Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?

Christian orthodoxy would say Christ is still human. If being human means he can make mistakes, then he still could be making them. If God inspired scripture, and God is human, which Christian orthodoxy says he is in the form of Christ, then he could be inspiring scripture with errors. You’ve got a bit of a slippery slope with that point of view.

With all due respect to to anyone who disagrees, I think we are majoring in the minors regarding the gospel to concentrate on such questions. Lots of folks try to disaprove the major portions of the gospel by asking such questions, which are not really relevant to the essentials, thinking they can disaprove or distract from it by such minor questions. I personally don’t go there with them, or let it make me doubt it myself because it gets the focus off who Christ really is, as the Son of God in the long run, which is the most important, as opposed to His brief time of humanity here on the earth.

Unfortunately we live in a time where illegitamacy seems to be rampant. But the Bar Sinister has been around for a long time and I’m sure more than one Jew was “born on the wrong side of the sheets.”

So, unless Jesus was really bad at math I’d say he experienced quite a few “negative” emotions the first time he calculated that his parents had been married X years but he was X + 1 years old. (Did I do that right?)

He may have become aware that he was God about the time he asked one of them to explain that.

As for why we are discussing it here. Because we don’t go out and get drunk and try to pick up chicks way out of our league on Wednesday nights. And the Super Bowl is over, the NBA playoffs are a few weeks away, March madness doesn’t start for two or so weeks and Spring training is not quite here. And we are men for goodness sake and we need to discuss something meaningless!

Along with mbaker, I concur that “I think we are majoring in the minors.” Most of these questions and answers are not only off point, but hindering deeper and more direct understandings of what the Apostles and first disciples were actually communicating and bequeathing to true followers of and believers in Jesus, the Messiah, who was, as such, explicitly and not speculationally (_a la_ subsequent doctrinal developments) the Son of God. Reading these kinds of questions as being relevant, and giving fantastical conclusions about when Jesus “knew he was God” are so far off the historical terrain and anachronistic that they should be laughable, if they weren’t so post 4th Century common.

Yes, a non essential fun question that instigates thought. Hardly divisive tho. But it does help us to wrestle with the implications of the hypo static union and is a good gauge as to where people are at theologically with regard to Christ. So I stand by this post!!

He probably could have made a mistake solving a maths problem. Though I am cautious about calling this an error.

When he learnt to speak he may not have been able to pronounce some consonants (as is usual) so that could perhaps be considered an error. Or perhaps it took a while to establish correct syntax? Likewise, there may have been mathematical problem (Euclid’s Elements existed) he knew he was unable to solve.

We need to distinguish errors of limitation and errors of false belief. I could say I am unsure about something but this is what I think is possibly the case. Or I could say this is completely true and I reject any claim otherwise. The first is hardly an error, though the second is.

Admitting to limited knowledge but being forced to answer (eg. maths quiz) is not errant in the way that claiming authority of (false) facts is.

If the Son did not know “the hour,” it is not inconceivable that the Son got a math problem wrong or other Abiathar-like incidentals. Christians need to take seriously both John 1:1 and John 1:14. My $0.02, but my math might be wrong …

From my point of view, you seem to be comparing 2 very different things here – the nature of Jesus, and the nature of Scripture. I would say that “yes” Jesus could have got a maths problem wrong. He was not without error, he was without sin. To suggest that he went through life without making (unsinful) mistakes would be to take something from his humanity.

However, the issue with the Abiathar passage that we need to wrestle with is more about whether or not we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, than the inerrancy of Christ. It’s not so much that maybe Jesus said something that was wrong, because that in itself isn’t a problem (unless it was sinfully wrong). It’s more that we’re saying the Scripture is wrong, in which case it’s not inerrant, and thus the problem arises.

First, some are presenting a false dilemma regarding the issues we discuss. Just because we hold strongly to the centrality of the Gospel doesn’t mean it’s pointless to discuss anything else.

As far as this issue goes, I think this becomes a question of the inspiration and infallibility of Christ’s teaching—whether recorded in Scripture or not. Was Jesus’ teaching on spiritual matters infallible because of his knowledge or because of the inspiration of the Spirit? If the Holy Spirit preserved Christ’s spiritual teaching from error, why could he not—or would he not—preserve all of his teaching from error? And if Christ’s teaching included error concerning Abiathar, could he have also been wrong on historical comments regarding Jonah or Moses? And if he had these kinds of facts wrong in his inspired teaching, how can we assume the spiritual content is error-free?

I should have clarified that I have no problem with the idea of Jesus getting a problem wrong on a math test. But I think we’re dealing with something of a very different nature when we bring into the picture his Spirit-empowered ministry.

CMP, there’s nothing wrong with this post. Docetism is bad theology, but I think it’s where many people land, consciously or unconsciously, so it’s worth discussion. Thank you for addressing it.

Myself, I have no problem with Jesus erring, as error is not automatically sinful. Did Jesus have perfect recall of everything anyone said? As a carpenter, did he ever cut a board a little too short? Did he ever accidentally call someone by the wrong name?

Regarding the issue of whether that affects Jesus’ reliability, he did say that his words, his teachings, come directly from the Father. In John 14:24 he specifically draws a distinction between his words and the Father’s.

He seems to be saying that his teaching does not come from his humanity, but from his reliance on the Father. Does that carry an implication that his humanity was not inerrant? If it was, why the distinction?

[…] • C. Michael Patton discusses Christology and whether or not Jesus could have gotten a math problem wrong. […]

“Inerrancy” is its own worst enemy. It either results in believing in a Bible inerrantists wish we had instead of the Bible we actually do have, or it comes freighted with so many qualifications to allow for the problematic Scriptures and/or harmonizations that it no longer means “inerrant” as the term would be applied to any other document or thing.

EricW,

Would you mind giving us some examples of these excessive qualifications and harmonizations, and of the other documents or things to which the term inerrancy is applied?

(And how do you personally view the authority of Scripture? Is it authoritative? And, if so, on what do you base it’s authority?)

I certainly agree that errors, unless deliberate, are not the same as sin.

I just think that that when we don’t make the distinction between Christ coming as God in human form, and His humanity possibly affecting His teaching as such, are we not in a sense ‘consciously or unconsciously landing’, as Dave Z put it, on the reverse form of Docetism?

We need to look at how these discussions possibly affect people who are already doubting their faith, and unbelievers
who read these type things, (which may seem pretty harmless to us), especially those who may misunderstand and say, “See, I told you so, Jesus wasn’t perfect after all. Even Christians don’t think so.’

Just a thought.

Jesus can make a mistake in math. Error in math is either knowlege-based (he didn’t learn, or at least didn’t learn it well), or operation-based (he made an error in calculation).

His teachings, on the other hand, concern spirituality and morality, which by definition is not based on knowledge or operation. It’s therefore impossible to commit a “spiritual” or a “moral” error without deliberately violating the “spiritual” or “moral” standard that one holds.

We may therefore safely argue that even IF Jesus indeed made mistakes on some of the factoids (such as the tidbit about Abiathar), it doesn’t compromise the authority of His teachings. In addition, if we concede that as a limited man Jesus was guided by the Holy Spirit, then how can God allow such factoids to be wrong in any way to compromise the authority of Christ?

It’s along the same line of argument that we use for the Bible. Bible is God-breathed, so even if the wording is limited by human experience (such as the geocentric view of the universe) and corrupted by imperfection (such as copist error), the essential message of the Bible is factual, unaltered and infallible.

There are two rather different interpretations of this “could he” question. One question is whether he could have got a math question wrong HAD HE CHOSEN TO ATTEMPT TO ANSWER A QUESTION HE WASN’T EQUIPPED TO ANSWER. A different question is whether he may have attempted to answer questions he wasn’t equipped to answer and got them wrong. Perhaps he wasn’t equipped to answer all questions, but chose to never answer questions he didn’t know for certain the answer to. We expect people like the Preesident to be very careful about answering questions. Doesn’t mean the president is any more perfect than any one else, but we do expect him to be careful about lending his authority to to answers he hasn’t checked. How much more would someone who is perfect do the same?

Iron sharpens iron and CMP is making practice fun. If all the debating here was boring we wouldn’t be excited about our faith and we certainly wouldn’t come back to this blog and support the ministry.

Let’s add another topic. “Did Jesus ever short sheet his brother’s bed?” C’mon can you imagine a human who didn’t once play a practical joke on someone? Or tell a joke? “A rabbi, a Greek and an Ethiopian walk into a Bar Mitzvah…”

We need to remember that the Bible is “complete” not “comprehensive.” Jesus lived for 30+ years. That is what, over 10,000 days, and we have a few hundred, if even that, pages recording His life. He ministered for 3 or so and those pages record maybe 30 or so days out of the 1,000 plus.

To paraphrase the Uncle from “The Chronicles of Narnia,” Definitions, definitions, don’t they teach definitions anymore?

I don’t consciously think about the difference between mistake and error when I’m using those words. I usually just use the word lie whenever a public figure is talking. (Someone else brought up presidents being careful not to answer questions they don’t know the answer to.)

I have very low regard for scientists, at least how they are reported in the news, since they (or more accurately the “reporter”) never include the information about how their findings could be wrong. So at face value they are presenting something as “fact” that is not necessarily the final word on the subject.

I’ve digressed. I better set this aside and come back to it later.

I did and now it is time to move on. “What’s next?”

My question would be: If Jesus could make mistake as a human being, could he make mistakes (NOT deliberately sinning) that might have hurt people, emotionally or physically?

What makes people think that making mistakes is inherent to being human? Will you make mistakes in heaven?

Francis, I’m not sure I understand your point about knowledge (comment #16). How is teaching on spirituality and morality not dependent on knowledge? Does not one need to know and understand what they’re teaching? Was the spiritual knowledge and understanding of Jesus inherent within him during his life on earth, or from the Father via the Spirit? And if the Spirit kept his spiritual teaching error-free, why not the supporting facts he used?

As a skeptic, I would not have accepted the idea that Christ’s teaching could include factual errors, but still be spiritually error-free. This just seems a little too convenient, too patt an answer. The scriptural authors themselves frequently used a “lesser to greater” method of teaching. Well, if someone who is supposed to be divine can’t keep the facts straight that he’s using to support a claimed spiritual truth, why should I accept the spiritual truth as pristine?

And there’s a big difference between copy errors—that we can discover and correct to their original form—and factual errors in the original, supposedly inspired teaching.

I would ask if the issue was relevant to his mission. Could the man Jesus lift a ton weight for fun?
I think the answer to the questions would be ‘probably for the math one and probably not for the rock one, unless it was to verify who he was as part of his mission from the Father’. He couldn’t do something that goes against his divine nature, like throw himself off a mountain and tell angels to catch him, or make some bread from rocks. I’m probably physically stronger than Jesus, but I don’t have a host of angels ready to back me up the way he did. For what reason would he then be a man? Just so God would know what flesh and blood was like? I don’t think so. Tough question, fun but tough.
Good post CMP, ignore the naysayers.

Could Jesus ever do something that was not sinful?

Like preach to his disciples when he was drunk? Was there wine at the Last Supper?

How do we know that Jesus was not drunk when he preached about everybody being salted with fire?

I suppose the same reason we figure he was not on crack. From the eye of a historian it is a pretty safe bet!

So you can be pretty sure that Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper , but never got drunk, even though it is neither a sin nor an error to be drunk?

MATTHEW 11:19
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

Of course, Jesus was not a friend of tax collectors and sinners…

“So you can be pretty sure that Jesus drank wine at the Last Supper , but never got drunk, even though it is neither a sin nor an error to be drunk?”

I think you’ll find plenty of people who would regard getting drunk as being sinful, even amongst those who don’t regard drinking itself as sinful. (cf Ephesians 5:18 as one example text)

‘I think you’ll find plenty of people who would regard getting drunk as being sinful, even amongst those who don’t regard drinking itself as sinful. ‘

People do differ about what is sinful don’t they? But they are not god.

How do you know Jesus was never drunk? Because the Bible doesn’t say so?

Ephesians 5:17-18 ‘Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. ‘

So is it also a sin to be foolish? Or is it just a sin not to follow any advice Paul gave to people?

“How do you know Jesus was never drunk? Because the Bible doesn’t say so?”

No, because the Bible says that drunkenness is a sin, and that Jesus was without sin

“Ephesians 5:17-18 ‘Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. ‘
So is it also a sin to be foolish? Or is it just a sin not to follow any advice Paul gave to people?”

That was one example of many which indicate that drunkenness is a sin. Drunkards and drunkenness are consistently associate with being “of the flesh” throughout the New Testament.

“Could Jesus Have Gotten a Math Problem Wrong?”

If He went to an L.A. City Unified public school…like I did, He could have. 😀

The drunkard statement is interesting. Is it just a false accusation by people who disliked Jesus? Simple slander? At any rate, we don’t find the same eagerness to take that scriptural statement as literally as say, Ephesians 5:17-18.

I also find it interesting that many pounce on Ephesians 5:17-18, but don’t follow through with 19, which I believe is the primary point Paul is making. It’s about being filled with the Spirit, not about condemning drunkenness. But hey, who cares what Paul really meant as long as we can use his words to push a pet doctrine?

Seems like CMP may have had a post to that effect once, but it didn’t turn up in my search.

“The drunkard statement is interesting. Is it just a false accusation by people who disliked Jesus? Simple slander?”

It’s actually Jesus who says to the Pharisees that he came eating and drinking, but they accused him of being a glutton and a drunkard. The implication, as far as I can tell, is that he is not. I couldn’t find any particular evidence to suggest that he was.

“I also find it interesting that many pounce on Ephesians 5:17-18, but don’t follow through with 19, which I believe is the primary point Paul is making. It’s about being filled with the Spirit, not about condemning drunkenness. But hey, who cares what Paul really meant as long as we can use his words to push a pet doctrine?”

Ephesians 5:17-18 may not be the best example. How about these:

[11] Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. [12] The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. [13] Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. [14] But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
(Romans 13:11-14 ESV)

[19] Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, [21] envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Galatians 5:19-21 ESV)

[9] Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, [10] nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. [11] And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV)

So if somebody is not a drunkard, it follows that he is never once in his life drunk.

The Pharisees also accused him of ‘‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

Obviously the implication is that he was not a friend of tax collectors and sinners.

And if the Bible never mentions Jesus being drunk when preaching to his disciples, this is a powerful argument from silence.

“So if somebody is not a drunkard, it follows that he is never once in his life drunk.”

Not necessarily. But did you look at the other 3 passages I mentioned, 2 of which identify “drunkenness” as sin, rather than being a drunkard.

“The Pharisees also accused him of ‘‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’
Obviously the implication is that he was not a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”

Jesus is providing a contrast of the Pharisees reaction to him and their reaction to John.

I think it is consistent with Scripture to say that Jesus wasn’t a glutton, although he did eat. Nor was he a drunkard, although he did drink.

It would be inconsistent to suggest that he wasn’t a friend of tax collectors and sinners, as we know from many other passages that he was – one of his disciples had been a tax collector, for instance.

“And if the Bible never mentions Jesus being drunk when preaching to his disciples, this is a powerful argument from silence.”

I’m not trying to argue from silence. That is a slippy road to walk. What I am suggesting is that it is possible to demonstrate from Scripture that drunkenness is a sin, and that Jesus was without sin, and therefore Jesus was never drunk.

I’m not sure why this is being treated as such a radical and dangerous idea – I would’ve thought it was consistent not only with Scripture but also with church tradition.

Ben, I had a whole response typed out but deleted it because I think we’re veering too far OT with the drunkenness thing. I’ll just say that your references do show we should not live lives of drunkenness. 🙂

Yeah guys, you still didn’t answer the question at the end of it all. lol Jesus probably never did trig or calculus. Surely if it were a test of His divinity then yes, He would get any answer to any question correct because that would prove His divinity.
Interesting discussion though. I heard somewhere that there are many different words that we translate as wine, such as one being defined simply as ‘the juice of pressed fruit’, another being defined as ‘the FERMENTED juice of pressed fruit’, and that Jesus is never associated with the fermented juice kind. Is this true?

I recently watched a documentary called “How Beer Saved the World.”

Basically the fermenation process, be it for wine or beer, kills the bad stuff. And quite frankly much of the water available at that time probably had some pretty nasty stuff in it.

You can control the amount of alcohol produced and I’m sure brewers back then knew how strong their hooch was. There were different types of “adult” beverages for different occasions. (I can never remember one or two of which letter.)

The people building the pyramids drank a lot of beer each day. It was as much nutrition as liquid. And I’m sure they were buzzed. (Please remember “buzzed driving is drunk driving.” PSA courtesy of the Ad Council and this station.)

And that ration of rum for sailors wasn’t for their health as much as to get them to climb 50′ up the mast of a ship being tossed in a storm and not particularly care about it.

I’m sure that the alcohol in the wine and other beverages being consumed had some effect on those drinking it. But hey, can you even conceive of the living conditions? You’d need to be a little buzzed to make it through the day.

But get off the drunkard stuff. If you want to follow that road to its logical conclusion you could pretty much say that EVERYONE up to and including many in the 21st century lived life at least half-sloshed. That would put pretty much all of mankind’s knowledge including much of today’s scientific research into question because people drink. So how do we know which ones did it when?

Curt,

I agree with you: teaching on spirituality and morality must be dependent on a knowledge of spirituality and morality, or at least an awareness of spirituality and morality.

Romans 2 says: “(The gentiles) show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

Since I do not believe that “spirituality and morality” is a subject that must be learned (I am aware that modern psychology believes otherwise), I theorized that Jesus’s teaching was not dependent on what he was taught (as math or physics would have to be), but on what he already understood.

If the knowledge of, and therefore the authority to teach, “the code of God” is entirely independent on how “learned” a person is, it should have been a well-trained Pharisaic rabbi, rather than Jesus, who was the central figure of the 4 gospels.

Now, that is not to say that I believe Jesus’s teaching contained factual errors, for exactly the reason that you named: “And if the Spirit kept his spiritual teaching error-free, why not the supporting facts he used?” I was merely saying that even IF factual errors were made, it does not compromise Jesus’s aurthority in his teaching in any way, shape or form.

So you are right. I was wrong in saying that “His teachings, on the other hand, concern spirituality and morality, which by definition is not based on knowledge or operation.” My argument was that Jesus’s teachings was not dependent on what he’d learned or how much he’d learned, but what he knew or understood independent of his previous learning.

Is it a stupid thing to ask, but what has Christ acknowledging God as his father to do with Him understanding himself to be God ? Surely God is Lord and Father of us all?
No doubt Christ was aware of being filled with God’s spirit — and to this extent he is divine, but no-where does he claim to be God
Blessings
John

Wow John B.
I’m not sure if that was a genuine comment or an attempt to put the cat amongst the pigeons.
‘No-where does Jesus claim to be God’ eh?
not sure where to start…
Blessings
William

As a human Christ was CAPABLE of anything any human is capable of doing.

Christ took on him the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16), a body was prepared for him by the Father (Heb 10:5) and Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh.(om 8:3)

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the SAME;…

This issue is solved by the same answer to the “impeccability of Christ” issue: Namely, could Jesus Christ have sinned?

The answer is, as the man Christ Jesus (as pertaining to the flesh Rom 1:3; 9:5) he was CAPABLE of sinning, as God manifest in the flesh and the Word which was made flesh, he would never sin. (and never did sin- Heb 4:15; Joh 8:46; 2Co 5:21; 1Pe 2:22; 1Jo 3:5)

So the Scriptures, never record a math error, Christ stumbling or getting sick. And it would be WRONG to assume that Christ actually did any of these; but as a man who was a partaker of flesh and blood, was CAPABLE of getting a math problem wrong, stumbling and getting sick.

BTW— being a man of sorrows, does NOT mean he was depressed (as defined by a typical psychologist)

two more questions about this issue:

Why did Christ have to LEARN OBEDIENCE? Does that mean he ever disobeyed? (Breaking the fifth commandment?)
Hebrews 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Why would he have to “learn to be obedient” if he was obedient from birth?

Did Christ break the fourth commandment?
John 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
Since Christ is Lord of the Sabbath (Lk 6:5), was it acceptable (i.e. not sin) to break the sabbath?

Hi William,
I,v ,been round the block, a few times and cannot find a single ,proof text, for Christs deity.
I do not have a problem with his divinity.
When we talk about God are we talking about
(i)God who is the father of Moses, Abraham and Isaac, and our Lord Jesus Christ OR
(ii) Three persons sharing one substance, one of whom has a double nature ?
Anyone living in the first century would have had no doubt about this matter. It seems that it took many many years for people to become confused..confusing themselves and each other!! We have the church in Rome to thank for this.
Every Blessing
John

Err…. My dictionary says divinity and deity are synonyms.

And the trinity formulation was agreed by world wide bishops, not dictated by Rome. If you don’t know that I’m not sure how qualified you are to be lecturing about this stuff.

John B.
hmm…
So, are you a JW?
Not meaning to jump to any conclusions or any disrespect but I have heard a lot of this type of talk from JW’s.
Since this is your view then please allow my disinclination to get into a debate with you since I don’t think you will listen to my points, or anyone else’s and take them up.
William

JJohn
Talking about qualifications….
The word ‘divine’ means ‘of God’
As Emerson said ‘to err is human, to love divine’
The word ‘deity’ means ‘a God’

When I say that I believe Christ to be divine I mean that
(i) He was filled with God’s spirit
(ii)He was God’s agent -or right hand man
(iii)He status as Lord and Messiah was divinely ordained

BUT he was not God, and I’m convinced that this man, who always deflected praise away from himself to his Father, would be greatly saddened to be worshipped as God.
There are NO proof verses to support the ‘Jesus- God’ position. In fact there are many, many verses which are to the contrary.
Who did Jesus pray to?
Who empowered Jesus?

Best wishes
John

I’m not sure I really want to enter this debate (again), but I can’t really help myself….

“BUT he was not God, and I’m convinced that this man, who always deflected praise away from himself to his Father, would be greatly saddened to be worshipped as God.”

And yet he chose not to chastise Thomas who declared “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

“There are NO proof verses to support the ‘Jesus- God’ position. In fact there are many, many verses which are to the contrary.”

How about John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word with God, and the Word was God”. Or Philippians 2:6 “He did not count equality with God something to be grasped”.

Or how about the times when He claimed for himself attributes that only God could have, like the ability to forgive sins. Or when he used the Jewish phrase “I Am”, echoing God when He called Moses.

“Who did Jesus pray to?
Who empowered Jesus?”

Jesus prayed to the Father, and was empowered by the Spirit. Are you saying that Jesus _wasn’t_ God, but the Father and the Spirit are?!?

As questioned above, it sounds like you are coming from a Jehovah’s Witness point of view, which, as far as the traditional church is concerned is not orthodox because it is unable to ascribe to any of the central creeds of the church.

The trinity has been a central belief of the church from the earliest records, and this belief _is_ affirmed by Scripture – the verses above are just a tiny sample. I think it can be safely assumed that any church who denies the Trinity would be regarded as heterodox.

John B: how did the church that chose what books should be authoritative make a mistake that big, and should we trust its decision about those books if it was so off track?

“I and the Father are one.” 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God,” (John 10:30-33)

So even the Jews of the time tried to kill Jesus because they said He was claiming to be God. And yet there are no verses that support the fact He claimed to be God?
So there is no claim to be ‘a God’ but God. Unless of course you want to rewrite the grammatical rule book for koine greek. But then if you are a JW, you probably would despite the fact most of the NWT was translated by a man with NO peer reviewed work, not a scholar, and mostly self taught. F.W. Franz was a clever man though. Got to give him a little credit.

For me, debates are about reaching the right conclusion/truth by following the evidence, NOT defending a position, and with all due respect, JW’s no matter how hammered they get in a debate are unwilling to accept the sheer WEIGHT of evidence facing them, like an insurmountable cliff face of which one cannot see the top, then saying it isn’t there.
The atheist Anthony Flew ended up a theist just by following the evidence, all credit to him. I used to be a pentecostal, holy roller, all that really really embarrassing stuff, ashamed as I am of it now, but in seeking the truth my opinion has changed.
I’m sorry if this has come across as disrespectful, I don’t mean it too.
William

In respect of defending a position, I mean when it no longer seems reasonable to do so. There is of course no problem in defending a position (unless it is indefensible), as iron sharpens iron, and as diamond cuts diamond, debates are necessary to further our knowledge and to help us reach right conclusions.