Jehovah Witness and Christianity?

Originally posted by whodey
JW's say that Christ is the archangel Michael. This attacks the diety of Christ in that he would then not be part of the trinity. Please do show us no1 where this is located in the Bible and you win a cigar!

No, they don't believe in the Trinity. Neither did Jesus.

Matthew 24: 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

I like Garcia Vegas.

EDIT: Here's a website from BibleUnitarians: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/

Of course, I'm sure it's filled with lies and misrepresents their actual beliefs.😛

Originally posted by whodey
Ephesians 4:5 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Therefore, when you are asking about other Gods I would say you should not use a capitalized "G" rather a smaller case "g". Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

What you would say is of no concern to me. The Bible accepts that other gods exist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, they don't believe in the Trinity. Neither did Jesus.

Matthew 24: 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

I like Garcia Vegas.

EDIT: Here's a website from BibleUnitarians: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/html/

Of course, I'm sure it's filled with lies and misrepresents their actual beliefs.😛

[b]No, they don't believe in the Trinity. Neither did Jesus.


I'm not sure if I understand correctly... You mean Jesus wasn't part of the Trinity?

Originally posted by louisXIV
[b/]No, they don't believe in the Trinity. Neither did Jesus.


I'm not sure if I understand correctly... You mean Jesus wasn't part of the Trinity?

Read the passage; Jesus is saying he doesn't know something but the Father (i.e. God) does. Thus, they can't be part of one whole according to him. You do believe in the Gospels, don't you?

There's further information on the site given; take a look for yourself.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Baloney. There's about a 100 references in the OT to gods and none indicate that such beings don't exist. At most, they claim they are lesser beings then Jehovah, which would be the same thing whodey is accusing the Mormons of believing.

Here's one: Exodus 18:11 Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods; yea, in the thing wherein they d ...[text shortened]... I can quote many more or you can go to biblegateway.com and search for "gods" in the OT.

Sorry Ex 18:11 only refers to them as [conceptual] objects of worship and not as existent beings.

Try again.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
No, he's not. There's substantial evidence to the contrary. You might recall the thread about Hebrew henotheism.

http://www.aarweb.org/syllabus/syllabi/g/gier/306/henotheism.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1poly94.html

Even without a Trinitarian context, one doesn't need a multitude of gods to explain the Genesis quotes (the simple royal "we" will do).

The Psalms references are more interesting, but I need to be more clear about literary forms and common phrases used (e.g. Jesus's use of the word "Hades" does not imply he believed in the Greek mythological version).

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, they don't believe in the Trinity. Neither did Jesus.

Matthew 24: 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only.

That doesn't necessarily imply that Jesus did not believe in the Trinity. It makes it possible, though.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Sorry Ex 18:11 only refers to them as [conceptual] objects of worship and not as existent beings.

Try again.

No, I won't bother (and it says no such thing). Your snotnose comments aren't worth responding to; unless you haven't actually read the OT, you know that the Bible accepts the actual existence of other "gods".

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, I won't bother (and it says no such thing). Your snotnose comments aren't worth responding to; unless you haven't actually read the OT, you know that the Bible accepts the actual existence of other "gods".

If that is true, you should be able to give me a clearer example than the one you gave.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That doesn't necessarily imply that Jesus did not believe in the Trinity. It makes it possible, though.

It's the most obvious interpretation, although you and others have tried a convoluted one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If that is true, you should be able to give me a clearer example than the one you gave.

I suggest you go to BibleGateway and do the search I suggested. You are clearly being disingenous. And that example was clear enough; only by pouring your pre-conceived position into the words is it capable of your interpretation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you go to BibleGateway and do the search I suggested. You are clearly being disingenous. And that example was clear enough; only by pouring your pre-conceived position into the words is it capable of your interpretation.

I have no inclination to separate out all the "God's" vs. "gods". You made an assertion, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. I'm not going to do your work for you.

The example you gave simply isn't as clear as you claim. "My God's more powerful than your gods" does not imply "your gods exist". Understand?

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's the most obvious interpretation, although you and others have tried a convoluted one.

If you read just that one verse, completely out of context, it would be the "most obvious interpretation".

Put in context with other things Jesus said, however, about his relationship with the Father and what the Father knows vs. what he knows; it's not that obvious.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Even without a Trinitarian context, one doesn't need a multitude of gods to explain the Genesis quotes (the simple royal "we" will do).

The Psalms references are more interesting, but I need to be more clear about literary forms and common phrases used (e.g. Jesus's use of the word "Hades" does not imply he believed in the Greek mythological version).

The "royal we" argument has its holes. For example, historically, it was not used by the Jews until after the Old Testament was written.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm

Of course this guy is arguing about something else, but the "royal we" argument is still shot to ribbons.

Some completely different interpretations here:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/ssr/issues/volume4/number2/ssr04_02_e01.html

"I. In the Image of God
As an absent/present figure and a bundle of questions, Adam is the perfect figure for midrash. In the expression that we often see in midrashic parlance, Adam "cries out, interpret me!" The mystery of Adam is perhaps nowhere more present than in his origins.

And God said, let us make Humankind in our image, after our likeness…
And God created the Human in His image, in the image of God he created Him; male and female He created them. (Gen 1:27)
These verses begin with the puzzle of the monotheistic God speaking in the plural: "Let us make..." It continues with the creation of an androgynous being, a male/female. The easiest solution to the first problem is that God is speaking in the "royal we" or, perhaps, he is speaking to the angels. But he has created all the celestial bodies, plants, and animals by himself: "Let there be...." And we have heard nothing about the creation of angels or divine helpers thus far. So, we have reason to be perplexed by this "Let us make..." One striking interpretation can be developed from a suggestion of the contemporary interpreter, Aviva Zornberg. Zornberg argues that humans are not fully formed by God but that their formation is a joint undertaking of God and humans.[1] Thus, here, the "Let us" is neither directed to God as the royal we nor the angels, but to the human him/herself! So we then have: 'Let us, you and I, make you!' This suggests that human nature is not a finished product but a process. Human nature is not a given essence but a free potential that must be finished in human choices and in the human response to God. "

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Even without a Trinitarian context, one doesn't need a multitude of gods to explain the Genesis quotes (the simple royal "we" will do).

The Psalms references are more interesting, but I need to be more clear about literary forms and common phrases used (e.g. Jesus's use of the word "Hades" does not imply he believed in the Greek mythological version).

Yes, but the question is one of development. elohim is used both for “gods,” and as the “royal plural” for God. As Hebrew monotheism developed, this linguistic device may have developed as well—not always, perhaps as a “reading back into,” but as a continuing device as well (for example, once elohim in Genesis 1:1 becomes the one God, the same plural can be used thereafter in the same sense).

An interesting case is the aqeda—the story of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac. It is elohim who command(s) the sacrifice, and YHVH who prevents it. My grammar indicates that the verb form of nesah (test) and omer (speak) is singular—but, (1) I don’t know how much of that is later grammatical standardization, and (2) one could as well use a singular verb for a plurality (such as “a swarm of bees is in the garden” ). I have given various rabbinical readings (midrashim) of this story before, one of which is that elohim is not the same god as YHVH here.

As you know, however, since my interest is strictly in rabbinical Judaism, I simply accept the midrashic “reading back into” the text.

Note: With reference to Whodey’s comment about capitalization, there are no capitals or lower-case letters in Hebrew.

EDIT: Just saw BdN's post. I think he and I are arguing the same thing here, but I wouldn't use the phrase "shot to ribbons"--just as I wouldn't say that rabbinical Judaism is "shot to ribbons" by the existence or assertions of Christianity, or that Christianity is "shot to ribbons" by the continuing "living stream" of rabbinical Judaism...