Couple of questions for the Christians here - CO's talk mentioned some things that I want to understand

by Doubting Bro 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Farkel

  doubting bro,

  I'm just going to hone in on this comment of yours:

  : He said that if a person believes Jesus died to offset Adam's sin and thus mankind's sin, then they can't believe in the deity of Christ.

  The CO is an idiot. By the very nature of their very unique translation of John 1:1, JWs MUST by necessity believe in the deity of Christ, even though they deny it. Their unique translation of John presented unintended consequences. They added an indefinite article, namely the word "a" in that verse in order to make the Bible conform to their denial of the trinity doctrine, but in doing so, they painted themselves in a corner.

  Elsewhere, the Bible says there is only ONE true God. It logically follows that all other gods are false, even gods with a little "g" in the word "god. However, their translation of John 1:1 says that Jesus is "a" God, instead of saying Jesus is God as do virtually all other Bible translations.

  But since there is only one true god and since Jesus IS "a god", then it logically follows that Jesus must be a false God. And even if one were to argue that Jesus could be "a god", but not the one true God, that would mean that JWs believe in polytheism.

  Either way, they screwed themselves and their idiotic doctrine with that goofy translation.

  I wrote an essay about the ransom doctrine, which is on Randy's Freeminds.org site, which trashes that doctrine too, if you are interested.

  Farkel
• 

  Room 215

  One of our fellow contributors to this forum hae a memorable response to the CO's dismissive remarks about how Christendom regards Holy Week and the whole Easter period, recounting his visit to a church:

  "It was very odd going into a church during a service. what was interesting was that the chaplin spent time explaining how the death and resurrection of Jesus made it possible for everyone to be a friend of God. Whether you hold religious affiliation or not it is refreshing to be in a place where you are not being ranked as less than someone else.

  "The message was a universal one that everyone had the same opportunity. As a witness and member of the rank and file you are always being told that the scriptures are not written to you but to the annointed. That the hope mentioned is not for you but the annointed and that Jesus didn't die for you or mediate for you.

  "The focus was on the resurrection of Jesus and not the death and betrayal. The witnesses seem to have missed the whole point focusing on the negative not the positive. how typical of them."

  To which I say Amen and Amen
• 

  WontLeave

  sectarian bias vs grammar is the only reason it deviates one time

  Find me another instance with similar sentence structure (not just the 2-word phrase) and we'll see how it's translated.

  you would not defend it if you had a few months of introductory Greek

  This might be true. Similarly, people with a semester of psychology might misdiagnose a mental condition. However, people with several years' experience seem to disagree, as reflected in many translations. I'm sure you're already aware of this, so I won't belabor the issue or copy and paste examples. Additionally, some translations of Exodus 14:3 don't read "I Am", because God was not making that his name, but stating his existence. Exo 6:3 reminds us what God's actual name is.

  Jesus is Jehovah is true in a monotheistic sense

  That would be monotheistic, so long as you included all other gods in the mix. But, contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not monotheistic. Why don't you take a look at the link I sent you to my realization on John 1:1, because you're arguing against claims I've never made. Those are called "straw men".

  You are still essentially WT on the essentials.

  On most doctrinal issues, or it would have been silly to join in the first place. I studied the Bible and other "holy" books before I knew what to believe. Then, I searched various church denominations to find like-minded people. On the surface, JWs appeared to be a Bible-only religion. They lied. Their focus is more on the Governing Body than God or Christ and more on Watchtowers than the Bible. I discovered the dual doctrines after I'd already joined: One for preaching and another for inside the congregation. Even the internal Watchtower is written with ambiguity built in so the elders can give it even more of a hard-line slant, while retaining deniability to the public.

  You may be stubborn and independent

  That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive - Eph 4:14

  the acid test is the Deity of Christ

  That's what many churches say. Can you show me where Jesus says that?
• 

  Black Sheep

  Look up whatever the subject in question is in the Catholic Encyclopedia online and find out exactly what it says and memorise it.

  Get your Dub to tell you what the Catholic Church teaches. When they get it wrong, get them to rephrase it in as many ways as they can so that they leave themselves no loopholes.

  Then ............ get them to read the relevent passages of the Catholic Encyclopedia to you and explain any discrepancies.

  The goal is not to tell a Dub they are wrong ........ the goal is to get them to tell you they are wrong ........ and don't you forget it.
• 

  wannabefree

  Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father. He is the only-begotten and his position and nature can not be equated with anything else.

  Holy Spirit is unique and nothing else like it exists to equate it to.

  I have come to agree with these statements.

  I feel that at one point in history, religious people tried to define this with the term Trinity, an imperfect word that has come to have various nuances of definition, each group insisting their understanding is correct. On the other end of the spectrum, Jehovah's Witnesses, who reject any definition of this word.

  I believe that God revealed what we needed to know in a way that is simple enough to get the point yet deep enough not to insult his creation's intelligence. The problem comes when man wants a solid definition for what can't really be defined in a human way. Unfortunately some religions are willing to give the solid definitions (albeit wrong) and some find comfort in believing they have the true answer. People just want to know, some can't accept the possibility of unknowable. I think that was my problem and why I fell for the JW philosophy.
• 

  Ding

  1) What is the mainstream Christian view of why Jesus came to earth and why he had to die?

  To atone for the sins not only of Adam but also for the personal sins of all human beings. This atonement is received by faith alone or it is not received at all.

  2) What was Adam's motivation to rebel? The CO says that Christianity teaches that he wanted to go to heaven and the only way he could do this was to sin and die. Obviously this makes no sense and I sat there thinking there's no way this could be true.

  Your instincts are right. Adam's sin had nothing to do with heaven. Adam wanted to run his own life independent of God.

  3) I think his point about the deity of Christ is that if he were god (or divine which I understand is different - ie same nature as the Father but not the Father), then the sacrifice would have been too much. I really can't see why that would matter but he apparently thinks its a big deal. He never directly said why he believed this to be the case as if it was so clear that no explaination was necessary.

  This CO doesn't understand how sinful sin really is. Jesus had to atone not only for the sins of Adam but for the sins of the whole whole. Accordingly, He had to be more than just the perfect counterpart to Adam.

  BTW, the Trinity doctrine does NOT state that Jesus is the Father. It states that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who together constitute the one true God, Jehovah. In order words, within the nature of the one true God, Jehovah, there are three distinct persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. That is the Trinity doctrine.

  He also said that Christians don't commerate his death only his resurrection. I looked at my wife and said "what about Good Friday"? Isn't that the holiest day on the Christian calander? " No doubt that the Easter celebration has incorporated "pagan" influences but understanding how that came about makes sense to me that it would. And, to a person that never celebrated Easter, it seems to me that Easter would be a happy time to celebrate the resurrection (that God made good on his promise) as opposed to a more reflective, somber rememberance that Good Friday would involve (I guess, I've never been to a service so I could be way off base).

  You are correct regarding Good Friday. Communion (which many Christians observe far more often than once a year) commemorates the sacrificial death -- the blood and body of Christ. In fact, Christians actually PARTAKE of the bread and wine.

  Christians celebrate the sacrificial death of Christ since it is the only atonement for our sins.

  We also celebrate the resurrection of Christ since it is His triumph over the grave and guarantees the resurrection of all who trust in Him for their salvation.

  This CO, like many, is a skilled speaker and everyone was eating up what he was saying. I believe his arguments to be either disingenuous or outright lies when representing what other faiths teach. However, I didn't want my bias towards thinking everything out of a WT speakers mouth to be dishonest to cloud my judgement.

  I don't know which it is -- ignorance or dishonesty -- but the CO is completely wrong as stated above. Getting one's understanding of Catholic or Protestant doctrine from this WT CO is like getting one's understanding of WT doctrine from a badly misinformed or biased Catholic priest or Protestant pastor.

  If anyone would like to discuss any of this via PM I would be happy to do so.
• 

  james_woods

  Back on the motivation of Adam - (after about a page of off-topic evangelism) -

  The CO in question said "mainstream christianity" believed that Adam deliberately sinned so that he could die and go to heaven. We actually found that only the Mormons (definately not mainstream christianity) even hinted at such a thing - specifically:

  Mormons say that when Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge it was not wrong, but was just a "demotion", like going from one good job to another, less good job. Before eating the fruit, Adam could never die. Because he could never die, he could never go to heaven. Eating the fruit made it so that Adam could die, so that later he could go to heaven. It also made it so that Adam and Eve could have children, so that everyone would have a chance to live, die, and go to heaven. Mormons say that if one follows the Plan of Salvation, that person can go to heaven.

  But this does not impute any motive to Adam - really it hints that the original sin was God's original plan and Adam seems to be ignorant of this plan (at least the way I read this).

  So, I still say that this CO was simply barking at the moon crazy and completely uninformed as to what he was talking about.
• 

  Guest with Questions

  bookmarked to read later
• 

  Band on the Run

  Gnostics were every bit as Christian as any other group. They were as valid as the Jerusalem group who believed Christianity was a subset of Judaism. Gnostics were as valid as those taught by Paul with his denial of Judaism as important any longer. Gnosticism flourished for more than a century or more. When Constantine converted and Rome and the Church were interwined, Constantine wanted uniformity and enforcement for political ends. The Bible was not canonized. No authority existed that said Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were superior to any one else's good news. People picked and chose.

  A unilateral statement that Gnosticism is not Christian reveals complete ignorance of scripture and history. The Bible did not descend from heaven with a sparklers on it while majestic chords sounded in the air. It was a result of much controversy and hard feelings. Before one can say a group is not this or that, one must prove legitimacy in the first place. Legitimacy, the Roman view, was imposed on the Church by martial, secular power.

  I had the great honor of studying Gnosticism with Elaine Pagels, the premiere scholar, at Columbia University and Union Theological. She pointed out social trends that may have doomed Gnosticism. First, the secret, esoteric teachings that were only available to an educated few. Pauline Christianity was acceptable to all levels of society. Second, Gnosticism was removed from daily society in many ways. The Desert Fathers, while not Gnostic, are also a good example. The 60s were very illustrative. Moving to the desert, isolaating your self, New Agey type of belief can be sustained for only a few generations. Ultimately, younger people are born who do not see the value their parents saw.

  Jesus never endorsed any particular Christian theology. He could have if he wanted to do so. Rather, he is fuzzy on details and specifics.
• 

  PSacramento

  A few things:

  The trinity is a human doctrine, created to "help explain" Jesus's nature and how he shares it with God and the HS.

  Jesus's being begooten of God makes him gGod in natuire, just as a human child begotten by a Human is Human (and no, "a god" doesn;'t work because God in temrs of nature is NOT a species but a term we use).

  The "I am" of Exodus appears in the tetragramation YHWH (YAH), so it is, in essence, God's name ( Yahweh/Jahveh).

  If YHWH referes to God then yes Jesus is YHWH, as is the HS and as is Our Father, BUT if YHWH refers to "our Father" then no, Jesus is not YHWH.