"outside of time" argument

by Blotty 66 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  aqwsed12345

  Blotty

  Regarding the foundation of the Church and the alleged "great apostasy", I recommend my comments in THIS topic. The main point is that nowhere in the Bible does it mention the true New Testament Church - even temporarily - ceasing to exist, let alone it being a possibility, and especially not about it being replaced by another (nearly two thousand years later). The New Testament constantly talks about ONE church, the one whose foundations were laid by the apostles, and it claims that this Church will never cease, but will remain forever, in an unmistakable and visible form. If even the prophecy of Babylonian captivity was revealed, why did God not say a single word about the nearly two thousand year gap in Christianity? The Scripture clearly teaches that the construction of the Church was the task of the apostles (not Russell and the so-called 19th-century 'Bible students'):

  "The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:11-12)

  Secondly, this would be practically a third covenant after the Old and New Testaments, which is excluded, as the New Testament is the final and eternal one.

  "I will make an everlasting covenant with them, never to draw back from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, so that they may not turn from me." (Jer 32:40)

  "Now may the God of peace, who brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant" (Heb 13:20)

  Therefore, God does not turn away from his Church of the new and eternal covenant, so the claim of Donatism that the legitimacy of the Church could be lost due to "unworthiness" is not true.

  Regarding the WTS's 'Should You Believe in the Trinity?' pamphlet, you can read THIS comment of mine, but many others also wrote about how unfairly they have quoted in this publication, there are many sources on the Internet about this, for example, I can recommend THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS.

  You can't get around the dung beetle method of collecting quotes by paraphrasing this time, because the point here is that you don't take the trouble to immerse yourself in the entirety of early Christian literature, or modern scholars' theological corpus. This method does not want to research or understand, but only looks for one showable quote that can be taken out like a candy from a box.
  

  Regarding Furuli, you can also find on Wikipedia that:

  "In 2020, Furuli published a book entitled My Beloved Religion—and the Governing Body in which he maintains that the denomination's core doctrines and interpretations of biblical chronology are correct, but challenges the authority of the Jehovah's Witnesses' leadership. Subsequently, on June 17, 2020 he was disfellowshipped from the denomination."

  * * *

  You can find a few sources about the New World Translation HERE and HERE, among others.

  The New World Translation, beyond its unique Watchtower vocabulary, is a theologically completely biased translation. When the inspired text contradicts their teachings, the Society distorts the text, ignoring grammar and usage (e.g., the statements about the personhood of Jesus as God and the Spirit, the common hope of believers, and conscious existence after death). Despite the promise in the Preface, many insertions are not put in brackets, so the unsuspecting reader cannot know what is God's word and what is the Society's. The Society has never been able to substantively respond to legitimate international professional criticism. That's why even religious communities with similar beliefs do not use it.

  The Watchtower Society issued this with the aim of providing Jehovah's Witnesses and those interested in talking to them with a "Bible" that supports their own theology. Its most characteristic feature is that it reformulates the biblical image known about the person of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in certain sections, thus altering the original message. Its usage completely reflects the 'jargon' of the Witnesses: instead of 'grace' it has 'undeserved kindness', 'accurate knowledge of God' instead of knowing God, 'witnessing and preaching work' instead of proclaiming the gospel or testifying, and 'torture stake' instead of cross, etc.

  They want to justify the critical details of the NWT with obscure, flawed translations by individuals, well-known "blunders" of well-known translations, selective quotations from professionally accepted Greek textbooks, a deceptive series of "examples" that prove nothing, and works by liberal authors who do not consider the Bible to be God's reliable word. The large number and extensive "evidence" of course looks very convincing to the non-professional, and the Society remains silent about the fact that the authors of the referenced language books have already voiced their protest in open letters not to distort the Bible by citing their works. Of the translators, two had something to do with the Greek language: one of them (Gangas) was of Greek origin (Modern Greek!), the other (Fred Franz) studied Ancient Greek for about 2 years.

  * * *

  "Whatever the date whether 1914, or however many years back - is besides the point anyhow." - In fact, the date 1914 is very important for the Watchtower, since they base their organization's legitimacy on the fact that Jesus' "invisible presence" began at that time, and then he "appointed" the "faithful and discreet slave" class. In this regard, I recommend that you read THIS study. It should also be noted, that Jesus' parousia, which according to the Bible "every eye will see" (Revelation 1:7), but is explained by the Watchtower as "some will understand it spiritually", but in reality they did not even grasp it in 1914. In fact, the Watchtower's teaching until 1930 was that Jesus' "invisible parousia" occurred in 1874, so in 1914, even the leaders of the Watchtower did not "understand it spiritually" that Jesus had "come invisibly" in the meantime. So, Jesus' parousia, which according to Scripture "every eye will see", was not actually "seen" even by the leaders of the so-called true religion for 16 years.

  The latter is also funny because according to their publication Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!, the "seven trumpets" read in the book of Revelation supposedly represent seven Watchtower congresses held in the 1920s (which nobody remembers), where Rutherford continually mentioned dates (1799, 1874, 1878) that have long been invalidated. So, the "seven trumpets" of the book of Revelation actually just represent a speech heard by a handful of people that even the later representatives of the same religion consider to be false statements.

  I can't imagine how anyone intelligent, serious, and even a casual reader of the news could seriously believe the publication Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!. It presents events as world-shaking events that can't even be considered significant from the perspective of their own denomination. A congress held in the 1920s with a few thousand participants is the trumpets found in the 8th chapter of the book of Revelation? Because they rebuked the "false Christianity" which supposedly "exposed" it? The historical Christianity was obviously not, for example, the communist persecution of the church, but Rutherford's "fiery words" that caused the great disaster, well, this can really only make you laugh.

  At least they should have marked a congress that is still significant from the perspective of their own denomination, e.g. in 1935, when they announced the doctrine of two-class salvation.

  * * *

  ""Well, if Jesus is no longer a man, and the 'man Jesus' is our mediator, then what?" - considering he was raised as a spirit, but Greg Stafford can deal with you" - You continue to avoid the statement that - as the Watchtower also believes - Jesus is our (or at least of the "anointed class") mediator (in terms of the covenant and even our prayers), then who is our mediator, if Jesus ceased to be human, and the apostle Paul specifically calls "the man Jesus Christ" the mediator. The Watchtower completely misinterprets the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians in this regard, I wrote about it HERE. John 2:19-22 clearly means the resurrection of Jesus' body to life, not his re-creation as a spirit. And if he rose with his body, he also ascended with it. And this does not merely proves that His real body will be resurrected, but also that also He will do it as well. How else could he say a parable about rebuilding (which cannot be a pasive role) the temple himself?

  “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

  (repeat this sentence, until it gets into your mind)

  "Flesh and blood" is a way of expressing, not the ascension of the body in general, but the perishable, mortal, corruptible one, we all have before the glorified resurrection. The idea that the body generally could not enter heaven is clearly contradicted by: Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1-13; 2Cor 12:2-4; 1Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5; Rev 11:11-12.

  Also read THIS and THIS. Christ indeed died with respect to His natural, corruptible bodily life, but His soul could not be killed; His spiritual life continued unabated, and was even exalted, glorified, as His human soul transitioned into that perfect, glorified state in which, subsequently, His body also partook at His resurrection. Christ died for us, but was made alive in the spirit, that is, His soul - which remained united with divinity - was again united with His body. He grants this grace and glory also to the believers. Christ was killed in the body for our sins, but even in suffering His soul was made alive, that is, it enjoyed the blissful vision of God due to His personal union with divinity. At the moment of death, Christ's soul descended to the souls in prison, that is, to Abraham's bosom, also called the "paradise" (limbo of the patriarchs), where the souls of those who did not believe in Noah's exhortations for repentance while the ark was being built, but turned to God in their impending disaster. To all these, He preached the redemption which was concluded with His death.
  

  I still can't find in the Bible your (or more precisely the WTS') claims:

  • "Jesus was "created", and used to be angel before his Incarnation", on the contrary: He was born/begotten before the creation of the aions, and in the beginning he already was
  • "The incarnation was "transferring" (???) into human, by dropping his previous nature." On the contrary: John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from
  • "With his death Jesus "ceased to exist."" According to the Apostolic Creed of the 1st century He "descended into the underworld" (hades), within that to Abraham's bosom. Cf. Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:24, Acts 2:31, Eph 4:9, Col 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18-19, 1Peter 4:6.
  • "He was resurrected in fleshly form [only] by his Father" - on the contrary: John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18), together with the Father of course, and the Spirit. 1Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). An not merely "in fleshly form", but really resurrecting his body.
    
  • "He "surrendered" his humanity, and "dropped" his body, and became only a spirit, an angel again." Again: “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). JW position is somewhat resembles to gnostic docetism, at least after the resurrection.

  The angels don’t have “spiritual body’, nor a body in any sense. They are pure spirits. The way you want to understand the term "spiritual body" is utterly impossible. Something is either spirit or body. The body is a thing with physical extension, the spirit is not. It's a logical contradiction, like saying "invisible pink" or "fragrant green."
  

  So what does the expression "spiritual body" mean in the Pauline epistles? The body of the resurrected is a real physical body, yet it differs from the old one: It will no longer be subject to decay, illness, death. It carries the lightness, strength, harmony of the spirit. It will reflect the spirituality of the soul and the beauty of grace.
  

  Therefore, the "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrected saved ones does not mean that it would turn into a spirit (that is, essentially immaterial, bodiless), but because it will be completely subordinated to the soul, it is free from every imperfection, filth, and lasts forever. The "spiritual body" of the elect will be similar to the body of Jesus Christ after his resurrection, which was a visibly and tangibly real body, but at the same time so spiritual that it could suddenly move from place to place and penetrate other bodies. The glorified body of the Lord and the saved is delicate due to the power of the spirit, but also tangible due to reality. Sin made our soul desiring, animalistic, natural, without ceasing to be a spirit; and on the other hand, by glorification, our body will become spiritual, supernatural, without ceasing to be a real body.What I meant by getting our own body back is as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54: According to the text, we will get a human body back (to that extent, our own), but a transformed one (to that extent, different). Thus, the "spiritual body" signifies the transference of the positive attributes of the spiritual soul to the physical body.

  Regarding the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of justification and the role of grace, I can recommend THIS article.

  * * *

  In relation to John 5:23, I maintain that in the Gospel, Jesus' words "so", "just as", "like", "as" generally mean a comparative basis, a model, the pattern, the model and follow it as much as possible, but at least strive for it. By definition, man cannot be "as" perfect as the God, but he can honor the Son as the Father, as long as he also worships him. John 5:23 fully confirms that the Son should be honored to the same degree as the Father: It would be a waste and unfair to bypass it. If needed, read this sentence two or three times. Everyone should honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. Therefore, take the respect given to the Father as a basis and extend it to the Son, as the text demands. The specific text of Jn 5:23 is not about human worship, yet you're trying to read human worship into it. Then ask yourself: Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God? The answer is clearly no, so the Son is not a created angel, but the only-begotten God (μονογενης θεος).

  "Worship [proskuneo - προσκυνέω] the Lord your God, and serve him only!"

  "But when he brings his firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship [proskuneó - προσκυνέω] him.'"

  So, it's the same Greek word: proskuneo is used, referring to both the Father and the Son.

  The worship that belongs to God alone, and which the angels should not accept, is the same worship and veneration with which the angels worship the firstborn according to Heb 1:6. So, if can you accuse someone of "conflation" here, you would have to complain to God, the inspirer of the Scriptures. Indeed, it is a great puzzle for the Watchtower: the Scripture uses the same word for both the Father's and the Son's veneration, yet they divide it. They call both of them GOD with the same initial letter (there were no lowercase letters), yet they divide this too. Indeed, whoever read the original Greek text back then wouldn't likely have come to such a realization. Worship is the recognition and veneration of God. Through worship, the intelligent creature acknowledges God's absolute supremacy, uniqueness, and complete dependence grounded in His love.

  Of course, Jehovah's Witnesses refer to the fact that proskuneo is a word with a double meaning, an apologist even asked me, "how do I know which meaning of proskuneó applies to Jesus?" You can simply counter-ask, "And how do you know that it is the other one?"

  By the way, the Book of Revelation (check 7:15 and 22:3) uses not only the term proskuneo, but also the term latreúō in relation to Jesus, which, however, is only used in relation to worship of God. In the NWT it's translated as "sacred service". In Latin, this is where the term latria comes from, which simply means worship. Check: Jesus and Latreuô

  ""Well, it's just that what you claim is not being said here, it is clear that in this case, it is still God "himself" who createss (even so that the Son himself is God), not through a creature-archangel." - explain the passive occurence in Col 1:16 then - in every other occurence, When God is mentioned creating its the active." - You still do not understand my point, where does the Scriptures state that when the Father creates through the Son and in the Son, it is by way of a creature, thus flattening the clear Scriptural statements that God is creates solely "alone," "by himself", "with his own hands"? And if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10.

  ""God's omnipotence does not extend to conceptual impossibilities" - How is impossible in view of the passive verb?" - So that for a creature to be a tool, a mean of creation, a "passive participant" is still a conceptual impossibility. Not to mention that, as we have seen, God specifically claims that he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation or influence from creatures.

  God alone is the creator (Genesis 1:1, Nehemiah 9:6, Psalm 102:26, Isaiah 44:24, 45:12,18, Acts 7:49-50, 17:24, Hebrews 11:3). The Father is the creator (Ephesians 3:14-15), as is the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2), and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30), yet there are not three creator Gods, but one.

  Colossians 1:16 clearly states that "in him all things were created" (not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies), so Jesus is eternal and a creator (cf. Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1.3.10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2.8.10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13). In addition to the above definite references, the Scriptures also claim that God alone is the Creator (cf. Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:28; 44:24; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 2:10).

  And I say again, the idea that a "lesser god", other than Jehovah, also participates in creation, is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8, and by the fact that the Father did not create alone, but the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30) did too. Creation is a divine ability, and a creature cannot even become an instrument of creation. God is uniquely the source of creation because God does not cooperate with any instrument, companion, or material in the act of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. No one and nothing can establish as God does. God's creative ability is an incommunicable attribute for the creature. To be able to create, that is, to call the existing out of the non-existent, one must be God.

  Check: Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' and THIS.

  ""The burden of proof is on you" - why? you make the claim of more than one archangel to me" - Because Christianity, branded by you as "apostate", has claimed this for two thousand years, and Judaism even before that, and you have only come recently, claiming that there is only one archangel. Well, the burden of proof is on you.
  

  "The bible is the final authority and never uses the plural form of "archangel" but only singular (and never mentions any other archangel)" - According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? Shall I list how many such things there are, so that you can believe the absurd conclusions this would lead to? Daniel 10:13 clearly proves that there are more angels with the same rank like Michael. By the way, there is no proper Hebrew word for "archangel", in Judaism they use the term "princes" (sharim), even in the Hebrew translation of the New Testament they can only describe it as: מִיכָאֵל, שַׂר הַמַּלְאָכִים (mîk̲āʾēl, śar hammalʾāk̲îm), that is, Michael, the speaker/minister of the angels.

  ""He could hardly speak of that, since John was not even alive at "the beginning"" - he could, quite easily - I can talk about my point of view of something in the distant past just as you can.. History books can do it. Your being misleading here to bolster your argument. IF we cant talk about something that happened in the past without being there, Why does the past tense exist?" - I didn't say it couldn't be, but not from his "own perspective", but under the inspiration of God, he wrote about the absolute beginning, which is clearly shown in the following verses, which are about the creation of created things.

  ""the time began with "the beginning", there was no time "before" the beginning." - according to Constable of the NET bible that is rooted in Greek philosophy (Origin and Philo used this argument)" - That you you use the word "philosophy" to mock everything you do not understand, it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong. Time itself is the measure of change. When there was no creation, there was no change, therefore no time. There was only God, who could not change. Jesus is also said to be immutable. You may scoff at this as "Greek philosophy", but that's just common sense. 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.

  Are you seriously saying that time had no beginning? And where is this in the Bible? So time didn't have a beginning according to you (which the Bible doesn't say), but the Son did (which italso doesn't say).

  ""Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting" - yet we have other bibles rendering as "Days of Old" why? because Olam can also simply mean "no specifically stated beginning or end"" - Can? Oh, and how do we know that it actually means exactly that here? Where does he clearly state that the Son is a creature? Nowhere.
  
• 

  Blotty

  You can repeat yourself all you like, until I see some actaul scholarly evidence (and not early church quotations) you wont get anywhere with me. Or anyone for that matter.

  "I can recommend THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS." - these are very misleading and infact in themselves wrong - I could refute these as the quotes while maybe misleading in the authors intentions, still actaully stand - George Howard never said anything about quoting him "incorrectly" he just said they put too much leniance on his work.

  " the unsuspecting reader cannot know what is God's word and what is the Society's." - Do I need to make you look stupid, most if not all bibles do this to some extent - 1 for 1 translation is not actaully possible, every translation is going to add words

  Hvae you ever actaully done translation from 1 langauge to another and tried to convey and accurate meaning?

  "In fact, the date 1914 is very important for the Watchtower," - besides my point..

  "John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from" - a similar verb is used of a certain human.. reserach that one.

  1Peter 3:18 - does not say that actaully, if you bothered to check scholarly sources

  Heres' an example:

  Elip 1

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Elip 2

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). ... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Full quote:

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."

  [Google the citaton]

  you can see by this demonstration that your claim of "quote mining" is 1) without basis for me & "EtT" 2) a claim you cited zero evidence for (For me and others) and 3) doesnt change or alter the message at all elip 1, leaves a bit more in regarding "implications" elip 2 removes the extra bit from elip 1 and doesnt change the meaning at all.

  All that the example shows is some trinitarians bias opinion has been removed, which is besides the point anyhow, I elip to focus attention on what I want you to read without pasting screeds, admittedly this example is stolen from someone else which is also besides the point. The point is even trinitarians themselves admit the NT is only the BASIS for the doctrine and it is not taught in scripture.

  "The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."

  ("copied" from endnote [11] https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html - read this and reserach it :) )

  "This method does not want to research or understand" - this is something I would love to see you prove about me. Just because I dont agree with your sources means I havent done digging? on what planet?

  Luke 24:39 - you convieniantly omit 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 from your list.

  "You continue to avoid the statement" - am I avoiding? or is it just I cant be bothered dealing with you repeating the same stuff over and over, which doesnt make it automatically true.. doesnt make it a fact, you like debating do debate someone who is actaully an apologist, not someone who has other responsibilitys, something you dont seem to understand.

  "Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God?" - the answer is yes (in some sense of the word) We honor everyone as we do God, we just honor God in some extra ways. [this is a very dummed down explanation]

  ""But when he brings his firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship [proskuneó - προσκυνέω] him.'"" - you quote this - 2 observations

  1) the angels are told to "worship" him

  2) the same word is used in the LXX of God and humans.. thats how I would answer ""And how do you know that it is the other one?""

  " According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? " - didnt know someone could distort my point so much they get this out of it.

  Where is another Archangel meantioned in the bible?

  other things are clearly taught in the bible which you ignore...

  "if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10." - Hebrews 1:10 must be taken in light of the passive role in John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2 and Col 1:16 (dia + genitive expression) Just 8 verses back it says in Hebrews 1:2 Through the son - so the son did have a role in creation, though is not the creator based on Col 1:16 and changing the forms of the verb and noun.

  Daniel Wallace states "The logos is represented as as creator in a "hands on" sort of way, with the implication of ultimate agent. This is the typical pattern (though, not exclusive) seen in the NT Ultimate agency is ascribed to God the Father (with: upo). Intermediate agency ascribed to Christ (with dia)... Ft:81 [on impersonal agency of the spirit]"

  Greek grammar beyond the basics: 434

  John 1:3 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html

  Hebrews 1:2

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/hebrews-1.html

  Col 1:16

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/colossians-1.html

  look at these, nothing taken out of context xD cant be theres nothing that I need to elip.

  "he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation" - the scriptures above would disagree - many scholars and theologians have debated this, many trinitarians have even come to the conclusion - Angels participated in some way, even if that means shouting in praise, still participating (passively) (see NET Bible - Gen 1:26 footnote)

  Your beliefs go against the very grammatical structures that the writers used - if they wanted to say Jesus was the creator they could have just used "Ek autou". The Father alone created through the agent (Jesus)

  Why does the bible explicilty have to say Jesus is "creature" (kind of implied - look at Wallace citation) because he is not just a "creature" - while he is part of creation he holds a very speical position far from any mere "creature"

  John 2:19 - Even A.T Robertson would disagree, which of the church fathers said this? since they are infallible according to you

  "it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - if it contridicts the bible it is, but hey how about i just leave a citation for you to read:

  “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity” (The Story of Civilization, vol. III [find a pdf version of this book and search this quote])

  "Check: Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' and THIS." - these are simply wrong - cite me an instance, where firstborn followed by a genitive (or in general) where the subject is not part of the catergory it is firstborn of? (not Col 1:15) even [Firstborn of death] its still part of the group "diseases" not an exception to it.

  "branded by you as "apostate"" - thats a wild accusation to make with zero evidence. I never said christendom is apostate..

  "which are about the creation of created things." - John 1 doesnt talk about the creation of the heavens and earth, only earth.. I notice the angels being present is also omitted, not to mention the holy spirit

  John 17:3 - Jesus talks about "before the world was" not before "time" or anything else you want to come up with.

  "not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies" - So he made God? thats what 'all' implies, Paul even marks God as a "thing"

  "all" has some 7 -8 meanings in scripture - Paul rarely if ever means everything (without an exception)

  " how do we know that it actually means exactly that here?" - Rev 3:14, Where John follows the model of Micah 5:2 with:

  Arkhon = ruler

  arkhe = begining

  NO exceptions

  In Johns other writings you will never find he uses arkhe for ruler (First cause, originator or anything of the sort)
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Blotty

  You read all my sources pretty quickly, well, not really, you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading", it's easy so...

  Well, the study of early Christian literature is important because the basic idea of the Watchtower is that they represent the "restoration" of the faith of early Christianity. Although you didn't answer where in the New Testament it was prophesied that heresy ("apostasy") could come to rule in the apostolic church ("congregation") at all, let alone that it would actually happen this way, and a 19th century schismatic Adventist movement will only restore the "true faith." And the alleged legitimacy of the Watchtower is based on the alleged parousia of 1914.

  So, if you claim that the current belief of the Watchtower (Why exactly the current one? Maybe "new light" will be announced tomorrow...) is exactly the same as the belief of the early apostolic church, then it is perfectly appropriate to look at extrabiblical sources, whether they suggest this at all. Well, the answer is absolutely not.

  Of course, you can push aside all the church fathers, that they were all "apostates", but then were your "non-apostate" church fathers? Or do you think that this wicked "apostate" church is such a perfect falsifier of history that it was able to completely disappear all traces of the alleged anciente Watchtowerite Christianity together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts? That just sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.

  ""John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from" - a similar verb is used of a certain human.." Which other person is "made flesh"?

  The examples cited for the Watchtower quote collection all show that they do not even respect their sources enough to at least cite the entire text with context. This will result in some of the author's more cautious wordings being presented as "scientific consensus", deceiving their readers: "You see, even they ADMITTED IT in their lexicon!!". This triumphalist talk is unfounded, and it is not scientific methodology.

  "The point is even trinitarians themselves admit the NT is only the BASIS for the doctrine and it is not taught in scripture." - And that is more than enough. Check THIS about their quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is just a secular encyclopedia, not "the Trinitarians". I note: perhaps the specific teachings of the Watchtower (Jesus = Michael, Jesus is a creature, 1914, two-class system, etc etc.) are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation? Double standard...

  "Luke 24:39 - you convieniantly omit 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 from your list." - Or the latter two should be interpreted in the light of the first given verse (and John 2:19-22), and not the other way around. "Body" (soma) and "flesh" (sarx), "flesh and blood", "flesh and bone", these all represent different shades of meaning and cannot be played against each other. The 'sarx' is just the carnal, mortal, corruptible body. Jesus' resurrected body was a real body, but now with incorruptibility. That he became an (arch)angel is not claimed by any text.

  ""You continue to avoid the statement" - am I avoiding?" - Yes, you are. I keep asking you that, if Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel, then who is now the mediator (in prayers, etc.) that, according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?

  ""Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God?" - the answer is yes (in some sense of the word)" - Nope, giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry.

  "the same word [proskuneó] is used in the LXX of God and humans.. thats how I would answer ""And how do you know that it is the other one?"" - The LXX is not an inspired work, but a translation (with numerous errors), which is a valuable source for textual criticism, but is of no importance in this case. Where in the New Testament is the verb 'proskuneo' used to legitimately honor people? It is found only in Acts 10:25, but as the next verse shows, Peter rejects it too. So yes, the burden of proof is on you that the verb 'proskuneo' means something different for the Son than for the Father. Check THIS too. Luke 4:8 quotes the Ten Commandments:

  "Worship [proskuneo] the Lord your God and serve [latreuo] him only."

  Therefore, both 'proskuneo' and 'latreuo' can be rendered only to the one true God (YHWH), and as we see, the degree of adoration described with both with the first (Hebrews 1:6) and the second verb (Revelation 22:3) is to be renderes to the Son too. Anyway, if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too.

  "" According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? " - didnt know someone could distort my point so much they get this out of it." - I just reversed your logicel: if you think there is only one archangel, because where the New Testament says "archangel" it is in the singular, then by this logic there is only one thing of all that is only mentioned in the singular.

  "Where is another Archangel meantioned in the bible?" - Where it's writing about the seven chief prince angels standing before God's throne. By the way, Satan was a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14, cf. Isaiah 14:12), and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan.
  

  ""if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10." - Hebrews 1:10 must be taken in light of the passive role" - Why "must" be? Or just the other way around: the latters should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement.

  ""he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation" - the scriptures above would disagree" - They wouldn't, just your interpretation of them. If we start from the fact that the Son is also Yahweh God, then the statements about Jesus' participation in the creation do not violate the specific statements that God creates "alone", "by himself", "with his own hands", nor logic.

  "The Father alone created through the agent (Jesus)" - If the Father created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.

  Genesis 1:26 - God does not speak to the angels, but it is either a plural of majesty (as 'Elohim' is also plural), or to the Son, who is not "of the angels". Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1). Even the WTS didn't claim this either. Nowhere do we find angels involved in any type of creation. According to the Bible, angels are created beings, not co-creators with God. The psalmist wrote:
  

  "Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts . . . Let them praise the Lord for He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2,5).

  Genesis 1:26 has a possible Trinitarian interpretation, since the one to whom he first spoke (the Son) is God as well as the Father - since it is written that in the image of God, and the expression "in our image" extends the deity to the addressed. The Bible specifically states that only YHWH God created, thereby excluding all things other than YHWH from participating in creation. Thus, if the Son is said to be the creator, then we must place him within God, not outside. If the mason was helped by an assistant to build, then it can no longer be said of the mason that he alone built the house. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. Only God created, yet there are several persons, so these persons must be placed within the one God, otherwise it would be a self-contradiction.
  

  "he is not just a "creature" - while he is part of creation he holds a very speical position far from any mere "creature"" - Even if you maintain that he is a creature in a "special position", he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born.

  "John 2:19 - Even A.T Robertson would disagree, which of the church fathers said this? since they are infallible according to you" - The text itself says that 1) Jesus also actively participates in his own resurrection, 2) it is about the resurrection of his BODY, not his "recreation as an archangel". Individual church fathers are indeed not infallible, but collectively, as witnesses of the early Christian faith, they prove the faith of the early church. You can see what they said about this verse HERE.

  ""it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - if it contradicts the bible it is, but hey how about i just leave a citation for you to read" - That "the philosophy" generally contradicts the Bible, the Bible does not say so. If it contradicts the revelation in terms of a proposition or train of thought, it must of course be rejected, but such a general shift does not follow from nowhere. The apostles themselves used a series of terms and concepts that had obvious parallels with Greek philosophy.

  Regarding the Durant quote, the WTS fails to mention that historians Will Durant made similar dismissive statements about things that the Society believes in. For example, according to pages 594-595 of Durant's book (Caesar and Christ), "The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the fourth gospel is Greek philosophy... John joined the Greek philosophers." The Society's quote from him: "The idea of the divine trinity originated in Egypt" is incomplete, Durant also includes the Last Judgement among Egyptian ideas, and a little lower he declares: "Millennialism originated in Persia" (i.e., the hope of the Millennial Kingdom, a teaching of fundamental importance for Jehovah's Witnesses). Check HERE the full quote of Durant.

  And philosophy should not be "destroyed" anyway, but dealt with as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good".

  "cite me an instance, where firstborn followed by a genitive (or in general) where the subject is not part of the category it is firstborn of?" - Why should I? If the title "Firstborn" refers to his pre-eminence, supremacy, then the natural reading is that he is the Lord, the ruler of all creation. This reading is supported by the context and the continuation: THEREFORE he is the "Firstborn" (the ruler) of creation, BECAUSE all things were created in him. Check THIS too. Another source:

  Trinitarian Exegesis and Theology: Prov 8.22 according to the Cappadocian Fathers

  
  

  ""which are about the creation of created things." - John 1 doesnt talk about the creation of the heavens and earth, only earth." - Where did you read this? In John 1, he does not limit "the beginning" to the earth at all, he refers back to Genesis 1:1, according to which God created heaven and earth together. When he says "all things that has been made" in verse 3, he includes all created things, including the angels.

  "I notice the angels being present is also omitted, not to mention the holy spirit" - Angels were not "present" at creation of the world, since they were also created "in the beginning", and especially they did not participate in the creation at all. Job does not contradict, since 38:4–7 can be interpreted for the second story of creation (Genesis 2. chapter), which is mainly about man and man's relation to the world and society. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, was present at creation, see Genesis 1:2 (cf. Job 33:4, Psalm104:30), which the NWT also mistranslates.

  "John 17:3 - Jesus talks about "before the world was" not before "time" or anything else you want to come up with." - Besides, I'm assuming you didn't mean verse 3, but verse 5: "before the world began." On the one hand, the (created) "world" includes the time. According to them, Jesus does not include himself in the created world. He was before the "world" began.

  ""not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies" - So he made God? thats what 'all' implies, Paul even marks God as a "thing"" - No, since it is not about everything in general, but about everything that has become, that is, about all creatures. And he did not include Jesus among them, just like John 1:3.
  

  "" how do we know that it actually means exactly that here?" - Rev 3:14, Where John follows the model of Micah 5:2 with: Arkhon = ruler, arkhe = begining" - According to Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:11, "the beginning" (arkhe) is Jesus himself, it's one of his titles. So the "beginning of creation" does not mean that he is the first created being, but that he is the principle of creation, the source from which creation flows out. Interestingly, even the Arians of the 4th century did not refer to Revelation 3:14. The Father is also called the "arkhe" in Revelation 21:6.

  The Son was born before the beginning of time, that is, He was "in the beginning" (Jn 1:1), not that He became at the beginning. He was there when time did not exist (which is a created thing), so it cannot be said that "there was a time when the Son did not exist."

  Birth and creation are indeed two separate acts. But that's the point: the Son was not "sometime" born from the Father, but before the beginning of time, that is, when there was no time yet, so we cannot speak of a "time" when the Father was "alone", since the Son was already born from Him when there was no time. This is expressed by the beginning of Jn 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word..." Even if we theoretically assume that the Son is not through birth, but through creation, there would not have been a time when the Father existed alone (was there no Father until then? God does not change!), since time itself is a created entity, and there is no passage of time in God. In layman's terms: the Son was there when the clock had not yet started ticking. Because - once again - how does the Gospel of John begin?

  “In the beginning was the Word…”

  So He did not become, but was there at the beginning.

  The “beginning”: when there was no matter, hence no world, no space and time, but from God's eternal will, His "let there be" word, the world came into being… In this beginning, the Word, the Logos, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, was already present.

  So, the Word was there before the creation and time. He did not become, was not created in time, God did not create Him: He has been there from the beginning.

  The creation of time only happened “after” the “beginning” (before time was created, we can't talk about before and after), as symbolically described in the Book of Genesis:

  "God saw that the light was good. God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning: the first day."

  The logic that because the Son was born of the Father, you think it follows that the Son must be “later” in time, is quite flawed, because the words begetting and birth should not be taken in the everyday sense.

  The Son is born of the Father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense. The Son is derived from the Father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of His essence. So, the birth of the Son is an intellectual activity of God.

  Birth should be taken in a narrower sense. Its broader sense is that what did not exist comes into being, but the narrower sense is that a living being comes from a living being, and the two are of the same nature.

  The Son had no beginning in time, for he was there before the beginning of time. We can talk about logical succession, but this is not temporal succession.

  Let's assume that the Son is not through birth, but through creation, so He was not, but became, specifically the first thing that came out of the Father, by way of creation. So this is the first creation. If this is the first, then “after” this (logically, not in time, since there is no time yet!) God creates heaven and earth, “after” this (still only logically, there is still no time), then time ("He separated the day from the night" - symbolic description!), etc.

  So, the clock started ticking from the time God created time. In this case too, it would be true that we cannot say that there was a time when the Son did not exist. (After all, the definition of eternity is that there was a time when it was not yet) Because time, as such, was created "later" than the Son. So the Son was there even when there was no time. However, this leads to circular reasoning:

  So if the Bible phrases it that the Word was in the beginning (not that he became in the beginning), it logically follows that it is Eternal.

  The Arians took the (personal) originlessness as a divine basic attribute, and they applied it only to the Father. It followed that the Son and the Holy Spirit, as their origin is in the Father, cannot be equal to Him, but are only creatures. They did not think that originlessness, self-existence, applies to the divine essence itself, and all three persons possess this equally, and one with it. The difference is only in the relations of the persons. The Son is born of the Father in such a way that the Father communicates His entire essence to Him, not in time, not in succession, but in His eternal existence.

  This shows that the Watchtower Society has no idea what it is denying. Trinitarians do not claim that the term "only-begotten" in itself implies timelessness, but rather that he was not created, but came into existence through spiritual generation, and in his kind, he is completely unique, differing from every (not every other) creature, and not only in the sense that he was created directly or through an intermediary.

  The concept of spiritual generation is indeed emphasized in the doctrine of the Trinity: just read the Nicene or Athanasian creed, it explicitly states that the Son was begotten/not created by the Father.

  The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'ne Elohim) (Job 38:7, Ps 36:9) and collectively refers to the Jews as God's "son" as a whole people (Hos 11:1). However, no Jew could call God his own father personally, as if he himself originated from God, because this would have made him a God too (see Jn 10:33).
  

  Jesus referred to himself using two unique expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man". The "... son" construction, like in other languages, usually expresses kinship in Hebrew (e.g., son of Jonah, Simon), but it is also a unique Hebrew grammatical phenomenon that does not express kinship but characterizes, for example, "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.

  Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" (Mt 16:13), it first of all means: "who is a Man". Secondly, this expression is a figure of an Old Testament apocalyptic vision who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty" and who will return to Earth to be the king of the nations (Dan 7:13-14 cf. Mt 26:63-66, 25:31). Judging from the reactions, Jesus' contemporaries understood exactly what power Jesus claimed for himself with the title Son of Man.

  On the other hand, Jesus also claimed to be the "Son of God", which means: "who is God". Considering his relationship with the Father, he is the only Son of God (Jn 3:16; "only begotten" = only one), so he is the Son (1Jn 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12 etc.), who has God as his own Father personally (Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, Jn 10:32-38), who is taught and acts by the Father (Jn 14:10-11). As he said: "all that the Father has is mine" (Jn 16:15), since "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). The Jews understood Jesus' statements about himself as "making himself God, being a man" (Jn 10:33), because his words could not be understood in any other way with an Old Testament and Hebrew ear.

  It should be noted that according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Gal 3:27), but while The Son is inherently, eternally, by nature God, believers only partake of his divine nature - in character, immortality, glory - by the grace of God (2Pt 1:4, 2Cor 3:18, 1Jn 3:2, 1Cor 15:53-54).
• 

  Blotty

  So what are you gonna do if I just say: cool you win, I cant be bothered because of these long posts anymore.. seriously my head hurts

  - its a hollow victory

  - you proved nothing, except you can be excessively annoying and not listen to anyone else's opinion and everything is a contradiction (if you did try and talk to people I suggested I can see why, somewhat, your a waste of time - your right, every other opinion or interpretation is wrong - your not infallible and if you think you are please go and see a doctor)

  - you wasted time arguing with some nobody on the internet

  - you dominated the rhetoric, ignoring things complained when I "quote mined" complained when I cited an entire book complained when I paraphrased

  - failed to prove anything, ever (Firstborn, not having a temporal priority)
  

  You do know saying things, over and over doesn't make you automatically right? no matter how many times its said

  My suggestion: go debate an actual scholar, then maybe people on here will take you seriously

  So please get out of my thread (topic, whatever) - and go and start your own... let others have a say and an actual constructive discussion - you are not welcome until you can make shorter posts

  My final response will follow, though I have barely tried in this one:
  
  

  yeah your right - Id rather you didn't provide sources for your claims they are all as misleading as you.

  For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims - which are disputed by people who do - I believe them over you anyday. espeacially on the subject of this topic (thread)

  Furoli - ok a wikipedia source, not credible as anyone can make it say what they like, Ill contact him (somehow) and ask him myself. (your claim will be quoted)

  "you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I havent read them all before, I can predict what they will have you know (are they all as annoying as you? long posts, when asked to shorten, acts like they know everything)

  "you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you havent answered? , if you dont have to answer neither do I- or go debate Greg Stafford (or a real scholar), you wouldnt dare - I may not have all the resources and time to take you but Im sure there would be some profesor who is more than willing.

  You can say the WTS has no credibility, fine ok - you cant say the same of Edgar Foster (P.HD) or Greg Stafford, because they have never done it.

  "together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim acccurate bible translation)

  " the latters should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistant because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1.

  You should really boot theology when grammatical structures dont agree. - you have no respect for the dia + genitive construction found in many places.

  again in the scriptures I cited before - Did Solomon actaully lift a finger, I doubt it.. cultural thing. why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"

  persay. thats how it worked.

  "The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your councels, they can claim what they like, burden of proof is on you (your scriptural citaions prove nothing, only what you want me to see).. and just because it is not inspired doesnt mean it cant be cited for grammatical structures.

  "which is a valuable source for textual criticism, but is of no importance in this case." - ofcourse now its not, because it disagrees with you.

  Why dont we look up the meaning to the word in a dicitonary? oh wait you threw Vines aside when it disagreed with you. your no better than the WT despite what you claim.

  "and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too.

  "Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both catergories so he can be a mediator.

  if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because is God

  if he is a sinful human = he cant mediate, because he is sinful

  " according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.. ever consider "point of view" or "identification" might of concern? you miss a key scripture but your the expert so you can find it.

  (because im getting bored of you and your excessively long posts, as are others - if you could do shorter posts then maybe ill continue)

  The only class left is one of the classes of angel or sinless man

  (or the demon class, but I dont think that would happen)

  "giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi

  see: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/5-23.htm

  "if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really? context would dictate otherwise..

  "it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out, but ok dude - cool you win

  "he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born."

  - yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a responce to this [false] claim, but for now, its up to you to prove the eternal generation doctrine in light of:

  (choke on these)

  “The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father’.” - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

  “The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed.

  also see: https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/search?q=eternal+generation

  "Check THIS " - the quotes come out meaning literally the same... I dont get the persons point. And you wonder why I toss your non scholarly sources aside.

  "are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research.

  "Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?

  you keep waffling on about The Word "was" "in the beginning" yet fail to address any refutation I have made (about 3).. John was inspiried to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details? you place way to much emphasis on the combination - I agree with Wallace..

  " then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept. WHo did he have to "create" with? no one. the agent only does what he says, nothing more.

  " You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians anyday.

  "Why should I?" - for a change prove your claim using actaul scholarly methods, not councels who you claim to be infallible (if the people individually are infallible then so is the coucel, logic) because its not possible.. because in every occurence it has some form of temporal meaning.. and the one called Firstborn is part of the group.

  "The Father is also called the "arkhe" in Revelation 21:6." - theres a subtle difference in Rev 3:14 and Revelation 21:6

  Revelation 3:14 only has arkhe whereas in 21:6 its not only right next to alpha and omega, but also has "and the end" coupled onto it, so not a true paralel. nice try though

  I notice you avoid burden of proof like nobodies business.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  It's a pity that you don't want to touch on the issue of the legitimacy of the Church, after all that would be the key, not the biblical ping-pong, and linguistics, which can hardly be a measure of the truth, after all God, who wants everyone to be saved, gives the truth to everyone provided with recognizable marks.

  "There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." (Thomas Babington Macaulay)

  "Firstborn, not having a temporal priority" - In fact, the title "Firstborn" has nothing to do with temporality, but with preeminence, supremacy.

  "For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims" - I never said that you should accept anything on my authority. I am just a "dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants", as Bernard of Chartres said.
  

  ""you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I haven't read them all before" - From the fact that your arguments show that you don't know the counterargument. Like when in chess it seems that the opponent does not foresee my next move. However, here I myself hinted at what it would be.

  ""you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you haven't answered?" - Feel free to do it. Anyway, this is called a 'te quoque' argument.
  

  ""together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone" - What does this have to do with the alleged NT "Jehovah"? If I have a sink in my bathroom, does it follow that my living room has to have one as well? In any case, the fact that there was a text variant of the Septuagint that contained it was nothing new, after all Origen and Jerome (who even allegedly saw the Hebrew Matthew) reported on it, but no one about in the NT. Otherwise, the Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and the Song of Songs. Couldn't it have been there as well, only the "apostate" copyists removed it, and should it be "restored" in the NWT? After all, with your logic, it's impossible that if it's in one book, it can't not be in the other. In any case, according to the majority opinion of researchers, this was a later, re-Hebraizing, heterodox reading of the LXX, and the fact that it was not included in the NT in the first place is simply justified by the different theological environment.

  "and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim accurate bible translation)" - No one disputed that it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, and no one ever made any edition of the Hebrew text where it would have been transcribed to Adonai. And whether Yahweh should be written in the vernacular translations of the Old Testament or not, and that is not a forgery, it can be argued, Christianity has freedom in this matter. There are a number of Christian translations that include it and some that don't. Where it is translated as "Lord", the preface and the footnote always refer to it, and usually bring it in small capitals (LORD). It's not a matter of salvation, that's the point. On the contrary, writing it into the New Testament without manuscript evidence, based on speculation, is indeed a forgery, just like many well-known, theologically biased insertions and distortions.
  

  "" the latter should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistent because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1." - Simple: in the light of the fuller statement, the Holy Scripture attributes a full ("active") contribution to creation to the Son, which is described elsewhere with different grammatical devices and a different way of phrasing. Just as there are differences in the description of certain events in the synoptic gospels, it can be described in the same way the same theological truths, sometimes in a more complete form, sometimes in a partial form. By the way, the grammatical passive is not the same as the theological description, the Father's role as creator can also be described in a grammatically passive sentence, e.g. "the world was created by the Father." This is grammatically passive, in any case it does not detract from his creative contribution.

  "why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"" - The "only" difference is that it is not stated anywhere that Solomon built the Temple "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands," whereas it is written that YHWH God "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands" created the world, so not through the cooperation of an "agent" creature outside of Him.
  

  ""The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your counsels, they can claim what they like" - This shows that you did not even read what I wrote, let alone my links, with understanding and attention. I never said that the universal councils were "inspired", but only that they were "infallible". But even if you do not accept this, their content is still relevant, after all, without understanding what the teaching is that you are trying to refute, you will try to refute it in vain, since you're attacking a straw man. The point is that Catholic theology is a systematized summary of revealed religious truth that does not contradict any statement of Scripture.

  "and just because it is not inspired doesn't mean it can't be cited for grammatical structures." - Indeed, but since hundreds of years passed between the end of the Old Testament revelation and even the translation of the LXX and the writing of the New Testament books, it can only have limited significance due to linguistic changes and the theological environment. And as we see in the New Testament, there is not a single precedent that the level of adoration described with the verbs 'proskuneo' AND 'latreuo', can be legitimately applied to a creature. After all, why does the apostle reject this in Acts 10:25-26?

  ""and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too." - The fact that the cherubim are above the angels and archangels is also clear from the Scriptures, but this has always been the teaching of Judaism and Christianity about the angelic hierarchy. Considering 2 Peter 2:11, this gives a good justification for Jude 9. Jesus, on the other hand, pronounced a clear judgment on Satan (Jn 16:11; cf. Jn 5:22, 27; 1 Jn 3:8; Col 2:15).
  

  ""Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both categories so he can be a mediator." - Jesus Christwas never sinful (what kind of impious blasphemy is this?), let alone in his life or death. The apostle asserts that "the man Jesus" is the mediator. I still don't know where you read that the Son was an archangel either after his incarnation or after his death. The existence of a person (both Christ's and man's) does not end with death, but there is continuity between the present and the future existence. Jehovah did not re-create Jesus as the glorified Archangel Michael, but he appeared to his disciples as he was: their crucified and resurrected Lord and Master. Thus, he certainly had a new, glorified body, a (beyond earthly imagination) "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44 ff.), but he was clearly identifiable. The dead and buried Lord was brought back to life by the action of God (cf. Acts 2:31-34; Eph 5:14), and although in a new, materially not identical, but not just seeming bodily existence (cf. Jn 20 and 21). He appears to the disciples in visible and tangible form (Jn 20:27; Lk 24; Acts 1:1-6; cf. Jn 1,1-3), even if he does not always allow such contact (Jn 20:17), because from now on they must recognize him as glorified – therefore, independent of his bodily form (2Cor 5:16). Although Jesus is in the light and spirit world of the new era (aión), he practices human fellowship with them by eating and drinking (Lk 24:29k; Jn 21:12-14).

  If the Watchtower Society claims that Jesus did not really rise bodily, but showed himself with a seeming body "similar to other angels," it dangerously skirts spiritualism and Gnostic docetism (even if only in connection with Jesus' post-death state). Scripture emphatically emphasizes the physicality of the resurrection against any claim of seeming corporality and spiritual manifestation (see the above scriptures). It contradicts the nature of the biblical Jesus, who is "the truth" (Jn 14:6) in his person, to attribute a seeming manifestation in body to him. Specifically, for the purpose of simulating a resurrection for the disciples, which, according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, is allegedly not possible in this form.

  The believers never - even after the resurrection - partake in the mode of existence in which Christ is, because Christ is God and we are human. Human resurrection - according to biblical revelation there are no exceptions - follows from the resurrection of Christ, "the firstfruits of the dead" (cf. 1Cor 15,20-24). However, this never provides the same divine mode of existence that Christ has had eternally. The Bible also knows several types of resurrection, but not like Jehovah's Witnesses. It speaks much more clearly of resurrection for eternal life or eternal damnation (Mt 25:31-36; Rev 20:11-15), and additionally (or identifying it with the first) speaks of "resurrection" (exanastasis) or "first resurrection" in the case of those who died in faith, which occurs concurrently with the "rapture" of living believers and preceding the general resurrection of the last day (Phil 3:11; 1Thes 4:16). It mentions nothing about the alleged trial opportunity for those who come to life during the millennium. Rather, it applies: "...it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment..." (Heb 9,27). Finally, the scripture does not know about the class divisions imagined by the Watchtower Society.

  "if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because he is God" - If he was "only" God, then really no, fortunately, according to Catholic teaching, he took on human nature with the Incarnation and will not put it down ever. So Jesus Christ is still God AND man, united in the hypostatic unity, so we have a mediator.

  "" according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.." - Since the Scriptures nowhere state that he ceased to be a man and is only an archangel now, therefore there is no contradiction here, at most, between this statement of the apostle and the Christology of the Watchtower.

  ""giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi" - I've already answered this, I'm just quoting myself:

  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.

  ""if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really?" - Yes, according to John, Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, and Isaiah writes that he saw the glory of Yahweh, so Jesus is (also) Yahweh.

  ""it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out" - In my eyes, "philosophy" is not a pejorative term; it involves "auxiliary concepts" that are not found in the biblical (basic) vocabulary but are used by every theological trend. Each of these has its own legitimacy. It can't even be said that theology was the one that introduced these "words, expressions, concepts, and even thought algorithms". It is more the case that in the era when the foundations of theology were laid, these were completely well-known among the intellectuals dealing with these matters. In this sense, the Middle Ages were not "dark" at all, but in terms of certain intellectual truths, it was much more open than today.

  I think the problem lies in the fact that many individuals who identify themselves as Christians are so characterized by extreme anti-intellectualism and a cult of stupidity, as well as the resulting fideism, that they simply approach every such concept with inherent disgust. The cult of stupidity, of course, is not only prevalent in religions today, as stupidity has generally gained civil rights in the world. A few decades ago, if someone was a simple laborer, they did not brag about their vocabulary extending to only a few thousand words, and they would probably be ashamed to go on television to show their primitiveness. Today, due to so-called "reality shows", it has almost become fashionable to be stupid. Today, to be "cultured" is "uncool", identified with alienation and bookwormness.

  If in the past someone didn't know the basic categories of logic, they wouldn't dare to go up to a professor and educate them, saying "What are you being smart about? Just think simply, and it's all good!" Today, this is completely appropriate, and it's evident on this forum as well. If I use an expression that the person doesn't understand, it doesn't trigger them to look it up and become more knowledgeable, but rather like a male gorilla during mating season, they start beating their chest saying, "I don't understand this, I'm stupid and proud of it!" and they start jabbing at me for "being smart" here.

  To return to the point: these technical terms do not speak of a fictional, created reality, they are not completely artificial categories introduced just to eliminate contradictions, but they describe reality. So the question indeed is, what is the truth? But here, I think it leads back to the theory of knowledge, to which I would say that Christianity is not complete without Thomistic epistemology :) Because if truth cannot be recognized, then we are in agnosticism, and we might as well throw everything out the window. If not, then the question immediately arises: where can we acquire knowledge. New Christian sectarians rely solely on the formal logical nitpicking of the Bible, which is a one-sided shift in favor of faith over reason. Our answer is that God made man an intelligent being so that he could use his intellect, so we profess that true knowledge can be acquired logically as well: e.g., by inference. This is the so-called speculative method (note: if someone who does not know what I'm talking about and just wants to argue is reading this, let me signal that the so-called "speculative method" is not the same as what is slightly pejoratively called speculation in today's colloquial language). This kind of thing fits your character exactly, because you have the ability to understand these things, that's why I recommended works of such as Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

  Of course, this cannot be used in a religious debate with a fideist-biblicist "new Christian", because their approach would be to spit in their palm, pick up a verse from here and one from there in the Bible, and then slap it down, saying here you go. What can I do in this case? Well, if you watch my debates with such people, you can see that I am quite trying to adapt to my debate partner's method. Staying with the example you also cited, I didn't just point to the categories used by Thomas Aquinas, because then I would have had to start another 3-page explanation about how dare I do this, because "the Bible is written for simple people", etc. Instead, I also showed biblical examples to demonstrate to my debate partner that the regulations of the wording I referred to do indeed exist in the Scripture as well.

  An ancient author didn't need these concepts to correctly interpret the Scriptures, because the spirituality of the given era was different. It's something like if the English language, with its natural environment of the language, disappeared, and two thousand years later, various linguists would argue about the meanings of such English words as sunrise. We use this word completely naturally, we know what it means literally, and how it relates to the cosmological reality indicated by it. But two thousand years later, this would no longer be natural, but scholars would probably describe these meanings with various technical terms.

  A more everyday example: a small child learns their native language without realizing that the language they are acquiring can be organized into structures, can be described. They don't know phonemes, morphemes, parts of speech, etc., but simply use it naturally.
  

  The same is true with the Bible.

  This interpretation of the scripture does not create contradictions, at most explaining it to someone who previously imagined that they approached the Bible with such a "blunt axe" attitude. In fact, it eliminates all contradictions. Let's see a concrete example: The Scripture teaches that there is one God: yet it states both explicitly and implicitly that there are three subjects who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the created world, we might think that this is not possible. This is where we have concepts that resolve this contradiction. Sticking to this specific example: the distinction of such concepts as the person (the being) and the essence (the entity, substance). These concepts describe existing reality, just in the created world we don't often need them because for us person and essence coincide. However, if we want to organize God's revelation found in Scripture into structures, these concepts are of great service. In the first centuries, there was not much need for this, they were satisfied with the faith that there is one God, but God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most comprehensible form possible for human reason, did not concern them. This was enough at the given stage, but as certain heresies arose, it was no longer possible to avoid the matter by saying "we don't understand it, let's not deal with it", but the Church had to formulate its faith, now cast in definitive form. But the "basic vocabulary" is not enough for this, we need analytic-descriptive concepts. The Jehovah's Witness response is satisfied with the fact that it begins to grumble that the Οὐσία and the ὑπόστᾰσις expressions have a linguistic history with the works of ancient Hellenic philosophers. I replied to this, "we cannot accept as a basis for debate the stupid, concrete-headed and paganophobic attitude that if a Greek philosopher used a certain expression (e.g., ousia, hypostasis, physis, etc.), then every Christian tenet that ever used these concepts for its description should be considered false based solely on this fact."

  Another example: in the New Testament, the statements about Jesus seem to be formally contradictory, as on the one hand there are those about the person that we must confess that He is a real God, with all the consequences; on the other hand, there are statements that He is not God, but just a human. This is formally impossible, as there is nothing like this in the created world. However, this is what we find in Scripture, and then either we throw the Bible out the window, or try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response to this is to absolutize the attributes suggesting one nature and then start to cut away at the other with a chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, I think you realize it too. Again, we are at the point where this needs to be put into harmony, and this contradiction is resolved by Jesus' dual nature. Then there was a problem, there is no problem? Do you understand? :)

  If you make the criterion of a religious truth the simple people's "common sense" compliance, indeed, not much would remain of Christianity, as it is full of miracles: they simply do not meet the "common sense". Now I don't mean the quick answer that "God can do it", but the question of how exactly. But it shows that if you have to explain miracles, even the wildest rationalist-biblicist can dismiss it by saying that it is supernatural, and it does not matter if it does not match formal logic, whereas with the Trinity, they are no longer able to do the same. What an inconsistency! By the way, Russell's method was also this: no longer starting from what traditional theologians do, which is to summarize what is in the Bible, and based on this, establish certain regularities, etc., but more like this: let's sit down and think about whether it's reasonable to be this way. If not, then this must be used as a starting point for interpreting Scripture. This is rationalism, which essentially a priori excludes the existence of a mystery.

  "Rationalist: intellectual; rationalism – intellectualism; rationalist theology– a scriptural interpretation and theological direction, following the spirit of the Enlightenment, which places human reason above the Holy Scripture; what it does not find reasonable, it is not willing to accept as God's word, but considers it to be human weakness, error, or subsequent, deliberate, detectable, and correctable changes of the writers or the copiers. The Rationalism is the cognitive theoretical conception proclaiming the absolute authority, unlimited cognitive ability of human reason; a theological direction accepting dogmas that can also be understood with rational arguments.

  The rationalists and their peculiar doctrines

  E.g. Unitarian Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphian Bible Mission

  • Their handling of the Bible is liberal: reason overrules the revelation, so what does not seem logical at first, must be denied (e.g., the Trinity). - Cf. Acts 17:29
  • If there is still something "illogical" in the Bible for them, it is either the human error of the writers (unitarians), or it was caused by an ancient Bible forgery (e.g., according to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and God "became confusable"). Cf. Mt 24:35, 1Pt 1:23-25
  • The two ways of rationalism: individualism (the unitarians only agree in doubting the Trinity) or uniformism (the Witnesses cannot interpret the Bible independently of the publications of the Watchtower Society). - Cf. 1Jn 2:27; 2Tim 3:14-17
  • Jesus' death was only caused by human wickedness, it was not God's will (unitarians), or his death was just an archangel's redeeming death (Witnesses). - Cf. Mt 16:21, Heb 10:3-7; Heb 1:5-8, Phil 2:6-11, Jn 1:1,14
  • The process of redemption: "Following the religion of Jesus," the individual realization of the "Jesus life ideal" (unitarians), or active and faithful service within "God's visible organization" is a prerequisite (Witnesses). - Cf. Eph 2:1-10, Tit 3:4-5; 1Pt 1:5-9

  ""he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born." - yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a response to this [false] claim" - It seems that repeating is not enough, because it still does not occur to you that the Scriptures do not say anywhere that the Father "created" the Son, nor that he is a "creature." I wonder why not? If you have found where the Bible states these, I look forward to it :-)

  View Origen quotes.
  

  ""are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research." - If you agree with Watchtower theology 80% of the time (according to your statement), then I assumed that you know their literature well. Well, they can't help emphasizing that their teachings are "completely clear" in the Bible, as we can see, none of the specific JW doctrines are stated in the Scriptures, that's why they emphasize that you can't understand the Bible without the "spiritual food" (=interpretation) of the "faithful and discreet" class (=GB of the WTS). So these doctrines only have the (alleged) basis in the Bible, isn't it a double standard and hypocrisy to mock the Trinity for the same reason?

  ""Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?" - Where it begins with the words "in the beginning", which refers back to Genesis 1:1 (also according to the NWT marginal note), when God created "the heavens" (=spiritual world) and "the earth" (=material world), so he created these two simultaneously. And when these were created, then the Son already "was", so He is not part of the creation.

  "John was inspired to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details?" - He didn't need to know all the "details", just what he wrote: the Son already WAS "in the beginning", so when God created the world, so he is not part of the created world.

  "" then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept." - No, this is only based on your interpretation, the Trinitarian interpretation of these two statements establishes that there is no contradiction between the two. God created "alone", and at the same time the Son was also created. And since the Son is one God with the Father, this already solves the puzzle: since the Son is also YHWH God, God was able to create "alone" so that the Son could also create. The explicit statement that God alone and exclusively created conflicts with your interpretation, if in fact he used an "agent" outside of God, a creature, which, in addition to contradicting the Scriptures, also contradicts logic.

  "" You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians any day." - It wouldn't hurt you to delve into the early Christian literature, maybe you would realize that there was never an early Watchtowerite Christianity.

  When it comes to the meaning of the word "arkhe", it must be taken into account that it does not mean "temporal beginning", but principle, primordial source, from which the creation pours out.
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  This is an interesting topic too, as the theology of the Watchtower captures the divinity of the Father in a rather interesting way, read this article:
  

  https://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JehovahWatchtower.htm

  A distorted, anthropomorphic image of God: can be offended, changes his mind, the creation required energy from him, one needs to "gain" his "approval", etc. God is not omnipresent, but literally dwells in a place (Pleiades); has a (spiritual) body (rather than being simply spirit), is not absolutely omniscient in the first place, but only has the possibility/ability fore foreknowledge, which he either uses or not, these are based on a literal interpretation of certain (mainly Old Testament) anthropomorphic descriptions. This god does not suggest pure theism, but is just a magnified human, a kind of pagan image of God.

  A classic example of this is their belief that God did not know "in advance" that Adam and Eve would sin. According to them, even God is not omniscient in an absolute sense, and they refer to verses such as Genesis 18:20-21. However, this view is not pure theism, and it is a figurative anthropomorphic expression, with which they want to prove this absurd statement. On the other hand, God alone is omniscient (1Kings 8:31-32, Psalm 44:21-22, 94:9-10, 139:2, Job 21:22, Daniel 2:20, Romans 11:33-34). The Father is omniscient (Mt 6:4,32, 10:29-30), the Son (Lk 2:46-47, Jn 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Colossians 2:3, Mt 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2, 40:13, Daniel 4:6, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), yet there are not three omniscient Gods, only one.

  From Biblical statements like that God "regrets" things, one cannot draw the conclusion that there are multiple plans in God, or that he occasionally closed his eyes and did not see the future. The biblical description that God "regretted" creating man at the time of the flood is an anthropomorphic description because otherwise we know (1Samuel 15:29): "Also the Eternal One of Israel will not lie or have regret; for He is not a man that He should have regret." The authors of the Bible indeed use such human images for the sake of a more dynamic description, but we should know that in the final analysis these do not answer the questions of the relationship between divine and human will.

  The point is that the human language, adapted to the terrestrial and material world, cannot fully express the infinity and complete spirituality of God, and therefore - in the past and today alike - can only speak of God with expressions taken from the human world. The Old Testament scripture, especially in its first parts, is full of such so-called anthropomorphic (= attributing human shape, hand, foot, eye, etc. to God) and anthropopathic (= attributing human emotion, anger, regret, etc. to God) expressions, which however should not be taken in their literal sense. This is how we should understand, for example, at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, that "God said," although God did not say anything but created by pure will.

  Therefore, the strong anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of Scripture, especially of the Old Testament (God shows anger, regret, etc. - Genesis 6:6; Psalm 106:40, Hosea 1:6) etc.) should be measured and adjusted to the basic faith truth of God's immutability. These are said because of the observable outward effect, not because of the similarity of emotions. So "God regretted that he made man" means: what God did because of people's depravity achieved effects similar to when people regret their actions. So, of course, God did not decide the flood when the Bible indicates it, but decided it from eternity. And of course, God was not "grieving" in the strict sense of the word "in his heart", these (and similar) expressions are only used by Scripture because humans can only speak of God in a human way, and because it wants to teach man through them: to see how great the sin is, and to know that if the measure is full, God's punitive "hand" will reach him. So this is a human expression for God punishing the sinful man, and that because of his infinite holiness, he detests sin.

  The Bible therefore uses the method of speaking about God in anthropomorphisms. It can only make God's personhood, his active behavior perceptible if it compares him to man. It talks about God's face, eye, ear, hand, ways, feet. These do not want to depict God's shape, but the way God affects man. The anthropomorphisms do not depict God himself. The prophetic visions do not show his shape either, but rather make his effect on humans perceptible. The Semitic spirituality is not interested in the external shape and the limbs, but rather their function. This is why, for example, we read in the book of Isaiah that the mountains rejoice and the trees clap their hands (55:12). When prophetic literature speaks of God in human terms, it does not provide a visual image of Him, but rather attempts to express His entire essence and personality, much like how individual parts are representative of activity and characteristics. God's personality is best illuminated by His being the sovereign actor, the creator of the world, the director of history, and humans being His image by subduing the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). God's personality is further elucidated by images that detail His activities: He sees, hears, speaks, laughs, gets angry, and reconciles. But human behavior can only be a tool of comparison because it is backed by spiritual consciousness, personality. Jehovah cannot be portrayed using animal depictions. The Old Testament does not forget that the distance between God and man is infinite (Genesis 18:17; Exodus 3:5; Isaiah 28:29). The prophets also adopted anthropomorphism because they saw no danger to the concept of God. Only theological reflection and the guidance of the people's thinking led later Greek and Aramaic translators to occasionally soften expressions that could endanger pure transcendence. Looking back from the New Testament, we can see the preparation for incarnation in anthropomorphism.

  So, in explaining anthropomorphism, we always have to think of God's absolute spirituality, infinity, immutability, omnipresence, and sovereignty. For example, when it is said that He gets angry and reconciles, it is not He who changes, but we project the change in our relationship with Him.

  The Watchtower merely speaks of God's "possibility" (!) of foreknowledge. Well, this proposition is simply false even logically. It would present God as if He were not omniscient by nature, but just has a kind of crystal ball, and if He feels the need to know what the future holds, then He peeks into it. But if He is "not curious" about the future, then He can plug his ears, like the clerk in the commercial, saying "pa-pa-pa-pa." :-)

  No, from omniscience, it directly follows that God cannot not know anything. This is wrong for the simple reason that God does not exist in time but above time, so from His point of view, everything that happens in the created world essentially happens "all at once." And if He knows what happens in the created world (and He does), then He knows everything that will ever happen in the created world. Therefore, if you rigorously consider the JW's argument in this regard, it significantly discounts God, portraying Him as figuratively biting His nails, worried about whether the first human couple will fall into sin, realistically hoping that it won't happen. This is complete nonsense.

  Divine omniscience means He knows the past, understands the present, sees the future, and nothing is unknown to Him. God fully understands Himself and everything outside of Him. From God's infinity, it directly follows that nothing is unknown to Him. Infinity is only infinite if it is limitless in all respects, including in terms of knowledge. So God knows even the smallest, most insignificant, most hidden things, and even the world of possibilities, desires, and plans is not hidden from Him, whether they are realized or not. He knows about events even before they occur, and He never forgets a single moment.

  In the face of divine eternity, there is no past or future, everything is constantly present before Him; eternity equals every moment of time, and is simultaneous with every point in time, just as every point on the circumference of a circle is in the same relation to the center. Consequently, God perceives future things in the constant present of His eternity, and this perception does not influence our future events any more than the observer on the tower influences the possible direction of a troop passing below him. Just as our remembrance does not change and does not influence the past, His foreknowledge does not influence the future. So we can formulate it like this: Something doesn't happen because God knows it in advance, but because it happens, He knows it.

  God does not merely foresee the future like a seer, but is present at every point in time, therefore also in the future. God sees the future because what is an uncertain future for us is present for Him, therefore the future is as certain to God as the past. This means that God knows the future, and nevertheless man has free determination.

  The Watchtower relativizes God's real omniscience to a possibility, like deciding whether to take my beer out of the fridge at all, to drink it, and if so, when. However, God's omniscience does not stem from some optional fortune-telling talent, but from the absolute and infinite reality, which means that He is conceptually beyond all created beings, so it is perfectly natural that all those dimensions (space, time), which organize our existence into limits, do not exist for Him.

  The key thing is that in God, the knowledge of the creaturely world is not a skill or ability that he must want to use, but rather he has real, essential omniscience. This thesis automatically follows from the fact that time itself is a created reality, and the creator cannot be limited by a created reality. Furthermore, temporality implies limitation, but God has no limits, he is always present at the same time, which we perceive as a timeline. But regardless of this, the Holy Scriptures also claim God's real omniscience, so even if you deny this basic tenet (which you can't refute anyway), you should still accept it because the Bible declares this. Of course, it can be justified most easily metaphysically: just as every point on the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the center of the circle, every point on the timeline that denotes the change in the creaturely world is equally present to God. The infinity of God is in the Bible, I quoted a few such things in some letters. And countless times it is also in there that God's reality is infinitely more perfect than what can be described with human words, and this should be taken into account when "theologizing" about God himself. Time is the measure of change, so only a changing thing can be described by temporality, but God is unchangeable, this is even explicitly in the Bible! The infinity of God does not mean infinity in a mathematical sense, that you can add as much as you want, etc., but rather that the quantifiability and quantity are in fact creaturely categories, the creator God cannot be characterized by them.

  The JWs relativize God's transcendence, essentially claiming covertly that God is somehow bounded by a structure He created, specifically time. Think about it: before He created the world, time did not exist, but God did not create the grid of time for Himself so that the clock starts ticking over Him from now on, this only applies to the created world. When talking about time in theology, it's important to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing more than that time is the measure of change. So the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And the Bible says this about God in this regard: "He never changes or casts a shifting shadow." (James 1:17) Now if time is the measure of change, it follows that where/who does not change, time does not apply. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": From God's perspective, the fall of man into sin occurred at the same "time" as the present moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. For Him, it is always "today", there is no passage of time for Him, He doesn't have time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "seeing into the future", because for Him, what is future for us is present for Him.

  Returning to our original debate, Christians do not merely confess and proclaim the true divinity of the Son because the New Testament Scriptures use the word "GOD" (theos) for him, but because the attributes attributed to the Son in the Scriptures have no other meaning in this regard. JWs defend themselves by saying that, yes, but the Scriptures do not call the Son "almighty". Well, the 'sine qua non' of true deity is not that the word pantocrator appears literally, if otherwise EVERY attribute necessary for deity, and the emphatic assertion of the "God" statement is present. Especially since the Scriptures implicitly teach the omnipotence of the Son (Mt 28:18, Jn 3:35, 5:19, Heb 1:3), if you do not accept Rev 1:8.

  By the way, in Rev 1:8 it is most likely not God the Father speaking (not only he is "Jehovah"), but the Son/Word, as far as I know, in the book of Revelation either John or the Son speaks in the third person singular. Rev 1:11.17 nicely identifies who the Alpha and Omega, First and Last are. Moreover, according to 1:8, He is also the Coming One (ho erhkomenos), of whom 1:7 already spoke ("He comes with the clouds"). So, according to these, Jesus is the Almighty. According to the text variant inserted into the NA text, he is also "the God" (ho theos). And in Rev 1:11a, according to the NA text, the Alpha and Omega are not present for Jesus. But the other place is still authentic, and here it is specifically Jesus who, speaking, calls himself Alpha and Omega:

  "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are those who keep His commandments [...] I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." (Rev 22:13.16)

  And here from verse 16, it is clear that these are the words of Jesus Christ, and there is no change of speaker between them. Plus, the First and Last (1:17), which essentially means the same as the Alpha and Omega, is also Jesus' title according to the Watchtower (although they explain that he is not "the First and Last" in the same way as the Father). Plus, this, unlike the word "apostle", cannot be applied to two person of different ranks, only to co-equals. Therefore, by acknowledging that this title is applied to the Father in Rev 22:13, the Watchtower admits that the Son is at least as much "first and last" as the Father.

  Moreover, as I said, Christian Christology not only asserts the Son's divinity but also his true humanity, and thus, as a man, he is naturally the servant of the Father, and God for him is the Father, this does not exclude that he is otherwise one (in reality) with him in terms of his divinity. Here is a well-developed aid diagram: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG

  The main Christological directions can be debated, but I think this would be interesting only from a historical-theological perspective, unless the Watchtower would always want to confuse the Trinity with modalism or tritheism, to then get a more easily "refutable" straw man. The type of Christology that eventually explicitly crystallized at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, was also palpable in the first 3 centuries, as a solid point that was always implicitly confessed in the mainstream tradition of the Church. These cannot be compared to the selectively picked up completely insignificant, regional sectarian movements.

  If the Son is the true, metaphysical Son of God the Father, and not just an adopted Son, then he is also God. The high priest and the Jews, for example, understood exactly what it means to say that Jesus is truly the Son of God, because in Jewish tradition, the son inherited his father's name, title, and social position: "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (Jn 5:18).

  If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus is the almighty God. Jesus confirmed this. He showed divine power through miracles: "Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish" (Lk 13:32). He claimed divine right by forgiving sins and modifying divine laws: "So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk 2:10). "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago (...) But I tell you: (...)" (Mt 5:33). He claimed the divine name by often referring to himself by the name by which God introduced Himself to Moses at Mount Horeb (I Am): "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins" (Jn 8:24). "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am" (Jn 8:58). With this, Christ also teaches His eternity, because He says that Abraham was created, and time-bound, but He, as God, is independent of time: "I am."

  The introduction of the Gospel of John, which calls the second person, the Son of God, the "Word". Of course, only the spiritual word can be understood here. Because before we, as humans, would utter a word, we must first form a clear concept in our minds. If I don't understand something, I can't talk about it. Before I say "human", I need to have understood what this word means, in other words, I need to form a concept of what a human is. This concept can be called a spiritual word and it precedes the spoken word. In the same way, God understands Himself, knows Himself, and forms a perfect concept of Himself from eternity, expressing His own essence in a spiritual "Word", "which was in the beginning, was with God, and was God" (Jn 1:1). Our concepts are poor, imperfect, lifeless, even our highest spiritual "creations". God's Word is the summary of His own most perfect essence, it is God, the Son of God; alive, like God the Father; the personal divine Wisdom.

  It's entirely unnecessary for you to argue that "the Son received everything from the Father", because this is also confessed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is included in the Nicene Creed, that the Son "was born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father; by Him all things were made." Therefore, there is a logical (but not temporal) sequence between the Father and the Son: the Father begets the Son, the Son is born of the Father: He received His existence from the Father (but not in time, but outside time), and shared His entire essence with Him ("My Father has handed everything over to me"), therefore He also received His (full and essential) divinity from Him according to us – this however does not empty His divinity. We even confess that the Son receives all His knowledge from the Father from eternity. Due to the Trinitarian origin, the Son is conceptually dependent on the Father, and this provides sufficient logical basis for the way of speaking that the Son follows the Father, and is subordinate to Him, and the Father is the source of the Trinity, therefore it is especially Him who can be attributed (but not monopolized against the Son and the Holy Spirit) the name of God. In the words of St. Hilary: "The Father is greater due to the primacy of the gift of love, yet not lesser is He who is given existence". Because of this Trinitarian origin, Jesus's deity does not become an incidental, peelable "plus", since this did not happen in time: Jesus's existence cannot be separated from His divinity – thus the act of receiving does not take on the meaning with which you want to justify your Arianism.

  The Word, as God, is of course timeless and unchangeable. Thus, everything related to Jesus that implies change and temporality must be attributed to His humanity. He was conceived as a human, was born, was crucified, died, resurrected, "ascended" to heaven, was exalted, was inaugurated as the Messiah-King, etc. These all apply to Jesus as a human.

  Jesus Christ as God never changes. But because He took human body and soul onto Himself and united personally with them (hypostatic union), after His Ascension, somehow the human nature was also glorified in Him. Not in a way that it became part of the Trinity*, but in a way that it got closer to it; approached and forever the divine light and blessing of the Trinity flows onto it. Since the human nature of Jesus was also glorified, it includes us in the trinitarian life of God.

  * Because we do not claim divinity for Jesus's humanity, what is created, can never become God.

  The Son is due all divine and royal titles and honors, while the angels are merely called "ministering spirits" (v. 14), who worship the Son. For the Son is fully God - not an angel. Angels should not be worshipped, as that would be an act against God. Only God deserves worship. Rev 22:8-9 emphasizes this: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”" In both Rev 22:8 and Heb 1,6, the same Greek word: proskuneo ("worship, adulate") is used. The worship that, according to Rev 22:8k, is due only to God, and which angels should not accept, is the same worship and adulation with which, according to Heb 1:6, the angels worship the first-born Son. The fact that it is possible to pray to Jesus, and that he is thus God, is confirmed by many other verses, such as Jn 14:13k; Acts 7:59k; Rom 10:9.13; 1Cor 1:2 and Col 3:17 (see above). Therefore, Jesus is not an angel, but God.

  Bruce M. Metzger: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ
  
• 

  Blotty

  I thought I told you to go and start your own thread
• 

  Blotty

  ""the world was created by the Father." This is grammatically passive" - and no this would be active, as the subject, The Father performed the action, not received it. This might be so in English but in Greek that is not how it works..

  see Wallace Greek Grammar beyond the basics page references above.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE FIRSTBORN:
  

  A PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR UNDERSTANDING
  “THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION” (COLOSSIANS 1:15)
  by Robert Keay, Ph.D.

  (Dr. Keay is Academic Dean of New England Bible College, South Portland, Maine.)

  Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 1, No.1, Spring 1998.
  

  INTRODUCTION
  

  Any person spending time with a Jehovah’s Witness discussing the deity of Christ will likely be confronted with the claim that Jesus Christ cannot be God because Scripture declares that he is the first created being. To support this claim the Jehovah’s Witness will point to Colossians 1:15 (“the firstborn of all creation” NWT), Revelation 3:14 (“beginning of the creation by God” NWT), and Proverbs 8:22 (“Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way” NWT). This article examines the meaning of the term “firstborn” in order to assess the accuracy of the Witnesses’ claim concerning Colossians 1:15. The article will first examine the Old Testament background of the term “firstborn,” showing how Paul would have understood and used the word. This will be followed by an evaluation of the arguments the Watchtower uses in Reasoning from the Scriptures to defend their claim.

  OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF FIRSTBORN

  The term “firstborn” has a rich background in Israelite history and literature. The frequent use of the word in the Old Testament (c. 158x) provides a good starting point for understanding its meaning. Additionally, the firstborn concept occurs in passages where the word does not. These passages must be consulted to avoid the “word study fallacy.” The occurrences in the Pentateuch (over half), describing Israel’s ancestry and earliest history, are especially important in establishing the significance of the word for the covenant people.

  Basic Meaning of Firstborn

  In a basic sense the word “firstborn” is related to two concepts: birth order and birth right. When “firstborn” is related to birth order it refers to the oldest child in a family, the first child born, either male (Gen. 22:21; 1 Chron. 2:25) or female (Gen. 19:31,33,34,37; 29:26; 1 Sam. 14:49). Additionally the word is also used in contexts involving the birth order of animals (Ex. 11:5; 12:29; Lev. 27:26; Num. 18:15-17) and with the first produce of the harvest (translated “firstfruits” or “firstripe” or “earliest fruit” Lev. 2:14; 23:7; Isa. 28:4; Jer. 24:2). When “firstborn” is related to birth right it refers to the child who is the principal heir to the family estate (Gen. 25:32,34; 27:36; Deut. 21:17). This heir must be a male and is usually, though not necessarily, the first in birth order. The “firstborn” as it relates to birth right may not have been first in birth order if he had an older sister or if the birth right was transferred to him. It was believed that the first male born possessed the father’s strength and virility to a greater degree than all subsequent children (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Pss. 78:51; 105:36); therefore, he should be the heir, for he could best fulfill the responsibilities of the father when the father grew old and weak. If this first born son proved himself incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the heir, the birth right, and therefore the title “firstborn”, could be transferred to another son of the father’s choosing (Gen. 49:1-4; 1 Chron. 5:1-2; 1 Chron. 26:10).

  Covenantal Significance of Firstborn

  However, this basic sense of the word does not fully convey the importance of the firstborn concept in Israelite history. Israel’s history was governed by major covenants and these covenants promised salvation through a coming Messiah. The firstborn concept played a major role in this covenantal- redemptive history of the nation.

  Abrahamic Covenant: Birth-Right Not Birth-Order

  The importance of the firstborn is evident, first, in the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham, but God chose Isaac to be Abraham’s heir and receive the birth right, the covenantal promise. Isaac then had two sons: Esau and Jacob. Esau was the firstborn, but Jacob received the birth right as heir, the covenantal promise. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, and he became the father of that great nation. God chose this nation to be His firstborn son (Ex. 4:22). God then made another covenant with Israel, the Mosaic Covenant, developing further the promise of salvation. Throughout this early covenantal history between the time of Abraham and Moses the son who is first in birth order is set aside and another becomes the “firstborn,” obtaining the birth right. This transfer of the firstborn’s honor and privilege to another is not without precedent, however, for God had chosen Abel instead of Cain in the beginning. This transference of birth right is both unusual and consistent. It is unusual in that it goes against the normal practice in which birth order determines birth right. Yet throughout Israel’s covenantal history, God consistently overrules the norm and names His own choice as “firstborn.” So consistent is this practice within Israel’s covenantal history that it establishes a definite literary pattern and a significant theological theme. In the light of Israel’s early covenantal history, the “birth order” meaning of the term “firstborn” fades into insignificance as the “birth right” meaning takes on greater significance, because the birth right privilege includes participation in furthering the covenantal promise of salvation through a coming Messiah.

  Mosaic Covenant: Redemption by a Representative Substitute

  Another event in Israel’s history gives greater meaning to the term “firstborn.” The importance of the firstborn is evident, secondly, in the Mosaic Covenant. Throughout the ancient Near East it was believed that the firstborn son, as well as the firstfruits of the harvest and the firstborn from the cattle rightfully belonged to the local deity. Offering the firstborn as a sacrifice to the deity was believed to be significant for the group’s survival. The firstborn became a representative figure for the whole group, who depended on the favor of the gods for protection and sustenance. Therefore these firstborn were sacrificed to the gods. This fact sheds light on events surrounding the exodus. Before God rescued the Israelites from Egypt he sent ten plagues on the nation of Egypt (Exodus 7-12), which are often interpreted as judgments on the false gods of Egypt, the last plague being the death of all firstborn children and animals in Egypt (Ex. 11-12). With this plague Yahweh was showing that the firstborn belonged to Him, that He alone is the true God (Ex. 7:5), that the Egyptian gods are not gods. Then, following the death of Egypt’s firstborn, the Lord commanded the Israelites to set apart all their firstborn to Him, for they too belonged to Him (Ex. 13:2). In the case of the firstborn animals, this meant sacrificing the animal to the Lord. However, human sacrifice was not tolerated by God. He therefore instituted a program in which the Israelites could redeem, buy back, their firstborn children. This redemption was achieved through a substitute. An animal was sacrificed in place of the firstborn son (Ex. 13:13-15). But this was not a one time event. God instructed Israel to continue this tradition of redeeming their firstborn sons throughout their history as a way of symbolizing God’s act of redeeming the whole nation from Egypt (Ex. 13:14-15). Thus, the firstborn son in Israel had tremendous symbolic significance. He represented the redemption of the nation (as the firstborn in Egypt represented God’s judgment of the nation). Later, the Levites became the substitute for the firstborn. The tribe of Levi was set apart to God for service in the sanctuary (Num. 3:12-50; 8:16-18; 18:15-17). In this case the firstborn represented the sacred service of the nation.

  Summary of Old Testament Background

  This use of the concept and term “firstborn” in the early history of the nation established the real significance of the firstborn for Israel’s later history. The firstborn in Israel had a highly significant symbolic role in the nation. As a representative of the whole nation, the firstborn represented the redemption of the nation from servitude and bondage in Egypt as well as the promise that the nation would ultimately bring salvation to mankind through the Messiah. In later Israelite history usage of the term “firstborn” revolved around this covenantal-redemptive-representative significance of the word. Thus, David, the King of Israel, obtained the title “firstborn” because, as King, he represented the nation (Ps. 89:27). Furthermore, God established a covenant with David, promising to establish David’s kingdom forever, indicating that a son of David would rule on David’s throne throughout history (2 Sam. 7:12-16). Not only was the nation God’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), but the King, the representative of the nation, was also God’s “firstborn son” (Ps. 89:27). The Davidic King as God’s firstborn son carries on the literary pattern and theological theme established in Israel’s earliest history in which God advances his promise of salvation through the coming Messiah by choosing one to be His own firstborn son (without regard to birth order) and covenanting with him.

  The firstborn son in Israel represented the nation’s calling to be God’s firstborn son. As such he represented the nation’s redemptive purpose and hope. The nation was called into existence to serve God by bringing salvation to the world. Ultimately this calling and hope centered in a coming Messiah who would realize the promise of salvation. The title “firstborn” had definite Messianic overtones for the Israelites. Redemption would be accomplished through God’s “firstborn” son Israel (Ex. 4:22), who is represented by the King, God’s “firstborn” son (Ps. 89:27), whose son would redeem the nation and rule forever on David’s throne (2 Sam. 7:12-16). It is no surprise, then, that later Rabbis spoke of the Messiah as “firstborn.” Rabbi Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Ex. 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a firstborn (Ps. 89:27)” [Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4]. And since God is ultimately the savior of the world, Rabbi Bechai said that “God is the firstborn of the world” [Pent. fol. 124:4].

  WATCHTOWER INTERPRETATION OF FIRSTBORN

  In Reasoning from the Scriptures (pp. 408-409) the Watchtower provides the Witnesses with three arguments for why the term “firstborn” cannot refer to one who is “prime, most excellent, most distinguished,” the pre-eminent one, as Christians claim. They argue that the word “indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons” (p. 408). This is based on “the customary meaning of ‘firstborn’” (p. 408). Thus, the Watchtower argues that the term is used in the “birth order” sense and not in the “birth right” sense.

  Reason # 1: The Father is not called Firstborn

  First, the Watchtower reasons, if “firstborn” simply refers to the one who is most excellent, “why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?” [p. 408]. Why is only the Son called “firstborn”? The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the term cannot refer to pre-eminence because God the Father, who is undoubtedly pre-eminent, is never called “firstborn.” This reasoning betrays a logical fallacy, however. One cannot evaluate a statement about one person on the basis of statements made or not made about another person. For example, a young mother says to her daughter, “you have two hands.” According to the Watchtower argument, her young son could deny the truthfulness of his mother’s statement about his sister, claiming, “you never said I had two hands!” The argument is absurd. Moreover, this reasoning betrays ignorance of Jewish literature, for God is called the firstborn. Rabbi Bechai called God “the firstborn of the world,” as was shown above. More importantly, however, the term firstborn does not simply indicate pre-eminence in the manner the Watchtower describes. Instead it describes a specific type of pre-eminence: Messianic pre-eminence. The term “firstborn” is a Messianic term; therefore, it is appropriate only for Jesus, not for the Father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, the term was not be used of either of them in Scripture.

  Reason # 2: Firstborn is Always Part of the Group

  Second, the Watchtower argues that “the firstborn of” always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms is one involving a basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If in fact the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is a part of that animal group just because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being “part of” from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is now applied to Jesus as “firstborn of creation”, the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then the Creation truly is “Mother Earth.” Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously the phrase “firstborn of creation” is not being used in the fashion that the Watchtower claims. The phrases “the firstborn of” that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as does the Watchtower. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is because they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As was shown above, the “birth order” meaning of firstborn fades as the “birth right” significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to “birth order” cannot be justified.

  Reason # 3: Jesus Created “All Other Things”

  Third, the Watchtower claims that it is proper to translate Colossians 1:16,17 using the word “other”: “all other things were created.” They then claim, “Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God” (p.409). They defend this claim on the basis of Luke 13:2, for several translations insert the word “other” after “all”: “all other Galileans.” They claim that the idea “other” is actually contained in the meaning of the word “all” in Luke 13:2, hence “all other.” But the argument will not hold up, for the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 is contextually warranted, not linguistically. The insertion of “other” has nothing to do with the word “all.” The sentence reads, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?” Quite obviously Jesus is comparing Galileans with Galileans, two equal items. The insertion of “other” is warranted by the context of comparing equals [Galileans] and has nothing to do with the word “all.” It is entirely appropriate to insert “other” in Luke 13:2 without changing the meaning of the sentence in any way. However, there is no contextual warrant in Colossians 1:16,17 for the insertion. The two items in the discussion, Jesus and the creation, are not being compared or equated as the two items in Luke 13:2 [Galileans and Galileans]. To insert “other” in Colossians 1:16,17 changes the meaning of the sentence significantly, because it is has no contextual justification. The linguistic argument fails to support their claims. However, this is not the real basis for their insertion of “other” in Colossians. The real reason is theological. It is necessary for them to change the meaning of the sentence, otherwise they must acknowledge that Jesus is not part of creation. The Watchtower indicates this is their real motivation when they explain that they are seeking to harmonize this verse with “everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son” (p.408). However, their mishandling and changing of the text, rather than harmonizing with other Scriptures, contradicts other Scriptures (John 1:3; 1:10).

  CONCLUSION

  The Old Testament background of the “firstborn” concept reveals the falsehood of the Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created being, the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. The use of the term in the Old Testament to signify the one who held the birthright took on greater significance when the birthright included the covenant privilege of advancing the promise of salvation through a coming Messianic savior. In fact, the term did not mean birth order when it involved this covenantal-redemptive privilege, for none of the patriarchs carrying the covenantally significant birth right was a firstborn son in the sense of birth order. They were firstborn only in the birth right sense. Ultimately the firstborn son who held the birth right in this covenantal-redemptive sense was the Messiah, Jesus.

  Jesus is the “firstborn” who brings the hopes and promises of the nation to realization. He is the firstborn who redeems the world (cf. Ex 4:22). He is the firstborn who rules His Kingdom (all creation) as the son of David (cf. Ps. 89:27; 2 Sam. 7:12-14). All previous history pointed to him and waited for him. The “firstborn” is the promised savior Messiah of Israel who rules and reigns over his creation. When Paul called Jesus the “firstborn” in Colossians he was declaring Jesus to be the long hoped for Messianic Savior.
• 

  Blotty

  What a stupid misleading uneducated article... seriously get out of my threads