Wick Stick
Well-Known Member
I think I disagree. The New Testament's idea of an apostle is exactly the same thing.
Run that by me again, Moses
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trinitarian scholarship also disagrees with his statement. I gather from what he has said that he doesn’t find the concessions of trinitarian scholarship persuasive. I respect that, but I find their concessions very persuasive.
That’s right.
bdavidc
Active Member
Just to clarify, the only statement I responded to was the one you posted: “As Dr. Witherington pointed out (see post #24), ‘Jesus wasn’t, and isn’t, Yahweh.’” That was not my quote, nor did I misrepresent it. I responded directly to what was presented. I don’t personally know Dr. Witherington or have prior knowledge of his broader views, but that particular statement, as it stands, strongly implies a denial of Jesus being fully God. If the quote was taken out of context or meant differently, that should have been made clear when it was shared. As it was presented, it sounded like a direct challenge to the deity of Christ, which is why I responded the way I did.
My intent was never to slander anyone. I take doctrinal matters seriously, especially when it comes to the identity of Christ. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is fully God, “the Word was God” (John 1:1), “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), “In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9), and “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). When a statement appears to contradict those truths, it raises legitimate concern. While zeal for truth must be guided by humility and care, we are also commanded to test all things by the Word of God (Acts 17:11). I responded in that spirit, not out of malice, but out of a desire to uphold sound doctrine.
Yes, sometimes someone was sent as an agent of another, for instance Abraham sending his servant to obtain a wife for Isaac. This was made plain in the Bible.
Paul, urging us on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.
There are times that someone was acting as an agent of others, and we are told so. IMO, the problem arises when someone applies agency when there isn't a Scriptural declaration of such. The concept becomes a device to deny the plain reading of Scripture.
Much love!
Your response slandered him. He believes and affirms what you asserted he doesn’t.
I don’t question your intention. The fact remains, you bore false witness against him.
So does Dr. Witherington. And so do I.
Dr. Witherington beliecves and teaches trinitarian doctrine. Now that you know, you can still do the right thing - issue a public apology here to Dr. Witherington.
Busting his chops because your post wasn't clear?
Lighten up.
And besides, Jesus is in fact YHWH.
Much love!
No. Hopefully helping him to correct a grave error.
In fact, Yahweh is Jesus’ God and Father.
Not only is that Jewish monotheism, that is scripture.
bdavidc
Active Member
The quote you posted, “Jesus wasn’t, and isn’t, Yahweh”, was the only thing I had to go on. You didn’t provide any context or explanation when you shared it. As written, that statement directly contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture concerning the full deity of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:8). Naturally, I responded out of concern, because that kind of statement raises serious doctrinal red flags.
I have made it clear at the time that I didn’t personally know Dr. Witherington or his broader theological views. My response was aimed at the statement itself, not at slandering the man. If the quote was taken out of context or didn’t reflect what he actually teaches, then that’s something you should have clarified when you posted it. Expecting me to assume a positive interpretation of a statement that plainly sounds like a denial of Christ’s divine identity is unreasonable.
To accuse me of slander for reacting to a statement you shared without clarification is not fair or accurate. I care deeply about sound doctrine and the truth of God's Word, and I take very seriously any teaching that appears to diminish who Christ is. Scripture commands us to test all things (Acts 17:11), especially when the identity of Jesus is involved. That is what I did, and I make no apology for that.
However, if you now believe that Dr. Witherington was misrepresented by the way you presented the quote, and that this contributed to confusion or offense, then it would be appropriate for you to take responsibility and consider offering a public apology to him. When we quote others, especially on matters of doctrine, we bear the responsibility for accuracy and clarity. We are all accountable for how we handle truth and represent others (Proverbs 18:13, James 3:1), and it's important that we handle both with care.
Mishandling truth, whether intentionally or through carelessness, opens the door to confusion, and confusion is never from God. Scripture tells us that Satan is the father of lies (John 8:44) and that he works through subtle distortions to lead people astray. That’s why it’s so important to represent both Scripture and others accurately. When we handle truth carelessly or present things in ways that cause confusion, we’re not helping people see the light, we’re giving the enemy an opportunity to twist what’s being said. We must be people who rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15) and walk in integrity, especially when teaching or sharing matters that affect how others view Christ.
The clip I posted is from one of his lectures. It wasn’t taken out of context and I don’t owe him an apology. His comment is something which he and I are in agreement about. It’s a historical fact.
He believes in a doctrine which you asserted - and still haven’t retracted and apologized for - he doesn’t. I don’t agree with his doctrine and he agrees with yours!
I've read through the exchange. I think he knew what he was doing in how he posted to you. Yes, in the context of this dialog, I completely agree with you.
Much love!
bdavidc
Active Member
That actually proves my point even more. You’re now saying that Dr. Witherington believes the same doctrine I was defending, yet you posted a quote from him that made it sound like he didn’t. That’s exactly why this confusion happened in the first place. You misrepresented what he meant by posting a quote with no context, and then turned around and accused me of slander for responding to it.
So let’s be honest, you created the misunderstanding, not me. And if Dr. Witherington holds the same view I do, then there was no slander to begin with. That makes it even clearer that you owe him an apology for misrepresenting his position, not me.
This has gone on long enough. I’ve made my position clear, and I won’t keep going in circles over a situation you created. I’m done entertaining this silliness. The matter is closed.
He himself told you in the clip that Jesus wasn’t and isn’t Yahweh. I didn’t put those words in his mouth.
You now know for a fact that Dr. Witherington himself doesn’t believe that Jesus was or is Yahweh and you also know that he himself still affirms the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.
I didn’t misrepresent what he meant. When he said that Jesus wasn’t and isn’t Yahweh, that is exactly what he meant. He’s made the statement in numerous lectures, sermons and books.
Here’s something readers might consider doing: Write to him about it.
I’ve been honest the whole time. You misunderstood him because you don’t know him.
Then you are standing by the comment you made about it. That’s pitiful.
Of course you did, and your little set up played out, and now you get to bust his chops over it. Well done!
Much love!
This is false. You know now that it is false. You had an opportunity to correct it and chose not to.
Golly good fun, isn't it? Not very edifying, but remember whose thread you are on.
Much love!
It was never about “busting his chops”. I’m disappointed he decided to stand by his comment about Dr. Witherington.
He is on the thread of Jewish monotheist who believes that Jesus of Nazareth - himself a Jewish monotheist - is the Messiah, the Son of God.
I can read for myself. You did the same sort of thing I've seen you do many times before.
Much love!
I’m consistent in my teaching, preaching, conversation and counseling.
I’m a Jewish monotheist who believes in God (Yahweh) and also in the Messiah (Jesus of Nazareth). I present and defend Jewish monotheism using, among other things, the concessions of trinitarian scholarship.
Similar threads
