Two Bible teachings JW's DON'T know about....

by BoogerMan 24 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • BoogerMan
    BoogerMan

    ....but the November 2022 Study Watchtower will definitely instruct them.

    1) God's name is JEHOVAH!

    2) Jehovah is using an EARTHLY ORGANIZATION to do His will - not JESUS!

    In Study Article 45, 'Jehovah' is mentioned at least 60 times.

    In Study Article 46, 'Jehovah' is mentioned at least 66 times.

    In Study Article 47, 'Jehovah' is mentioned at least 59 times.

    In Study Article 48, 'Jehovah' is mentioned at least 43 times.

    In Study Article 46, "His organization" is highlighted 3 times, in paragraphs 9 + 11.

    In Study Article 47, "His organization" is highlighted 14 times, in paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,8,13,14,15,16,17, while "Jehovah's organization" is highlighted 3 times in paragraphs 5,8, &19.

    In Study Article 48, "His organization" is highlighted 11 times, in paragraphs 1,2,3,8,9,16, and "Jehovah's organization" is highlighted 3 times in paragraphs 11,14,& 15.

    "God's organization" and "the organization" are each highlighted once in paragraphs 13 & 14.

    Jesus said, “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth," (Matthew 28:18) but as the king & leader of Christians, he merits being mentioned only 5 times in all 4 Study Articles - twice in Study Article 46, once in Study Article 47, and twice in Study Article 45.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Thank you for that count and breakdown. JW's are not really very good at following simple instructions. As usual, they try to conceal their rebellion against what God says to do while hiding behind the Father's name.

    In Luke 9:35 Jehovah commands this from heaven:

    "A voice came from out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Listen to Him.

    But Russell and the WT ran around saying that Jesus appointed them over everything and that we should listen to them. Whom to believe? Obviously, we should be listening to Jesus and the WORD, especially where it says "do not put your trust in men". We were warned.

    "Stop trusting in human beings, whose life breath is in their nostrils, for what are they really worth?" - Is. 2: 22 NIV

    Yet the WT says that when they speak it should be regarded as the voice of God!

    In numerous places, Jesus said, "Come to me (not Jehovah) and I will give you peace / rest.

    In the OT. the phrase "thus saith the LORD (Jehovah)" appears over 400 times. But it does not appear even once in the NT. However Jesus said 135 times, "I SAY UNTO YOU".

    Let that sink in a moment.

  • Longlivetherenegades
    Longlivetherenegades

    Jesus last words to his disciples

    Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.”

    Witnesses of me(Jesus) as simple as that is, Rutherford decides to go and pick a scripture that had no bearing or context relating to Christians.

    First century "governing body" aka Peter states while inspired....... 1 Peter 4: 14,16

    If you are being reproached for the name of Christ, you are happy, because the spirit of glory, yes, the spirit of God, is resting upon you. But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name.

    20th century Christian "governing body" aka Rutherford not inspired and can err in organisation directions and doctrines.... ........

    ; therefore we joyfully embrace and take the name which the mouth of the Lord God has named, and we desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah’s witnesses.”

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    In considering this topic thread it is important to realize that the NT gospels embellish what Jesus said. They incorporate ideas about Jesus which Jesus did not hold about himself. This is brought out at https://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/did_jesus_think_he_was_god_new_insights_on_jesus_own_self_image/ which is an except from Bart Ehrman's book called How Jesus Became God.

    In the except Ehrman says that though the historical Jesus taught about the Son of Man, Jesus did not consider himself the Son of Man, nor did Jesus consider himself God. Ehrman says the message of Jesus was about the coming of the kingdom of God, and that Jesus never publicly (except when he was on trail before Pilate) said he would be the king (though Jesus had privately told his apostles that he would be king). I think that Ehrman is correct about this. [H. G. Wells got some of this right in his book called The Outline Of History, but Wells didn't conclude that Jesus taught an apocalyptic message, and Wells seemed to believe Jesus taught the kingdom would only exist within people and only be manifested by their actions.] As a result, the WT's emphasis on Jehovah God and his kingdom (with the kingdom having an administration on Earth which benefits human subjects) is much closer to what the historical Jesus taught than what virtually all of the Christian religions teach. [However, it is very improper for the governing body of the JW to elevate themselves and the WT organization so very high. They have no scriptural basis for doing it, nor do they have any basis in the teachings of the historical Jesus for doing so.]

    The excerpt of Ehramn's book says, in part, the following.

    'According to our accounts, the trial of Jesus before Pilate was short and to the point. Pilate asked him whether it was true that he was the king of the Jews. Almost certainly, this was the actual charge leveled against Jesus. It is multiply attested in numerous independent witnesses, both at the trial itself and as the charge written on the placard that hung with him on his cross (e.g., Mark 15:2, 26). Moreover, it is not a charge that Christians would have invented for Jesus—for a possibly unexpected reason. Even though Christians came to understand Jesus to be the messiah, they never ever, from what we can tell, applied to him the title “king of the Jews.” If Christians were to invent a charge to put on Pilate’s lips, it would be, “Are you the messiah?” But that’s not how it works in the Gospels. The charge is specifically that he called himself “king of the Jews.”

    Evidence that Jesus really did think that he was the king of the Jews is the very fact that he was killed for it. If Pilate asked him whether he were in fact calling himself this, Jesus could have simply denied it, and indicated that he meant no trouble and that he had no kingly expectations, hopes, or intentions. And that would have been that. The charge was that he was calling himself the king of the Jews, and either he flat-out admitted it or he refused to deny it. Pilate did what governors typically did in such cases. He ordered him executed as a troublemaker and political pretender. Jesus was charged with insurgency, and political insurgents were crucified.

    The reason Jesus could not have denied that he called himself the king of the Jews was precisely that he did call himself the king of the Jews. He meant that, of course, in a purely apocalyptic sense: when the kingdom arrived, he would be made the king. But Pilate was not interested in theological niceties. Only the Romans could appoint someone to be king, and anyone else who wanted to be king had to rebel against the state.

    ... The evidence for Jesus’s claims to be divine comes only from the last of the New Testament Gospels, not from any earlier sources.

    Someone may argue that there are other reasons, apart from explicit divine self-claims, to suspect that Jesus saw himself as divine. For example, he does amazing miracles that surely only a divine figure could do; and he forgives people’s sins, which surely is a prerogative of God alone; and he receives worship, as people bow down before him, which surely indicates that he welcomes divine honors.

    There are two points to stress about such things. The first is that all of them are compatible with human, not just divine, authority. In the Hebrew Bible the prophets Elijah and Elisha did fantastic miracles—including healing the sick and raising the dead—through the power of God, and in the New Testament so did the Apostles Peter and Paul; but that did not make any of them divine. When Jesus forgives sins, he never says “I forgive you,” as God might say, but “your sins are forgiven,” which means that God has forgiven the sins. This prerogative for pronouncing sins forgiven was otherwise reserved for Jewish priests in honor of sacrifices that worshipers made at the temple. Jesus may be claiming a priestly prerogative, but not a divine one. And kings were worshiped—even in the Bible (Matt. 18:26)—by veneration and obeisance, just as God was. Here, Jesus may be accepting the worship due to him as the future king. None of these things is, in and of itself, a clear indication that Jesus is divine.

    But even more important, these activities may not even go back to the historical Jesus. Instead, they may be traditions assigned to Jesus by later storytellers in order to heighten his eminence and significance. Recall one of the main points of this chapter: many traditions in the Gospels do not derive from the life of the historical Jesus but represent embellishments made by storytellers who were trying to convert people by convincing them of Jesus’s superiority and to instruct those who were converted. These traditions of Jesus’s eminence cannot pass the criterion of dissimilarity and are very likely later pious expansions of the stories told about him—told by people who, after his resurrection, did come to understand that he was, in some sense, divine.

    What we can know with relative certainty about Jesus is that his public ministry and proclamation were not focused on his divinity; in fact, they were not about his divinity at all. They were about God. And about the kingdom that God was going to bring. And about the Son of Man who was soon to bring judgment upon the earth. When this happened the wicked would be destroyed and the righteous would be brought into the kingdom—a kingdom in which there would be no more pain, misery, or suffering. The twelve disciples of Jesus would be rulers of this future kingdom, and Jesus would rule over them. Jesus did not declare himself to be God. He believed and taught that he was the future king of the coming kingdom of God, the messiah of God yet to be revealed. This was the message he delivered to his disciples, and in the end, it was the message that got him crucified. It was only afterward, once the disciples believed that their crucified master had been raised from the dead, that they began to think that he must, in some sense, be God.'

  • BoogerMan
    BoogerMan

    Just a question: anyone got any idea why the Watchtower alternates between "His organization" and "his organization" (capital 'H' and lower case 'h' when referring to God) in the November 2022 Study Watchtower?

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    A moment ago I learned of Kermit Zarley who is a retired professional golfer and now is an author of books on biblical studies. He apparently is a progressive Christian who no longer believes in the trinity doctrine and apparently is now a unitarian in regards to his concept of the biblical God (see https://21stcr.org/author/kermit-zarley/ ). Though he believes "that Jesus never thought he was God or claimed to be God", he nonetheless disagrees with a number of Bart Ehrman's ideas. He also believes some things about Jesus which the WT also believes. At https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/author/kermitzarleyblog/ Zarley says the following.

    "Ehrman begins his Introduction by saying (p. 3), “The idea that Jesus is God … was the view of the very earliest Christians soon after Jesus’s death.” I strongly disagree. I show in 322 pages in my RJC book that nowhere does the NT declare that Jesus is God, and I treat the critical biblical texts in depth. Ehrman further surmises (p. 6) “how Jesus came to be considered God. The short answer is that it all had to do with his follower’s belief that he had been raised from the dead.” WOW!

    This is the thesis of Ehrman’s book, How Jesus Became God. Some Christians have also believed this. But it is irrational and antithetical to Judaism. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the early Jewish Christians believed that. Tom (N.T.) Wright and other leading NT scholars have convincingly refuted this argument. Most Jews during Jesus’ time, including him and his contemporaries, the Pharisees and Essenes, believed in the future resurrection of God’s people, and they certainly did not think that would make them gods.

    ... Ehrman ... takes the typical position of historical-critical scholars about Jesus and the NT gospels. They correctly state that, according to the synoptic gospels, Jesus did not believe he was God or say he was God, and his early disciples didn’t believe he was God either. But Ehrman errs in saying the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as God. (See pp. 124-25, 248). About Ehrmans’ quotes of Jesus in John 8.58, Jesus therein didn’t mean he preexisted but that he was superior to Abraham. The prior context of John 10.30 shows that Jesus meant he and the Father work together in unity as “one,” not that they are one in essence as some church fathers asserted. (Cf. “one” in John 17.11, 22-23). And Jesus saying, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14.9), does not mean he is God or the Father since he then explained it to mean, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (v. 11; cf. 10.38). Scholars call this the Mutual Indwellling, and many people have confused it with Jesus being identified as God. Yet Ehrman is right in saying that if Jesus publicly said he was God, Matthew, Mark, and Luke would have mentioned it in their gospels. Moreover, Jews would have argued with him about it far more than that he was the Messiah. Ehrman rightly says later that being a Jew (p. 98), “Jesus would have believed that there was one true God.”

    ... As stated above, Ehrman says that right after Jesus’ death, the early Jewish Christians began to believe that Jesus was God. On the contrary, I maintain that the NT does not say Jesus was God, so that it was not until the second century, after the apostolic era and the writing of the NT, that some Christians began to say Jesus was/is God. But for the next two centuries they said his divinity/deity was less than that of the Father, making Jesus essentially subordinate to God. It was not until the Nicene Creed, in 325, that Christians declared Jesus is God just as much as the Father is. And only in the latter half of the fourth century did Catholic Church officials construct the doctrine of the Trinity that we know about today.

    ... In Chapter 2, Ehrman says again of early Christians (p. 49-50), “How could they say that Jesus was God and still claim that there was only one God. If God was God and Jesus was God, doesn’t that make two Gods?” Indeed. And I am surprised Ehrman fails to mention that both the Ebonite and Nazarene sects of early Jewish Christians lodged this argument. It was Gentile Christians in the next century, such as Ignatius, who started saying Jesus is God. When they did, critics accused them of believing in two gods. But Ehrman says (p. 49) that he was enlightened to learn that “Christians were calling Jesus God” in “competition” with “the Romans calling the emperor God.” Maybe in the second century, but not the first century as Ehrman claims.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Fortunately, we can read the bible for ourself and come to our own conclusions. I own a set of the writings from the early church pastors (some were trained by apostles) that date to within 300 years or so from the Resurrection. The congregation leaders were constantly writing each other dealing with the heresies of the day, which are much the same as the heresies of today. So, their writings can be instructive as far as getting a grasp of what the first Christians thought on common issues of heresy. There is really nothing new. They wrote many thousands of pages.

    Polycarp (AD 69-155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippians he says,

    Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.1

    Ignatius (AD 50-117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,

    Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God; even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.2

    Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.3

    There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.4

    For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.5

    Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.6

    For our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father.7

    I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise, for I observed that you are established in an unshakable faith, having been nailed, as it were, to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ.8

    Wait expectantly for the one who is above time: the Eternal, the Invisible, who for our sake became visible; the Intangible, the Unsuffering, who for our sake suffered, who for our sake endured in every way.9

    Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) was an Christian apologist of the second century.

    And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.10

    Permit me first to recount the prophecies, which I wish to do in order to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts.11

    Therefore these words testify explicitly that He [Jesus] is witnessed to by Him [the Father] who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.12

    The Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin....13

    For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.14

    Melito of Sardis (died c. AD 180) was the bishop of the church in Sardis.

    He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up; He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails; He that bore up the earth was born up on a tree; the Lord of all was subjected to ignominy in a naked body—God put to death! ... [I]n order that He might not be seen, the luminaries turned away, and the day became darkened—because they slew God, who hung naked on the tree.... This is He who made the heaven and the earth, and in the beginning, together with the Father, fashioned man; who was announced by means of the law and the prophets; who put on a bodily form in the Virgin; who was hanged upon the tree; who was buried in the earth; who rose from the place of the dead, and ascended to the height of heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.15

    Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. Irenaeus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, where he studied under bishop Polycarp, who in turn had been a disciple of John the Apostle.

    For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.... He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;—all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.16

    He received testimony from all that He was very man, and that He was very God, from the Father, from the Spirit, from angels, from the creation itself, from men, from apostate spirits and demons.17

    Christ Jesus [is] our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father.18

    Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers.19

    Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man.... [W]e should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.20

    Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215) was another early church father. He wrote around AD 200. He writes,

    This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man—the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.... The Word, who in the beginning bestowed on us life as Creator when He formed us, taught us to live well when He appeared as our Teacher that as God He might afterwards conduct us to the life which never ends.21

    For it was not without divine care that so great a work was accomplished in so brief a space by the Lord, who, though despised as to appearance, was in reality adored, the expiator of sin, the Savior, the clement, the Divine Word, He that is truly most manifest Deity, He that is made equal to the Lord of the universe; because He was His Son, and the Word was in God....22

    Tertullian (AD 150-225) was an early Christian apologist. He said,

    For God alone is without sin; and the only man without sin is Christ, since Christ is also God.23

    Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.... That which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence—in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.24

    Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other , and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that they are distinct from each other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?25

    As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.26

    Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-235) was a third-century theologian. He was a disciple of Irenaeus, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. He writes,

    The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.27

    For, lo, the Only-begotten entered, a soul among souls, God the Word with a (human) soul. For His body lay in the tomb, not emptied of divinity; but as, while in Hades, He was in essential being with His Father, so was He also in the body and in Hades. For the Son is not contained in space, just as the Father; and He comprehends all things in Himself.28

    For all, the righteous and the unrighteous alike, shall be brought before God the Word.29

    Let us believe then, dear brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven, (and entered) into the holy Virgin Mary, in order that, taking the flesh from her, and assuming also a human, by which I mean a rational soul, and becoming thus all that man is with the exception of sin, He might save fallen man, and confer immortality on men who believe on His name.... He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow.30

    Origen (AD 185-254) was another early Christian theologian. He writes,

    Jesus Christ...in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was.31

    Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then, of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who was “prolated” are corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father out of things non-existent, i.e., beyond His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist.... How, then, can it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence.32

    For we who say that the visible world is under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent Me is greater than I.” And none of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. But when we regard the Savior as God the Word, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.33

    Wherefore we have always held that God is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the naked powers of the understanding.34

    But it is monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the sun. For it is not by receiving the breath of life that He is made a Son, by any outward act, but by His own nature.35

    And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” For who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.36

    **Nearly all of the above early writing can be read at Early Christian Writings.


    1. Polycarp, Philippians, 12:2.
    2. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 0.0. (This is the Greeting.)
    3. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 1.1.
    4. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7.2.
    5. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 18.2.
    6. Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 19.3.
    7. Ignatius, Letter to the Romans, 3.3. Holmes, AF, 229.
    8. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 1.1. Holmes, AF, 249.
    9. Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, 3.2. Holmes, AF, 265.
    10. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 128. Translation from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, I:264.
    11. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 36. ANF, I:212.
    12. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 63. ANF, I:229.
    13. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 63. ANF, I:184.
    14. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 126. ANF, I:263.
    15. Melito, 5.
    16. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.19.2.
    17. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.7.
    18. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1.
    19. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2.
    20. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.21.4.
    21. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 1.
    22. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, 10.
    23. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41.
    24. Tertullian, Apology, 21.
    25. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 9.
    26. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter 2.
    27. Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, 10.29.
    28. Hippolytus, Exegetical Fragments from Commentaries, On Luke, Chapter 23.
    29. Hippolytus, Against Plato, Section 3.
    30. Hippolytus, Against the Heresy of one Noetus, Section 17.
    31. Origen, De Principiis, Preface, 4.
    32. Origen. Contra Celsus, Book 5, Chapter 11.
    33. Origen, Contra Celsus Book 8, Chapter 15.
    34. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 2.
    35. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 4.
    36. Origen, De Principiis, Book 1, Chapter 2, Section 10.
  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    About 15 year ago I owned all the volumes, except for one, of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The edition I had said in the introduction that when one reads the writings one will notice they do not teach certain doctrines which the churches (or Roman Church or Church?) now teach as main doctrines. I bought those volumes in order to check the claims the WT about what the "Church Fathers" said about Jesus, primarily to see if they taught he was God (in the full sense) or not. I noticed that almost none of the authentic writings (ones which scholars said were not forgeries) in the volumes of the earliest writers made any claim of Jesus being God, other than sometimes to the extent that the NT Bible appears (at least to some people) to claim Jesus is God. What I read in the books confirmed the message I had read in the WT's literature on the subject of claims of Jesus being God or not!

    In a number of manuscripts of the writing of the "Church Fathers' there are likely variant readings (including added words which deify Jesus), like in the NT manuscripts. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html lists three translations of Polycarps' Letter to the Philippians. While the first two do say "Lord and God Jesus Christ" (which I think is very strange wording and I think ) the third tanslation says "Lord Jesus Christ" instead! Notice that it says the following (in chapter 12).

    "But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who "raised Him from the dead. Pray for all the saints."

    I own a copy of the book called "The Lost Books Of The Bible ..." and that edition is copyright 1979.The main text is a reprint of the 1926 edition which is based upon an edition from 1820 called The Apocryphal New Testament (I once saw a copy of that very old edition). The 1979 edition I have has a different chapter and verse numbering than the one quoted above from http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-roberts.html . In this edition (the one from 1979) the chapters are much longer, with a total of four chapters. Chapter IV verses 10 and 11 correspond to the quote above. The book says the translation contained within it (for The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians) is by Archbishop Wake. Verse 11 says the following.

    "And grant unto you a lot and portion among his saints; and us with you, and to all that are under the heavens, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in his Father who raised hm from the dead."

    I once owned (but no longer own) the edition called The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden (and before that I owned a different copy of the same edition of The Lost Books Of The Bible which I now have). That edition includes some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Books_of_the_Bible_and_the_Forgotten_Books_of_Eden ). Some of the books included in the Forgotten Books of Eden teach NT Christian doctrines, so much so that critical scholars say the Christian sounding portions are insertions by Christians into books which were originally pre-Christian Jewish books. But some scholars think that those books (thought to have been originally written before 1 CE) actually were teaching those doctrines which we find in the NT as Christian doctrines.

    Some years after I had studied The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, but probably before I became an atheist, I sold that book. But now that I am an atheist I wish I still had that book since it can be used to dispute some of the claims of trinitarians about what the "Church Fathers" said and to show that a number of doctrines attributed as being of Jesus might have actually predated the first century CE, or if not that, that it can be shown that Christians more than 1,000 years ago tampered with some Jewish books by inserting Christian teachings into them. That is one reason why I purchased my current copy of The Lost Books of the Bible when I found it at Friends of the Library book sale in 2019 for a very low price.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Correction: While editing my prior post a major typo entered into it. The last sentence of the second paragraph of my prior post should have said the following.

    "While the first two do say "Lord and God Jesus Christ" (which I think is very strange wording and I think the word "God" was added into that phrase and thus corrupted it) the third translation says "Lord Jesus Christ" instead! Notice that it says the following (in chapter 12)."

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Regarding the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/polycarp.html says the Roberts-Donaldson Introduction to the the Roberts-Donaldson translation of that letter says in part the following.

    "The Epistle before us is not perfect in any of the Greek mss. which contain it. But the chapters wanting in Greek are contained in an ancient Latin version. While there is no ground for supposing, as some have done, that the whole Epistle is spurious, there seems considerable force in the arguments by which many others have sought to prove chap. xiii. to be an interpolation." Notice that for the translation of much of it scholars have to rely upon Latin manuscripts in place of Greek manuscripts.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit