Posts by solafide

39

2 questions for JW's from a Christian

by solafide in

1. what is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the roman catholic church to be the one true institution of god?.

2. what is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of god?.

just curious, please let me know :).

solafide

Thank you all for your comments. There's a lot of good things I'm learning, and everyone has a great sense of humor. I'll stay on this forum and keep learning and discussing more.

Rhode Island,

instead of hashing out a bunch of videos where atheists make uninformed Christains look bad, come to my blog and discuss morality with me at the top of my blog which is entitled 'why naturalistic atheists can't account for morality'! www.restorethegospel.wordpress.com

Also, here is when I called into the Atheist Experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3H5U9g_SuY

You know what Tracey and Matt ended up saying morality was based on??? That the human species happens to survive! LOL. If you come to my blog I'll show you why this doesn't work, along with every other reason atheists give. Lastly, "slavery" in the Bible was only prescriptive for the civilization (nation) of Israel under the old covenant. Further, if you study it you'll find that it wasn't slavery at all (or how black were in slavery) but was voluntary serventhood and allowed societies which were poor to be able to survive at that time. The Bible is not a guide to sociology. In terms of ultimate sociology, Christ will soon return and kill all the bad guys, then restore other bad guys into good guys by grace, and rule eternally. That's the Bible's sociological fix for sinners, Christ.

ynot,

Some JW came to my house last year. I started talking with them and I think they were taken off guard by my readiness to give a Christain defense. Then they sent their big dawgs on me and invited an elder and his wife to come over after a week passed. We did talk about the Trinity for a while and he totally dodged my points and had really bad arguments. He was very polite. I've asked them to come over again and to bring a WT Bible and KIT with them (so I can show them from the Greek that Jesus is said to be God) but they just referred me to their websites. Dangit! Next time I want to get a bucket of cold water ready for them and splash it on them when i'm talking so it will hopefully shock them out of their glazed eyed syndrome.

39

2 questions for JW's from a Christian

by solafide in

1. what is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the roman catholic church to be the one true institution of god?.

2. what is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of god?.

just curious, please let me know :).

solafide

Nathan, I just said they were "politically correct" because when they try to convert you, like most cults, they are very indirect and subtle at first. I didn't mean they are "politically correct" in the way you described. Just to clarify where I was coming from.

yknot,

It's good to know they us Matt 24:45-47 for justification too. I would ask them the same question even with this verse. Verse 26 says "It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns." So this beggs the question. How does the JW know they are the one's
"doing so" and that "they" (the organization) should have even formed in 1914 (Biblically speaking)?

Why are they the ones "doing so" and not anyone other than their oganization?

I thought this forum would have more JW on it, maybe I will also ask these things an another forum. :)

39

2 questions for JW's from a Christian

by solafide in

1. what is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the roman catholic church to be the one true institution of god?.

2. what is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of god?.

just curious, please let me know :).

solafide

Thanks for your answers everyone.

If I had come out of the JW organization too I would be an atheist also. Having a glossy eyed politically correct brain washed instutution be my standard of truth and character would make me go nuts. I'm glad I'm a Christian, however. And one for good reasons as atheism can't account for a real morality which tells us how we "ought" to think, act, and intend. For further discussion on this, go to the top of my blog at restorethegospel.wordpress.com

Now, getting back to this thread.

It seems to me after learning more now that JW use the book of Daniel, the date 607 BCE, along with their prefered interpretations of the historical data, to point to the year 1914. All this is like Matthew 16:18 is for the Catholic Church, in proving their justification for their organization.

The Catholic Church appeals to its interpretation of a words Jesus spoke to Peter within Scripture as the bases of its institution, while JW appeals to its interpretation of prophecy within Scripture supposedly being fulfilled in the year 1914 as the bases of its organization.

The question I now have for JW and ex-JW is why is 1914 so significant? Is it because Jesus supposedly returned (even invisibly) on this date? If that's the significant reason, then how do JW know this is so?

It seems like there's so much discussion about proving that 607 BCE wasn't the fall of Jerusalem, but its so simple to just look at the date of the supposed fulfillment. What the hell was fulfilled??!!

In other words, check this out:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/appendix_10.htm

At the bottom is says:

"Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things."

So we know that 1914 is significant because that's when war, famine, earthquakes, and pestilences started occuring? Not a year before or later? Not a centurey before or later? Can anyone say self-fulfilled prophecy whereby the fulfillment is occurences which have always been occuring?

39

2 questions for JW's from a Christian

by solafide in

1. what is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the roman catholic church to be the one true institution of god?.

2. what is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of god?.

just curious, please let me know :).

solafide

oh really, in that case any ex-JW's or current JW's are welcome to answer! If you're an ex-JW, how would you have answered this when you were one?

39

2 questions for JW's from a Christian

by solafide in

1. what is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the roman catholic church to be the one true institution of god?.

2. what is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of god?.

just curious, please let me know :).

solafide

1. What is the most fundamental reason you do not accept the Roman Catholic Church to be the one true institution of God?

2. What is the most fundamental reason that you accept your organization to be the one true organization of God?

Just curious, please let me know :)

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Earnest,

"So as you are suggesting that this verse teaches that Jesus is the God to whom he is ascending then he must also be the Father to whom he is ascending. It is either both or neither. Why is this? Because the definite article encapsulates the entire phrase (my Father and your Father and my God and your God)."

If "ton" applies to all the nouns in verse 17, and if this is a correct rendering of the Greek grammar, then I conclude that the Father is God. But I even concluded this before hand, even when I was arguing that the definite article might not have applied to all! If you go back and read my original argument, I stated that I still believe that this is the Father and that He is God granted what the whole of Scripture teaches us!!! I was trying to make an argument (from my limited understanding of the Greek) that this passage left itself might make one think those things. But my conclusions have always been the same and have never changed! Namely, that the Father is God and that Jesus ascend to God.

I NEVER said that the Father is not God or that Jesus doesn't acsend to God. I believe this. But I also believe MORE then this! Namely, that the same passage reveals Trinitarian theology because Jesus is called God. My overarching response to you in regards to verse 28 was:

You are making the context more confusing and in depth then what is presented. Like I said, Thomas simply wants proof that Jesus rose, not that He is God. He calls Him God after the proof. I think you're trying to fit in this non-existent confusion into Thomas' mind, as though too much was going on for him and he didn't have his inhaler with him thus started spouting off weird things like calling Jesus God. Oh, but on the other hand, Jesus never denounces his statement!

"But, as you observe, in verse 28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God) which means that "the Lord" is not necessarily the same as "the God"."

No, it doesn't mean that they are distinct in verse 28, and that wasn't my original point. I only assumed that verse 17 may have allowed for a possible distinction given the grammar, or that clever counterfiets may try to bend it that way like they do with many Trinitarian verses. Now looking at verse 28 I don't think he grammatically needs to use a possessive with "God" just because he is also calling Jesus "Lord". I think that's a leap. You could argue, and I've heard it argued that Thomas calls Jesus "the God" because he's speaking in the possesive.

But like I've said, Jesus is referred to as being God with a definite article without the possesive in the NT. The definite article is there even in KIT. And John 1:49 says that Jesus is the Son of God, the King of Israel. And Zeph 3:15 says that Yahweh is the King of Israel. And John 12:41 says that Isaiah say Jesus' glory in reference to Isaiah 6 when Isaiah saw Yahweh's glory.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Spike,

This is why one has to consult the whole of John and of Scripture, not just a single passage for these matters. In Scripture we always see an economy within the Godhead. The Father wills what comes to pass, the Son carries it out, and the Spirit empowers. Just like a husband and a wife. Wives are to submit to their husbands yet husbands are not ontilogially superior in nature to their wives, such as in 1 Cor 11:3.

Notice, the Father does not confer "honor" to the Son, but all must honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. You can't really honor someone to the exact degree unless you can also worship them the same. And in John 2 Jesus says He will raise His own body, because the verb "He will raise" is a frist person active. So it's not just a work of the Father, but is Trinitarian.

Basically, Jesus doesn't back down from being charged as being "equal to the God (toe Theo)." If you want interpret this as not being fully equal but partially equal then fine. Next I would point you to what else John reveals about Christ. The Logos is eternal, hence John 1:1 "en arche" and all things ever were created by the Logos with not exception (1:3). John also says that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory in 12:41, as referenced back to Isaiah 6 when Isaiah saw Yahweh's glory. I could point out more but those are 3 points against JW's charges against the Deity of Christ. I consider all of this when I come to conclusions about John 5. Do you?

And if the Jews are charging Jesus for being equal with the God, then they would want to know why He has this authority to make these claims and do these things. What better authority then to explain to the Hebrew mindset that demands the testimony of 2 to ensure authority and the He does what is in step with what the Father would want, which is what Jesus explain later in the passage. If Jesus just sat around and said, "hey guys, I'm God, OK. I am" that wouldn't convince the Jew. What He actually says would. This shows Jesus' great love and patience with the unbelieving Jews. None of this cancels the Trinitarian view but perfectly harmonizes with it.

And just because Jesus is referred to as the Son, or the Son of God only proves His Deity all the more. It is a Messianic title, hence John 1:49 "Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

And Yahweh is the King of Israel in Zephaniah 3:15 "The LORD, the King of Israel, is with you".

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Narkissos,

Cursory reading has lead many unbelievers to come to conclusions such as God's complete soverienty, the deity of Christ (being God), and the Trinity. So I can just as easily use your same arguemnt for why we shouldn't just follow Greek grammar rules about why we shouldn't just use "cursory reading". And of course you agree with me when you say "You may also come to different conclusions just reading it (in context, in a cursory way), but I would submit it restricts the gamut of possibilities." Fruther, it's important to look at Greek grammar rules because koine Greek, as you probably know, is one of the most objective and straight forward languages, and especially way more then English.

If the definite article applies to everything listed after in verse 17, then fine. To me it was confusing why verse 28 has two articles and verse 17 only has one, which isn't placed in front of God. On top of this being good to know, the entire passage still perfectly coincides with Trinitarian theology.

And you seem to be emphasizing chapter 17 as the crux of John's gospel. There is a lot more to it then saying that the saints will be one with God as God is one with God. Once we consider the whole of John, and the whole of Scripture, we see that being one with God for a saint can be in some way identical to how Christ and the Father are one, and in some ways impossible. For example, the saints will be glorified and forever made unable to sin like Christ and forever get to increasingly know Christ, but do not become omniscient or eternal like Christ. All this has to be considered when coming to conclusions from John 17, or 10.

Therefore, it's not nessecarily a weak or strong emphasis of the first half (or second), but both/and. It's a matter of looking what sense it's both weak and strong in both halves by looking at the whole of John and Scripture.

Going back to your statement "You may also come to different conclusions just reading it (in context, in a cursory way), but I would submit it restricts the gamut of possibilities", this is something I agree with you on. However I would add that one needs to understand Greek grammar rules and have also learn a richer understanding of Greek words to limite possibilities even more! And like I've stated, many, after doing all this have come to the conclusions of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ (as God), and the complete soverignty of God (even by non-Christians at times), so you're only begging the question when I ask you "did John call you", because many would do all this and still disagree with YOU. For example you are only left to say "That's definitely not the picture I get from the Fourth Gospel."

I don't limit my conclusions to "the Fourth Gospel", but to the whole of Scripture since it is all God's special revelation to us. And how do you not come to the conclusion that God is eternal and that we are not in John, when it begins with "en arche"?! "En" is imperfect and without derivation of a beginning, and "arche" has a beginning at a point in time, hence the world in which finite believers are created in.

How are you using the word "anachronistic"? That it came about through a traditional or historical belief? If this is so, then I'm going to have a hard time believing you because Tertullian first cointed the term "Trinity" hundereds of years before the Council of Nicea.

And the doctrine of the Trinity is "a later dogmatic synthesis made up of a patchwork of unrelated texts and a lot of "unscriptural" reasoning in between."? One could have that opinion about any doctrine!!! That's actually fundamentally how we get doctrine, namely, "patching" verses and contexts together! Wow. And it's your assertion that these are "unscriptural" with regards to the Trinity. I'm affraid you'll have to start with a Biblical example to convince a Bible student of this, not just offer your blank assertion.

"agree on the principle of "using" the text rather than reading it." Again, like I've pointed out, both are needed, and for reasons according to your own logic. And I find that JW's are more prone to be "Bible readers" not Bible students, hence why Jesus doesn't get to be God in 1 Cor 11:3 when the Father is said to be greater then Christ, yet it's never considered that this can't be referring to an ontilogical sense since man isn't said to be ontologically superior to woman!!!

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Narkissos,

not glenster this time...

"Both Trinitarianism and Arianism are 4th-century doctrines."

The Council of Nicea used Scripture to substantiate this doctrine. Therefore, if they did so correctly with Scripture, then it is a 1st century doctrine. You'd have to show how they didn't do so correctly for your statement to be true.

"The Trinity doctrine is, in a sense, more inclusive than the Arian one, because it includes the multiple within the one God."

I'm sure it is. The Council of Nicea was used to combat Arianism.

"But it is more exclusive than Johannine theology, in that it excludes the believers from "God"."

God excludes believers from God. He is uncreated, and we are created. He is omniscient, we have finite pee brains, etc. John never blurrs these lines between God and believers.

When one discusses the Trinity, it is helpful to look at passages which would substantiate Jesus and the Spirit being God. Many of the other things you bring up are related yet seperate discussions.

164

Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?

by solafide in

from what i've studied of jw's, john 1:1 is interpreted as "and the logos was (a) god".

therefore, because there is no definite article in john 1:1 for example, one supposedly cannot confirm that jesus is referred to as "the god".

so my question for the jw is "what if jesus were reffered to with a definite article in the nt"?

solafide

Spike,

In that verse, the Jews don't use a definite article, thus are charging Jesus for making himself out to be "god-like' which can simply mean divine or more then human in the context, hence Jesus doing miracles (a Messianic sign). Jesus argues from their own turf, and shows how this is not anything new hence why judges in the OT functioned as gods to judge because they were doing so with a mandate from God. Jesus argument is how much more does He have the authority to do miracles if He and the Father are one, thus is sent with the Father's mandate and is one with Him.

In John 5, the Jews do charge Jesus for being equal with the God, hence the definite article there. Jesus never back down from this claim and says He's really just a god, but says all must honor Him just as the Father.