by whereami 209 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him
it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put
everything under Christ. When he has done this,
then the Son himself will be made subject to him who
put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."
1 Corinthians 15: 27,28
I Cor. 15 Positional subordination is not contrary to equality of nature. The same Greek word is used for Jesus being subject to his parents (without being inferior to them). There is a functional vs essential subordination in the Godhead cf. husband and wife are equal in their common humanity, yet husband is the head; president is greater than people, yet equal as to common humanity; other verses show that the Father and Son are co-equal, co-essential, co-eternal, yet the Father is Head, but not superior.
The trinity is not pagan, a WT lie. How does my view differ from the creeds, wontleave? Jude 9 refutes the possibility that Jesus is Michael. Jesus is the uncreated Creator (co-Creator with Father and Holy Spirit). Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16 (NWT adds 'other' 6x, but it is not in the Greek...check KIT...instead of Christ being excluded as a created being, they do this to make it possible for Him to be created...there is no justification apart from sectarian eisegesis vs exegesis). Michael is a created angel and is not worshipped. Jesus is Creator of angels (Heb. 1) and is worshipped. Jesus has the names, titles, attributes of Deity, but Michael does not. The Jesus/Michael teaching is false doctrine (they just take a verse or two and apply it to Jesus despite context not demanding it; it is desperate support for Christ as creature Arianism since so many other verses contradict that and identify Him with Deity/Father). Jesus is called Alpha/Omega, Beginning/End, First/Last (titles of Deity; Jehovah also called the same). It is arbitrary to not distinguish Jesus and Michel (and is based on wrong assumption that Jesus is an angel). Jude 9 refutes the view since Jesus has all authority/power (Mt. 28), unlike Michael. The WT uses I Thess. 4 but fails to see that the return of Christ is accompanied by the shout of the angel, not that he is the one shouting. Using that logic, Jesus is a trumpet because His return also has the sound of a trumpet external to Him (again, lame WT arguments to support a false teaching). Seventh Day Adventists also call Jesus Michael, but they still hold (now) to a trinitarian view and see Jesus as God, not mere angel (so their error is far less severe and just semantical).
The incarnation of Deity supports the idea that Jesus is fully God and fully man. When I say mere man, I refer to JW and Muslim views that deny that He is the God-Man, one person with two natures (Jn. 1; Phil. 2). Yes, a person can have more than one name/title, but associating Deity/Christ with creature/Michael is simply error (begs the question).
JWs and Jews are wrong to reject the Deity of Christ. JWs are right to see that He is Messiah, but fail to see that the Messiah is Deity, not superman (Is. 9:6; Is. 10:21; Micah 5:2 prophecy of His birth and eternality; Is. 7:14 He is truly Immanuel, GOD with us, not angel with us).
Since it is Easter, the WT also denies core gospel truth by teaching creation-recreation of Michael, not incarnation and physical resurrection (I Cor. 15 essential truth). Jesus was not raised as a spirit creature, another WT error (see Lk. 24:39 refutes WT; cf. Jn. 2:19-21 BODY, not temporary either). The whole invisible return in 1914 is also a joke. His visible return (Acts 1 same way He left; Mt. like lightning; Rev. 1 every eye see Him) is also yet future. If He came in 1914, the world would not still be in this mess (1914 generation is also another WT doctrine that is crumbling...WT clearly not directed by Jehovah in the past nor present; WT supposedly chosen in 1919 based on Finished Mystery which has bizarre interpretations that most JWs would now laugh at).
" Jesus claimed to be God and progressively revealed a triune understanding." godrulz, this a pretty sweeping assertion. On what is it based? Certainly not in my Bible.
The OT reveals the one true God, YHWH. There are hints of His triune nature in the OT. Jesus fully reveals the Father/God in the NT (Jn. 1; Heb. 1; Col. 1; Phil. 2, etc.). He claimed to be God. The Jews understood this and went to stone Him for blasphemy (Jn. 5; Jn. 10; Jn. 8). If you are using NWT, they systematically twist and mistranslate the Deity verses (and then give specious foot notes to try to justify their perversion; so, use KIT or a credible translation vs sectarian one). Jesus was worshipped as God and given the names, titles, attributes of Deity. Jn. 1:1 alone is sufficient (a god is not grammatically/theologically/contextually possible). Jesus also revealed more about the Deity and personality of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14-16, etc.). He makes a triune statement in Mt. 28:18-20. There are about 40 Deity of Christ verses (and many more to support triune understanding) and only 6 common JW Arian verses (that simply show that Jesus was also man on earth or positionally lower for a time without being inferior by nature). A basic knowledge of Greek destroys the WT pseudo-scholarship. One cannot be a biblical, historical, orthodox Christian by trusting a counterfeit Christ and false gospel. The Deity of Christ is not negotiable, but essential, salvific truth.
Whereami - Thank you for introducing me to Pat Condell - he makes some excellent reasoning points and causes one to think. As to what does he really think - I suspect we have to understand the British "tongue in cheek" style of wry humor to catch it - watching his piece a delight for me. I am going to search for more of his video's.
Re the Trinity doctrine - I always say the proof is in the pudding. How many anti-trinitarians can you find in history that bound people to stakes and watched them fry in flames? Thinking or as John puts it "imagining they are rendering a sacred service to God" (John 16:2) Yet I believe we could establish a LONG list of Trinitarians that did just that! John Calvin comes to mind first of all. And his style of "religiosity" is anything BUT what I desire to imitate. As Paul said examine their faith for its results and then imitate those that are Christlike.
Many people who believe the basic biblical truths do unbiblical things. Calvin or Luther did things contrary to Scripture, but that is not an argument against the existence or love/holiness of God (nor proof against the trinity). The WT society has much corruption by fallible men, but that does not mean the beliefs are wrong on all points (hence hypocrites who act contrary to what they believe). More godly believers who live consistent with biblical principles also believe the trinity. Many anti-trinitarians did worse than Calvin. Your argument is ad hominem, not didactic.
The problem was Thomas Jefferson was an armchair reformer with no intellectual heft or study of the New Testament. He revised the New Testament based on his logic. And his results are interesting. It shows how ignorant people are when they proclaim that we are a Christian nation Jefferson, of all the Founders, was the most morally bankrupt. HIs libels and campaign against John Adams used tactics so mean and nasty that they are not surpassed today. We all know about Sally Hemmings and his failure to free his slaves, even Sally Hemmings. And Hemmings was the not the only one, only the most publicized. His debt was so staggering it affected our foreign policy. He could not stop ridiculous spending even when the end was to clear to even him. VA did not want the shame of a destitute Jefferson on their state's honor so a lottery was held to support him until his death.
The Trinity is clearly an extrapolation from the Bible. There is not much scriptural support for its inclusion or exclusion. Rather than reciting the Nicene and Apostle's Creed, I was told it was merely a device to describe that we perceive God as working in many fashions. He is not always the Father. I'm not certain I would ever worship the Father. Christ is easy for me to worship as is the Holy Spirit.
Jehovah alone, unbound by any other aspects of the Godhead, is a very scary matter. It would lead me to become Wiccan.
1800+ versions of one Itinerant Jewish Rabbi who taught the ideals of Rabbi Hillel..... Interesting no!
@godrulz
assumption that Jesus is an angel
Once again, you resort to an argument that's never made. Jesus is not identified as "an" anything. He is identified as "the", as in singular, meaning there is no other like him. If you don't understand the difference between "an angel" and "the archangel", we're never going to be able to communicate.
Jude 9 refutes the view since Jesus has all authority/power (Mt. 28)
Jude 9 speaks in past tense without indicating whether it was before Jesus' ascension. Also, you'll notice Mat 28:17 indicates Jesus' authority was given to him, requiring a time when he didn't have it. Also, if Jesus is/was Almighty God, who is giving him authority here?
The whole invisible return in 1914 is also a joke
I doubt many in this forum believe the 1914 thing. That is a scam to grant authority to the Governing Body, because people need to belive Jesus returned and decided who the "faithful and discreet slave" is or their power grab will completely fail. For the Watchtower to grant themselves exclusivity to that title, they need Jesus to have already come.
The Deity of Christ is not negotiable, but essential, salvific truth.
Your definition of "deity of Christ" and mine might differ. I don't disagree with Christ's deity, but you're insisting he is the Deity, as if there is only one deity, which is an idea the Bible in no way supports. You'd think if understanding Jesus and the Father are the same (or whatever weasely way various Trinitarians want to describe it), then the Bible would have made it more clear. The mandatory Trinity doctrine is about as solid as the JW's mandatory "faithful and discreet slave" doctrine. For something to be so completely required of God in order for salvation, you'd think he would have come right out and said it, not made it a secret code that nobody can figure out without a priest class (Catholic Magisterium or Governing Body) to "reveal" it. If you believe the Trinity was a common belief before the 5th Century, you are sadly mistaken and totally ignorant of Church history. It wasn't even officially adopted until the 4th Century and hotly disputed. But you try to make out that it's obvious to all "real" Christians. That's called the "no true Scotsman fallacy".
1800 were invited to Nicea, but only about 300 showed up and - conveniently - nearly all were in agreement. Perhaps Unitarians refused to even dignify the heresy with their presence, not realizing it would begin a chain reaction of the erosion of Christianity, ultimately giving us the Catholic Church we have today. The integration of Church and politics is a blatant violation of Scripture and is what brought us the Inquisitions. It's pretty clear the ones in attendance had impure motives to centralize doctrine and power under a small group with the government to back them through violence toward all dissenters. They probably understood this was going to be the only way to promote the heresies they held.
If you think the Trinity presents problems and interpretations have a Trinitarian wade into the Cruxifiction...did God die, some say yes some say no, and thenyou have the 'well for just a split second' crowd....
