Prove the claim..

[Elijah John]

Challenges for debate:

First you may need to prove that the Bible is inerrant, without scientific error or other contradicition. please do this without resorting to circular reasoning.

Then prove that the Bible actually claims that Jesus is God with the same clarity as the Bible states that "YHVH is God". (Isaiah 45.5)

OR demonstrate in some other reasonable way that "Jesus is God".

If you cannot do this, then why do so many Christians persist in claiming others are hell-bound for NOT believing that "Jesus is God"?

[onewithhim]

If that is the case, do you have any idea why so many other Christians believe that others are hell-bound for NOT believing Jesus is God?

No I don't know for sure.

Maybe they think that the bible did originally say "Jesus is God" and that and those bits got corrupted out of it, just as you believe that lots of bad bits in the bible got corrupted in. Maybe they think Paul took it out (how do you feel about Paul, do you think such a thing was below him? Or maybe John (I take it you cannot trust John because he said some things that I presume are distasteful to you, maybe they believe John took out out the bit that says " and Jesus called the Apostles together and said I am YAHWEH and you must pray to me"

Surely you are not condemning people for believing the bible is unreliable and has been corrupted ...

JW

Bible literalists are usually the one's who claim that we have the Bible intact, and are also the ones who claim that Jesus is God.

Jehovah's Witnessesses and Christadelphians are exceptions to this, as they are literalists, but not Jesus-is-God claimants.

Seems Jesus-worshipers base theirs conclusion on what their Pastors preach, or the Creeds of the Trinitarian Churches and not on what the Bible actually teaches.

Paul and John have much higher Christologies than I do, but even they do not go as far as modern Trinitarians do.

With the exception of the pre-existing Jesus being Michael the Archangel, I think the JW's have a more accurate interpretation of Scripture. (not to say I accept Scripture in it's entirety) I say this as one who loves YHVH too, but as an outside observer. We differ on the infalliblility of the Bible, and the theologies of John and Paul.

JWs are actually not "literalists." We don't take Jesus' stories and comments about fire to be literal, because he undoubtedly used fire as a metaphor for complete annihilation. I agree that Jesus-is-God adherents take their pastors' word for everything and do not feel the need to check things out for themselves.

Thanks for the correction. Do JW's also believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically, or literally, when he said "This is my body"...?

But I think we disagree on Biblical inerrancy.

I'm inclined to agree that Jesus was using the fire of the garbage dump Gehhenna as a metaphor for annihilation, but am not entirely convinced of this.

I like the JW interpretation better than the Evangelical interpretation. I think JW interpretation is more likely, in this case anyway.

Thank you. To answer your question....JWs believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically when he talked about his body in that passage. He was saying, in effect, "This means my body," which would be given up for his disciples. We are just to remember that he died for us, and the bread and wine are emblems of that sacrifice.

I think there are many, if not most, JWs who believe the Bible is inerrant concerning every word. I am not one of them, but I don't consider this a terrible evil. I have seen errors and even contradictions, but it doesn't bother me. I feel that the Bible was inspired by God, definitely, but anything put in the hands of men will get a bit off at some point. All of the gore and violence in the OT is attributed to Jehovah, but I feel that probably a good deal of it was embellished by the writers. I think even Moses was more bloodthirsty than God Himself, and can be seen in his narratives. Yet....I believe that the main theme of the Bible is there, running throughout the canon. It can always be tied in with the Kingdom arrangement, every single book. Also, the scriptures never vary about the identity of God and his requirements for humans.

[onewithhim]

Challenges for debate:

First you may need to prove that the Bible is inerrant, without scientific error or other contradicition. please do this without resorting to circular reasoning.

So you are asking the posters to prove a negative? Is that right?

I'm asking those who make absolute claims to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

You and I are not likely to agree on Biblical inerrancy, so let's move on to what we agree on, that Jesus is not God. So I'm guessing you agree that the Bible never claims that he IS God.

If that is the case, do you have any idea why so many other Christians believe that others are hell-bound for NOT believing Jesus is God?

My $.02: I think that people who believe that are merely being true to their "team," if you will. They are used to being in a certain social situation---family, friends are in this religion---and they want to stay there, no matter what.

It's like the Catholic woman who, when approached by a deaf man who had been sexually abused by the priest that lived in her house and told her about what had happened when he was a boy, she brushed all that aside and vehemently said, "So what? You're Catholic, aren't you?!!" Apparently nothing matters as long as you remain faithful to your "team."

Thanks for addressing the concluding part of the OP instead of getting bogged down in the first part. I have modified the first part of the OP to reflect the fair objections that some have already raised on this thread.

That is horrible, are you sure that is not just anecdotal? If that actually happened, that is certainly not reflective of most Catholics, who are as outraged by the abuse scandals as you and I are, and many of us are.

That actually happened, and it is in a documentary that was aired a couple years ago about many deaf boys who were sexually abused in a home for the deaf. I'll have to look up the name of the doc. In my experience I find that most Catholics are in a state of denial, and they defend the Church by mostly saying that all those children that were abused are lying and just interested in getting money. Others have the philosophy that "hey, we're all human and make mistakes." I don't agree with either viewpoint.

The name of the documentary was called "Mea Maxima Culpa," Silence in the House of God. I don't know if it's available anywhere.

[Elijah John]

Challenges for debate:

First you may need to prove that the Bible is inerrant, without scientific error or other contradicition. please do this without resorting to circular reasoning.

So you are asking the posters to prove a negative? Is that right?

I'm asking those who make absolute claims to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

You and I are not likely to agree on Biblical inerrancy, so let's move on to what we agree on, that Jesus is not God. So I'm guessing you agree that the Bible never claims that he IS God.

If that is the case, do you have any idea why so many other Christians believe that others are hell-bound for NOT believing Jesus is God?

My $.02: I think that people who believe that are merely being true to their "team," if you will. They are used to being in a certain social situation---family, friends are in this religion---and they want to stay there, no matter what.

It's like the Catholic woman who, when approached by a deaf man who had been sexually abused by the priest that lived in her house and told her about what had happened when he was a boy, she brushed all that aside and vehemently said, "So what? You're Catholic, aren't you?!!" Apparently nothing matters as long as you remain faithful to your "team."

Thanks for addressing the concluding part of the OP instead of getting bogged down in the first part. I have modified the first part of the OP to reflect the fair objections that some have already raised on this thread.

That is horrible, are you sure that is not just anecdotal? If that actually happened, that is certainly not reflective of most Catholics, who are as outraged by the abuse scandals as you and I are, and many of us are.

That actually happened, and it is in a documentary that was aired a couple years ago about many deaf boys who were sexually abused in a home for the deaf. I'll have to look up the name of the doc. In my experience I find that most Catholics are in a state of denial, and they defend the Church by mostly saying that all those children that were abused are lying and just interested in getting money. Others have the philosophy that "hey, we're all human and make mistakes." I don't agree with either viewpoint.

The name of the documentary was called "Mea Maxima Culpa," Silence in the House of God. I don't know if it's available anywhere.

Thanks, I don't doubt that there are SOME Catholic with that reprehensible attitude, I just don't see it as predominant, at least not with the Catholics I know.

[ttruscott]

If you cannot do this, then why do so many Christians persist in claiming others are hell-bound for NOT believing that "Jesus is God"?

They (if there really are any) are wrong. The elect who do not believe in His name will be brought back to their faith in His name and the reprobate who rejected putting their faith in His name will be judged. IN other words, disbelief cannot prove hell or no one could be saved.

Because 1. It is not ours to prove and 2. GOD saves HIS elect chosen before the foundation of the world, and it has nothing to do with their presenting beliefs before conversion, that is, all sinful elect reject Jesus until GOD fulfills the election promise in them by grace...all are blasphemers and reject GOD.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 21 by onewithhim]

I think there are many, if not most, JWs who believe the Bible is inerrant concerning every word. I am not one of them, but I don't consider this a terrible evil. I have seen errors and even contradictions, but it doesn't bother me. I feel that the Bible was inspired by God, definitely, but anything put in the hands of men will get a bit off at some point. All of the gore and violence in the OT is attributed to Jehovah, but I feel that probably a good deal of it was embellished by the writers. I think even Moses was more bloodthirsty than God Himself, and can be seen in his narratives. Yet....I believe that the main theme of the Bible is there, running throughout the canon. It can always be tied in with the Kingdom arrangement, every single book. Also, the scriptures never vary about the identity of God and his requirements for humans.

Very interesting!

Especially your remarks about JWs, of which you said "I am not one of them" in regard to inerrancy..

I have not read all your posts, but I don't recall any others I have read that differ at all from JW teaching.

So where do you stand with them, onewithhim?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 9 by Elijah John]

My theological positions:

-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God,
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

I am featuring the above to ask you this question:

What is Jesus to you, other than what you say, "I am inspired by" Him "to"?

A little bit off topic, but I am happy to answer. I consider Jesus a Rabbi and a Prophet, who teaches us how to honor YHVH, the Father. The NT calls him both these things (Rabbi and Prophet), in various places. I could go into more detail, but that is the gist of it, who Jesus is to me.

Though I don't believe he is God, (nor do I believe he ever claimed to be God,) I usually find myself in agreement with him in all his disputes with the Temple Priests, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees.

Thanks.

It appears to me your position on Jesus is quite similar to how Muslims view Him. Is that a fair appraisal?

Do you believe He literally died and then rose again back to life and ascended to God in heaven?

Do you believe He is coming again?

If so, what part do you think He will play in the final judgment and the new heaven and earth?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 24 by ttruscott]

A confusing viewpoint. If people were chosen before they were born, God would be showing himself to be a big game-player....a charade artist. He tells everyone that they must CHOOSE who they want to worship, and yet you say some were already "elected" to be saved? I don't think so.

The "foundation of the world" came into existence after Adam rebelled. The "world" is the society of humans alienated from God. It is not the planet. Check out I John 2:15-17 to understand what "world" we're talking about when the subject comes up about being chosen before the founding of the world.

Adam disobeyed, thus putting in motion the existence of the world of sinful, alienated humans, starting with Cain. Between the time of Adam's rebellion and the life-course of Cain, that is when God "chose" the co-rulers of Christ. But it was only the GROUP'S existence that God foreordained, not any individuals.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 21 by onewithhim]

I think there are many, if not most, JWs who believe the Bible is inerrant concerning every word. I am not one of them, but I don't consider this a terrible evil. I have seen errors and even contradictions, but it doesn't bother me. I feel that the Bible was inspired by God, definitely, but anything put in the hands of men will get a bit off at some point. All of the gore and violence in the OT is attributed to Jehovah, but I feel that probably a good deal of it was embellished by the writers. I think even Moses was more bloodthirsty than God Himself, and can be seen in his narratives. Yet....I believe that the main theme of the Bible is there, running throughout the canon. It can always be tied in with the Kingdom arrangement, every single book. Also, the scriptures never vary about the identity of God and his requirements for humans.

Very interesting!

Especially your remarks about JWs, of which you said "I am not one of them" in regard to inerrancy..

I have not read all your posts, but I don't recall any others I have read that differ at all from JW teaching.

So where do you stand with them, onewithhim?

I believe everything they teach. No one has said outright, "Every WORD is from God," to my recollection, so there may be differing thoughts on that, but, anyway, it is not something that is perilous to one's faith. The O.T. says that Jehovah ordered the deaths of children, on occasion. This directly contradicts, for example, Matthew 10:29-31 where Jehovah notices even a small bird when it falls to the ground. That shows a lot of love! How can a God like that order the deaths of innocent children? I don't believe it, and I have said it outright to others of my congregation. I feel that possibly Moses got carried away with his view of warfare, as did Joshua, and embellished the blood-letting. Men have to be pretty cold-hearted to kill children, and even other men---cutting off their heads! I can't imagine it. A God who knows how many hairs each person has on his head would certainly not order the bloody destruction of innocent people. But cold-hearted men seem to LOVE war! That's why I think they add to their stories about war. (It makes me sick to read about the accounts of war in the O.T.)

Besides that, I can't think of anything I don't agree with other than (1) saying that we can take elements taken from blood as long as they are the single entities taken from whole blood...the things that make up the whole, but each thing by itself is "not blood." If you break blood down into its components, a person could take one of those components. I don't agree with that and will not take any of that. There are enough substitutes for blood and blood products that I don't need to mess with anyone's blood.

(2) I don't agree that Mount Sinai is in the Sinai Peninsula. I believe it is in Arabia and is probably called Jabal el Laws. The WTS has said that we can't know for sure where all the places were that the Bible mentions associated with the Exodus, but they go along with Constantine's mother Helena who tacked the name "Mt. Sinai" onto the mountain by St. Catherine's monastery. I don't agree, but it's not something that anyone needs to make a big deal about.

Are any of these three things dangerous to my spiritual health? Or my salvation? I don't think so. I view Jehovah God as loving and merciful, and I believe his Son will soon reign over the earth, resolving all problems for mankind. This is what preaching the Kingdom is all about (Matt.24:14).

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 7 by Elijah John]

Yes but there are probably at least some people that believe that the message that Jesus is YHWH was in the original bible but got taken out. Possibly by Paul or John.

Are you going to say that such a thing is impossible? What if Jesus did call the disciples together and say "I am YAHWEH the Almighty, please make sure the world knows this" but those verses got taken out. What is the logic that says bad bits can get put in the bible but good bits can't be taken out (its much easier to remove something from a book than write a bit and put it in).

Are you going to claim that couldn't have happened? If so, that's an extraordinary claim - prove it


JW

If such were the case, no doubt Jesus-worshiping believers would have found such passages by now, to bolster their claims.

But instead, they read into things in the Bible that just are not there.

I know what you're trying to do here,but it's not an "all or nothing" propositon. Else, you would have to defend and justify every absurd and atrocious portion contained in in the Bible.

And it is by exactly the same method we verify if spurious texts have been "added" to the bible. Ie If there were verses that were not in the original text this would have given birth to various schools of scriptures (not just those that exist with minor variations of spelling or minor omissions that can be identified and rectified because of other contemporary passages) but major variations that would mean that today we would have various different "bibles".

There is no convincing evidence to suggest that verses, especially in the Hebrew scriptures that were so meticulously copied and preserved were not in the original texts.

It's fine to suggest that a God of love wouldn't have asked Abraham to sacrifice his son or would never condemned witches, its a whole other thing to suggest that those verses are spurious (I'm not suggesting that's what you are saying or have ever said, but that anyone that did would have no solid basis for this suggestion).

JW

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

[Replying to post 27 by onewithhim]


Onewithhim,

YOUR QUOTE: "Adam disobeyed, thus putting in motion the existence of the world of sinful, alienated humans, starting with Cain. Between the time of Adam's rebellion and the life-course of Cain, that is when God "chose" the co-rulers of Christ. But it was only the GROUP'S existence that God foreordained, not any individuals".

Seriously, I hate to correct you again, but for the sake of true knowledge to your faith, I must. It was NOT Adam that transgressed as you mistakenly said, it was Eve, remember?

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:14)

Eve ate the forbidden fruit first, and understood good from evil, then she gave the fruit to Adam, who did not know from good or evil yet, then when he ate the fruit, he realized what he did, as Eve was the impetus of Adam being wrong after her.

Since Eve deceived Adam, she became the transgressor and not Adam, as shown in 1Timothy 2:14, and to prove this point, Yahweh god decided the following circumstances for her as punishment, which seems reasonable: "To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." (Genesis 3:16)

As youre aware, the passage above is the impetus of women being second-class citizens within the bible.