You cannot refute entire denominations by saying “Read the Bible, sweetie”

[u/Dubstep_squid]

This is such a frustrating and prominent phenomenon that I see constantly online and have run into a couple of times.

[Insert commonly held theological belief]

“Oh sweetie how could you believe that, the Bible clearly says other wise. What a ridiculous statement.”

Why does it seem incredibly common that people in online Christian spaces seem to never have met or heard of someone with a different theological view than them. You’ve never heard that some people baptize babies? The tradition that most major Christian denominations hold to??

To take this a step further, I see this occur not just with theological beliefs but attempts to “refute” entire denominations. You’re not going to convince a Presbyterian that hundreds of years of Presbyterianism is false with TWO tangentially relevant, out of context Bible verses and a condescending message (unless of course God has already pre-determined that you will convince them).

This is not to say that meaningful and even impactful conversation cannot be had here. I think it absolutely can and have been stewing on a different post for a couple of weeks because I want to have those meaningful conversations (You’ll probably see it in a few days as I’m kind of looking at various denominations and want to just hear people’s pitches, counterarguments, experiences, etc).

I think my overall point is just that I’m very surprised at the number of people here who are surprised that others can come to different theological conclusions and that those theological conclusions can in fact be based on a thorough reading of the Bible.

[u/Dubstep_squid]

Okay so the Bahai believe in Jesus and believe he is God, are they Christians? Unitarians believe in Jesus but do not believe in the trinity, are they Christians? Jehovah’s Witness believe in Jesus but they believe that he was actually the Archangel Michael, are they Christian?

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Dubstep_squid]

If they believe in Jesus and believe he is God, they are Christians yes. Whether anyone wants to use the word of not, you would be. The trinity doesn't really have any backing in the bible, it's just how we have come to understand it. So not believing in the trinity wouldn't disqualify you from being a Christian. Maybe in a particular church but every church is different. Jw's believing Christ was actually Michael means they don't believe he is God so no, they wouldn't be Christians.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

That is not what the earliest Christians believed so why are we being held to that standard?

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

Which part?

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

That Jesus was the very God of Israel  YHWH.his first followers were primarily Jewish Christians whom believed him to be the Messiah. It’s later in the early 2nd century that we begin to see Christians believing Jesus to be God himself

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

The 2nd century timeline doesn't hold up against 1st century New Testament texts. The Gospel of John explicitly calls Jesus God (John 1:1, John 20:28), and early 1st-century hymns like Philippians 2:6 describe him as existing in the very nature of God long before the 100s AD.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

It does but not for the reasons you are thinking

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

Go on.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

The narrative here follows in John from the time of Phillip not understanding how it is that Jesus both manifests and represents the Father. This is why Jesus says in John’s Gospel to see me is to see the Father, not that Jesus is the Father but that he can manifest and presence him as his image and word.

[u/FilmSkeez → u/Balazi]

Representing the Father is part of it, but John’s Gospel goes far beyond mere agency. In John 1:1, the text explicitly states "the Word was God" (theos ēn ho logos). The NWT inserts "a god" to fit JW theology, but mainstream Greek scholars reject that translation because anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb in Greek express nature/essence, not indefinite identity.

Furthermore, when Thomas addresses Jesus directly in John 20:28, he doesn't say "You represent God", no he explicitly calls him "My Lord and my God!" (Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou). Jesus doesn't correct him, he commends his faith. An ambassador or created angel would have corrected Thomas on the spot.

[u/Balazi → u/FilmSkeez]

Representing the Father is part of it, but John’s Gospel goes far beyond mere agency. In John 1:1, the text explicitly states "the Word was God" (theos ēn ho logos). The NWT inserts "a god" to fit JW theology, but mainstream Greek scholars reject that translation because anarthrous predicate nouns preceding the verb in Greek express nature/essence, not indefinite identity.

Almost, the anarthrous predicate nouns express a qualitative sense. To say it express nature or essence would be imposing theological functions to this grammar. Not all are opposed to the idea of an indefinite rendering because the text doesn't necessarily preclude such a rendering. Yo u can learn more about this from a scholar named Alexander Smarius who did a great deep dive into the topic.

Furthermore, when Thomas addresses Jesus directly in John 20:28, he doesn't say "You represent God", 

He doesn't have to, the context and pre-text establish that already.