Bart Ehrman and N.T. Wright on Suffering

The Beliefnet web-site has a very interesting “blogalogue” between Bart Ehrman and N.T. Wright on the issue of suffering.  Both are respected biblical scholars but Ehrman is a former evangelical who has left the faith and has become an agnostic while Wright is an evangelical Anglican bishop.  Their conversation is quite stimulating.  Ehrman makes some passionate statements about the difficulty of believing in a loving God in a world with so much suffering, challenges that as Christians we need to hear.  I also think that Wright gives a good response (although at times he gets a bit technical and gets sidetracked on academic issues), and that is final post is particularly helpful.  You can find the entire blogalogue here.

I am not on the same level as Ehrman or Wright, but as a Christian who has experienced his share of suffering, I would like to put my two cents in.  I think that Wright is correct that the Bible does not seek to explain why there is suffering but to explain what God is doing about it.  I would add that it also tells us what we should do about it.  This is key.  Let us separate suffering of human origin from ‘natural’ disasters for a moment.  Ehrman speaks of the horrors of the holocaust, the AIDS crisis and others.  How could God allow these tragedies?  But did God instigate the holocaust?  Did God force Hitler to gather up the Jews (and others), put them in concentration camps and exterminate them?  Did God command the other nations to allow Hitler to continue in his plans for so long before finally taking a stand?  What about the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa?  Does God force people to be promiscuous (I know that AIDS is passed in other ways, but much of it is passed by sexual relations)?  Does God want the pharmaceutical companies to hold off in supplying the needed medication so that they can make a better profit elsewhere?  Why does God allow this suffering?  WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS SUFFERING?  God has given us everything we need to make a paradise on earth.  It is the human race that chooses to use its resources for selfishness and greed rather than helping others.  Let us put blame where blame is due.

This does not explain everything (such as natural disasters).  So why does God allow suffering?  I am not sure that we will ever know the answer, but that does not negate the existence of a loving God.  Let me explain.  We have two autistic children.  We had to take our daughter to the hospital to get some blood tests.  She went happy enough.  But then we laid her on the bed.  Next thing she knows, she is being held down by five people.  One nurse puts a needle in her arm.  Because they could not find a vein, they had to try numerous places and both arms.  They would put the needle in and move it around, trying to hit a vein.  This went on between a half hour and forty-five minutes.  My daughter screamed for the whole thing.  In the midst of her cries and tears, she would look up at me, her supposed loving father who was supposed to help her and protect her.  What was I doing?  I was helping the nurses to hold her down so that the suffering could continue.  I could not explain to my autistic daughter that the blood tests were for her own good.  I could not explain how my actions fit with my love for her.  But all of it was true.  I do not know why two of my children were born with autism.  I do not understand why the suffering that is beyond human control continues to happen in the world.  But I do know that there is a Father, a loving God who is beyond my full understanding, who loves me and loves this world.  My daughter has forgiven me for her suffering (although she still hates the hospital).  Surely I can forgive God for the difficulties that have come my way.  

Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

One of the distinctives of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is their belief that Jesus is not God but is rather the archangel Michael.  They derive this from the following passage.

“For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

The thought is: how could Jesus come with the voice or call of the archangel if Jesus was not the archangel?  It could be questioned as to why Jesus’ identity is defined by the call of the archangel and not the trumpet of God.  But aside from that, for Jehovah’s Witnesses to get to this point, they have to make some questionable assumptions.

First of all, they assume that Michael is the only archangel and that uniqueness fits well with Jesus’ uniqueness.  It is true that Michael is the only angel described as an archangel in the Bible (of course Gabriel is the only other angel given a name so the competition is not that fierce).  But the Bible must be interpreted in its Jewish context.  In the Jewish world at the time, there were a number of archangels including Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, Raphael and others.  Should we take these Jewish apocalyptic ideas seriously if they are not directly from the Bible?  We should keep in mind that Jude was willing to quote from the Pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch and Assumption of Moses), including a tradition about Michael. 

Even if Michael is the only archangel, there is still a problem: he is an angel.  This is a problem because of the following passage speaking of Jesus:

“He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” (Hebrews 1:3-4)

The author of Hebrews then goes on to quote various passages of the Old Testament to demonstrate the difference between Jesus and the angels.  Jehovah’s Witnesses respond by saying that he is not an angel, he is an archangel, that is the head of the angels.  The Greek arche can mean “beginning, first, origin, ruling power, authority.”  Technically it can mean “head” but the emphasis is not on its distinctiveness from what it is ruling over.  For example, archipoimen means chief shepherd, but he is still a shepherd, he just happens to be the one in charge.  Also, we have archiereus, which is the high priest.  No one would argue that the high priest was not a priest but only a man in charge of the priests.  The high priest is a priest with certain responsibilities.  So with the archangel, Michael is still an angel, he just happens to be an angel with a very important role.  As long as we take the book of Hebrews seriously, it is impossible to accept Jesus as being the archangel Michael.   
 

Bocking at the Jesus Seminar

The web-site www.bethinking.org has a great lecture by Darrell Bock on the Jesus Seminar.  I enjoy Darrell’s work and I read his blog regularly.  Dr. Bock teaches New Testament at a conservative seminary (Dallas Theological Seminary), but I found his presentation to be quite balanced.  Even though the focus of the lecture is on the Jesus Seminar, it really has great value for understanding historical Jesus research in general.  I very much enjoyed the lecture and I highly recommend it to others.  You find the outline and the audio of the lecture here. 

Why the Trinity Makes Sense

Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes point out that the Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible and yet traditional Christianity uses the Trinity as one of its major tests of orthodoxy.  Could the Trinity be so important if it is never mentioned in the Bible?  Does it even make sense?  When you study early church history, you see that there were some very complex arguments that were used to develop the doctrine of the Trinity.  Most pastors and probably many theologians would have difficulty sorting through all the discussions of how the human and divine natures were present in Jesus.  What are we to make of all this? 

First of all, it must be noted that there were other competing views of Jesus in the early church.  The Ebionites were a group of Jewish Christians who believed that Jesus was the Messiah but that he was not divine.  The Arians believed that Jesus was some sort of divine being but that he was not equal to God, being merely a creation of God.  We saw in the post Divinity By Decree: Part Two that there is a very strong and consistent theme in the New Testament of Jesus being a divine being.  Does this get us to the Trinity?

The place we need to start is the Shema, the ancient Hebrew creed that there is only one God.  We find in Mark 12:29 that Jesus himself affirmed Jewish monotheism.  Jesus confirms for us that there is only one God.  So what do we do with the divine descriptions of Jesus?  Ancient groups such as the Arians and modern groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to put Jesus as a separate being.  Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael.  This is problematic.  The first chapters of Hebrews go to great lengths to show that Jesus is not an angel.  If you translate ‘archangel’ as ‘head of the angels’ rather than the ‘head angel,’ you are left with a Jesus who is not an angel but is a god (which is how the New World Translation puts John 1:1).  However, this goes against the monotheism that Jesus affirmed.  Jesus cannot be an angel and he cannot be a separate god.  At the same time we have these divine descriptions of Jesus.  What is the answer?

The Bible does present us with some proto-trinitarian passages such as 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and Matthew 28:19 where Father, Son and Spirit are put together in a very interesting way.  We also have the intriguing statement in John 10:30 where Jesus says “The Father and I are one.”  These are not full fledged trinitarian statements but they are beginning a trajectory that made it inevitable for the early church, as it attempted to be faithful to the witness of biblical revelation, to arrive at the Trinity.  It is the only explanation that retains monotheism and still accepts the divine descriptions of Jesus.

Many people still struggle with the Trinity and I can understand that as it is confusing.  How can one plus one plus one equal one and not three?  It is not logical.  Personally I think that ‘one’ is an inadequate number to represent God.  If we replace ‘one’ with ‘infinity’ (a much more fitting value for an eternal God), we have infinity plus infinity plus infinity equals infinity (not 3infinity).  There are other explanations of the Trinity, but this is one that I have found helpful.  My main point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is the only explanation that makes sense of all the biblical data. 

The Raising of El-Asar-us?

The following is an excerpt from our book Unmasking the Pagan Christ. In many ways the argument we give in this section should not be necessary as the suggestion of equating the raising of Lazarus and the raising of Osiris is ludicrous. But unfortunately some people, even with Ph.D.’s continue to make such claims. I hope this excerpt makes people question some of the radical claims they hear.

While Tom Harpur generally shows some much needed restraint in reproducing Alvin Boyd Kuhn’s radical etymologies, he does fall into Kuhn’s error in trying to find an Egyptian origin for the raising of Lazarus as described in John 11. Harpur begins with an attempt to make Bethany (the home of Lazarus, Mary and Martha) a reference to Anu, the Egyptian city of Anu, where the resurrections of Osiris or Horus were enacted each year, by combining the Hebrew Beth (house) with the Egyptian Anu (not nothingness). Harpur then goes on to repeat Kuhn’s creative linguistics with the following description:

The Egyptians regularly expressed their reverence by placing the definite article “the” before the names of their gods. Just as Christians say, or should say, “the Christ,” the Egyptians said “the Osiris.” But that was the equivalent of saying “Lord Osiris.” When the Hebrews took up the name of the Osiris, or Lord Osiris, they used the Hebrew word for “lord,” el – hence El-Asar. Later on, the Romans, speaking Latin, of course, took El-Asar and added the us ending used for most male names. The result was El-Asar-us. In time, the initial e “wore off,” as linguistics describe it, and the s in Asar changed to z, its constant companion in language. Thus, we have Lazarus, the Osiris of the Beth-Anu story.

If this is true, and since we know there is an important Egyptian myth of Horus raising Osiris, Harpur would seem to have provided clear evidence for an Egyptian origin of a story found within the Gospel of John, right down to the names. Let us see how Harpur’s claims hold up to the evidence.
 
Let us begin with Harpur’s claim that Bethany is used to point to the Egyptian city of Anu and thus the resurrection of Osiris that was celebrated there. The problem with this is that Bethany does not appear only in connection with the raising of Lazarus, nor does it appear only in John. In the other Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Bethany appears as the place from which Jesus prepares for the triumphal entry (Mark 11:1), the place Jesus was coming from when he cursed the fig tree (Mark 11:11-12) and the place where Jesus was anointed before his death (Mark 14:3). Bethany was not a theological construct to make the reader think of the resurrection of Osiris but was a Jewish town near Jerusalem where Jesus spent time at near the end of his ministry. This town continues to exist today and is known by its Arabic name, ‘el-‘Azariyeh, indicating its connection to the biblical Lazarus.
 
Now let us take a look at Harpur’s attempt to make Lazarus a derivation of the Lord Osiris. Harpur is correct in stating that Asar is the Egyptian name for Osiris, but the rest of his argument quickly falls apart. The use of the definite article with the name of the god misses a number of points. Yes, “the Christ” is an appropriate way to describe Jesus, but not as an expression of reverence but rather because “Christ” is a title, meaning “Anointed One,” and not a name. Yes, “the Osiris” was also used but not for the god Osiris (his name, not his title), but for each dead person who hoped to experience the same resurrection as Osiris and was therefore called “the Osiris.” Harpur is incorrect in claiming that the Hebrew el means “lord,” as it actually means “God.” The amount of linguistic gymnastics required to explain a story written in Greek by combining Hebrew, Egyptian and Latin languages into one name, clearly demonstrate the forced nature of this argument.

Is the rejection of “Lazarus” as a reference to the raising of Osiris just the stubborn refusal of a traditional biblical interpreter? Possibly, if John 11 was the only place that the name “Lazarus” appeared. But another person named Lazarus also appears in Luke 16:19-31. This is the famous story of the rich man and poor Lazarus, who both died and experienced an after-life exactly the opposite of their earthly life. This is extremely significant for the current discussion in that the rich man asked that Lazarus be resurrected so that he could warn the rich man’s family of the danger of their extravagant and selfish lifestyle. The request to resurrect Lazarus was rejected because it was known even a resurrection would not turn their lives around. The fact that the name “Lazarus” was used in a story where a resurrection was explicitly denied, proves that the name was not created to illustrate the fabled resurrection of Osiris. The traditional explanation that Lazarus is a form of the Old Testament Eleazar, meaning ‘God has helped,’ makes much more sense.

The information offered has already been enough to show that the raising of Lazarus is not just a form of the earlier raising of Osiris. If there are still some doubts there is yet more information. The two events played much different roles in each religion and their natures are quite different. The raising of Lazarus was more a resuscitation than a resurrection. Lazarus, as well as others that Jesus raised (such as Jairus’ daughter described in Matthew 5:21-43 and the widow’s son described in Luke 7:11-17), each had to die at some point later in their lives. Also, as important as the raising of Lazarus was, it was not the defining event in Christianity. It was rather a foreshadow of Jesus’ power over death, as well as being an event that moved the conflict with the Pharisees towards Jesus’ crucifixion.

Finally, it is important to note Jesus’ relationship with Lazarus. Jesus was good friends with Lazarus, Mary and Martha and they were supporters of his ministry. The raising of Lazarus was an act of love and mercy for a family that he cared for. The raising of Osiris was much different. This was a true resurrection in which Osiris would never have to taste death again. His body was not merely revived, it was also transformed. As E. A. Wallis Budge stated in his extensive work on the resurrection of Osiris:

When Osiris stepped from the ladder into heaven, he entered in among the company of gods as a “living being,” not merely as one about to begin a second state of existence with the limited powers and faculties which he possessed upon earth, but as one who felt that he had the right to rule heaven and the denizens thereof. He possessed a complete body, the nature of which had been changed by ceremonies which Horus, and his sons, and the assistant Tcherti goddesses, had performed for him…

The nature of the resurrection of Osiris is much closer to that of Jesus than to that of Lazarus but, as shown earlier, Harpur prefers a comparison with Horus. The resurrection of Osiris was not just an interesting event in Egyptian mythology. The resurrection of Osiris could be described as the defining event in the Egyptian religion. It was in Osiris that people found hope after death, to the point that Osiris absorbed many of the characteristics and roles of earlier gods of the dead. The dead took on the title “the Osiris”, having their families re-enacting the rituals of Horus so they may share in Osiris’ original resurrection. The raising of Lazarus does not play a role even close to that in the Gospels. Finally, Horus was not just a friend of Osiris, he was his son. Much of Horus’ role was as the protector and savior of his father Osiris and this expectation began from his birth. As important as it must have been for Jesus to revive his friend Lazarus, it was not of the same significance of Horus’ raising of Osiris in the Egyptian religion. There can be little doubt that the raising of Lazarus and the raising of Osiris are completely different and separate stories with little in common except for the theme of a physical return from death.

The Gospel According to Elaine Pagels

One of the most influential voices in suggesting that Gnosticism was a parallel and equal contender with Orthodoxy in being true Christianity is Elaine Pagels.  Pagels, along with many others, claim that history was written by the winners and that Gnosticism is only considered a heresy because Orthodoxy won the theological war.  I found an interesting article by Bruce Chilton about Elaine Pagels’ views.  You can read the article here.  It is clear that Pagels’ views are skewed and not in line with most readings of early Christianity.

Divinity By Decree: Part Two

Did Jesus receive his divinity by a vote at the Council of Nicaea?  In part one of this discussion, we looked at Jewish monotheism and saw that there was some flexibility within that monotheism that could conceive of a divine figure beside the Heavenly Father.  But just because there was potential within Judaism, does not mean that the earliest Christians understood Jesus as being divine.  Let us look at the biblical evidence.

There are many places that we could look for biblical evidence of Jesus’ divinity.  There are hints of it in the synoptic Gospels, including Jesus’ forgiveness of people’s sins.  But the natural place for us to begin is the Gospel of John.  The most famous text is that of John 1:1-3.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”

This seems pretty clear. I recently read a booklet by the Jehovah’s Witnesses that warned us that we must interpret these verses by the rest of the Gospel of John. I completely agree. In addition to the verses that they mention which speak of a distinctiveness between the Father and Jesus, there are other relevent passages.

“Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.” “You are not yet fifty years old,” the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!” “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:56-58)

F.F. Bruce comments on this verse: “How can a man who is ‘not yet fifty years old’ speak like that? Only if he speaks as the Word that had been with God in the beginning and was now incarnate on earth.” (F.F. Bruce, Gospel of John, p. 205) We must also consider these verses:

“Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7)

“Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:27-28)

It seems obvious that John sees Jesus not just as a human teacher but as the divine Son of God. This has led some scholars to suggest that John must be very late, even into the second century, for it to have such a high Christology. Archaeological evidence suggests that John is a first century text, but our basis of Jesus’ divinity is not based solely on John.

Long before John sat down to write his Gospel, Paul was writing epistles to various churches. In fact, Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents that we have. Did Paul see Jesus as only human, or was there a divine nature? Let us take a look.

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Philippians 2:5-7)

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:15-17)

What is interesting about these passages is that many scholars believe that Paul is not just making this up but that he is quoting earlier Christian hymns of faith. So we have an already early Paul, quoting even earlier material about the divine Jesus.

Another interesting passage is from 1 Corinthians:

“There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)

In the New Testament, ‘Lord’ is normally used of Jesus and ‘God’ is normally used of the Father. In this passage, we have Spirit, Lord and God used in parallel. Thus, what we find is proto-trinitarian language.

In addition we have the powerful testimony of the book of Hebrews written by an unknown author (I believe it was Apollos).

“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” (Hebrews 1:3)

There is much more that we could look at. We could look at how Old Testament passages that speak of the LORD (YHWH) are applied to the Lord (Jesus). But even what I have presented show that both earlier and later texts of the New Testament testify to a divine nature to Jesus hundreds of years before Nicaea.

 

The Historical Jesus and the Historical Muhammad

I recently listened to an interesting lecture comparing the historical Jesus and the historical Muhammad.  You can download the lecture here.  The material regarding the historical Jesus is pretty straightf  forward.  But the lecture on the historical Muhammad was completely new to me.  I have read the Qur’an and have read a number of books on Islam but I had never come across what was claimed in this lecture.  If there are any experts on Islam (whether Muslim or not) out there, I would love to hear your thoughts on these claims.   

The Bible and Pagan Holidays

The subject of holidays with pagan origins came up recently in our discussion on Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I mentioned that I consider this a “Samaritan” issue, that is a nonessential.  However, I would like to pursue this a bit in that it has value in a lesson on applying biblical principles on a subject not directly mentioned in the Bible.  Not only that, this is not just a Jehovah’s Witness issue.  I know of Christians who feel uncomfortable with holidays because of their pagan origins and churches that are uncomfortable with Christmas trees for the same reason.  It is not the idea of holidays that are the issue, as Jesus celebrated both biblical (Passover, Tabernacles etc.) and nonbiblical (Hannukah) holidays (holy days).  It is the pagan origins that are the problem. 

I already mentioned that pagan influence goes deep in our culture.  Even our days (Wednesday = Woden’s Day, Thursday = Thor’s Day) and months (January = Janus, March = Mars) are often named from the pagan gods.  But to make things even more complicated, the Bible itself is not afraid to borrow from the pagans.  A common word for the world of the dead in the New Testament is hades.  Not only is Hades the place of the dead in Greek mythology, it is also the name of the Greek god of the dead.  Paradise (a favourite term for the resurrection earth for Jehovah’s Witnesses) is a Persian word for garden that was used in Persian mythology to describe the hope of a blessed afterlife.  Obviously the biblical authors were not afraid to borrow from the pagans.  But I believe that there are two passages that are particularly applicable.

In 1 Corinthians 8 (see also 1 Corinthians 10:23-33), Paul discusses the eating of meat that had been dedicated to idols.  This is the heart of pagan origins.  What is interesting is that Paul does not ban the practice.  Paul agrees with the group at Corinth that idols are nothing and that the gods do not exist.  This means that no matter what religious dedication took place, meat is still always just meat.  That does not mean that there is no limit on this freedom.  Although the Corinthians are free to eat the meat, they must be sensitive to the weaker group that still believe that idols are real.  The stronger group should not use their freedom to cause their weaker brothers and sisters to stumble.  The application is obvious.  If you have a Christian friend who comes from a Jehovah’s Witness background or who otherwise believes that holidays are bad, do not send them cards or presents or invite them to your house when it is all decorated.  You are free to celebrate but do not let that cause another to stumble.

But can God really tolerate something of pagan origin?  And is it just bare tolerance or can something of pagan origin actually become positive?  There is a very interesting story that is found in the Old Testament.

“Moses said to the whole Israelite community, “This is what the LORD has commanded: From what you have, take an offering for the LORD. Everyone who is willing is to bring to the LORD an offering of gold, silver and bronze; blue, purple and scarlet yarn and fine linen; goat hair; ram skins dyed red and hides of sea cows; acacia wood; olive oil for the light; spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense; and onyx stones and other gems to be mounted on the ephod and breastpiece.” (Exodus 35:4-9)

We need to ask: where did the Israelites get such treasure?  They were slaves in Egypt and have been on the run since then.  It had to come from somewhere, so where did they get it?  The answer is found in an event after the tenth plague when the Hebrews were still in Egypt.

“The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and for clothing. The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.” (Exodus 12:35-36)

This is very interesting.  If you have studied anything about Egypt, you will know that very little was “secular.”  It is likely that the gold and the silver that the Hebrews took was covered with images of their gods.  Not only was this treasure of pagan origin allowable for personal use, this was the material that was used to construct the Tabernacle.  The Tabernacle was constructed of material of pagan origin!

What is the application?  Many of our holidays do have some pagan influence in their origins, as does almost every other aspect of society.  The question is: what is their role now?  If Christmas is used to focus on God sending his Son, Easter on the death of Jesus and his resurrection, Thanksgiving to give thanks to God, and New Years to decide to make a new start at a godly life, then God can use these things, even with some pagan origin as he did with the construction of the Tabernacle. 

But I must be clear: I am not arguing that people who are uncomfortable with holidays should start celebrating them.  If you are convinced in your mind that holidays are bad, then God bless you.  What I am asking is that people on both sides have tolerance, for as we can see from the biblical witness, the situation is much more complicate than we thought.
 

  

Jehovah’s Witnesses and What the Bible Really Teaches

Recently two pleasant ladies came to our door.  They were Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I immediately I told them I was a pastor so as not to pretend that I was ignorant of the Bible and then to suddenly surprise them.  They were still interested in talking to me, although I could tell they did change gears.  They gave me a book and asked to visit with me again.  The book was titled, What the Bible Really Teaches.  I did read it and I want to respond quickly to a number of issues.  I divide them into Samaritan issues and essential issues.

Samaritan issues are inspired by Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well.  When the conversation became too personal, the Samaritan woman tried to divert the conversation into a debate about where true worship should take place.  Jehovah’s Witnesses do this in a number of ways but I will only mention a few.  JW’s claim that Jesus was crucified not on a cross but on a sake.  Part of their reason is to avoid the “idolatry” of “false” Christians who decorate their homes and bodies with crosses.  Although historical and archaelogical evidence support the translation of “cross,” it is safe to say that God will not decide our eternal fate by how many planks we thought were used on Good Friday.  JWs also believe it is wrong to celebrate holidays.  They do not mention that Jesus celebrated both biblical and nonbiblical holidays.  They object to the pagan origins of holidays.  In this they include New Years, even though Rosh Hashanah is New Years, although at a different time.  As for pagan origins, our days and months often go back to pagan worship.  January and March come from the Roman gods Janus and Mars.  Wednesday and Thursday come from the Teutonic gods Woden and Thor.  Do we stop using those as well?  What we must remember is that these arguments have more sociological than theological value.  They serve as identity markers to separate JWs from the heathen masses.

More important than these are issues like the identity of Jesus.  They see Jesus and Michael the archangel as the same being.  This, even though the first chapters of Hebrews go to great lengthes to argue that Jesus is greater than any angel.  They reject the Trinity as it is not mentioned in the Bible.  Canon, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence are words not mentioned in the Bible but they accept those concepts.  By making Jesus a god and not God they are going against the Jewish concept of monotheism, a belief that Jesus explicitly endorsed.  Orthodox Christians affirm there is only one God but that he is Father, Son and Spirit.  They can argue that the Trinity was created by a corrupt church council.  Do they realise that the same people who developed the description of the Trinity also defined the canon?  Our first canonical list of all 66 books comes from Athanasius, one of the greatest defenders of the orthodox view of the deity of Christ.  If they are wrong on the Trinity, were they wrong with the canon of 66 books as well?  JWs also believe that people cease to exist at death and then much later God chooses to resurrect them.  They are correct in their emphasis on the resurrection but incorrect on the end of existence at death.  There are numerous descriptions of shades of the deceased in Sheol and in 1 Samuel 28, the shade of Samuel is contacted and communicated with.  Jesus told the thief on the cross that they would be in Paradise that day and we see the souls of the martyrs in Revelation calling out to God before the resurrection.  As for the name Jehovah, that is an acceptable although not preferrable form of the Hebrew YHWH.  It is fine to use that but what they neglect to tell people is that the New Testament never uses the name Jehovah.  In fact the New Testament is unanimous that the name by which people are saved is Jesus.

I plan to work through this in greater detail at a later date.  But for the moment, my advice, if you are encountering Jehovah’s Witnesses is to avoid the Samaritan issues and focus on the essentials.  That is what Jesus did with the woman at the well.

More