by Hellrider 239 Replies latest watchtower bible
Do ya mean those self-same authors who made the simple connection that Christ was Divine
Yep, them same ones. By the way, Jws speak of Jesus' divinity. By and large they spoke of Jesus' divinity differently than do Modern Trinitarians. The "simple point" that was not commented on was that we have both biblical authors, and the earliest commentators that make this "simple" connection. Kinda makes you wonder why many Evangelicals choose not to.
Kenneson,
Maybe you can show me what specifically you are thinking of, I don't see it.
Mondo
Littletoe,
Obviously it would have to, for that would make the Holy Spirit created.
Mondo
Hellrider,
It is amazing that you think the use of "God" for Jesus means that he is the Almighty or that God is a Trinity. There is no issue for me today to use "God" to describe Jesus as much of the early church did, and yet it does nothing to bring about the Trinity.
Mondo
Mondo:
It is amazing that you think the use of "God" for Jesus means that he is the Almighty or that God is a Trinity.
It is amazing for me that you are unable to see that this use of these terms, the conflict between the trinity and non-trinity, is a relatively new and, to the christians of the first century, non-significant problem. To them, Jesus was God, or rather, God to them! If you had asked them "do you believe there is a higher God than Jesus, a God behind/above him", some would have said "yes, so what, he comes from the Father, but it is him I worship", while some would say "there is one that he stems from, but the son is no lesser than the father. So Jesus is God too". This is clearly shown in the quotes I listed above. This whole insisting on laying emphasis on the Father is a relatively new development, ever since the 1800s. Arius tried it in the early 4th century, claiming that Jesus was Gods creation, but they kicked him out. Almost none agreed with him, and consequently, they wouldn`t have agreed with the jws either.
There is no issue for me today to use "God" to describe Jesus as much of the early church did, and yet it does nothing to bring about the Trinity.
Yes, there is, because you would claim that Jesus was created! And that is where the whole problem is! According to prologue to John, he is not created, but has always been with the Father, and it is this that qualifies him as God, not "a" God. You could never call him God (if you are a jw, as I assume that you are, or share their beliefs), because the whole thing that separates a God from a not-god, is whether the God was created or not. In your view, he was created. Therefore, in your view, he is not God. In the view of the christians of the first, second, third, fourth...century (etc), he was not created, and therefore, fully God, and they saw no problem with it.
Hellrider,
I had the same results when dealing with my stepdad/educated/elder dub. I remember we were studying one night, and he's telling me how Jesus was used to create all[other] things (pun intended).
I showed him in Isa. 44:24 (nwt)
Isa 44:24
This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: "I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?He response was " it doesnt say that." I couldnt believe it. I mean Jehovah even asks the rhetorical question "who was with me " He still said no, no it doesnt say that."
He was so fustrated he just wanted rip the chapter out. I could tell.
Hellrider,
The problem is you are too dependant upon English translations, and so you see "God" and you think ontologically the same God as the Father, which is simply false. The early church held to a chiefly subordanist view, with the Son as a second god. According to the early church, Jesus was created, for they quoted Proverbs 8:22 of Christ. Later ones such as Athanasius had to completely reinterpret this text to make it fit the Trinitarian theology, coming up with a view of the text that had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually said.
For the prologue of John, nothing says Jesus is eternal. If you want to argue from the imperfect HN, you need to go back to the drawing board.
Mondo
Mondo:
The problem is you are too dependant upon English translations, and so you see "God" and you think ontologically the same God as the Father, which is simply false. The early church held to a chiefly subordanist view, with the Son as a second god.
I believe what the early church fathers said, proves you wrong. Yes, some held a subordationist view, but for your argument here to be correct, the early church fathers should have spoken in other ways than they did. In your view, and what you meant when you said you could call Jesus "God", you meant in the same manner as how the prophets or lawmakers could be called "gods" (John 10:34). In other words, someone "high-ranking". It`s just that the early church fathers didn`t word themselves in that way at all. Let`s look at what they said:
Ignatius: "Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God"
Aristides: "[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit"
Clement of Alexandria (is very explicit): "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son"
Hippolytus: "Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Tatian: "We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
This is clearly not the same as calling the prophets and lawmakers "gods". If you believe that, then there is no point in having this discussion.
The early church held to a chiefly subordanist view, with the Son as a second god. According to the early church, Jesus was created, for they quoted Proverbs 8:22 of Christ
Some did, but not all. And even if they did, this doesn`t mean that they emphasised the "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works"-part (and even if they did, "the first of his works" doesn`t necessarily mean "creation", not in the mysticism that was early christianity), perhaps they read more into the 23rd verse:" I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began". Who knows.
This is clearly not the same as calling the prophets and lawmakers "gods". If you believe that, then there is no point in having this discussion.
No, Jesus is much higher than these, but still not the Almighty.
Some did, but not all. And even if they did, this doesn`t mean that they emphasised the "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works"-part (and even if they did, "the first of his works" doesn`t necessarily mean "creation", not in the mysticism that was early christianity), perhaps they read more into the 23rd verse:" I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began". Who knows.
The word is "Created." In Greek it is EKTISEN.
Mondo1,
I still don't see how an uncreated attribute of God (wisdom) can refer to someone purportedly created. If the attribute is eternal, why isn't the person whom it personifies (per the JW view) likewise? What is the comparison, if one is uncreated and the other is created?
