Posts by aqwsed12345

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Journeyman

„who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV, NKJV); „who, although he existed / was in the form of God, (he) did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (NASB, RSV); „who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited” (NRSV); „who, being in very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV).

The Philippians 2:6 is clearly mistranslated by the Arian Bible translations.

The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".

The NWT rendering of Phil 2:6 is even worse than Wulfila's.

Existing in the morphē of God (has the Bible ever said that about any angel before?), and did not regard as "harpagmos" to BE (einai) equal (isa) with God. What does it mean not regarding/considering something as "harpagmos"? This expression can only be described as something that you cling to at all costs, by force, approx. as Gollum clings to the One Ring "my precious"). So he didn't cling, insist on his equality with God (which he already had), by continuing to stay in the morphē of God, BUT etc.

The beginning of the sentence states that Christ was "in the form of God"; the original term for "form" (morfé) primarily means the exterior, that shape in which someone appears identifiable and recognizable to others; it is no coincidence that several translators interpret it as "existence" or even "nature". The translated word "existed" (hyparkhon) is the participle of the verb hüparkhó (to exist, to subsist, to be in existence) indicating continuous action ("...being" or "...existing").

As for the first disputable detail, the meaning of the negation 'ukh' is "not", and it negates the verb (hegesato). The 'hegesato' is the aorist form of the verb 'hegeomai' (whose role here only indicates past tense), which means to deem, to think, to believe, to regard, to see someone or something as something (Phil 2:3,25, 3:7-8, 2Cor 9:15, 1Tim 1:12, Acts 26:2 etc.). The meaning of 'harpagmos' is robbery, loot, stolen, forcibly acquired thing; it derives from the verb 'harpadzó', which means "to rob" (see Mt 11:12, 12:29, Jn 10:19), or to snatch (Jn 6:15, Acts 8:39, 23:10, Jude 23, Mt 13:19, 1Thess 4:17); from this verb stems the words harpax (predator, robber, plunderer) and harpagé (robbery, desire to rob). 'Harpagmos' is rare in ancient Greek, and it only appears here in the New Testament.

The second clause refers to what the Son did not consider robbery: to 'einai' is a noun derived from the verb eimi (to be). The meaning of 'isa' (dictionary: 'isos') is equal, the same, similar in size etc.; from this stems isotes = equality, identity, fairness. Therefore, Christ did not consider being equal to God as robbery, in other words, being equal to God. The natural translation of the two details: "Being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery" to be "equal to God". It is crucially important that being "equal" to God is continuous, state-like. The Son did not acquire this, as if there was a time when he was not in the form of God. He was originally in this form of existence, so it could not have been an achievable goal for him. He originally "existed in the form of God". The WTS, however, represents it in exactly the opposite way, as if he should not have thought of becoming equal with God, and since he did not do this, he became an example for the Philippians.

Paul does not claim that Christ "did not want to rob" (ukh hegesato harpadzein) what was His from God. Nor does he say that Christ refrained from "being equal to God", from becoming equal to God (see the purpose clause of NWT: "that..."), or "making himself equal to God" (cf. Jn 5:18).

The section preceding Phil 2:6 not only talks about measuring ourselves against others but also about compassion, love, common aspirations and worries, avoiding disputes, humility, and finally in verse 5, that no one should look out for their own benefit only, but everyone should also look out for the benefit of others!

Then comes the elliptical Greek sentence, which every translator has to complete: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus", or more acceptable in the present tense: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [estin] = "as it is in Christ Jesus", or it can be supplemented with a modal auxiliary verb: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [einai dei] = "...as it should be in Christ Jesus".

This needed to be clarified in order to see that, according to Paul's line of thought, the basic attitude of believers in Christ is to place the interests of others above their own. Christ Jesus is cited as an example of this selflessness, who, despite being equal to God in the form of God (the upper pole), took on the form of humans for a time for the sake of humans (the lower pole). The Son almost "emptied himself" (heauton ekenosen), took on a servant's form, became similar to humans, and obeyed even to death. This astonishing, self-sacrificing love is what Paul presented to the Philippians as an example to follow (cf. Mk 10:45). The Society denies that in Christ, God became man. This translation and explanation suggest that Paul takes Jesus' humility before Jehovah as an example of humility. Accordingly, if we should regard others as better than ourselves, then Jesus is the best example of this because he regarded God, that is, Jehovah, as better than himself, and did not want to become God. According to the Bible verse, the Son's pre-incarnation state is described as "being in the form of God", "being equal to God", but he did not cling to this, but took on a human, servant form. Paul makes God, who humbled himself to us in Christ, an example of humility.

The word "harpagmos" in dictionaries does not directly mean robbery, loot, but rather looting, predation. However, it cannot be translated this way, as the meaning of the sentence would change to the opposite (even along the interpretation of the Watchtower): "Jesus did not consider it looting if he wanted to be equal with God." The word also has the meaning of "desirable acquisition," in which the aspect of seizing has completely faded. Therefore, it must be resolved somehow, and definitely by translating the word "harpagmos" with its object: something seized or to be seized, looted, robbed. If any translation does not proceed this way, it will be forced to paraphrase, so it cannot be used as an argument in the present debate.

At this point the NWT also uses a paraphrase: "the idea of trying to be equal to God". The purpose structure is completely missing from the Greek, it was only added by the interpretive effort of the translator. Similarly, the word "although" expressing the opposing aspect is not present in the Greek, although NWT also adds it: "who, although he was existing in God’s form". This translation solution is not falsification in itself, but it definitely unambiguously interprets an ambiguous Greek structure along some ideology. So it cannot be paraded as a "more accurate translation."

However, the New World Translation is also forced into a falsification that those defending it usually don't dare to address: "did not consider that", or "did not concern himself with the [...] thought". However, the meaning of "hegeomai" is not "to think about something", but "to consider / regard something as something". The correctness of this translation is also reflected in the grammatical structure of Phil 2:6, which, in accordance with the general sentence scheme of "hégeomai", contains a double object: "harpagmon" and "to einai isa theo", i.e. "loot" and "being equal with God". This meaning is not reflected by the Watchtower Bible, but it embezzles it.

A lot turns on this, because it becomes clear that the Watchtower Society bends the text with ideological intent, but this time it does not unambiguously interpret ambiguous Greek with interpretive translation, but falsifies unambiguous Greek with it.

It is precisely the context that makes it clear that Paul here presents Jesus as a divine person renouncing his existing possessions, not as someone who does not reach for something that is not his. There is no such thing in this text as the Watchtower ideologue pours in, that Jesus regarded God as more than himself. This is not exegesis, but the killing of the text at issue with sectarian theology.

The continuation ("but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant") states that Jesus did not demonstrate his humiliation by not seizing equality with God, but by not clinging to it. Otherwise, Paul's illustrative example would have lacked even the semblance of aptness. How would the example of Jesus, who does not reach above his own due, justify that we consider others superior to ourselves? To encourage this, Paul had to present a Jesus who does not cling to what is his, but voluntarily renounces it.

Some commentators want to demonstrate a difference between the contents of the following expressions: "being in the form of God," and "equality with God". But this is impossible, because in the continuation Paul contrasts the form of God with the form of a servant, so when Jesus took the form of a servant, he did not merely give up being equal with God, but also the divine form. Since he renounced both, it is obvious that Paul considered the two equal here.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Journeyman

Just give correct answer for the rhetorical question given in Hebews 1:

"For to which of the angels did God ever say.." ?
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"?
"Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits?"

So if no angels have been said to, and all the angels are ministering spirits, how could be the Son one of them? It say He is superior to all of them, right? WTS seems to have forgotten the add their usual "other" word here.

Your following reasoning fails on the fact, that the Son "sat down" at the right hand of God after his ascension heaven, sot it's according to his humanity, according to which entered to the divine glory He enjoyed according to his divinity from eternity. Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.

So this part "being made" in Hebrews 1:4 words must be closely joined with the last clause of Hebrews 1:3; they speak, not of the glory which was ever His, but of that which became His after He had “made purification of sins".

We must keep far from the concept of 'sonship' any idea taken from human life which suggests that the father exists first, and only after a period of time does the son come into existence, for which reason the father is greater, stronger, wiser, and for a long time the son is someone entirely subordinate to him. Instead, we should consider the significance of 'sonship' in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal relationships, when the entire household saw in the son the alter ego of the father, the inheritor of all his property, and partaker in all his authority. And we can consider the often-occurring phenomenon that the grown son is often indeed a carbon copy of the father. The same facial features, the same movements, the same way of speaking and thinking, as if the father were living his second life in the son. When God the Father, not at a certain point in time, but from eternity to eternity, pours out the life of the Son of Himself, He can view in it, as it were, the mirror image of His own being, and He also projects His faithful copy onto us, so that we may know Him from it. The Son is the same God, but in a different way: in the form of existence of God revealing Himself. The Bible expresses this clearly and aptly when it designates the Son with another name, as the 'Word', which - or rather: who - was 'with God' from eternity, and 'was God'. The Son, therefore, is God living in His utterance, the eternal Word, in which God expresses Himself.

"Although Hebrews 1:2 is explicit that "through the Son he created the universe", which again makes it clear that God directed and guided Jesus in the creative works."

It's not "universe" there, but aions, which includes the time, temporality, so the Son existed before the creation of the time, hence "in the beginning" he was, thus eternal. The text does not say anything about "directing and guiding" the creation, and in the verse 10, the creation is directly attributed to the Son, which is also quoting a Psalm speaking about YHWH.

" in all of those verses in Hebrews 1, no mention of a person called "Holy Spirit". It's all about the relationship between TWO persons. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!"

Or because these text is not about the Holy Spirit, but about the relation of the Father and the Son. If I talk about my father only in a conversation, it means my mother doesn't exist?

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

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

"You mention that the Bible doesn’t use particular words to say Jesus is a creature. There are lots of words the Bible doesn’t use, and if we are talking about Trinitarian dogma the list gets very long indeed."

But here we are only talking about this one special issue: was the Son born (tikto), in other words begotten (gennao), or was he created by the Father (ktizo, poio)? The NT always uses the first two for the Son orign from the Father, and never the latter two. And vice versa: the NT always uses the last two in relation of the creation of the creatures, never the first two. Don't you think that this has a theological significance and indicates that there is a substantive-qualitative difference between the two?

The issue about Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 I've expresed many times. I don't want to repeat myself, just this part: ironically, the interpretation I gave for these verses, is NOT in conflict with the WTS theology, they also confess that Jehovah possessed wisdom from the beginning, they also confess that the Son is the privileged, pre-eminent heir of the entire, the whole creation, and also the source of creation, so the interpretations presented here would NOT be contrary to their theology. However, they cannot admit this, because then they would lose their "one-liner" "proof texts"...

"While on earth Jesus said “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57) whereas the Father “has life in himself” without anyone else giving it to him."

This is not in contradiction with Nicene theology, which professes that the Son received everything from the Father, including His existence and divinity, not through creation, but through begetting, thereby sharing His entire being and divinity with Him. Additionally, the Father remains in the Son, and the Son in the Father, thereby sharing their divine essence. This is precisely why you should take out a theology book and first of all look at what the Catholic-Orthodox doctrine teaches about the issue, and not shoot at "straw men".

"Micah 5.2 says that Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. God doesn’t have an origin but a creature does."

God the Father does not have orign, but the Son has, not in the sense of being created, that does not exclude to be truly God. Just to repeat, the Nicene Christology never denied the Father is unbegotten, while the Son is begotten, thus having the orign from the Father. The point is: this generation of him from the Father is NEVER called creation, but "begotten", "born." The Scripture makes a clear distinction between the two. Micah 5:2 says the Son's origns are from ancient times, from the eternety/everlasting [ūmōwṣā’ōṯāw miqqeḏem mîmê ‘ōwlām].

"Those are just the scriptures that say Jesus is a creature most directly. "

If those are the vereses, that "say" that the Son is a creature "most direct" way, then your position is quite weak. At the same time, to what extent does the Scriptures affirm the Nicene teaching that the Son was born/begotten?

"There are dozens of others where it’s implied because he is distinguished from God, knows less than God, is less powerful than God, relies on God for everything."

Non-Sabellian, non-modalistic orthodox Christology never equated the Son with the Father as they were the same persons, although those way is speaking is clearly justified since the Incarnation. He is naturally inferior to the Father in his humanity, which does not preclude his being equal in his divinity. It's simple: when Jesus emphasizes these things, it means his humanity, and when he emphasizes other things, it means his divinity. This is the hypostatic union. You don't disprove this theology by pointing to these verses.

"One of the words later Trinitarians insisted didn’t apply to Jesus was poieo “made” yet that is used of Jesus in Heb 3.2."

This is bogus, here it is not about the Son's pre-incarnation orign from the Father. Again, where does the New Testament describe the origin of the Son from the Father with the terms "ktizo" or "poio"? I'll tell you: nowhere.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Blotty & slimboyfat

There are a lot of sources discussing the translation of Proverbs 8:22, like

I've found it strange, but this letter of Jerome is not translated to English, so I've done this myself:

“Something similar is also read in Proverbs [in in the Septuagint], of the person of the Wisdom, who is the Christ: »The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled and before all hills, he begets me.« Here, the word »created« should not confuse us, since in the Hebrew text, there is no »created«, which is expressed with BARA, but »possessed«. For it is written: »ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO«, which in our language means: »The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways«. However, there is a great difference between »possession« and »creation«. Possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. But creation is the beginning of a new state of that, which did not exist before.”

Here Jerome basically explains the Psalm 90, and touches on this issue only as an aside. According to the researchers, he learned this interpretation during his stay in Bethlehem, from the Jewish community there.

By the way, none of the schools of thought in the Arian controversy raised the question whether translation of the Septuagint here is correct, since at that time Origen was no longer, and Jerome was not yet alive. The discussion was in Greek and about the nuance of the meaning of the verb "ktizo", which is already extensive in Greek. Check this: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html

It would have been simpler if they had pointed out that Wisdom here is not the Son himself, but a female allegory that can only be applied to the Son according to the rules of typology, and that according to this even the Old Testament makes a distinction between "qanah" and "bara". By the way, in the Old Testament "bara" is sometimes also translated as "begetting".

"Lots of people in the early church called themselves Trinitarian but do not meet the common modern definition of the word."

No one said that the doctrine itself has not developed over the centuries, this is the development of dogma in the Catholic sense, which does not mean a change in teaching, but a more precise, sophisticated, systematized explanation of the faith professed in essence and content until then. Here the main point is the key phrase: Jesus is true God and begotten, not a creature <- vs -> just a creature, an angel.

For example, the Apostles' Creed already uses the Trinitarian formula, without expanding it, so even the very first Christian creeds without theological explanation spoke of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, mentioning them in one line, but they never spoke of Jehovah, Michael and about the active force. Here, one must start from the fact that there was no alleged "great apostasy", which the WTS is forced to force in order to present the conspiracy theory, that in fact the Christians of the apostolic age professed a WTS-type theology, only "true Christianity" for a couple of decades disappeared without any trace.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Blotty

I recommend John 5:23 to your attention

"regarding Hebrews 1:2: not according to some trinitarian scholars Iv read."

You fail to respond, the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.

"your verb "was" argument is laughable.. try a dictionary."

You misunderstood this too, the point was not the word "was" per se, but "in the beginning was..." as opposed to "created in the beginning", etc. For John 1:1a: https://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1_ov1.htm

"your "outside of time" argument is even more laughable and not even worth an actual response."

You can laugh, but according to Christian teaching, time itself, temporality is also a created reality, the Scriptures indicate this with the term "aión" (αἰών), the Son was "born" (tikto), or "begotten" (gennao) from the Father before the creation of the αἰών-s. And if the Son was "already" born of the Father when there were no αἰώνs, then this is equivalent to the fact that there was no such time when he did not exist. That is why John writes that he already was in the beginning. This description is included in the Nicene Creed.

"Begotten and being Born are used as parallels in the NT.. There is no one who is begotten and yet not born"

Precisely, the terminology of the scriptures very much separates the origin of the Son (and the Holy Spirit) from the Father, from the creation of creatures. For the former, he always uses the verbs "gennao", "titko" and expressions formed from them, while for the latter he consistently uses the verbs "ktizo", "poio" and structures formed from them. Well, don't you think this strict terminological distinction is at least interesting?

"Father nor holy spirit are called begotten nor are angels"

Yep, because the Father is not begotten, the Holy Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and the angels are created. Only the Son is begotten, that's why only-begotten. Just as the Athanasian creed:

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

"How do you beget something without it being born (or created)? the very definition to the word corresponds to the concept of "coming into existance""

Ah, so you would subject to the concept of birth developed for humans (or even the concept of occurrence developed for objects), for the Son, about whom we know was not born from the Father the same ways as humans born. However, you see, you fall into a logical inconsistency with this. Likely continuing an already initiated analogy or searching for a counterexample, I brought up the example of human procreation, but not as a tool for proof, because otherwise, there's a great difference between them. The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation. The birth of the Son is unique and differs not only in terminology but also in essence from that of the creatures. For he is the only begotten Son (and only begotten God), that is, he is unique in terms of sonship and begotten divinity, even when he already has many brothers from the Father. This difference includes non-creatureliness, because the only begotten God cannot be a 'created God' - this expression in itself would be blasphemy.

Indeed, it is written that 'In the beginning was the Word.' And this emphatic statement stands in the place of the Genesis paraphrase that 'In the beginning, God created the Word.' Thus, instead of the time of the Word's birth, we read about him as someone who 'in the beginning' (that is, when time began) already 'was,' that is, existed. This means that his birth did not occur in time. And this is indeed logical, based on the Word, despite your short conception of time resisting it.

Behold: 'Before Abraham was, I am.' (No wonder the JWs also falsify this in their translation.)

If by 'before the beginning' you mean 'outside of time,' then yes - and this is trivially true. If you mean that there was a time when the Son did not yet exist, then you are mistaken, and this is also trivial. Because in this case, the 'beginning' would not have been a beginning, because there would have been a point in time before it. And in this second case, at most it could be in the text that 'In the beginning, the Word was made.' But it doesn't say that. Therefore, the Son was not born in time, but 'was in the beginning.'"

That the Father is the source of divinity, and that he also begot the Son together with his divinity. Therefore, if in the relationship between the Father and the Son God is specifically called the Father, it stems from the fact that the Son did not give his divinity to the Father, but vice versa.

The phrasing "all things were created in Him" excludes Jesus from being a creature. Creation is nothing else but the bringing into existence during time of a thing or being that did not exist before. Thus, if Jesus were a creature, then according to the text he would have had to create himself, which is a conceptual impossibility. (Someone who is created in, by, etc., must precede him in time, so there would have been a moment when Jesus simultaneously existed and did not exist.) So, everything could only be created in him if he himself is not a creature. And in this case, "in Him" does not mean "by His creation," but rather with His cooperation, through His action, etc. Or the worst-case scenario occurs, and you have to interpret "all things" as the JWs mistranslate it in the Bible: "all other things."

Scripture reveals that there was no time when the Son did not exist. The Father is not greater than the Son in divinity, but in fatherhood, for it is written: In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (What kind of divine fullness is there that has something greater or more?) On the other hand, Jesus was a Son, and as such, was inherently obedient to the Father in the work of redemption, thus in the ekonomia (although in His divinity he was equal with Him). Prompted by this obedience, He became human (because He owed it to no one, not even the Father), and as a human, He learned obedience in a new way: as a creature. This is another reason why he could admit that He was less than the Father.

Jesus did not cease to be the same God as the Father, but He set aside the use of His power and glory, humbled Himself, and relied only on the Father. If He had only been some kind of creature, He could have relied on the Father without emptying Himself, and not on Himself. Moreover, if He had been a creature from the beginning, He could have died without self-emptying. However, since He was God and remained God, it was necessary for Him to take on human form and die as a human (as a creature).

According to Paul, the fullness of the divine nature bodily dwelt in Him. Because if there is a creature in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, that would be a strange creature indeed. (A God who was not always so, but "became" God?) And yet, you can only try to move away from the compelling current of the text by saying that "originally" He was not God (although why not: "The Word was God"). But if He had not been God throughout His existence, but had only been made so after his "creation," then it's your turn to say: on what occasion and at what time did He acquire this fullness of divinity. And what kind of fullness is it that does not extend to every moment of His existence?

"well its not hard to figure considering YHWH is called "Father" numerous times throughout the OT... "

That according to the OT the Father is YHWH is not the same as that exclusively the Father of the NT is Jehovah. Jesus is not the Father, but both Jesus and the Father are Yahweh. Compare e.g. Hebrews 1:10.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Blotty

Actually, it's ironic that the standard interpretation of the three Bible verses parroted regarding the alleged "creation" of the Son is not in conflict with the Society's theology, they also confess that Jehovah possessed wisdom from the beginning, they also confess that the Son is the privileged, pre-eminent heir of the entire, the whole creation, and the source of creation, so the interpretations presented here would not be contrary to their theology. However, they cannot admit this, because then they would lose their "one-liner" "proof texts"...

The faithful translation of the Bible leaves open what Paul is actually asserting about Christ (Creator or part of the creation process?). Only the textual context and the wider biblical connections can decide in his interpretation.

Colossians 1:15

KIT: "firstborn–of all–creation"

Correct translations and interpretations: „the first-born of all creation” (NASB, NRSV); „the firstborn over all creation” (NIV, NKJV); „he is the firstborn Son, superior to / supreme / the primacy over all creation / over created things” (NEB, REB, TEV, NLT).

According to the WTS, Jesus is just the first, directly created creature, God's 'masterpiece or junior partner', who created the "rest" of creation. The WTS, translating the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' faithfully, kept it as a possessive structure and refers to it in other publications, suggesting that this text of Scripture asserts Christ's status as a "creature".

Based on the context of the text, we see that Paul isn't discussing the timing of Christ's birth, but his identity (image of God), role (creation), and rank (heir).

The translation of "firstborn of all creation" depends on the meaning of 'ktisis' (creation) and 'pas' (all, whole), as well as the interpretation of the possessive structure (whose is it?). Regarding the translation of "firstborn of all creation", the 'ktisis' here is a richly meaningful word: establishment, foundation, institution (1Pt 2:13), the creation of the world as a process, although looking back it is a completed act (Rom 1:20, 2Pt 3:4), or the created world and its things, the creatures (Rom 8:39). The verb 'ktizo' (to create) appears twice in verse 16, usually translated as "was created". Its first occurrence (ektisthe) refers to creation as a one-time event, and the second form (ektistai) also refers to the created world as a permanent, existing one. It's not about the firstborn of "all the creatures" (ktismata), but the firstborn of creation, i.e., the thole created world (ktisis).

The meaning of 'pas' is "all" or "every single one", depending on what it refers to. Since it is about the created world here and not individual creatures, the meaning of "all" is evident.

The basic meaning of 'prototokos' is the firstborn, first born; the Bible often uses it in a biological sense, less often in the sense of priority, superiority in rank. In our case, the choice may be influenced by the fact that everything in heaven and on earth was created by Christ (verse 16, cf. Jn 1:3), which excludes the possibility that he himself could be classified into the "creatures" category. Thus, Christ "has the rights of the firstborn over all creation". This possible use of the word is confirmed by the whole Bible. When God gives firstborn status to David, he talks about his rank among kings (Ps 89:28 LXX), since he was the last son in his family. Jacob considered the firstborn status a purchasable legal position (Gen 25:31 LXX, Heb 12:16). God calls Israel his firstborn because of its privileges (Ex 4:22 LXX; according to Jer 31:9 LXX, however, Ephraim).

The WTS among its objections claims that the Bible uses the expression in a biological sense, e.g. Pharaoh's firstborn or the firstborn of animals (as we saw: it also uses it in another sense). It also asks why, if firstborn status means rank, the Bible only uses it for the Son, and not for the Father and the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple: the Son is the one who became human, and with whom this concept can be associated at all, based on its basic meaning.

Therefore, the interpretation of 'prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs' primarily depends on how we understand the possessive structure. From a purely logical point of view, several cases are possible (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire created world, i.e., he is the firstborn in all creation, therefore he is a "product" of the created world, but the Society would also deny this, (2) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire creation process, the first product, as the Society understands it, so he is someone born before all creatures (3) Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.

Paul cannot claim of Christ that he lists Christ among the creations (the created world) created by creation, since he claims that he created everything (see following verses and Jn 1:3). It is not about creatures (ktismata), but about creation (ktisis). He does not claim that Christ is the "firstborn of the Creator (ho ktistes)" (which would be prototokhos tou ktistou), but that he is the firstborn of all/whole creation (he ktisis). For this reason alone, the analogy drawn with the parental relationship is also unthinkable (e.g. "like Pharaoh's firstborn," etc.) is incorrect.

As for the repeated insertion of "other," it does not follow from the textual context. The textual context can also assist in the correct translation of the phrase "the firstborn of all creation". This is about the Heir who was before all, is above all, precedes everyone in everything (1:17-18), and in whom is the inheritance of the believers. The text talks about, and only about, that he created everything, so we can exclude the interpretation that he could be the firstborn, the first product of the universe he created.

According to verse 16, the world was created "in him" (en autó), or "with him" (di' autou), and thirdly "for him" (eis auton), or according to interpretive translations: "for his sake", "flowing into him" was created. Some translations interpret "eis auton" as "for him" everything was created, i.e., that it should be his; since 'eis' expresses some kind of intentionality, Jesus could also be the goal of the created world in the sense that man in the world should have been like him.

The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.

In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.

The interpretation "the firstborn in all creation" is not acceptable. Even in this train of thought, in verse 23, we find a text that can be translated as: 'en pasé ktisei' = "in all creation [under heaven]". If Paul had thought the same in verse 15, he would surely have formulated it just as clearly (en ktisei) there.

The "firstborn among all creation" could only be acceptable if the text was 'prototokos ek ton ktismaton'; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, out of, among), where Paul says that Jesus is the 'firstborn from the dead' (prototokos ek ton nekron).

Revelation 3:14

You must have misunderstood my argument. The passage does not specifically claim to say that Christ would be the "ruler of God's creation" (arkhón), nor that Christ is God's "first creation" (protoktisma), the "first fruit of God's creation" (aparkhe), or the "beginner of God's creation" (arkhegos). It also does not specifically say that Christ would be the "ruler of God's creation" (arkhón), but arkhé and arkhón are synonymous words. I did not interpret 'arche' in the sense of "ruler" here - although there are many examples for that meaning in the New Testament (see Luke 12:11, 20:20; Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21, 3:10, 6:12 , Colossians 1:16, 2:15; Titus 3:1, Titus 3:1), so it's also a possible understanding.

According to the WTS, God's Son, the Archangel Michael, was the first created being. By retaining the possessive structure, it enables its publications to use its own definition ("the first creation") for validation. The faithful translation of the Bible verse leaves open what Paul claims about Christ (Creator or part of creation?). Its interpretation depends on the wider biblical contexts.

The message of the text, its message is, how does Christ identify himself? First of all, an accurate translation of the texts related to the topic (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17) is crucial. Secondly, the Bible's testimony about the Creator must be taken into account: there is only one Creator, God Himself (Gen 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hand (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Thus, creation is solely and directly the work of God.

You can translate it as "beginning" to English, but you still can't make the mistake of thinking in English rather than considering the contemporary Greek connotation. You you can translate this as "beginning", but cannot understand it as "beginner", but in the sense that the whole creation originates from it. Thus source, primordial pincple, active cause. God called 'arche' in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13.

John 20:28

The fact that only 'ho theos' can be a real God, standing without a noun ('theos') can necessarily only mean some lesser god, demigod, well, neither the New Testament nor Greek grammar knows such a rule. The New Testament also calls the Father simply 'theos', and there are even examples where 'ho theos' refers not only to the true God, but also to Satan (e.g. 2Cor 4:4 "the god of this world" = ho theos tou aiōnos toutou).

All the more apparent is the convulsive effort to call Jesus 'ho theos', get rid of it somehow, even though John 20:28 is not the only example of this.

KIT: Answered–Thomas–and–he said–to him–The–Lord–of me–and–the–God–of me!

According to the Watchtower Society, Thomas here simply exclaimed in emotional surprise, turning to Jesus, but actually addressing his words to God the Father, not to Jesus. As for the text, neither the kyrios (lord) nor the theos (god) is in the vocative case, that is, the addressing mode (e.g., the vocative of kyrios would be kyrie). However, this does not mean that Thomas did not say what he said to Jesus. Both nouns are preceded by the definite article: ho kyrios and ho theos, which is of decisive importance.

As for such constructions with definite articles, which sound a bit strange to a Greek ear, this is one of the special Hebrew and Aramaic linguistic turns found in the Greek text of the New Testament. In Hebrew, the vocative case is expressed with the definite article: e.g., in Mk 14:36 the 'abba ho pater' is literally "God, the Father", in English: "My God! My Father!" In Aramaic, the vocative is expressed by the -a (article) attached to the noun; e.g., in Mk 5:41 the 'talitha kumi'! According to Mark's Aramaic Greek translation, 'to korasion', literally "the little girl, arise!", in English: "Little girl, arise!"

If John wrote following the Greek linguistic procedure, then Thomas's sentence is an exclamation stemming from recognition, addressed to Jesus: in Jesus, he finally recognized his Lord and his God. If John translated the sentence originally spoken in Aramaic "literally" into Greek, it is also clear that he originally said what he said to Jesus, in the vocative case. Based on all this, it can be said with certainty that from Thomas's recognition, a statement, ultimately a confession of faith, arose: "My Lord, and my God!" or more simply, said to Jesus ("to him"): "Lord! My God!" The conjunction 'and' (kai) does not refer to the separateness of Thomas's Lord and God, but is one of the expressive tools of pathos in both Hebrew and Greek. For example, in Paul's blessings, 'ho theos kai pater' is literally "God and Father", but in meaning it is "God the Father" (see 1Cor 15:24, 2Cor 1:3, 11:31, Gal 1:4, Eph 1:3). Therefore, the "and" can be omitted in the English translation.

Thomas's words cannot be interpreted merely as signs of astonishment ("Oh my God!"). He not only exclaimed, but clearly spoke to Jesus, said what he said to him (auto = to him). Thomas transitioned from doubting to confessing faith after Jesus appeared to him. And Jesus did not correct him to be just "one god" among many or "god with a small g".

The WTS points to the precedents in interpreting Thomas's words: In the high priestly prayer, Jesus called his Father the only true God (Jn 17:3), and after his resurrection, he told Mary Magdalene, "I am going up ... to my God", so Jesus also had a God: Jehovah. However, Jesus was not there and then trying to answer the Society's question (can Jesus be God?).

In his high priestly prayer and his brief conversation with Mary Magdalene, he was not preoccupied with defining his own essence. In his prayer, the Son who has become flesh and human speaks: He calls his Father 'the only true God' and God 'holy Father', while preparing to atone for the sinful mortals. No wonder that eternal life also depends on recognizing Jesus, for he is 'the holy and the true' (cf. Acts 3:14, Rom 3:26, 1Cor 1:30). Speaking to Mary is the Messiah who was believed to have failed, even kidnapped, but has risen and is alive. And there, in that desperate moment, barely seeing through her tears, Mary needed these words: don't cling to him, rather bring a message to his disciples, because he will go up to the Father, who is also theirs, and to God, who is also theirs. So God did not abandon either the Messiah or them, but prevailed: the Messiah is alive, the Messiah's Father and God is also theirs! They did not pray in vain ('Our Father...!'), indeed 'God is with them' (Immanuel). Obviously, this was too much for Mary, so it's no wonder that Jesus did not say more there and then.

However, the Watchtower Society denies that God, the Son, was among us in Jesus and died a sacrificial death. Therefore, they try to translate and interpret Thomas's words in a way that they do not sound like a confession of faith stemming from recognition. According to the Bible verse, however, Thomas recognized his Lord and his God in the resurrected Jesus, and Jesus accepted his confession of faith.

To be continued...

22

"Apostasy"

by Zilgee in

the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.

these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.

we are now following what they decided.

aqwsed12345

Our Lord Christ did not remain on earth in visible form. Yet He wished to ensure that His teachings, gifts, and institutions would remain among us, and for the institutional preservation of all these, He founded the Church. The Church has become the custodian of His love and care for us, the guardian of His principles, the bearer of His laws and blessings. Through the Church, Christ showers us with His gifts. It proclaims, protects, and spreads the true faith, fights for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, sanctifies souls and leads them on the path to earthly and eternal happiness. Through the Church, Jesus nurtures and cares for us, guides our steps, and prepares our souls for eternal bliss.

One would think that for this reason everyone would be passionately in love with the Church, as the bride and fiancee of Jesus (cf. Ephesians 5, 22-30), and the greatest benefactor of humanity. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Many people inexplicably alienate themselves from the Church, even if they otherwise profess to be followers of Christ. A peculiar phenomenon! There are those who carry Christ on their lips and occasionally use His name or a snatched phrase for the defense of their own worldview or direction, but as soon as Jesus urges order, discipline, organizational solidity, as soon as He talks about the Church, spiritual governance, religious supremacy, the custodians of spiritual power, they immediately flinch. Christ yes, but not the Church! - this is their motto. They do not dare to attack Jesus directly, but they attack the Church and everything related to it: the papacy, priesthood, sacraments, the institutions of church life, all the more fiercely.

Vain and pitiable struggle! Jesus did not want mere individual piety, did not want to open a mere school, did not want to set a philosophical system into the world, but wanted a new world order, a kingdom, the "Kingdom of Heaven", the "Kingdom of God" on earth, a spiritual family, unity, an organization, or as He directly and repeatedly said: a Church. Therefore, whoever speaks against the Church, speaks against Christ, and whoever does not love the Church, cannot love Christ either. To love the Church is to love Jesus, to gratefully accept His most beautiful and greatest gift! However, Christ founded only one Church and since human capriciousness has resulted in numerous man-made "churches" vying for the palm today, we must also clearly see which is the one, true, lawful, Catholic Church.

Some might say: "Religion is needed, but not the Church." You might as well say: a car is needed, but not a wheel. Health is needed, but not health care. Lunch is needed, but not a chef. The Church is needed precisely so that there is someone to proclaim religion, to manage its affairs regularly, to lead official worship, to guide people in religious life, lest anyone should do things that are inappropriate, unworthy, superstitious or even immoral in the name of religion.

Anyway: whether the Church is needed is not for us to decide. It was decided long ago by the only one competent to decide: Lord Christ Himself. Because He Himself openly said that He is building a Church, indeed on Peter, and He and the apostles often talk about the Church, the Kingdom of God, the organized community of believers. Therefore, anyone who does not need a Church is arguing with Christ Himself.

So what is the Church? The Church is the organized community of believers, appointed by Christ, which is characterized by the fact that, according to Christ's command, there are leaders and led, superiors and subordinates in it. The leaders are those who, by the command of Christ, exercise teaching, sacrament-distributing, and soul-governing power in the Church. This hierarchical (priestly) constitution of the Church is undoubtedly Christ's own ordinance.

If we accept the gospel at all, we must also accept what we read in it about the Church being founded by Jesus. The gospel clearly and explicitly speaks of the Church, which Jesus built upon Peter as a rock and those who do not listen to it should be like the heathen and the tax collector (Mt. 16:18; 18:17). In addition, the gospel also lists those measures of Jesus, which, even if Jesus does not explicitly mention the Church, involve the organization of a religious community led by divine authority - the Church.

What is the Church? It is the association of Catholic Christians living all over the world, whose visible head is the successor of Saint Peter. The marks of this Church all originate from Christ. Jesus entrusted the spiritual leadership of the faithful to his disciples, whose preaching and sacramental activity everyone who wants to be saved must use; that is, he established an ecclesiastical organization in which there are leaders and members, superiors and subordinates, priests and believers. Therefore, there is no doubt that Jesus wanted to establish not a mere school or religious philosophical theory, but a Church, which everyone is obliged to belong to, who learns about the Church as Jesus' creation.

Protestants, of course, say that "the Church unnecessarily interferes between God and the soul." They also say that "no mediator is needed: the soul must directly connect to God."

Both are needed: the soul's direct connection to God and the Church's role in establishing, strengthening, and correctly directing this connection. The Church does not "interfere" and does not separate the soul from God, but on the contrary: it leads the soul to God. Where there is no Church, there is no serious piety, or at least not the organized, protected, lawful piety that Jesus ordered. Anyone who sees a burden and obstacle in the Church is opposing Jesus' order; if someone perceives the Church as "interfering" between Jesus and the souls, this interference is due to Christ's own definite provision.

Christ clearly established only one Church. He always talks about one Church, one kingdom of God, and wants everyone to belong to it in complete unity: "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd" (John 10:16). St. Paul derives the law of unity and indissolubility of marriage from the fact that the marriage of believers is "one body and one spirit, just as your calling is to one hope. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:4-5). He specifically emphasizes that there should not be denominations or schisms in the Church. "I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought" (1 Cor. 1:10).

That's why Ignatius of Antioch, the great martyr-bishop, said at the beginning of the 2nd century: "Do not be deceived, brothers: he who follows schism cannot inherit the kingdom of God (Philad. 3, 2. 3.)"; and Saint Irenaeus, the great martyr-bishop of Lyon in the middle of the 2nd century: "Those who are outside the Church are also outside the truth." St. Augustine warns: "Therefore cling, my dear ones, all of you with one will to God as your Father and to the Church as your mother" (In Psalm. 88; 2, 14).

So there is no question of reconciling the doctrine of "multiple churches", the bundle of denominations deeply differing in all essentials: doctrine, organization, ambition, with the principles of Jesus and the early Church. The Church ordained by Christ is not simply a collective term for the denominations of all Jesus-believers, but only the members of the Church Jesus built: those who stand on the rock foundation on which Jesus built his Church; who follow the shepherd whom Jesus entrusted with the governance of his entire flock. The rest may stand outside the Church perhaps from individual good-faith error, and may even be saved as a result of this good faith; but they are not on the right path and are not members of Jesus' Church.

Why don't Protestants recognize the Pope?

Because Martin Luther wanted to defend his errors even against papal authority and went into rebellion. He wanted to cause upheaval in the Church, and thus inevitably found himself in opposition to the papal authority that guards unity. Martin Luther was led into papal opposition and schism not by gospel arguments, but by rigid adherence to his own individual interpretation of Scripture. The same applies to the other reformers, who quite rightly saw in the Pope the guardian of ecclesiastical unity and legality, and since they wanted to push this unity and legality out of their way, they therefore waged a bitter battle against the symbol and guard of unity: the papacy.

Individually, unfortunately, some Renaissance-era popes did indeed provide opportunities for accusations and attacks. But Luther and the others erred in that they not only chastised the individual faults of the popes, but also the papacy itself, the papal institution and the unity of the Church; and in this they were definitely seriously mistaken. This mistake of theirs was all the more serious because they themselves were not free from gross human deficiencies. Thus, Martin Luther publicly broke his priestly and monastic vows, encouraged the secular lords to unlawfully appropriate church property, thus inciting church robbery, caused a terrible moral decline by denying free will and emphasizing the supposed unnecessary nature of good deeds, and allowed himself unprecedented hatred and moral licentiousness in his "table talks" and writings.

Calvin was morally stricter, but in turn perhaps surpassed even Luther in hatred and established a real court of emergency in Geneva, which punished with death, exile, confiscation of property, and imprisonment those who dared to contradict him. Yet he was not even an ordained priest or bishop and had no legal right to manage church affairs.

Christ died for everyone, but for this reason, he wants everyone to belong to that Church through which He shares the fruits of His redeeming death with us and which He left to us as the instrument of salvation. Everyone can be saved, but then they must join the true Church: this is what Jesus Himself commanded. Only those who are not part of it due to good faith, insurmountable error can be saved outside the Church.

No one says that the pope's word is "holier" than the Scripture. But the Pope never teaches anything that contradicts the Scripture. In the two-thousand-year history of the Church, we would search in vain for a single example! However, where the Scripture does not speak, or where it does not speak clearly enough and the question is what the correct interpretation of the Scripture is, the Pope's word is holy, precisely because Christ wants us to listen to him. Otherwise, He could not send us to him under the burden of eternal damnation (Mk. 16, 16); He could not oblige us to listen to the Church's word in such a way that anyone who does not listen to it should be avoided as a "pagan and tax collector". (Mt. 18, 17.)

The fact that the Pope himself is just a sinful, fallible, erring human does not change anything here. After all, it is not his personal holiness or wisdom that is the basis for why we should listen to him, but Christ's command and the support of the Holy Spirit, which cannot allow him to err whenever he, as the successor of the head apostle, speaks on behalf of the whole Church. (Lk. 22, 32.) The state law is also holy, the court's judgment is also holy, regardless of how excellent, perfect, or exemplary a person the legislator or the judge himself is in his own personal life.

No one says that the popes cannot sin and that they have not sinned throughout history, sometimes indeed severely. Individual sinlessness is one thing and official infallibility is quite another. We say it is official because the Pope is not infallible in his personal opinions; he is only infallible when, as the head of the entire Church, he officially and solemnly (ex cathedra) declares that something belongs to the deposit of Christian faith.

This infallibility of the Pope is a logical consequence of the infallibility of the Church, which Jesus solemnly proclaimed when he demanded listening to the Church under the burden of eternal damnation, saying "whoever does not listen to the Church, let him be to us as a pagan and a tax collector" (a public sinner; Mt. 18, 17).

Unfortunately, there have been unworthy popes too; true, out of 266, only 8-10 at most. But most popes, even if they made individual mistakes, were serious high priests, many of them examples of sanctity of life and martyrdom heroism. Individual sinfulness is in no way contrary to the sanctity of office and Christ's ordination; and infallibility does not mean personal sinlessness.

The Western world tends to forget that for two thousand years the Catholic Church has been the initiator or booster of every valuable progress. Who abolished slavery? Who elevated women, children, workers to human dignity? Who civilized the peoples of Europe? Who taught the wild nomadic peoples migrated here by the migration of peoples to settle down, to agriculture, to industry, to peaceful and civic life? Who sanctified the relationship between man and woman in Christian marriage and thus gave solid and secure moral foundations to child-rearing? The Catholic Church created the public education system, popular education, all types of schools, starting from elementary schools, through secondary education to universities; since almost every famous university still existing today was founded by the Church. The Church created science and culture, elevated art to unparalleled flowering: in the Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and modern styles. In the field of natural science, philosophy, historiography, and linguistics, Catholic, partly priestly scientists are still leading. The Catholic Church created care for the poor and the sick, established the first hospitals, poorhouses, orphanages, devised regular care for the blind and deaf-mute. The Catholic Church laid the foundation for social care, equality before the law, the protection of workers' rights (Leo XIII: Rerum Novarum, Pius XI: Quadragesimo Anno) - There is not a single institution or denomination in the world that has earned such great merits in the field of culture and progress as the Catholic Church. Anyone who calls the Catholic Church a brake on progress might just as well call the shining Sun in the sky a spreader of darkness.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

By the way, I checked if Jerome wrote anything about the translation of Proverbs 8:22, since unlike you, I look after the sources directly... So in 418 AD Jerome wrote a letter (Epislte no. 140) to a presbyter named Cyprian, and explain him the Psalm 90, and he mentioned it only slightly:

Antequam montes nascerentur, et parturiretur terra et orbis, a saeculo usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Septuaginta: Antequam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra et orbis, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Hunc locum quidam prava distinctione subvertunt, maxime hi qui volunt ante fuisse animas, quam homo in sexti diei numero conderetur. Ita enim legunt atque distinguunt: Domine, refugium factus es nobis, a generatione in generationem, prius quam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra et orbis: ut scilicet postea consequatur, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Ita enim edisserunt. Si Dominus, antequam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra orbisque terrarum, refugium fuit hominum; ergo fuerunt animae in coelestibus, antequam hominum corpora formarentur. Nos autem, ut proposuimus, lectionem ita debemus distinguere: Antequam montes firmarentur et fingeretur terra et orbis terrarum, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus; ut non refugium nostrum fuerit ante conditionem mundi, qui necdum eramus; sed quod Deus ab aeterno usque in aeternum sit semper Deus. Pro eo enim quod Latinus interpres posuit, a saeculo usque in saeculum, et Hebraice dicitur OLAM, rectius interpretabimur, a sempiterno usque ad sempiternum. Simile quid et in Proverbiis ex persona sapientiae, qui Christus est, legitur [in the Septuagint]: Dominus creavit me initio viarum suarum in opera sua, ante saecula fundavit me in principio, antequam terram faceret et abyssos priusquam procederent fontes aquarum, priusquam montes firmarentur, ante omnes colles generavit me. Nullum autem debet verbum creationis movere, cum in Hebraeo non sit creatio quae dicitur BARA; sed possessio. Ita enim scriptum est: ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO, quod in lingua nostra exprimitur: Dominus possedit me initio viarum suarum. Inter possessionem autem et creationem multa diversitas est. Possessio significat, quod semper Filius in Patre et Pater in Filio fuerit. Creatio autem eius qui prius non erat, conditionis exordium. Potest iuxta leges tropologiae hoc quod dicitur: Antequam montes firmarentur et fingeretur terra et orbis terrarum, significare, quod antequam in anima nostra sublimia dogmata firmarentur, et terra corporis nostri fingeretur sive stabiliretur a Deo, et orbis terrarum qui Hebraice dicitur THEBEL; Graece significantius dicitur οἰκουμένη, quam nos, habitatam, transferre possumus, firmaretur, sive stabiliretur, Deus nobis semper refugium fuerit. Habitata est autem anima, non deserta, quae hospitem meretur habere Deum, dicente Salvatore: Ego et Pater veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Illud autem quod et Hebraicum habet, et omnes alii Interpretes: Antequam montes nascerentur, et parturiretur terra, manifeste ad tropologiam nos trahit. Neque enim montes et terra nativitatem parturitionemque recipiunt, sed conditionem. Ex quo liquido demonstratur, sanctos quoque excelsasque virtutes, Dei semper misericordia procreari.

Check this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03090892211032244

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Fisherman

The New Testament speaks of Father, but it does not speak of Jehovah or Yahweh. So you can't even identify the two. Paul does not call the Father the only God against Jesus, but against idols. But John calls Jesus the only begotten God. So Jesus is none other than the only God, just was inn the incarnate form. One of God's names is Yahweh. Another name: Father. But Jesus is also God, so his name is also the name of God.

There was no time before "the beginning", because time began then. The big bang hypothesis also contains something similar.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." And JWs twist it like this: "I was already before there was Abraham." Well, this is what is not worth cultivating. Here, the unusual language also has a deeper message, which the JWs miss.

Surely it is written that "in the beginning was the Word." And this emphatic statement stands in the place of the Genesis paraphrase, "In the beginning God created the Word." So, instead of the date of the birth of the Word, we read about him as someone who "was" in "the beginning" (that is, when time began), that is, existed. This means that his birth was not in time. And this is really logical, even based on the Word, even if you argue against it with your short concept of time.

If by "before the beginning" it's meant "outside of time", it is trivially true. If you mean that there was a time when the Son did not exist, then you are wrong, and that too is trivial. After all, in this case, the "beginning" would not have been a beginning, because there would have been a time before it. And in this second case, the text could at most say that "in the beginning the Word was." But that's not what it says. Ergo.

The Son was not born in time, but "was in the beginning", there is no difference between the Father and the Son in the degree of divinity, but within the divinity the Son as a person subordinates himself to the Father in the order of salvation (in the economy, not ontologically).

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

It looks like you don't want to hear what I'm saying: Justin was never an Arian, he said that Jesus was God in the real sense. He never called him an angel, in the sense of Michael of WTS. Angelos is understood here in a general sense. Read through both referenced letters, and don't get caught up in a particular phrase. Justin's writings are an oration, not theological treatise. It is no coincidence that the Arians of the 4th century could not really refer to church fathers.

It's funny how Adela Yarbro Collins tries to explain Thomas' statement to Jesus in John 20:28. In the next verse, Jesus interprets this specifically as a confession of faith and accepts the address. But according to your source, a monotheistic Jewish man who knew neither Latin nor Greek must have thought of the title of the then unborn Roman emperor Domitian. Ehh..

Why don't you throw out these books (which you only use for WTS-like abusive quote mining, rather than actual own research) and read early Christian writers directly, in their entirety?

"I’m not really following your logic that if Jesus was created before the world was created that means he wasn’t really created."

Where is it stated in the NT anywhere, that Jesus was created before worls? It says He's begotten, before the creation of the aeions. It's the same as the Nicene creed contains.

Lactantius was also Trinitarian

“He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man” (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

“We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father” (ibid., 4:28–29).