Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: jking@apollo.hp.com (John King) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Who do you say Christ is? (and other questions) Message-ID: Date: 13 Sep 89 08:11:26 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, Mass. Lines: 200 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Let me preface my statements by pointing out that about every six months on the net their seems to be a posting by some distraught husband who is concerned about his wife being "brainwashed" and "lied to" by JWs or Mormons. We then get an avalanche of sympathetic replies from various "experts" who are primarily using anti-JW sources to support their position. Let me respond to some of those comments: >All said, John 1:1 is probably not the best argument for the trinity doctrine. Thank you. I have discussed the Greek many times on the net. The bottom line is that you can neither prove nor disprove the trinity from John 1:1. > 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. Yes, and in the very next verse(19) Jesus himself clarifies: " ....most truely I say to you, THE SON CANNOT DO A SINGLE THING ONE HIS OWN INITIATIVE..." Doesn't sound very trinitarian to me. > 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). Question: In the above verse, who does Paul say God is? Who does Paul say the Lord is? We see this distinction in many other places. For example, At Rev 14:4, we can see God and the Lamb(Jesus) are clearly two seperate entities. No it DOESN'T say "the Father and the Lamb". By distinguishing God from the Lamb, we can conclude that the Lamb is not God. >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: Sure it is possible that Paul really meant "pre-eminent" not "firstborn" but one must use a substantial amount of Kentuky windage to force that interpretation. If Paul really meant what you said, why didn't he use the word "proteuon" instead of "prototokos"? (also see Rev 3:14) > 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? Jesus is the "only-begotten" son of God. He was the first, and only son of God created directly by God. Everything else was created through Jesus (Col 1:16; Heb 1:1,2; Gen 1:26; Prov 8:22-31). >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: > 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). Agreed. Jesus did not have an "inclination to sin". He was created perfect. So wasn't Adam, but he chose to disobey God. Satan was no dummy. He would not bothered to tempt Jesus if he didn't think he had some chance of success. >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. As a former Trinitarian, I'm sure my grasp of the doctrine is at least as good as yours. The foundation of the doctrine is that Jesus is co-equal in authority and power. That is not biblical (1 Cor 11:3) >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) May I suggest you make a better effort to comprehend him. At 2 Thes 1:8 Paul points out that those who do not know God are in deep do-do (also John 17:3). >Ask her if you can attend the meetings. My wife is a Methodist and we >alternate between going to her church and mine. (Granted that the MC is not >as different as the JW.) The main thing here is that you take an *active* >role in her faith. When you go ***don't*** be hostile no matter how much >slack they try to give the Church. Ask questions if compelled but do so in >a humble and knowlegde-seeking manner. This is a great idea. >If for some reason she or the JW object to your attendence than I suggest you >have a serious problem. There will be no objection, only encouragement to come again. > As anti-catholic as they are they may be trying to >brainwash her against the RC religion by spouting the old Mary-worshiper >rhetoric. Brainwash?! You speak of this man's wife, who you don't even know, like she is an unthinking child without a reasoning mind of her own! >some such faiths resort to outright >lies in an effort to lure people away from more traditional christian >religions. As a former Catholic, I am not going to lower this conversation into Catholic bashing on a public net. It would be nice if you could reciprocate. Jack [I've had a hard time knowing where to draw the line in this discussion. I have no problem with people giving arguments for the Trinitarian position. However I'd like to see X-bashing left out of the discussion, for all X. Whatever your experience with JW's, this discussion group has a whole range of Christians, including "orthodox", JW's, Mormons, etc. There is no way we can function without a bit of mutual respect. In retrospect I think I should have been more aggressive in filtering. I thank Jack for not reciprocating. As I indicated in a previous message, the NT says a number of different things, which appear at first glance to be mutually contradictory. The simple statement Jesus == God, with no other explanation, would certainly fail to deal with the passages cited here. However the orthodox doctrine is a bit more complex than that. Perhaps too complex... I'd rather not proceed with the sort of detailed passage by passage interpretation we see here (and in other postings), until I have an overall picture of your views. In particular, I'd be interested in how you deal with the whole range of passages, as I listed them in a previous message: - Jesus prays to the Father, and tells us that the Father is greater than he is (John 14:28). - Christ is spoken of as having existed before the world. (Col 1:15ff, John 1:1ff, Heb 1:2ff) - Christ is in one way or another identified with God: - Jesus forgives sins, which only God should be able to do - The rather odd episode of John 18:6, where Jesus seems to apply the name YHWH to himself, and everyone falls to the ground. - various statements in John such as "I and the Father are one" - Christ's actions in saving us were God's. See Eph 4:32, 2 Cor 5:19, Col 1:19-20. I do not think these issues are going to be settled on the basis of our understanding of specific passages, such as Jn 1:1 -- though of course discussion of those passages is relevant -- but by a judgement of how successful various positions are at dealing with the full range of Biblical evidence. This is not meant to be an attack, but a request for information. I do not think I've gotten a reasonable feeling for the JW position from the attacks that have been posted so far. --clh]