Jesus is the Almighty God.
Killed
debunked
Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'
by JW Answers 28 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Fisherman
-
Riley
The first century jewish followers of Christ are eventually equating Jesus as the physical manifest of God in the old testament. (the fire in the sky in the red sea, the figure in the burning bush, the glory of god, the wisdom of god, the word of the lord etc ).
If an invisible omniscient god appears in a manifestation that is both separate and equal to being god, it is god ? It is all very chicken and egg, if a trees falls in the forest type of question.
I don't care what you believe but what has always struck me as silly about the WTS and how little they know about the basic bible narrative.
-
slimboyfat
Disillusioned JW, one of the reasons I began ‘doubting’ atheism is because I realised just how bad some of the atheist arguments being promoted at the time were. See this video by Joe Schmidt, himself an agnostic, detailing weakness of arguments by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others:
To me the argument that makes the best case in favour of God is Plantinga’s argument against naturalism. Basically he argues that if naturalism is true then we are the product of a natural process that favours survival over truth. If that is so, then we have no basis for trusting our senses and our mind to reflect reality truthfully. If that is so then we have no basis for trusting that our view of naturalism is correct because it was derived from our perception and our mind. Therefore naturalism is internally incoherent.
The way out of this paradox is to assume that we are not the result of a natural process that has no regard for truth, but that we are the intentional result of God’s decision to create humans as creatures with an ability to perceive the world around us.
I also find the work of Donald Hoffman very interesting in confirming the idea that naturalism does not produce accurate perceptions in conscious beings. But instead of throwing out our understanding of reality, I think it’s simpler to throw out the idea that we are entirely the result of natural processes. The Bible says we are unique because we are made ‘in the image of God’. Science is now catching up with what that uniqueness entails. I find the work of Simon Conway Morris interesting in showing that evolution may have a direction and purpose baked into the process itself which best explained by God’s intention for the universe to be home to intelligent creatures who can perceive it and self reflect.
It also seems to me that the belief that the universe and intelligent life arose from nothing and for no reason is a pretty big ask. As I currently understand things, a simpler and more satisfactory understanding of our existence and our ability to perceive the universe is the proposition that we are the intentional result of a mind that is outside of time and space.
-
vienne
S.B., you misrepresent what Hebrews says about the Christ. In chapter one Paul, presumed to be the writer, describes Jesus as "the express image" of God's person. An image is not the person himself, but a reflection of that person. Paul here rephrases what he we find in Colossians 1:15. χαρακτὴρ ['image'] derives from minting coins. The image on a coin is not the person himself, but a representation of him. Jesus, in turn, isn't God, but so carefully mirrors him that in substance and personality he is exactly like his father.
So how is Jesus relationship to his father explained in Hebrews? The answer - a very exact answer - is found at Hebrews 5:7. Certainly you've read that, but you seem to have missed its import. The verse says: "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence." Let's think that through. Jesus prayed. God has no need to petition himself. If Jesus was God, he remained so when human. The verse says he was heard. Some versions say he was heard because of his Godly fear, others because of his piety. The ERV I quoted above says reverence. What are these things. Are they not alternate words for 'worship'? Vines Expository Dictionary suggests that's the meaning here. And Vine though Trinitarian was honest enough to say so. So who did Jesus worship? Certainly not himself.
He prayed to be saved from death. God cannot die. Jesus was not a God-man. His death, a true death, was essential to ransom mankind from sin and death. That he died for us demonstrates that he was not Almighty God.
One who worships and prays to another is less than the one to whom they pray.
Hebrews continues: "Though he was Son [of God] by nature, yet He learned obedience from the things which He suffered having brought to the place of completeness." (Wuest) God isn't obedient to anyone. Jesus had to learn obedience to fulfil his role as savior. God need not learn anything. He already knows what there is to know. Jesus is not almighty God in any sense.
Now what is this "place of completeness" as K. Wuest has it? Wuest seem to avoid the word 'perfection' used in other translations, but he leaves us with the thought that Jesus had to be made complete in some way. God is complete in himself and cannot be otherwise. Robertson [Word Pictures, in locum cit.] says the Greek word τελειωθεὶς (Having been perfected) suggests a "completion of the process of training." Since when does Almighty God need training? Jesus is not almighty God.
Hebrews 5:10 continues by saying that Jesus was designated/appointed ( προσαγορευθεὶς) by God high priest. The Lesser is sent forth or appointed by the Greater. A servant is not greater than his master, but less. In every respect Paul has Jesus as less than and subservient to God. Jesus is not Almighty God.
-
Disillusioned JW
Hello slimboyfat. Thanks for answering my question. To me the argument used by Plantinga’s (in regards to our mind) and Sea Breeze and some others against naturalism is problematic and/or a paradox, since we can't use logic to argue that we can't know for sure if any of our ideas about logic are correct. It wold be a contradiction to attempt to do such. [We could test one idea about logic with another idea of logic, such as by doing a science experiment, but how could test logically all ideas of logic by logic?] Instead we have to accept as a given that by some means we are able to discern correct rules of logic, regardless of whether a god/God exists and regardless of whether we believe/think a god/God exists. [Sea Breeze in a different topic thread said the following. "By the way, If you are a product of random mutations over billions or years, how could you be sure of what logic even is? Whey would it be the same in England as it is Hawaii? Why even ackknowledge known laws of logic if they are arbitrary."]
Your words of "If that is so, then we have no basis for trusting our senses and our mind to reflect reality truthfully" remind me something a philosopher (Locke?) during the Age of Enlightenment wrote about the unreliability of our senses. The idea is unsettling to me, but all we can do is make the best decisions we can with the biology and minds we have (and with the technology humankind has made) with which to work with.
Some evolutionist authors have addressed the claim that "if naturalism is true then we are the product of a natural process that favours survival over truth". Part of it involves that in order for us (and other animals) to survive (or at least improved odds of survival) they have to have some degree of accuracy in their senses and mental perceptions. Having certain kinds of incorrect perceptions would be detrimental to their survival, or at least greatly impair their chances of survival.
I am extremely skeptical of the idea that some kind of mind is directing biological evolution and cosmological evolution, unless the mind is that of the universe itself (if the universe as a whole has a mind). It is more acceptable to me to think of the universe (even the supposed early singularity) as being a quantum computer with a mind, than it is for me to accept that an intelligence outside of the universe is directing the universe. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_the_Universe and https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4455 ("The universe as quantum computer"). Also the idea of some kind of panpsychism is more acceptable to me than the idea that an intelligence outside of the universe is directing the universe.
-
slimboyfat
Plantinga’s argument isn’t against the reliability of our senses. It is an argument against the reliability of our senses given that naturalism is true. Since Plantinga rejects naturalism he is in a position to affirm the reliability of our senses on the basis that they are the result of more than just natural processes but the result of the intention of God.
As Joe Schmidt explains in the video, the proposition that all true knowledge rests on science is self defeating because science relies on basic assumptions that cannot be proved by science.
Evolution explains false beliefs just as well as it explains true beliefs. For example, why do we shiver when we hear a rustle in the bushes on a dark night? Evolution has programmed us to have a hypersensitivity to threat that in many ways creates an inaccurate picture of reality in order to boost survival. Given that evolution can produce such mistaken perceptions on a most basic level of everyday experience, why should we assume that evolution should have equipped us to accurately perceive, assess, make sound arguments concerning questions at such a high order of abstraction as the origins and meaning of the universe?
Once again, I should point out that I’m not arguing that humans are incapable of perceiving reality (I think Donald Hoffman is wrong about that, but he’s definitely worth checking out). The point is that given that we are able to perceive the world around us accurately, divine intention that humans should be equipped to understand the world is the best explanation for that fact.
-
Disillusioned JW
slimboyfat, I realize that the following is the case. "Plantinga’s argument isn’t against the reliability of our senses. It is an argument against the reliability of our senses given that naturalism is true."
Regarding science relying on basic assumptions that cannot be proved by science, even mathematics (in regards to its axioms) and the branch of philosophy known as formal logic (in regards to to prepositions) rely upon assumptions. There is no way to avoid that. But the assumptions of mathematics are consistent with our experiences and when the assumptions of science and of logical arguments are continually consistent with our experiences we have no reason to discard them.
Regarding the hypersensitivity to threat, the inaccurate picture of reality it sometimes creates only lasts for a brief moment. Those of us who try to be very rational question more readily, than others, the picture of reality which the hypersensitivity to threat triggered.
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: I meant to say "propositions" instead of "prepositions".
-
truth_b_known
I believe the historic Jesus was a faith healer who had a psychedelic experience brought on by starvation and dehydration that lead to his Enlightenment. Jesus then used Jewish Mythology as a means to convey his Enlightened experience. Later, Paul and John deified Jesus and created stories of miracles to bolster the new religion they started.