Does the Bible Alone, without the Catholic Church, clearly teach the deity of Christ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
34,437
3,872
On the bus to Heaven
✟60,078.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Topic: [FONT=&quot]Does the Bible Alone, without the Catholic Church, clearly teach the deity of Christ?[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Affirmative: [FONT=&quot]Mathetes the kerux [/FONT]

Negative: Packermann

Rounds: [FONT=&quot]Until one or both wants to end it[/FONT]

Format: [FONT=&quot]Free-format. We do not have to alternate.[/FONT]

Time limit between posts: [FONT=&quot]no time limit between posts[/FONT]

Maximum length of each post: [FONT=&quot]No maximum.[/FONT]

Sources: No restrictions.

This is a formal debate between [FONT=&quot]Mathetes the kerux [/FONT]and Packermann. No one else is allowed to post in this thread. All rules of CF apply including the 20% quote rule. Please post links to your quotes.

Peanut gallery is here.

Debate proposal is here.

Good luck to both participants.
 

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John 8:58 with the connective of John 1:3 is probably the easiest place as it connects Jesus' own claim of Himself, not just an author's assertion or a third person's ascription.

the clincher is the tense of genesthai set over and against eimi. Jesus claims eternality.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
That is an excellent start. Before I start, please keep in mind that I fully agree with you in the interpretation of this verse. But I only interpret this verse because I read this verse in light of the Nicene Creed and the rest of Catholic tradition. I would argue that you, too, are this in light of tradition, although you are not aware of this. But people have fully expunged themselves from the Catholic, Trinitiarian position do not see this verse the way you or I would see it.

In John 5:58, it definitely says that Jesus existed before Abraham. And although I fully believe that Jesus is eternal, I do not believe that this verse alone or even with John 1:1 proves that Jesus is eternal.
I found this Jehovah Witness article. He shows that the translation of “Before Abraham was, I am” is not universally accepted by Protestant scholars. Here are some other possible translations.

[FONT=&quot]1869: "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1935: "I existed before Abraham was born!" The Bible—An American Translation, by J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1965: "Before Abraham was born, I was already the one that I am." Das Neue Testament, by Jörg Zink. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1981: "I was alive before Abraham was born!" The Simple English Bible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]What About Trinity "Proof Texts"? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site[/FONT]
I googled these references, and as far as I can see, none of these references are from fellow Jehovah Witnesses. For instance, E.J. Goodspeed is a reputed Baptist scholar.
So if we take any of these translations, all that John 5:58 proves is that Jesus existed before Abraham. This does not prove that Jesus is God. The angels existed before Abraham. That does not mean they are God.
Mind you, I am not advocating the Jehovah Witness position. I am just saying that based on sola scriptura their position is possible.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, for those who know Greek, it is quite clear.

it is 8:58
John 8:56-59
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
NASU

but the FIRST text to start with is

John 1:1-4
a In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

verse 3 being the conceptual place to start.

Now in Koine communication, the way that communication works in writing is to state something first into which all other concepts are linked. Hence, 8:58 is SAYING THE SAME THING that has already been stated by John.

But I must point something out

2 Cor 4:3-5
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
NASU

This passage makes it quite clear . . . tradition, orthodoxy, evangelical, conservative, literalist, etc MEANS NOTHING. JW's reject, NOT because they dont have tradition, or whatever, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE BLINDED BY SATAN.

I can show them verse after verse, or even an atheist, expose them to all the logical reasons for a creator (even apart from the Bible) AND THEY WILL NEVER SEE THE TRUTH OF IT.

It is quite like saying to a decieved person "hey man, 2+2=4" and they look at me BOLD FACED and say NOPE I dont believe it. SO all the contrary posts that you will make from them come from a decieved perspective. I would probably be better to use people who are believers who dont take the passages as what most say. Cause all the drivel from the JW's sites will be tainted. Truth indeed.

so, quickly to John 1:3


All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

even apart from greek, the concepts are QUITE clear . . . He created ALL THINGS (pantas) and apart from Him NOTHING (oude) came into being that has COME INTO BEING.

John makes it PAINFULLY clear, apart from tradition and simple to the cursory read, that Jesus is the Creator (all things that came into being through Him) and that HE IS UNCREATED (apart from Him NOTHING that came into being that has come into being) . . . he is APART from the order of things that have come into being. IOW, ontologically, Jesus is eternal.

We dont need tradition to see this. It is PAINFULLY clear to the honest reader.

John 8:58 is the self statement of Jesus to this SAME EFFECT.

To the tenses I will turn next time

thnx for the convo!

MTK
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, for those who know Greek, it is quite clear

it is 8:58
John 8:56-59
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad." 57 So the Jews said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
NASU

But on what authority do you say that it the NASU is right? To the Jehovah Witness, he likes how the Young, or Darby, or his New World Translation renders this verse. In Protestantism, there is no authoritative translation. The Catholic does. He has the Douay, the Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV (Catholic version). These have the stamp of approval by the Catholic Church. But the Protestant has no magisterium to give official approval of which Bible to use. So you like NASU. OK. But the Jehovah Witness likes his New World Translation. Within Protestantism, who has the authority to declare that the NWT is invalid?

You appeal to the Greek, and yet you presented no arguments from the Greek. And even if you did, you mention that it is quite clear “for those who know Greek”. But how many Christians know Greek? I do, but most Christians do not. As the saying goes, its all Greek to me! So if it only clear to those who know Greek then this is an admission that your argument is not clear to most Christians, since most Christians do not know Greek!




but the FIRST text to start with is

John 1:1-4
a In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

verse 3 being the conceptual place to start.

Now in Koine communication, the way that communication works in writing is to state something first into which all other concepts are linked. Hence, 8:58 is SAYING THE SAME THING that has already been stated by John.

The Jehovah Witness, being at heart an Arian, believes that Jesus is a god, but not the God. Being a god, Jesus was the first one created by the God. In Col:15, it says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation”. The Jehovah Witness would argue that if Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, then that must mean that Jesus was part of creation – even though by being “firstborn” that means He was the first to be created. And once Jesus was created, God then created everything else.

But I must point something out

2 Cor 4:3-5
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
NASU

This passage makes it quite clear . . . tradition, orthodoxy, evangelical, conservative, literalist, etc MEANS NOTHING. JW's reject, NOT because they dont have tradition, or whatever, BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE BLINDED BY SATAN.

I can show them verse after verse, or even an atheist, expose them to all the logical reasons for a creator (even apart from the Bible) AND THEY WILL NEVER SEE THE TRUTH OF IT.

It is quite like saying to a decieved person "hey man, 2+2=4" and they look at me BOLD FACED and say NOPE I dont believe it. SO all the contrary posts that you will make from them come from a decieved perspective. I would probably be better to use people who are believers who dont take the passages as what most say. Cause all the drivel from the JW's sites will be tainted. Truth indeed.


I agree that the Jehovah Witnesses are blinded by Satan. But the Jehovah Witness would look at us as being the ones who are blinded by Satan. If you were to use this in a debated with a Jehovah Witness, this argument would be an ad hominem attack, which is consider an invalid argument. Only by defeating the Jehovah Witness with the truth can it then be shown that he is blinded by Satan. If we start with the premise that he is blinded by Satan and therefore we will not discuss it with them, then we are no better than he is.

True, he is ultimately blinded by Satan. But that does not mean that the devil could not use secondary means to accomplish this. Satan can use the person’s pride, or his upbringing, or his tradition to blind him from the truth. If fact, Jesus did say that we can be blinded by our own man-made traditions (Mark 7:9).



so, quickly to John 1:3


All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
even apart from greek, the concepts are QUITE clear . . . He created ALL THINGS (pantas) and apart from Him NOTHING (oude) came into being that has COME INTO BEING.

John makes it PAINFULLY clear, apart from tradition and simple to the cursory read, that Jesus is the Creator (all things that came into being through Him) and that HE IS UNCREATED (apart from Him NOTHING that came into being that has come into being) . . . he is APART from the order of things that have come into being. IOW, ontologically, Jesus is eternal.

The JW would agree that it says that Jesus was involved in the creation. But it only says He was involved in creating everything. It says that everything was created THROUGH HIM. But it does not say that everything was created BY Him.


Also, the most you can say is that this IMPLIES That Jesus is uncreated. We can infer that since all things were created through Him, ergo that must mean He was uncreated, because He could not have created Himself. But I don’t think the Bible has these things nicely laid as this. I think that the author could have implied that Jesus was exception. I think that the author could have meant that Jesus create all created things except, of course, Himself. I think that goes without saying.

For instance, the Bible says that God can do all things. But then there are verses that say that God cannot lie and God cannot change. It that a contradiction? No. When it says that God can do all things, it is implied that lying and changing His nature are exceptions. Also, Paul said “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”. Obviously, this is a hyperbole. Certain things Paul cannot do, even though Christ strengthens him. For instance, Paul cannot be God!

So in summary, the most you do is infer from this verse. And you can only infer from this verse is that Christ is uncreated. It does not explicitly teach that Christ is uncreated, or that He is God.


I want to compare the Biblical passages you have given so far to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”. That he is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True. One in being with the Father”. There is no way that this passage can be interpreted other than Jesus is fully God. I know of no cult that accept the Nicene Creed and rejects the deity of Christ. This is an open-and-shut case.

The issue is whether this Council is just as infallible as the Bible. I think it is. Did the Holy Spirit lead the Council to infallibly define truth, just as the Holy Spirit lead men to infallibly write the Bible? I think He has. And I believe I can prove it, but that is for another topic. The point is that I can listen and listen by a Jehovah Witness, and I can just smile back at him. No anger. No pointing my finger at him that he is blinded by Satan. I would not be mad at him, because no matter how much his interpretation of the Bible may seem possible, I know it is wrong, because God’s Church tells me so.




We dont need tradition to see this. It is PAINFULLY clear to the honest reader.

I recall a time when I was still a Protestant and I was visited by a JW. We went back and forth on scripture, and I could not make a dent on his position. Finally, we were done, and I was frustrated. But just before he left, I gave him one more argument. And this argument took his smile right off his face. I said “Your religion has been in existence for about 150 years. Correct. So what are the odds that your religion is correct and the rest of Christianity has been wrong for these last 2,000 years? What are the odds that all Christians got it wrong about Jesus these last 2 centuries, and only recently did your religion come into being and got it right?”

I did not realize at that time, but I was arguing from tradition. And that was the only thing that shook this JW.
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But on what authority do you say that it the NASU is right? To the Jehovah Witness, he likes how the Young, or Darby, or his New World Translation renders this verse. In Protestantism, there is no authoritative translation. The Catholic does. He has the Douay, the Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV (Catholic version). These have the stamp of approval by the Catholic Church. But the Protestant has no magisterium to give official approval of which Bible to use. So you like NASU. OK. But the Jehovah Witness likes his New World Translation. Within Protestantism, who has the authority to declare that the NWT is invalid?

You appeal to the Greek, and yet you presented no arguments from the Greek. And even if you did, you mention that it is quite clear “for those who know Greek”. But how many Christians know Greek? I do, but most Christians do not. As the saying goes, its all Greek to me! So if it only clear to those who know Greek then this is an admission that your argument is not clear to most Christians, since most Christians do not know Greek!






The Jehovah Witness, being at heart an Arian, believes that Jesus is a god, but not the God. Being a god, Jesus was the first one created by the God. In Col:15, it says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation”. The Jehovah Witness would argue that if Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, then that must mean that Jesus was part of creation – even though by being “firstborn” that means He was the first to be created. And once Jesus was created, God then created everything else.




I agree that the Jehovah Witnesses are blinded by Satan. But the Jehovah Witness would look at us as being the ones who are blinded by Satan. If you were to use this in a debated with a Jehovah Witness, this argument would be an ad hominem attack, which is consider an invalid argument. Only by defeating the Jehovah Witness with the truth can it then be shown that he is blinded by Satan. If we start with the premise that he is blinded by Satan and therefore we will not discuss it with them, then we are no better than he is.

True, he is ultimately blinded by Satan. But that does not mean that the devil could not use secondary means to accomplish this. Satan can use the person’s pride, or his upbringing, or his tradition to blind him from the truth. If fact, Jesus did say that we can be blinded by our own man-made traditions (Mark 7:9).





The JW would agree that it says that Jesus was involved in the creation. But it only says He was involved in creating everything. It says that everything was created THROUGH HIM. But it does not say that everything was created BY Him.


Also, the most you can say is that this IMPLIES That Jesus is uncreated. We can infer that since all things were created through Him, ergo that must mean He was uncreated, because He could not have created Himself. But I don’t think the Bible has these things nicely laid as this. I think that the author could have implied that Jesus was exception. I think that the author could have meant that Jesus create all created things except, of course, Himself. I think that goes without saying.

For instance, the Bible says that God can do all things. But then there are verses that say that God cannot lie and God cannot change. It that a contradiction? No. When it says that God can do all things, it is implied that lying and changing His nature are exceptions. Also, Paul said “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”. Obviously, this is a hyperbole. Certain things Paul cannot do, even though Christ strengthens him. For instance, Paul cannot be God!

So in summary, the most you do is infer from this verse. And you can only infer from this verse is that Christ is uncreated. It does not explicitly teach that Christ is uncreated, or that He is God.


I want to compare the Biblical passages you have given so far to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”. That he is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True. One in being with the Father”. There is no way that this passage can be interpreted other than Jesus is fully God. I know of no cult that accept the Nicene Creed and rejects the deity of Christ. This is an open-and-shut case.

The issue is whether this Council is just as infallible as the Bible. I think it is. Did the Holy Spirit lead the Council to infallibly define truth, just as the Holy Spirit lead men to infallibly write the Bible? I think He has. And I believe I can prove it, but that is for another topic. The point is that I can listen and listen by a Jehovah Witness, and I can just smile back at him. No anger. No pointing my finger at him that he is blinded by Satan. I would not be mad at him, because no matter how much his interpretation of the Bible may seem possible, I know it is wrong, because God’s Church tells me so.






I recall a time when I was still a Protestant and I was visited by a JW. We went back and forth on scripture, and I could not make a dent on his position. Finally, we were done, and I was frustrated. But just before he left, I gave him one more argument. And this argument took his smile right off his face. I said “Your religion has been in existence for about 150 years. Correct. So what are the odds that your religion is correct and the rest of Christianity has been wrong for these last 2,000 years? What are the odds that all Christians got it wrong about Jesus these last 2 centuries, and only recently did your religion come into being and got it right?”

I did not realize at that time, but I was arguing from tradition. And that was the only thing that shook this JW.

First, I have to reiterate . . .

The fact that the JW's can look at these verses and see something else doesnt mean that their lack of "seeing" makes the verses mean something else than what they mean. IOW, pointing to their interpretative banter ONLY shows that they are locked in blindness . . . not that their interpretations are even allowable.

For example, the John 1:1 word was with God and the word was God, citation they, classicaly, state that the word "a" (not the letter but the word that modifies nouns "I had A hot dog) shoud be inserted. Problem is, GREEK DOESNT HAVE A WORD "a" . . . it has the letter alpha, but not the word "a." So, their lack of ability to successfully naviagte greek grammar shows DECIET in their interpretative scheme. So, seriously, I would STOP using their dissension slants . . . for each time all that needs to be shown is that they are decieved and any interpretation that they make is THROWN OUT THE WINDOW. If I were you, I would search for BELIEVERS who interpret the passages differently . . . then you can make a case for unbiased intepretative methods. Make sense?

But on what authority do you say that it the NASU is right?

One doesnt need to be a genius to line up the Greek MSS to the English of the NASB or even the ESV to see that it is a WORD FOR WORD translation. IOW, your statement doesnt even apply . . . it WOULD apply for a translation like "the message" or the Living Bible or some other paraphrase . . . but as it is a word for word equivalence . . . your statement doesnt even apply. It would be like asking "what authority does the "codex vaticanus" or "codex sinaiticus" or "codex alexandreas" have . . . as these are the sources per Westcott and Hort's COPIES (not translations, but COPIES). IOW the NASB is the equivalent of the Koine . . . it is only a translation as it is in English . . . not because artistic license has been taken with it (like the others that I mentioned).

To the Jehovah Witness, he likes how the Young, or Darby, or his New World Translation renders this verse.

Appealing to their choices isnt going to work here . . . they are decieved and operating in blindness.


In Protestantism, there is no authoritative translation. The Catholic does. He has the Douay, the Jerusalem Bible, and the RSV (Catholic version).

Better . . . stay here with your arguments as we can assume that most here are operating w/o hugely deceptive errancies

I like the RSV btw . . . very much like the NASB.

But these all fall into the same statement I already made :)

Within Protestantism, who has the authority to declare that the NWT is invalid?

The MSS themselves. All you have to do is line it up with the Koine and one can see the errancy. Further, their founder (Rutherford I think) was PROVEN on the STAND in a court room to have NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE but claimed to translate the NWT. Actually the history of the NWT is quite interesting . . . but to compare that with the NASB or the RSV or even NRSV is like comparing apples to oranges.

You appeal to the Greek, and yet you presented no arguments from the Greek. And even if you did, you mention that it is quite clear “for those who know Greek”.

We will get to the Greek when we come to 8:58 . . . we are still at 1:3 :)

But how many Christians know Greek? I do, but most Christians do not. As the saying goes, its all Greek to me! So if it only clear to those who know Greek then this is an admission that your argument is not clear to most Christians, since most Christians do not know Greek!

COMPLETELY MOOT . . . when written EVERYONE understood the Koine as it was the common trade language. So, while this may apply to NOW . . . it did not to THEN. And the premise is "can one know that JEsus is God from the scriptures ALONE" and the answer would be, absolutely . . . as it was CRYSTAL CLEAR THEN (how do you think you derrived ur tradition! ;)).

Side note: Greek and Hebrew should be part and parcel w/ every discipleship class and catechism


be back to the rest later

pls wait for me to finish this up before we move to the next K? dont want to be derailed. :pray:
 
Upvote 0

Mathetes the kerux

Tales of a Twice Born Man
Aug 1, 2004
6,619
286
45
Santa Rosa CA
Visit site
✟8,217.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others


You appeal to the Greek, and yet you presented no arguments from the Greek. And even if you did, you mention that it is quite clear “for those who know Greek”. But how many Christians know Greek? I do, but most Christians do not. As the saying goes, its all Greek to me! So if it only clear to those who know Greek then this is an admission that your argument is not clear to most Christians, since most Christians do not know Greek!

where I left off

The Jehovah Witness, being at heart an Arian, believes that Jesus is a god, but not the God. Being a god, Jesus was the first one created by the God. In Col:15, it says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation”. The Jehovah Witness would argue that if Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, then that must mean that Jesus was part of creation – even though by being “firstborn” that means He was the first to be created. And once Jesus was created, God then created everything else.

Yep that is what they would say . . . but this verse directly refutes that. Look at the contention of the verse:


John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being
NASU

The first assertion is that ALL THINGS came into being by Him. There can be an arguement made that panta is a relative term and not absolute . . . and this is true, sometimes panta refers to a entire group and is not universal. The answer to its meaning is in context.

But that is exactly where they are proved wrong. Context interprets that statement in the next following assertion:

and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

So contextually what is "all things?" . . . the text qualifies the "all things" itself with the statement of

"anything that can be said to have "come into being" . . . or can be said to have a beginning . . . comes into being BY HIM"

By definition if things that have beginnings come into being BY HIM . . . and ALL THINGS that have beginnings (noted by the negative "nothing that has a beginning" ) cannot have beginnings with out Him . . . HE DOESNT QUALIFY AS ONE WHO HAS A BEGINNING.

Even w/o Greek it isnt hard to see. It is texts like these that gave tradition its authority because tradition has no authority apart from scripture. Tradition IS what it IS BECAUSE of texts like these . . . and texts like these are what were understood clearly even before there was a structured concept of tradition.

I agree that the Jehovah Witnesses are blinded by Satan. But the Jehovah Witness would look at us as being the ones who are blinded by Satan. If you were to use this in a debated with a Jehovah Witness, this argument would be an ad hominem attack, which is consider an invalid argument.

Agreed, but it is entirely moot. I am NOT in a conversation with a JW . . . so because we share the same view it doesnt matter. U and I both know that their arguements are done from the perspective of deception . . . so to promote their view as valid when we both agree that it is not is pointless.

The issue is whether the scriptures clearly teach the deity of Christ. Pointing to someones perspective when we both know that that perspective is decieved is errant. We both know it is wrong.

The question for you is, where does tradition derive its authority? Tradition is rooted in scripture. Tradition affirms a right view of the passages, but that in and of its self attests to the truthfulness of the passage AND THE ABILITY OF THE PASSAGE TO BE CLEAR IN WHAT IT TEACHES.

Only by defeating the Jehovah Witness with the truth can it then be shown that he is blinded by Satan. If we start with the premise that he is blinded by Satan and therefore we will not discuss it with them, then we are no better than he is.

I dont think that u understand conversion tho . . . conversion is a gift of God . . . therefore, w/o God moving on the person, truth can smack that person in the face till day breaks and it not do anything.

And, we dont say "he is blinded so we wont share" we say "he is blinded so we WILL share and pray that God opens his eyes, and if his eyes are not opened, then that is in God's sovereign hands."

Logic doesnt convert . . . sound and reasoned arguements dont convert . . . u can present logical arguements till youre blue in the face and it still wont convert . . . it takes the revelation of the move of the Spirit of God to call a dead man to life (Eph 2) that converts . . . and if that REALLY happens then truth comes rushing in like a flood and the blind see.

True, he is ultimately blinded by Satan. But that does not mean that the devil could not use secondary means to accomplish this. Satan can use the person’s pride, or his upbringing, or his tradition to blind him from the truth. If fact, Jesus did say that we can be blinded by our own man-made traditions (Mark 7:9).

Agreed . . . but blind is blind is blind . .. secondary or primary or tertiary . . .

The JW would agree that it says that Jesus was involved in the creation. But it only says He was involved in creating everything. It says that everything was created THROUGH HIM. But it does not say that everything was created BY Him.

See above, the philosophical contention of the verse requires anything that has a beginning to be brought to being by Him . . . which excludes Him from the category of anything that has a beginning.

Also, the most you can say is that this IMPLIES That Jesus is uncreated.

Not really. Tie the whole concept from 1:1 together through the pericope:

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

In the beginning is the reference to the Genesis 1:1 statement of the ha'sho mayim eretez . . . in Hebrew there r 4 words for heaven and 5 for earth (or it may be the inverse) . . . when this peculiar combination of these words is combined it means ONLY ONE THING . . . ALL OF CREATION. So John hearkens back to the creation of all things that have a beginning in the VERY FIRST STATEMENT.
Further his usage presupposes the existence of the "word" prior to the beginning as he goes on the stress. John's perspective in his description he rounds out. IOW he states and restates so that he can be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR as to what he means. He is redundant with a little additional information in each progressive statement.
Into this THERE IS NO IMPLICATION . . . JOHN IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.
He places the location of the word as with God, prior to the beginning and further EXPLAINS that all the created order was through Him and that all things that have a beginning have their beginning in Him. It is stated clearly. No inference at all. He cannot be part of the created order as all things that can be said to have a beginning have so IN HIM . . . which makes HIM UNCREATED.

We can infer that since all things were created through Him, ergo that must mean He was uncreated, because He could not have created Himself. But I don’t think the Bible has these things nicely laid as this.

You would be right if only 1:3a were the statement . . . but it is not. 1:3b is the clarifying statement that John makes so that there is no mistaking what he means.

"apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."

notice the first "all things" and the inverse "nothing" . . . panta (all things) is placed over and against oude en (nothing) to make sure that HE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. He makes two statements from two angles to affirm the same truth. There is no escaping it.

I think that the author could have implied that Jesus was exception. I think that the author could have meant that Jesus create all created things except, of course, Himself. I think that goes without saying.

As I said, were 1:3a not attached to 1:3b . . . you may be able to strain such a point . . . as this is not the case, you cant.

For instance, the Bible says that God can do all things. But then there are verses that say that God cannot lie and God cannot change. It that a contradiction? No. When it says that God can do all things, it is implied that lying and changing His nature are exceptions. Also, Paul said “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”. Obviously, this is a hyperbole. Certain things Paul cannot do, even though Christ strengthens him. For instance, Paul cannot be God!

I totally agree. Context determines meaning and a healthy systematic must be in place within which to make calls such as these. The meaning is found in the immediate context AND in authorial intent . . . good principles. WHole heartedly agree.

Problem is tho that this passage doesnt fall into those same parameters.

1. Context shows exactly what is the authorial intent
2. Authorial intent is unmistakable in his philosophical intentions and inverted reasoning (coming at the same issue from several different angles) so as to make his intent CLEAR

So, while your point is true . . . this is not one of those passages as the authors construction and pains in statement and statement again make it CLEAR what he is meaning.

So in summary, the most you do is infer from this verse. And you can only infer from this verse is that Christ is uncreated. It does not explicitly teach that Christ is uncreated, or that He is God.

No. It does explicitly teach this, as I have shown. And as the system of Judaism even before Christianity affirms that God alone is uncreated, this only allows Jesus to be God.

I want to compare the Biblical passages you have given so far to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father”. That he is “God from God, Light from Light, True God from True. One in being with the Father”. There is no way that this passage can be interpreted other than Jesus is fully God. I know of no cult that accept the Nicene Creed and rejects the deity of Christ. This is an open-and-shut case.

Agreed.

Think tho . . . if one were to challenge one who believes this . . . what would that one do? Point to the scripture. They would say "this is why I believe this."

The issue is whether this Council is just as infallible as the Bible. I think it is. Did the Holy Spirit lead the Council to infallibly define truth, just as the Holy Spirit lead men to infallibly write the Bible? I think He has. And I believe I can prove it, but that is for another topic.

And I would take the opposite stance :)

it actually may come to us having to follow this trail . . .

I know it is wrong, because God’s Church tells me so.

Dont get me wrong bro . . . I have a HIGH view of the Church . . . I think that the church is one of the indispensible means of God's voice in the earth . . . but I dont think that the voice of God will contradict what He has already stated in the scripture . . . and I think that if you heard from some priest in your diocese somewhere that Jesus wasnt God, you would recognize him as heretical, you would point to the council and the council would point you to the Scripture . . . the council derrives its authority (cause it does have authority in as much as it reflects the scripture) FROM THE SCRIPTURE . . . but the council is not necessary for the affirmation of the truths of Scripture.

I recall a time when I was still a Protestant and I was visited by a JW. We went back and forth on scripture, and I could not make a dent on his position. Finally, we were done, and I was frustrated. But just before he left, I gave him one more argument. And this argument took his smile right off his face. I said “Your religion has been in existence for about 150 years. Correct. So what are the odds that your religion is correct and the rest of Christianity has been wrong for these last 2,000 years? What are the odds that all Christians got it wrong about Jesus these last 2 centuries, and only recently did your religion come into being and got it right?”

I did not realize at that time, but I was arguing from tradition. And that was the only thing that shook this JW.

And that is awesome . . . but does this mean that tradition is required to know the truth of the scripture or that the Bible DOESNT teach cleary the deity of Christ? No. Remember tradition derrives its authority in that it reflects the scripture.

What this DOES mean is that you have and ADDITIONAL weapon in your arsenal . . .

But I can dismantle a JW just as easy when I break out my Greek NT and ask him to read it because he wants to make so many arguements about what texts mean from the Greek! ^_^

Further, the TRUTH is that the JW's position has been around for almost as long as ours! . . . it was the ARIANS that were prominent prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD . . . so they predate Nicea . . . making the JW's position about 1700 + years old . . . almost as old as our's.

And a JW who knows his history would point to the polemics of the 3rd century as proof that JW theology was close to the inception of the church (I kno this because I have had this said to me).
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
First, I have to reiterate . . .
The fact that the JW's can look at these verses and see something else doesnt mean that their lack of "seeing" makes the verses mean something else than what they mean. IOW, pointing to their interpretative banter ONLY shows that they are locked in blindness . . . not that their interpretations are even allowable.

I think you misunderstand me. See below.


For example, the John 1:1 word was with God and the word was God, citation they, classicaly, state that the word "a" (not the letter but the word that modifies nouns "I had A hot dog) shoud be inserted. Problem is, GREEK DOESNT HAVE A WORD "a" . . . it has the letter alpha, but not the word "a." So, their lack of ability to successfully naviagte greek grammar shows DECIET in their interpretative scheme.

I think you just proved the JWs position. You assert that Greek does not have the word “a”. And you are correct! So how did the Greeks covey the equivalence of our English word for “a”? Simple, they just omit the definite article. So the English transliteration of the last part of John 1:1 is

“and god was the word” (In Greek there is no cap letters)

There is no definite article in front of “god”. So, according to Greek syntax, the word “a” could be inserted. There is no deception here.

However, where the JW errs is asserting that the word “a” must ALWAYS be inserted whenever there is no definite article in front of the noun. That is not true.


Sometimes the definite article is omitted so that it is clear what is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence. In Greek, the absence of the definite article also emphasizes the qualitative aspect. So in this case, it would not be translated as “the Word is a god” but “the Word is deity”. This would be the Trinitarian response.

But the Greek does allow both. So the next thing we must do is look at the context. But this does not help much. Both translations can fit within the context. So the only thing that we have left is to broaden our context, to include the Early Chruch Fathers and the Nicene Council.


So, seriously, I would STOP using their dissension slants . . . for each time all that needs to be shown is that they are decieved and any interpretation that they make is THROWN OUT THE WINDOW. If I were you, I would search for BELIEVERS who interpret the passages differently . . . then you can make a case for unbiased intepretative methods. Make sense?

But I did do that!

Although I quoted from a JW article, I only quoted from because it used Christians sources. My ultimate source was not the JW. It was Noyes, the Simple English Bible, the Darby Bible, E. J. Goodspeed, etc. These are all Christian sources!


For instance there is E.J.Goodspeed, a Baptist scholar, who wrote a Greek-English New Testament.(http://www.amazon.com/Parallel-New-Testament-E-J-Goodspeed/dp/0226303691) and yet he translated the verse to be “I existed before Abraham was born”


Here is another one not found in the JW article – The Living Translation by Tyndale House Publishers. This is a Protestant Evangelical translation of the Bible. You can find it online at:

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/default.asp

In the footnote of their online Bible, they gave an alternate interpretation of this verse as a possibility in its footnote:

8:58 Or before Abraham was even born, I have always been alive; Greek reads before Abraham was, I am.
See:
http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/ssresults.asp?txtSearchString=John+8%3A58&find.x=15&find.y=8

Here are the Biblical scholars who would have contributed to translating the Gospel of John:
Grant R. Osborne, Senior Translator
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Gary M. Burge
Wheaton College
Philip W. Comfort
Coastal Carolina University
Marianne Meye Thompson
Fuller Theological Seminary

http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/05discoverthenlt/meetthescholars.asp

You cannot get anymore Evangelical than that! You have Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Wheaton, and Fuller.
And yet they opened the door to the possibility that this verse can be translated to only say the Jesus existed before Abraham, not that He was eternal.


One doesnt need to be a genius to line up the Greek MSS to the English of the NASB or even the ESV to see that it is a WORD FOR WORD translation. IOW, your statement doesnt even apply . . . it WOULD apply for a translation like "the message" or the Living Bible or some other paraphrase . . . but as it is a word for word equivalence . . . your statement doesnt even apply. It would be like asking "what authority does the "codex vaticanus" or "codex sinaiticus" or "codex alexandreas" have . . . as these are the sources per Westcott and Hort's COPIES (not translations, but COPIES). IOW the NASB is the equivalent of the Koine . . . it is only a translation as it is in English . . . not because artistic license has been taken with it (like the others that I mentioned).

It is a fallacy that a word-for-word translation is more accurate that a thought-for-thought translation. Sometime there is just not one English word to convey what one Greek or Hebrew word means.
Even for translators for a though-for-thought translation, they still understand the Greek and Hebrew text than we do. If there is disagreement among Evangelical Christian scholars, then surely John 8:58 cannot be used definitely to prove that Jesus clearly is God.

I like the RSV btw . . . very much like the NASB.

E. J. Goodspeed was a contributor to the RSV. And he would not agree with your translation.


COMPLETELY MOOT . . . when written EVERYONE understood the Koine as it was the common trade language. So, while this may apply to NOW . . . it did not to THEN. And the premise is "can one know that JEsus is God from the scriptures ALONE" and the answer would be, absolutely . . . as it was CRYSTAL CLEAR THEN (how do you think you derrived ur tradition! ).

Wow! So you at least agree with me that it is not clear that the Bible teaches the deity of Christ. So that means that for 99% of all born-again Christians it is not clear what the Bible teaches on what is crucial for our salvation!


Side note: Greek and Hebrew should be part and parcel w/ every discipleship class and catechism

If I believed in sola scriptura, I would agree with you. I could not understand how people who say that they trust in the Bible only and not in man but then blindly trust in Bible translators they never met to give them an English translation what is accurately written in the original Greek and Hebrew.

But why stop there? There is discipline called Textual Criticism. We do not have the original copies of the any of the books of the Bible. They disintegrated a long time ago. They were made out of papyrus which did not last long. Only after the first century was a more durable material used for documents and letters (Is it not odd that God did not wait until the next century to send His Son so that we would have the original manuscripts? Maybe it was because it was needed to have the original documents, because we have the Church, the pillar and foundation of truth. But I digress.). Textual Criticism is comparing over 10,000 copies and copies of copies of the original documents and determining what was actually in the original documents. For instance, scholars now say that the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark was not in the original Gospel, because the earliest copies that we have excluded the last chapter. The last chapter was probably added by a later copyist.

So not only should each new Christian learn Greek and Hebrew, but he must also learn Textual Criticism. Otherwise he would never know whether or not a particular verse(s) was actually in the original manuscript.

The Christian would be so busy learning Greek, Hebrew and Textual Criticism, that he will not have time to read scripture devotionally. He would spend so much time finding out what God actually said that he will have time to apply God’s Word in His life.
Somehow I just do not think God it to be that difficult.

In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight
Luke 10:21

This is why God has given us His Church. We do not have to be Greek or Hebrew scholar. Knowing the truth is not matter of how smart you are. It is a matter of how humble you are. And it is very humble to realize that I do not know all the answers, even with the Bible, since I still interpret the Bible with my own sinful bias. It takes humility to admit that greater minds and souls have grappled with the same questions I have. Who am I to say that 2,000 years of Christianity is wrong and I right?

But once I am willing to make that humble step, then I am free. I am free not to worry about whether or not what I am reading was in the original document, or whether it is an accurate rendering of the Greek text, or proving that the Bible teaches a certain doctrine, such as the deity of Christ. It is enough that the Church hands me a Bible and vouches for its authority. It is enough for me that the Church says that Christ is God.
So the burden is lift for me to study Greek and Hebrew. I do not need to approach the Bible as a scholar. I can just read it as a newborn infant yearns for the pure milk of the word.


More later. Please wait until I am finished.:idea:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
where I left off
Yep that is what they would say . . . but this verse directly refutes that. Look at the contention of the verse:


John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being
NASU

The first assertion is that ALL THINGS came into being by Him. There can be an arguement made that panta is a relative term and not absolute . . . and this is true, sometimes panta refers to a entire group and is not universal. The answer to its meaning is in context.

But that is exactly where they are proved wrong. Context interprets that statement in the next following assertion:

and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being

So contextually what is "all things?" . . . the text qualifies the "all things" itself with the statement of

"anything that can be said to have "come into being" . . . or can be said to have a beginning . . . comes into being BY HIM"

By definition if things that have beginnings come into being BY HIM . . . and ALL THINGS that have beginnings (noted by the negative "nothing that has a beginning" ) cannot have beginnings with out Him . . . HE DOESNT QUALIFY AS ONE WHO HAS A BEGINNING.

Even w/o Greek it isnt hard to see. It is texts like these that gave tradition its authority because tradition has no authority apart from scripture. Tradition IS what it IS BECAUSE of texts like these . . . and texts like these are what were understood clearly even before there was a structured concept of tradition.


But if we use your rule we would then have to conclude that Jesus was a sinner, for in Romans 3:23 it says “For all have sinned and short to the glory of God”. Paul does not make any exception to Jesus. Now, we Trinitarians would argue that there is an implied exception. But if we Trinitarians are going to assert that there is an implied exception in Romans 3:23, then we should in all fairness grant to the Arian that there could be an implied exception in John 1:3.



Agreed, but it is entirely moot. I am NOT in a conversation with a JW . . . so because we share the same view it doesnt matter. U and I both know that their arguements are done from the perspective of deception . . . so to promote their view as valid when we both agree that it is not is pointless.

True, I believe that the JW is blinded, but for a different reason that you would. Now, please do not offended by this. I am not at all questioning your walk with God. I believe you are a fellow brother in Christ. And a JW is endangering his soul. But I believe that you and the JW are blinded in the same way, only the JW’s blindness endangers His soul much more than yours. But in a way you agree with the JW more than me. You both believe in sola scriptura. You both reject the tradition of the early church. You both would see the Nicene Council as being fallible (at least I think you would – I may be wrong)

So it is not moot at all. And I do not believe that JWs are being deliberately deceptive. I see many are very sincere, and their arguments are just as reasonable as the Trinitarians, IF I accept their presupposition of sola scriptura.

The question for you is, where does tradition derive its authority? Tradition is rooted in scripture. Tradition affirms a right view of the passages, but that in and of its self attests to the truthfulness of the passage AND THE ABILITY OF THE PASSAGE TO BE CLEAR IN WHAT IT TEACHES.

That is simply not true.

First of all, oral tradition started before the New Testament was written. The earliest writings were probably the writings of Paul, starting at about 50 AD. So if Christ did at around 29 AD, that means for at least 20 years after the time Christ, the first century Christians had no scripture. Everything in the beginning was depended on word-of-mouth.

Second, the heretics used scripture just as much, if not more so, than the Early Church Fathers. The Early Church Fathers appealed to their own authority. They argued that they spent time with the apostles, were discipled by them, and succeeded them. For instance, the Nicene Creed has no explicit scripture reference, like modern-day Protestant preachers would have references for every point. The reason the Nicene authors did not quote scripture is because their own official declaration had authority on it own. Also, there was no official NT until the end of the fourth century. And even then, we must remember there was no printing press and the illiteracy rate was very high. So like it not, the early Christians had to depend on the oral traditions of the Church in order to retain and pass on the faith.
 
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
I dont think that u understand conversion tho . . . conversion is a gift of God . . . therefore, w/o God moving on the person, truth can smack that person in the face till day breaks and it not do anything.

And, we dont say "he is blinded so we wont share" we say "he is blinded so we WILL share and pray that God opens his eyes, and if his eyes are not opened, then that is in God's sovereign hands."

Logic doesnt convert . . . sound and reasoned arguements dont convert . . . u can present logical arguements till youre blue in the face and it still wont convert . . . it takes the revelation of the move of the Spirit of God to call a dead man to life (Eph 2) that converts . . . and if that REALLY happens then truth comes rushing in like a flood and the blind see.


John Wesley (an Arminian) once said to George Whitfield (a Calvinist) “You’re God is my devil!”. Now, I deeply respect the spirituality of both these men. They were both men of God. They were both mightily used by God to bring a revival in our country called the Great Awakening. But clearly one was blind when it came to predestination.

We are all sinners. We all have sinned and have fallen short to the glory of God. No matter how much we surrender to the Spirit of God, we will still be influenced by the sinful inclinations. That is why no two Christians agree on everything. We are still blinded by our sin – because we are still sinners even after conversion.

So conversion does not guarantee infallibility. Even the way we read scripture is influenced by our sinfulness. Realizing this is the first step in humility, and a deeper conversion.





Agreed . . . but blind is blind is blind . .. secondary or primary or tertiary . . .

But we are all blind – even we Christians are blind.


See above, the philosophical contention of the verse requires anything that has a beginning to be brought to being by Him . . . which excludes Him from the category of anything that has a beginning.

This reminds me of my second argument. The key word is “philosophical contention”. You just nailed it

Let me remind you that the challenge is to find explicitly clear teaching on the deity of Christ from the Bible ALONE. That means that there can be no mere inference from scripture on the basis of philosophy.

Let me see if I follow your argument:

1. God alone is eternal
2. Jesus is eternal
3. Therefore Jesus is God


For the sake of argument, let’s assume that you have proven (although I believe you did not) that Jesus is eternal. You cannot use this to conclude #3, until you have proven #1 based on the Bible alone. And I might be wrong here, but I do not think there is a verse in the Bible that says only God is eternal. True, the Bible does say that God is eternal. But where does it say in the Bible that ONLY God is eternal? Without that, even if you were right that the Bible teaches that Jesus is eternal, you cannot conclude that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God.

More coming
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

packermann

Junior Member
Nov 30, 2003
1,437
372
70
Northwest Suburbs of Chicago, IL
✟37,882.00
Faith
Catholic
Politics
US-Republican
Not really. Tie the whole concept from 1:1 together through the pericope:

John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU

In the beginning is the reference to the Genesis 1:1 statement of the ha'sho mayim eretez . . . in Hebrew there r 4 words for heaven and 5 for earth (or it may be the inverse) . . . when this peculiar combination of these words is combined it means ONLY ONE THING . . . ALL OF CREATION. So John hearkens back to the creation of all things that have a beginning in the VERY FIRST STATEMENT.
Further his usage presupposes the existence of the "word" prior to the beginning as he goes on the stress. John's perspective in his description he rounds out. IOW he states and restates so that he can be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR as to what he means. He is redundant with a little additional information in each progressive statement.
Into this THERE IS NO IMPLICATION . . . JOHN IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.
He places the location of the word as with God, prior to the beginning and further EXPLAINS that all the created order was through Him and that all things that have a beginning have their beginning in Him. It is stated clearly. No inference at all. He cannot be part of the created order as all things that can be said to have a beginning have so IN HIM . . . which makes HIM UNCREATED.


But it is not clear whether Genesis is talking about the beginning of the whole world, only our solar system, or just the beginning of earth. I have read theologians who have argued that it is only talking about the existence of life on our planet. That would explain how light could be created before the stars were created. The stars were created in the sense that they were only visible from the earth later. Also, there is no mention in Genesis 1 of God creating angels, but we see Satan already there in chapter 3. So it is possible that the angels were already created before Genesis 1 started. Then it would not be THE beginning. It would be only our planet’s beginning.


So if the beginning means only our own earth in Genesis 1, then that means the beginning in John 1 would be only the beginning of our own earth. In that case, John would be writing only about what was created on earth – not on other planets or heavens.







No. It does explicitly teach this, as I have shown. And as the system of Judaism even before Christianity affirms that God alone is uncreated, this only allows Jesus to be God.

Please provide the exact Bible verse that says that God alone is uncreated.




Think tho . . . if one were to challenge one who believes this . . . what would that one do? Point to the scripture. They would say "this is why I believe this."


But oddly this is not what the first century Christians did, at least the first twenty years of the start of the Church. And even then most Christians were not privy to NT scripture because there was not a printing press.




Dont get me wrong bro . . . I have a HIGH view of the Church . . . I think that the church is one of the indispensible means of God's voice in the earth . . . but I dont think that the voice of God will contradict what He has already stated in the scripture . . . and I think that if you heard from some priest in your diocese somewhere that Jesus wasnt God, you would recognize him as heretical, you would point to the council and the council would point you to the Scripture . . . the council derrives its authority (cause it does have authority in as much as it reflects the scripture) FROM THE SCRIPTURE . . . but the council is not necessary for the affirmation of the truths of Scripture.

I disagree.

And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.

Matthew 18: 15 – 17


Here Jesus shows that the Church is infallible. I had problems with this as a Protestant. How can I treat someone as an outsider just because he disagrees with the Church? Could not the Church be the one wrong? I wanted so much the last verse to read

And if he refuses to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church ALONG WITH SCRIPTURE, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.


But it did not say that.

You say that we should not follow the Church when it contradicts scripture. But what if scripture contradicts scripture? What then?

For me, I know that scripture does not contradict scripture. So if I see what seems to be a contradiction in scripture, I put it aside. Later on, I find out that I misunderstood one or both scripture verses. So it was not that scripture contradicted scripture. It was my own interpretation of scripture that contradicted scripture.

In the same way, when I find the Church contradicting scripture, I realize that by faith that this is just not possible, since scripture itself says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1Timothy 3:15). So, it is rather either my misunderstanding of the teachings of the Church, or my misinterpretation of the Bible that is in contradiction.






And that is awesome . . . but does this mean that tradition is required to know the truth of the scripture or that the Bible DOESNT teach cleary the deity of Christ? No. Remember tradition derrives its authority in that it reflects the scripture.

Do you have a Bible verse that says that tradition get its authority from scripture? If you cannot cite one, then is this not just your opinion?




Further, the TRUTH is that the JW's position has been around for almost as long as ours! . . . it was the ARIANS that were prominent prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD . . . so they predate Nicea . . . making the JW's position about 1700 + years old . . . almost as old as our's.

Well, not quite. Arianism died after a few centuries. It’s idea about Christ having a beginning was resurrected with the JWs. Old heresies always come back. But with the Catholic Church there is a continuity of doctrine all the way back to Christ.


It your turn :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.