by VanillaMocha73 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ya beat me to it, Greendawn, on the Ethiopian and Greek Orthodox churches. Further, when did the bloodletting begin exactly?
Also, I always get antsy when I see someone present only two alternatives - it's too binary / black-and-white for my tastes. Life simply cannot be boiled down so concisely!
Regarding the verse, it sounds like co-creatorship, to me...
Terry one clarification, the Church didn't split up in the 4th century but rather the 11th ostensibly on the filioque clause (West claims the Holy Spirit is emanated from the Father and the Son the East says only from the Father), though the real reasons were political. It was the Middle Eastern churches (Egypt, Syria, Armenia) which split off in the 5th century on the nature of Christ.
The Church and the Roman State were fused under Constantine. Constantine was friendly to his version of Christianity as he sought to make it just one unified voice and dogma.
The empire itself was already split into two emperors because of many political, economic and military reasons.
When people talk about the non-event known as THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE it is more nomenclature than event. The empire continued to be ruled from Constantinople and not Rome as the prime seat of jurisdiction.
wikipedia:
By the end of the Third century, taking a few steps, the Roman Empire was split in a Western and an Eastern part, each with their own Emperors (and/or Caesars). In the West, which included Rome, the succession of Emperors had ended in the year 476AD when the Ostrogoth king, Odoacer deposed the last Emperor Romulus Augustus. This is generally accepted to be the end of Antiquity and the beginning the Early Middle Ages also known as the Dark Ages. However, Roman rule had disintegrated somewhat earlier in the century as a result of Germanic invasions which had overrun all of the territory that had belonged to the western half of the Roman Empire. The events of 476AD marked the final and definitive end of Roman Emperors and hence, the Roman Empire, even though for quite a few decades, Roman government had ceased to exist in most areas of western Europe and Africa. In the east however, the Eastern Roman Empire survived until 1453AD. Although the Greek speaking inhabitants thought of themselves as Romaoii most in the English speaking world generally refer to the Eastern Empire the Byzantine Empire after the 400s AD.
The division of the Church is almost a misnomer in the sense there was no ONE church for very long. Even under Constantine how would you define the "true" church? The councils and the emperor kept changing their collective mind about who was banished and who was favored back and forth and back. What was "true" was what could be enforceably true by fiat. Burning books and excommunicating dissidents does not guarantee unity or truth.
The division over "substance" was the straw which broke the many humped camel's back (dogma) eventually.
Homoousian (from the Greek?µ?? meaning common and ??s?a meaning essence or being) is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describe Jesus as being homoousian with the Father - that is, they are of the same substance and are equally God. The term, officially adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead.
The Nicaean Creed is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Church, and most mainline Protestant churches (e.g. the Lutheran Church ) with regard to the ontological status of the three parts of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Some theologians preferred the use of the term homoiousios (Greek for "of like substance") in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term homoousios became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the divine word) and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and eternal beings, compose a single Divine Essence (ousia).
This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century CE during the extraordinary Trinitarian or Arian controversy. The several distinct branches of Arianism which conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:
- Homoiousianism which maintained that the Son was "like in substance" but not to be identified with the essence of the Father.
- Homoianism which declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit was heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
- Heterousianism (or anomoeanism) which held that God the father and the son were unlike in substance and/or attributes.
All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century CE were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes who insisted on the doctrine of the homoousian (or as it is called in modern terms consubstantiality), eventually prevailing in the struggle to define Catholic Church dogma for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
The thrust of my point was perhaps compacted too tightly timewise to make any sense. But, pithy never wears well with somebody such as me!
Regarding the verse, it sounds like co-creatorship, to me...
When dealing with actual identities quantity is meaningful in much the way genus and differentia are explicative. ,
The test is marked by any difference.
Even the iteration of Jesus is dead because of crucifixion while God is alive in heaven is enough for bifurcation.
Further, Jesus was once a sperm and egg in a human woman's body and made his way through a birth canal to emerge from a vagina. Can this be said about the Creator? Jesus had an actual (presumable) penis. Did the creator?
And so on.....
Every time you can mark a difference you embarass what the Trinity doctrine seeks to pretend is meaningless.
We have to ask why it is even necessary to pretend valences of personality in the case of Jesus/God?
The only thing which seems to make historical/philosophical/theological sense is the time and place where this argument got started.
Jews had no place mentally or religiously for more than one person as God. Pagans and especially Romans found demi-gods (half man and half god) more credible. The argument, in essence, is between Jews and pagans who are grabbing at Jesus' arms in a tug of war.
That tug-of-war (ownership of Jesus) produced the wacky doctrine of "one substance".
Homoousian (from the Greek?µ?? meaning common and ??s?a meaning essence or being) is a technical theological term used in discussion of the Christian understanding of God as Trinity. The Nicene Creed describe Jesus as being homoousian with the Father - that is, they are of the same substance and are equally God. The term, officially adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead.
The Nicaean Creed is the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Anglican Church, and most mainline Protestant churches (e.g. the Lutheran Church ) with regard to the ontological status of the three parts of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Some theologians preferred the use of the term homoiousios (Greek for "of like substance") in order to emphasize distinctions among the three persons in the Godhead, but the term homoousios became a consistent mark of Nicene orthodoxy in both East and West. According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ is the physical manifestation of Logos (or the divine word) and consequently possesses all of the inherent, ineffable perfections which religion and philosophy attribute to the Supreme Being. Three distinct and infinite minds or substances, three co-equal and eternal beings, compose a single Divine Essence (ousia).
This doctrine was formulated in the 4th century CE during the extraordinary Trinitarian or Arian controversy. The several distinct branches of Arianism which conflicted with each other as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed can be roughly broken down into the following classification:
- Homoiousianism which maintained that the Son was "like in substance" but not to be identified with the essence of the Father.
- Homoianism which declared that God the father was so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit was heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They held that the Father was like the Son in some sense but that even to speak of ousia was impertinent speculation.
- Heterousianism (or anomoeanism) which held that God the father and the son were unlike in substance and/or attributes.
All of these positions and the almost innumerable variations on them which developed in the 4th century CE were strongly and tenaciously opposed by Athanasius and other pro-Nicenes who insisted on the doctrine of the homoousian (or as it is called in modern terms consubstantiality), eventually prevailing in the struggle to define Catholic Church dogma for the next two millennia when its use was confirmed by the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
Incidentally, the chief driving force behind the argument for the Trinity Doctrine (at opposite polarity to the God of the Jews) was Athanasius. A look at his origins and education is most informative as to the source of his strongly held opinions.
The Alexandria of his boyhood was an epitome, intellectually, morally, and politically, of the ethnically diverse Graeco-Roman world. It was the most important center of trade in the whole empire; and its primacy as an emporium of ideas was more commanding than that of Rome or Constantinople, Antioch or Marseilles. Its famous "Catechetical School", while sacrificing none of its famous passion for orthodoxy since the days of Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, had begun to take on an almost secular character in the comprehensiveness of its interests, and had counted influentials pagans among its serious auditors (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xix).
About Arius:
It is believed that Arius's doctrines were influenced by the teachings of Lucian of Antioch, a celebrated Christian teacher and martyr for the faith.
Wasn't it first in Antioch that followers of Jesus were called Christians?
JWs take "all things" "in the beginning" to be referring to the physical creation spoken of at Gen. 1:1, which the angels themselves possibly existed prior to (Job 38:6.) So taking Jesus' role as being intermediate as opposed to being the first cause (as also understood by many Trin scholars, see Daniel Wallace) in this verse would not be troublesome if physical creation itself is what the author is speaking of when he says "all things".
Or if you don't like that explanation, absolute language like "all things" can have exceptions and be a contextual reference to the acts the Father did thru the Son, with the Son being the intermediate. The author of the 4th gospel would obviously assume the Father and Son would be excepted as an obvious fact to the reader. You know, if that was the point he was making.
I think jws get around this verse with a typical brain stretch that dumbs down the statement and assumes it as "a close effort at English but we know what it's supposed to mean"
For me John 1:3 tells of Jesus' association with what is real and what is not.
To my belief the dream of jwism is made by men (without Him), as are the other idols
Okay VanillaMocha,
Jehovah created The Word (Jesus), Jesus created all other things.
Jehovah resurrected Jesus from death, Jesus will resurrect all others who died.
Easy as 1,2,3
Jehovah created The Word (Jesus)
Such is the thinking that prevents jws from understanding Jesus as 'God speaking' - in the flesh.
I agree with "UNBAPTIZED" it is as easy as 1,2,3!!! Read the Bible.
Jesus was created (they say) and yet, it says NOTHING was made except through him, which means he must have created himself.
Vanilla Mocha73,
What interesting comments you elicited so let me offer another view. The verse does not say NOTHING was made except through him as you state here. The verse combines with the surrounding verses like this:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. . .
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
In this case when the supporting material is considered, the All things does not mean everything. The only thing under discussion is the human race, the world now existing in its many races and nationalities and governments (near visible, and far away invisible such as Rome) like the all things in Col. 1:16 and 17. The life of men that came into existence by Him that can or will be redeemed by Him is the All things, the only thing John is concerned with when he wrote these words. How the universe, the planet or even the animals came into existence is not being considered by John. What is really going on here then? John's gospel threads through the previously written gospels and interleaves with them. They gave genealogy lists from several perspectives but they do not go back in time before Adam. John now provides another very short genealogy list that overcomes this deficiency and takes us back to the beginning of the creation of the human race. Here we learn how we came into existence and by whom. The God that was with God, the non-human person appointed to this task that had responsibility for us which is another way the word God should have been understood as it has many such meanings that designate such authority.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
It is this Word that now become human that came to be the "only begotten of the Father" since the first man Adam we now learn was begotten by the Word not the Father. Only as such could this Word redeem the human race for which He was responsible.
Joseph
