Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 136 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  You are quoting secondary sources again. On what basis does Locke say the ante-Nicene Fathers were Arians? No answer, it's just his opinion with any substancial argument.

  Have you read Justin's any writing? Btw. which Apology? First or Second? Justin is arguing that Jesus was fully God!

  Yeah, I know this JW argument, that angels and judeges were also called "gods" in the Bible, so the Son can also be "god" in that sense. This argument suffers from the common issue of analyzing the word God ("god") instead of what it signifies. Because neither angels, nor judges, nor even Moses were God in the same sense as the Son. He truly created the world, was present from the beginning, and without Him, nothing came to be; He was in the form of God, etc. When we combine these, we still get a higher concept of divinity than what is applied to people or angels in Psalm 82 or other places.

  Jesus did not apply Psalm 82 to Himself but to beings of lower dignity to whom the word of God was addressed. Judges, or perhaps angels. And He immediately added: If it was allowed to be said about them, how much more about me?

  I can easily show that Jesus' divinity is greater than theirs (i.e., they are not only begotten gods, alphas and omegas, creators, etc.), but all you can bring up to support your claim is that Jesus received His divinity from the Father (through His birth). So, you arbitrarily claim that Jesus is in a category below the Father regarding divinity based on the mentioned "below the Father" category. You only tried to prove the existence of such a category, but you couldn't deal with the fact that Jesus doesn't fit into it. For example in terms of dignity, He is immediately equal to Him (Jn 5:23), and for now, this is enough for the sake of proof.

  The fact that the Father is the source of divinity and that He begot the Son along with His divinity. Therefore, if in the relationship between the Father and the Son, God specifically refers to the Father, it is because the Son did not give His divinity to the Father but vice versa.

  I recommend that you read the New Testament coherently from the perspective of how many times the indefinite "theos" also means "the God." Such is Phil 2:13 or 2 Cor 1:21. Indeed, one cannot infer a lower degree of divinity from the absence of the article.

  Thomas' exclamation was indeed an address, but a singular address usually refers to a specific person, which in itself replaces the definiteness that might be missing from the address and is not always indicated there. But regarding the essence, Thomas called Jesus not "a god" but his own God, even though both of them knew the commandment: You shall have no other gods. And Jesus approved of this use of words by Thomas at John 20:28. As for the source you quoted, it claims that this is a similar ranking formulation as the speech to the judges in Psalm 82; it is merely a desperate effort to impose an analogous use of words on Jesus' divinity elsewhere (which is of much higher rank than the judges).
• 

  raymond frantz

  You won't find many exjws's especially Greeks to have embraced the Trinity. The word can not be found in the Bible neither it is well defined as other central teachings like the concept of RESSURECTION or GRACE.

  I find Trinitarians as obstinate and dogmatic as Jehovah's Witnesses with ZERO knowledge of the history around it. Start with the history, explained to me how such a central doctrine took over 3 centuries to be embraced and 3 different synods and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Christians persecuted for nor believing in it. Good luck trying to convince others here.
• 

  slimboyfat

  It’s from Justin’s first Apology.

  Arianism was notable for its appeal to the Bible, as Maurice Wiles documents in Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries (1996) on pages 10 to 17, in detail. He goes on to comment:

  In the past it [Arius’ description as ‘an acute reasoner’] has often been interpreted to imply that Arius was a skilled practitioner of Aristotelian logic. But the evidence does little to support such a view. It is in part perhaps the product of a general theory (going back to Hippolytus) that behind every heresy there lies the distorting influence of a specific philosophical school. Page 24

  On each side of the controversy there were those with whom virtuosity of reasoning skill may see to have got out of hand. Page 25

  There are no good grounds for distinguishing ‘Arianism’ as exclusively characterised by ‘presumptuous reasoning’. Page 26

  Affirmation of the radically secondary status of the Son’s divinity, demonstrated not by philosophical argument but by the exegesis of scriptural texts, was the hallmark of Western Arianism throughout. Page 36

  the primary distinguishing characteristic [of Arians according to the author of Opus Imperfectum] that marks out this community as the true church is faithfulness to Scripture. Page 39

  Since it [Arianism among the Goths] was a faith that emphasised not merely the basic role of the Bible in the definition of Christian faith but its essential sufficiency for the task, it would not be surprising if it was to specifically biblical issues that any intellectual energies of among Gothic Christians should have been primarily directed. And this is what the scanty evidence suggests. Page 49

  It is probably best described as non-Nicene rather than anti-Nicene, biblical and traditional in character. Thompson’s description of German Arianism as ‘characterised by a ponderous and earthbound reliance on the text of the Bible’ may be unnecessarily pejorative in tone, but not too far from the mark in substance. Page 50
• 

  Journeyman

  I find Trinitarians as obstinate and dogmatic as Jehovah's Witnesses with ZERO knowledge of the history around it.

  It always amazes me the desperate lengths trinitarians will go to to try and explain away all the numerous scriptures that contradict their theory, with the most convoluted reasonings and sophistry that they can muster.

  Often, the best they can 'prove' is a duality - that certain verses imply the Father and Son share some kind of common 'nature', origin or existence - however in those scriptures there is no reference to, or indication of, an equal third party that could be assumed to be the triune part (the Spirit).

  Despite all the centuries of convoluted theorising, the simple fact is that there is no support for the concept of the trinity in scripture from an honest reading of the text, nor from the history of the Jews and first century Christians.

  Scripture spells out several clear and understandable concepts in contradiction to the tangled theories of the trinity:

  • The Father is a single conscious being who has always existed;
  • The Son is a separate conscious being who at one time did not exist, but was created by the Father and spent an unknown length of time alongside the Father before coming to earth in human form, then dying (ceasing to exist) and then being raised back to life by his Father, returning to his side;
  • The Spirit is a force or energy, not a conscious being, which can be used to carry out the Father's will, and can be shared with others.

  Even the basic relationship by which God has chosen to identify himself and Jesus in scripture - that of a Father with a Son - gives a clear message which is easily understandable to every generation of mankind, not some confused triad or single triune entity.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Journeyman:
  

  "certain verses imply the Father and Son share some kind of common 'nature', origin or existence"

  We are almost at a homoousious :) But to be concrete: the Father and the Son do not only share "some kind of" of common nature, but having the same nature, being co-essentials. He is begotten from the Father before the aeons, and He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis.

  In Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not the fullness of the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it. Here it becomes clear why the correct translation is important and what kind of dodgers these watchtower mistranslations pave the way for.

  "however in those scriptures there is no reference to, or indication of, an equal third party that could be assumed to be the triune part (the Spirit)."

  The issue here was not the Holy Spirit, I note that the Arians did not deny the personality of the Holy Spirit either. Not even the sect of the Pneumatomachi denied it.

  "The Father is a single conscious being who has always existed"

  Where does the Scripture say that in the beginning there was only the Father? John 1:1a clearly says that the Son "was" in the beginning, not "created". And in the first chapter of Hebrews, it is said that even time (aion) was created by the Son, so there was no "sometime" when the Son was not yet.

  "The Son is a separate conscious being..."

  That's a straw man, only Modalism aka Sabellianism holds that the Son is not a separete person from the Father.

  "who at one time did not exist"

  Where does the Bible say it?

  "but was created by the Father"

  Where does the Bible say that the Son is "created" by the Father? It says He is "begotten", not that he is created.

  "The Spirit is a force or energy"

  The Spirit is not the same as God's force and energy, cf. Zechariah 4,6, Luke 1:35, Acts 10:38, 1Cor 2:4 and 1Thess 1:5.

  • Where does the Bible say that the Son was created, or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
  • On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
  • Where does the Bible say that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
  • On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels (Hebrews 1)
  • Where does the Bible say that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
  • The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
    
  • Does it say the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
  • Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
  • On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already "was".
• 

  aqwsed12345

  slimboyfat

  Again, you are basing what some modern person said on secondary sources, what they think Justin said. Why don't you go ahead and read only the first 1-2. century Christian writers, the writings of the apostolic fathers, from beginning to end, not their secondary interpretations.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  raymond frantz:
  

  "A simple nominative noun lacking the article before the verb, (such as the one found in John 1.1c) usually points to a quality about someone, not "degree of divinity," or identity."

  That's what Nicene Trinitarian Christians also means. According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, John 1:1c "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:

  This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."
• 

  slimboyfat

  You argued that Arians in the fourth century didn’t base their beliefs on scripture. The point of me quoting Maurice Wiles is to show that modern scholarship has demonstrated that Arians did base their beliefs on scripture. Wiles was one of the most knowledgeable and widely published scholars on Arianism of the past century. The charge against Arians is ironic too, because the Nicene/Athanasius faction was prone to using the language of philosophy to define their beliefs in terms of “essence”, something rejected by many as unscriptural. Wiles’ demonstrated that many of the traditional accusations against Arians were false. He was not himself Arian, but in fairness Wiles documented that Athanasius was in the habit of misrepresentation and forgery. Other scholars of Arianism have drawn similar conclusions about Arians basing their views on the Bible and the traditional teaching of the church before the fourth century. Rowan Williams, for example, described Arius as a “theological conservative”. Scholar of religion, Karen Armstrong, says “Arius knew the scriptures well and he produced an armoury of texts to support his claim that Christ the Word could only be a creature like ourselves” and, “there was nothing new about his claim: Origen, whom both sides held in high esteem, had taught a similar doctrine.” (A History of God,1999, pages 131 and 132). RPC Hanson wrote a massive volume on Christological controversy in the fourth century (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 1988) and showed that subordinationism was the orthodoxy before Nicaea. These are representative of mainstream modern scholarship. These carry more weight than your assertions about Arian beliefs not being based on the Bible, or the work of conservative Trinitarians who still push a distorted picture of the early church.
• 

  raymond frantz

  Couldn't agree more Journeyman ....Despite all the centuries of convoluted theorising, the simple fact is that there is no support for the concept of the trinity in scripture from an honest reading of the text, nor from the history of the Jews and first century Christians.
  
• 

  raymond frantz

  John 1:1 :"Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος"

  If Jesus wad the Almighty there would be an "ὁ" before the word "θεὸς" but there isn't which means that Jesus is just a small god.

  You can quote all day long I'm giving you a simplified explanation of all you need to know about this verse.