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

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.

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,

My point in verse 17 was that God is not referred to with a definite article. That was the major contetion. We look at other verses to know that the Father is God, especially by seeing definite articles. So John's overarching notion is to "overflow the boundaries of God into mankind"? Did John call you up and tell you this? John is one of the most heavily laden books in the NT which testifies to the deity of Christ (in the sense of Him being God).

Earnest,

"And since, as Narkissos explained, John inextricably tied the God with the Father (similar to Paul's statement about "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") I don't understand how you can take verse 17 and say Jesus is the God but not the Father."

No, I said that cults who like to act as clever counterfiets could attempt to say that. My position is the Trinitarian one, where both Jesus and the Father are God. The definite article before the first mention of "Father" may or may not apply to the mention of God. In 20:28 there is a definite article before each noun (Lord and God), but not in 20:17 (only before the first mention of Father, and none after). I know I should study Greek more, however.

The point is this : if John wanted us to conclude that Jesus is God by including Thomas' expression why does he make it quite clear that Jesus is not God in verse 17.

John makes it clear that there is distinguishment between them. That's the Trinitarian position though. Where does he say "Jesus is not God". I understand that's your theology, but where does it say that? I have shown you were it DOES say that Jesus is God, because He is called God.

I am not suggesting there is an easy answer. Maybe Narkissos is right that, in effect, everyone can be God (in John's theology). But unless you can account for the context of Thomas' statement I would be cautious about using it as a proof-text.

Where are Narkissos and you getting this leap in interpretation of John that "everyone can be God"? There's not much to the context in that passage! 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!

Further, there are 5 other places where Jesus in referred to in the NT with a definite article as being God, and a couple of them aren't possesive. Also, it's funny how no one has dealt with "Johannine" (now I feel more authentic) theology that Jesus is God, especially in 12:41 where Isaiah saw Jesus' glory as referenced from Isaiah 6 where Isaiah sees 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

Earnest,

"For example, do you think he was suggesting that Jesus was the same God as the one whom Jesus had just referred to as "my God" to whom he was ascending?"

Yes, with a Trinitarian understanding it is absolutely possible. This question just beggs the question against the Trinitarian position, which dates back to the early church fathers. Beliving Jesus is Michael does not. Remember, there is distincion of persons and complete unity of persons (unto one person symiltaneously) within the Godhead.

"If so, then do you also think that Jesus is the Father whom Jesus linked with "my God" in the same sentence?"

Of course not. Like I've said multiple times, and have evidenced with Scripture, Jesus and the Father are distinct. In other words, I'm not a Modalist!

And why do you think that he concluded the chapter by saying that Jesus is the Son of God after such a bombshell?

Because the 'Son of God' is a Messianic title, hence Jesus acting like the Messiah by performing signs in front of His desciples (stated just prior in verse 30). This only beggs the question. Is the Christ, the Messiah, God? I would challenge you from the OT and the NT that He is. But we can start that on another thread. Yet, I have already shown some passages which inadvertently demonstrate this, i.e. Rom 10:11-13, and John 12:41.

"As you have provided your own answer to the question about a definite article (that it would depend on the context), I am not going to indulge in trading proof-texts. However, if you wish to share your thoughts on the whole of John 20 (and the questions I posed) I would be interested to hear."

Let me simply say this of the Greek in John 20. Looking strictly at the text itself, and if this was all we had to look at at the momment, we would have MORE reason to believe that Jesus was God in this passage than the Father! This is because in verse 17, Jesus literally says "I ascend to the father of me and the father of you, the god of me and the god of you". There are NO definite articles here. The same way that JW twist other texts which lack a definite article of Christ, could be used by some cults about John 20:17 towards the Father and remain logically consistent in doing so with how JW interpret John 1:1 for example.

Luckily I don't come to those conclusions because I have the totality of Scripture to work with.

Further, looking at the context with the interaction wtih Thomas, Thomas was not questioning Jesus' divinity, but was questioning Him having raised from the dead. He simply calls Jesus "the God of me" in response to his proof.