Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jamesa@amadeus.wr.tek.com (James Akiyama) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Who do you say Christ is? (and other questions) Message-ID: Date: 11 Sep 89 06:28:53 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 220 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I thought I'd follow this up since it seems related to the question Brendan ask me in a personal Email (I was the one who answered his question on John 1:1). Let me warn people that this response is long. I have tried to cover most of the points made from the publication that Brendan referred to. Anyone not interested should pass this by. It solely deals with the Jehovah Witness. I should mention that I come from a Conservative Baptist background and I am not particularly familiar with the Catholic doctrine. My views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Conservative Baptist. I would recommend that Mr. McMahon check each of the things I say against the Catholic church before presenting it in a discussion to his wife. Since I believe that the Catholic church is a Christian church, I think it would be best if his wife attend the same church as himself. If she finds this church unacceptable, then I would look at others. My reason for answering this is because I have spent a great deal of time researching the various Christian cults. First, I'll briefly summarize the discussion on John 1:1. Basically, the question has to do with the two references to God. In the first reference, "the Word was with God", God in the greek is "Ton Theon". In the second reference "the Word was God", God is "Theos". Note that "Ton Theon" (or "Thon Theos") is a definite article while "Theos" is not. The JW argue that since there is no definite article before the second God, it could implies an indefinite article; which they translate "a god". Christian theologians argue that a definite predicate noun (e.g. "God") when it precedes the verb (e.g. "was") never takes a definite article in Greek; thus the definite article can be implied. This is complicated since in Greek, there is no indefinite article. A literal translation might read: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God. Why did John choose this way of saying this? Theologians claim that the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon and give precision to the character expressed in the noun ("theos"). All said, John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine. With that said, I will present my points for Brendan to use. Note that all references (in terms of pg. numbers) for the Trinity doctrine from the JW comes from their publication "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", Copyright 1989, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (which is the publication Brendan referred to in his article). John 5:18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (NIV). The JW argue that this was simply the Jews argument, but not actually what Jesus said. I think what one needs to see is that this is John's interpre- tation (since he was the writer); the Apostle John himself must have felt Jesus was making himself equal to the Father; otherwise he would have needed to qualify this remark. The JW argue that the Bible states God is one (pg. 12-13), not three in: Deu 6:4 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God'. Gal 3:20 A mediator, however, does not represent one party; but God is one. 1Co 8:4-6 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we we live (NIV). Note that none of these are in disagreement with the trinity which states one God, three persons. In fact these seem to support the trinity. Since John 1:1 states the "Word was God" (even if He is "a god"); Deu 6:4 seems to indicate that God is singular. Thus, Jesus and the Father must be "one God". Note that 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 mentions other "gods", but Scripture never commands us to worship these "false gods". The JW also state Jesus was a created being (they believe He is the first angel) as stated in Col 1:15 (pg. 14-16): Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (NIV). Note that the word "firstborn" in Greek is "prototokos" which means "firstborn" or "firstbegotten". It can also mean of superiority of position, or Firstborn before creation. Note that reading on one find: Col 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him (NIV). Colossians 1:16 seems to make clear that Christ created all things in heaven and earth. How could Christ create Himself? Genesis 2:4b states: Gen 2:4b When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-- (NIV) This "Lord" is the Hebrew YHWH ("Yahweh" or "Jehovah"). Thus Colossians seems to attribute the creation to Christ, while Genesis attributes it to Yahweh (or Jehovah) God. This supports that Jesus is the same God as the Father. Note that the JW will restate Col 1:16 as "through him God created". This rendition, however, is not supported by the Greek manuscripts as the Greek contains on one noun "him", without reference to "God" (United Bible Society Greek New Testament, 3rd edition, corrected; which is based on the theory by Westcott and Hort by which the JW adhere). JW also argue about God being tempted (pg. 14-15). They ask, "Could God rebel against himself? Of course not. They cite James 1:13 which says: Jam 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; (NIV) Some theologians argue that "tempted" is better rendered "tested". This is (in my mind) clearly wrong. Hebrews states: Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin (NASB). So I believe that it is clear that Christ was tempted. However, I believe that Satan was appealing to the human existance of Christ, not the Spirit side. Again, I believe that we cannot fully understand the humiliation of God turning into man. I believe that the human side of Christ was tempted, but the Spirit side was not. He could not have had any inward desire or inclination to sin, for these themselves are sin (Mat 5:22,28). JW continue this argument by asking "How could any part of an almighty Godhead--Father, Son, or holy spirit--ever be lower than angels?" (quoting Hebrews 2:9). Again, I think this is an area where they do not fully see the sacrifice made by Christ. In creation, man is lower than the angels, and for a short while, Christ took this lower place (He became man). JW further argue (pg 17) that since 2Co 1:3a states: "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ," (NIV) that Jesus could not have a God (his Father) and at the same time be that God. Again, they misinterpret the Trinity doctrine; Christ is submissive (in person) to the Father, but is still one God. JW also brings up Mark 10:18, which states: Mar 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone." (NIV) The JW then state that no one is "as good as God is", not even Jesus himself. Note that the passage is not saying "as good" but that no one is "good" except for God. Jesus is not denying His own goodness, but forcing the man to recognize that only God (including Himself) is good. Jesus must be "good", in the site of God, to act as the perfect sacrifice. This is evident in Mark 1:11: MAR 1:11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." How can the Father be pleased in that which is not "good"? Again, I believe this passage is in support of the Trinity doctrine, not against it. So often, the JW try to bring God down to our level of understanding. They constantly argue on the basis of the capacity to comprehend. This is a common problem of those who try to accept things completely literally (literally not being the same as inerrancy). We cannot comprehend God; the Bible states: Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! (NASB) 1Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known. (NASB) I hope this information helps. Again this information is only points to counter the JW publication; it does not include the wealth of other Scripture which supports the Trinity doctrine. I should point out that the Bible never directly states a trinitarian God. However, (as shown in some examples above) it can be conclusively inferred by comparing several passages. I should also point out that there are several major doctrinal differences (besides the trinity) that the JW disagree with the major churches (e.g. Catholics and Protestants). Some of them are: 1. Their disbelief of eternal torment for unbelievers (see REV 20:10-15). 2. Their belief that Christ has already returned for His 1000 year rule (see MAT 24:27-30, MAR 13:22-31, LUK 21:25-27, ACT 1:9-11). 3. Their belief that Christ is an angel; the first created being (contrast REV 1:8, REV 21:6, and REV 22:13). 4. That Christians should not submit to any authority (see ROM 13:1, HEB 13:17, 1PE 2:13). You might want to get a hold of a copy of "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter R. Martin. It contains valuable information on the various Christian cults. It will also give an account of the perjury associated with the Jehovah Witnesses founder (basically lying under oath; this has to do with #4, above). As far as churches you might attend; I should warn you that there is still a lot of bitterness between the Protestant and Catholic churches (I think this is unfortunate, but that view is probably not supported by my own church). As far as Protestant churches go, there are three main "flavors", the conservative, who believe that Scripture is inerrant (e.g. Conservative Baptist, which is mine, among others), Charismatics, who believe in the continued existence of speaking in tongues (e.g. the Foursquare), and the liberal churches, who do not believe in inerrancy. You will probably find the more liberal churches are more open to the Catholic churches. Best wishes. James E. Akiyama jamesa@amadeus.LA.TEK.COM UUCP: ....!uunet!tektronix!amadeus.LA.TEK.COM!jamesa ARPA: @RELAY.CS.NET:jamesa%amadeus.LA.TEK.COM