The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

dizerner

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:29 pm

Thanks, very informative. I'm actually currently reading "Why you should believe in the trinity, an answer to JWs." I was surprised to learn some of their arguments (Jesus being God would be "overpaying" the ransom) but many mirrored what I read on here. I can see you've left what any JW would consider the bulk of their doctrine. Regards

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 20, 2015 6:19 pm

Dizerner, for the classic Christian from the fourth century on, Trinitarianism is the biggie. If you didn't accept it, you were dismissed by some as a heretic. Don't you think Brenden's present agnosticism concerning Trinitarianism is a major step away from Jehovah's Witnesses' non-Trinitarianism?

I have never been a JW; yet I am a convinced non-Trinitarian—convinced by early Christian teachings prior to the fourth century. So with respect to Trinitarianism, Brenden is further from JW teaching than I.

However, I do have a major difference with Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to who Jesus is. They believe that in his pre-incarnate state, he was the highest archangel, whereas I believe that as the Son of God, in his pre-incarnate state, having been begotten by God as the first of God's acts, he is fully divine, just as divine as his Father. When we beget children, they are human like us. When God begets a son, he is divine like his Father.

Indeed, the Son can be called "God." Not that he is the Father, but that he is generically "God", just as we are "man" and our offspring are generically "man."

There was an older JW man who came to my door a number of times and left me with literature. Because I accepted the literature, he returned. After a few more visits, I invited him in, and presented to him my beliefs concerning Jesus' origin—with scriptural justification. I referred him to Justin Marty's position as he expressed it to the Jews he debated. I referred him even to the Diaglott which is published by the International Bible Students Association Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. It is a 1942 edition, and so it was definitely published by Jehovah's Witnesses rather than by only their predecessors (such as the Russelites). In the English translation of John 1:1 in the Diaglott, at the right side of the Greek are the words in translation, "In the Beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." That is quite unlike the New World Translation published by Jehovah's Witnesses.

After this presentation to the man, I think he gave me up as hopeless. He never returned.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:05 pm

Don't you think Brenden's present agnosticism concerning Trinitarianism is a major step away from Jehovah's Witnesses' non-Trinitarianism?
sure..
yet I am a convinced non-Trinitarian
A Binitarian as best I can understand it.
After this presentation to the man, I think he gave me up as hopeless. He never returned.
This seems so common. Have they been convinced to join the cult out of charisma instead of a search for truth?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by Paidion » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:03 pm

Hi Dizerner,
You wrote:A Binitarian as best I can understand it.
A Binitarian is one who believes that God consists of two Persons rather than three as Trinitarians believe.
But they still believe in a God is compound.

My belief is that God is not compound but simple (in that sense). Jesus addressed his Father as "The only true God" or "The only real God."
That is what I believe, too.
Paul wrote:For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6)
One God and one Lord. Not two Gods. Therefore I am not a polytheist. Not a compound God. Therefore I am not a Binitarian, but a unitarian, as Jesus was, but unlike modern Unitarians who do not believe Jesus was divine or of "God essence."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

dizerner

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by dizerner » Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:29 pm

Hmm, okay, but that's a difficult position to understand. But I'll try not to post off topic.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by TheEditor » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:56 pm

This seems so common. Have they been convinced to join the cult out of charisma instead of a search for truth?


:lol: I have to laugh because the idea of any "charismatic" leader in the button-down corporate JC Penney model denomination known as "Jehovhah's Witnesses" is next to impossible. Oh sure, back in the days of Russell, before they were JWs, there was a bit of charisma; in the days of Rutherford in the 20s through 40s there was definitely a charismatic populist leader. But not much since then. No, the JWs I know stay for the same reasons most church-goers stay--tradition and apathy. Plus, leaving costs too much socially. There was a time in it's history that people joined because of love of truth, I believe. But those days are long over. It's a rare convert today that goes in for that reason. Usually they are raised in it

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by steve » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:46 am

A few scraps...


Paidion wrote:
1 Cor.15 :16-18 "For if the dead are not raised, ...then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished."
In what sense would they have perished, if they flew off to heaven?
And 1 Cor.15: 32 "If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
The implication is that if the dead are not raised, there is no afterlife. But there would be an afterlife if we take off to heaven immediately after death.
I cannot be certain about the nature of the soul or its condition in the intermediate state—nor (like Matt) do I find it a very interesting subject. To me the question has no existential, spiritual or psychological relevance. However, it is only as one interested in exegesis that I jump in here.

Exegesis requires, perhaps more than anything else, the ability to follow an author’s flow of thought in a passage. The use of Paul’s statements (above) as an argument against “post-mortem soul survival” once seemed very strong to me, until I observed what Paul is actually arguing.

Paul, in this chapter, is not arguing for or against any view of the intermediate state. He is arguing for the doctrine of the resurrection, and is using several specific logical arguments. His first argument begins in verse 12 and runs through your quoted passage. The argument has three simple stages:

First, Paul points out the obvious: “If, as some say, there is no such phenomenon as resurrection of the dead [that is, if the very idea is an absurdity or an impossibility, as the Greeks asserted], then it is evident that the same absurdity or impossibility would preclude physical resurrection in Christ’s case.” (see vv.12-13, 16).

Second, from this premise, Paul correctly observes: “If Christ did not rise, then we lied to you in preaching a message of a risen Christ, meaning our gospel is a false message—there is nothing true about it.” (v.15)

Third, Paul identifies several ramifications of the proposition that the gospel he preached is a false message:

a) Your faith is vain—that is, we have preached, and you have believed, a message devoid of truth (v.14);

b) You are still in your sins—that is, our message of forgiveness was bogus. Your sinful condition remains unchanged (v.17);

c) The same is true of those who have died. If our message is false, there is no salvation for those who have died believing it (v.18);

d) All that we are suffering is simply for a delusion, rendering us very pitiable wretches. We are risking (and sacrificing) everything, for a fantasy (v.19).

There is no point at which Paul is arguing that the resurrection is the only conceivable post-mortem hope of the believer—hence, ruling out an intermediate state in heaven. His argument is simply that the concept of a resurrection (which would have to be denied by those who think resurrections unthinkable) is at the core of the gospel message, and without it, the gospel, as preached, is a complete lie. If it is a lie, then it can confer none of the benefits that we have come to associate with it.

It is the complete invalidation of the message, more than the specific loss of a future resurrection, that brings about the four unacceptable results Paul delineates.
The book of Revelation describes the visions which John saw. One cannot establish doctrine on the basis of what John saw in his vision.
But you believe in a future millennial kingdom following the second coming of Christ. Doesn’t this doctrine derive exclusively from the Book of Revelation—and more specifically, one chapter of that book (in which, incidentally, the souls of the martyrs are seen reigning in heaven)? We can find no biblical basis for a thousand-year reign of any kind outside the Book of Revelation.

Doug wrote:
As far as 1st Cor. 15 goes, as you know we have different ways of understanding the point. I don't think that Paul could have been more clear.

1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
I think you overstate to clarity of the latter expression. The words “spirit” and “spiritual” are used a wide variety of ways, both in and outside of scripture.

If Paul had contrasted a “spiritual body” with (as would seem most predictable) a “physical body,” then I think your case would be airtight. However, Paul, counterintuitively, contrasted a “spiritual body” with a “natural body”—suggesting the use of “spiritual” (in this context) to mean non-natural, or super-natural.

Whether a supernatural body may have physical qualities or not would not be deducible from the mere contrast, as worded. The comparison with Christ’s resurrection body (v.49) encourages us to examine the kind of body in which Christ was raised. I have nothing original to say about that, as we all know His resurrected body had physicality as well as supernatural characteristics.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by Paidion » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:56 pm

Steve, I agree that Paul is emphasizing the resurrection and not the intermediate state in 1 Corinthians. Indeed, I don't think he could have been emphasizing the intermediate state, for I find nowhere that he even taught an intermediate state.

And yes, Steve, I have heard verses 16-18 explained the way you did, by my Baptist pastor's wife when I was only 18. But I wasn't convinced.

In any case, I don't think you addressed verse 32 which seems to support the exegesis that I presented.
If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
The implication is that if the dead are not raised, there is no afterlife. But there would be an afterlife if we take off to heaven immediately after death.

Or would you say that this applies mainly to Christ being raised and not simply to resurrection in general?

So this is my position, that Paul is not remotely referring to any "intermediate state" but that he is saying that there must be a resurrection, for if not, there would be no afterlife. And that implies no out-of-body state as well. For if there were no resurrection but was an out-of-body state, there WOULD BE an afterlife.
You also wrote:But you believe in a future millennial kingdom following the second coming of Christ. Doesn’t this doctrine derive exclusively from the Book of Revelation—and more specifically, one chapter of that book (in which, incidentally, the souls of the martyrs are seen reigning in heaven)? We can find no biblical basis for a thousand-year reign of any kind outside the Book of Revelation.
Yes, I have been thinking about that inconsistency for several years now. I must admit that I am not nearly as certain about the thousand year reign of Christ as I once was, though I still lean in that direction.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by steve7150 » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:45 pm

If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

The implication is that if the dead are not raised, there is no afterlife. But there would be an afterlife if we take off to heaven immediately after death.









I answered this before which again is that the essence of the resurrection is immortality which is not given in the intermediate state.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: The Most Frequently Misquoted Verse in the Bible

Post by steve » Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:46 pm

The implication is that if the dead are not raised, there is no afterlife.
I never met your pastor's wife, but as I read the chapter, I don't agree that this is Paul's implication. As I mentioned, in Paul's argument in this section, the implication is that if there is no resurrection, then there is no gospel, no salvation, and no immortality in any form—at least not to be found through the gospel preached by Paul.

As for verse 32, it is tricky. The subtext of verses 29-32 is expressed in the word "Otherwise" (v.29). But otherwise than what? It is possible that Paul's thought is skipping back to his premise in vv.12-19, which, as we have agreed, is that "If there is no resurrection, then Christ is not risen."

However, intervening between that argument (vv.12-19) and our present section (vv.29-32, beginning with "Otherwise"), there is a section (vv.20-28) in which Paul digresses to details of eschatological chronology, particularly as to Christ's present reign until the time that He turns all things over to His Father. Though this section immediately precedes Paul's "Otherwise," it does not seem to be the material taken into consideration by that word. At least, I am not able to make sense of its connection.

For this reason, I think Paul's assertions in vv.29-32 arise from his continuing to delineate the consequences of Christ's not having been risen, which would be the case if there is no rising from the dead.

I don't think Paul is discussing, or even thinking about an intermediate state in this chapter (as I think he is in 2 Corinthians 5:8-9). You suggest that this absence of consideration arises from Paul's disbelief in such an intermediate state. I think it is merely that he is addressing a heretical Greek-influenced trend in the church that denied the reality of physical resurrection.

There would be no reason to bring up a disembodied intermediate state here, even if Paul fully believed in such—and it might even weaken his position to do so with this particular group, since the Greeks already assumed the reality of an intermediate state, using it ads an argument against physical resurrection. Paul would not have to defend or discuss such a doctrine, if he held it, and it might even complicate the argument, as I have found people frequently confused when hearing, on the one hand, about the intermediate state, and on the other, about the resurrection. The harmonize easily enough in my theological milieu, but many find them difficult to hold simultaneously—as even this thread demonstrates.

Post Reply

Return to “General Bible Discussion”