Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, and that Jesus is a created being separate from the father, as a result (this information was pulled from the Watchtower website).
The contradiction I find is this: Isaiah 9:6,
"For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."
What is more, I quoted this verse directly from the New World Translation, straight from the Watchtower website.
The Jehovah's Witnesses' own translation even supports the Deity of Christ! My recommendation is this: if a Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, ask for their bible (the New World Translation) and show them this passage. Perhaps they might be amazed. At the very least, they will be forced to explain their own bible away to support their doctrine.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Context of Galatians 1:8 Compromised
I recently ran across someone who bashes anyone that differs even the slightest from his doctrine. While there are many things wrong with this (not to mention his doctrine itself), I will focus on his rationalization for treating others (even non-believers) that oppose him with hatred.
He claims that Galatians 1:8 is a command to "curse" anyone who offers a different opinion or doctrine than that which he holds to.
Galatians 1:8,
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The last phrase, "let him be accursed," is the basis for his argument. At first, one can see how the phrase can lean toward a command. However, the idea begins to fall apart as soon as the definition of the word "accursed" is brought to light.
Let me explain. The word "accursed" isn't an active command. It actually means "damned" or "as if under a curse" (per www.m-w.com, "accursed"). By the very definition of the word, the man is saying that Paul is commanding Christians to a) kill others, or b) be involved in witchcraft by putting people under curses. Was Paul saying these things? No!
He later tried to justify the phrase as a command by pointing out the words "let" and "be" signify an active command. Well, lets look at a similar passage:
1 Corinthians 11:48,
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Here we see the same verb usage. But is Paul commanding Christians to make people ignorant? Of course not! The idea is that of "remaining." The passage, in modern English, could read something like, "let him remain ignorant."
Now, if we apply this reasoning to Gal. 1:8, we get this: "let him remain accursed." This fits the verse's context because if a man preaches a differing gospel than that of the Bible (thus, not adhering to the gospel of the Bible personally), he is damned (or condemned) already by God Himself. Not man!
Paul is conveying, therefore, that God will judge everyone for what he or she teaches. For those who teach a different gospel, God will curse/condemn them. Paul is not commanding anyone to condemn people--it simply isn't man's job.
He claims that Galatians 1:8 is a command to "curse" anyone who offers a different opinion or doctrine than that which he holds to.
Galatians 1:8,
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
The last phrase, "let him be accursed," is the basis for his argument. At first, one can see how the phrase can lean toward a command. However, the idea begins to fall apart as soon as the definition of the word "accursed" is brought to light.
Let me explain. The word "accursed" isn't an active command. It actually means "damned" or "as if under a curse" (per www.m-w.com, "accursed"). By the very definition of the word, the man is saying that Paul is commanding Christians to a) kill others, or b) be involved in witchcraft by putting people under curses. Was Paul saying these things? No!
He later tried to justify the phrase as a command by pointing out the words "let" and "be" signify an active command. Well, lets look at a similar passage:
1 Corinthians 11:48,
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Here we see the same verb usage. But is Paul commanding Christians to make people ignorant? Of course not! The idea is that of "remaining." The passage, in modern English, could read something like, "let him remain ignorant."
Now, if we apply this reasoning to Gal. 1:8, we get this: "let him remain accursed." This fits the verse's context because if a man preaches a differing gospel than that of the Bible (thus, not adhering to the gospel of the Bible personally), he is damned (or condemned) already by God Himself. Not man!
Paul is conveying, therefore, that God will judge everyone for what he or she teaches. For those who teach a different gospel, God will curse/condemn them. Paul is not commanding anyone to condemn people--it simply isn't man's job.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Misquote in John 3.
Many things can be learned from John 3. There seems to be a few misconceptions about it as well unfortunately. We shall look at one of these misconceptions.
What did Jesus mean by "water" in his conversation with Nicodemus?
John 3:3-7 (KJV),
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus meant by "born again." So, Jesus explained in verses 5-6. Jesus split his explanation to clarify for Nicodemus. Being born of water is what Nicodemus was thinking. Water refers to the first, physical birth. Jesus explained further that the second birth is that of the Spirit. Jesus had to split the two births to make His idea clear to Nicodemus. It is part of Jesus' explanation, verse 5 in particular, where the misconception comes from.
Jesus said "born of water and of the Spirit." Most of the instances in which I have seen this verse misused is by those who believe that being baptized in water saves someone. By their view, water baptism must be inserted in John 3:5 in order to make their theology work. Why? Later on in this chapter, Jesus told Nicodemus:
John 3:14-18,
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What Jesus said here did not include water baptism. Belief in the name of only begotten Son of God, according to Jesus, is what saves.
Going back to verse 5, we see by Jesus' later words that "born of water" is not referring to water baptism. What is it then? Born of water is referring to physical birth from one's mother, as stated before. It is verse 6 that completes Jesus' explanation. It is a comparison to what He said in verse 5. Flesh is being compared to water, and of course Spirit is compared with the Spirit. If one reads both verses 5 and 6, one then sees Jesus' whole and complete thought. Taking verse 5 alone, therefore, makes an argument incomplete because it is only half of Jesus' original thought.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
What did Jesus mean by "water" in his conversation with Nicodemus?
John 3:3-7 (KJV),
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Nicodemus didn't understand what Jesus meant by "born again." So, Jesus explained in verses 5-6. Jesus split his explanation to clarify for Nicodemus. Being born of water is what Nicodemus was thinking. Water refers to the first, physical birth. Jesus explained further that the second birth is that of the Spirit. Jesus had to split the two births to make His idea clear to Nicodemus. It is part of Jesus' explanation, verse 5 in particular, where the misconception comes from.
Jesus said "born of water and of the Spirit." Most of the instances in which I have seen this verse misused is by those who believe that being baptized in water saves someone. By their view, water baptism must be inserted in John 3:5 in order to make their theology work. Why? Later on in this chapter, Jesus told Nicodemus:
John 3:14-18,
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
What Jesus said here did not include water baptism. Belief in the name of only begotten Son of God, according to Jesus, is what saves.
Going back to verse 5, we see by Jesus' later words that "born of water" is not referring to water baptism. What is it then? Born of water is referring to physical birth from one's mother, as stated before. It is verse 6 that completes Jesus' explanation. It is a comparison to what He said in verse 5. Flesh is being compared to water, and of course Spirit is compared with the Spirit. If one reads both verses 5 and 6, one then sees Jesus' whole and complete thought. Taking verse 5 alone, therefore, makes an argument incomplete because it is only half of Jesus' original thought.
Questions? Comments? Feel free to post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
