Had a jehovah witness show up at my place today....

[OzSpen]

"Orthodox Christian" and "Christian" are not necessarily the same thing. The JW are unquestionably not "orthodox" Christians. To a Baptist, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics are not "orthodox" Christians. Free Grace Christians are not "orthodox" Christians to most other Christians.

The question is, where does "non-orthodox" end and "non-Christian" begin?

This was the point of my thread "Give us your absolute bottom-line Christian essentials" on the Apologetics forum. What are the essentials - not the "orthodox" understandings - for being a Christian? Given a direct opportunity to state the absolute essentials, damn few people stepped up to the plate. The silence was deafening.

Is the deity of Christ an essential? The JW believe Jesus is God's chosen vehicle for salvation, that salvation is through the life, atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus. I believe this is the essential.

We believe in Jesus, who said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) We have faith that Jesus came to earth from heaven and gave his perfect human life as a ransom sacrifice. (Matthew 20:28) His death and resurrection make it possible for those exercising faith in him to gain everlasting life. (John 3:16) We also believe that Jesus is now ruling as King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, which will soon bring peace to the entire earth. (Revelation 11:15) However, we take Jesus at his word when he said: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) So we do not worship Jesus, as we do not believe that he is Almighty God.

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/believe-in-jesus/
​

Is the above the "orthodox" understanding? No. As one delves deeper, one learns that the JW's understanding is somewhat more "unorthodox" than the above suggests. It is quite a leap, however, to suggest that this makes them non-Christian, a leap that I am not willing to make.

Matthew 7:16 says we will know false prophets by their fruits. In my experience, JW exhibit the fruits of the Spirit to a higher degree than almost any other community of believers.

The notion that "orthodox" (always, of course, meaning "my particular understanding of orthodoxy") defines "Christian" is one of the really huge, divisive mistakes.

That Jesus was "divine" in some sense does indeed date back to the earliest Christian community. The notion that he is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, does not. The JW believe Jesus is divine; they do not believe He is God. Their position is non-mainstream, non-orthodox, but I do not see it as non-Christian.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

When I speak of an orthodox Christian, I'm speaking of the beliefs of an evangelical Christian.

See the article, 'What is an evangelical?' On Got Questions website.

In replying on mobile. I'll engage with your theology when I've moved house
Oz

 

[chessman]

1 John 5:20 is a verse that has long been pointed to by Trinitarians

Yep. Ever since John believed it from Jesus' teachings and the OT Scriptures about Him and thus wrote it in his letter. Which puts a damper on your 'notion' that the Trinity developed over ... what's the phrase you used ... 'fits and spurts' through centuries.

My statement, "That Jesus was 'divine' in some sense does indeed date back to the earliest Christian community.

'in some sense'??? Would that be a 'yes and no' sense???

You mean like "The Son of God" and "The Son of Man" are Divine terms which dates back to all the Messianic prophets (Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, etc.) Indeed you're over 1,000 years to late with your dating.

The notion that he is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, does not," is precisely correct.

Yo do realize that "the Father" and "the Son" are OT (and NT) terms referring to God, right? If a father has a son (and oh brother does He), that's two persons, right??? Or is that one of your 'yes and no' questions???

Folks, save your breath. I will stipulate that you regard the Trinity as a Christian essential. I don't. End of discussion.

I'll post whenever I feel like it. If you can make a valid evidentiary argument that John was precisely saying Jesus Christ (Messiah) wasn't God, I'll listen. But calling the LEB "wooden" and "awkward" isn't evidence for anything other than you have an exe to grind.

You choose to use the woodenly literalistic and often awkward LEB,

Most unbiased people would simply say it's a very literal translation and leave it at that. Rather than saying it's "wooden" and "awkward". Unless of course they're implying it's wrong because they don't like what it says.

The only thing "awkward" in this discussion is a Christian that argues against Christ (Messiah) being God and Jesus being Messiah until centuries after the NT was 'canonized'. Which again is hogwash.

The Messiah is God (clearly so, via carefully reading ALL the OT prophets). Jesus is Messiah, the Son of God, via declaration all over the NT. Simple.

And it's not just from one verse in John's first epistle either. And not from one "wooden" and "awkward" translation via someone's 'yes and no', maybe, kind-of, on a percentile basis theology.

Forget v20 for a moment. What's your favorite translation of v21???

1 John 5:21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols. ​

Why would John add this to what he just said??? (BTW, he's adding a warning not a 'notion')

I know. He's warning readers NOT to worship anything other than True God, right??? The non-Trinitarian problem is not just with v20 from the LEB (as you try to imply). It's with ALL of John's references to Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God. For example:

1 John 5:13 I wrote these things to you, the ones believing in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life. ​

[careful now, only true God is eternal life, and worshipping anything other than true God is idol worship, right??? (I know, I know... your answer would be 'yes and no')

1 John 5:20 (DLNT) And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding in order that we might know the true One. And we are in the true One, in His Son Jesus Christ. This One is the true God and eternal life.​

1 John 5:20 (NASB) And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him [the Son] who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. ​

"Know Him" is a reference to the Son!

Both of these translations and the LEB all make the same claim going back to v13 and all throughout John's letters, and the rest of the NT. No way around it.

The Son of God is true God and knowing His name means eternal life. Simple.

 

[chessman]

What could I tell this man?

Was he alone or were there others with him that maybe didn't walk up to the house that day?

How often do members find JW's witnessing door-to-door individually?

 

[reba]

From the TOS

Only scripture from accepted Christian bibles will be allowed to be posted on this board. The New World Translation and Book of Mormon are not considered Christian material on this site. Discussion about other, questionable sources , documents, writings or material is acceptable but will not be permitted to be used as a basis of support within a debate or discussion.

 

[Runner]

Last post, perhaps in more ways than one:

Yep. Ever since John believed it from Jesus' teachings and the OT Scriptures about Him and thus wrote it in his letter. Which puts a damper on your 'notion' that the Trinity developed over ... what's the phrase you used ... 'fits and spurts' through centuries.

Please, educate yourself. Read The Quest for the Trinity or some other reputable, scholarly source. You are simply wrong.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (NASB):

For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.​

1 Corinthians is one of the earliest books in the NT. The above passage reflects the virtually unanimous Christian understanding until assorted disputes and heresies (most of which related to whether Jesus was really human, not to whether He was really divine) led to the formulation of the Trinity in the fourth century.

I understand, you are a Trinitarian. So am I. You want to "see" the Trinity in every verse in which it can possibly be seen, while explaining away verses such as 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. I have no problem with this, but it is an after-the-fact approach to Scripture. In its own way, it is very similar to what the JW do.

However, even as a Trinitarian, I am not willing to stoop to the level of dishonesty that claims the Trinity was an early Christian doctrine, was taught by Jesus, or is essential to being a Christian.

I'll post whenever I feel like it. If you can make a valid evidentiary argument that John was precisely saying Jesus Christ (Messiah) wasn't God, I'll listen. But calling the LEB "wooden" and "awkward" isn't evidence for anything other than you have an exe to grind.

I think you mean "axe." I have no exes, in Texas or otherwise. I like the LEB. I simply mean that it is a very literalistic translation that does produce some awkward-sounding passages. Translating any genuinely foreign language is as much an art as a science, but the LEB emphasizes the science over the art; this is its intended purpose.

I was not suggesting you shouldn't post. Please, blather and squawk to your heart's content. I was merely suggesting you stop trying to argue with me about whether the Trinity is a Christian essential, because my view is simply different from yours.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

When I speak of an orthodox Christian, I'm speaking of the beliefs of an evangelical Christian.

I quoted precisely what you stated, without alteration. If you now want to define "orthodox" as "evangelical," that's fine with me - but you are putting new words in your own mouth. This strikes me as a oddly narrow view of orthodoxy and simply underscores the point I am making.

 

[reba]

enough closed for mod review