Can a person be a Christian if they don't believe the Bible?

[Michelle in MO]

Correction:

 

Please look at the quotes AND references here http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm Both Church Fathers are listed and both say the opposite of what the JW website claims neither does their website list references for comparison. The other men listed on the JW site are also listed on this site.

Agreeing here with mommaduck; Justin Martyr was a disciple of St. John the Apostle (the author of the Gospel of John); I have a difficult time believing that he said this.

 

Here's a link to some of his writings, as well as some of the other early Church Fathers---the Ante-Nicene (pre-Nicene Creed) Fathers:

 

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html

 

Information directly from Justin Martyr's writings, not quoted from another source, would be more correct.

[mommaduck]

Another thing I noticed was that the JW site chopped up quotes with their own views in between. It's so choppy that there is no context as well as no references.

 

I could totally say that my children, whom I love dearly, are not like unto the angels.

 

"say that my children" and here I believe that they are "like unto the angels". And without a reference to the above, you have no proof that I said otherwise.

[mommaduck]

Agreeing here with mommaduck; Justin Martyr was a disciple of St. John the Apostle (the author of the Gospel of John); I have a difficult time believing that he said this.

 

Here's a link to some of his writings, as well as some of the other early Church Fathers---the Ante-Nicene (pre-Nicene Creed) Fathers:

 

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html

 

Information directly from Justin Martyr's writings, not quoted from another source, would be more correct.

 

Great Resource! Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox are a bit obsessive about their resources, thankfully :D

[Michelle in MO]

Great Resource! Reformed, Catholic, and Orthodox are a bit obsessive about their resources, thankfully :D

I think it's always best to go to the original source myself. The previous source linked was quite "chopped up", as you mentioned. It's best to view these statements in context.

[mommaduck]

I think it's always best to go to the original source myself. The previous source linked was quite "chopped up", as you mentioned. It's best to view these statements in context.

Agreed. I was doing a rushed job...but as least found a source that held references and pinpointed the contradictions to the previous post. You gave the other half...a place to check references. Which I will l do myself later tonight ;)

[Michelle in MO]

Here's some more specific information on this part of the discussion:

 

This is the specific page from the website I provided earlier:

 

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lvi.html

 

If you read further on down, here is Justin Martyr's comment regarding angels in full:

 

I replied again, “If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.”

 

The note on the word "Angel" states this:

 

21312131 Or, “Messenger.” [The “Jehovah-angel” of the Pentateuch, passim.] In the various passages in which Justin assigns the reason for Christ being called angel or messenger, Justin uses also the verb ἀγγέλλω, to convey messages, to announce. The similarity between ἄγγελος and ἀγγέλλω cannot be retained in English, and therefore the point of Justin’s remarks is lost to the English reader.

 

In other words, Justin Martyr is using the original meaning for "angel", which denotes a "messenger" in the original Greek.

[Lovedtodeath]

Agreeing here with mommaduck; Justin Martyr was a disciple of St. John the Apostle (the author of the Gospel of John); I have a difficult time believing that he said this.

 

Here's a link to some of his writings, as well as some of the other early Church Fathers---the Ante-Nicene (pre-Nicene Creed) Fathers:

 

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.html

 

Information directly from Justin Martyr's writings, not quoted from another source, would be more correct.

Great resource. Thank you!

I did a search and found the same type of quotes that the JW site had. :001_huh:

http://www.ccel.org/search?qu=other%20than%20the%20God%20who%20made%20all%20things%20&category=fulltext&order=score

 

"was made by the Father" "greater than all things besides God" etc.

 

Could you point me to a specific chapter of Justin Martyr's writings that would contradict what Irenaeus had to say in those quotes?

Edited September 26, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[Michelle in MO]

Great resource. Thank you!

I did a search and found the same type of quotes that the JW site had. :001_huh:

http://www.ccel.org/search?qu=other%20than%20the%20God%20who%20made%20all%20things%20&category=fulltext&order=score

 

"was made by the Father" "greater than all things besides God" etc.

Yes, but if they are "cut and paste" rather than taken within the context of the arguments and apologetics that Justin Martyr was making, then they're not very helpful.

 

As I stated before, Justin Martyr and the other Ante-Nicene fathers clearly believed in the Trinity; Justin Martyr was one of the earliest disciples and was converted under John the Apostle. Remember, Justin Martyr was speaking primarily to Greeks in his apologetics, and so he would have used language and terminology familiar to them.

 

Here are a few other helpful links:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=193855

(the comments from other readers on this website are also helpful)

 

and this one:

 

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html

 

Really, if you want to fully understand what the early Church fathers taught about the Trinity, I would go directly to the original source I linked---the one that showed all the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers, and not just read little bits and pieces of information, especially from other websites, but read the originals of 1st and 2nd Apologies and his Dialogue with Trypho as a whole. Although I'm not Catholic, the Catholic websites are particularly helpful, and their research is very thorough.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Michelle in MO

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, but if they are "cut and paste" rather than taken within the context of the arguments and apologetics that Justin Martyr was making, then they're not very helpful.

 

As I stated before, Justin Martyr and the other Ante-Nicene fathers clearly believed in the Trinity; Justin Martyr was one of the earliest disciples and was converted under John the Apostle. Remember, Justin Martyr was speaking primarily to Greeks in his apologetics, and so he would have used language and terminology familiar to them.

 

Here are a few other helpful links:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08580c.htm

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=193855

(the comments from other readers on this website are also helpful)

 

and this one:

 

http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psnicea.html

 

Well, I very much doubt that everyone who reads this is going to read so many pages of text on their screen. Could you point me to a chapter at least? When I do a search it tells me which book it is in, and I can't get context without reading the whole thing. Which I may decide to do later, but the whole thing as of this morning, even every chapter is a bit much.:001_huh:

 

The first Apology Chapter 22 is about the Sonship of Christ. Chapter 23 also has something to say. I am figuring it out with the chapter titles. ;)

Edited September 26, 2009 by Lovedtodeath

[mommaduck]

Well, I very much doubt that everyone who reads this is going to read so many pages of text on their screen. Could you point me to a chapter at least? When I do a search it tells me which book it is in, and I can't get context without reading the whole thing. Which I may decide to do later, but the whole thing as of this morning, even every chapter is a bit much.:001_huh:

 

The first Apology Chapter 22 is about the Sonship of Christ. Chapter 23 also has something to say.

Actually, A LOT of people within Reformed, Orthodox, and Catholic churches do take the time to read these things. That is how you get complete understanding of a person and a writing. Some will spend the monies to print out the subject matter and others will spend more to own books. Those with limited funds have no problem wading through online texts, bit by bit, but not all in one setting, to read such pieces of meat ;) So yes, if we are willing to do it, we have no problem showing the resource and leaving it up to the person to pursue or not pursue.

 

 

Again, you also have to take in cultural and lingual differences. You cannot, absolutely cannot, translate something and determine it based on your own language and culture as much of the context would be lost as well as the actual meaning of a word. She was correct in that "angel" meant messenger. There are contextual rules for determining how words were to be defined when used here vs there. Jesus may have been referred to as an "angel" when simply meaning messenger, which he also was. But this does not mean he's an angel in the sense of a created being as other angels throughout Scripture are mentioned.

 

Btw, this is also why many of us are willing to, at the very least, obtain a rudimentary understanding of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Others take the time to learn a language in whole for their studies. (such as the knowledge that there is no article "a" in Greek). My husband is one that picks up languages easily and has been studying Greek and Hebrew. And we have other languages flowing through this house.

Edited September 26, 2009 by mommaduck

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, but if they are "cut and paste" rather than taken within the context of the arguments and apologetics that Justin Martyr was making, then they're not very helpful.

 

I can see what you mean. I will be sure to look at the references when I get a chance. I have seen JWs accused of quoting out of context time and again. (quoting Darwin on evolution, or a Catholic Encyclopedia on a teaching or holiday, for example) When I look at the originals I have never seen the context change anything. Really.

 

I have gotten annoyed at the JW publications when something is said in a publication with one scripture in brackets afterwards to back it up. Many times I feel like that scripture doesn't do the job. :tongue_smilie:I guess my mind works quite differently from the writers. I either look for more scriptures with a cross reference or do even more work for a different scripture altogether. I have never disproven the point in doing so, but I wish they would have cited a "better" (in my mind) scripture to begin with.

[Lovedtodeath]

Yes, but if they are "cut and paste" rather than taken within the context of the arguments and apologetics that Justin Martyr was making, then they're not very helpful.

They are not there to do the convincing alone. They are there to get people to look at the originals. In the printed brochure there are references in the back. Unfortunately, I have misplaced mine. I will be sure to add the references when I find it.

Actually, A LOT of people within Reformed, Orthodox, and Catholic churches do take the time to read these things. That is how you get complete understanding of a person and a writing. Some will spend the monies to print out the subject matter and others will spend more to own books. Those with limited funds have no problem wading through online texts, bit by bit, but not all in one setting, to read such pieces of meat ;) So yes, if we are willing to do it, we have no problem showing the resource and leaving it up to the person to pursue or not pursue.

I am not surprised at all that people within those faiths read the originals. What would surprise me is someone who is searching decides to read all of them for themselves without any form of an appetizer, if you will.

[mommaduck]

They are not there to do the convincing alone. They are there to get people to look at the originals. In the printed brochure there are references in the back. Unfortunately, I have misplaced mine. I will be sure to add the references when I find it.

I am not surprised at all that people within those faiths read the originals. What would surprise me is someone who is searching decides to read all of them for themselves without any form of an appetizer, if you will.

I guess that is what discussions like this one is for...this is the appetizer...there is the meat ;) I used to participate and moderate on a fairly heavy theological forum. In the beginning there was much questioning on my part, debate, etc. The ministers, elders, seminary students, etc did a good job of making me run after resources, references, and tons of study to argue with them, make my case, and read what they were reading. Also, I found that sometimes we think something hasn't changed, but are we reading it with our English/Western/own cultural understanding or after learning about and understanding the language and culture it was written in context of? There can be a world of difference. And it does take time and rumination.

[Jana]

See, I have no problem with a figurative, metaphoric, spiritual understanding of the Bible.

 

In fact, well, while I believe in miracles and the Bible tracks actual history, I also think it speaks in *story*. The Truths of those stories stand whether the stories happened or not.

 

I don't believe God needs me to believe Jonah survived inside a whale to know "obey God" is the lesson. :D

 

Here's my summary: I will never be surprirsed when science confirms the Bible. I will never be surprised when historians confirm Biblical stories. But I don't need those stories to be an accurate or intended to be accurate literal telling in order for the Truth of the Bible and the message in it to be the Word.

 

I don't need to pick and choose what "stories" are real or not. I need only to know of the stories, know their context and meaning and ask God how it pertains to me today.

 

I have no problem seeing the Bible detains that way while also knowing the details of Christ's conception, birth and death are real in every sense.

 

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

 

Again, you also have to take in cultural and lingual differences. You cannot, absolutely cannot, translate something and determine it based on your own language and culture as much of the context would be lost as well as the actual meaning of a word.

In my readings from Justin Martyr I have seen Jesus called "the begotten Son of God" and the Father called "the unbegotten". So begotten is one word that we should search out the meaning for, it would seem.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I guess that is what discussions like this one is for...this is the appetizer...there is the meat ;) I used to participate and moderate on a fairly heavy theological forum. In the beginning there was much questioning on my part, debate, etc. The ministers, elders, seminary students, etc did a good job of making me run after resources, references, and tons of study to argue with them, make my case, and read what they were reading.

Yes, I benefit so much from these discussions. Thank you.

[Lovedtodeath]

I still don't understand why someone would prefer to believe that the miracles performed by God before Jesus came to the earth were make believe stories meant to teach us something, then Jesus came to earth and proved that he was the Messiah by performing real miracles. That line of reasoning does not make sense to me at all.

[Storm Bay]

Sorry to "stir the pot", but in my research today I found these quotes. I had never noticed them before and thought that they pertained to this discussion:

 

 

from this link

 

 

I didn't get to the forum yesterday, so I've seen all the pot stirring that resulted. Even though things were taken out of context and chopped up, it is still an interesting link. I've had more than one discussion with Jehovah's Witnesses about who Jesus is, but none that I've spoken with brought up these quotes. At any rate, some of those Church fathers lived after some of the church splits happened. The Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split came later, as well.

 

Aargh--the antivirus, etc, scan has just come on, which reminds me that I came to the computer to see the weather forecast to decide just how many green beans I need to pick. Nothing like going on a tangent, eh? I find this whole thing very interesting. Since I'm a firm believer in studying the Bible inductively, first, I take anything that raises a question I'm not sure of and go back to study it myself. While I know others do follow the teachings of the Church Fathers, I set aside anything I can't back up from Scripture. Of course, I do come from a long line of Protestants, although I don't agree with them all the time, either :).

[Lovedtodeath]

Since I'm a firm believer in studying the Bible inductively, first, I take anything that raises a question I'm not sure of and go back to study it myself. While I know others do follow the teachings of the Church Fathers, I set aside anything I can't back up from Scripture.

:iagree:If the quotes raise questions, then the scriptures can answer them.

 

Have fun picking your green beans!

[Cammie]

Personally, I believe a Christian is anyone who claims they are a Christian. They may not fit into your definition of a "Christian" but that is not really the point. If I claim to be a Christian, who is anyone to tell me I am not? Can any particular church claim I am not? Of course they can try - but it won't impact my belief in what I am. I may be completely outside the mold that most of you would have for a Christian. But I believe myself to be one. Does that make me one or not?

[mommaduck]

In my readings from Justin Martyr I have seen Jesus called "the begotten Son of God" and the Father called "the unbegotten". So begotten is one word that we should search out the meaning for, it would seem.

 

Today, during the Divine Liturgy, we proclaimed the Nicene Creed. This was in it:

 

“We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all time; Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, through Him all things were made.”

 

http://www.therealpresence.org/essentials/creed/acc03.htm

Begotten, Not Made. Our Faith insists that the Second Person is not made by the Father because the Son is not created out of nothing. Rather, He is begotten of the Father. Why? Because He is “one in Being with the Father.” At the Council of Nicea, the Greek word homoousios was coined to state in the clearest possible terms that the Son has the self-same (homo) Being (ousia) as the Father.

From the Geneva Study Bible

(1) The Son of God is of one and the selfsame eternity or everlastingness, and of one and the selfsame essence or nature with the Father.

(a) From the beginning, as the evangelist says in 1Jo 1:1; it is as though he said that the Word did not begin to have his being when God began to make all that was made: for the Word was even then when all things that were made began to be made, and therefore he was before the beginning of all things.

He is Gd, He is part of the Gdhead, Christ is and always has been part of Gd Himself.

 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Gd, and the Word was Gd"

Edited September 27, 2009 by mommaduck

[mommaduck]

oops! Double post!

Edited September 27, 2009 by mommaduck

[Lovedtodeath]

Thanks Mommaduck. Interesting perspective. The comparison I had was from other places in the Bible where begotten is used. I remember Isaac being called only begotten. Colossians 1:15-17 gives a good overview of what I believe in respect to the Son. "the first-born of all creation"

[mommaduck]

Thanks Mommaduck. Interesting perspective. The comparison I had was from other places in the Bible where begotten is used. I remember Isaac being called only begotten. Colossians 1:15-17 gives a good overview of what I believe in respect to the Son. "the first-born of all creation"

 

While trying to find a simple way to explain this, I found someone who put it in excellent words on their blog and my husband agrees with this as well (he's familiar with Hebrew and Greek):

http://reformedreasoning.blogspot.com/

"But look, verse 15 says that he is 'firstborn' of all creation! See? He is created. It says it right there!" That is the canned answer to all who use this verse to attack the deity of Christ, but this doesn't take into account the cultural aspect of the term 'firstborn'. What did that mean to Paul? What did it mean to the Colossians to whom he was writing? We must take all of Scripture into account, so if one part says nothing was made without him, then this verse can't mean that something was made without him (namely himself). It means quite simply that Christ is the preeminent one. When the Jews would speak of being the firstborn, that term didn't mean merely that the child was the oldest in the family. When spoken of the male, it meant that he is the heir of the family possessions. They are entitled to all their father owns when he either dies, or gives it freely (as seen in the parable of the prodigal son).

 

Furthermore, we see in Psalm 89 the following:

Psalm 89:2-28

 

26

He shall cry to me, 'You are my Father,

 

my God, and the Rock of my salvation.'

 

27

And

I will make him the firstborn

,

 

the highest of the kings of the earth.

 

28

My steadfast love I will keep for him forever,

 

and my covenant will stand firm for him.

David, speaking of Christ in a prophetic sense, states that the Father will make (establish, appoint) the Son the firstborn, and then in classic hebrew style, interprets himself in the next verse via parallelism by saying that firstborn means to be "highest of the kings of the earth." He will be established in his rightful place in inheriting all the Father owns. So using the proper technique of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it can be plainly stated that when the term "firstborn" is used in Colossians 1:15, it is NOT speaking of his "spiritual birth" or any other such means of creation. It is speaking plainly about his position of authority OVER creation.

[Lovedtodeath]

Thank you. Also, I noticed in Isaac being called only-begotten that Isaac was not the first son born to Abraham. (thinking man smiley needed again)

[mommaduck]

Thank you. Also, I noticed in Isaac being called only-begotten that Isaac was not the first son born to Abraham. (thinking man smiley needed again)

Exactly.

[Storm Bay]

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Gd, and the Word was Gd"

 

 

I'm posting this here only because this is where the verse came up, not to argue with you or your church. Here is a different interpretation of I John 1 (not from my Church, but I do like to read different things) that supports what I was saying before, that not everyone who thinks that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God and the saviour, etc, (not just a man but not God, either, and not an angel as is taught by Jehovah's Witnesses) believes the trinity. You can scroll down and read it or h ere a teaching on it. I've read it, since I have the book it came from (it was, and perhaps still is, used at Princeton to show an alternative view to the trinity, so I chose to buy it and read it to see what it has to say, but this way you don't have to buy the whole book.) http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61

[Lovedtodeath]

I'm posting this here only because this is where the verse came up, not to argue with you or your church. Here is a different interpretation of I John 1 (not from my Church, but I do like to read different things) that supports what I was saying before, that not everyone who thinks that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God and the saviour, etc, (not just a man but not God, either, and not an angel as is taught by Jehovah's Witnesses) believes the trinity.

 

You are very much mistaken about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, the saviour, the head of the Christian congregation, and the king of God's Kingdom.

 

We don't believe the Trinity as I have been told it is taught... but I have some more questions about Mommaduck's view. (I was afraid to bump up the controversial thread.) ;)

[mommaduck]

You are very much mistaken about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, the saviour, the head of the Christian congregation, and the king of God's Kingdom.

 

We don't believe the Trinity as I have been told it is taught... but I have some more questions about Mommaduck's view. (I was afraid to bump up the controversial thread.) ;)

Go for it.

 

And to the pp, I will look over your link and review it with people that both understand Greek & Hebrew as well as understand the Eastern mindset of the area it was written in.

[Sputterduck]

You are very much mistaken about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, the saviour, the head of the Christian congregation, and the king of God's Kingdom.

 

We don't believe the Trinity as I have been told it is taught... but I have some more questions about Mommaduck's view. (I was afraid to bump up the controversial thread.) ;)

 

JWs do not believe that Jesus is God. I think that was the point. They believe he is an archangel.

 

I used to be a JW. Before anyone here stops talking to me, I am not disfellowshipped or disassociated! :tongue_smilie: So technically, you don't have to run away from me.

[Lovedtodeath]

JWs do not believe that Jesus is God. I think that was the point. They believe he is an archangel.

 

I used to be a JW. Before anyone here stops talking to me, I am not disfellowshipped or disassociated! :tongue_smilie: So technically, you don't have to run away from me.

There is no other archangel. So an archangel is an incorrect term. There can be only one archangel. The archangel.

[Sputterduck]

There is no other archangel. So an archangel is an incorrect term. There can be only one archangel. The archangel.

 

JWs believe Jesus is Michael as I recall. What about Gabriel the archangel?

[Lovedtodeath]

Mommaduck,

David, speaking of Christ in a prophetic sense, states that the Father will make (establish, appoint) the Son the firstborn, and then in classic hebrew style, interprets himself in the next verse via parallelism by saying that firstborn means to be "highest of the kings of the earth." He will be established in his rightful place in inheriting all the Father owns. So using the proper technique of letting Scripture interpret Scripture, it can be plainly stated that when the term "firstborn" is used in Colossians 1:15, it is NOT speaking of his "spiritual birth" or any other such means of creation. It is speaking plainly about his position of authority OVER creation.

 

This indicates to me that 1. the Son is not equal to the Father, since the Father gives him his authority. 2. the Son has not always had that authority, but it was given to him at a later time. I was wondering if this correctly portrays your view.

 

Someone actually asked me about #2 when I used 1 Corinthians 15:24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." And I said, wow, that really doesn't make sense if he was always higher than everything else does it? (I still haven't figured this one out, to be honest.)

[Lovedtodeath]

Okay I looked up begotten in my materials and it appears that they were using Isaac as an example in that he was not equal to his father but still subject to him when he was called Abraham's only begotten. Now I see what they were getting at.

 

So I looked at Colossians 1:15 for scriptures with a similar meaning, which would indicate that Jesus was created. Revelation 3:14 in the 21st Century King James Version states" 14"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: `These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:" New Jerusalem Bible: the Principle of God's creation: Douay-Rheims Bible: 14 And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

 

From the JW site:

"Beginning" [Greek, ar·khe'] cannot rightly be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the 'beginner' of God's creation. In his Bible writings, John uses various forms of the Greek word ar·khe' more than 20 times, and these always have the common meaning of "beginning."

Notice how closely those references to the origin of Jesus correlate with expressions uttered by the figurative "Wisdom" in the Bible book of Proverbs: "Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashioning, before the oldest of his works. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; before he had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world." (Proverbs 8:12, 22, 25, 26, NJB) While the term "Wisdom" is used to personify the one whom God created, most scholars agree that it is actually a figure of speech for Jesus as a spirit creature prior to his human existence.

 

As "Wisdom" in his prehuman existence, Jesus goes on to say that he was "by his [God's] side, a master craftsman." (Proverbs 8:30, JB) In harmony with this role as master craftsman, Colossians 1:16 says of Jesus that "through him God created everything in heaven and on earth."—Today's English Version (TEV).

So it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, as it were, that Almighty God created all other things. The Bible summarizes the matter this way: "For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." (Italics ours.)—1 Corinthians 8:6, RS, Catholic edition.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I'm posting this here only because this is where the verse came up, not to argue with you or your church. Here is a different interpretation of I John 1 (not from my Church, but I do like to read different things) that supports what I was saying before, that not everyone who thinks that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God and the saviour, etc, (not just a man but not God, either, and not an angel as is taught by Jehovah's Witnesses) believes the trinity. You can scroll down and read it or h ere a teaching on it. I've read it, since I have the book it came from (it was, and perhaps still is, used at Princeton to show an alternative view to the trinity, so I chose to buy it and read it to see what it has to say, but this way you don't have to buy the whole book.) http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=61

Interesting explanation of the term translated as "Word". I wouldn't think, however, that it would indicate that Jesus did not exist before he was a human. We believe that God was speaking to Jesus when he said "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) And John 8:58, "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament by G.R. Noyes, 1869

[Lovedtodeath]

JWs believe Jesus is Michael as I recall. What about Gabriel the archangel?

Gabriel should not be called "archangel". He is called one who stands near before God, and one sent forth, but not the archangel. Luke 1:19, 26

 

Jude 9 says that Michael is the archangel. In Greek the word ton is used for the. There is no Greek word for a or an.

 

 

 

 

And Karin, as far as I understand, this correct use for the article ton also indicates a different meaning for John 1:1, "And the word was with God (ton theos')." "And the word was a god (theos')."

[AuntPol]

Whew. I just read this thread in it's entirity (I think -who knows how many posts are going to happen while I type.

 

 

I used to be agnostic and anti-Christian, now Christian. I can't say I am literal because I am not. I studied Genesis 1 in Hebrew for over a year and it's my belief that it is a poem written by God himself. It's the only part of Bible that I believe is His actual word. It is an account of God to man. The rest of the Bible is man trying to get back to God. Science and evolution do not take my faith away but strengthens it. God is a god of process and I can't grasp why he would create us to spiritually evolve but remain physically static. Anyway, I fully accept that God could have done it in 6 consectutive days and he could have done it over time. I won't ever know for sure on this side of heaven and if I let those kind of details get to me I would not have the relationship I have with God now.

 

Anyway, I don't venture into the religious threads often but what an interesting conversation and amazing to see a group of people discuss religion in a civil manner despite disagreements. I would just love to do a deep Bible study verse by verse with you guys to take in all the various perspectives! What an adventure that would be.

[lionfamily1999]

Anyway, I don't venture into the religious threads often but what an interesting conversation and amazing to see a group of people discuss religion in a civil manner despite disagreements. I would just love to do a deep Bible study verse by verse with you guys to take in all the various perspectives! What an adventure that would be.

:iagree:

 

New group needed!

[WishboneDawn]

 

Anyway, I don't venture into the religious threads often but what an interesting conversation and amazing to see a group of people discuss religion in a civil manner despite disagreements. I would just love to do a deep Bible study verse by verse with you guys to take in all the various perspectives! What an adventure that would be.

 

That would be awesome! I've been craving somethng like that forever. :) Imagine studying an epistle of Paul and having 4 or 5 radically different views to consider?

[Storm Bay]

You are very much mistaken about what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, the saviour, the head of the Christian congregation, and the king of God's Kingdom.

 

We don't believe the Trinity as I have been told it is taught... but I have some more questions about Mommaduck's view. (I was afraid to bump up the controversial thread.) ;)

 

 

I apologize if I've misrepresented anything. I know that you don't believe in the Trinity. However, I do have a few questions that I'm trying to ask nicely in order to clarify any misconceptions I may have picked up in my conversations (not arguments) with Jehovah's Witnesses that I have met over the years. I remember them saying that Jesus Christ is the archangel Michael in concretion because I went to look up various scriptures after each conversation, and I've read what you wrote about archangel here, but that's the term I remember being used. Is this not what you believe? If so, has there been a split among the Jehovah's Witnesses? I do remember that one said that they believe Jesus is a god, but not Jehovah (but that memory is more rusty, so I may have that one mixed up since that was about 4 years ago). If you'd rather switch to PM, that's fine. I haven't been on the forum as much this week since I overdid the computer earlier this week, but will reply even if it takes a couple of days. Things are about to get into a very busy mode starting Monday.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Karin

[Storm Bay]

Interesting explanation of the term translated as "Word". I wouldn't think, however, that it would indicate that Jesus did not exist before he was a human. We believe that God was speaking to Jesus when he said "Let us make man in our image." (Genesis 1:26) And John 8:58, "From before Abraham was, I have been." The New Testament by G.R. Noyes, 1869

 

 

There is no way to justify either argument based solely on John 1, of course, which is why that link I provided is just one chapter in a very long book. While I disagree with the group that put it out on some key points, I have that book and have read it & studied what it has to say. It covers everything you've mentioned, and, in fact, everything used to support arguments for or against the pre-existance of Christ, for or against the Trinity, etc. I simply included the link to show that not every Christian interprets John 1 the same way. This is not new, either, as over the centuries different workmen of the Word have come to the same conclusion. An interesting history on the split of the Christian church over the doctrine of the trinity is called (the title is designed to be controversial and I didn't write this book!!!) When Jesus Became God. Please note that I have examined all the Christian sides I know of on this issue, so I don't take any of this lightly or simply dismiss this.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Karin

[Storm Bay]

Mommaduck, This indicates to me that 1. the Son is not equal to the Father, since the Father gives him his authority. 2. the Son has not always had that authority, but it was given to him at a later time.

 

This is how I understand this.

 

Someone actually asked me about #2 when I used 1 Corinthians 15:24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."[a] Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." And I said, wow, that really doesn't make sense if he was always higher than everything else does it? (I still haven't figured this one out, to be honest.)

 

You are on the right track, here, I believe. This doesn't make sense if you consider Jesus and the Father to be one and the same. How can one being be under himself? Even figuratively, this wouldn't make sense. God gave Jesus authority for a certian period of time, not forever.

[Lovedtodeath]

I apologize if I've misrepresented anything. I know that you don't believe in the Trinity. However, I do have a few questions that I'm trying to ask nicely in order to clarify any misconceptions I may have picked up in my conversations (not arguments) with Jehovah's Witnesses that I have met over the years. I remember them saying that Jesus Christ is the archangel Michael in concretion because I went to look up various scriptures after each conversation, and I've read what you wrote about archangel here, but that's the term I remember being used. Is this not what you believe? If so, has there been a split among the Jehovah's Witnesses? I do remember that one said that they believe Jesus is a god, but not Jehovah (but that memory is more rusty, so I may have that one mixed up since that was about 4 years ago). If you'd rather switch to PM, that's fine. I haven't been on the forum as much this week since I overdid the computer earlier this week, but will reply even if it takes a couple of days. Things are about to get into a very busy mode starting Monday.

Yes. We believe that Jesus is also called Michael the Archangel. Michael is not "just an Angel" but "the Archangel", commander of all of the angels. 1 Thes. 4:16, Rev. 12:7 Jesus is the commander of the angels. Rev. 19:14-16 The meaning of the name Michael is "who is like God", certainly fitting IMO.

 

The Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels†and Jesus and “his angels.†Matt. 13:41; 2 Thes 1:7; Matt 16:27, 24:31; 1 Pet 3:22 Nowhere does it indicate that these are two separate groups of angels with a different commander and/or a different purpose.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that Jesus created the angels, so Jesus is certainly not "just an angel". Col 1:16 "because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him."

[Lovedtodeath]

This is how I understand this.

I am wondering how Orthodox would explain this.

 

You are on the right track, here, I believe. This doesn't make sense if you consider Jesus and the Father to be one and the same. How can one being be under himself? Even figuratively, this wouldn't make sense. God gave Jesus authority for a certian period of time, not forever.

True. God gave him the authority for a certain period of time... but that was not what I was getting at. I was asking because it doesn't make sense to me. I was thinking of a scripture where Jesus name is above every other name. Phillipians 2:9 "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." I thought it was the same scripture. No wonder my question didn't get a response. It doesn't make sense without this scripture. But what I was getting at is: Wasn't Jesus' name already above every other name?

[Storm Bay]

Yes. We believe that Jesus is also called Michael the Archangel. Michael is not "just an Angel" but "the Archangel", commander of all of the angels. 1 Thes. 4:16, Rev. 12:7 Jesus is the commander of the angels. Rev. 19:14-16 The meaning of the name Michael is "who is like God", certainly fitting IMO.

 

The Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” Matt. 13:41; 2 Thes 1:7; Matt 16:27, 24:31; 1 Pet 3:22 Nowhere does it indicate that these are two separate groups of angels with a different commander and/or a different purpose.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that Jesus created the angels, so Jesus is certainly not "just an angel". Col 1:16 "because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him."

 

 

Thanks for clarifying that. That's what I remember. The last fellow I spoke with was the most knowledgeable one of all the Jehovah's Witnesses I've spoken with. I may not agree, but I like to be sure I'm not saying something inaccurate about what you believe.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

but I like to be sure I'm not saying something inaccurate about what you believe.

Thank You. I appreciate that.:)

[Storm Bay]

I am wondering how Orthodox would explain this.

 

True. God gave him the authority for a certain period of time... but that was not what I was getting at. I was asking because it doesn't make sense to me. I was thinking of a scripture where Jesus name is above every other name. Phillipians 2:9 "For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." I thought it was the same scripture. No wonder my question didn't get a response. It doesn't make sense without this scripture. But what I was getting at is: Wasn't Jesus' name already above every other name?

 

Okay. I don't think it was, because God gave him a name about every other name. In order to give a name, that name can't have been there since the very beginning. Also, Jesus is the name Joshua tranlated into Greek and then anglicized; there have been many Joshuas and many Jesuses. It's not the name Jesus in and of itself that is the name above every other name.

 

However, to be open about it, since it's been a while since I mentioned it, I don't believe in the pre-existence of the Christ, even though I believe he was begotten, perfect, the redeemer and the only way to the Father, etc (not just a man, in other words, not just another prophet, but the second Adam, perfect, etc.) I have a very different understanding of the plural pronoun in Genesis, but don't want to debate that right now:). My, how this thread has gone so many ways!

[sweetTN]

I don't see why it would be necessary to believe the Bible is the "word of God", created by Him and a personal message dictated by Him in order to be a Christian. The letters and stories chosen for the Bible are written by humans. Plain and simple. They were chosen from 100s of options to be bound in a book called "Bible" by humans. Plain and simple. Mankind sat down and decided which letters, stories and passed down narratives were "from God". Plain and simple. Man is fallible. Not to mention the Bible is contradicting, violent, selfish and confusing. That is not what I believe God is. If it's from God, it's going to make sense. It's going to be a clear message of love and peace. God didn't give us sense, logic, wisdom and discernment to just turn it all of when it comes to Him.

 

This is MY opinion and nothing in it is written in response to any previous posts. I haven't even read all the other posts. :)

 

:iagree:

 

And don't forget the books of the Bible which were removed much later by man.

[Lovedtodeath]

However, to be open about it, since it's been a while since I mentioned it, I don't believe in the pre-existence of the Christ, even though I believe he was begotten, perfect, the redeemer and the only way to the Father, etc (not just a man, in other words, not just another prophet, but the second Adam, perfect, etc.) I have a very different understanding of the plural pronoun in Genesis, but don't want to debate that right now:). My, how this thread has gone so many ways!

So what do you think it means when it says "only begotten"?

[Storm Bay]

So what do you think it means when it says "only begotten"?

 

 

The Greek word for "only begotten" can be transliterated into English as monogenos (not sure if I put in Greek letters if people can read it, plus that's slow.) The prefex mono is the only, and the second part is the word that means to beget, which is translated, as a single word, beget 49 times in the NT, and in each of those times it has to do with a father begetting (siring, I suppose you could say, since men don't give birth) a son.

 

When God made Adam and Eve they started as adults; neither was begotten via a woman. To beget a child involves conception. Jesus Christ is the only son that God begat via a woman through divine conception. This is why Jesus is the only human being born perfect, because he had the perfect genetics, etc, created by God. Even though there are times when God refers to others as sons of God, they are not begotten that way.