Blotty
Compared to the fact that - supposedly - you never have free time to dive into counter-arguments, you just responded really quickly :)
You say "instead of debating theology, let's debate linguistics" (I corrected your spelling mistakes myself). Well, why? Linguistics is not an end in itself, biblical hermeneutics is an auxiliary science of theology, just as in scholastic theology "philosophy is the handmaiden of theology" ("Philosophia est ancilla theologiae").
I honestly do not understand people who are not affiliated with the WTS religious organization, but who defend their theology in an amateur way. And that's true of Stafford, Furuli, and all the likes of you.
It can be frustrating to look beyond the Watchtower publications and just flip through a theology book and realize how inferior their theology is! At the same time, deducting the consequences would require a greater determination: could it be that the whole theaching was bullsh*t? Maybe "mainsteam" Christianity isn't even "apostate"? But those old women with rosaries, and the pedophile priests, and the Inquisition, and all the other 'leyenda negra'! Rather, they remain in this "neither here nor there" state, defending Watchtower theology without actual JW denominational membership. What is the point of this?
By the way, you don't understand linguistics as much as you do theology, you're a quote miner, why should I argue with you about this? The ones you linked, approx. all use the same well-known WTS "quote collection" method... that just like the dung beetle collects pieces of feces and turns them into a ball, they also cherry pick the quotes from the hands of authors whose general teaching they would not even accept at all. Instead of all kinds of independent research work, they collect half-sentences and sentences that can be quoted, that can be flagged and waved as "can you SEE?! Even him !!!"
About the alleged "great apostasy", check THIS and THIS too. By the way, "apostasy" in the Bible does not mean heresy, but abandonment of the Christian faith, and what is the point: there is no mention anywhere that heresy will dominate the Church, and that the true faith will have to be "restored" at some point.
"funny catholics acknowledge that their teachings arent in the bible" - I didn't say that, but that the Holy Scriptures is not a theology textbook, therefore the doctrines are not stated with doctrinal exactitude, but they can be found in content. We know exactly how the simple language of Scripture relates to the analytical concepts of theology: the language of Scripture and the language of theology relate to each other like the spoken, living (mother) tongue and grammar. In everyday speech, we do not use words such as nouns, adjectives, etc. but we only speak with the greatest naturalness. The language of the Bible is not a formal theological treatise, but rather like the mother tongue, the speech of a small child, natural speech. The language of theology is like school grammar, which is a formal description of the mother tongue. The sectarians, on the other hand, treat the Bible as a grammar book, not as a "living Word", which they constantly emphasize. The Bible should be approached fundamentally hermeneutically, not formally. But this is almost revealing, because who learns a language morphologically? Someone who learns a foreign language. So the Bible, God's Word is not their mother tongue.
By the way, the Catholic Church does not stands on the principle of "sola Scriptura", good morning. The principle of "prima Scriptura" is fine for Catholics. Contrary to the anti-Catholic Protestant myth, the Catholic Church has always valued the Bible and not suppressed it (it banned some Protestant translations, but Protestants did the same to Catholic editions and several other Protestant translations). This is proven - among other abundant and indisputable historical evidence - by the painstaking care of the monks, with which they preserved and copied the manuscripts, as well as constantly translating them into national languages (contrary to the untruth that they were only Latin Bibles). The Bible is a Catholic book, and however many Protestants may study it and claim it to be largely their own, they must admit that they are undeniably indebted to the Catholic Church for having defined the canon and preserved the Bible intact 1,400 for a year. How could the Catholic Church be "anti-biblical," as anti-Catholics say, when it has simultaneously preserved and deeply revered the Bible for so many years? This idea is as absurd as it is self-contradictory. If Catholicism really is as disgraceful as the anti-Catholics make us out to be, why didn't Protestantism compile its own Bible instead of using the one handed down to them by the so obviously unreliable Catholic Church?
The claim of the Catholic Church's anti-Biblical stance is a common fabrication, a false accusation. Even before Luther, there were Catholic Bible translations in national languages for centuries. It is true that for a long time they were PRIMARILY (which is not equivalent to the word exclusively) published in Latin, but this did not pose a problem in an era when everyone who could read certainly also knew Latin. I would also remind you that the reformers also wrote books in Latin, and the early Protestant theologians also put a lot of emphasis on the cultivation of the Latin language in church life until the first half of the 19th century.
A frequently heard "urban legend" is also that "the Catholic Church banned the Bible". However, this is a common fabrication, as "the" Bible itself was never banned, but rather it was the own translations of heretical movements that modern Protestants would also distance themselves from. The "New World Translations" of the time, if you will.
Look up the expression "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", which denotes a logical fallacy. Why? Because those who propagate this idea ignore the fact that printing was invented in the 15th century, not long before the Reformation (see Gutenberg). It was not because of the "evil Church's" anti-Biblical stance that the common people (most of whom couldn't even read) did not get enough Bibles, but because without book printing (hand-copied by monks!) it was physically impossible to reproduce as many copies as you can buy Bibles anywhere today. Those who keep raising this accusation, have they considered that maybe the Old Testament faithful Israelites or the early Christians ALL had their own Bible? If not, then aren't they applying a double standard when they demand something from the medieval Catholic Church that not even the communities they consider "good" meet? I'm honestly asking.
Or those who advocate individual interpretation of the Bible, do they ever consider that perhaps such individualism was not the ideal in Old Testament times or in the time of the apostles? Isn't it anachronistic to project their church ideals, which were only invented in the 19-20th century, back into antiquity? What does 2Peter 3:16, Proverbs 3:5, Acts 8:26-35, 1Tim 3:15, Acts 2:42, 2Peter 1:20 warn about?
Even today, I occasionally hear the accusation from the Protestant side that "only priests can read the Bible in Catholicism." This is a complete and utter misconception. Not only can everyone read it, but the Church strongly recommends the study of the Scriptures and encourages the faithful to do so. The Church generally only prescribes to the faithful that they should read a version of the Bible approved by the legitimate ecclesiastical authority, to which explanatory notes taken from the holy fathers and church scholars are also attached. In this way, the sacred text does not change in any way; the Church seeks to prevent misinterpretations and nonsensical interpretations. After all, Peter himself writes about Paul's letters that they are "difficult to understand" in places, and the unlearned can easily misinterpret them (2 Peter 3:16). It's indeed an incapable idea that every uneducated and unauthorized person reads their uninformed thoughts into the Scriptures. The very understandable reason that we should only read ecclesiastically approved biblical texts is that the Church, out of respect for the word of God, cannot allow anyone's son or daughter, or potential deliberate confusers and text falsifiers, to falsify the Bible or "translate" it freely as they please. After all, Martin Luther also arbitrarily corrected the Bible when he wrote "faith alone saves" instead of "faith saves". It is not only the right of the church teaching authority appointed by Christ to oppose such pranks, but also a sacred duty. After all, no one can rewrite the law book at their own discretion; let alone the word of God, the Scriptures!
Otherwise, for the JWs the interpretation of scripture and codification of doctrines is considered the responsibility of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. They regularly warn their followers that if they deviate from their publications and study the Bible exclusively, there is a "danger" that they will quickly return to the teachings of "apostate Christendom".
"But Jehovah God has also provided his visible organization, his "faithful and discreet slave", made up of spirit-anointed ones, to help Christians in all nations to understand and apply properly the Bible in their lives. Unless we are in touch with this channel of communication that God is using, we will not progress along the road to life, no matter how much Bible reading we do." Watchtower 1981 Dec 1 p.27
No Catholic Encyclopedias can be considered the official proposition of the Magisterium, if you are interested in this, I recommend Denzinger to your attention.
"" if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator." - a mediator is by definition neither side, at the time Jesus was a sinless man, neither God nor [sinful] man (everybody on earth)" - This interpretation fails because the New Testament declares Jesus to be Lord and God, as well as a man. And the quoted verse (1 Timothy 2:5) specifically refers to his human nature, that he is a mediator. And in Watchtower theology, Jesus ceased to be man by his death and just recreated/restored to be just an archangel again. If "the man Jesus Christ" is our (or of the "anointed class" for the JWs) mediator, then either we do not have a mediator, or Jesus has not ceased to be human. For the Watchtower, he ceased to be not only a sinful man (he never was), but a man in general, which the quoted part excludes. You can read about the Adam-Jesus parallel used by the apostle Paul and its Watchtowerite reinterpretation here:
"" in the New Testament in two ways:" - actaully three, according to John 10:34,35" - I have already answered this, this usage of words is not "used" in the New Testament, but is only mentioned on this one occasion, but does not build on it meaningful use, as advocated by the Watchtower. Again:
I know this WTS argument in connection with John 10:30-36, but Jesus does not say that he is "god" only in the same sense as the angels and judges were called "elohim" in the Psalms. First it should be noted that while in the Old Testament this usage of the word "gods" (elohim) does occur, in the New Testament it does not, there are only two categories of "THEOS": 1. the one true God, and 2. the false gods of the pagans (possibly Satan, as "the god of this world "). In John 10 Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they could be called gods (in a certain sense), then how much more the only-begotten Son then? So it's clearly in the text He is God in a superior sense than the judges were called "gods" in the Psalm. In what sense namely then? He does not explain here exactly, but he makes it clear that it is not just in the same sense, but in a higher, superior sense. "Argumentum a fortiori" arguments are regularly used in Jewish law under the name kal va-chomer, literally "mild and severe", the mild case being the one we know about, while trying to infer about the more severe case. The Jews understood this and that's why they wanted to stone him "again" (v39).
"everything called a false god in the Bible receives worship - being "a god" does not mean you are inherently automatically false" - The apostle Paul calls those false Gods "so-called gods" (1 Corinthians 8:5), so he makes it clear that they do not exist. According John 5:23 Jesus commanded his believers that "all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." This means that the Son deserves exactly the very same obeisance as the Father. And this is called worship, to worship a creature would be idolatry. The word "honor" (gr. time) is a broader concept than worship, so all worship is also respect, but not all respect is worship. In other words, if we read that the Son must be honored just as the Father is, that includes all kinds of honor for the Father, including worship. On the other hand, all kinds of honor for the Father are adoring respect, since no respect can be imagined that is not addressed to him as God. After all, the Father is none other than God: he is not a man and not a state body to be respected in a civil sense. Therefore, since all this honor also belongs to Jesus, his worthiness of worship is immediately given, and thus also his divinity of the same essence as that of the Father. Having a lesser god is also forbidden by the commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” It's Jesus' commandment, that the Son must be honored in exactly the same way, just as the Father. This speaks for itself, if the Father must be worshiped, then the Son must be worshipped, and only God can be worshiped, therefore He is truly God. Do the JWs honor the Son just as they honor the Father? Nope, at least since 1954 they don't.
The "Wisdom" (Hebrew: Chokhmah, חָכְמָה; Greek: sophia, σοφία) is grammatically feminine, an allegory. But this is not the only argument why this is not literally the Logos. Those quoted by you also do not claim that the Logos is """literally""" the Chokhmah, but they only apply it as a type, according to the rules and logic of typology. Application is not the same as literal identification. Wisdom is a central topic in the "sapiential" books, i.e. Proverbs, Psalms, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Book of Wisdom, Wisdom of Sirach, and to some extent Baruch. Should be apply their all declarations of the Wisdom to Jesus?
The Holy Scriptures declare not only at Isaiah 44:24 that God created "alone", "by himself", "with his own hands" etc., thus without any kind of participation of any creature, but in several places I have indicated, just look: Neh 9:6, Isa 45: 12, 48:13, Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6. Will you explain each one why it doesn't mean what it does? The fact that in a certain place the text mentions the false god before that does not make "alone" into "not actually alone", the burden of proof is on you. The Scriptures clearly state that God alone is the only creator, and the one who creates is God (Acts 14:15, Hebrews 3:4). Where does it state the opposite? Where does it say that any angels helped in, participated in the creation? Furthermore: creation through a creature, creation by a creature is both a logical and physical impossibility. You're on the defensive from here on out.
"There is nothing in the context which indicates the angels or the son or holy spirit was included in such a statement." - These are not included, but the WTS's creature-littlegod-archangel-demigod "Son" is. And the Holy Spirit is not the same as God's "force", since He also has power/force (Lk 4:14, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2:4) and can fill people with his power (Mic 3:8 cf. Acts 1: 8). The Bible clearly distinguishes the Holy Spirit from God's power (Zech 4,6, Lk 1,35, Acts 10,38, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2,4, 1 Thess 1,5), and above all, the Spirit is not excluded from creation because the Holy Spirit is also God (Acts 5:3-4.9).
"By your logic it means God the Father did it alone, God in the NT always refers to the Father." - The New Testament nowhere says that only God the Father created opposed to the Son, "the God" typically (but not necessarily) refers to the Father in the New Testament, indeed, but this does not exclude the Son (or the Holy Spirit) from the concept of God, just as the Father nor is it excluded to be "the Lord", by the fact that the Son is typically referred as "the Lord".
""You are reinterpreting the words" - says the person spouting claims that aren't even articulated in scripture.. 3 person 1 God" - the Holy Scripture says that there is one God, but at the same time it refers to three persons who are called Lord and God. Suitable for a theology book it does not give a systematized definition of it, but why should it? How much more "articulated" are the distinctive teachings of the Watchtower? As we can see, not at all.
Regarding the temporality of the world, it should be noted that it is dogma that God created the world with a creative act that began in time. This doctrine was denied by Eckhart, the dualists, and pantheists, who believe that at least the matter of the world has existed forever. According to the Fourth Lateran Council, God "created both kinds of world out of nothing at the very beginning of time"; this was reiterated by the First Vatican Council.
The Scripture asserts in its first sentence: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Then it proclaims this explicitly several times. For example: "Lord, in the beginning, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands". (Ps 102:26, cf. Ps 90:2 Eph 1:4, Jn 17:5)
Several of the Church Fathers interpret the first verse of Scripture as follows: "in the beginning" = "in the eternal Logos". For the Word is the beginning, the origin of everything (cf. Theophil. Autol. II 10; Clemens Al. Strom. VI 7; Basil. Hexaem. 1; August. Gen. Manich. I 2, 3.). However, they assert the temporality of the world; even Origen, although he teaches an endless cyclic succession of worlds along with the Stoics, considers it a proclamation of the apostles that this world of ours began at a specific time (Origen. Princip. praef. 7. Methodius Περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν energetically opposes his Stoic theory; cf. Tertul. Hermogen. 4.). Against the Arians, the Fathers argued that the eternity of the Word decisively proves His divinity; that is, they not only teach that this world was created in time, but also that temporality is inherent in the nature of the creature (Athanas. Serap. III 7; ctra Arian. I 29; Cyril. Al. Thesaur. 32 [M 75, 492]; Nyssen. De fide [M 45, 136a]). Augustine strongly emphasizes the temporality of the present world along with the other Fathers, and he draws profound conclusions from it (August. Civ. Dei X 30; XI 4, 2; XII 15, 4).
The doctrine is that angels are creatures; that is, God created them out of nothing with his omnipotent creative activity. This is a matter of faith. – This is opposed by the Gnostics, who view spiritual beings as emanations, outflows originating from the primal spirit; and by the pagans, who subscribe to the belief in their theogonies that spiritual beings can also be created through procreation. The official teaching of the Church is expressed at the Fourth Lateran and Vatican Council (Later. IV. Denz 428; Vatic. 3 cp 1 c. 5 Deo Denz 1783 1805).
The teaching of Scripture is clear: "For in him (the Son) all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." (Col 1,16; cf. Rom 8,38, Ps 103,19–22, 148,1. Job 38,4–7.) The church fathers vigorously protest the Manichean conception that spirits can originate from the substance of God (August. Faust. XV 5 k.; Ctra Secundin. 5 k.; Synod Bracar. (a. 561) c. 5 Denz 235; cf. Iustin. Dial. 102, 4; 128.).
It's easy to understand with reason that angels can only come into existence through creation. As spiritual beings, they are simple; therefore, they cannot come from division, which accompanies every procreation. They cannot break away from God because God's absolute simplicity and immutability exclude even the thought of division. The Manicheans and pagans could only hold a different opinion because they had a materialistic monistic conception of God.
The truth of faith is that angels were created in time, or with time. According to the Fourth Lateran Council: "At the beginning of time, God created the angelic world." Many of the church fathers already see this explicitly in the first verse of Scripture: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", which they generally interpreted as "In the beginning, God created the visible and invisible world." The article of the Apostolic Creed: "I believe in God, the Creator of heaven and earth", the Athanasian Creed states as the "creator of all visible and invisible beings" (Cf. Job 38,47 Os 2,21 2 Mac 15,13 Nehem 9,5 Col 1,16.).
It is not dogma, but a probable truth of faith, that God created the world of angels at the same time as the material world and not before.
The Fourth Lateran Council says, "Simultaneously from the beginning of time (simul ab initio temporis)." However, this simul may mean what it does in Sirach: "The one who lives forever created everything at once" (Vulg. simul; Sept. κοινῇ = collectively, as a whole, Sir 18,1; Thom Opusc. 19, 2.). Nevertheless, our thesis is very probable against the contrary: a) The simultaneous association and arrangement indicated by the council naturally implies simultaneity in time. If God created the two worlds for each other, it is most natural that he created them at the same time. As Thomas Aquinas's theological consideration says: the angels are a part of creation. As God's works are perfect, it is unlikely that God would create one part before the whole. b) The Scripture also indicates this with the immediate sense of "In the beginning God created"; and Job does not contradict: "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? ... When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" (Job 38,4–7) This can be interpreted for the second story of creation (Gen 2. chapter), which is mainly about man and man's relation to the world and society. If, on the other hand, we consistently consider the essential assignment of the angelic world to the human world, then simultaneous creation is logical.
The 'theotes' used in Colossians 2:9 comes from the term 'theos' (=God), the "-tes" is the same adjectival suffix as -(i)ty,- ship in English. So 'theotes' means 'godship', 'being of god', 'deity', 'goodhead'. And 'theiotes' comes from the term 'theios', which means divine, godlike. The resulting 'theiotes' is therefore godlikeness, likeness to God. But this is not the only argument, but that the apostle Paul speaks not only of some kind of divinity, godlikenesss, but of "the fullness (pleroma) of the the deity", so that the Son did not only have some semi-divine nature, but the same divine reality as in the Father, moreover completely, since the The Father begot the Son from himself, from his own being (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
""since Jesus will descend with the trumpet of God, he is God." - how do you explain a prominent (trinitarian) dictionary reaching the same conclusion as the WT then?" - Why should I stand up for every statement of a "(trinitarian) dictionary"? There were some Protestant theologians, who saw the typology of Jesus in Michael, that should be their problem, but you can't use them in your favor, since they didn't claim it in the sense of the WTS theology.
"and no, trumpet of God is slightly different. nice try tho, you can come "with" a trumpet - you cant literally come "with" a voice and again ALL other occurences of this idiom mean teh voice of the subject." - But the Lord indeed can also descend "with the voice of (an) archangel" in such a way that He is not the archangel himself, but simply accompanied by the voice of an archangel. If the president enters the hall "with the sound of the orchestra", is the president the orchestra?
Let's not even talk about the fact that, according to JWs, Jesus is not only identical with Michael, but also with Abaddon, "angel of the abyss". Yet all Christians, even the Watchtower and Russel originally said that Abaddon is the Satan. See Charles Taze Russell: Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 7, p. 159, 1917 edition. The identification of Abaddon with Jesus first appears in the Watchtower of December 1, 1961.
""how do you prove that the plural here means the singular?" - because no other archangel is mentioned in the bible.. " - After all, how many things are there only one that is mentioned only once! Lysias is the only commander, isn't he? Both "arch" and "angel" are Greek words, you can't find them in the Hebrew Bible, in Judaism the archangels are called "princes" (sharim).
"I dont consider any other writings an authority as such" - Well, that's your problem, in any case, the fact is that neither in Judaism nor in Christianity has anyone ever believed that there is only one archangel, and the Scriptures do not declare such a thing either, on the contrary, Daniel 10:13 proves precisely that there are more who are of the same rank as Michael.
""As God knew, but as a human it was a new aspect. That's why he could say that he didn't know certain things," - according to you tho in some cases he switched natures at will - doesnt work." - Who talked about "switching"? The Council of Chalcedon declared as dogma that in Jesus, the hypostatic unity of the one person of the Logos does not eliminate the duality of divine and human nature. It was proved this from the Bible against the Monophysites, just as the Council at Ephesus proved the single personhood of Jesus against the Nestorians: here too they referred to the interchangeability of properties (communicatio idiomatum). For this not only implies that the ultimate subject of the properties (principium agendi quod) is identical, but also that their immediate subject (principium agendi quo) is not identical. Because if the latter were also identical, we could not speak of two sets of properties or actions about the same Jesus, but only one: either divine or human properties. If the Monophysites were right, then Jesus would not have been hungry, tired, or actually suffered a painful death, but only apparently, since these are incompatible with the divine nature.
Tertullian was the first to recognize this truth, but according to his rudimentary terminology, he spoke of two states (status) instead of two natures.
The argument against the Monophysites also referred to Jn 1:14: a) If humanity had ceased in Jesus, then the current formulation would have been the opposite in the prologue: the flesh became the Word. Therefore, there could not have been such a phenomenon as when the water in Cana ceased to be water and turned into wine. The council's expression is directed against this conception: unchangeably (atreptós). - b) The unity of divine and human nature could not have been created by a mixture (as with mixed drinks), or by a composition like a human being composed of body and soul. In the mixture, however, there would have to be a change in the divine nature, and in the case of the body-soul analogy, a metaphysical complexity would arise in God, which contradicts the dogma of God's simplicity. - The council's expression is directed against these analogies: not mixed together, inconfusedly (asynchytos, ἀσυγχύτως).
Some 17th century Protestant and later Anglican theologians interpreted this expression from Phil 2,7: "He emptied himself" as if Christ had voluntarily renounced his divine nature during his incarnation for his earthly time. However, this also contradicts the immutability of God. - What should we therefore understand from this expression? Only that he renounced the outward manifestations of his divine nature, hiding his divinity under the disguise of humanity. However, he sometimes asserted it, for example, during his miracles, but always through his body, i.e., his human nature, otherwise, the essential unity would have ceased, and the Word's immersion in human existence would have ceased.
""which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence" - yes at least from the "beginning" they haven't stopped existing since then - However it doesnt prove continuous existence before the beginning." - Boom, you have just now admitted that the Son has been existing from "the beginning", which means precisely that he is eternal, since before "the Beginning" there was nothing, no time, only God. This was exactly what was said in the closing canon of the Nicene Council:
"But as for those who say, 'There was when He was not', and, 'Before being born He was not', and that 'He came into existence out of nothing', or who assert that 'the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance', or 'created', or 'is subject to alteration or change' – these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes."
"How are you going to prove before the beginning, our Hebrews 1:2 is already beaten." - There is no need to prove it separately, since "before the beginning" is conceptually meaningless, since whoever was already at the beginning, before the creation of the aions, was already there when there was no time. There was no time before the beginning, because time began then. The big bang hypothesis also contains something similar. "Before" "the beginning", the word "when" has no meaning. Jesus exists in eternity, but he derives his existence from the Father. Jesus had no beginning in time. Causally-logically, He has a beginning: the Father, from whom the Son is begotten before all aions, that's why He already existed "in the beginning". In contrast to the creatures who were "created in the beginning", the Son already "was", existed by then.
"My whole point about John 7:42 and the imperfect "was" is that it doesnt denote eternity." - Maybe because not the "was" alone itself, but the "in the beginning was" means eternity. Does the text theree say about David there that he already "was in the beginning"?
