Who's misquoting John McKenzie

Subject:  Who's Actually Misquoting John McKenzie?

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated "the word was with the God
[=the Father], and the word was a divine being." Dictionary of the
Bible, 317, John McKenzie
As quoted in _Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah's Witnesses_
by Ron Rhodes, p. 105:
"The Watchtower reasoning seems to be that since Jesus was just
a 'divine being,' He is less than Jehovah....However, on the same
page McKenzie calls Yahweh (Jehovah) 'a divine personal being';
McKenzie also states that Jesus is called 'God' in both John 20:28
and Titus 2:13 and that John 1:18 expresses 'an identity between God
and Jesus Christ.' So McKenzie's words actually argue against the
Watchtower position."
Reply: Is this really true though?
A) Are not both Jesus and Jehovah "divine beings?" So what exactly is
the point, especially since they are differentiated with the
adjective "personal." Obviously, the fact that Jesus is only
a "divine being" and Jehovah a "divine personal being" has led to
some websites stating incorrectly that Jesus was termed a "divine
personal being." See http://www.letusreason.org/JW38.htm]
Next to "the God [=the Father]" Jesus was just a "divine being", not
even a "divine personal being."
Additionally, Catholics like McKenzie have no problems calling
angels "divine beings":
"All gods: divine beings thoroughly subordinate to Israel's God. The
Greek translates 'angels,' an interpretation adopted by Hebrews 1:6."
Ps. 97:7 NAB footnote
I have no problem in "an identity between God and Jesus Christ" since
it was Jesus who said that he that seen him has seen the Father. To
see Jesus was to see what God was like. McKenzie goes on to state
that this is an "identity of Jesus and the Father", and McKenzie's
use of Scriptures like Jn 20:28 and Tt 2:13 in regards to Jesus, and
titles "which belong to the Father." Trinitarianism do not see Jesus
as the Father, and neither should anyone else.
When the Judges are called "God" at Ex. 21:6; 22:8; Ps. 82 and John
10, they are called a title "which belongs to the Father." This does
not imply an ontological identity
Further, McKenzie never uses the terms "God the Father and God the
Son."
In fact, I cannot find any reference to words *persons* or *nature*
either. If you move ahead (to the subheading "Trinity") you will see
that even he says these terms are from Greek philosophy and are NOT
IN THE BIBLE. He DOES state that ho theos [the God] is not used of
Jesus in the NT. The preceding paragraph in question states
that "Yahweh is not man" and "Yahweh was not flesh" and the entire
article ends with this beautifully put paragraph:
"In Jesus Christ therefore not only the word of God is made flesh,
but all of the saving attributes of Yahweh in the OT. In Him God is
known in a new and more intimately personal manner, and through Him
God is attained more nearly; for He speaks of "my Father and your
Father, my God and your God"
BUT WHAT ELSE DOES MCKENZIE BELIEVE?
"The relation of the Father and Son as set forth in [John 5:17ff] is
the foundation of later developments in Trinitarian and
Christological belief and theology; it is not identical with these
later developments. Much of the discourse seems to be a refutation of
the charge that Jesus claimed to be equal to God. This is met by
affirming that the Son can do nothing independently of the Father.
Later theology found it necessary to refine this statement
by a distinction between person and nature which John did not know"
(Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie
p.187).
"The New Testament writers could not have said that Jesus Christ is
God: God meant the Father. They could and did say that Jesus is God's
Son" (Light On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More, 1976. Mckenzie
p.188).
"it is altogether impossible to deduce the Nicene Creed, and still
less the dogmatic statements of the Council of Chalcedon from the
Synoptic Gospels . . The word "consubstantial" had not even been
invented yet: far from defining it, the evangelists could not even
have spelled it. No, they did not know and they did not care" (Light
On The Gospels; Chicago, ILL: Thomas More,
1976. Mckenzie p.188).
It seems McKenzie's words actually argue against "Dr." Rhodes
position.
____Ask...____________________________________________________________
.What conclusion can you make about Ron Rhodes when you learn that he
consistently quotes scholars out of context to support his distorted
views.