the
>mediator between God and men, then how can Jesus be God?
Because in order to carry out THIS mediation, which is described at length
especially in Hebrews, Christ had to be both fully God and fully Man. This is
not the kind of mediation you have in law-suits, but something much more
wonderful.
>Titus 3:4-6 :
>But after that the kindness and love of God our saviour toward man
>appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to
>his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
>Holy Spirit, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our
>Saviour;
>
>Note the Holy Spirit "which" - not whom - God "shed" or "poured upon".
>This implies that the Holy Spirit is not a person and is not God.
No, it implies no such thing. Why do you think this implies the Holy Spirit is
not a person? Besides: this 'which' you read into the text is spurious: in
Greek, 'which' and 'who' look alike here, since it is in the genitive. So you
have no grounds to claim that it is 'which' and not 'who'.
Your claim looks especially weak when you realize that in so many other places,
such as Acts 5:32, the Spirit is refered to as 'who'!
Do all of your anti-Trinitarian arguments rely on such a poor understanding of
Greek grammar? Or is it a failure to understand KJV English? After all, in KJV
English, 'which' CAN be used for animate persons. Remember the prayer:
Our Father, WHICH art in heaven... (Mt 6:9 KJV)
>It does not
>make sense for God to shed his spirit through himself, it does make more sense
>if it is shed through his son, or representative.
But WHY does this make more sense? You keep on repeating this assertion with
minor variations, but you never explain WHY it makes more sense. The closest you
get to explaining it is to ASSUME that 'being' and 'individual' are the same
thing. But this is not so with the divinity, as John 1:1-18 make clear.
>Colossians 1 :
>15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation:
>16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are upon
> earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or
> principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
>17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
>18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
> firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may have the preeminence.
> {in...: or, among all}
>19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
>20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile
> all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they are things on earth, or
> things in heaven. {having...: or, making}
But these verses show that Christ IS God! After all, who created all things
except God? Yet it says here "by him were all tihngs created" and even "he is
before all things, and by him all things consist". But only in God do all things
consist!
>Jesus' own words :
>------------------
>
>John 3:17-18 [NIV] :
>For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save
>the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever
>does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the
>name of God's one and only Son.
>
>Again, Jesus distinguishes between his father and himself. He is also
>saying that those who do not believe that Jesus is God's only begotten son
>are condemned.
Yes, of course he distinguishes between his Father and Himself. This is to be
expected, since the distinction is exactly that of the distinction of persons in
the Trinity.
Are you trying to refute Trinitarianism, or Modalism?
Oh, on the contrary! These verses are among the greatest Gospel verses
concerning the Trinity, describing both the distinction of persons and the
identity of essence. After all, 5:19 shows the one will of the Trinity (which is
the will of the Father), 5:20-21 show the one energy (operation) of the Trinity
(which is also that of the Father), 5:23 shows that we MUST worship the Son
exactly as we worship the Father, 5:25 shows that the work of salvation which we
see the Son doing is the work of the Father, 5:26 shows that the Son is divine,
since only the divine persons(Father, Son and Holy Spirit) have life in
themselves; no created thing does.
I could go on, but I think the point is clear.
>John 8 :
>17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
>18 I am one that bear witness concerning myself, and the Father that sent me
> beareth witness concerning me.
>
> This can only be a valid thing for Jesus to say if he and God are two
>separate persons, otherwise there are not two witnesses.
No, two distinct persons is all that is required; but we have that, since the
persons of the Trinity ARE distinct. The distinction is clearly shown by (for
example) Mt 3:16, where the Father bears witness, the Son is baptized, and the
Spirit is Himself the anointing (Acts 10:38). What is unclear about the
distinction according to persons here?
>John 8 :
>28 Then said Jesus to them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall
> ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father
> hath taught me, I speak these things.
>29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I
> do always those things that please him.
>
>John 20:21 :
>... as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
>
> Jesus can only send his disciples "as his father sent him" (i.e. in a like
>manner) if Jesus was sent by somebody other than himself, therefore Jesus is
>not God.
But He _was_ sent by somebody other than himself; again, this refers to the
distinction of persons.
>John 8:42 :
>Jesus said to them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded
>forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
>
>Mark 13:32 :
>But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are
>in heaven, neither the Son, but the father.
>
>If Jesus is God then he would have known this information. Note that
>after his resurrection God exalted him to a higher position
Did you read the entire sentence? You seemed to have missed something very
important: not only was he exalted to this position (Heb 1:4), but this was a
position he _inherited_. So it was his inheritance from the beginning.
For the entire sentence describing his exaltation is:
In diverse manners and in many ways did God speak
to our fathers in the prophets, but in these last
days He has spoken to us in His Son, whom he made
heir of all, through whom He created the ages, who
is the radiance of His glory and the exact impression
of his substance, carrying all things by the word of
his power, having become the purging of sins, he sat at
the right hand of the Majest in the highest,
becoming so much greater than the angels as the
name he inherited is better than theirs. ( Heb 1:1-4)
How can you miss the many references to the Trinitarian relations between Father
and Son in this passage?
>than he had
>before, and also revealed to him more of His plan and of the timing. Jesus
>then revealed some of this information to his disciple John; this is the book
>of Revelation.
>
>John 10:25 :
>... the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
>
> If Jesus was God (and equal to God according to the Trinitarian creeds)
>then why would he do works in God's name and not his own?
Because there is one will and energy (operation) in the Trinity, the Father's.
This entitles Christ to refer to the same action as either the Father's, or His
own, depending on which aspect of Trinitarian theology is most relevant to what
He is saying at the time.
>Luke 24:49 :
>.. I send the promise of my Father upon you;
>
> Clearly states that Jesus has a father (Yahweh).
>
>John 5:43 :
>I am come in my Father's name,
>
> Ditto.
Well, of _course_ He has a father. This certainly does not detract from
Trinitarian dogma in any way. What ARE you trying to do here?
>John 12:50 :
>... whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I
>speak.
>
> This implies a communication between Jesus and his father, Yahweh, and
>that Jesus was following orders.
It is not a communication, it is a relation between what the Father says and
what Christ says that is _much_ closer than 'communication'. It is the fact that
there is one energy (operation) in the Trinity.
>This communication would not be necessary if
>Jesus was Yahweh, and contradicts the Trinitarian view that Jesus and Yahweh
>are equal.
If it really were 'communication' instead of identity of energy, this would
contradict the Trinitarian view. But it isn't, so it doesn't.
>John 14:28 :
>If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father:
>for my Father is greater than I.
>
> Very clearly states that Jesus and Yahweh are not equal. Also if Jesus
>is going unto the Father then this clearly implies a separation from the
>Father and that Jesus is not the Father.
Now of all the verses you have offered as 'refutations' of the Trinity, this is
the only really interesting argument you have offered.
But even this is not a 'refutation' of the Trinity. For his reference to the
Father as 'greater' than Himself could mean only that the Father is the font of
being in the Trinity, or it could be out of humility, or out of consideration
for the imperfect state of mind of the Apostles. They _still_ did not understand
who he was! So Christ could have said this because He knew they still thought He
was a mere man, even though exalted as Messiah. In this case, He could have
referred to the Father as 'greater' because He was referring only to His own
human nature, not to the divine.
>John 20:17 :
>... I ascend unto my Father, and your father; and to my God, and your God.
>
> If Yahweh is Jesus' God then Jesus cannot be God.
Why? Isn't God God, no matter to whom? Even to Himself?
>John 17:3 :
>And this is life eternal, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus
>Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Nothing to contradict the Trinity here. In fact, as you no doubt noticed in
other verses, we HAVE no other way to know the Father, except through the Son,
in the Spirit.
>Revelation 3:14 :
>And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the
>Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
This does not contradict the Trinity either. For the _beginning_ of the creation
of God is _before_ any created thing. But before creation there was _only_ God.
How interesting that you now quote against the Trinity, the very verses I quoted
a littler earlier in _support_ of the Trinity! So I will in part repeat myself
when I say,
1 - 'being made' here cannot mean 'being created', since v3 already implies He
is co-eternal with the Father: for when was God ever without the radiance of His
glory?
2 - 'being made' here can ONLY refer to the _reversing_ of his 'emptying Himself
of divinity' described in Php 2:7. And this 'emptying' refers to setting aside
the glorious _appearance_ of His divinity (which He displayed at the
Transfiguration) to adopt the by far inferior appearance of a servant (Php 2:7).
So 'Being made so much better than the angels' refers to His _restoration_ to
His divine glory, ie., His ascension to Heaven, which brough His human nature
into Heaven, where it had never been before.
3 - "thy God, having anointed thee" is yet another reference to the separation
of persons. God the Father anoints God the Son, whose anointing is God the
Spirit. This is why baptism, the entrance into the Christian life, is done in
the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as Christ's own baptism was
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
>1 Cor 8:6 :
>Yet to us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we
>in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
This is a wonderfully Trinitarian passage: for it shows that the Father is the
person of the Trinity from whome all things are, the Son is the person of the
Trinity by whom all things are. The only thing it lacks is the description of
the Spirit. But this is supplied by other verses.
>1 Cor 11:3 :
>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head
>of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
How did you think _this_ contradicts the Trinity?
>1 John 4:9 :
>In this was revealed the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only
>begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
Again, this is merely the distinction of persons in the Trinity.
>1 John 4:15 :
>Whoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and
>he in God.
And how does God dwell in Him, if not _through_ the Son, and _in_ the Spirit? So
all the persons of the Trinity are involved; and if ANY of them were not God,
then this indwelling would not take place!
>1 John 5:5 :
>Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the
>Son of God?
But if you deny that that Son of God is what the Son really is, how would this
be overcoming the world?
>Ephesians 1:17 :
>That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you
>the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
which wisdom and revelation is given through the Son, and in the Spirit. So all
persons of the Trinity are involved.
I snipped the rest because they all either repeat the same failure to understand
basic Trinitarian theology (the distinction of persons), or have nothing to do
with the topic.
[snip]
>To help counter the mistranslation of John 1:1 :
You think you can counter a 'mistranslation' by posting a translation of another
passage? How amusing!
>1 John 1 :
> 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen
> with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of
> the Word of life;
> 2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and
> shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was
> manifested unto us;)
> 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may
> have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and
> with his Son Jesus Christ.
Again, there is NOTHING here to even _suggest_ a contradiction of Trinitarian
theology. Why would there be, when this again is one of the classic prooftexts
of the Trinity AND the Incarnation?
So much for your 'evidence' that Jesus is not God. But don't be sad. Rejoice
instead, that these verse are really the key evidence that God reveals Himself
to us as Trinity for our own salvation! For only with the knowledge of God as
Trinity are we able to joyfully carry out Christ's command to
Love one another as I have loved you (Jn 15:12)
But how did He love us? As Trinity, as He explains in:
As the Father loved Me, so I have loved you. Remain
in my love (Jn 15:9)
Anthony Sheehy
"Phil" <Philip.Burn...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:99a2h1$5qh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
See below
Could you both be right. Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. So it would
be aginst Jesus' teaching and 'just approach Jesus' (a thing see in many
Churches and I beleive is sad to see, seeing that it is a relationship
through Jesus with the Father.
However, could it yet be that Jesus was 'in very nature' God (ie the natural
Son of God himself/begotten Son of God - concieved by teh Holy Spirit of
God?), yet not considering such a thing to be attained... and hence
displayed the ultimate humility.
If Jesus was the natural son of God, then he is, by that link, a deity, like
a prince would be royalty in relation to a king? It cannot be coincidence
then that we who beleive are described as co-heirs with Him as adopted sons
and as a royal priesthood!
Trinity or no trinity, Jesus was worshipped (directly, not being attributed
to God) here on earth and he did not refuse that worship. On the other hand,
angels and saints have been the intended receipients of worship and have
argued strongly against it.
A person can be two things without one contradicting the other. You can be
the Father of an Heir and the Husband of the Queen and still be only a
prince. These aren't contradictions, they are just misunderstandings of
something that should not be hard to understand, but because we have so many
voices around us we cannot listen to the one that matters... God's.
Anthony Sheehy
>
)))
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> The founder of your religion bases much of his theology on measurements
> taken from the great pyramid in Egypt.
No, he didn't base much of his "theology" on measurements taken
from the great pyramid of Egypt. The pyramid stuff only had
to do with interpretation of Bible prophesies that had chronological
content.
Also, Russell's interpretations of those prophesies didn't
originate with the pyramid measurements; it just happened to be
a coincidence that the measurements lined up with his
interpretation of the prophesies (from Daniel, involving
amounts of prophetic "days" that would pass before certain
things would come true).
I don't have quotes handy, but I've read Russell's thoughts
(I think in an old Watch Tower) that he only considered
the pyramid stuff to be 'confirming' evidence of the dates
he had worked out from the prophesies. His view wouldn't
have changed without the pyramid 'facts'.
Not that it makes Russell any less wrong on this particular
matter, but Russell didn't feel he was 'inventing' new truths
but rather was discovering them in the works of others and collecting
them together (a process which included sifting and discarding,
at times). If I recall correctly, pyramidology was a 'fad'
that had gained some popularity in Russel's day. It wasn't
wrong for Russell to look into it, but the conclusions he
drew were obviously misguided.
> Were you aware of this information?
Yes, but thanks for asking.
> Have the JW's backtracked and contradicted what he said?
The Watchtower did officially discard his
pyramid teachings as having any significance.
> If he was wrong
> about the pyramids couldn't he be wrong about other things too?
Another throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater argument.
Being wrong about one thing isn't a proof of him
being wrong about some other thing, let alone being
wrong about everything. Each 'thing' stands or
falls on its own merits (of lack thereof).
The quest for perfect, flawless, credibility is
impossible to fulfill [when dealing with humans],
for they are all wrong about something.
The Psalmist even wrote:
If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins,
O Lord, who could stand? (Ps 130:3 NIV)
In real life, what is more significant is to consider
how people and groups react to the discovery that they
are wrong, and what steps they take to make corrections.
A saying from an obscure mathemetician I stumbled
across says, 'error, when discovered, leads to truth.'
A person who claims to have never been wrong about
anything probably doesn't really know much, for
not having put his knowledge to the test and risk
failure.
>
> Russell and Pyramids--
>
> Russell introduced occultism into his religion by teaching that the pyramids
> in Egypt are divine omens. He taught that they contained prophetic secrets
> known only to him.
Russell was naive about the pyramids, but the fact
that he published his conclusions shows that he
wasn't claiming to possess 'secrets known only to
him.' He was more than willing to share his 'discoveries'
with everyone.
> According to Russell, only by reading his books can one
> understand the "Divine Plan." One of the strangest "revelations" from the
> pyramids was his calculated date of 1914. The date was based on his
> measurements of the interior passageways of the pyramids. He said that 1914
> would be the end of the world and God had revealed it to him exclusively.
> However, when his 1914 date for the end of the world failed, he tried to
> cover his tracks. The calulations were first printed in 1897 where he
> stated: "...this measurement is 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years.... This
> calculation shows A.D. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of
> trouble...." (Thy Kingdom Come, Series III, p. 342, 1897 edition) Then in
> the 1916 edition it was changed to read: "We find it to be 3457 inches,
> symbolizing 3457 years....This calculation shows that the close of 1914 will
> be the beginning of the time of trouble...." Russell's pyramid actually grew
> 41 inches in 19 years!
I have a copy of a later edition of this book
(though not handy at the moment). Whether he
changed the figures or not, his choice of dates
didn't originate with his pyramid measurements,
but only appeared to confirm the dates he had
arrived at by other means. I'll have to provide
quotes at a later time, however.
-mark.
Matthew Johnson
In article <99du07$805$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Mark says...
[snip]
>The quest for perfect, flawless, credibility is
>impossible to fulfill [when dealing with humans],
>for they are all wrong about something.
>
>The Psalmist even wrote:
>
> If you, O LORD, kept a record of sins,
> O Lord, who could stand? (Ps 130:3 NIV)
But the Psalmist was writing about _sins_, while you are writing about
_mistakes_. Or do you believe that every mistake is a sin? Why would anyone want
to believe this?
Matthew Johnson
In article <99dtth$7h5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Jeff says...
[snip]
>
>> I don't know how many "ancient versions" they
>> feel support the reading, but the NWT Reference
>> Bible footnote cites two that just say "our Lord,"
>> namely:
>>
>> - Codex Sinaiticus, 4th century
>
>I have to question the accuracy of this comment, as the only variant
>reading in the Greek of verse 1 is "Symeon" vs. "Simon", according to my
>UBS 3.
It is not safe to rely on the UBS edition as an exhaustive list of significant
variants. Indeed, the UBS is _notorious_ among textual critics for having a
deceptively short list of variants on every page. The explanation in the preface
for why is also notoriously unconvincing. The preface says they included only
those variants 'significant for translators'. But what is _this_ supposed to
mean? In fact, they have omitted many variants that should have been considered
siginificant for translators.
Even the Nestle-Aland (don't use anything older than 26th) lists only the more
famous variants, even though its lists of variants is _much_ more comprehensive
than UBS!
There was a project to come up with a much more comprehensive critical edition
of the New Testament, but last I heard it was still bogged down by disagreements
among the scholars concerning how to proceed. So the NA is still the most
comprehensive critical edition readily available.
Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton wrote:
>
> My purpose here is *not* to argue "the Trinity". My purpose is to point
> out that Jesus is God.
>
> You have to learn to crawl before you're able to run...
You also need to build your faith and beliefs on a firm foundation. And
what is the firm foundation that Jesus builds his church on? "Simon Peter
answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", and Jesus
said "upon this rock [foundation] I will build my church" (Mat 16:15-18). Jesus
didn't found his church on the belief that he was God, but on the belief that he
was God's only begotten son whom God anointed to be mankind's saviour.
The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that Jesus us the son of God, not that he
was God (Yahweh). True he is called a god (mighty one), as was foretold in
Isiah 9:6 ("unto us a son is given: ... and his name shall be called Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father [life giver], The Prince of
Peace"), but he is never refered to as being Yahweh. That would deny that he
became human and died, because Yahweh is immortal. "For many deceivers are
entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7).
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You stated that Martin Luther created a new religion.
At the moment I can't locate my previous reply, and
my news server has expired it, so I can only take your
word that I "stated" this (meaning I don't remember
exactly what I said, and you aren't quoting me directly).
Since the Lutheran faith, by that name, now exists
separate and distinct from the Roman Catholic church,
wouldn't it at least be true that he created a
new religious movement (new for his time, that is)?
> Mark, I quote you saying:
>
> >>The Evangelical Protestant Christian movement traces its
> >> history back to Luther, but it has had to reorganize at least
> >> twice in recent history (in the USA), in 1912 (as the Evangelical
> >> Protestant Church of North America) and 1999 (as the General
> >> Conference of Evangelical Protestant Churches).
> >>
>
> You therefore reject Luther and this religion right? He was wrong according
> to the JW's religion.
Here are a few more questions that you forgot to ask.
Do I reject all of Luther's objections to the Catholic
Church's teachings and practices? No. Do I believe
Luther went far enough with his reforms? No. Is there
anything I can do about what Luther did and did not do
to have made his efforts more suitable to me, today?
No.
Was I ever a Lutheran to have had that faith in order to
"reject" it? No. Was I ever a member of the Evangelic
Protestant Christian Church coalition (which evolved from
Luther's break-away) to have had that faith and then
rejected it? No.
But do I believe those faiths as a whole are right so that
I am inclined to reject JWs and join either one of them? No.
[And have any Lutherans or Evangelical Protestant Christians
come to my door seeking to educate me in their faith? No.]
>
> Well, you contradict Russell who founded the JW religion. Russell stated
> and refered to himself as the Seventh Laodician Messenger.
>
> "Note that he was viewed as the seventh, or "Laodician Messenger" to the
> Churches (Revelation 3:14) The first six are listed as: St. Paul, St. John,
> Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther. (The Finished Mystery, Karatol edition,
> 1918, p. 64)"
Russell died in 1916. _The Finished Mystery_, though
based in part on notes Russell left, was not authored
by Russell. This particular interpretation is no longer
promoted (and thus no longer taught as an interpretation
of Revelation) by JWs.
This quote also doesn't say that Russell referred to himself
as this Seventh Laodician Messenger. It says "he was viewed
as ...", but it doesn't say by whom. Sure, he could have
been viewed by himself this way, but at the moment I can
honestly say I don't know that to be true. As a relatively
context free quote, it could also mean that those writing
about in _The Finished Mystery_ viewed him that way.
Obviously the quote doesn't say if later on, any of these
ones' changed their minds.
> Now, why did Russell find that Luther was credible and that Luther himself
> was a messenger but now you discredit Luther and Evangelical Christianity?
See above. This isn't sufficient evidence that Russell
'found Luther credible.' And it really doesn't say
explicitly what Russell believed about Luther, and whether
he agreed with him on some points and faulted him on others.
Your presentation of the facts and analysis of them is
just too scanty.
It is also a straw-man argument to assume that I am
taking issue with every aspect of Luther's "credibility."
He was who he was, and he did what he did. He went so
far (as far as he did), but then stopped.
The real thing that I (and JWs) take issue with is that
Lutheranism and Evangelical Christianity are all frozen
in the past. They represent points of 'reform' that were
initiated a long time ago, but from which little or
no advancement has been made ever since.
The Bible teaches that all of mankind will undergo
the most radical change it will ever experience in the
near future, when got unleashes Armageddon to destroy
(at the hands of Christ and his angels) the entire
wicked world system and replace it with the prophesied
earth-wide Kingom of God, ruled by Christ and the
elect (who will rule as "kings and priests" with him
for the 1000 years).
Neither your religion, nor any other off-shoot of
Lutheranism, nor Roman Catholicism, nor any other
large or small branch of Christendom that I have seen
is truly getting mankind ready for this unavoidable
change of affairs.
They are all living in the past, hanging on to the
trappings of pagan superstitions and practices that have
taken root in Christianity (as part of the prophesied
"weeds" sown among the "wheat") over the centuries.
Every once in a while, some individual or group would
come to its senses, at least to some degree, and say,
"hey, things have gone wrong and need to be set right."
But those changes have only been partial, and never
fully what is needed.
But then, that's to be expected, because the destiny
of mankind and its spiritual status is regulated
by prophesy, which states that only in the 'time of the
end' would God see to it that the 'weeds' (false teachings
and practices, and false Christians) are separated
out from the "wheat".
You may argue with me until you are blue in the face
about the trinity and other points of doctrine, but
as I see you, your faith(s) are sooooo far behind in
getting rid of the trapping of idolatry and paganism
and coziness with the world (and its ungodly politics)
that is "passing away" that what you have to offer (to
me) instead of JWs just pales by comparision.
Why are you resting on the laurels of reform that are
now moribund for their antiquity? Why are you proud
that your faith and understanding hasn't made any
advancement and/or correction in hundreds of years?
>
> Isn't this a contradiction? Who is right, Mark? Did the watchtower change
> it's mind again?
The Watchtower does change its mind once in a while,
for it is written by people who, over time, learn to
identify their mistakes, correct them, and advance
based on their improved understandings.
Can you really say that your church does the same thing?
Or would it be too worried about being accused of being
caught in contradictions?
"Who is right" is too limited a question, Bob, for
everyone is wrong about something. "Who is on the
right path, the narrow road to life?" is the real
question, Bob -- the path that is cramped and narrow
and hard to find, which few really do find (Matt 7:14).
-mark.
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> http://home.powertech.no/festus/j/jwe/shassan.shtml
>
> From this site a former "Moonie" discusses mind control.
> What do you think about what this man says?
> Bob
>
I think this man has a hard time saying, "I lept before
I looked, and I have a hard time admitting that I am
responsible for my own mistake."
Assuming that they didn't kidnap him, lock him in a room
and mentally abuse him until he 'saw the light,' if his
association was entirely voluntary, then he is to blame for
allowing himself to be mislead.
A lot of what he says their teachings are sounds as
though they come from the Bible; and thus, for those
teachings that do, they would, of course, naturally
appeal to man [for naturally they would, coming from
the God of goodness and originator of every good gift].
But still, he was responsible for 'testing the spirits',
as it were. If he didn't do that, then he is to blame.
Only the very first paragraph really tells us about
what he personally went through, and what he felt.
So it's not really much to go on. All the rest is
after-the-fact rationalization of why he isn't to
blame for taking a false path. In that first paragraph,
though, he admits:
After my depression of the previous
month, I was invigorated by all that
positive energy.
It sounds as though he got involved with them at a
point in his life where he was mentally unstable,
and got involved quickly based on his feelings.
Those two things alone are red flags that direct at
least some of the fault back at him.
These two points are also where JWs differ quite
significantly with the 'Moonies'. JWs will accept
those with 'mental trouble', for the gospel doesn't
limit salvation only to those with minds like a
steel trap. The good news is, in fact, meant to
comfort those with all sorts of afflications, including
mental afflications, to give them comfort and
hope (of a future miraculous cure, if one cannot
be foundat present). But JWs are VERY careful
about this, and may hold off accepting a person
who has a history of mental instability for some
some time (hold off accepting them for baptism,
that is), until it is clear that they really
know what they are doing, and that they are
reasonably in control of their mental faculties,
and are capable of grasping the full ramifications
of their choice to join us, and living up to it.
Additionally, the teaching process that interested
ones undergo is not meant to induce an emotionally-
based desire to join. It is great if a person
feels "positive energy" when they associate with
us, but this is hardly a sufficient basis for
making a lifelong, irrevocable dedication oath to God.
A very recent Watchtower (Sunday study) article
stated point blank that we reject emotionalism
as a reason to join us. [I don't have the quote
handy, but I can get it if you are interested.]
Plus, the length of time that the study typically
goes on for (usually no less than half a year),
plus the requirement that a person really show
they want to be a JW by participating in our
ministry (a real make-or-break point for some) all
argue against the charge of brainwashing, for
brainwashing often relies on quick, intensive
immersion into whatever the 'thing' is, whereas
the JW approach is very slow and deliberate,
giving the person plenty of time to make a decision.
And finally, there is the 'final interview' before
a person is baptized. The prospective 'new member'
is interviewed by three elders - one elder at a time -
and asked about 80 questions [that are printed in a
handbook that is given to the person, who by now, is
already a 'publisher', though not an official member].
(I should also mention that these interviews are
usually conducted in the person's own home, where
they would naturally feel most comfortable and unpressured.
We don't use cement-block rooms and bright interogation
lights.)
It is possible, and sometimes happens, that the elders
will decide that the person might not truly be ready
to be accepted for baptism. Since the person
has clearly shown on their own that THEY are the
ones wishing to be baptized, you can't argue
that the elders reject a person because they haven't
been 'brainwashed enough.' If JWs were really
using brainwashing and mind-control techniques,
they'd have none of the checks-and-balances that
they have in place to prove, by word and by action,
that the person is choosing to join of their
own free will, with soundness of mind, and with
conviction that they've arrived at freely, without
coercion or trickery of any kind. Instead, we'd be
like other religions which use just about any
means to get new members to join, and would rush
people in as quickly as possible before giving
them time to think, and time to back out.
The fact that JWs are actually so deliberate in
their process for making new members is insurmountable
proof that there is no brainwashing or mind-control
involved.
People who join JWs, and then leave, have to
learn to say, "the choice was mine at all times."
-mark.
Mark Sornson
Bob wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> When I stated that it was my belief that JW's use brainwashing techniques or
> mind control techniques you took great offense to that.
Well, pardon me for not just nodding along.
> As I have never
> been a JW I speak from limited experience. I can only state my own
> observation. Although I spent many hours with JW's I still was never a JW to
> see it from the inside.
In those "many hours," did you talk to them
at length to find out their personal histories
and experiences, to learn from them why they
chose to become JWs, and what they personally
went through in order to reach that point?
Or did you just argue points of doctrine and
conclude that because they wouldn't see things
your way, they must be brainwashed?
Did you ever attend more than one meeting at
a Kingdom Hall (or was it just the one that
you were going to 'trade' for the promise
that they visit your church)?
Did you ever sit in on a Bible studying being
held with an interested person [as a neutral
observer] to see for yourself whether real
'brainwashing' techniques were being used?
From the superficial evidence, it appears that you
have no real experience to speak from, and only
choose to listen to the ex-JWs who are statistically
only a minority of those who have become JWs.
Without a study of the majority to get a fair
sampling, your 'study' is invalid, because you
assume your conclusion and take as proof ONLY
those who you know ahead of time will support
your conclusion (meaning that you purposely have
selected your 'data points' with a bias).
> So here is a web page where an EX-JW states that
> the JW's use brainwashing. I know you won't go there, but for the benefit
> of others who are reading these messages they might be interested in another
> point of view.
I'm sure some will thank you for the 'service.'
Some may also visit those sites and conclude that
they aren't hearing the whole story from an unbiased
perspective.
[Plus you don't know whether I've looked into
similar material in the past and have come to a
similar conclusion on my own.]
-mark.
Matthew Johnson
In article <99gjbc$l6m$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Keith says...
>
>
>
>Jeff Shirton wrote:
>>
>> My purpose here is *not* to argue "the Trinity". My purpose is to point
>> out that Jesus is God.
>>
>> You have to learn to crawl before you're able to run...
>
> You also need to build your faith and beliefs on a firm foundation.
Certainly. There is no foundation more firm than that of the Trinity.
> And
>what is the firm foundation that Jesus builds his church on? "Simon Peter
>answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", and Jesus
>said "upon this rock [foundation] I will build my church" (Mat 16:15-18).
But He is talking about the Church, not the faith.
> Jesus
>didn't found his church on the belief that he was God, but on the belief that he
>was God's only begotten son whom God anointed to be mankind's saviour.
No, that is an impossible pronoun reference. The foundation in the passage Mt
16:15-18 can only be Peter.
>
> The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that Jesus us the son of God, not that he
>was God (Yahweh). True he is called a god (mighty one), as was foretold in
>Isiah 9:6 ("unto us a son is given: ... and his name shall be called Wonderful,
>Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father [life giver], The Prince of
>Peace"), but he is never refered to as being Yahweh. That would deny that he
>became human and died, because Yahweh is immortal. "For many deceivers are
>entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
>This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7).
Yes, these deceivers deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. They deny this
in many different ways. One way is to deny that the Son of God is consubstantial
with the Father, i.e., to deny the Trinity.
Jeff Shirton
Keith Robichaud <kei...@ferndown.tt.slb.com> wrote in message
news:99gjbc$l6m$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > You have to learn to crawl before you're able to run...
>
> You also need to build your faith and beliefs on
> a firm foundation.
I do:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to
you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him,
"My Lord and my God!"
Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
of the Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
of the glory of our great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ,
Heb 1:8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, is to
the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness
is the sceptre of thy reign;
2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
precious faith with us in the righteousness
of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
So we see no less than 8 citations, from no less than *FIVE* different
sources (maybe six), including Jesus Himself, that Jesus is God.
I'd call that pretty "firm".
> The Scriptures repeatedly tell us that Jesus us the
> son of God,
Yes, the do.
> not that he was God (Yahweh).
The Scriptures repeatedly also tell us that He is God (see above).
Please note, however, He is not the Father.
> True he is called a god (mighty one), as was foretold
> in Isiah 9:6 ("unto us a son is given: ... and his
> name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The
everlasting Father [life giver], The Prince of
> Peace"), but he is never refered to as being Yahweh.
He is never referred to as being the Father (for He is not).
But He is repeatedly referred to as being God. (See above.)
> That would deny that he became human and died, because
> Yahweh is immortal.
It denies no such thing, of course.
To be "mortal", is to cease having life after death.
God triumphed over death (Rom. 6:9).
> "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
> confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
> This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7).
Of course Jesus came in the flesh!
If you wish to respond to any of these refereences, please first
familiar yourself with the relevant threads in alt.bible, where I have
discussed these passages in great deal with a Jehovah's Witness, Sarah
"Yellowbird".
This will prevent us from repeating over old arguments.
> Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
Hiscoming
I strongly believe that Jesus is God Almighty. One thing I need to point out
to you is that we may use a whole year trying to explain Trinity, but it
will not do any religious cult or anti-Christ group any good. No one can
know God through books, but you can only know Him through revelation. Those
that know God in the Bible did so through God revealing Himself to them.
Like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Nicodemus, Paul.
Look at the case of Paul who was well learned and could not know God and
persecute His disciples, but Jesus in His mercy revealed Himself to save
him. It was the same Paul that wrote I Corinthians 2: 14 which explained who
and how we can know God and understand the things of God.
Jeff Shirton <jshi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:99j1b7$rl1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
)))
Daniel McCarty
>> Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
>> of the glory of our great God and Saviour
>> Jesus Christ,
The quote is "... grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Two
separate beings, one God and one Lord, according to this Bible verse. Only
similar mangling of the syntax of the other verses allows you to say the Bible
is calling Jesus 'God".
Jeff Shirton
Daniel McCarty <roac...@aol.comnet> wrote in message
news:99li0n$qc4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and
> >> manifestation of the glory of our great God
> >> and Saviour Jesus Christ,
> The quote is "... grace of our God and of the
> Lord Jesus Christ."
Well, different Bibles render it differently. But if you want the
concensus of Greek scholars:
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NIV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NET
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- NKJV
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Young
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Darby
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Weymouth
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NASB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- RSV
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- LiTV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NLT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- ALT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- TEV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- ML
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- LB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NRSV
"...of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- NJB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- REB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NEB
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- RV
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Ampl.
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- J. Lilly
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Goodspeed
"...of Jesus Christ, our great God and savior." -- Anchor
And there is valid reason not only for translating the greek this way,
but for claiming that it is the *only* correct way to be translated.
It's called Granville Sharp's Rule:
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of
the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive
or adjective, or participles) of personal
description, respecting office, dignity, affinity,
or connexion, and attributes, properties, or
qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or
any of its cases, precedes the first of the
said nouns or participles, and is not
repeated before the second noun or participle,
the latter always relates to the same person
that is expressed or described by the first
noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther
description of the first named person."
This is Greek rule of grammar that has absolutely *no* exceptions, and
is used to determine whether "kai" ("and") is used to distinguish things
(eg. "bring a hat and a coat"), or to unite things by identity (eg. "she
is a good wife and mother").
In the Greek, the nouns "God" and "Savior" are connected by "kai", and
share one definite article, showing that they together refer to the same
person, Jesus Christ.
We see the same grammatical constuct in other passages:
2Pe 1:11 [...] our Lord-and-savior Jesus Christ [...]
2Pe 2:20 [...](our) Lord-and-savior Jesus Christ, [...]
1 Th. 1:3 [...] before our God-and-Father,
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God-and-Father [...]
And also:
2Pe 1:1 [...] of our God-and-savior Jesus Christ:
Eph 5: [...] in the kingdom of the Christ-and-God.
2Th 1:[...] of our God-and-Lord Jesus Christ.
But not only is there valid and undeniable grammatical reason for such a
rendering, there is also following:
"But there are stronger arguments for referring
['our great God and Savior'] to Christ alone:
(1) Grammatically this is the most natural view
since both nouns are connected by one article
as referring to one person. (2) The combination
'god and savior' was familiar to the Hellenistic
religions. (3) The added clause in v.14 refers
to Christ alone and it is most natural to take
the entire preceding expression as its antecedent.
(4) In the Pastorals the coming epiphany is
referred to Christ alone. (5) The adjective
'great' of God is rather pointless but highly
significant if applied to Christ. (6) This view
is in full harmony with other passages such as
John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8; and 2 Peter 1:1.
(7) It is the view of the majority of the church
fathers. This view takes the statement as an
explicit assertion of the deity of Christ. Under
the other view his deity is assumed, for the
intimate association of his glory with that of
God would be blasphemous for a monotheist like
Paul if he did not accept Christ's deity."
-- Expositor's Bible Commentary, Titus
Here are some other comments made by scholars on the translation of this
verse:
"...in secular and Jewish Greek 'theos kai soter'
is a formulaic bound phrase that applies to one
divine person; it was never parceled out between
two. The addition of the name, 'Jesus Christ'
to this formula excludes its being taken to mean
"the Father."
-- Jerome D. Quinn,
Anchor Bible Letter to Titus.
"It is true that New Testament writers on the
whole avoid [applying the word 'God' directly
to Jesus]. This is not because they thought
he was less than God, but because to call
him God frequently and indiscriminately would
run the risk of identifying him completely
with God the Father. [...]
Not many years later than the time the Pastorals
were probably written, Ignatius writes quite
confidently "our God Jesus Christ" (in his
letter to the church in Rome III, 3).
-- Anthony Tyrrell Hanson,
Commentary on the First and Second
Letters to Timothy and the Letter
to Titus
> Two separate beings, one God and one Lord, according
> to this Bible verse.
Either this is a typo, or you're referring to 2 Thess. 1:12. Either
way, there is one single being being referenced, according to the Greek
grammar.
> Only similar mangling of the syntax of the other
> verses allows you to say the Bible is calling Jesus
> 'God".
"Mangling"? So all the Greek scholars responsible for the many
translations I cited are all hopelessly inept, and you alone have
sufficient Greek knowledge to properly translate the verse?
Jeff Shirton
Sabbatismo
Gosse posted:
> i think ur both wrong.. col 1 and ch 3 both state that in jesus all the
fulness of the godhead does rest in him .. jehovah of the old testament is
jesus of the new.. 1 tim 3:16 john n1:1 and vs 14 there is only one lord
> and god of us all.. goose
I do not dispute that the Jehovah of the OT and Jesus of the new are the one
and same, but I do dispute that the Father is Jesus.
Sabbatismos.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
Jeff Shirton
Sabbatismo <sabba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:99lnqf$ne2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I do not dispute that the Jehovah of the OT and Jesus
> of the new are the one and same, but I do dispute
> that the Father is Jesus.
Who's arguing that "the Father is Jesus"?!
> Sabbatismos.
Jeff Shirton
Bob
"Mark Sornson" <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:99gjlt$mv9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > Mark,
> >
> > When I stated that it was my belief that JW's use brainwashing
techniques or
> > mind control techniques you took great offense to that.
>
> Well, pardon me for not just nodding along.
>
> > As I have
never
> > been a JW I speak from limited experience. I can only state my own
> > observation. Although I spent many hours with JW's I still was never a
JW to
> > see it from the inside.
>
> In those "many hours," did you talk to them
> at length to find out their personal histories
> and experiences, to learn from them why they
> chose to become JWs, and what they personally
> went through in order to reach that point?
Mark, Mark, Mark, Why do you constantly repeat yourself. You were not
there, or where you? You seem to know everything about everything. You
have no idea what we talked about, what personal histories were discussed
etc etc etc.
HOWEVER, you in all your righteousness are perfectly willing to condemn me
and uphold the JW's as being the right ones. Is that bias?
> Or did you just argue points of doctrine and
> conclude that because they wouldn't see things
> your way, they must be brainwashed?
Here we go again. You wern't there. So how do you know what was said. You
are so biased it's ridiculous. I'm tired of repeating myself. You just
don't listen.
>
> Did you ever attend more than one meeting at
> a Kingdom Hall (or was it just the one that
> you were going to 'trade' for the promise
> that they visit your church)?
Is this an inquisition now? How many meetings did I attend? etc etc etc
You sound like a priest of the inquisition. Are you going to flog me for
not attending the required number of meetings, in the past, as determined by
you. When you weren't there. When this was thirty years ago. But of
course, you and only you know more about the meetings I had with the JW's
even though the only thing I did was be there. You in all your hindsight
and knowledge about something that happened when you were not there are
correct.
>
> Did you ever sit in on a Bible studying being
> held with an interested person [as a neutral
> observer] to see for yourself whether real
> 'brainwashing' techniques were being used?
>
Have you?
> From the superficial evidence, it appears that you
> have no real experience to speak from, and only
> choose to listen to the ex-JWs who are statistically
> only a minority of those who have become JWs.
> Without a study of the majority to get a fair
> sampling, your 'study' is invalid, because you
> assume your conclusion and take as proof ONLY
> those who you know ahead of time will support
> your conclusion (meaning that you purposely have
> selected your 'data points' with a bias).
>
No, from the vast amount of contact I have had it seems that you through
your own superficial bias, have determined that I am wrong and that all JW's
are correct. They promised, they did not keep their part of the promise,
they broke their promise, they were liars. But of course that is ok
because from their position anyone but them is controlled by the devil. So
it is ok to lie. What happened to the verse that says "Let your yes, be
yes and your no, no." But of course if you are a JW this verse doesn't
apply to you does it. Why? Because the Watchtower org says it doesn't.
> > So here is a web page where an EX-JW states
that
> > the JW's use brainwashing. I know you won't go there, but for the
benefit
> > of others who are reading these messages they might be interested in
another
> > point of view.
>
> I'm sure some will thank you for the 'service.'
>
Your welcome. Hopefully others who are not as biased and prejudiced as you
won't be taken in by the mind control techniques used by the JW's.
> Some may also visit those sites and conclude that
> they aren't hearing the whole story from an unbiased
> perspective.
>
> [Plus you don't know whether I've looked into
> similar material in the past and have come to a
> similar conclusion on my own.]
>
> -mark.
No, but I can use your own logic against yourself. Remember, you weren't
there 30 years ago, but you know more about what happened then I did. So
your position is the correct one. Well, turn the same logic around.
Bob
Bob
District Overseer, Bart Thompson in a training meeting for elders held up a
green cover book and told the audience "If the Society told me that this
book is black instead of green, I would say, 'Y'know I could have sworn that
is was green, but if the Society says it's black, then it's black!' "
The JW's locate the great crowd on earth. However, Revelation 19:1 states
"After these things I heard what was as a loud voice of a great crowd in
heaven." NWT <thats the JW bible
1972 Tobacco is harmful and a form of spiritism or demonic worship.
August 1, 1974 Watchtower magazine instructs JW's to greet disfellowshipped
persons and see relatives. Including those who where disfellowshipped for
continuing to smoke.
September 15, 1981 The Watchtower reverses this rule and requires even more
severe shunning against disfellowshipped persons.
November 15, 1988 The Watchtower reverses again and advises JW's that they
can again talk to those disfellowshipped.
Mark,
You state that Russell was just following a fad, when he referenced his
prophetic views on the number of inches long each passage way was in the
Great Pyramid.
Well, how do you know he just didn't create a new religion called the Bible
students as a fad.
Why are you throwing away your life of a "prophet" who followed the latest
"fads".
How many prophets of the Bible followed "fads"?
Bob
Bob
"Mark Sornson" <Mark.S...@compaq.com> wrote in message
news:99gjm2$n00$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Mark, Mark,
I love when you ask yourself so many questions and then answer them
yourself.
Please continue.
You equate your JW organization to a Evangelical Protestant Church
coalition. Well, we don't take orders from a coalition. In fact I never
heard of a coalition of Evangelicals. So, this point is pointless.
Evangelicals believe in the ... Oh, never mind, I will just be repeating
myself again. Just get this, there is no coalition telling an Evangelical
what to believe. That's it. Done. Fini. But you have an organization or
coalition from your head office telling you what to believe, and it's ok if
they change their mind a thousand times. Because no matter what these men,
repeat men tell you, you will have complete and utter faith in it. Now
isn't that mind control. Don't answer that. It was a redundent question.
It is mind control to believe flip flops in doctrine no matter what.
>
> But do I believe those faiths as a whole are right so that
> I am inclined to reject JWs and join either one of them? No.
>
> [And have any Lutherans or Evangelical Protestant Christians
> come to my door seeking to educate me in their faith? No.]
>
So. So what. Because the JW's come to peoples doors then they are right and
everyone else is wrong? Let me answer from the Jw point of view, Yes. Many
Evangelicals witness to others as the opportunity is given to them by God.
That is because not all are called to be prophets, not all are called to be
evangelists, not all are called to be... remember those verses? But
according to the JW's all are to be of the same mold. No one is different.
Everyone must do their 100 hours of service a month. Everyone must go door
to door. Sounds more like the Pharasee's all the time, doesn't it. Yes
> >
> > Well, you contradict Russell who founded the JW religion. Russell
stated
> > and refered to himself as the Seventh Laodician Messenger.
> >
> > "Note that he was viewed as the seventh, or "Laodician Messenger" to the
> > Churches (Revelation 3:14) The first six are listed as: St. Paul, St.
John,
> > Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther. (The Finished Mystery, Karatol edition,
> > 1918, p. 64)"
>
> Russell died in 1916. _The Finished Mystery_, though
> based in part on notes Russell left, was not authored
> by Russell. This particular interpretation is no longer
> promoted (and thus no longer taught as an interpretation
> of Revelation) by JWs.
>
Of course it is no longer promoted. The JW's may change their mind about
anything at anytime and with no consequences. Because if you don't agree
with them you will be disfellowshipped and shunned. So the JW's can say
anything they want and change it a thousand times. After all there is that
ax being held over your head. Believe as we say or be disfellowshipped.
With that, there are a lot of people who will drink your "cool aid" to avoid
this threat.
> This quote also doesn't say that Russell referred to himself
> as this Seventh Laodician Messenger. It says "he was viewed
> as ...", but it doesn't say by whom. Sure, he could have
> been viewed by himself this way, but at the moment I can
> honestly say I don't know that to be true. As a relatively
> context free quote, it could also mean that those writing
> about in _The Finished Mystery_ viewed him that way.
>
Does it matter what Russell said. The organization changed it's mind
again. But that's ok. These men tell you what to believe, what to parrot
back to every question and you will say what they told you to say. After
all if you don't you will be disfellowshipped. Drink the "cool aid".
> Obviously the quote doesn't say if later on, any of these
> ones' changed their minds.
>
> > Now, why did Russell find that Luther was credible and that Luther
himself
> > was a messenger but now you discredit Luther and Evangelical
Christianity?
>
> See above. This isn't sufficient evidence that Russell
> 'found Luther credible.' And it really doesn't say
> explicitly what Russell believed about Luther, and whether
> he agreed with him on some points and faulted him on others.
> Your presentation of the facts and analysis of them is
> just too scanty.
>
If anyone is scanty it's you, Mark. Let's change history. Let's tell
people when the end of the world is going to be, 1579, 1880, no 1914, well
maybe 1915, no 1925, how about 1940, 1948, well 1975. But it happened
invisibly so you have no evidence that we were wrong. You just have to
believe us or we will disfellowship you. Drink the "cool aid".
> It is also a straw-man argument to assume that I am
> taking issue with every aspect of Luther's "credibility."
> He was who he was, and he did what he did. He went so
> far (as far as he did), but then stopped.
>
> The real thing that I (and JWs) take issue with is that
> Lutheranism and Evangelical Christianity are all frozen
> in the past. They represent points of 'reform' that were
> initiated a long time ago, but from which little or
> no advancement has been made ever since.
>
> The Bible teaches that all of mankind will undergo
> the most radical change it will ever experience in the
> near future, when got unleashes Armageddon to destroy
> (at the hands of Christ and his angels) the entire
> wicked world system and replace it with the prophesied
> earth-wide Kingom of God, ruled by Christ and the
> elect (who will rule as "kings and priests" with him
> for the 1000 years).
>
> Neither your religion, nor any other off-shoot of
> Lutheranism, nor Roman Catholicism, nor any other
> large or small branch of Christendom that I have seen
> is truly getting mankind ready for this unavoidable
> change of affairs.
>
I don't see your religion gettin anyone ready for this "change of affairs".
> They are all living in the past, hanging on to the
> trappings of pagan superstitions and practices that have
> taken root in Christianity (as part of the prophesied
> "weeds" sown among the "wheat") over the centuries.
> Every once in a while, some individual or group would
> come to its senses, at least to some degree, and say,
> "hey, things have gone wrong and need to be set right."
> But those changes have only been partial, and never
> fully what is needed.
>
> But then, that's to be expected, because the destiny
> of mankind and its spiritual status is regulated
> by prophesy, which states that only in the 'time of the
> end' would God see to it that the 'weeds' (false teachings
> and practices, and false Christians) are separated
> out from the "wheat".
Ok, now your wheat. No, your a Pharasee who demands that everyone think as
you think, say as you say, do as you do. Isn't that the mark of a cult,
Mark?
>
> You may argue with me until you are blue in the face
> about the trinity and other points of doctrine, but
> as I see you, your faith(s) are sooooo far behind in
> getting rid of the trapping of idolatry and paganism
> and coziness with the world (and its ungodly politics)
> that is "passing away" that what you have to offer (to
> me) instead of JWs just pales by comparision.
>
> Why are you resting on the laurels of reform that are
> now moribund for their antiquity? Why are you proud
> that your faith and understanding hasn't made any
> advancement and/or correction in hundreds of years?
>
Your right, Mark. I won't agrue till I'm blue in the face, ha ha. Because
argueing the Trinity with your flawed logic and bad translations, and blind
faith is a waste of time.
Here is an example of your blind faith in men:
District Overseer, Bart Thompson in a training meeting for elders held up a
green cover book and told the audience "If the Society told me that this
book is black instead of green, I would say, 'Y'know I could have sworn that
is was green, but if the Society says it's black, then it's black!' "
That's you isn't it Mark?
> >
> > Isn't this a contradiction? Who is right, Mark? Did the watchtower
change
> > it's mind again?
>
> The Watchtower does change its mind once in a while,
> for it is written by people who, over time, learn to
> identify their mistakes, correct them, and advance
> based on their improved understandings.
So here we go again. My religion is right because it is wrong more often.
Don't ever use logic in any arguement you make ever again, ok. Because this
proves that logic does not matter to you.
The book is green, but the JW's say it's black, therefore it's black.
>
> Can you really say that your church does the same thing?
> Or would it be too worried about being accused of being
> caught in contradictions?
>
Accuse all you want. What do you mean by church. You have this all mixed
up in your head. I don't think anyone can straighten out your thinking.
Our Evangelical church is not rulled over by men who tell us what to believe
like the JW's. Can you remember that, Mark. I have never been to a
Evangelical church that tells me that you must believe each and every
doctrine as they state it to get to heaven.
> "Who is right" is too limited a question, Bob, for
> everyone is wrong about something. "Who is on the
> right path, the narrow road to life?" is the real
> question, Bob -- the path that is cramped and narrow
> and hard to find, which few really do find (Matt 7:14).
> > -mark.
>
Are we talking about the great crowd or the elite. Because the elite was
filled in 1935. Where does the Bible talk about different classes of
people? Where does it say that some people are better then others. Doesn't
it say that in Christ we are all the same. Opps, I forgot, not if the
Watchtower says it isn't. Drink the "cool aid" Mark, just stop trying to
convince others that they should too. Because of that you will receive the
greater condemnation.
Bob
Bob
Mark,
This website states that you and other JW's tried to stop critics on the
internet. Isn't this censorship and against freedom of expression.
Doesn't this show to what extent you and others will go.
http://www.fan.net.au/~webfx/jw/censor.htm
Isn't this you?
Mark Sornson sor...@illusn.enet.dec.com
Bob
Copy of article above http://www.fan.net.au/~webfx/jw/censor.htm
follows:
Jehovah's Witnesses and
Internet Censorship
About a year ago we also saw that the Jehovah's Witnesses tried to quiet
their critics on the net. They tried to write lots of mails to postmasters
at networks where critics have their accounts, and use unsubstantiated
claims as weapons against us.
In USA there is a mailinglist named FRIENDS, which is for Jehovah's
Witnesses only. The leaders of this list - the Friends Host Committee - with
the listowner Pete Liu as spokesman, has tried to close down this website by
setting forth unsubstantiated claims, and he publicly states that I (Kent
Steinhaug) am a liar.
People that wrote to him, asking about why he tried to pull strings to close
down this web-site, got answers like this one:
-From: PETER THEU-HUA LIU <pt...@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
-To: <<snip>>
-Cc: aga...@gssec.bt.co.uk, ly...@ives.phx.mcd.mot.com,
-sor...@illusn.enet.dec.com, jaime.vi...@ebay.sun.com,
-j...@inmos.co.uk, Peter Liu <pt...@CS1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
-Subject: Re: JW Friends censorship attack
Hello,
Thanks for taking the time to write to me. As you know, I am
the owner of the mailing list which was broken into a couple of
weeks ago. I traced the criminal mail back to troll.vestnett.no
and alerted both postmaster@troll and postmaster@lehigh to the
port 25 e-mail forgery, as any conscientious Internet user would
do. As far as what actions the respective postmasters do on their
machines, I have no control. I merely supplied them with a
formal complaint and a copy of the fake mail.
My mailing list was never "moderated", which is how the fake
e-mail go through. Of course, after the forgery, I have been
forced to look at each mail individually to make sure it's not
from an outside source before distributing it. This can hardly
be called "censorship" or "moderation".
> your "net war". I would like to know if what he writes is true.
His accusations are not true. Of course, as any good liar, he mixes
in a little bit of truth with the false information--first rule of
disinformation.
> If it isn't true, I think you should make an official reply to prove your
> accusations against Kent & Jan! (Keeping silent really gives the
> impression that you actually have spread lies about Kent & Jan)
This "net war" is totally one-sided. Since it takes two sides to
make a war, I have chosen to ignore Jan and Kent's false accusations.
No matter what I do, whether I post or not, Jan and Kent will distort
events like they have so skillfully done. So, I do not wish to supply
them with gasoline to fan their flames. I prefer to respond to
individuals,
like yourself, who contact me directly.
> If it is true, I think you should make an official apology to Kent & Jan!
I believe as the victims of a break-in, mailbomb, and slander, an apology
is due to us instead.
Pete
There is lots of evidence of what happened back then, but I don't see no
reason for making all those mails awailable again. What IS interesting is
the fact that the Jehovahs Witnesses once again tries to get rid of critics.
The fact is that Friends Host Committee are among the "Net-Police" of
Jehovah's Witnesses. They are working intensly on making problems for
critics on the net, and so does a few other persons.
One of the persons using much energy on this these days are Shubert Kersey
Jr., that has complained about these pages to my provider. He claims to be
one of the "real guys" among the JW community on the net.
If you want to ask Pete Liu and the rest of the Friends Host Committe, you
are welcome to do so.
If you want to ask questions to individual members of the Friends Host
Committee, the members are:
Alan Gauld aga...@gssec.bt.co.uk
Peter Liu pt...@cs1.cc.lehigh.edu <-- List owner!
Lynn Newton ly...@ives.phx.mcd.mot.com
Mark Sornson sor...@illusn.enet.dec.com
Jaime Villareal jaime.vi...@ebay.sun.com
John Wadsworth j...@inmos.co.uk
Thi s kind of action is a true danger for the freedom of speech, and the
Jehovah's Witnesses is not some nobodies that are playing games. The
Watchtower Society is one of the biggest publishers in the world, and the
sales of religious literature in 1994 was 1.25 BILLION US DOLLARS!
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society also have a website - but that one is
empty! The address is: http://www.watchtower.org
A mail to postm...@watchtower.org asking politely what they are up to,
might be an idea. But please remember that mailbombing is illigal!
What they do now is trying to protect their enormous income, since a lot of
people knows too much about them, and are informing others about the real
truths behind the Watchtower curtain.
All people on the net that becomes a threat to the JW riches, must expect
lots of complaints to postmasters and others by the netproviders, and that's
why we need to stop this right away. The case in Bergen is one example, that
is not yet solved.
Mark Sornson sor...@illusn.enet.dec.com
Keith Robichaud
On 24 Mar 2001 20:50:47 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>> You also need to build your faith and beliefs on
>> a firm foundation.
>
>I do:
>
>Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
> was with God, and the Word was God.
I expect that you are aware that this can be, and has been, translated
as "the Word was a god", or "the Word was God like", i.e. it could mean that the
Word had the same spiritual nature as God. That's why we need to study other
passages to determine the correct meaning. As a result this verse on its own
does not prove that Jesus was God.
>Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to
> you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
The greek that is translated as "I am" means "to be" or "to exist", with a
present tense, i.e. Jesus was saying that he existed before Abraham was born and
he has continually existed since then. This is full accord with the Scripture's
declaration that Jesus was the Logos who was with God in the beginning of
creation, and that through Jesus all things were made. Jesus was the first and
last creation of God, with everything else being created by God through Jesus.
"Who [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God [Jesus was God like, but not
God], the firstborn of every creature [and the only being directly begotten, or
created, by God]: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him" (Col
1:15,16). Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
did cease to exist later when he died. God is immortal and cannot die, but
Jesus was not at that time immortal. Hence Jesus tells us "I am the first and
the last [first and last direct creation of God]: I am he that liveth, and was
dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:17,18).
Jesus was not saying, "Before Abraham lived, Yahweh" as modern interpreters
have implied. Taken in context, the previous verses quote Jesus as saying "If I
honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom
ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I
should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and
keep his saying" (verses 54,55). So Jesus is not saying that he is God, he is
saying that he knows God. Jesus said earlier in the discussion (verses 23, 42
and 43), "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not
of this world", "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded
forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye
not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear [understand] my word".
Some now, as then, still do not understand what he was saying!
>Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him,
> "My Lord and my God!"
Thomas was here acknowledging Jesus as not only his Lord and Master, but he
recognized him as his God, as a mighty one, superior to all mankind, worthy to
be called by the title God, which signifies "mighty one." But he was not
supposing that Jesus was the one and only almighty God, Yahweh. He was obeying
Jesus' words in John 5:23 "That all men should honour the Son, even as they
honour the Father".
>Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
> or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
> idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
> of the Christ and God.
Christ' kingdom is also God's kingdom. 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 - "Then
cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the
Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power", "And
when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all".
Note also verse 27, "For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he
saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which
did put all things under him". Paul is here clearly distinguishing between
Jesus and God and in no way implies that they are both God. He identifies "the
Father" only as being God. And speaking to his Father Jesus said, "this is life
eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
thou hast sent" (John 17:3). Clearly Jesus realised he was not God, and that
his father Yahweh was the only true almighty God!
>2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
> be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
> to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Similar argument to above. Paul many times refers to our God, and also our
Lord Jesus. He in no way implies that they are both God, or part of God. There
is no mention of the Holy Spirit, there is no mention of a trinity.
If in a similar manner of speech your brother said "by the love of our
father and our mother" I don't think anybody would interpret that to mean that
your mother and father are part of single being, nor would they think that they
must be part of a trinity being made up of three distinct personalities!
Neither should a simimlar meaning be understood from this (these) Scripture
verses.
>Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
> of the glory of our great God and Saviour
> Jesus Christ,
Similar to above, Jesus is a great God, but he is not the one and only
almighty God. He is not his own father!
>Heb 1:8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, is to
> the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness
> is the sceptre of thy reign;
God (Yahweh) is here calling Jesus a god, in a similar way to the other
verses that you quoted called Jesus a god. Consider the verse that follows it
also, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even
thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". This
confirms that Jesus' father Yahweh is also Jesus' god, not that Jesus is
almighty God.
>2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
> Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
> precious faith with us in the righteousness
> of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
Similar to above.
>So we see no less than 8 citations, from no less than *FIVE* different
>sources (maybe six), including Jesus Himself, that Jesus is God.
>
>I'd call that pretty "firm".
I see no sources in the above indicating that Jesus is Yahweh, so I can't
agree.
>> That would deny that he became human and died, because
>> Yahweh is immortal.
>
>It denies no such thing, of course.
God is immortal (which means "cannot die") and does not change, "For I am
the LORD [Yahweh], I change not" (Mal 3:6). Jesus did change. He was a
spiritual being, then God changed him to make him human - "And the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14) [this also states
that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, confiming again what I said
above]. Jesus also died, something which cannot happen to God. Therefore to
say that Jesus is God is in conflict with saying that Jesus came as a mortal
human being and died.
>To be "mortal", is to cease having life after death.
>God triumphed over death (Rom. 6:9).
To be mortal means that you can die, to be immortal means that you cannot
die.
Romans 6:9 - "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over him". This says that Jesus was raised from the
dead, by the only the being alive at that time that had the power to do so -
God. God resurrected Jesus (effectively he created him again), this time giving
Jesus the same immortal divine nature that God himself has. Jesus now is
immortal, before his resurrection he was not. The greatest hope for Christians
is to be similarly resurrected (but we are not God!), "Whereby are given unto us
exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of
the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through
lust" (2 Peter 1:4), "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet
appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).
>> "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
>> confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.
>> This is a deceiver and an antichrist" (2 John 1:7).
>
>Of course Jesus came in the flesh!
But this means that he was purely a human being, just like us, that his
nature was transformed by God. He "was made in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7),
i.e. he was like men except that as he did not have a human father he did not
inherit mankind's sinful nature. Many people teach that Jesus was both human
and God at the same time, which is in contradiction that Jesus came in the flesh
and was flesh only. Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
was born of flesh.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Matthew Johnson
In article <99ogv1$23l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>
>
>
>On 24 Mar 2001 20:50:47 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>> You also need to build your faith and beliefs on
>>> a firm foundation.
>>
>>I do:
>>
>>Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
>> was with God, and the Word was God.
>
>I expect that you are aware that this can be, and has been, translated
>as "the Word was a god", or "the Word was God like", i.e. it could
> mean that theWord had the same spiritual nature as God.
No, this is an impossible meaning. It ignores the fierce monotheism of the
entire Jewish Tradition John came from. It even ignores the context established
by the following 17 verses.
>That's why we need to study other
>passages to determine the correct meaning.
And when we do this, we find that 'a god' is an _impossible_ meaning. See below.
>As a result this verse on its own
>does not prove that Jesus was God.
But this is irrelevant, since Bible verses were NEVER written to be quoted out
of context.
>>Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to
>> you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
>
>The greek that is translated as "I am" means "to be" or "to exist", with a
>present tense,i.e. Jesus was saying that he existed before Abraham was born and
>he has continually existed since then.
Well, that _is_ what 'I am' means. But the deliberate violation of the normal
Greek Grammar rules of sequence of tenses suggests _much more_ than 'continued
to exist _since_ then'. It suggests _eternal_ being. This suggestion is
confirmed by John 1:1-3.
>This is full accord with the Scripture's
>declaration that Jesus was the Logos who was with God in the beginning of
>creation, and that through Jesus all things were made. Jesus was the first and
>last creation of God, with everything else being created by God through Jesus.
No, he cannot be a _creation_ of God, since 'all that was made was made through
Him' (Jn 1:3)
>"Who [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God [Jesus was God like, but not
>God],
To interpret 'the image of...God' as 'Jesus was God like' is OK (if weak), but
adding 'but not God' is completely unjustifiable.
>the firstborn of every creature [and the only being directly begotten, or
>created, by God]: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and
>that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they
> be thrones, or dominions,or principalities, or powers:
> all things were created by him, and for him" (Col1:15,16).
But when Paul calls Him 'firstborn of creation', is he referring to the Word, or
to Jesus Christ, both fully Man and fully God ever since His Incarnation? I
claim the latter, since it was by emptying Himself of his divine form (Php 2:9)
and taking the form of a servant that he became "of creation". So He is
'firstborn' of creation because all creation will be made anew, 'reborn', but He
is the first to experience this rebirth. For His experience of this rebirth IS
what makes the rebirth possible.
>Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
>did cease to exist later when he died.
Now how can anyone justify _this_ based on Scripture? I daresay that no one can.
After all, what could He then have meant when He said "This day you will be with
Me in paradise (Lk 23:24)"?? How could He be with the thief if he 'ceased to
exist'?
>God is immortal and cannot die, but
>Jesus was not at that time immortal. Hence Jesus tells us "I am the first and
>the last [first and last direct creation of God]: I am he that liveth, and was
>dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:17,18).
>
> Jesus was not saying, "Before Abraham lived, Yahweh" as modern interpreters
>have implied. Taken in context, the previous verses quote Jesus as saying "If I
>honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom
>ye say, that he is your God: yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I
>should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and
>keep his saying" (verses 54,55).
But if this were true, then why would they have immediately picked up stones to
stone Him?
After all: they did not pick up stones after He said "I know him", but after he
said:
Amen, Amen, I say to you, before Abraham
was I AM. Therefore they picked up stones to hurl at
Him (Jn 8:58-59)
> So Jesus is not saying that he is God, he is
>saying that he knows God.
The Jews knew He said more than this, that is why they picked up the stones.
>Jesus said earlier in the discussion (verses 23, 42
>and 43), "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not
>of this world", "If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded
>forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye
>not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear [understand] my word".
>Some now, as then, still do not understand what he was saying!
Yes, of course. For those who deny that the Son of Man was Son of God,
consubstantial with the Father, do not understand what He was saying.
>
>>Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him,
>> "My Lord and my God!"
>
> Thomas was here acknowledging Jesus as not only his Lord and Master, but he
>recognized him as his God, as a mighty one, superior to all mankind, worthy to
>be called by the title God, which signifies "mighty one."
You expect us to believe _this_? Now why would we EVER believe that 'God' means
'mighty one'?
>But he was not
>supposing that Jesus was the one and only almighty God, Yahweh. He was obeying
>Jesus' words in John 5:23 "That all men should honour the Son, even as they
>honour the Father".
But this means worshipping the Son in EXACTLY the same manner as we worship the
Father!
[snip]
> Paul is here clearly distinguishing between
>Jesus and God and in no way implies that they are both God.
He distinguishes between them, of course. But this is nothing other than the
distinction according to persons in the Trinity. And he DOES imply that they are
both God when he says:
waiting for the blessed hope and the glorious coming
of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)
>He identifies "the
>Father" only as being God.
Not true, as I showed above.
>And speaking to his Father Jesus said, "this is life
>eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom
>thou hast sent" (John 17:3). Clearly Jesus realised he was not God, and that
>his father Yahweh was the only true almighty God!
Oh no, this is not what it implied at all! Christ could say John 17:3 because
they ARE one God, the Trinity. And the Father is known only through the Son and
in the Spirit.
>>2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
>> be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
>> to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> Similar argument to above. Paul many times refers to our God, and also our
>Lord Jesus. He in no way implies that they are both God, or part of God.
Yes he does, because 'Lord' is a divine title, as the LXX shows.
>There
>is no mention of the Holy Spirit, there is no mention of a trinity.
Not in this verse. But the NT writers never felt compelled to try to compress
all of theology into a single verse.
>
>If in a similar manner of speech your brother said "by the love of our
>father and our mother" I don't think anybody would interpret that to mean that
>your mother and father are part of single being, nor would they think that they
>must be part of a trinity being made up of three distinct personalities!
Nice try, but I don't that that 'manner of speech' is similar at all! You are
comparing oranges and apples to sustain your untenable conclusion.
>Neither should a simimlar meaning be understood from this (these) Scripture
>verses.
>
>>Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
>> of the glory of our great God and Saviour
>> Jesus Christ,
>
>
>Similar to above, Jesus is a great God, but he is not the one and only
>almighty God. He is not his own father!
Cute. But your insertion of 'A great God' is completely incompatible with
Scripture. Have you forgotten the relevation of Deuteronomy?
Hear, Oh Israel, Our God is One Lord (Dt 6:4)
BTW: this is an excellent example of how 'Lord' is a divine title. As a divine
title, it can ONLY be applied to the one true God, the God of Israel.
>>Heb 1:8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, is to
>> the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness
>> is the sceptre of thy reign;
>
> God (Yahweh) is here calling Jesus a god, in a similar way to the other
>verses that you quoted called Jesus a god.
This verse does no such thing, for the same reasons as I already explained
above. There is only ONE God.
> Consider the verse that follows it
>also, "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even
>thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows". This
>confirms that Jesus' father Yahweh is also Jesus' god,
Of course,
> not that Jesus is
>almighty God.
But this verse says nothing at all about whether or not Jesus is almighty God.
Why should it, when the previous verse makes this clear?
>
>>2Pe 1:1 Simeon Peter, a servant and an apostle of
>> Jesus Christ, to those who did obtain a like
>> precious faith with us in the righteousness
>> of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
>
> Similar to above.
>
>>So we see no less than 8 citations, from no less than *FIVE* different
>>sources (maybe six), including Jesus Himself, that Jesus is God.
>>
>>I'd call that pretty "firm".
>
>I see no sources in the above indicating that Jesus is Yahweh, so I can't
>agree.
But this is only because you close your mind before you open the Bible,
interpreting individual snippets as narrowly as possible while deliberately
ignoring the context.
>
>>> That would deny that he became human and died, because
>>> Yahweh is immortal.
>>
>>It denies no such thing, of course.
>
> God is immortal (which means "cannot die") and does not change, "For I am
>the LORD [Yahweh], I change not" (Mal 3:6). Jesus did change. He was a
>spiritual being, then God changed him to make him human -
But what kind of 'spiritual being' could He have been? The Old Testament never
taught Israel to wait for some mythical 'spiritual being' to be Messiah.
> "And the Word was made
>flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only
>begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" (John 1:14) [this also states
>that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father, confiming again what I said
>above].
But this does NOT confirm what you said above. On the contrary: it confirms that
He is the Only-Begotten. Now what kind of Son would God beget except God? But
since we know God is ONE (Dt 6:4 again), we know that the two are ONE GOD.
> Jesus also died, something which cannot happen to God.
Ah, but it _could_ happen once God took upon Himself all of human nature.
But then when death swallowed a body but encountered God, "Hell was embittered
because it was vanquished".
>Therefore to
>say that Jesus is God is in conflict with saying that Jesus came as a mortal
>human being and died.
But, as I have shown, the premise is not true, so the conclusion does not
follow.
>>To be "mortal", is to cease having life after death.
>>God triumphed over death (Rom. 6:9).
>
>To be mortal means that you can die, to be immortal means that you cannot
>die.
Right. But Christ has two natures, the human and divine. The divine nature is
incapable of death, but the human nature WAS capable of death. But since the two
are united in one person, when the one person died, death was destroyed from
inside out. THis is why St. Paul writes:
Oh, death, where is your victory?
And death, where is your sting?
Thanks be to God who gave us victory
through Our Lord Jesus Christ (1Cor 15:55-57)
[snip]
>>Of course Jesus came in the flesh!
>
> But this means that he was purely a human being,
"Purely"? How much of Hebrews did you throw out to believe THIS?
Since when is a 'pure' human being the 'reflection of His (God's) glory and the
exact impression of his subsistence (Heb 1:3)"?
> just like us, that his
>nature was transformed by God. He "was made in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7),
>i.e. he was like men except that as he did not have a human father he did not
>inherit mankind's sinful nature.
But it is not mankind's _nature_ that is sinful. Sin is anti-nature.
> Many people teach that Jesus was both human
> and God at the same time, which is in contradiction that
> Jesus came in the flesh and was flesh only.
But that is OK, since this 'and was flesh only' was NEVER taught in Scripture.
> Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>was born of flesh.
So? Do you think that humans consist of flesh only? Have you really missed all
the many references in Scripture to Man's nature as body AND soul?
Jeff Shirton
Keith Robichaud <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:99ogv1$23l$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
> > was with God, and the Word was God.
>
> I expect that you are aware that this can be, and
> has been, translated as "the Word was a god", or "the
> Word was God like", i.e. it could mean that the
> Word had the same spiritual nature as God. That's
> why we need to study other passages to determine the
> correct meaning. As a result this verse on its own
> does not prove that Jesus was God.
Yes, of course. And along with John 1:1, I also showed
John 8:58, 20:28, Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Titus 2:13, Heb. 1:8, and 2
Pet. 1:1.
> >Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to
> > you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
>
> The greek that is translated as "I am" means
> "to be" or "to exist", with a present tense, i.e.
> Jesus was saying that he existed before Abraham was
> born and he has continually existed since then.
No, there is no past tense, "existed" here. It is "egw eimi", I *AM*,
present tense, pure and simple.
Compare with Exodus 3:14. Compare with Psalm 90:2.
The Jews certainly knew what Jesus was saying (John 8:59), even if you
don't.
> Jesus was the first and last creation of God,
That's not what Scripture says.
Jesus was not "created".
> But he did cease to exist later when he died.
?? Chapter and verse, please?
> >Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him,
> > "My Lord and my God!"
>
> Thomas was here acknowledging Jesus as not only
> his Lord and Master, but he recognized him as his God,
Exactly!
How many gods do *you* believe in?:
Deu 4:35 All this you were allowed to see that you
might know the LORD is God and there is no other.
2Sa 22:32 "For who is God except the LORD?
Who is a rock save our God?
2Ki 19:15 he prayed in the LORD'S presence: "O LORD,
God of Israel, enthroned upon the cherubim!
You alone are God over all the kingdoms of
the earth. You have made the heavens and
the earth.
2Ki 19:19 Therefore, O LORD, our God, save us from
the power of this man, that all the kingdoms
of the earth may know that you alone,
O LORD, are God."
Psa 18:31 Truly, who is God except the LORD?
Who but our God is the rock?
Psa 86:10 For you are great and do wondrous deeds;
and you alone are God.
Isa 37:16 "O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, enthroned
upon the cherubim! You alone are God over
all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made
the heavens and the earth.
Isa 37:20 Therefore, O LORD, our God, save us from
his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth
may know that you, O LORD, alone are God."
Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, Israel's King and redeemer,
the LORD of hosts: I am the first and I am
the last; there is no God but me.
Isa 44:8 Fear not, be not troubled: did I not announce
and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses!
Is there a God or any Rock besides me?
Isa 45:5 I am the LORD and there is no other, there
is no God besides me. It is I who arm you,
though you know me not,
Isa 45:21 Come here and declare in counsel together:
Who announced this from the beginning and
foretold it from of old? Was it not I, the
LORD, besides whom there is no other God?
There is no just and saving God but me.
Isa 45:22 Turn to me and be safe, all you ends of
the earth, for I am God; there is no other!
Isa 46:9 I am God, there is no other; I am God,
there is none like me.
Joh 17:3 Now this is eternal life, that they should
know you, the only true God, and the one
whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator
between God and the human race, Christ Jesus,
himself human,
If Jesus is "a god", then Jesus is *the* God, for there is only one God.
> as a mighty one, superior to all mankind, worthy to
> be called by the title God,
If Jesus wasn't God, He surely would have rebuked Thomas for such
blasphemy!
> >Eph 5:5 for this ye know, that every whoremonger,
> > or unclean, or covetous person, who is an
> > idolater, hath no inheritance in the reign
> > of the Christ and God.
>
> Christ' kingdom is also God's kingdom.
You ignore the point. It says, "of the Christ-and-God".
"Christ and God" is a singular reference. The Greek grammar
construction requires this. It's called Granville Sharp's rule.
> >2Th 1:12 that the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may
> > be glorified in you, and ye in him, according
> > to the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> Similar argument to above.
Same grammatical construction.
"God and Lord", refers to *one* person.
> If in a similar manner of speech your brother
> said "by the love of our father and our mother"
> I don't think anybody would interpret that to mean
> that your mother and father are part of single being,
No, we don't say "your the mother", or "the your mother". But the
article is explicit in the Greek. What Paul says in Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess.
1:12, Titus 2:13, and 2 Pet. 1:1 is analogous to someone saying, "She's
a good wife-and-mother". Again, it refers to only *one* person.
> >Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
> > of the glory of our great God and Saviour
> > Jesus Christ,
>
> Similar to above, Jesus is a great God, but he
> is not the one and only almighty God.
Paul says that He is. Again, the grammar demands it.
> He is not his own father!
No, of course not. Jesus is not His own Father. Why is it that every
JW brings up this same straw-man argument?
> >Heb 1:8 and unto the Son: `Thy throne, O God, is to
> > the age of the age; a sceptre of righteousness
> > is the sceptre of thy reign;
>
> God (Yahweh) is here calling Jesus a god, in a
> similar way to the other verses that you quoted
Again, how many gods do you believe exist?
The Bible testifies that only *one* God exists. So if Jesus is a "god",
then...
> Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
Matthew Johnson
In article <99li0n$qc4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, roac...@aol.comnet says...
>
>
>
>>> Tit 2:13 waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
>>> of the glory of our great God and Saviour
>>> Jesus Christ,
> The quote is "... grace of our God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." Two
>separate beings, one God and one Lord, according to this Bible verse.
But this isn't the verse. It is only a translation, and a poor one at that. In
fact, the very church that first inflicted this bad tranlsation on the Western
World, has since retracted. The Anglican Church now agrees that it should have
been translated
waiting for the blessed hope and manifestation
of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13)
You may have noticed other posters mentioning the 'Granville-Sharp' rule to
explain why this is the ONLY correct translation of this verse.
>Only
>similar mangling of the syntax of the other verses allows you to say the Bible
>is calling Jesus 'God".
No, it is those who ignore the 'Granville-Sharp' rule who are mangling the
syntax both here and in the other verses.
Christ IS Lord, Savior and God.
Keith Robichaud
On 27 Mar 2001 17:58:35 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >Joh 8:58 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to
>> > you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."
>>
>> The greek that is translated as "I am" means
>> "to be" or "to exist", with a present tense, i.e.
>> Jesus was saying that he existed before Abraham was
>> born and he has continually existed since then.
>
>No, there is no past tense, "existed" here. It is "egw eimi", I *AM*,
>present tense, pure and simple.
In John 14:9 "eimi" is translated "have I been", so similarly John 8:58
could be translated "I have been", i.e. Jesus was confirming his continued
existence from before Abraham and confirming that he did not cease to exist when
he was made flesh by God. This is in keeping with the context of the discussion
from verse 14 onwards.
>> Jesus was the first and last creation of God,
>
>That's not what Scripture says.
>Jesus was not "created".
"These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning
of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14), implies that Jesus was part of God's
creation. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every
creature" (Colossians 1:15), states that Jesus was the first of all living
beings to be created by God. He is called the "only begotten" of God because he
is the only direct creation of God, all other living beings having been created
by God through Jesus (1 Cor 8:6, quoted below).
Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he
shall be to me a Son?
>> But he did cease to exist later when he died.
>
>?? Chapter and verse, please?
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore"
(Rev 1:18). "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;
so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth" (Mat 12:40).
>How many gods do *you* believe in?:
One. "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"
(1 Cor 8:6).
>If Jesus is "a god", then Jesus is *the* God, for there is only one God.
John 10:34,36 - "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said,
Ye are gods? [Ps 82] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came,
and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath
sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the
Son of God?"
>> He is not his own father!
>
>No, of course not. Jesus is not His own Father. Why is it that every
>JW brings up this same straw-man argument?
Do they? I wouldn't know as I am not a JW, nor have I ever been, and I
haven't spoken to many.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Keith Robichaud
On 27 Mar 2001 17:58:36 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>But when Paul calls Him 'firstborn of creation', is he referring to the Word, or
>to Jesus Christ, both fully Man and fully God ever since His Incarnation? I
>claim the latter, since it was by emptying Himself of his divine form (Php 2:9)
>and taking the form of a servant that he became "of creation".
Philippians 2:7,8:
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
God "emptied" him of his spiritual nature and glory, and while in human form
Jesus was humble and an aboedient servant to God. That doesn't sound like he
was fully God to me. After his resurrection it is God who exalts Jesus,
therefore Jesus can't be God!
Philippians 2:9 - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
name which is above every name:
>>Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
>>did cease to exist later when he died.
>
>Now how can anyone justify _this_ based on Scripture? I daresay that no one can.
It's what the resurrection is all about. Those that have died have ceased
to exist. Jesus died and ceased to exist for three days and nights. He was
then the first to be resurrected from death, the others having to wait until the
appointed time for their resurrection.
>After all, what could He then have meant when He said "This day you will be with
>Me in paradise (Lk 23:24)"?? How could He be with the thief if he 'ceased to
>exist'?
Classic translation confusion. There was no punctuation in the orginal
Greek and the translators mistakenly put the comma in the wrong place. So
moving the comma one word to the right the real meaning becomes clear, "And
Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise"
(Luke 23:43 MKJV, not verse 24!).
> Hear, Oh Israel, Our God is One Lord (Dt 6:4)
>
>BTW: this is an excellent example of how 'Lord' is a divine title. As a divine
>title, it can ONLY be applied to the one true God, the God of Israel.
No it isn't. The verse is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD",
and the word LORD is a translation of God's name Yahweh. The Hebrew word
"elohiym", translated here as God (and sometimes translated as great, mighty,
judge, etc.), is a title. It states that Yahweh is one Yahweh, not that Yahweh
is two (Yahweh and his Son) or three (a trinity of Yahweh, his Son, and an
unamed spirit being).
>>I see no sources in the above indicating that Jesus is Yahweh, so I can't
>>agree.
>
>But this is only because you close your mind before you open the Bible,
>interpreting individual snippets as narrowly as possible while deliberately
>ignoring the context.
No, quite the reverse, it's because although I blindly accepted the Trinity
teaching for many years, presuming that the church couldn't have got it wrong, I
then studied the Bible with an open mind, with the help of some Bible study
aids, and discovered that it was incorrect! Following the largest crowd doesn't
mean that they're right! Paul was right when he said "Let no man deceive you by
any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away
[apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2
Thess 2:3). The church certainly has fallen away from the truth.
>>To be mortal means that you can die, to be immortal means that you cannot
>>die.
>
>Right. But Christ has two natures, the human and divine. The divine nature is
>incapable of death, but the human nature WAS capable of death. But since the two
>are united in one person, when the one person died, death was destroyed from
>inside out.
The mistake you, and many make, is to think that Jesus had two natures at
the same time, he didn't. He was a spirit being, then God transformed him to be
a human being, then after Jesus had been dead for three days God resurrected him
as a spirit being, having the same divine nature as God himself. Therefore
Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
immortal spirit being. So Jesus has had three different natures, not two, but
only ever one at a time.
>> just like us, that his
>>nature was transformed by God. He "was made in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7),
>>i.e. he was like men except that as he did not have a human father he did not
>>inherit mankind's sinful nature.
>
>But it is not mankind's _nature_ that is sinful. Sin is anti-nature.
That's why the verse says "the likeness of men" and not that simply that he
was made a man. His nature was like man's except that he was without sin.
>> Many people teach that Jesus was both human
>> and God at the same time, which is in contradiction that
>> Jesus came in the flesh and was flesh only.
>
>But that is OK, since this 'and was flesh only' was NEVER taught in Scripture.
I pointed out where in the Scriptures this is taught:
>> Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>>was born of flesh.
>
>So? Do you think that humans consist of flesh only?
Yes.
> Have you really missed all
>the many references in Scripture to Man's nature as body AND soul?
No, but I have studied them so that I more clearly understand what they
mean. Our bodies are made of the dust of the earth:
Genesis 3:19 - In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust
shalt thou return.
Psalms 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
dust again.
Our soul, or spirit, is our thoughts, memories, character, mind, will, etc..
God will preserve (recreate) our soul and give us new bodies in the
resurrection. Some will be given human bodies, and some (Christians) will be
given spirit bodies. At no time will we have both a human body/nature and a
spirit body/nature, and similarly Jesus didn't/doesn't.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Jeff Shirton
Keith Robichaud <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a5q8c$mqe$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Classic translation confusion. There was no
> punctuation in the orginal Greek and the translators
> mistakenly put the comma in the wrong place. So
> moving the comma one word to the right the real
> meaning becomes clear, "And Jesus said to him, Truly
> I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise"
> (Luke 23:43 MKJV, not verse 24!).
Because if He didn't say, "today", they would have thought he actually
made the statement the previous day, or the next day?!?!
Such a redundancy makes absolutely *no* sense!
Jesus uses the saying, "amEn legw soi" ("truly I say to you") nine times
in the gospels, not *once* (other than Luke 23:43) does He say, "amEn
legw soi sEmeron" ("truly I say to you today").
> Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
Keith Robichaud <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9a5isr$gv2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> Jesus was the first and last creation of God,
> >
> >That's not what Scripture says.
> >Jesus was not "created".
>
> "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and
> true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"
> (Rev 3:14), implies that Jesus was part of God's
> creation.
No, it implies that Jesus is the *source* of God's creation (cf. John
1:3, etc.)
> "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
> of every creature" (Colossians 1:15), states that
> Jesus was the first of all living beings to be
> created by God.
Uh, no, it "states" no such thing.
> He is called the "only begotten" of God because he
> is the only direct creation of God, all other living
> beings having been created by God through Jesus
> (1 Cor 8:6, quoted below).
We need to allow *Scripture* to interpret Scripture, and the definition
of "begotten" is nowhere "created", but it is defined in Scripture in
places such as Ps. 89:27 and Col. 1:18. It means, "preeminent".
> Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at
> any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
> thee?
I.e. "this day I have made thee preeminent (cf. Ps. 89:27, Col. 1:18).
> >> But he did cease to exist later when he died.
> >
> >?? Chapter and verse, please?
>
> "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold,
> I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18). "For as Jonas
> was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;
> so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights
> in the heart of the earth" (Mat 12:40).
Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
> >How many gods do *you* believe in?:
>
> One. "But to us there is but one God, the Father,
> of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
> Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"
> (1 Cor 8:6).
I'm sorry, you led me to believe that you believed in *two* gods, the
Father, and Jesus "a god" (John 1:1).
> Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
Matthew Johnson
In article <9a5q8c$mqe$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>On 27 Mar 2001 17:58:36 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>But when Paul calls Him 'firstborn of creation',
>>is he referring to the Word, or
>>to Jesus Christ, both fully Man and fully God ever since
>> His Incarnation? I claim the latter, since it was by
>> emptying Himself of his divine form (Php 2:9)
>>and taking the form of a servant that he became "of creation".
>
>Philippians 2:7,8:
[snipped]
>God "emptied" him of his spiritual nature and glory, and while in human form
>Jesus was humble and an aboedient servant to God.
Emptied him of his _spiritual nature_?? How did you reach this conclusion? That
is certainly not in Php 2:7,8! The verse does NOT say that He set aside His
divine nature, only that He set aside His divine APPEARANCE.
>That doesn't sound like he was fully God to me.
If this were the only verse of the Bible you knew, I could understand your
failure to see that this implies he is fully God. But you also know John 1:1,
don't you? That _should_ leave no doubt, at least if you translate it correctly,
i.e, as:
In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God (jn 1:1)
Yet even w/o this verse, it _should_ have been clear to you that yes, it DOES
imply that Christ is fully God. For who, or what, other than God Himself, could
'think it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD (Php 2:6')?
>After his resurrection it is God who exalts Jesus,
>therefore Jesus can't be God!
Oh, no, this does not follow at all! It seems you are trying to get out of one
logical difficulty of interpretation only to land in a bigger one. For if, as
you say, it is God who exalts Jesus, then it _must_ be the Son, i.e., Jesus
Christ Himself, who exalts Jesus, because:
Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son
can do nothing of himself, but what he
seeth the Father do: FOR WHAT THINGS SOEVER
HE DOETH, THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE (Jn 5:19 KJV)
So if the Father exalts Jesus, then the Son, exalts Himself. So much for your
claim that "therefore Jesus can't be God"
>Philippians 2:9 - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a
>name which is above every name:
>>>Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
>>>did cease to exist later when he died.
>>
>>Now how can anyone justify _this_ based on Scripture? I daresay that no one can.
>
>It's what the resurrection is all about.
No it isn't. I'll even give you a sneak preview of what follows: below, I show
that you really have failed to base this on Scripture.
>Those that have died have ceased to exist.
Again, there is NO WAY you can justify this based on Scripture! For Christ
Himself was QUITE CLEAR on this point, that to God, all men are alive, even
those who died (to us) long ago. For He said:
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush,
when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead,
but of the living: FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM (Lk 38-39)
> Jesus died and ceased to exist for three days and nights.
WRONG, as I just showed above.
> He was
>then the first to be resurrected from death, the others having
> to wait until theappointed time for their resurrection.
Even this you do not understand. What about the widow' son whom Christ raised
(Lk 7:15)? And what about the widow's son whom Elijah raised (1 Ki 7:21-22)? So
you see, Christ is NOT the first ever to be raised from the dead.
BTW: both these incidents clearly show that the Biblical view is that death is
the separation of the soul and body, NOT the destruction of the soul.
>>After all, what could He then have meant when He said "This day
>> you will be with
>>Me in paradise (Lk 23:24)"?? How could He be with the thief if he 'ceased to
>>exist'?
>
> Classic translation confusion.
But the confusion is not in the standard translation, but in your proposal.
>There was no punctuation in the orginal Greek
True, but irrelevant.
> and the translators mistakenly put the comma in the wrong place.
It was no mistake, the translators put the comma where they found it in almost
all Byzantine manuscripts (and even in Latin translation).
> So moving the comma one word to the right the real meaning becomes clear,
No, moving the comma as you propose leaves us with a nonsensical, out-of-context
expression.
> "And Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you today, you shall
> be with Me in Paradise"
>(Luke 23:43 MKJV, not verse 24!).
But what IS this nonsensical, out-of-context 'today' doing here? This should
have been proof enough that this is an IMPOSSIBLE position for the comma.
So whether you rely on internal reading, or on the abundance of manuscript
evidence, your conclusion is impossible.
>> Hear, Oh Israel, Our God is One Lord (Dt 6:4)
>>
>>BTW: this is an excellent example of how 'Lord' is a divine title. As a divine
>>title, it can ONLY be applied to the one true God, the God of Israel.
>
> No it isn't.
Yes, it is. I disprove your attempted rebuttal below.
>The verse is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD",
>and the word LORD is a translation of God's name Yahweh.
> The Hebrew word
>"elohiym", translated here as God (and sometimes translated as great, mighty,
>judge, etc.), is a title.
But here it is a _divine_ title, as it always is when used with a singular verb.
When used for humans or pagan gods, it is used with a plural verb. But in Dt
6:4, the use of the numeral ONE makes it clear that the (unexpressed) verb IS
singular, so yes, it IS being used as the divine title.
>It states that Yahweh is one Yahweh,
Of course.
> not that Yahweh
>is two (Yahweh and his Son) or three (a trinity of Yahweh, his Son, and an
>unamed spirit being).
Your attempt at using this verse to refute the truth of Trinitarian dogma
flounders on your mis-stating what Trinitarian dogma IS.
>>>I see no sources in the above indicating that Jesus is Yahweh, so I can't
>>>agree.
>>But this is only because you close your mind before you open the Bible,
>>interpreting individual snippets as narrowly as possible while deliberately
>>ignoring the context.
>
> No, quite the reverse, it's because although I blindly accepted the Trinity
>teaching for many years,
How could you have 'blindly accepted' it, when you show so clearly that you
never knew what it WAS? Why, what you 'blindly accepted' could have been just as
wrong as what you now hold.
>presuming that the church couldn't have got it wrong, I
>then studied the Bible with an open mind, with the help of some Bible study
>aids, and discovered that it was incorrect!
Why would anyone believe you when you claim to have 'studied the Bible with an
open mind'? You have certainly never shown this 'open mind' in this newsgroup.
So pardon me if I say that based on the evidence you present in the NG, I say
you wouldn't recognize an open mind if it bit you.
>Following the largest crowd doesn't
>mean that they're right!
Neither does whatever you really did.
>Paul was right when he said "Let no man deceive you by
>any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away
>[apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2
>Thess 2:3).
So why did you let those men who published those so-called 'study aids' deceive
you by means of those 'aids'?
>The church certainly has fallen away from the truth.
That is NOT what Thess 2:3 says. This is yet one more piece of evidence that you
do NOT study the Bible with an 'open mind'.
>>>To be mortal means that you can die, to be immortal means that you cannot
>>>die.
>>
>>Right. But Christ has two natures, the human and divine. The divine nature is
>>incapable of death, but the human nature WAS capable of death. But since the two
>>are united in one person, when the one person died, death was destroyed from
>>inside out.
>
>The mistake you, and many make, is to think that Jesus had two natures at
>the same time, he didn't.
It is no mistake. Nor have you ever even got close to proving that is is a
mistake.
>He was a spirit being,
Where did you get this anti-scriptural term 'spirit being'? How can anyone
possible justify this claim based on Scripture?
BTW: I have asked you this before, yet you eagerly show what a parody of an
'open mind' you study with by refusing to answer.
>then God transformed him to be
>a human being, then after Jesus had been dead for
>three days God resurrected him
>as a spirit being, having the same divine nature as God himself.
There are so many problems with this, I don't know where to start!
>Therefore
>Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
>immortal spirit being.
Once more: how can anyone ever justify this based on Scripture? I will even dare
claim (refute me if you can) that Scripture NEVER taught the existence of a
'mortal spirit being'.
>So Jesus has had three different natures, not two, but
>only ever one at a time.
No, this is simply impossible. Not only does your fictional 'mortal spirit
being' simply not exist, but you ignore the many times Christ acted according to
both natures, sometimes even simultaneously.
>>> just like us, that his
>>>nature was transformed by God. He "was made in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7),
>>>i.e. he was like men except that as he did not have a human father he did not
>>>inherit mankind's sinful nature.
>>
>>But it is not mankind's _nature_ that is sinful. Sin is anti-nature.
>
> That's why the verse says "the likeness of men" and not that simply that he
>was made a man. His nature was like man's except that he was without sin.
Unless Christ took upon Himself our _entire_ nature, not just a part, then His
death and resurrection have NO saving significance for us. That is why the
Fathers have always insisted that sin itself is NOT a part of our human nature,
but it anti-nature.
>>> Many people teach that Jesus was both human
>>> and God at the same time, which is in contradiction that
>>> Jesus came in the flesh and was flesh only.
>>
>>But that is OK, since this 'and was flesh only' was NEVER taught in Scripture.
>
> I pointed out where in the Scriptures this is taught:
No, you did not. You might think you did, but then you misread the following
verse:
>>>Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>>>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>>>was born of flesh.
But His body was not born ONLY of flesh: for in place of a human father, His
mother was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. So no, you have NOT proved that
'Jesus was flesh only'.
>>So? Do you think that humans consist of flesh only?
>
>Yes.
But what is 'open minded' about THIS?
>> Have you really missed all
>>the many references in Scripture to Man's nature as body AND soul?
Despite what you claim, I see that the answer to this is 'yes'.
>No, but I have studied them so that I more clearly understand what they
>mean.
Your 'understanding' is NOT 'more clear'. For that matter, I notice that instead
of even _starting_ to prove your claim, you move on to irrelevant verses. For I
aksed if you missed references to Man's nature as BODY and SOUL. But you did not
quote these, you quoted instead verses that do NOT try to exhaustively describe
our nature.
>Our bodies are made of the dust of the earth:
Did you forget the breath of God? For we were created NOT just out of dust, but:
the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground,
AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE
and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)
>
>Genesis 3:19 - In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return
>unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art,
> and unto dust shalt thou return.
But this verse cannot exhaustively describe our nature, or it would contradict
Gen 2:7 above.
>Psalms 103:14 For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.
The same is true of this verse,
>
>Ecclesiastes 3:20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to
>dust again.
and of this one.
>
> Our soul, or spirit, is our thoughts, memories, character, mind, will, etc..
Oh, but our soul is MUCH MORE than just 'thoughts, memories, character...'
And the words 'soul' and 'spirit' are NOT always interchangeable in Scripture.
>God will preserve (recreate) our soul and give us new bodies in the
>resurrection.
How can you say 'preserve (recreate)'??? By what stretch of a fanciful
imagination are 'preserve' and 'recreate' the same???
>Some will be given human bodies, and some (Christians) will be
>given spirit bodies.
Wild speculation, never taught by Scripture.
> At no time will we have both a human body/nature and a
>spirit body/nature, and similarly Jesus didn't/doesn't.
I already disproved this above. You are merely repeating yourself.
Keith Robichaud
On 1 Apr 2001 02:50:49 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>Keith Robichaud <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9a5q8c$mqe$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> Classic translation confusion. There was no
>> punctuation in the orginal Greek and the translators
>> mistakenly put the comma in the wrong place. So
>> moving the comma one word to the right the real
>> meaning becomes clear, "And Jesus said to him, Truly
>> I say to you today, you shall be with Me in Paradise"
>> (Luke 23:43 MKJV, not verse 24!).
>
>Because if He didn't say, "today", they would have thought he actually
>made the statement the previous day, or the next day?!?!
>
>Such a redundancy makes absolutely *no* sense!
>
>Jesus uses the saying, "amEn legw soi" ("truly I say to you") nine times
>in the gospels, not *once* (other than Luke 23:43) does He say, "amEn
>legw soi sEmeron" ("truly I say to you today").
This was a special day. The Greek word that's translated here as "verily"
is the word "amen" which means "so be it". So Jesus was saying in response to
the thief's request, 'So be it as you have asked: I say to you this day [this
dark day, when it seems as though Jesus was an imposter and about to die as a
criminal], that you shall be with me in Paradise'.
Consider also what happened. Jesus did not go to Paradise that day. The
word Paradise is of Persian origin and signifies a garden. The Septuagint
renders Gen 2:8 as "God planted a paradise in Eden". The garden in Eden was an
illustration of the what the perfect and beautiful earth will become like when
it is no longer under the curse. Paradise is what the earth will become Jesus
has established his kingdom, but it plainly isn't like that yet, nor was it a
paradise on the day of Jesus' crucifixion. Neither was Jesus implying that
Paradise was a spiritual place in heaven, for he did not rise up to heaven until
about some time later (John 20:17).
Jesus wasn't resurrected from death until the third day, and as Col 1:18
shows, Jesus was the firstborn from the dead, so the thief could not have been
resurrected to life again that same crucifixion day either.
Keith Robichaud
PS Please do consider John 20:17, which is possibly the plainest verse which
contradicts the Trinity teaching - "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am
not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Keith Robichaud
On 1 Apr 2001 02:50:48 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>Keith Robichaud <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:9a5isr$gv2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> >> Jesus was the first and last creation of God,
<snip>
>> "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and
>> true witness, the beginning of the creation of God"
>> (Rev 3:14), implies that Jesus was part of God's
>> creation.
>
>No, it implies that Jesus is the *source* of God's creation (cf. John
>1:3, etc.)
While 'arche' can be translated as origin, or source, Col 1:15 confirms that
'beginning' or 'first' is a consistent translation.
>> "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
>> of every creature" (Colossians 1:15), states that
>> Jesus was the first of all living beings to be
>> created by God.
>
>Uh, no, it "states" no such thing.
It states that he was the firstborn of all creatures. Therefore he was not
God but was either created by God or in some way 'born' from God. He did not
have the exact same nature as God as he was not immortal (at that time), so I'm
guessing that Jesus came into being by a creative act of God rather than some
kind of birthing process simliar to how animals procreate. Whichever is
correct, it is nevertheless clear from this that Jesus is not God.
A father is a life-giver. A son is an offspring, one who receives life from
a father. This implies that the father lived first. As Jesus explained it, "I
proceeded forth an came from God" (John 8:42). Jesus claimed to be the son of
God, not God. It's quite clear.
>> He is called the "only begotten" of God because he
>> is the only direct creation of God, all other living
>> beings having been created by God through Jesus
>> (1 Cor 8:6, quoted below).
>
>We need to allow *Scripture* to interpret Scripture, and the definition
>of "begotten" is nowhere "created", but it is defined in Scripture in
>places such as Ps. 89:27 and Col. 1:18. It means, "preeminent".
The greek word 'monogenes' that is translated as "only begotten" means "only
begotten, only child, single or only of its kind", according to Strong's
Concordance. Col 1:18 is not an indication that Strong was incorrect, it is
part of a passage explaining that it pleased God that Jesus should be preeminent
in all things, which is why God created (or gave birth to, if you prefer) his
son before all other life, and arranged for all other life to be created through
his son according to God's design and plan, and arranged it for Jesus to also be
the first to be resurrected from death.
>> Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at
>> any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten
>> thee?
>
>I.e. "this day I have made thee preeminent (cf. Ps. 89:27, Col. 1:18).
That isn't what it says!
>> >> But he did cease to exist later when he died.
>> >
>> >?? Chapter and verse, please?
>>
>> "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold,
>> I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18). "For as Jonas
>> was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;
>> so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights
>> in the heart of the earth" (Mat 12:40).
>
>Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
That is what it means to be dead.
>> >How many gods do *you* believe in?:
>>
>> One. "But to us there is but one God, the Father,
>> of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord
>> Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"
>> (1 Cor 8:6).
>
>I'm sorry, you led me to believe that you believed in *two* gods, the
>Father, and Jesus "a god" (John 1:1).
No, I believe as the Apostle Paul did, that there is one God, who is Jesus'
father and our father by adoption (we're not a direct creation or offspring of
God) - Rom 8:15, whose name is Yahweh. I also believe in Jesus, who is God's
only begotten son, who is my lord and king, and my brother by adoption (Rom
8:29).
Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
"Keith Robichaud" <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9abfta$c96$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >No, it implies that Jesus is the *source* of God's
> >creation (cf. John 1:3, etc.)
>
> While 'arche' can be translated as origin, or source,
> Col 1:15 confirms that 'beginning' or 'first' is a
> consistent translation.
As I pointed out, Col. 1:15-18 demonstrates that you are misinterpreting
the meaning of "firstborn".
> >> "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn
> >> of every creature" (Colossians 1:15), states that
> >> Jesus was the first of all living beings to be
> >> created by God.
> >
> >Uh, no, it "states" no such thing.
>
> It states that he was the firstborn of all creatures.
> Therefore he was not God but was either created by God
It *nowhere* states that He is "created".
You keep *ASSUMING* that.
> or in some way 'born' from God.
According to Ps. 89:27, Col. 1:18, and other sources, "firstborn" does
not refer to physical birth, or even birth order (ie. "first"). It
refers to *pre-eminence*.
> He did not have the exact same nature as God as he was not
> immortal (at that time),
That's *assuming* that He is not immortal.
I'm just glad that my beliefs aren't based on assumptions.
> so I'm guessing that Jesus came into being by a creative
> act of God
You shouldn't "guess". You should get your doctrine from the Bible.
> Whichever is correct, it is nevertheless clear from this
> that Jesus is not God.
One of my pet peeves is when people don't have a leg to stand on in
their arguments, so they fall back on declaring things to be "clear", or
"obvious" or "undeniable", when it point of fact it is anything *but*.
The mere fact that we're having this disagreement is proof enough that
it is not "clear", and such alleged "clarity" would negate the existence
of millions and billions of Catholics and Protestants over the
centuries.
No, it is *not* "nevertheless clear from this that Jesus is not God."
On the contrary, if *anything* is "clear", it would be that Jesus *is*
God (John 1:1, 8:58, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Rom. 9:5, Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess.
1:12, Titus 2:13, Heb. 1:8, 2 Pet. 1:1, etc. etc.)
> A father is a life-giver. A son is an offspring, one who
> receives life from a father. This implies that the father
> lived first.
"Implies"?! All your beliefs and statements seem to be "guesses",
assumptions, and "implications". Hardly a firm foundation, IMO.
> As Jesus explained it, "I proceeded forth an came from God"
> (John 8:42). Jesus claimed to be the son of God, not God.
All agree that He is the Son of God. Where you go wrong is claiming
some mutual exclusion between being God, and being Son of God.
I am human. I am also son of human.
There is no mutual exclusion here. Why would there be any for God?
And pray tell, where does Jesus ever claim, "I am not God"?
You may not see where Jesus claimed to be God, but the Jews certainly
saw it, and I see it as well.
Joh 12:40 "He blinded their eyes and hardened their heart,
so that they might not see with their eyes and
understand with their heart and be converted,
and I would heal them."
> It's quite clear.
I question your definition of the term, if you think it can be "quite
clear" while billions of Christians over the centuries couldn't see it.
And still don't.
> >We need to allow *Scripture* to interpret Scripture, and the
> >definition of "begotten" is nowhere "created", but it is defined
> >in Scripture in places such as Ps. 89:27 and Col. 1:18.
> >It means, "preeminent".
>
> The greek word 'monogenes' that is translated as "only
> begotten" means "only begotten, only child, single or only
> of its kind", according to Strong's Concordance.
> Col 1:18 is not an indication that Strong was incorrect,
> it is part of a passage explaining that it pleased God that
> Jesus should be preeminent in all things, which is why God
> created (or gave birth to, if you prefer)
I don't "prefer" either one, for the Bible neither says that God
"created" Jesus, nor that God "gave birth to" Jesus.
> >> "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold,
> >> I am alive for evermore" (Rev 1:18). "For as Jonas
> >> was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;
> >> so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights
> >> in the heart of the earth" (Mat 12:40).
> >
> >Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
>
> That is what it means to be dead.
Maybe that's what it means to *you*.
I reject your *assumption* here.
> >I'm sorry, you led me to believe that you believed in *two*
> >gods, the Father, and Jesus "a god" (John 1:1).
>
> No, I believe as the Apostle Paul did,
No, I don't think that you do.
Paul believed that Jesus *is* God:
Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
2Pe 1:1 [...] the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
> that there is one God, who is Jesus' father and our father by
> adoption (we're not a direct creation or offspring of God) - Rom
> 8:15, whose name is Yahweh. I also believe in Jesus, who is God's
> only begotten son, who is my lord and king, and my brother by
> adoption (Rom 8:29).
Again, I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you believed that
Jesus, the Son, the Word "was a god" (John 1:1c), and that Jesus was a
*separate* god, not the *same* god, as God the Father. That would make
two different gods.
> Keith Robichaud
Jeff Shirton
Nikolette Sorrell
> That is what it means to be dead.
What about life after death? The body is the least important, and the only
tangible aspect of man's makeup, how then does the termination of the body
translate to a cessation of existence?
> whose name is Yahweh.
That's actually incorrect. It's Jehovah, pronounced "Yeh-ho-vaw". Bless
His Holy Name.
--
Nikolette
______________________
Brendan and Cade 09/26/00
"And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins
in her womb." -Gen. 25:24
www.geocities.com/bootsn2
Jeff Shirton
"Keith Robichaud" <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9abfta$c92$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >Such a redundancy makes absolutely *no* sense!
> This was a special day. The Greek word that's translated
> here as "verily" is the word "amen" which means "so be it".
> So Jesus was saying in response to the thief's request, 'So be
> it as you have asked: I say to you this day [this dark day,
> when it seems as though Jesus was an imposter and about to
> die as a criminal], that you shall be with me in Paradise'.
It's still hopelessly redundant.
> Consider also what happened. Jesus did not go to Paradise
> that day.
Sorry, but you can't prove that with the Bible.
> The word Paradise is of Persian origin and signifies a garden.
Here is the Biblical meaning of "paradise":
2Co 12:2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago
(whether in the body or out of the body I do not
know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.
2Co 12:3 And I know that this person (whether in the body
or out of the body I do not know, God knows)
2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable
things, which no one may utter.
Paul tells us that Paradise *is* "heaven", the *third* heaven.
Not the "first" heaven (the sky), not the "second" heaven (cosmic
space), but the *third* heaven, God's dwelling place.
> Paradise was a spiritual place in heaven, for he did not rise
> up to heaven until about some time later (John 20:17).
John 20:17 is referring to a *specific* ascension, and in no way denies
that He had never been there before.
> PS Please do consider John 20:17, which is possibly the
> plainest verse which contradicts the Trinity teaching -
> "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet
> ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto
> them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my
> God, and your God."
If this is the "plainest verse which contradicts the Trinity teaching",
then the Trinity is very safe indeed.
Jeff Shirton
Keith Robichaud
On 2 Apr 2001 00:55:43 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Yet even w/o this verse, it _should_ have been clear to you that yes, it DOES
>imply that Christ is fully God. For who, or what, other than God Himself, could
>'think it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD (Php 2:6')?
Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
with God something he should aim for, e.g.
"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
"Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider
equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV).
i.e. the meaning is opposite to the the KJV meaning. If Jesus was God then why
would he consider being equal with God? If Jesus was God then why in verse 9
does it say that God exalted Jesus because Jesus became obedient to God,
obedient unto death. This doesn't make sense if Jesus was God. God is exalting
his son, not himself.
>Oh, no, this does not follow at all! It seems you are trying to get out of one
>logical difficulty of interpretation only to land in a bigger one. For if, as
>you say, it is God who exalts Jesus, then it _must_ be the Son, i.e., Jesus
>Christ Himself, who exalts Jesus, because:
>
> Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son
> can do nothing of himself, but what he
> seeth the Father do: FOR WHAT THINGS SOEVER
> HE DOETH, THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE (Jn 5:19 KJV)
What Jesus was trying to convey was that he was following God's will and
working in harmony with God. God exalted Jesus while Jesus was dead, by raising
him to life with the divine nature, to a superior nature than he had before God
changed his nature to human nature. Jesus was not immortal before, otherwise he
could not have been changed to a mortal human and die, but he is now immortal,
like God.
>So if the Father exalts Jesus, then the Son, exalts Himself. So much for your
>claim that "therefore Jesus can't be God"
Jesus did not say that everything that God does was really Jesus doing it.
The verse says that God exalted Jesus, not that Jesus exalted Jesus, nor that
God exalted himself.
>>>>Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
>>>>did cease to exist later when he died.
>>>
>>>Now how can anyone justify _this_ based on Scripture? I daresay that no one can.
Jesus was alive, then Jesus was made flesh. There is no mention that he
died and was resurrected as a human, it says that "he was made flesh". He had a
change in nature from spirit being to human being (he did not have the two
natures at the same time). Jesus died on the cross. Therefore Jesus was alive
continually until his death on the cross. He was dead for about three days,
i.e. during that time he ceased to exist. Only God had the ability to restore
Jesus to life, and God restored him to life as a spirit being, not a human
being.
>>Those that have died have ceased to exist.
>
>Again, there is NO WAY you can justify this based on Scripture!
It's a seperate topic, but I can justify it based on Scripture, e.g.
Ecclesiastes 9:5 - the dead know not any thing
Ecclesiastes 9:10 - there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in
the grave
1 Corinthians 15:13,18 - But if there be no resurrection of the dead, ... then
they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
> For Christ
>Himself was QUITE CLEAR on this point, that to God, all men are alive, even
>those who died (to us) long ago. For He said:
>
> Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush,
> when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of
> Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead,
> but of the living: FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM (Lk 38-39)
I assume you mean Luke 20:37-38.
Jesus was talking about the resurrection ("Now that the dead are raised",
and see also verse 33) and was saying that everyone will be resurrected to life
again, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was not saying that everyone who
has died is really still alive somewhere. The resurrection is a future event
that has not occurred yet!
>> He was
>>then the first to be resurrected from death, the others having
>> to wait until the appointed time for their resurrection.
>
>Even this you do not understand. What about the widow' son whom Christ raised
>(Lk 7:15)? And what about the widow's son whom Elijah raised (1 Ki 7:21-22)? So
>you see, Christ is NOT the first ever to be raised from the dead.
The Scripture is not wrong, Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead; that in
all things he might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18). The raising to life of a
few people was not part of the resurrection, which is a raising to life with a
different body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) and a restoration to perfection, it was
merely a resuscitation of their bodies - they all died again eventually. When
God and Jesus talk of life they mean eternal life. Those who are condemned by
sin to die are not considered to have life (e.g. "And you hath he quickened, who
were dead in trespasses and sins", Eph 2:1).
>>Paul was right when he said "Let no man deceive you by
>>any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away
>>[apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2
>>Thess 2:3).
>>The church certainly has fallen away from the truth.
>
>That is NOT what Thess 2:3 says. This is yet one more piece of evidence that you
>do NOT study the Bible with an 'open mind'.
In 2 Thess 2:3 "falling away" is a tranlstion of the Greek word apostasia
which means "a falling away, defection, apostasy". Apostasy means a falling
away from the truth that the Church originally believed in. My dictionary says
it means "abandoning of something that one once believed in".
>>He was a spirit being,
>
>Where did you get this anti-scriptural term 'spirit being'? How can anyone
>possible justify this claim based on Scripture?
I wasn't quoting word for word from Scripture! (I'm tempted to ask where do
get this anti-scriptural term 'Trinity'? But I won't. :-) A spirit being is a
living being that has a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit
>>Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
>>immortal spirit being.
>
>Once more: how can anyone ever justify this based on Scripture? I will even dare
>claim (refute me if you can) that Scripture NEVER taught the existence of a
>'mortal spirit being'.
1 Timothy 6:16 states that only God was immortal, therefore all other living
beings at that time were mortal. As an example of a mortal spirit being, Satan
is a spirit being and the Scriptures tell us that he shall die (Heb 2:14 -
"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him
that had the power of death, that is, the devil").
>>>>Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>>>>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>>>>was born of flesh.
>
>But His body was not born ONLY of flesh: for in place of a human father, His
>mother was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. So no, you have NOT proved that
>'Jesus was flesh only'.
I think you'll find that he was born as a human being from out of Mary's
womb, so he was "born of the flesh". That God was responsible for the
conception does not deny that Jesus was born as flesh, as a man.
>>Our bodies are made of the dust of the earth:
>
>Did you forget the breath of God? For we were created NOT just out of dust, but:
>
> the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground,
> AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE
> and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)
This is saying that God created a human body from physical material (not
spirtual) and then brought that body to life so that it became a living
creature. Adam was not given a soul to add to his body, he BECAME a living
soul. The Hebrew word that is translated as "soul" is nephesh, the same word
that is translated as creature in verses like:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature [nephesh] that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
open firmament of heaven.
Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
[nephesh] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so.
Genesis 9:10 And with every living creature [nephesh] that is with you, of the
fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go
out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Animals have this same "breath of life" too:
Genesis 7:21,22 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that
was in the dry land, died.
Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;
even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is
vanity.
>>God will preserve (recreate) our soul and give us new bodies in the
>>resurrection.
>
>How can you say 'preserve (recreate)'??? By what stretch of a fanciful
>imagination are 'preserve' and 'recreate' the same???
I didn't mean to imply that 'preserve' and 'recreate' have the same meaning!
To expand on what I meant, God knows and remembers, or preserves, our thoughts,
memories, etc. and during the resurrection he will recreate us as living beings
again, with a different body but with the same memory, personality, etc..
>>Some will be given human bodies, and some (Christians) will be
>>given spirit bodies.
>
>Wild speculation, never taught by Scripture.
It is taught by Scripture. 1 Cor 15:35-50 talks of Christians (the audience
of Paul's letter) being resurrected with a spiritual body. All other people
will be resurrected as humans again, which will be the "restitution of all
things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
world began" (Acts 3:21). The prohecy of Daniel 2 tells us that God will
establish a kingdom on earth that will last forever, and the people living in
this kingdom will be the majority of mankind resurrected to life again (Dan
2:44, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
shall stand for ever").
Paul also reminds us in Heb 2 that mankind will once again rule on the earth
(and be subject to God's rule, of course):
5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof
we speak.
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art
mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory
and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all
in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we
see not yet all things put under him.
It is only Christians that have a heavenly calling. (And before you say
that's not Scriptural, it is - "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the
heavenly calling", Heb 3:1. :-)
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Keith Robichaud
On 3 Apr 2001 15:41:02 GMT, "Nikolette Sorrell" <sniko...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> That is what it means to be dead.
>
>What about life after death? The body is the least important, and the only
>tangible aspect of man's makeup, how then does the termination of the body
>translate to a cessation of existence?
There is no life after death. If the person was still alive then they would
not be dead! The only hope of life after death is a resurrection to life again,
which is what the gospel is all about. "For the wages of sin is death; but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom 6:23).
>> whose name is Yahweh.
>
>That's actually incorrect. It's Jehovah, pronounced "Yeh-ho-vaw". Bless
>His Holy Name.
I'll leave that discussion to others. Only God is called YHWH (however you
think that should be pronounced), and Jesus is never called YHWH, nor is it
implied that he is YHWH.
Keith
Keith Robichaud
On 3 Apr 2001 15:41:01 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
>>
>> That is what it means to be dead.
>
>Maybe that's what it means to *you*.
>I reject your *assumption* here.
It's not an assumption, it's based on Scripture. Why do you assume that
death, the cessation of life, does not mean that you cease to exist? The body
definitely decomposes and returns to dust, as the Scriptures say. The
Scriptures also tell us that those that are dead have no thoughts and can do
nothing. No body, no thoughts, unable to do anything, that certainly sounds
like they don't exist to me. If people continued to live after they died then
why do they need a saviour to save them from death and resurrect them to life
again?
>> No, I believe as the Apostle Paul did,
>
>No, I don't think that you do.
>Paul believed that Jesus *is* God:
That's not how I read it from what Paul wrote, e.g. a selection of verses
that he wrote:
Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from
the Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by him.
2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is
blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Galatians 1:3 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord
Jesus Christ,
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath
blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Ephesians 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may
give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
Ephesians 5:20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Colossians 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
praying always for you,
1 Thessalonians 3:13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in
holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ
with all his saints.
Keith Robichaud
Matthew Johnson
In article <9alok1$50$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>
>
>
>On 2 Apr 2001 00:55:43 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>Yet even w/o this verse, it _should_ have been clear to you that yes, it DOES
>>imply that Christ is fully God. For who, or what, other than God Himself, could
>>'think it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD (Php 2:6')?
>
> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
>with God something he should aim for, e.g.
>
> "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God
> a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
>
> "Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider
> equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV).
>
>i.e. the meaning is opposite to the the KJV meaning.
No, this is NOT 'opposite' at all. For what is robbery except a form of
'grasping'? Even the RSV and NIV translations support my contention that this
verse implies that Christ is God. After all, equality with God is not 'something
to be grasped' because He already had it.
> If Jesus was God then why
>would he consider being equal with God?
If Jesus was God then why in verse 9
>does it say that God exalted Jesus because Jesus became obedient to God,
>obedient unto death.
Because His human nature had never shared in this exaltation, not until His
death and Resurrection.
> This doesn't make sense if Jesus was God.
Sure it does, if you remember that Jesus Christ has two natures, human and
divine. As I pointed out above, the human nature had never been exalted in this
manner.
> God is exalting his son, not himself.
YEs, He is exalting His Son, but what other kind of Son would God have except
God? You never have answered this question, have you?
>
>>Oh, no, this does not follow at all! It seems you are trying to get out of one
>>logical difficulty of interpretation only to land in a bigger one. For if, as
>>you say, it is God who exalts Jesus, then it _must_ be the Son, i.e., Jesus
>>Christ Himself, who exalts Jesus, because:
>>
>> Then answered Jesus and said unto them,
>> Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son
>> can do nothing of himself, but what he
>> seeth the Father do: FOR WHAT THINGS SOEVER
>> HE DOETH, THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE (Jn 5:19 KJV)
>
> What Jesus was trying to convey was that he was following God's will and
>working in harmony with God.
No, He is conveying MUCH MORE than this! This 'working in harmony' (as you call
it) is repeatedly described in this Gospel (John's) with the sort of paradoxical
imagery that has NEVER been used to describe the harmony of two individual
created wills.
The image 'what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise'
describes not the harmony of two created wills, but of 1) the divine will shared
by Father and Son and 2) the human will of Jesus Christ.
>God exalted Jesus while Jesus was dead, by raising
>him to life with the divine nature, to a superior nature than he had before God
>changed his nature to human nature.
So YOU say, but you continue to change the topic and evade instead of providing
any 'proof' of this. Could this be because it is false, so that you cannot prove
it?
>Jesus was not immortal before, otherwise he
>could not have been changed to a mortal human and die, but he is now immortal,
>like God.
Oh, but He WAS immortal. He described His own immortality when He said:
No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down.
I have the power to lay it down
And I have the power to take it back up again. (Jn 10:18)
How could He say this, if, as YOU say, it was the Father Who raised Him while
Jesus was dead (unable to raise Himself)?
>>So if the Father exalts Jesus, then the Son, exalts Himself. So much for your
>>claim that "therefore Jesus can't be God"
>
>Jesus did not say that everything that God does was really Jesus doing it.
I never said that He did. You must have misread something pretty badly.
>The verse says that God exalted Jesus, not that Jesus exalted Jesus, nor that
>God exalted himself.
You are repeating yourself to no avail. I already dealt with this objection
above.
>>>>>Jesus had not ceased to exist since he was created, or born. But he
>>>>>did cease to exist later when he died.
>>>>
>>>>Now how can anyone justify _this_ based on Scripture? I daresay that no one can.
>
>Jesus was alive, then Jesus was made flesh. There is no mention that he
>died and was resurrected as a human, it says that "he was made flesh". He had a
>change in nature from spirit being to human being (he did not have the two
>natures at the same time). Jesus died on the cross. Therefore Jesus was alive
>continually until his death on the cross. He was dead for about three days,
>i.e. during that time he ceased to exist.
As I tried to explain to you before, there is NO Scriptural justification for
your rash claim that death implies ceasing to exist. So your entire argument
here is worthless.
> Only God had the ability to restore
>Jesus to life, and God restored him to life as a spirit being, not a human
>being.
When I claimed you could not prove this, you merely repeated it. You call that
proof?
>
>>>Those that have died have ceased to exist.
>>
>>Again, there is NO WAY you can justify this based on Scripture!
>
> It's a seperate topic, but I can justify it based on Scripture, e.g.
>
>Ecclesiastes 9:5 - the dead know not any thing
>Ecclesiastes 9:10 - there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in
>the grave
>1 Corinthians 15:13,18 - But if there be no resurrection of the dead, ... then
>they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
None of these verses prove your claim. Nor is is a seperate topic, since without
it, your entire argument collapses.
>
>> For Christ
>>Himself was QUITE CLEAR on this point, that to God, all men are alive, even
>>those who died (to us) long ago. For He said:
>>
>> Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush,
>> when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of
>> Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead,
>> but of the living: FOR ALL LIVE UNTO HIM (Lk 38-39)
>
> I assume you mean Luke 20:37-38.
>
>Jesus was talking about the resurrection ("Now that the dead are raised",
>and see also verse 33) and was saying that everyone will be resurrected to life
>again, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
No, He was NOT talking about the resurrection. You have picked the wrong sense
for 'now' and 'that' in the phrase 'Now that the dead are raised'. The word
'now' here introduces a change of topic, it does NOT indicate the the dead are
raised now, nor that the remaining sentences refer to the time when they WILL be
raised.
In fact, 'now that' is a BAD translation of the original 'hoti de'. How much
more of your aberrant theology relies on bad translations?
>He was not saying that everyone who
>has died is really still alive somewhere.
Oh, but He was. That is the whole point of His that God "IS the God of the
living (Lk 20:38)" and "all live to Him (Lk 20:38)".
> The resurrection is a future event
>that has not occurred yet!
Of course. But the resurrection is not a resurrection of a freshly made copy, it
is the restoration of bodily life to those who 'sleep' (as Paul put it).
>>> He was
>>>then the first to be resurrected from death, the others having
>>> to wait until the appointed time for their resurrection.
>>
>>Even this you do not understand. What about the widow' son whom Christ raised
>>(Lk 7:15)? And what about the widow's son whom Elijah raised (1 Ki 7:21-22)? So
>>you see, Christ is NOT the first ever to be raised from the dead.
>
>The Scripture is not wrong,
I didn't say that it was. I said that you were wrong. My conclusion still
stands, see below.
> Jesus was "the firstborn from the dead; that in
>all things he might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18).
And He IS the 'firstborn from the dead' and He DOES 'have the preeminence', but
Scripture does not use 'firstborn' here in the same sense you do. THAT is my
point.
> The raising to life of a
>few people was not part of the resurrection, which is a raising to life with a
>different body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) and a restoration to perfection, it was
>merely a resuscitation of their bodies - they all died again eventually.
Of course. But you miss the point. IF, as YOU say, death means ceasing to exist,
then He could not have raised them up, because they would them be DIFFERENT
PEOPLE!! He would have merely made a COPY of the widow's son, not raised the
SAME son to life again!
>When
>God and Jesus talk of life they mean eternal life. Those who are condemned by
>sin to die are not considered to have life (e.g. "And you hath he quickened, who
>were dead in trespasses and sins", Eph 2:1).
>
>>>Paul was right when he said "Let no man deceive you by
>>>any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away
>>>[apostasy] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition" (2
>>>Thess 2:3).
>
>>>The church certainly has fallen away from the truth.
>>
>>That is NOT what Thess 2:3 says. This is yet one more piece of evidence that you
>>do NOT study the Bible with an 'open mind'.
>
>In 2 Thess 2:3 "falling away" is a tranlstion of the Greek word apostasia
>which means "a falling away, defection, apostasy". Apostasy means a falling
>away from the truth that the Church originally believed in. My dictionary says
>it means "abandoning of something that one once believed in".
And your dictionary is correct. But how do you justify the gross assumptionn
that it is the CHURCH that does the falling away, rather than INDIVIDUALS in the
CHurch?
>>>He was a spirit being,
>>
>>Where did you get this anti-scriptural term 'spirit being'? How can anyone
>>possible justify this claim based on Scripture?
>
>I wasn't quoting word for word from Scripture! (I'm tempted to ask where do
>get this anti-scriptural term 'Trinity'? But I won't. :-)
PIty, because I was ready for that one. But that's OK, I'm ready for what you
did, too.
>A spirit being is a
>living being that has a spiritual body.
Then according to your definition, the angels, which do not have bodies, and God
the Father, are not 'spirit beings'. How odd!
>1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
>There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Once more you have built your theology on a bad translation. It does NOT say
'natural body', it says 'so^ma psychikon'. There is no really good translation
for 'psychikon' here, but 'natural' has got to be one of the worst. Better would
be 'animal' or even 'psychological'.
>John 4:24 God is a Spirit
Is it 'a Spirit' or 'Spirit'? Besides: what IS your point here? Spirits don't a
priori need ANY body, 'spiritual' or otherwise.
So you STILL have not justified your use of the term 'spirit being'.
>>>Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
>>>immortal spirit being.
>>
>>Once more: how can anyone ever justify this based on Scripture? I will even dare
>>claim (refute me if you can) that Scripture NEVER taught the existence of a
>>'mortal spirit being'.
>
> 1 Timothy 6:16 states that only God was immortal,
No, no, no, no! It says:
the only one who has immortality... (1 Tm 6:16)
So how does this differ from 'the only one who is immortal'? Simple: God alone
has immortality, but he shares this with select created beings by grace. In
other words, God alone is immortal by nature, all other immortal beings are
immortal by grace.
> therefore all other living
>beings at that time were mortal. As an example of a mortal spirit being, Satan
>is a spirit being and the Scriptures tell us that he shall die (Heb 2:14 -
>"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
>himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him
>that had the power of death, that is, the devil").
Actually, no, the verb 'katargein' here should have been translated 'rendered of
no account'. In other contexts, it _can_ be rendered 'destroyed', but here, no.
After all, if, as YOU say, he perishes, who is it who is "burning forever in the
lake of fire (Rev 20:10)"?
Once more, you have quoted the Bible out of context.
>
>>>>>Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>>>>>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>>>>>was born of flesh.
>>
>>But His body was not born ONLY of flesh: for in place of a human father, His
>>mother was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. So no, you have NOT proved that
>>'Jesus was flesh only'.
>
>I think you'll find that he was born as a human being from out of Mary's
>womb, so he was "born of the flesh". That God was responsible for the
>conception does not deny that Jesus was born as flesh, as a man.
I never denied that He was 'born of the flesh', I denied your non-Scriptural
interpretation of this phrase. For you insist on reading 'of the flesh' as if it
DENIED 'and having a soul/spirit'. THIS is what is non-Scriptural.
>
>>>Our bodies are made of the dust of the earth:
>>
>>Did you forget the breath of God? For we were created NOT just out of dust, but:
>>
>> the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground,
>> AND BREATHED INTO HIS NOSTRILS THE BREATH OF LIFE
>> and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)
>
>This is saying that God created a human body from physical material (not
>spirtual) and then brought that body to life so that it became a living
>creature. Adam was not given a soul to add to his body, he BECAME a living
>soul.
You are using the word 'soul' here in two different senses in one sentence. Did
you know that? I can't recommend the practice.
>The Hebrew word that is translated as "soul" is nephesh, the same word
>that is translated as creature in verses like:
But 'nephesh' has multiple senses too, just like the Greek 'psyche'. If you look
this up in Gesenius's lexicon, or BDB, you will find this. Yet your argument
seems to ignore this fact.
>Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
>creature [nephesh] that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
>open firmament of heaven.
Here 'nephesh' is used in a figure called 'metonymy', the use of a part (the
soul) for the whole (the living creature).
>Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
>[nephesh] after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
>after his kind: and it was so.
Ssame figure.
>Genesis 9:10 And with every living creature [nephesh] that is with you, of the
>fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go
>out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
Same figure. This IS quite common the the OT.
>
> Animals have this same "breath of life" too:
>
>Genesis 7:21,22 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
>of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
>earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that
>was in the dry land, died.
And is the same word being used here? IF not, what IS your point in quoting it?
>Ecclesiastes 3:19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;
>even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
>have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is
>vanity.
>
>>>God will preserve (recreate) our soul and give us new bodies in the
>>>resurrection.
>>
>>How can you say 'preserve (recreate)'??? By what stretch of a fanciful
>>imagination are 'preserve' and 'recreate' the same???
>
>I didn't mean to imply that 'preserve' and 'recreate' have the same meaning!
Then what WAS the purpose of your parenthetical comment?
>To expand on what I meant, God knows and remembers, or preserves, our thoughts,
>memories, etc. and during the resurrection he will recreate us as living beings
>again, with a different body but with the same memory, personality, etc..
But even if He did this (of course, I deny that this is even His intention),
creating the same memory, personality (and what have you) would STILL be
creating a DIFFERENT PERSON. This is not what He promised at all!
>>>Some will be given human bodies, and some (Christians) will be
>>>given spirit bodies.
>>
>>Wild speculation, never taught by Scripture.
>
> It is taught by Scripture.
No, it is not 'taught by Scripture'. See below.
> 1 Cor 15:35-50 talks of Christians (the audience
>of Paul's letter) being resurrected with a spiritual body.
Of course it does. But YOU said 'SOME will be given human bodies'. Paul never
denied that ALL will be resurrected with human bodies. More important, that
'spiritual body' he referred to is FULLY HUMAN. This is what you continue to
deny, without ANY basis in Scripture.
> All other people
>will be resurrected as humans again,
No, not 'all other', ALL people will be resurrected as humans again. Some will
be raised to eternal life, others to eternal damnation.
> which will be the "restitution of all
>things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the
>world began" (Acts 3:21).
No, the 'restitution of all things' is AFTER the General Resurrection, AFTER the
Last Judgement.
> The prohecy of Daniel 2 tells us that God will
>establish a kingdom on earth that will last forever, and the people living in
>this kingdom will be the majority of mankind resurrected to life again (Dan
>2:44, "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,
>which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other
>people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it
>shall stand for ever").
>
>Paul also reminds us in Heb 2 that mankind will once again rule on the earth
>(and be subject to God's rule, of course):
You seem to have missed something: the Psalm Paul quotes seems to use 'man' to
refer to 'all mankind' (as you do?), but Paul clearly intends it to refer to
Jesus Christ.
>
>5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof
>we speak.
>6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art
>mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
>7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory
>and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
>8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all
>in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we
>see not yet all things put under him.
What Paul is referring to here is that all things are subject to Christ, but we
do not SEE it openly, since His glorious rule is openly revealed only at the end
of the world. But we DO see it by faith, since we saw Jesus crowned with glory
and honor (Hb 2:9). Why DID you leave this verse out of your quote?
Repeatedly in this post, as in this whole thread, you have insisted on your own
interpretation of these verses, isolating them from other verses, as if no-one
else had wrestled with them before you. Please take advantage of the fruits of
others's labors, familiarize yourself with the interpretations of the Fathers
before offering your own interpretations as the only true ones!
Jeff Shirton
"Keith Robichaud" <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9antfi$lsr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> >Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
> >>
> >> That is what it means to be dead.
> >
> >Maybe that's what it means to *you*.
> >I reject your *assumption* here.
>
> It's not an assumption, it's based on Scripture.
If it were based on Scripture, then why didn't you quote it?
> The body definitely decomposes and returns to dust,
> as the Scriptures say. The Scriptures also tell us that
> those that are dead have no thoughts and can do
> nothing.
If you're thinking of Ecclesiastes, then I would question the context of
your interpretation.
> >> No, I believe as the Apostle Paul did,
> >
> >No, I don't think that you do.
> >Paul believed that Jesus *is* God:
>
> That's not how I read it from what Paul wrote,
> e.g. a selection of verses that he wrote:
Why did you delete Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter
1:1? It seems impossible to deny that Paul believed Christ to be God in
the face of these passages. Please don't ignore them.
Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
2Pe 1:1 [...] the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
> Romans 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called
> to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father,
> and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Yes, I believe that. But I don't see anywhere that it denies Eph. 5:5,
2 Th. 1:12, Titus 2:13, or 2 Pet. 1:1. All Scripture must be believed
and accepted.
> Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify
> God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> 1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God
> our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
>
> 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father,
> of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
> Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
>
> 2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
> Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
[...other passages deleted for brevity]
All good Scriptures, and I believe them, but none of them deny that
Christ is God, that Paul explicitly asserted in Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12,
Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1.
Perhaps you don't believe those verses. I don't know.
> Keith Robichaud
I believe *all* of Scripture.
Jeff Shirton
Sabba...@aol.com
--part1_7d.13d836a7.2809302b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Keith <A HREF="mailto:ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk ">Robichaud</A> posted regarding Php 2. 6:
> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
> with God something he should aim for, e.g.
> "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God
> a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
S:
Jesus did not aim to be God because he already existed in the form of God,
but freely acted to empty himself and take on the form of a man, which is
what scripture says:
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3739&version=">who</A>, although He <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5225&version=">existed</A> in the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3444&version=">form</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A>, did not <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2233&version=">regard</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2470&version=">equality</A> with
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A> a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=725&version=">thing</A> to be <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=725&version=">grasped</A>, but <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2758&version=">emptied</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1438&version=">Himself</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2983&version=">taking</A> the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3444&version=">form</A> of a
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1401&version=">bond-servant</A>, and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">being</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">made</A> in the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3667&version=">likeness</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=">men</A>. Being <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2147&version=">found</A> in
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4976&version=">appearance</A> as a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=">man</A>, He <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5013&version=">humbled</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1438&version=">Himself</A> by <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">becoming</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5255&version=">obedient</A> to the
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3360&version=">point</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2288&version=">death</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1161&version=">even</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2288&version=">death</A> on a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4716&version=">cross</A>. For <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1352&version=">this</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1352&version=">reason</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=">also</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251&version=">highly</A>
<A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251&version=">exalted</A> Him, and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5483&version=">bestowed</A> on Him the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A> which is <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5228&version=">above</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3956&version=">every</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A>,
that at the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2424&version=">Jesus</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3956&version=">EVERY</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1119&version=">KNEE</A> WILL <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2578&version=">BOW</A>, of those who are
in <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2032&version=">heaven</A> and on <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1919&version=">earth</A> and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2709&version=">under</A> the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2709&version=">earth</A>,
Peace,
Sabbatismos.
--part1_7d.13d836a7.2809302b_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>
<BR>
<BR>Keith <A HREF="mailto:ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk ">Robichaud</A> posted regarding Php 2. 6:
<BR>> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
<BR>> with God something he should aim for, e.g.
<BR>
<BR>> "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God
<BR>> a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
<BR>
<BR>S:
<BR>Jesus did not aim to be God because he already existed in the form of God,
<BR>but freely acted to empty himself and take on the form of a man, which is
<BR>what scripture says:
<BR>
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3739&version=">who</A>, although He <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5225&version=">existed</A> in the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3444&version=">form</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A>, did not <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2233&version=">regard</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2470&version=">equality</A> with
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A> a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=725&version=">thing</A> to be <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=725&version=">grasped</A>, but <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2758&version=">emptied</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1438&version=">Himself</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2983&version=">taking</A> the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3444&version=">form</A> of a
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1401&version=">bond-servant</A>, and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">being</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">made</A> in the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3667&version=">likeness</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=">men</A>. </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Being <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2147&version=">found</A> in
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4976&version=">appearance</A> as a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=444&version=">man</A>, He <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5013&version=">humbled</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1438&version=">Himself</A> by <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1096&version=">becoming</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5255&version=">obedient</A> to the
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3360&version=">point</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2288&version=">death</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1161&version=">even</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2288&version=">death</A> on a <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4716&version=">cross</A>. For <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1352&version=">this</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1352&version=">reason</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2532&version=">also</A>, <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=">God</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251&version=">highly</A>
<BR><A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5251&version=">exalted</A> Him, and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5483&version=">bestowed</A> on Him the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A> which is <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5228&version=">above</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3956&version=">every</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A>, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">that at the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3686&version=">name</A> of <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2424&version=">Jesus</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3956&version=">EVERY</A> <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1119&version=">KNEE</A> WILL <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2578&version=">BOW</A>, of those who are
<BR>in <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2032&version=">heaven</A> and on <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=1919&version=">earth</A> and <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2709&version=">under</A> the <A HREF="http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2709&version=">earth</A>, </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Peace,
<BR>
<BR>Sabbatismos.</FONT></HTML>
--part1_7d.13d836a7.2809302b_boundary--
Keith Robichaud
On 3 Apr 2001 15:41:00 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>> Consider also what happened. Jesus did not go to Paradise
>> that day.
>
>Sorry, but you can't prove that with the Bible.
Sorry, but I can :-). Matthew 12:40 - "For as Jonas was three days and
three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth". Jesus was declaring that he would be
in the grave for three days and three nights. That doesn't sound like Paradise
to me.
>> The word Paradise is of Persian origin and signifies a garden.
For example, Rev 2:7 which uses the word paradise in the KJV, is translated
as garden in the REB. The Septuagint renders Gen. 2:8: "God planted a
paradise in Eden."
>Here is the Biblical meaning of "paradise":
>
>2Co 12:2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago
> (whether in the body or out of the body I do not
> know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.
>2Co 12:3 And I know that this person (whether in the body
> or out of the body I do not know, God knows)
>2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable
> things, which no one may utter.
>
>Paul tells us that Paradise *is* "heaven", the *third* heaven.
>Not the "first" heaven (the sky), not the "second" heaven (cosmic
>space), but the *third* heaven, God's dwelling place.
I think that Paul is refering to a vision of the future heaven (where
Christians will go) and the earth which will be a Paradise, similar to the
Paradise that God planted in Eden for Adam. I believe that:
"The third heaven is the new heaven of the future - of the Millennial Age. The
first "heaven and earth," or primary arrangement, passed away at the flood. The
second "heaven and earth" organization, beginning at the flood, still persists.
The third "heaven and earth," or new dispensation, is the one to come - the one
which will be introduced at Messiah's Second Advent. In other words, St. Paul
in vision was caught away and given a glimpse of the Millennial Kingdom
conditions, glories, blessings, etc. - things not proper at the time to be
generally disclosed. Nevertheless that vision assisted the Apostle to a
clearness of mental grasp of the Divine purposes, and shaped and colored all of
his epistles."
"According to the Bible there have already been two worlds, and the third one is
coming, and this earth has been the scene of all these. As, for instance, the
Apostle speaks of the world that was before the flood, of the present evil
world, because sin is now reigning, and of the world to come wherein dwelleth
righteousness. This does not signify three earths, but three different orders
or conditions of things in the earth. The condition of things which preceded
the flood was different from the present order of things. That condition of
things before the flood, 1656 years, was under the ministration of angels;
during the present time, from the flood down to the coming of Christ, at his
second advent, the world is left in the hands of mankind, and Satan, the prince
of this world, taking advantage of men, taking advantage of their ignorance and
superstitious fears, has become prince of this world without any divine
authority, because he works in the hearts of the children of disobedience, and
the children of disobedience are much more numerous than the children of
obedience; therefore it is the present evil world. The new dispensation, or new
order of things that God will introduce at the second coming of Christ, is
spoken of as the new heaven and the new earth, in this same symbolical way. But
it will be the same physical earth, the same rocks, the same matter will be
here, the sky we now have will be here just the same as before the flood. One
world has passed, and another world or dispensation has come, and a new world or
dispensation is about to be ushered in. The new one will be different from
either of the others, because Christ will be the prince of that world, the
prince of peace, and the government of that dispensation will be altogether
righteous. He who sits on the throne says, "I will make all things new." They
will all be made new, dear friends.
Again, in the Scripture symbolical language we have this to notice, that the
heavens are used symbolically as representing the ecclesiastical or spiritual
powers. For instance, the heavens of the present time in this symbolic language
of the Bible are the religious systems of the present time, while the heavens of
the future age will be the church in glory. The earth at the present time is
the present social order of things, society as at present organized on the basis
of selfishness; and the mountains represent the kingdoms of this world, and the
rivers represent the truth, and the seas represent the masses of mankind who are
unstable, restless. And the Lord pictures a change in this respect, that all of
these things are to made over new - a new order of society under the domination
of Messiah, and there will be no more sea in the sense that there will be no
more people who are in that restless, dissatisfied condition. To him every knee
will bow, and every tongue will confess. This present order of things will pass
away and give way to the new order of things. This word "World" is translated
from three different Greek words, and our comprehension of this word has been
correspondingly rather confused."
>> Paradise was a spiritual place in heaven, for he did not rise
>> up to heaven until about some time later (John 20:17).
>
>John 20:17 is referring to a *specific* ascension, and in no way denies
>that He had never been there before.
The only mention of Jesus ascending to heaven after his resurection is
described in Acts 1.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Keith Robichaud
On 10 Apr 2001 11:10:38 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>> >> >Where do you see "cease to exist" anywhere there?!?!
>> >>
>> >> That is what it means to be dead.
>> >
>> >Maybe that's what it means to *you*.
>> >I reject your *assumption* here.
>>
>> It's not an assumption, it's based on Scripture.
>
>If it were based on Scripture, then why didn't you quote it?
If you think the Scriptures give a different explanation of death then why
didn't you quote the Scriptures to show that I'm wrong? You didn't answer "Why
do you assume that death, the cessation of life, does not mean that you cease to
exist?"
I don't have much spare time at the moment, so rather than start a
discussion on the subject of death I'll point you to the booklet "The Truth
About Hell" which will help to explain why I believe death means that you cease
to exist. See http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk/hell.htm.
>Why did you delete Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Titus 2:13, and 2 Peter
>1:1? It seems impossible to deny that Paul believed Christ to be God in
>the face of these passages. Please don't ignore them.
>
>Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
>2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
>Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ,
>2Pe 1:1 [...] the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ:
I didn't include them because I had already commented on them in my reply on
26th March and I didn't want to be accused of repeating myself! Also, by
quoting other verses of Paul's which implied that Paul did not think Jesus was
Yahweh, I did not think it was necessary to comment on them further. However,
I'll just point out the following:
You have quoted a different translation from the KJV for two of the above verses
(and not mentioned which version you were quoting from) whereas the KJV and
other translations translate them differently, implying that Jesus is not God:
Eph 5:5 - the following translate it as "kingdom of Christ and of God": KJV,
MKJV, NIV, NRSV, RWEB, WEY, REB and Green's Literal translation.
2Th 1:12 - the following translate it as "of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ":
KJV, MKJV, ASV, BBE, NIV, NRSV, REB, RSV, YLT; and the following translate it as
"of our God, and of the Lord Jesus Christ": DBY, RWEB, WEB, WEY, Green's Literal
translation. Note that the NIV has an alternative translation (but not
considered the most accurate as it's not used in the main text) of "God and
Lord, Jesus Christ", implying that the main text is meant to be understood as I
had interpreted it as refering to two seperate persons and not implying that God
and Jesus are the same person.
Tit 2:13 - the KJV and RWEB translate it as "the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; {glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory
of the great God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ}. Nevertheless, as I
mentioned before, the Scriptures tell us that Jesus is a great God, but he is
never refered to as God almighty, which is only ever used in decscription of
Yahweh, Jesus' father. An example of this is "And I saw no temple therein: for
the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev 21:22), which
distinguishes between the almighty God (Yahweh, Jesus' father, our father in
heaven) and ("the Lamb") Jesus (and there's no mention of any third member of a
supposed Trinity).
2Pe 1:1 - this was not written by Paul, and we were discussing what Paul
believed.
>> Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify
>> God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God
>> our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
>>
>> 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father,
>> of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus
>> Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
>>
>> 2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
>> Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
>
>
>[...other passages deleted for brevity]
>
>All good Scriptures, and I believe them, but none of them deny that
>Christ is God, that Paul explicitly asserted in Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12,
>Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1.
Err, they refer to God, who is defined as being the father of Jesus, not
that God is Jesus or Jesus is God; God is defined as being the Father (Jesus'
father and Christians' father), and Pauls mentions grace and peace from God and
also from Jesus; Paul says that for early Christians there was just one God and
that was the Father, and refers to Jesus as being God's anointed (Christ) and
being being our Lord, but not that he was God; Paul refers to Yahweh as being
Jesus' god as well as being Jesus' father. These all are in conflict with Jesus
being God.
>Perhaps you don't believe those verses. I don't know.
>
>I believe *all* of Scripture.
I believe that all Scripture was given to men under divine inspiration of
God, such that God is the author of it and it is God's message. Therefore the
Scriptures must be interpreted to be in harmony with itself and not to give
conflicting meanings. The only way that the verses we've discussed can be
harmonised is if Yahweh is God, and Jesus is God's only begotten son. Two
seperate and distinct living beings.
Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Matthew Johnson
In article <9bb1e2$hih$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>
>
>
>On 3 Apr 2001 15:41:00 GMT, "Jeff Shirton" <jshi...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>> Consider also what happened. Jesus did not go to Paradise
>>> that day.
>>
>>Sorry, but you can't prove that with the Bible.
>
> Sorry, but I can :-).
Or so you thought. But I do not find your 'proof' convincing, nor do I expect
Jeff will find it convincing.
> Matthew 12:40 - "For as Jonas was three days and
>three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and
>three nights in the heart of the earth". Jesus was declaring that he would be
>in the grave for three days and three nights. That doesn't sound like Paradise
>to me.
Well, of course being in the grave is not like Paradise. But so what? It is
perfectly _normal_ to say 'be in the grave' or the like when you mean only that
the _body_ will be in the grave; the soul will be elsewhere. In Christ's case,
the soul went to Paradise.
Only on the basis of this interpretation can Heb 9:24 make sense. After all,
when _else_ did Christ
enter into the holy places not made with human hands
which are the figures of the true places, but into
heaven itself now to appear before the face of God
for us (Heb 9:24)
This CANNOT refer to His Ascension, since the offering of the sacrifice had
already been completed by this time. So it can only refer to the Ascencsion of
His soul into heaven during the three days His body was in the tomb.
>
>>> The word Paradise is of Persian origin and signifies a garden.
True, but so what?
>
>For example, Rev 2:7 which uses the word paradise in the KJV, is translated
>as garden in the REB. The Septuagint renders Gen. 2:8: "God planted a
>paradise in Eden."
Yet if it leaves 'paradise' as 'paradise' and does not translate it as 'garden',
one might wonder about this translation of the LXX into English.
>
>>Here is the Biblical meaning of "paradise":
>>
>>2Co 12:2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago
>> (whether in the body or out of the body I do not
>> know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.
>>2Co 12:3 And I know that this person (whether in the body
>> or out of the body I do not know, God knows)
>>2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable
>> things, which no one may utter.
>>
>>Paul tells us that Paradise *is* "heaven", the *third* heaven.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. After all, how do you know that the 'someone in
Christ' of 12:2 is the same person as in 12:4? After all, the word your
translation renders as 'this person' does NOT mean 'this person'. It only means
'such a man'. There could easily have been TWO men in Christ who had similar but
not identical experiences.
In fact, the KJV translates 12:3 not as 'this person' but 'such a man'. So why
do you insist on 'this person'?
>>Not the "first" heaven (the sky), not the "second" heaven (cosmic
>>space), but the *third* heaven, God's dwelling place.
>
>I think that Paul is refering to a vision of the future heaven (where
>Christians will go) and the earth which will be a Paradise, similar to the
>Paradise that God planted in Eden for Adam. I believe that:
>
>"The third heaven is the new heaven of the future - of the Millennial Age. The
>first "heaven and earth," or primary arrangement, passed away at the flood.
That is all very nice, but on _what grounds_ do you believe this? After all,
Paul describes the vision as if it were of a 'third heaven' that exists at that
time, NOT as if of the future.
Jeff Shirton
"Matthew Johnson" <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9bfd4a$e7v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >>Here is the Biblical meaning of "paradise":
> >>
> >>2Co 12:2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago
> >> (whether in the body or out of the body I do not
> >> know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.
> >>2Co 12:3 And I know that this person (whether in the body
> >> or out of the body I do not know, God knows)
> >>2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable
> >> things, which no one may utter.
> >>
> >>Paul tells us that Paradise *is* "heaven", the *third* heaven.
>
> Perhaps, but perhaps not. After all, how do you know that
> the 'someone in Christ' of 12:2 is the same person as in
> 12:4?
Why wouldn't it be?
What kind of sense would it make if Paul were referring to two different
men? Why would he mention one of them, and then ignore it immediately?
And which of these "two men" was Paul referring to in verse 5?
> After all, the word your translation renders as 'this person'
> does NOT mean 'this person'. It only means 'such a man'.
That's how the KJV renders it. But why do you accept the KJV rendering,
but not the NAB?
And at any rate, it seems obvious to me that the use of "such" refers
back to the man in verse 2. Why else use the term, "such"?
How else would *you* translate, "toiouton"?
> In fact, the KJV translates 12:3 not as 'this person' but
> 'such a man'. So why do you insist on 'this person'?
Why do you insist on "such a man"?
Jeff Shirton
Jeff Shirton
"Keith Robichaud" <ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bb1e1$hif$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >> It's not an assumption, it's based on Scripture.
> >
> >If it were based on Scripture, then why didn't you quote it?
>
> If you think the Scriptures give a different explanation
> of death then why didn't you quote the Scriptures to show
> that I'm wrong?
Because *YOU'RE* the one who made the assertion, "it's based on
Scripture". You made the assertion, the onus is on you to support it.
It is not my burden to disprove an unfounded assumption.
> You didn't answer "Why do you assume that death, the cessation
> of life, does not mean that you cease to exist?"
Again, it's not my responsibility to disprove your unfounded notions.
It's *your* burden to support the statements you make.
> I don't have much spare time at the moment, so rather
> than start a discussion on the subject of death I'll point you
> to the booklet "The Truth About Hell" which will help to
> explain why I believe death means that you cease
> to exist. See http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk/hell.htm.
Perhaps since you're familiar with that "publication", you might want to
quote the relevant parts, especially those which you think are
Scriptural statements supporting your beliefs.
After all, how hard is it, how time-consuming is it, to simply quote a
couple of chapter-and-verse references?
> >Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
> >2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
> >Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour
> > Jesus Christ,
> >2Pe 1:1 [...] the righteousness of our God and Saviour
> > Jesus Christ:
>
> I didn't include them because I had already commented on
> them in my reply on 26th March and I didn't want to be accused
> of repeating myself!
Well, they're still there, and they are still explicit assertions that
Jesus is God.
> Also, by quoting other verses of Paul's which implied that
> Paul did not think Jesus was Yahweh, I did not think it was
> necessary to comment on them further.
"Implied"?! You think that what you *feel* Paul "implied" has equal, or
even greater weight, than what Paul clearly and explicitly *stated*?!
It seems to me quite clear that if what Paul *stated*, and what Paul
"implied", are in any way contradictory, then the error lies in what
*you* think was "implied".
> You have quoted a different translation from the KJV for two
> of the above verses (and not mentioned which version you
> were quoting from) whereas the KJV and other translations
> translate them differently, implying that Jesus is not God:
All the above quotes come from Young's Literal Translation. However,
all four renderings have support in many other translations.
> Eph 5:5 - the following translate it as "kingdom of Christ
> and of God": KJV,
> MKJV, NIV, NRSV, RWEB, WEY, REB and Green's Literal translation.
You seem to wish to argue a "majority" opinion, by trying to cite many
translations to support your position. The far *BETTER* way to
determine this is by looking at the original Greek, and all four of
theses passages follow what's called "Granville Sharp's Rule".
"When the copulative kai connects two nouns of
the same case [viz. nouns (either substantive
or adjective, or participles) of personal
description, respecting office, dignity, affinity,
or connexion, and attributes, properties, or
qualities, good or ill,] if the article ho, or
any of its cases, precedes the first of the
said nouns or participles, and is not
repeated before the second noun or participle,
the latter always relates to the same person
that is expressed or described by the first
noun or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther
description of the first named person."
This is the Greek construct we see in phrases such as "Lord and Saviour"
(2 Pet. 1:11, 2:20, 3:2, 3:18) and "God and Father" (Rom. 15:6, 2 Cor.
1:3, etc.) which everyone reads to be referring to *one* person, not
two.
The interesting thing about Granville Sharp's rule is that while most
rules of Greek Grammar have a number of exceptions, this rule has *no*
exceptions. It is *always* true, and no exception has ever been found.
Now, if you'd like to try to disprove Sharp's Rule, I would be willing
to take a look at any Greek construct you can find.
But until then, Jesus remains our "God and Saviour".
> Tit 2:13 - the KJV and RWEB translate it as "the glorious
> appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
> {glorious...: Gr. the appearance of the glory of the great God,
> and of our Saviour Jesus Christ}.
Is that all you could find?
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NIV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NET
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- NKJV
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Young
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Darby
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- Weymouth
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NASB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- RSV
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- LiTV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NLT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- ALT
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- TEV
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- ML
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- LB
"...of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," -- NRSV
"...of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- NJB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- REB
"...of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus," -- NEB
"...of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ," -- RV
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Ampl.
"...of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," -- J. Lilly
"...of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus," -- Goodspeed
"...of Jesus Christ, our great God and savior." -- Anchor
But why would we expect to see anything different, since they all follow
from a knowledge of Sharp's Rule?
> Nevertheless, as I mentioned before, the Scriptures tell us
> that Jesus is a great God, but he is never refered to as God
> almighty,
Yet there is only *one* God:
So if Jesus is "God", even the "Mighty God", then He must be the *one*
God who exists.
Now, there are a couple of problems with your argumentation. First, you
seem to claim that if Jesus is referred to as "Mighty", then He cannot
also be "Almighty". This is simply not true. You have no basis for
arguing any such position.
Your second error is in trying to read to much into the fact that Jesus
is never explicitly called "Almighty". Again, there is no need for this
to occur. He is repeatedly called "God" (John 1:1, 20:28, Eph. 5:5, 2
Thes. 1:12, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1, Heb. 1:8, etc. etc.), and God *is*
"Almighty". So to say that He is God is to say that He is Almighty, for
God *is* Almighty.
> 2Pe 1:1 - this was not written by Paul, and we were
> discussing what Paul believed.
This is to show support for Granville Sharp's Rule, since it is another
case of it, and Peter uses it no less than four other times in this
epistle alone. Let's see how other translators render it:
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NET
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NIV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- NKJV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- RSV
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- WEB
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- TEV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ALT
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- ML
"...of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ" -- NRSV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- BUV
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Anchor
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Amplified
"...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" -- Goodspeed
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Douay-Rheims
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NASB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Young
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Darby
"...of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ" -- NJB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- REB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- NEB
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- Moffatt
"...of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" -- RV
"...of our God and savioure Iesus Christ." -- Tindale
"...of our God and Saviour Iefus Chrift." -- Geneva
"...our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ," -- WWE
"...by Jesus Christ, our God and Savior," -- NLT
"...that Jesus Christ our God and Savior..." -- LB
> >> Romans 15:6 That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify
> >> 1 Corinthians 1:3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God
> >> 1 Corinthians 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father,
> >> 2 Corinthians 11:31 The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
> >[...other passages deleted for brevity]
> >
> >All good Scriptures, and I believe them, but none of them
> >deny that Christ is God, that Paul explicitly asserted in
> >Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess. 1:12, Titus 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:1.
>
> Err, they refer to God, who is defined as being the father
> of Jesus, not that God is Jesus or Jesus is God;
I never claimed that these passages (Romans 15, 1,2 Cor.) claim that
Jesus is God. But neither do they deny it. Rather, what they teach is
that God (the Father) is the Father of Jesus Christ. And that is very
true.
> God is defined as being the Father (Jesus' father and
> Christians' father),
Where does it say in any of your verses that "this is an exhaustive
definition, and God is no more than what I say here."?
God is comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Father is the Father of the Son. Of course, that shows that the Son
cannot be the Father, and indeed, no one is claiming that He is. But
they are both God, and there is no contradiction here.
> and Pauls mentions grace and peace from God and also from Jesus;
Yes, for in speaking of "God" he is referring to the Father. That is
quite clear from the context.
> Paul says that for early Christians there was just one God and
> that was the Father,
Reference, please? I find no mention of "the Father" in:
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator
between God and the human race, Christ Jesus,
himself human,
But Paul also explicitly states that Jesus *is* God (Eph. 5:5, 2 Thess.
1:12, Titus 2:13, etc.)
> and refers to Jesus as being God's anointed (Christ) and
> being being our Lord,
Yes, the Father's anointed. That is certainly true.
> but not that he was God;
Certainly He *does*:
Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ,
> Paul refers to Yahweh as being Jesus' god as well
> as being Jesus' father. These all are in conflict with
> Jesus being God.
Not at all.
> The only way that the verses we've discussed can be harmonised
> is if Yahweh is God, and Jesus is God's only begotten son.
> Two seperate and distinct living beings.
That doesn't "reconcile" the following:
John 1:1 [...] and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
Act 20:28 [...] in which you tend the church of God that
he acquired with his own blood.
Eph 5:5 [...] in the reign of the Christ and God.
2Th 1:12 [...] the grace of our God and Lord Jesus Christ.
Tit 2:13 [...] the glory of our great God and Saviour
Jesus Christ,
Heb 1:8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, stands forever
and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter
of your kingdom.
2Pe 1:1 [...] the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ:
> Keith Robichaud (http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk)
Jeff Shirton
Matthew Johnson
In article <9bkhrc$q10$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Jeff says...
>
>
>
>"Matthew Johnson" <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:9bfd4a$e7v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
>> >>Here is the Biblical meaning of "paradise":
>> >>
>> >>2Co 12:2 I know someone in Christ who, fourteen years ago
>> >> (whether in the body or out of the body I do not
>> >> know, God knows), was caught up to the third heaven.
>> >>2Co 12:3 And I know that this person (whether in the body
>> >> or out of the body I do not know, God knows)
>> >>2Co 12:4 was caught up into Paradise and heard ineffable
>> >> things, which no one may utter.
>> >>
>> >>Paul tells us that Paradise *is* "heaven", the *third* heaven.
>>
>> Perhaps, but perhaps not. After all, how do you know that
>> the 'someone in Christ' of 12:2 is the same person as in
>> 12:4?
>
>Why wouldn't it be?
Well, the use of 'toiouton' means _such_ a one, it does not imply the _same_
one.
>What kind of sense would it make if Paul were referring to two different
>men?
It makes perfect sense. If this interpretation is correct, it means that Paul is
basing his discussion not just on one example, but on two.
>Why would he mention one of them, and then ignore it immediately?
Why do you see him as 'ignoring' it immediately? He is not 'ignoring' him, he is
using him as an additional example of men who have numinous experiences.
>And which of these "two men" was Paul referring to in verse 5?
The nearer of the two.
>> After all, the word your translation renders as 'this person'
>> does NOT mean 'this person'. It only means 'such a man'.
>
>That's how the KJV renders it. But why do you accept the KJV rendering,
>but not the NAB?
Actually, I don't accept either one as the definitive rendering. One uses a very
surprising, non-literal rendering of 'toiouton', the other has equally
surprising pronoun reference.
>And at any rate, it seems obvious to me that the use of "such" refers
>back to the man in verse 2.
But what seems obvious often later turns out to be not even true.
> Why else use the term, "such"?
Precisely because the term does NOT refer to the same person. It refers to the
same SUCH person, not the very same person.
>
>How else would *you* translate, "toiouton"?
Didn't I answer that already? As 'such a man'.
>
>> In fact, the KJV translates 12:3 not as 'this person' but
>> 'such a man'. So why do you insist on 'this person'?
>
>Why do you insist on "such a man"?
Because 'toiouton' means 'such'. Morphologically, it can be either neuter or
masculine, but the context makes it clear that it is masculine and animate. It
even makes it clear that it is a substantive. Therefore I insist on 'such a
man'.
My point is not that I can claim to definitively know whether or not these
verses really do refer to one or two persons. My point is that because of this
ambiguity, it is not convincing to use these verses to claim that the 'third
heaven' and 'paradise' are one and the same. It is not convincing precisely
because it is so hard to tell whether these verses refer to one or two persons.
As you yourself pointed out the KJV reads it one way, but the NAB reads it
differently.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com to see your tax-dollars
at work subsidizing the persecution of Christians.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Keith Robichaud
On 10 Apr 2001 11:10:38 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
>>with God something he should aim for, e.g.
>>
>> "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God
>> a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
>>
>> "Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of} God, did not consider
>> equality with God something to be grasped" (NIV).
>>
>>i.e. the meaning is opposite to the the KJV meaning.
>
>No, this is NOT 'opposite' at all. For what is robbery except a form of
>'grasping'? Even the RSV and NIV translations support my contention that this
>verse implies that Christ is God. After all, equality with God is not 'something
>to be grasped' because He already had it.
You still don't understand. The KJV says that Jesus did not think it would
be robbery to grasp equality with God, whereas the correct meaning is that Jesus
thought that grasping equality with God was something he should not do, despite
that fact that before being made flesh he was in the form of God (a mighty
spirit being). The meanings are opposite. Instead of "thought it not robbery
to be equal with God" it could be translated "thought not by robbery to be equal
with God".
Consider also the context (using the suggested more correct translation of
verse 6):
Philippians 2
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let
each esteem other better than themselves.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought not by robbery to be equal with God
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men:
Here Paul is urging all Christians to have a humble mind like Jesus.
To say "equality with God is not 'something to be grasped' because He
already had it" is ridiculous, because a being can not rob himself, nor think
about being equal with himself. So this verse most definitely does imply that
Jesus cannot be God, especially when you consider verse 9 which says "Wherefore
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
name" - God exalted Jesus, therefore Jesus cannot be God!
Satan tried to grasp equality with God - "For thou hast said in thine heart,
I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will
sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa
14:13,14). Jesus did not even consider it, but instead humbled himself and was
obedient to God.
>> If Jesus was God then why would he consider being equal with God?
>>
>> If Jesus was God then why in verse 9 does it say that God exalted Jesus
>>because Jesus became obedient to God, obedient unto death.
>
>Because His human nature had never shared in this exaltation, not until His
>death and Resurrection.
Huh? The previous verse tells us that God did not exalt Jesus until after
his death on the cross. God resurrected Jesus to life again, but instead of
restoring him to his spiritual nature and position that he had before he was
made flesh, God exalted him to a higher nature and position, "That at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth" (verse 10). His pre-human existence was not as high as
he is now, but he is now of the highest order of spirit being, a partaker of the
divine nature.
Similarly we are taught:
"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you
in due time." (1 Pet 5:5,6)
"Blessed are the poor in spirit [humble-minded]: for theirs is the kingdom of
heaven" (Mat 5:3).
>> This doesn't make sense if Jesus was God.
>
>Sure it does, if you remember that Jesus Christ has two natures, human and
>divine. As I pointed out above, the human nature had never been exalted in this
>manner.
It is impossible to have two natures at the same time, by definition. Jesus
was never a human being and a spiritual being at the same time, just as we are
not and will never be. God transformed Jesus from a spiritual nature to a human
nature, and Jesus then sacrificed his human nature on the cross. If Jesus had
taken back his human nature after his sacrifice then the sacrifice will have
been taken back and the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life.
It is possible for spirit beings to take on human form in order to
communicate to humans, such as Angels have done and as Jesus did after his
resurrection and before his ascension to God. Jesus formed the human body for a
while, and then dissolved it away again, hence he appeared out of thin air in a
locked room and disappeared again into thin air (and when he appeared to his
disciples at various times they did not recognise him because he assumed a
different body each time, only the once appearing in a body similar to his human
one, and bearing the crucifixion scars, just for doubting Thomas' sake). It
does not mean that all spirit beings are also humans, nor vice versa.
2 Corinthians 5:16 - "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
henceforth know we him no more".
>> God is exalting his son, not himself.
>
>YEs, He is exalting His Son, but what other kind of Son would God have except
>God? You never have answered this question, have you?
Are you saying that God cannot have offspring, for any son that he will have
will just be part of God, and be God? That doesn't make much sense. As we
don't understand the spiritual nature, we can only speculate as to whether or
not God can procreate. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was the only being
begotten directly by God, and that God said to Jesus "Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten thee?". God also said "I will be to him a Father, and he shall
be to me a Son?" (Heb 1:5), implying perhaps that Jesus was not an offspring in
the same sense as a human offspring is born, but that perhaps Jesus was a spirit
being created by God who then later God considered/declared to be his son.
Jesus was begotten as the son of God, and was only born as the son of God at
his resurrection, when God resurrected him to the divine nature.
>>>Oh, no, this does not follow at all! It seems you are trying to get out of one
>>>logical difficulty of interpretation only to land in a bigger one. For if, as
>>>you say, it is God who exalts Jesus, then it _must_ be the Son, i.e., Jesus
>>>Christ Himself, who exalts Jesus, because:
Or rather, you can't follow it! :-) Note Hebrews 5:5, "So also Christ
glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou
art my Son, to day have I begotten thee", which again confirms it was God who
glorified and exalted Jesus.
Can a private promote himself to become a general? Can a pauper exalt
himself to become a king? After Jesus was resurrected he said to his disciples
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Mat 28:18). Jesus couldn't
give himself power and authority because it wasn't his to give, and if it was
then he already had it and he didn't need to give it to himself! It is your
belief that Jesus was God that gives rise to logical difficulties as it is not
in harmony with the Scriptures!
>>God exalted Jesus while Jesus was dead, by raising
>>him to life with the divine nature, to a superior nature than he had before God
>>changed his nature to human nature.
>
>So YOU say, but you continue to change the topic and evade instead of providing
>any 'proof' of this. Could this be because it is false, so that you cannot prove
>it?
You're right, I checked the previous articles and I haven't quoted any
Scriptures to support this, so I'll refer to some now. We've been discussing
some verses above, Php 2:6-11. Some others verses are:
Jesus was changed to be human:
Psalms 8:4,5 - What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
[i.e. man is made "a little lower than the angels"]
Hebrews 2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for
the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;
[i.e. Jesus was changed to be made a human, he died, and after his resurrection
he was given glory and honour]
It was God who resurrected Jesus:
Galatians 1:1 - Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Since his resurrection Jesus has the same divine nature as God:
Hebrews 1:3 - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of
his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by
himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Romans 6:5 - For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
2 Peter 1:4 - Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the
corruption that is in the world through lust.
God's nature is immortal:
1 Timothy 6:16 - Who only hath immortality,
Therefore Jesus could not have possessed the divine nature in his pre-human form
because he was not immortal, otherwise he could not have had his nature changed
to become a mortal human, and he could not have died. (Immortal means that it's
impossible to die.)
>Oh, but He WAS immortal. He described His own immortality when He said:
>
> No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down.
> I have the power to lay it down
> And I have the power to take it back up again. (Jn 10:18)
>
>How could He say this, if, as YOU say, it was the Father Who raised Him while
>Jesus was dead (unable to raise Himself)?
The KJV is a bit misleading here, using the word "power" rather than
"authority". More modern translations more correctly tanslate it as:
"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself. I have authority to lay
it down, and I have authority to take it again. I have received this commandment
from My Father." (MKJV)
Therefore Jesus is saying that God had commissioned, or authorised, him to
sacrifice his life to redeem mankind, and he also had God's assurrance that God
would resurrect him to life again.
>As I tried to explain to you before, there is NO Scriptural justification for
>your rash claim that death implies ceasing to exist. So your entire argument
>here is worthless.
>> It's a seperate topic, but I can justify it based on Scripture, e.g.
>>
>>Ecclesiastes 9:5 - the dead know not any thing
>>Ecclesiastes 9:10 - there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in
>>the grave
>>1 Corinthians 15:13,18 - But if there be no resurrection of the dead, ... then
>>they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
>
>None of these verses prove your claim. Nor is is a seperate topic, since without
>it, your entire argument collapses.
See the booklet "The Truth About Hell" at
http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk/hell.htm for a more detailed explanation of
death meaning ceasing to exist.
>>Jesus was talking about the resurrection ("Now that the dead are raised",
>>and see also verse 33) and was saying that everyone will be resurrected to life
>>again, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
>No, He was NOT talking about the resurrection.
Oh yes he was! See the equivalent passage in Matthew 22, with the
equivalent verse being:
Matthew 22:31 - But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read
that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
>> The raising to life of a
>>few people was not part of the resurrection, which is a raising to life with a
>>different body (1 Corinthians 15:35-50) and a restoration to perfection, it was
>>merely a resuscitation of their bodies - they all died again eventually.
>
>Of course. But you miss the point. IF, as YOU say, death means ceasing to exist,
>then He could not have raised them up, because they would them be DIFFERENT
>PEOPLE!! He would have merely made a COPY of the widow's son, not raised the
>SAME son to life again!
To quote Jesus from the Matt 22 passage on the resurrection question, "Ye do
err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (verse 29). Are you
saying that God, who created Adam from the dust of the earth, does not have the
power to raise a human body to life again? The Scriptures show that he does
have that power, and he exercised it, for example, in the raising of Lazarus
(who subsequently died).
It is wrong though to think that in the resurrection everybody will be
raised with an identical body to what they had before (and indeed it could only
be a copy if, for instance, their first body was consumed in fire or eaten by
wild animals). Paul explained that the resurrection body is different from our
current bodies (at least certainly for Christians, whom he was addressing):
1 Corinthians 15:35-38 - But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and
with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not
quickened, except it die: and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body
that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain.
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
>>A spirit being is a
>>living being that has a spiritual body.
>
>Then according to your definition, the angels, which do not have bodies, and God
>the Father, are not 'spirit beings'. How odd!
>
>>1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
>>There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
>
>Once more you have built your theology on a bad translation. It does NOT say
>'natural body', it says 'so^ma psychikon'. There is no really good translation
>for 'psychikon' here, but 'natural' has got to be one of the worst. Better would
>be 'animal' or even 'psychological'.
The majority of translations that I have say "natural", one says "physical",
one says "animal". Nevertheless, they all mean a physical human body. However,
you're missing the point entirely as I was quoting the verse to point out that
spirit beings have a spiritual body. You seem to think that the angels and God
don't have a spiritual body, but you haven't quoted any Scriptures to support
that claim.
>>John 4:24 God is a Spirit
>
>Is it 'a Spirit' or 'Spirit'?
It's "a spirit" in the KJV, which is the version I quote unless otherwise
stated, as is the convention I believe. Some other translations just say
"spirit", some say "a spirit", including Young's Literal Translation and Green's
Literal Translation.
> Besides: what IS your point here? Spirits don't a
>priori need ANY body, 'spiritual' or otherwise.
That's your assumption for which you've provided no Scriptural support.
>So you STILL have not justified your use of the term 'spirit being'.
As 1 Cor 15:44 says, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body". Human beings have a human body, spirit beings have a spritual body. If
spirit beings do not have a spiritual body then how can they be seen, and how do
you explain "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2)? If you can't accept what I've been
saying, based on the verses of Scripture that I've quoted, and so far you've not
come up with any Scriptures to contradict it, then so be it.
>>>>Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
>>>>immortal spirit being.
>>>
>>>Once more: how can anyone ever justify this based on Scripture? I will even dare
>>>claim (refute me if you can) that Scripture NEVER taught the existence of a
>>>'mortal spirit being'.
>>
>> 1 Timothy 6:16 states that only God was immortal,
>
>No, no, no, no! It says:
>
> the only one who has immortality... (1 Tm 6:16)
>
>So how does this differ from 'the only one who is immortal'? Simple: God alone
>has immortality, but he shares this with select created beings by grace. In
>other words, God alone is immortal by nature, all other immortal beings are
>immortal by grace.
And which Scriptures verses support this? Although the Bible says that it
is the hope of Christians to be resurrected with the immortal divine nature,
like Jesus was, there is no reference to any other immortal beings. Where do
you get this unscriptual term "immortal being" from? (I couldn't resist that
:-).
>> therefore all other living
>>beings at that time were mortal. As an example of a mortal spirit being, Satan
>>is a spirit being and the Scriptures tell us that he shall die (Heb 2:14 -
>>"Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also
>>himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him
>>that had the power of death, that is, the devil").
>
>Actually, no, the verb 'katargein' here should have been translated 'rendered of
>no account'. In other contexts, it _can_ be rendered 'destroyed', but here, no.
>After all, if, as YOU say, he perishes, who is it who is "burning forever in the
>lake of fire (Rev 20:10)"?
The "lake of fire and brimstone" is symbolic of utter destruction. It is
the lake that burns "forever", symbolically meaning that anything thrown into it
cannot escape destruction, because the fire never ceases until its job is done.
The beast that is thrown into the lake is also symbolic and not an actual beast,
and by being thrown into the lake it is symbolic of it being destroyed. Death
is also thrown into the lake of fire (verse 14), again symbolic of death being
destroyed, i.e. "there shall be no more death" (Rev 22:4). Verse 9 says that
the individuals who join with Satan are devoured with fire, i.e. destroyed. The
"for ever and ever" is more properly translated "unto the ages of ages", or
until the perfect ages are due after the Millennial age (Christ's 1,000 year
reign following the resurrection). Note also Rev 22:8 which says "... shall
have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
second death". Therefore being thrown into the lake means death, or
destruction, and the KJV translation of Heb 2:14 is correctly translated as
"destroy him".
>Once more, you have quoted the Bible out of context.
I don't think so.
>>>>>>Jesus said "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and
>>>>>>that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6), and Jesus' human body
>>>>>>was born of flesh.
>>>
>>>But His body was not born ONLY of flesh: for in place of a human father, His
>>>mother was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. So no, you have NOT proved that
>>>'Jesus was flesh only'.
>>
>>I think you'll find that he was born as a human being from out of Mary's
>>womb, so he was "born of the flesh". That God was responsible for the
>>conception does not deny that Jesus was born as flesh, as a man.
>
>I never denied that He was 'born of the flesh', I denied your non-Scriptural
>interpretation of this phrase. For you insist on reading 'of the flesh' as if it
>DENIED 'and having a soul/spirit'. THIS is what is non-Scriptural.
Php 2:7,8 state "was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion
as a man, ...". In John 3:6 Jesus confirms that any being born of the flesh is
flesh (only) and any born of the spirit is spirit (only). John 1:14 says that
Jesu was made flesh. I find this clear enough that Jesus was a human being just
like us during his first advent. It is your belief that humans are a hybrid
being of flesh and spirit, and that the spirit part cannot die, that is
unscriptural. I've tried to show that by quoting appropriate Scriptures. I've
obviously not convinced you yet, but it's another fairly lengthy topic and I
just don't have enough spare time at the moment to discuss it. This discussion
has already used up more of my time than I had intended, and I need to get on
with other things. Therefore I think I will have to cease this discussion soon
(perhaps this will be my last article in this thread).
>> Animals have this same "breath of life" too:
>>
>>Genesis 7:21,22 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
>>of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
>>earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that
>>was in the dry land, died.
>
>And is the same word being used here? IF not, what IS your point in quoting it?
Yes it's the same word. I'm surprised you didn't check for yourself.
>>To expand on what I meant, God knows and remembers, or preserves, our thoughts,
>>memories, etc. and during the resurrection he will recreate us as living beings
>>again, with a different body but with the same memory, personality, etc..
>
>But even if He did this (of course, I deny that this is even His intention),
I prefer not to deny the word of God.
>creating the same memory, personality (and what have you) would STILL be
>creating a DIFFERENT PERSON. This is not what He promised at all!
Trust God, he knows what he's doing, even if we can't understand how he will
do it. Jesus was resurrected and given a different body, but he is still Jesus.
Likewise we will be given different bodies, but it will still be us. Marvel at
it, but believe and trust God!
>Of course it does. But YOU said 'SOME will be given human bodies'. Paul never
>denied that ALL will be resurrected with human bodies. More important, that
>'spiritual body' he referred to is FULLY HUMAN. This is what you continue to
>deny, without ANY basis in Scripture.
Again you make that claim but offer no Scriptural proof.
<snip> because I've run out of time.
>Repeatedly in this post, as in this whole thread, you have insisted on your own
>interpretation of these verses, isolating them from other verses, as if no-one
>else had wrestled with them before you. Please take advantage of the fruits of
>others's labors, familiarize yourself with the interpretations of the Fathers
>before offering your own interpretations as the only true ones!
I'm honoured that you think that I could have worked it all out by myself,
but I have in fact, like most people, taken advantage of the fruits of other
people's labours. I was just trying to pass on some of that fruit.
Matthew 23:9 - And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your
Father, which is in heaven.
Keith Robichaud
Sabbatismo
Someone posted:
> > > Most translations of verse 6 imply
> > > that Jesus did not consider being
> > > equal with God something he should
> > > aim for, e.g. "who, though he was in > > > the form of God, did not count
> > > equality with God
> > > a thing to be grasped" (RSV).
> > > "Who, being in very nature {Or in > > > the form of} God, did not
consider
> > > equality with God something to
> > > be grasped" (NIV).
> > > i.e. the meaning is opposite to the > > > the KJV meaning.
Matthew Johnson post:
> > No, this is NOT 'opposite' at all.
> > For what is robbery except a form of
> > 'grasping'? Even the RSV and NIV > > translations support my
> > contention that this
> > verse implies that Christ is God.
> > After all, equality with God is not
> > 'something to be grasped' because
> > He already had it.
Keith replied
> You still don't understand. The KJV
> says that Jesus did not think it
> would be robbery to grasp equality
> with God, whereas the correct meaning > is that Jesus thought that grasping
> equality with God was something he
> should not do, despite that fact that > before being made flesh he was in
> the form of God (a mighty spirit being). > The meanings are opposite.
Instead
> of "thought it not robbery
> to be equal with God" it could be > translated "thought not by robbery to be
> equal with God".
> Consider also the context (using
> the suggested more correct translation
> of verse 6):
S:
While we are indeed enjoined to imitate the humbleness of Christ who though he
already was in form or essence God, he did not hold fast to that essence but
poured out his deity to take the form of a slave, or of a man.
Keith:
> To say "equality with God is not 'something to be grasped' because He
>already had it" is ridiculous, because a being can not rob himself, nor think
> about being equal with himself. So this
> verse most definitely does imply that > Jesus cannot be God, especially
> when you consider verse 9 which says
> "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted > him, and given him a name which
> is above every name" - God exalted
> Jesus, therefore Jesus cannot be God!
S:
The concept of robbery is not found in the
underlying Greek- as the Watch Tower on
Kingdom Interlinear Translation supports.
Verse 5 tells us that Jesus was already
God, but he did not in pride desire to hold fast to that essence, but humbly
chose to emptied himself to take on the form of a man. He did not in pride
continue to hold
on to his lofty position as deity but emptied himself and took on the form of a
man. Because he was so noble in not holding on to his Deity his Father gave
him a name above all names, even the name YHWH, which was his name in the
OT.
Peace,
Sabbatismos.
Matthew Johnson
In article <9blgo6$kkq$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>On 10 Apr 2001 11:10:38 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
>>>with God something he should aim for,
[snip]
>>>i.e. the meaning is opposite to the the KJV meaning.
>>
>>No, this is NOT 'opposite' at all. For what is robbery except a form of
>>'grasping'? Even the RSV and NIV translations support my contention that this
>>verse implies that Christ is God. After all, equality with
>> God is not 'something to be grasped' because He already had it.
>You still don't understand.
No, I am not the one here who fails to understand!
>The KJV says that Jesus did not think it would
>be robbery to grasp equality with God,
We both know this part...
>whereas the correct meaning is that Jesus
>thought that grasping equality with God was something he should not do,
No, that is NOT correct. Why, over the many centuries this verse has been read,
not ONE Greek commentator read this verse this way. Since when do you know Greek
better than they?
>despite that fact that before being made flesh he was
>in the form of God (a mighty spirit being).
This 'mighty spirit being' is NOWHERE mentioned in Scripture. I asked you before
for a Scriptural justification for the belief in such beings, I have yet to see
a convincing answer.
>The meanings are opposite. Instead of "thought it not robbery
>to be equal with God" it could be translated "thought not
>by robbery to be equal with God".
No, your proposed translation is impossible. Your proposed 'not by robbery'
would have required an articular infinitive in the DATIVE case. But what the
text actually has is a nominative (or accusative).
>Consider also the context (using the suggested more correct translation of
>verse 6):
I would consider it, if it really were 'more correct'. But since it is not, I am
entitled to refuse.
[snip]
>Here Paul is urging all Christians to have a humble mind like Jesus.
Of course. But which alternative shows the very great humility of Christ better?
To believe, as those who knew best have always believed, that Christ 'emptied
himself' of His Divinity, refusing His divine perogatives living like the lowest
servant, or to believe as you propose, that He did NOT abase Himself so greatly,
but lowered himself only a little?
>To say "equality with God is not 'something to be grasped' because He
>already had it" is ridiculous, because a being can not rob himself, nor think
>about being equal with himself.
Do you really believe this? Why?
>So this verse most definitely does imply that
>Jesus cannot be God,
No, it doesn't.
>especially when you consider verse 9 which says "Wherefore
>God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every
>name" - God exalted Jesus, therefore Jesus cannot be God!
We have already covered why THIS does not follow!
>Satan tried to grasp equality with God - "For thou hast said in thine heart,
>I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:I will
>sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:I will
>ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa
>14:13,14).
Is this an example of the reliability of your exegesis? This verse does NOT
refer to Satan, but to an ancient king of the middle east.
>Jesus did not even consider it, but instead humbled himself and was
>obedient to God.
Please reconsider that statement in the light of what I said above: you are
actually DENYING the full depth of Christ's humility, not praising it.
>>>If Jesus was God then why would he consider being equal with God?
That is not what the verse says. It says 'considered it robbery [or: a thing to
be siezed] to be equal with God'. Can't you see the difference?
>>>If Jesus was God then why in verse 9 does it say that God exalted Jesus
>>>because Jesus became obedient to God, obedient unto death.
What translation are you following? This is not what I see at all! I see it as
(MKJV for example):
And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself
and became obedient unto death--even the death of the
cross. (Php 2:8)
Nothing here about BECOMING obedient to God. He could not 'become' obedient to
God since He was ALWAYS obedient to God. But He DID become 'obedient unto
death'.
>>Because His human nature had never shared in this exaltation, not until His
>>death and Resurrection.
>Huh? The previous verse tells us that God did not exalt Jesus until after
>his death on the cross.
True. But 'Jesus' is the name Paul uses to refer to the Incarnate Word only
AFTER His Incarnation. And the post-Incarnate Word really was exalted only after
His death and resurrection.
>God resurrected Jesus to life again, but instead of
>restoring him to his spiritual nature and position that he had before he was
>made flesh, God exalted him to a higher nature and position,
Pure speculation, unsupported in Scripture.
>"That at the name
>of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
>things under the earth" (verse 10). His pre-human existence was not as high as
>he is now, but he is now of the highest order of spirit being,
> a partaker of the
>divine nature.
Once more, you are pining your entire argument on the unsupportable term 'spirit
being'.
[snip]
>>> This doesn't make sense if Jesus was God.
>>Sure it does, if you remember that Jesus Christ has two natures, human and
>>divine.As I pointed out above, the human nature had never been exalted in this
>>manner.
>It is impossible to have two natures at the same time, by definition.
No, it is not impossible, not for God, at least. BTW: what 'definition' are you
following for 'nature' such that you can claim it is impossible?
>Jesus
>was never a human being and a spiritual being at the same time, just as we are
>not and will never be.
So you love to repeat, but you have never even come close to proving it.
>God transformed Jesus from a spiritual nature to a human
>nature, and Jesus then sacrificed his human nature on the cross.
I already refuted this.
>If Jesus had
>taken back his human nature after his sacrifice then the sacrifice will have
>been taken back and the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life.
And the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life on YOUR premisses
either. What redeeming value would the sacrifice have if Christ had not been
both fully human and fully divine? NONE. BTW: why are you even mentioning this
'taken back' option? I never suggested it.
>It is possible for spirit beings to take on human form in order to
>communicate to humans, such as Angels have done and as Jesus did after his
>resurrection and before his ascension to God. Jesus formed the human body for a
>while, and then dissolved it away again, hence he appeared out of thin air in a
>locked room and disappeared again into thin air (and when he appeared to his
>disciples at various times they did not recognise him because he assumed a
>different body each time, only the once appearing in a body similar to his human
>one, and bearing the crucifixion scars, just for doubting Thomas' sake).
Again: sheer speculation, unsupportable in Scripture.
>It does not mean that all spirit beings are also humans, nor vice versa.
I never said that it did. Don't you read before replying?
>2 Corinthians 5:16 - "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
>henceforth know we him no more".
Again, your proposed translation is astonishing. How on earth did you get this
out of:
ho^ste he^meis apo tou nun oudena oidamen kata sarka: ei kai egno^kaman
kata sarka Christon, alla nun oiketi gino^skomen (II Cor 5:16)??
You should have translated as:
So from now on we regard no one accoding to the flesh.
Though we once knew Christ in this way, we do so
no longer. (II Cor 5:16)
>>> God is exalting his son, not himself.
>>
>>YEs, He is exalting His Son, but what other kind of Son would God have except
>>God? You never have answered this question, have you?
>Are you saying that God cannot have offspring, for any son that he will have
>will just be part of God, and be God? That doesn't make much sense.
Of COURSE it makes sense! For we know that there is only One God (Dt 6:4). But
if the Only-Begotten were a separate being, then we would have a problem: either
the begetting was NOT a true begetting, and the begotten has a lower nature, or
we have two Gods. But both are clearly impossible! Therefore the Only-Begotten
must be the same God.
[snip]
>>>>Oh, no, this does not follow at all! It seems you are trying to
>>>> get out of one logical difficulty of interpretation only to
>>>> land in a bigger one. For if, as you say, it is God who exalts Jesus,
>>>> then it _must_ be the Son, i.e., Jesus
>>>>Christ Himself, who exalts Jesus, because:
> Or rather, you can't follow it! :-)
Who is it who "can't follow it" here? You didn't even TRY to reply to my
argument here. So it is YOU who "can't follow it" here.
>Note Hebrews 5:5,
Oh, I have noted it. Many times. There is nothing in here that would force me to
modify my position.
>"So also Christ
>glorified not himself to be made an high priest;
> but he that said unto him, Thou
>art my Son, to day have I begotten thee", which again confirms it was God who
>glorified and exalted Jesus.
But there is NOTHING here to contradict my position. Nothing. Why do you think
there is? Please remember to keep in mind what I said above about the name
'Jesus' before you answer.
>Can a private promote himself to become a general? Can a pauper exalt
>himself to become a king?
These examples are of doubtful relevance. After all, the human activities of
'promotion' and 'exaltation' are quite different from what WE are talking about!
>After Jesus was resurrected he said to his disciples
>"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth" (Mat 28:18).
>Jesus couldn't give himself power and authority because it
>wasn't his to give, and if it was
>then he already had it and he didn't need to give it to himself!
No, this does not follow at all! After all: he said 'all power is given unto
me...', but He didn't say WHEN this was done. It could have been done at the
same time as His Begetting, i.e., before time itself.
>It is your
>belief that Jesus was God that gives rise to logical difficulties as it is not
>in harmony with the Scriptures!
No, it is in harmony with the Scriptures. It is your point of view that gives
rise to insuperable logical difficulties. The 'logical difficulties' you claim
for Trinitarian dogma vanish when you realize that Christ had two natures.
>>>God exalted Jesus while Jesus was dead, by raising
>>>him to life with the divine nature, to a superior nature
>>> than he had before God changed his nature to human nature.
>>So YOU say, but you continue to change the topic and
>>evade instead of providing any 'proof' of this. Could
>>this be because it is false, so that you cannot prove it?
>You're right, I checked the previous articles and I haven't quoted any
>Scriptures to support this, so I'll refer to some now. We've been discussing
>some verses above, Php 2:6-11.
Which does NOT support it, as should have been clear from the above.
>Some others verses are:
>
>Jesus was changed to be human:
>Psalms 8:4,5 - What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
>that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels,
This does NOT support it either. Since when does 'made him a little lower' imply
a change of nature?
>Hebrews 2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for
>the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour;
But this IS the justification for applying Ps 8:4,5 to Christ. And the same
applies as immediately above: since when does 'made him a little lower' imply a
change of nature?
>[i.e. Jesus was changed to be made a human, he died, and after his resurrection
>he was given glory and honour]
No, no, no! This does NOT follow at all. Your 'changed to be made a human' is
NOWHERE in the verse. That is your addition, which you have NEVER justified. On
the contrary: rather than '_changed_ to be made a human' what careful
consideration of the ENTIRE epistle shows is that while remaining fully divine,
he took upon Himself the fulness of human nature.
If this were not so, we would have, for example real problems with the pronoun
reference in chapter one!
>It was God who resurrected Jesus:
>Galatians 1:1 - Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus
>Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
Of course. Who denies this? Not me!
>Since his resurrection Jesus has the same divine nature as God:
Whoah! A shocking instance of what looks like agreement! Yes, of course he had
the same divine nature. In fact, He had this all along, which is why He was able
to raise the dead, replace Moses's teaching, forgive men ALL their sins...
>Hebrews 1:3 - Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of
>his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by
>himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Again, I find your translation surprising. But what I really want to call to
your attention here is not the odd translation, but what you left out of the
whole sentence: the 'being the brightness of his glory' refers to BEFORE he
became the purging of our sins. In fact, it refers to even before the creation
of time itself!
After all, the time of the verb 'being the brightness' must be the same as in
'through whom He made the ages' (Hb 1:2)!
[snip]
>God's nature is immortal:
Of course!
>1 Timothy 6:16 - Who only hath immortality,
>
>Therefore Jesus could not have possessed the divine nature in
> his pre-human form
This does not follow at all!
>because he was not immortal, otherwise he could not have had his nature changed
>to become a mortal human,
No, this does not follow at all. If, as you say (for I deny it), He had His
nature changed, then whether or not he was immortal AFTER the change in nature
has NOTHING to do with whether or not he was immortal BEFORE the change. After
all, being immortal is of nature.
>and he could not have died. (Immortal means that it's
>impossible to die.)
>>Oh, but He WAS immortal. He described His own immortality when He said:
>>
>> No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down.
>> I have the power to lay it down
>> And I have the power to take it back up again. (Jn 10:18)
>>
>>How could He say this, if, as YOU say, it was the Father Who raised Him while
>>Jesus was dead (unable to raise Himself)?
>
>The KJV is a bit misleading here, using the word "power" rather than
>"authority".
No, there is nothing misleading in the KJV translation. In fact it makes little
difference which you use here: 'power' or 'authority'.
>More modern translations more correctly tanslate [sic] it as:
>"No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down from Myself.
>I have authority to layit down, and I have authority to
>take it again. I have received this commandment from My Father." (MKJV)
But this makes NO difference! After all, who gave this authority? God, of
course. Now does God give an authority to do something you have no power to do?
Of course not! So the words really are interchangeable here.
>Therefore Jesus is saying that God had commissioned, or authorised, him to
>sacrifice his life to redeem mankind, and he also had God's assurrance that God
>would resurrect him to life again.
Pure speculation, unsupported in Scripture.
>>As I tried to explain to you before, there is NO Scriptural justification for
>>your rash claim that death implies ceasing to exist. So your entire argument
>>here is worthless.
>
>>>It's a seperate topic, but I can justify it based on Scripture, e.g.
[snip]
>>None of these verses prove your claim. Nor is is a seperate topic,
>> since without it, your entire argument collapses.
>See the booklet "The Truth About Hell" at
>http://www.robichaud.freeserve.co.uk/hell.htm for a more detailed
> explanation of death meaning ceasing to exist.
The same points I made in this thread apply to that booklet. You have failed to
prove your point both here and there!
>>>Jesus was talking about the resurrection ("Now that the dead are raised",
>>>and see also verse 33) and was saying that everyone will be resurrected
>>>to life again, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>>No, He was NOT talking about the resurrection.
>Oh yes he was! See the equivalent passage in Matthew 22, with the
>equivalent verse being:
>
>Matthew 22:31 - But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read
>that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
What? You really think I didn't know that passage? Of course I knew it. It seems
I know it better than you, since you made an impossible claim based on it!
Let's take both verses together now, so that you can see that your argument does
NOT follow. They are:
But about the resurrection of the dead, have you not read
what God said to you, "I am the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - He is not the God of the
dead, but of the living. (22:31-32)
Now remember that the Sadducees are arguing against the resurrection of the
dead, not against the continued existence of the soul after death (although they
disbelieve this, too). But all it took was for Christ to establish from
Scripture that God is the God of the living, not of the dead, to disprove both.
And this is what He did.
If, as you claim, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob ceased to exist at all, only to be
re-created in the resurrection, He would have had to say:
But about the resurrection of the dead, have you not read
what God said to you, "I am the God of Abraham and the God
of Isaac and the God of Jacob" - He is not the God of the
dead, but of those who will live again. (22:31-32)
But of course, He did NOT say this! Then again, I admit I should have been more
specific when I said "He was not talking about the resurrection".
>To quote Jesus from the Matt 22 passage on the resurrection question, "Ye do
>err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (verse 29).
Nice try, but quite unconvincing.
>Are you saying that God, who created Adam from the dust of
>the earth, does not have thepower to raise a human body to life again?
No, I am saying that if the soul does not continuously exist to be rejoined with
that body, then that 'life' is the life of a DIFFERENT PERSON, one who did not
even exist before. But that is NOT the promise God made to us!
[snip]
>>>A spirit being is a
>>>living being that has a spiritual body.
>>
>>Then according to your definition, the angels, which do not
>> have bodies, and God the Father, are not 'spirit beings'. How odd!
I see you didn't answer this. Cat got your tongue?
>>>1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is
>>> raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body,
>>> and there is a spiritual body.
>>
>>Once more you have built your theology on a bad translation. It does NOT say
>>'natural body', it says 'so^ma psychikon'. There is no really good translation
>>for 'psychikon' here, but 'natural' has got to be one of the worst.
>> Better would be 'animal' or even 'psychological'.
>The majority of translations that I have say "natural", one says "physical",
>one says "animal".
I know they do. But that is because you confine yourself to English
translations, mostly done by Protestants. The majority of translation I have in
my house do NOT say this. They say something rather closer to the Greek.
>Nevertheless, they all mean a physical human body. However,
>you're missing the point entirely as I was quoting the verse to point out that
>spirit beings have a spiritual body. You seem to think that the angels and God
>don't have a spiritual body, but you haven't quoted any Scriptures to support
>that claim.
Should I have? After all, YOU are the one claiming that they do, and I haven't
seen an Scriptures to support your claim, either.
>>>John 4:24 God is a Spirit
>>
>>Is it 'a Spirit' or 'Spirit'?
>
>It's "a spirit" in the KJV, which is the version I quote unless otherwise
>stated, as is the convention I believe.
Convention? WHOSE convention? It is certainly not the convention in this NG.
Read the FAQ!
>Some other translations just say
>"spirit", some say "a spirit", including Young's Literal Translation and Green's
>Literal Translation.
>
>>Besides: what IS your point here? Spirits don't a
>>priori need ANY body, 'spiritual' or otherwise.
>
>That's your assumption for which you've provided no Scriptural support.
Well, you are the one claiming that Scripture teaches the notion of 'spirit
beings', so the burden of proof is on YOU. Show me the Scriptures showing that
angels and God have 'spirit bodies'! Besides: don't you know what 'a priori'
means?
>>So you STILL have not justified your use of the term 'spirit being'.
> As 1 Cor 15:44 says, "There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
>body".
So what is unnatural about the spiritual body? If you insist on your translation
here, there must be something unnatural about it!
>Human beings have a human body,
Well, yes, of course.
>spirit beings have a spritual body.
This is what you have never justified.
>If spirit beings do not have a spiritual body then how can they be seen,
Because they are able to create the APPEARANCE of a body, without needing one.
>and how do
>you explain "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
>what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him;
>for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2)?
But this does not make your point at all! After all: when He wrote this, the
Incarnation had already occured, so Christ already had a human body, with which
He ascended into heaven.
[snip]
>>>>>Jesus was a mortal spirit being, then a mortal human being, but is now an
>>>>>immortal spirit being.
>>>>
>>>>Once more: how can anyone ever justify this based on Scripture? I will even dare
>>>>claim (refute me if you can) that Scripture NEVER taught the existence of a
>>>>'mortal spirit being'.
>>>
>>> 1 Timothy 6:16 states that only God was immortal,
>>
>>No, no, no, no! It says:
>>
>> the only one who has immortality... (1 Tm 6:16)
>>
>>So how does this differ from 'the only one who is immortal'? Simple: God alone
>>has immortality, but he shares this with select created beings by grace. In
>>other words, God alone is immortal by nature, all other immortal beings are
>>immortal by grace.
>
>And which Scriptures verses support this?
I don't need to show this; after all, you are the one who is claiming it must
mean something else, you show me why. I can only refute so many errors in one
thread!
>Although the Bible says that it
>is the hope of Christians to be resurrected with the immortal divine nature,
>like Jesus was, there is no reference to any other immortal beings.
When did I claim there were? Only the Trinity (by nature) and the regenerate (by
grace) have this immortal divine nature. Angels do not. They have only an
immortal nature.
>Where do
>you get this unscriptual term "immortal being" from? (I couldn't resist that
>:-).
Well, some comic relief is welcome in such a long post!
[snip]
>>Actually, no, the verb 'katargein' here should have been
>> translated 'rendered of no account'. In other contexts,
>> it _can_ be rendered 'destroyed', but here, no.
>>After all, if, as YOU say, he perishes, who is it who
>> is "burning forever in the lake of fire (Rev 20:10)"?
> The "lake of fire and brimstone" is symbolic of utter destruction.
Oh, really? Why do you think it is not instead the symbol of eternal punishment?
[snip]
>The
>"for ever and ever" is more properly translated "unto the ages of ages",
But 'forever' IS the meaning of 'to ages of ages'!
> or
>until the perfect ages are due after the Millennial age (Christ's 1,000 year
>reign following the resurrection). Note also Rev 22:8 which says "... shall
>have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the
>second death". Therefore being thrown into the lake means death, or
>destruction, and the KJV translation of Heb 2:14 is correctly translated as
>"destroy him".
Even if your sense of 'ages of ages' were possible this would NOT follow.
>>Once more, you have quoted the Bible out of context.
>
> I don't think so.
But you will have to do better than that to convince anyone else!
[snip]
>>I never denied that He was 'born of the flesh', I denied your non-Scriptural
>>interpretation of this phrase. For you insist on reading 'of the flesh' as if
>>>>it DENIED 'and having a soul/spirit'. THIS is what is non-Scriptural.
>Php 2:7,8 state "was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion
>as a man, ...". In John 3:6 Jesus confirms that any being born of the flesh is
>flesh (only) and any born of the spirit is spirit (only).
No, no, no! This '(only)' is YOUR unscriptural interpolation! What further need
do we have of proof? You are determined to distort the Scriptures with your
adulteration of the textz!
>John 1:14 says that Jesus was made flesh.
It is equally clear that He kept His divine nature. For it says 'THE WORD made
flesh'!
>I find this clear enough that Jesus was a human being just
>like us during his first advent.
No, not 'just like us'. For John never called US 'the Word made flesh (Jn
1:14)'. He had everything we have by nature, except sin. But He had so much
more!
>It is your belief that humans are a hybrid
>being of flesh and spirit, and that the spirit part cannot die, that is
>unscriptural. I've tried to show that by quoting appropriate Scriptures.
And each time, I showed why the verse does NOT contradict my belief, nor support
yours.
>I've
>obviously not convinced you yet, but it's another fairly lengthy topic and I
>just don't have enough spare time at the moment to discuss it.
As you may have noticed, I am not going away, so you will find the time, I
think. But you will still fail to convince me, just as you would fail if you
tried to convince me you could 'square the circle'!
[snip]
>I prefer not to deny the word of God.
Then why do you keep doing it?
>>creating the same memory, personality (and what have you) would STILL be
>>creating a DIFFERENT PERSON. This is not what He promised at all!
>Trust God, he knows what he's doing, even if we can't understand how he will
>do it.Jesus was resurrected and given a different body, but he is still Jesus.
No, it was the same body, but transformed in the resurrection. Otherwise it
would make no sense for Peter to refer to the Psalm 15:10 in Acts 2:27!
[snip]
>I'm honoured that you think that I could have worked it all out by myself,
>but I have in fact, like most people, taken advantage of the fruits of other
>people's labours. I was just trying to pass on some of that fruit.
Well, next time get the fruit from a good tree instead of a bad one (Lk 6:43)!
Visit http://decani.yunet.com to see your tax-dollars
at work subsidizing the persecution of Christians.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Keith Robichaud
On 16 Apr 2001 18:19:54 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Matthew 12:40 - "For as Jonas was three days and
>>three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and
>>three nights in the heart of the earth". Jesus was declaring that he would be
>>in the grave for three days and three nights. That doesn't sound like Paradise
>>to me.
>
>Well, of course being in the grave is not like Paradise. But so what? It is
>perfectly _normal_ to say 'be in the grave' or the like when you mean only that
>the _body_ will be in the grave; the soul will be elsewhere. In Christ's case,
>the soul went to Paradise.
Please read the extracts from Dr Samuele Bacchiocchi book "Immortality or
Resurrection" which discusses the human nature. It helps to show that the soul
cannot live seprately from the body:
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/1.htm
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/2.htm
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/4.htm
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm
Keith Robichaud
Keith Robichaud
On 21 Apr 2001 10:54:35 GMT, Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> Most translations of verse 6 imply that Jesus did not consider being equal
>>>>with God something he should aim for,
>>>>i.e. the meaning is opposite to the the KJV meaning.
>>The KJV says that Jesus did not think it would
>>be robbery to grasp equality with God,
>>whereas the correct meaning is that Jesus
>>thought that grasping equality with God was something he should not do,
>
>No, that is NOT correct. Why, over the many centuries this verse has been read,
>not ONE Greek commentator read this verse this way. Since when do you know Greek
>better than they?
You obviously didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I quoted two
translation (RSV and NIV) which do translate it this way, so that's at least two
Greek scholars who read the verse that way.
>>Consider also the context (using the suggested more correct translation of
>>verse 6):
>
>I would consider it, if it really were 'more correct'. But since it is not, I am
>entitled to refuse.
Considering a verse out of context easily leads to wrong interpretations.
Consider the context of the NIV translation:
Philippians 2:3-7 (NIV)
Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider
others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own
interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the
same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of}
God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made
himself nothing, taking the very nature {Or the form} of a servant, being made
in human likeness.
>>To say "equality with God is not 'something to be grasped' because He
>>already had it" is ridiculous, because a being can not rob himself, nor think
>>about being equal with himself.
>
>Do you really believe this? Why?
Common sense!
>>Satan tried to grasp equality with God - "For thou hast said in thine heart,
>>I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:I will
>>sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:I will
>>ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa
>>14:13,14).
>
>Is this an example of the reliability of your exegesis? This verse does NOT
>refer to Satan, but to an ancient king of the middle east.
Scofield and others think it does refer to Satan.
>>If Jesus had
>>taken back his human nature after his sacrifice then the sacrifice will have
>>been taken back and the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life.
>
>And the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life on YOUR premisses
>either. What redeeming value would the sacrifice have if Christ had not been
>both fully human and fully divine?
Jesus redeems (buys back) Adam's life, and therefore all his progeny who
inherited Adam's sinful nature, by paying the price/penalty of Adam's sin. The
penalty for Adam's sin was the loss off his perfect human life, so similarly the
price Jesus had to pay was the loss of a perfect human life. God's justice is
"thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex
21:23-25). Jesus sacrifice had to be identical to Adam's penalty - the death of
a perfect human being, not the death of a being that was "both fully human and
fully divine". Jesus lived a sinless human life, and sacrifced that perfect,
sinless life. If he had the added advantage of being fully divine then it would
have been much easier for him to live a sinless life than for Adam, and his
perfect life would not have been as valuable, as well as not being an identical.
>>2 Corinthians 5:16 - "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
>>henceforth know we him no more".
>
>Again, your proposed translation is astonishing. How on earth did you get this
>out of:
>
> ho^ste he^meis apo tou nun oudena oidamen kata sarka: ei kai egno^kaman
> kata sarka Christon, alla nun oiketi gino^skomen (II Cor 5:16)??
>
>You should have translated as:
>
> So from now on we regard no one accoding to the flesh.
> Though we once knew Christ in this way, we do so
> no longer. (II Cor 5:16)
I was quoting the KJV translation, missing out the the first part of the
verse up to the colon. The meaning is the same as the translation you quoted (I
do wish you would tell us which version you are quoting, otherwise there's no
way for anyway to check whether or not you're just making it up).
>No, it was the same body, but transformed in the resurrection. Otherwise it
>would make no sense for Peter to refer to the Psalm 15:10 in Acts 2:27!
Acts 2:31-33 He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This
Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the
right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
Keith Robichaud
Matthew Johnson
In article <9buh7r$l34$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, ke...@robichaud.freeserve.co.uk
says...
>
>
>
>On 21 Apr 2001 10:54:35GMT, Matthew Johnson<Matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>>The KJV says that Jesus did not think it would
>>>be robbery to grasp equality with God,
>>>whereas the correct meaning is that Jesus
>>>thought that grasping equality with God was something he should not do,
>>No, that is NOT correct. Why, over the many centuries this
>>verse has been read, not ONE Greek commentator read this
>>verse this way. Since when do you know Greek
>>better than they?
>You obviously didn't read what I wrote very carefully.
Sorry, but it is obvious that you are the one who didn't read what I wrote
carefully. See below.
>I quoted two translation (RSV and NIV) which do translate it this way,
>so that's at least two Greek scholars who read the verse that way.
So? This is what shows you did not read what I wrote carefully. First of all, I
was referring to your claim concerning the MEANING, not the translation. It is
your MEANING that none of the Greek commentators support. Secondly, I did not
say 'Greek scholars', I said 'Greek commentators'. By that I mean not just men
who are Greek scholars, but men who, in addition to being Greek scholars, spoke
Koine Greek as their native tongue, such as St. John Chrysostom, Origen, Blessed
Theophylact and many more. Not ONE of these commentators reads Php 2:6 your way.
Set alongside the testimony of such men, your RSV and NIV translations carry
very little weight.
Besides: I already showed you why the RSV and NIV translation do NOT contradict
the KJV translation.
>>>Consider also the context (using the suggested more correct translation of
>>>verse 6):
>>
>>I would consider it,if it really were 'more correct'.But since it is not, I am
>>entitled to refuse.
>
>Considering a verse out of context easily leads to wrong interpretations.
I believe you since you have demonstrated this so often in this thread. It
should be pretty clear by now that I am not 'considering it out of context'. It
is you who consider it out of context, by supplying a false context with a
watered-down notion of Christ's humility, a notion that breaks down completely
when you consider how often He did things that only God has the right to do,
such as forgive the paralytic his sins, replace the Law of Moses, declare
Himself Lord of the Sabbath...
>Consider the context of the NIV translation:
>Philippians 2:3-7 (NIV)
>Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider
>others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own
>interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the
>same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature {Or in the form of}
>God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made
>himself nothing, taking the very nature {Or the form} of a servant, being made
>in human likeness.
>
>>>To say "equality with God is not 'something to be grasped' because He
>>>already had it" is ridiculous, because a being can not rob himself, nor think
>>>about being equal with himself.
>>
>>Do you really believe this? Why?
>
>Common sense!
Common sense says that beings DO rob themselves, it happens all the time when
people rob themselves of opportunities by taking drugs or abusing their loved
ones. Common sense says that people CAN think about being equal with themselves,
even if there is rarely occasion to do so.
So much for your claim that 'a being cannot rob himself, nor think about being
equal with himself' being based on 'common sense'!
>>>Satan tried to grasp equality with God - "For thou hast said in thine heart,
>>>I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:I will
>>>sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:I will
>>>ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isa
>>>14:13,14).
>>
>>Is this an example of the reliability of your exegesis? This verse does NOT
>>refer to Satan, but to an ancient king of the middle east.
>
>Scofield and others think it does refer to Satan.
So who cares? Why would anyone in this NG or anywhere else believe this just
because Scofield does?
Try following the logic instead of making vain appeals to empty authority.
This, BTW, is an excellent example of how you read out of context. The context
makes it quite clear the verse refers to the same King of Babylon mentioned a
mere 6 verses earlier, in Isa 14:4. In fact the entirety of Isa 14:4-14:24 is
about this king. So how on earth can you claim to 'consider the context' and
miss THIS?
>>>If Jesus had
>>>taken back his human nature after his sacrifice then the sacrifice will have
>>>been taken back and the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life.
>>
>>And the human race could never be resurrected to eternal life on YOUR premisses
>>either. What redeeming value would the sacrifice have if Christ had not been
>>both fully human and fully divine?
>
>Jesus redeems (buys back) Adam's life, and therefore all his progeny who
>inherited Adam's sinful nature, by paying the price/penalty of Adam's sin.
You miss the point. By 'paying the price/penalty', according to your
interpretation, Christ has still done nothing to actually change Adam's nature
(or our nature). So nothing has been changed, and we are still corruptible,
mortal, and incapable of ascension into heaven. But if, as I say, Christ is both
fully human and fully divine, then by uniting these two natures, His death DOES
change our nature, in a 'replay' of the original creative act of Genesis. It is
this second creation that makes our nature new, so that we can walk in newness
of life (Rom 6:4) and rise from the dead to eternal life.
>The penalty for Adam's sin was the loss off his
>perfect human life, so similarly the price Jesus had
>to pay was the loss of a perfect human life.
Nowhere will you find this stated in Scripture. This too, is speculation. What
is worse, it is a speculation that imposes necessity on God. Surely that is
proof enough that something is seriously wrong here!
>God's justice is
>"thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand,
>foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Ex
>21:23-25).
This is an obviously deficient understanding of God's justice! If this really
were His justice, why did he repeal this 'lex talionis' throughout the Gospels,
especially in Matthew Ch. 5-6?
The real truth is that God _tolerated_ this 'deficient understanding' for a
time, because when Ex 21:23-25 was written, the Israelites were much more savage
than 'an eye for an eye'. They were too much like Lamech, who 'killed a young
man for his bruising (Gen 4:23). So the 'lex talionis' was a great improvement
over their current practice, and a preparation for the far superiour Gospel Law
revealed in Mt 5:39.
>Jesus sacrifice had to be identical to Adam's penalty - the death of
>a perfect human being, not the death of a being that was "both fully human and
>fully divine".
You repeat yourself. Groundlessly, too. Again, you cannot justify this based on
Scripture, you can only do so by including a late and erroneous understanding of
the significance of sacrifice.
>Jesus lived a sinless human life, and sacrifced that perfect,
>sinless life.If he had the added advantage of being fully divine then it would
>have been much easier for him to live a sinless life than for Adam, and his
>perfect life would not have been as valuable, as well as not being an identical.
More unsupportable speculation. But here, at least, you introduce some
intriguing paradoxes. Was it really 'easier' for him to live this sinless life?
Or was the burden on him so much greater than on Adam? After all, Adam was not
asked to die on the cross after being persecuted by the Jews.
>>>2 Corinthians 5:16 - "though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now
>>>henceforth know we him no more".
>>
>>Again, your proposed translation is astonishing. How on earth did you get this
>>out of:
>>
>> ho^ste he^meis apo tou nun oudena oidamen kata sarka: ei kai egno^kaman
>> kata sarka Christon, alla nun oiketi gino^skomen (II Cor 5:16)??
>>
>>You should have translated as:
>>
>> So from now on we regard no one accoding to the flesh.
>> Though we once knew Christ in this way, we do so
>> no longer. (II Cor 5:16)
>
>I was quoting the KJV translation, missing out the the first part of the
>verse up to the colon. The meaning is the same as the translation you quoted (I
>do wish you would tell us which version you are quoting, otherwise there's no
>way for anyway to check whether or not you're just making it up).
And I wish you would quote whole verses instead of starting in the middle of a
sentence. What are you trying to hide when you do this?
BTW: who will believe you, when you claim 'The meaning is the same as the
translation you quoted'? Not I, for sure! If the meaning were the same, I would
not have objected to the quotation. But I saw that you might have been mislead
by the translation into believing something that is not implied by the Greek. So
I provided a translation without this fault.
And you certainly did misinterpret the translation. For you read it as if it
meant that He HAS no flesh anymore. But this is impossible. What did you think
Thomas touched when he did as the Lord said:
And then he [the Lord] said to Thomas "put your finger here
and bring your hand and put it in my side and do not
be disbelieve, but believe (Jn 20:27)?
Thomas touched human flesh, but transfigured by the Resurrection. This
transfiguration is the same as what is promised to all believers, so that Christ
truly is the first-born of the Resurrection.
But this dogmatic reason is not the only reason your proposed translation is so
bad. It is also bad because there is no 'henceforth' in the Greek, nor has the
translator understood Paul's ellipsis. Paul is not saying 'we no longer know
Christ', he is saying 'we no longer know Christ ACCORDING TO THE FLESH'. Big
difference, isn't it? This WOULD have been clearer if you had quoted the whole
verse.
>>No, it was the same body, but transformed in the resurrection. Otherwise it
>>would make no sense for Peter to refer to the Psalm 15:10 in Acts 2:27!
>
>Acts 2:31-33 He [David] seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ,
>that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This
>Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the
>right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the
>Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
You really didn't get the point, did you? Why did you quote a different verse
with no explanation, as if ignoring the verse I gave you? Do you really believe
anyone will be taken in by such behavior?
Now let's look at all the verses, the verses you were afraid to quote, along
with the one you did quote, so that all can see how irrelevant your response
really is.
The verse you were afraid to quote is:
because you will abandon my soul in Hades
neither will you cause your Holy one to see corruption (Acts 2:27)
The verse from the Psalms it is quoting is:
because you will not abandon my soul in Hades
neither will you cause your Holy one to see corruption
you have made your ways of life known to me
you will fill me with joy before your face
at your right hand is delight for ever (Ps 15:10vg [16:10mt])
Obviously he is quoting this psalm in Acts 2:27. So why did you respond with
2:31-33? Did you hope that the readers would not notice that your theology is
undone by Acts 2:27? If so, your hope is in vain, since either citation is
enough to destroy your theology.
After all, whether you follow 2:27 or 2:31, it is clear that the flesh of Jesus
Christ did NOT see corruption. So when Christ was raised from the dead, it was
the SAME BODY. So much for your claim that it was a different body, a spiritual
one in place of the previous carnal one.
The truth is that from the moment of the Incarnation, Christ's body was like
ours in every way, except that He was not subject to sin. In the
Transfiguration, He showed us what this body is capable of becoming, then in the
Resurrection, His body actually became this. After this, His appearance was
dramatically changed, but not beyond recognition. He could walk through closed
doors, disappear into thin air, yet he still bore the wounds for Thomas to
probe, and still ate, though He no longer needed to.
But most important, with this transfigured body, He could ascend into Heaven,
taking His body with Him. When we who are the fellow shoots (Rom 6:5) rise in
the general Resurrection, we too will have that ability.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com to see your tax-dollars
at work subsidizing the persecution of Christians.
Visit http://decani.yunet.com/doctrine.html for _sound_ interpretation
of Scripture.
Martin Bullivant
>
> If you think the Scriptures give a different explanation
> of death then why didn't you quote the Scriptures to show
> that I'm wrong?
>
The Bible frequently compares the nature of man to that of the animals. The
Psalmist declares, speaking of both:
"Thou (God) takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust"
(104:29).
The writer of Ecclesiastes is quite categorical: he desires men to see
"that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men
befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth
the other; yea, they have all one breath . . . All go unto one place: all
are of the dust and all turn to dust again" (3:19-21).
Men and animals have by nature the same fate: they all return to the ground.
Some may object that the next verse gives a different sense, but all modern
versions (R.V., R.S.V., N.I.V., N.E.B.) put it thus:
"Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast
goes downward to the earth?" (v.22).
That is, who can tell whether there is any difference? Incidentally, the
word translated "spirit" here is the very same as is rendered "breath" in
v.1 9; which shows that "spirit" here is the life resulting from breathing.
It ceases when breathing stops.
So the "soul" can die. The Psalmist, speaking of the judgement God brought
upon the proud Egyptians by the ten plagues, says: "He (God) spared not
their soul from death"; and then immediately adds: "and gave their life over
to the pestilence" (Psalm 78:50), showing that the soul and the life are the
same thing.
Twice God declares through Ezekiel: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die"
(Ezek. 18:3,20). Samson, in his final appeal to God, prays: "Let me die with
the Philistines" (Judges 16:30). But the margin of the A.V. shows that what
Samson literally said was: "Let my soul die . . ."
The soul then, is the person, the living being. When he perishes, the soul,
or life, perishes with him.