Sunday's Radio Show with the Dub's

by Unclepenn1 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Unclepenn1

  Well, we had our radio show on Sunday with the Jehovah's Witnesses and I don't think it went all that well, namely because it turned into a game of rhetoric. (If you listened, I would love to hear your thoughts).

  2 Tim 2 :14 says- Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about *words*; it is of no value,
  and only ruins those who listen.

  and also

  1 Tim 6:4 says- he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about *words* that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil...

  The guest representing the Dub's was Greg Stafford, the man who has written the book 'Defending the Jehovah's Witnesses'. Our goal was to get the JW's to admit that using John 17:3 where Jesus says the Father is the 'only true God' meant that Jesus being 'a god' in their NWT made them polytheists, or, having to say that Jesus is a false god. The discussion started by Greg saying that they believed Jesus was not God in an ontological sense, but rather that he held attributes that made him like God, or as a god. I knew right away that the discussion would be a battle over semantics, since that is all that the JW's are left with to make their teachings fit scripture. Clay, the host, went on to reveal the obvious, that if Jehovah is the only true God, then by definition all others gods must be false. Long story short, Greg pulled a trick that Clinton used during the Monica Lewinsky trials and put emphasis on what the word 'true' really means. Clay quoted the definition from Websters dictionary which states 'Consistent with fact or reality; not false or erroneous'. Greg went on to say that English was irrelevant and we all kind of rolled our eyes after that. The rest of the debate was spent asking Greg to give an example of anything that was 'the only true' blank that did not make everything else it that category false. The conversation continued with babblings about Greek and how there are different definitions for the word true, like you can just pick what fits you best. (Hmm, let me take definition 3b from this word and 2a from that word, etc) For those who listened I would like to hear your views, and if you didn't hear it, we are going to play clips next week and discuss what went on. Although the men were very polite, and dressed to kill, they are so badly decieved and I cry out to God in my heart for their souls.

  Penn

  Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
  Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
  Jesus- 'I am the truth'
• 

  Lionel_P_Hartley

  Unclepenn,

  You should have told us who it was from the start! Mr. Stafford has quite a reputation for his " 'debating' `skills' ". Once he entered into a weeks long debate with a poster at H2O. He lost miserably, of course. His strategy is to obfuscate and to use big words; Mr. Clinton might ask 'what is your definition "is" ' whereas Mr. Stafford first asks "is "is" a word?" And then, what do we mean by "word" anyway. And when we ask "is `is'" which "is" are we wishing to define?

  He is good at one thing though, and that is praising himself. Tell me, at the interval did he rush off to a pay phone to call in, under an alias, to tell the listeners how good he was doing and how superb his debating skills were? Oh yes, and to announce that he had clearly won the debate andthat his opponent was inept. That's essentially what he did at H2O.

  Thanks for reminding me of one of life's sweeter moments on these boards. The day Mr. Stafford was found out in real time to be the charlatan that his writings show him to be.

  Lionel Hartley
• 

  accuracy

  But you cannot argue only on the basis of English meanings of words, when the Bible was written originally in Hebrew and koine Greek. It is necessary to consider how the word "true" is used in those languages, and whether it is in the exclusive sense implied by the English word. In such a case, a word's actual usage in the Bible has to carry more weight.

  You cannot argue on the basis of the Bible's use of the word "true" that calling the LORD (Jehovah) "the only true God" makes Jesus a "false" God. It simply doesn't work that way. There are too many cases that prove otherwise, that "true" is not necessarily the opposite of "false." The context governs.

  For example, when the writer of Hebrews (at 8:2, NASB) calls Jesus "a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man," he is contrasting this "true tabernacle" of Jesus with the tabernacle Moses pitched in the wilderness. But that tabernacle of Moses was also, according to the Bible, the Lord's true tabernacle, otherwise it would not have been used for worship. Was Moses' tabernacle therefore a "false" tabernacle? The Bible nowhere indicates this. Clearly, calling the symbolic tabernacle in which Jesus serves a "true" tabernacle does not mean that the tabernacle of Moses was a "false" one. There are many, many such examples of the actual use of the word "true" in the Scriptures.

  I did not hear the program of which you speak. But if the objective was to somehow prove the Trinity from the Bible, it was doomed from the beginning. The LORD (Jehovah) is the only true God who must be worshiped. But Jesus is also a true god in that he is truly of divine nature and possesses the true attributes of divinity. It is not an instance of one postulate being "true" and the other being "false." Regardless of English usage, when dealing with the Bible, we have to look at instances of the Bible's usage.
• 

  Stephanus

  Okay Accuracy (Dunsscot returned? - or Stafford himself?), I'll bite. If "true" in English does not represent the correct meaning of the Greek word translated in John 17:3, then the argument gets very simple, doesn't it - the NWT translation committee hasn't done its job properly, i.e. they have rendered a "false" meaning of the word "true". This being the case, the Dubs are wrong either way in this verse - either Jesus is a false God or "true" is a false rendering. Now, shut up!
• 

  Unclepenn1

  Accuracy, if the Bible said that Moses' tabernacle was the *only* true one than yes we would have a problem. Jehovah is called the ONLY TRUE GOD. PLease supply me with an example of something being the ONLY TRUE______ and everything else not being false.
  Thanks in advance,

  Penn

  Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
  Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
  Jesus- 'I am the truth'
• 

  accuracy

  Again, you are dealing with English language generalities, whereas the passage in question is from the Greek Bible. You are also dealing with an expression, "monos alethinos," "only true ___" that appears only once in that Greek Bible, there at John 17:3, so there are no other Biblical examples to show you. Examples of a non-biblical nature are useless in this instance.

  But still, we have to go to how the Bible uses a term, and not rely merely upon an English definition. And in the Bible, "only" is not always used in an entirely exclusivistic sense. A brief case in point is Revelation 15:3, 4, which says of the "Lord God Almighty," that "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only [Geeek text, "monos"] art holy." (KJV)

  But does the Bible teach that "only" God is holy? Or, when Jesus said of his Father that there is "none good but one, that is, God" (Mark 10:18, KJV) was he saying that nobody else is good? The Bible clearly at times makes relative what you are trying to make exclusivistic.

  Argue all you want on the basis of English usage, but that will not lead to understanding. The Bible was not written originally in English. Understanding the Hebrew and Greek are relevant. And most important is seeing how the Bible itself uses the language.
• 

  Escargot

  Well, Ray Franz summed it up quite nicely: Christ is divine, it is the extent of his divinity that is in question. Good book to read “When Jesus Became God.”

  Erasmus (1520 AD): "If we want truth, every person ought to be free to speak what they think without fear."
• 

  accuracy

  That is something with which I can agree: "When Jesus Became God," by Richard E. Rubenstein (Harcourt Brace & Company, 1999) is an excellent book.
• 

  metatron

  Nobody seems to mention John 1:18 refering to Jesus as the
  only begotten God - a reading that seems tied to the most
  ancient manuscripts.

  Born-agains and JW's are brothers under the skin because
  they make the same huge, flawed assumption - that the Bible
  is a kind of 20th century legal document with full accuracy
  in all its technical detail. Both groups assume it to be
  perfectly consistent internally. For me, the view that Jesus
  was divine evolved over the time the Bible was written - and
  thereafter. John's gospel was radically different from what
  came before - frankly, it was downright mystical and 'new age'.

  metatron
• 

  Escargot

  metatron: Good point! I agree with your viewpoint on John. I feel the same way about Revelation to.

  Also, it is funny that over 30 chapters in the Bible are dedicated to the building of the Tabernacle, however, not one paragraph is written on this most important subject of the Trinity. Truly food for thought!

  Erasmus (1520 AD): "If we want truth, every person ought to be free to speak what they think without fear."