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

Let's see, what WTS publications say about that matter, what does the term "firstborn" means according to the Aid To Bible Understanding (1971):

„BIRTHRIGHT. The right that naturally belonged to the father's firstborn son. Under the patriarchal system the oldest son became the head of the family upon the death of the father, with authority over the others as long as they were in the household. He was responsible to care for the members of his father's household. He also succeeded to the father's position in representing the family before Jehovah. The firstborn generally received the father's special blessing. (Gen. 27 :4, 36 ; 48 :9, 17, 18) Moreover, he was entitled to two parts of the father's estate ; that is, he received twice as much as each of his brothers. Under the Mosaic law a man with more than one wife could not take the birthright from the oldest son and give it to the son of a specially loved wife .-Deut. 21 :15-17 .
In patriarchal times the birthright could be transferred by the father to another son for a cause, as in the case of Reuben, who lost his right as firstborn due to fornication with his father's concubine.(1 Chron. 5 :1, 2) The firstborn could sell his birthright to one of his brothers, as did Esau, who despised his birthright and sold it to his brother Jacob in exchange for something to eat. (Gen. 25 :30-34 ; 27 :36 ; Heb. 12 :16) There is no record that Jacob asserted his purchased birthright in getting a double share of Isaac's property (which was movable or personal property, for Isaac owned no land, except the field of Macpelah, in which was a cave for a burial place) . Jacob was interested in the passing on of spiritual things to his family, that is, the promise given to Abraham concerning the seed .-Gen. 28 :3, 4, 12-15 . With respect to the kings of Israel, the birthright seems to have carried with it the right of succession to the throne. (2 Chron . 21 :1-3) However, Jehovah, as Israel's real King and their God, set aside such right when it suited his purposes, as in the example of Solomon .-1 Chron. 28 :5.
Jesus Christ, as the "first-born of all creation," always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed "heir of all things." -Col. 1 :15 ; Heb . 1 :2" (p. 237-238)

Gotcha! So according to the WTS "first-born of all creation" means, that Jesus Christ "has the birthright through which he has been appointed "heir of all things."" What can I say? I can just agree with the "faithful and descreet slave" :-) It's pretty much the very same interpretation I've suggested on this verse myself:

"Colossians 1:15 simply means that He owns, enjoys the position of the Heir, the ruler in relation to the whole of creation. The direct continuation clearly explains this when he adds: because in him all things were created..."

So, according to your boss I'm not wrong about that... :-)

Let's check what the same book writes about "Firstborn":

“From earliest times the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was the one who succeeded to the headship of the household He inherited a double portion of the father's property. (Deut . 21 :17) Reuben was seated by Joseph at a meal according to his right as firstborn. (Gen . 43 :33) But the Bible does not always honor the firstborn by listing sons according to birth . The first place is often given to the most prominent or faithful of the sons rather than to the firstborn .-Gen. 6 :10 ; 1 Chron. 1 :28 ; compare Genesis 11 :26, 32 ; 12 :4. The firstborn came into considerable prominence at the time that Jehovah delivered his people from slavery in Egypt. [..]
David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah's elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89 :27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah .-Compare Psalm 2 :2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10 :1 ; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be "the first-born of all creation" as well as "the first-born from the dead ." (Col. 1:15, 18 ; Rev. 1:5 ; 3:14) On earth he was the firstborn child of Mary and was presented at the temple in accordance with Jehovah's law. (Luke 2 :7, 22, 23) The apostle Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus Christ who have been enrolled in the heavens as "the congregation of the first-born ."-Heb. 12 :23 . At Job 18 :13 the expression "first-born of death" is used to denote the most deadly of diseases.” (p. 584)

According to another WTS publication God’s Eternal Purpose Now Triumphing for Man’s Good, page 28 we read,

"Our thinking about this here reminds us of what is said in the eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs, where divine wisdom is pictured as a person who talks about himself. Of course, in the original Hebrew text of Proverbs, the word “wisdom” (hhakh·mahʹ) is in the feminine and speaks of itself as a female person. (Proverbs 8:1-4) Of course, divine wisdom does not have any separate existence apart from God. Wisdom always existed in Him and so was not created. For this reason it is interesting to hear how wisdom speaks of herself as a feminine person..."

I can just agree on that, well done, "faithful and discreet slave" ! :-)

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

Dear Blotty,

IMHO it somewhat indicates a lack of respect, that instead of reading what I wrote, based mainly on my own research, and trying to give a substantial answer yourself, you just link to me a bunch of links that your comrades wrote.

Should I link you all the Church documents? When should we start throwing books on each other? Ehh...

Btw, I've tried to initiate debate with these WTS/JW/NWT apologists who run those blog, dissenting comments usually doesn't even pass the censorship, not that a website with such poor design professes to be a particularly serious theologian.

The ones you linked, approx. all use the same well-known WTS "quote collection" method... that just like the dung beetle collects pieces of feces and turns them into a ball, they also cherry pick the quotes from the hands of authors whose general teaching they would not even accept at all. Instead of all kinds of independent research work, they collect half-sentences and sentences that can be quoted, that can be flagged and waved as "can you SEE?! Even him !!!"

For example, he calls up a dictionary, and then boldly underlines the one he finds desirable from the 5-6 meanings listed there, after comes a multitude of exclamation marks. Gotcha! He does not stay on the thinking ground of the Greek text, but looks for the English expression in the dictionary he prefers among the possible meanings of the given Greek word, and starts thinking in English from then on, like "arche is to be translated in English as "beginning", which in English means etc.". Of course, he also throws straw man arguments while contradicting the theology of his own denomination. That's not biblical exegesis. It's BS, sorry.

Anyway, how could "true Christianity" (the supposed JW-like Christianity of the apostolic age) disappear without a trace for 1800 years? Is Jesus' promise worthless? Did the Church of the Apostles become nothing in a few decades? The Spirit could not preserve it? How did church founded by Russel (who was known to be a charlatan, and none of his "predictions" came true) not become "apostate" with the same logic? Is Russel's church then better organized and on a surer foundation than that of the apostles?

But at least one of your "sources" made me laugh:

"Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources..."

Raymond Franz had other experience:

"The Society’s vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organization’s principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, “Why don’t you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says,” or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, “what the Soncino commentaries say.”
Our Bethel library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was “sucking at the tits of Babylon the Great,” the empire of false religion according to the Society’s interpretation of the great harlot of Revelation. I find it hard to believe he meant this as seriously as it sounded, since he made use of the commentaries himself and knew that Fred Franz used them quite frequently.
The more I looked up information in these commentaries, however, the more deeply impressed I was by the firm belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures the vast majority expressed. I was impressed even more so by the fact that, though some were written as early as the eighteenth century, the information was generally very worthwhile and accurate. I could not help but compare this with our own publications which, often within a few years, became “out of date” and ceased to be published. It was not that I felt these commentaries to be without error by any means; but the good certainly seemed to outweigh the occasional points I felt to be mistaken.
I began to appreciate more than ever before how vitally important context was in discerning the meaning of any part of Scripture, and that realization seemed to be true of others of the group who were working regularly on the Aid project. We also came to realize the need to let the Bible define its own terms rather than simply taking some previously held view or letting an English dictionary definition control. We began to make greater use of the Hebrew and Greek lexicons in the Bethel library, and concordances that were based on the original language words rather than on English translations.
It was an education and it was also very humbling, for we came to appreciate that our understanding of Scripture was far less than we had thought, that we were not the advanced Bible scholars we thought we were. I personally had been on such a “treadmill” of activity over the previous twenty-five years that, although reading through the Bible several times, I had never been able to do such serious, detailed research into the Scriptures, in fact never felt great need to do so since it was assumed that others were doing it for me. The two courses at Gilead School I had attended were so tightly programmed that they gave little time for meditation, for unhurried investigation and analysis.
Having now both time and access to the extra Bible helps, the lexicons, commentaries, Hebrew and Greek concordances, and so forth, was an aid. But above all it was seeing the need always to let the context guide, always to let the Scriptures themselves control, that made the major difference. There was no overnight change of viewpoint but rather, over a period of years, a gradual deepening of appreciation of the crucial need to let God’s Word speak for itself to the fullest extent possible. I could see why those one-hundred and two-hundred-year-old commentaries in our Bethel library were comparatively timeless in their value. The very fact of their verse-by-verse approach more or less obliged them to stay within the contextual meaning and thereby considerably restricted them from taking excursions into sectarian views or interpretative flights of fancy."

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

WHAT IS ALL THANKS TO THE PRIESTS...

"The knights of darkness"

A UNIVERSITY professor took great pleasure in criticizing the priests: "The priests are the vampires of human civilization, the inhibitors of sciences and arts, the highwaymen of progress, the knights of darkness and conservatism" - these were his favorite sayings.

However, there was a decent and highly talented student of his who eventually got tired of the professor's outbursts and one beautiful day paid a visit to him.

- Professor, I would like to ask for your help in dispelling some of my scientific doubts - he said.

- With the greatest pleasure, my young friend. Please, take a seat.

- First of all, I would like to know who preserved the ancient classics for us? How did they not get lost in those perilous times when barbarism inundated the whole cultural world at the beginning of the Middle Ages?

- It's a known fact: the monks copied the classics in their monasteries and thus saved them from destruction.

- What!... the monks?

- Yes, yes; primarily the Benedictines.

- So it was the monks after all? The priests? They saved the ancient codexes for us? That must have been incredibly tiresome work? How many of them could have contracted lung disease from all the library dust! This happened when the princes couldn't even sign their own names, right? What strange times! And even stranger friends, who fancied copying Livy, Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, and - not to forget them - Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid, letter by letter! So it was really the work of the monks, all those carefully written codexes? The letters all look as if they were painted; the initials are real masterpieces! Oh, those priests! But allow me another question, professor! Is it really true that without priests we would not have Columbus or Vasco de Gama? They say that a friar, Fra Mauro, drew that famous map in 1450, which awakened the idea of a round-the-world journey in Columbus.

- It's true, young man - the professor replied, shifting in his seat - although we must not forget that someone else could have drawn that map as well.

- Oh, of course, of course. Why should such a genius idea occur specifically in a priestly head?... Right, one more thing! I read that a Pope introduced Arabic numbers to arithmetic in place of the inconvenient Roman numbers.

- Yes, that's Sylvester II. But someone else would have done that too. However, the intrusive dominance of the popes...

- I also heard something about the first telescope and microscope being invented by a priest. This can't possibly be true? Does all good originate from the priests?

- The fact is true. The aforementioned instruments were invented by the Franciscan Roger Bacon. However, I note that Roger Bacon was a monk of modern spirit, not some cloaked monk lurking in the dark.

- When did Roger Bacon live? He died in 1292, right? Hm, hm, so there were modern priests even back then? One more thing! The first person to teach that the sun stands still and the earth rotates wasn't Galilei, right, professor?

- No, indeed, it was Copernicus.

- Again a priest? Moreover, they say that even this canon wasn't the first one because about a hundred years before him, the bishop of Regensburg, Regiomontanus, taught the same thing.

- It's possible!

– Just a bit more patience, please, professor! Why is it that the era in which sciences, arts, and literature flourished so greatly is referred to as the Golden Age of Pope Leo X?

– Why? Because Pope Leo X was a unique patron of scientists, artists, and writers.

– But how can this be? After all, Pope Leo X was, to my knowledge, a pope.

– Sir, it appears to me that you only came...

– To dispel my doubts, my troubling doubts, professor. I can't label priests as being conservative or ignorant, while these terrible doubts plague me. May I continue my questions, professor? Is it true that the first public schools were founded by John Baptist de la Salle?

– Yes, the French de la Salle? The saint?

– Yes, the priest!

– And that the cause of the deaf was first taken up by the Spanish Pedro de Ponce, followed by l'Epée?

– Indeed, the Spanish de Ponce, then de l'Epée.

– The monk de Ponce and l'Epée, the priest? Curious! Wasn't it enough that the monk Berthold Schwarz invented gunpowder, the monk Guido d'Arezzo the scale, a Bavarian monk from Tegernsee invented stained glass, the Jesuit Cavalieri polychromy, the Jesuit Secchi spectral analysis?

– Sir, if you only came here to annoy me... thunder and lightning!

– Not at all, professor! But it's true, the lightning rod was not actually invented by Franklin, because as early as 1754 a Premonstratensian parish priest, Prokop Divisch, was making lightning rods. I also read this in Kürschner's lexicon.

– Your tongue, it seems, never tires.

– Ad vocem! The greatest language master of our time was Cardinal Mezzofanti, the polyglot, right?

– That did not prevent him from being conservative.

– The most conservative person, however, was undoubtedly Cardinal Mai, the greatest paleographer of the 19th century, who unveiled the secrets of palimpsests to the scientific world.

– All right, all right, young man. Where do you intend to go from here?

– Where? In what direction? I should ask Flavio Gioja, who made the compass usable around 1300. But he was also a priest!

– Oh, oh, you're really fired up!

– Fired up? Well, against that the best thing is a water pump. But the first fire pump was also designed by priests, Cistercians. And the Capuchins of Paris were Paris's firefighters until the 17th century.

– If you weren't chattering so interestingly, I'd throw you out.

– Where to, professor? Perhaps into the airy heights? This reminds me of the airship. The first airship, I believe, was invented by Monk Berthold Gusmae 60 years before Montgolfier, who in 1720 ascended in his airship in front of the entire Portuguese court. Professor, you're cleaning your glasses. This is also an invention of priests! The glasses were invented in the 13th century by the Dominican Alexander Spina. Are you in such a hurry that you're looking at your watch? This is also a priestly invention: the first clock was made by Cassiodorus, the famous church writer; Gerbert, later Pope Sylvester II, improved this invention. The first astronomical clock was made by Abbot Richard of Wallingford in 1316. Am I bothering you, professor? I'm leaving now! The gas lamps are already burning outside. It cannot be unknown to you that the gas flame was discovered by the Jesuits, these spreaders of darkness. They first used gas light in Stonyhorst, England in 1794. The Jesuit Duan founded the first gas company in Preston in 1815. I bid you farewell, professor! Excuse me... Oh, you have a bicycle too? This device was invented by the priest Pianton, who was already riding a bicycle in 1845. Good night! I apologize once again. But you should know, I can't rest until I know the truth...

... A loud door slam ended the conversation.

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

I am not distorting it: if the Son is to be given exactly the same degree of honor as the Father, it directly follows that if the Father is to be worshipped, then the Son is to be worshipped as well. That's logic. And since the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) we must not worship anyone else than the True God, then Jesus is truly God.

"The lie that the Trinity teaches is that these honours belong to Jesus by his own right."

You clearly don't know what the Trinity doctrine is: the Nicene theology states that the Son received everything from the Father, including his existence and divinity. It's just your theological bias that only the unbegotten Father can be truly God, even though Jesus clearly taught that "everything" was given to him by the Father, even the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes).

The Bible verses that emphasize the humanity of Jesus do not refute anything from this theology. Nor those where it says that the Son received his being (through begetting, not creation) and divinity from the Father. There is not a single biblical statement that is contrary to this theology, but it was no coincidence that you had to distort plenty of Bible verses, embarrassing to WTS doctrine.

The words of John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary: "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and: "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."

The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do anything", do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the Father, since it is immediately added, "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise"; but their meaning is to show that the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says, "The unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself [per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se]."

4

One criticism of the NWT

by Wonderment in

it's no secret that forum members on this site are well aware that i tend to defend the nwt as a product in more than a few places.

i, unlike some others here, do not view the version as unprofessional.

i feel the translation is quite good.

aqwsed12345

The word "grace" is missing from the translation of the NWT Bible. Instead, it is paraphrased as "undeserved kindness" everywhere.

This phrase clearly shows the rationalistic bent of the WTS doctrine on salvation. There is no supernatural justification, there is no new birth, no sacraments, no adoption as a son (since there is a two-class redemption), just read the publications, develope a WTS-comptable mental attitude, and then you can pet the lion in the "garden", presented in our newspapers. However, as all sinners, we need God's mercy, this is what the word "grace" means: the fact that God is not merciful, only "kind" and "nice", hides this essential aspect.

However, we need not just pleasant stroking from the Judge of our lives but a saving judgment. The JWs growing up with the NWT could not have the appropriate relationship with God. According to the WTS, it is not enough to believe in Jesus for salvation, so the NWT states that "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Romans 10:13). This was based on the belief of the Society that the archangel Michael was merely a "tool" of Jehovah, who obtained atonement for sins in the past, so Witnesses are not so much grateful to him but to Jehovah. They believe in things related to Jesus (what happened in the past), but they do not personally put their trust in Jesus (nor can they pray to him). According to the Society's interpretation, believers do not have faith in God but "exercise faith in him" (John 3:16). This serves the organizational system well, which states that a Witness only has a chance to "be saved" as long as they serve loyally and actively within the organization.

Following the Society's "theocratic" educational program, the NWT states that eternal life does not require someone to know God but rather to "take in knowledge" of Him. In accordance with the Society's rationalistic approach, mature thinking is seen as more of a "mental attitude": Fathers are instructed to raise their children not with discipline and instruction according to the Lord's teaching but with "Jehovah's discipline and mental regulating". For believers, it is not Jesus' sacrificial, humble disposition (motivation) that serves as an example; rather, they must preserve "that mental attitude" within themselves, which was also in Christ (Philippians 2:5). All of this is based on the belief that "born again" is a privilege reserved only for the 144,000 anointed ones, and the other Witnesses cannot be born again or have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the "fruitage of the spirit" is practically the result of human effort: Witnesses are expected to obey biblical commands and the organization's supervision in order to develop a "trained conscience" and a "balanced viewpoint."

All these horrible word creations like "exercise faith," "acquire precise knowledge," "inspired declaration," "in unity," "receive salvation," and "undeserved kindness" is nothing more than empty, pretentious phrases that have no real connection to the original meaning. Paper can endure many things, including these theological monstrosities, but that doesn't make them any less dreadful. Perfect choices? Come on! Why weren't "believe," "know," "spirit," "in him," "be saved," and "grace" good enough for you? The translators couldn't justify these words, perhaps because they didn't like the worn-out established equivalents.

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

In this case, the context presented by you does not refute my pont. It's Jesus' commandment, that the Son must be honored in exactly the same way, just as the Father. This speaks for itself, if the Father must be worshiped, then the Son must be worshipped, and only God can be worshiped, therefore He is truly God. Do the JWs honor the Son just as they honor the Father? Nope, at least since 1954 they don't. The verses you highlighted also do not refute anything from my theology: the Nicene theology states that the Son received everything from the Father, including his existence and divinity. What did you refute with that? It's just your theological bias that only the unbegotten Father can be truly God, even though Jesus clearly taught that "everything" was given to him by the Father.

By his very nature, the Son acts in union and agreement with the Father, and could not do otherwise. Christ did not question that He is equal to God, which He would have had to do if He was not, but only says that the divine works of the Son are also the works of the Father. The Son can only do what He observes in His divine essence, which He received from the Father; thus, everything that the Father does, the Son also does, as the Son operates with the same divine reality as the Father. They work in the same way, because they are entirely equal in nature; only where there is no equality of existence, there can be no equal mode of operation. It goes without saying that we are talking only about purely divine acts here, because those divine acts of the Son, which were also human, e.g. His sufferings, were only the acts of the Father insofar as they were in accord with His will, but not His own acts; because the Father did not become human along with the Son. To the extent that some difference in existence arose between the Father and Son through the incarnation, the divine-human actions could not be the Father's own actions. Due to the intimate relationship that exists between the Father and Son, in this divine reality shared with Him from the Father, He will observe and perform even greater deeds than the healing of the sick man. The honor of the Father and the Son are connected; indeed, only he who honors the Son, also honors the Father, because He sent the Son to reveal the true honor of God in the most perfect way; therefore, he who does not honor the orders of the Son, cannot honor the Father either.

The Arians handle the Savior's statements in a completely abusive manner, such as "the Father is greater than me" (Jn 14:28.); only God is good (Mc 10,18; cf. Rom 1,3 Act 2,36 Heb 1,4 3,2.); He prays to the Father and contrasts Himself with Him (Jn 17:3). – Solution. a) Jesus Christ is also a real human; therefore, he could say and do all of this as a man. b) In terms of Trinitarian origin, the Son is in a (conceptual) dependency on the Father, and this provides a sufficient logical basis for the manner of speech that the Son follows and is subordinate to the Father; furthermore, the Father, as the source of the Trinity, is αὐτόθεος, and therefore the name of God can be attributed to him especially in contrast to the other two persons (This is how Jn 17,3 and 1 Cor 8,5–6 should be understood.).

The testimony of the Church Fathers is surprisingly unanimous on this even before the Council of Nicaea. The Didache, with a clear reference to Mt 21:9, says of Christ: "Hosanna to the God of David!" Clement of Rome writes of him that he spoke in the Old Testament scriptures through the Holy Spirit and includes him in a doxology with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The oldest Christian preaching, called the Second Letter of Clement of Rome, begins: "Brothers, we must think of Jesus Christ as God, as the judge of the living and the dead." According to the Letter of Barnabas, Christ is the Son of God, who said to him at the beginning of the world: Let us make man in our image; if he had not appeared in flesh, we could not bear his glory, just as our eyes cannot bear sunlight. Ignatius, the disciple of Apostle John and a faithful interpreter of his theology, wants to "imitate in Rome the sufferings of his God", and gives a surprisingly accurate expression to the entire content of the mystery of incarnation: "There is one doctor, born and unborn, God living in body"; "Our God Jesus was carried by Mary in her womb." According to Polycarp, Christ is the Lord of heaven and earth, to whom every spirit serves, who himself judges the living and the dead; his martyrdom gives him equal homage to the Father. Similarly, the letter to Diognetus attributes to him immutability, eternity (Didache 10, 6. Clemens R. 21, 12; 50, 7; cf. 50, 4; 16, 2 etc. Ignat. Rom 6, 3; Eph 7, 2; 18, 2; cf. 19, 3; Polyc. 8, 3; Smyrn. 1, 1. Polycarp. 2, 1; Martyr. 14, 3. Diognet. 7, 2; 11, 3; 10, 2 etc.).

The Apologists were not always fortunate in their Logos speculations, but it is in these attempts that their conviction that Christ has existed from eternity and is of the same essence as the Father is clearly expressed. They sharply contrast this with the ideas of Stoic logos doctrine, but at the same time they make a remarkable attempt to spread and recommend the deeper content of the mystery of the incarnation among the cultured pagans using this popular concept. Justin expressly confesses Christ as God; Aristides testifies that Christians believe Christ is God, who descended from the highest heaven and became man from a Jewish virgin (Iustin. Apol. I 63, 10; II 6; Dial. 48–108. Aristid. Apol. II 6.).

Irenaeus says: "The Father is Lord and the Son is Lord; the Father is God and the Son is God; for he who is born of God is God. And thus, in terms of the power of his nature and his existence, we confess one God." Against the Gnostics, the guiding thought of his theology is: Christ could only reconcile man with God if he was not only man, but also God. Tertullian expresses similar thoughts: "God came to live among men so that man might learn to act like God. God dealt with man as an equal, so that man might then deal with God as an equal. God humbled himself very much so that man might become very great. If you are ashamed of this God, I do not know how you can sincerely believe in the crucified God!" (Iren. Epid. II 1, 27; Haeres. III 16–24. Tertul. Marc. II 27; cf. Apol. 21.) Origen very accurately says, "He was incarnate when he was God; and when he became man, he remained what he was before: God." Probably the term God-man (θεάνθρωπος) comes from him (Origen. Princip. Praef. 4; cf. in Jn tr. 6.).

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

Fredriksen claims without any basis that the Son is just a "lesser divine being", based on Philippians 2:6. If being "in the form of God" only means that he existed as a spirit and nothing more, then why does the Bible never claim that angels exist "in the form of God"? Furthermore, the second half of the verse makes it clear that His existence "in the form of God" also meant "equality with God", just he did not consider this a "harpagmos" (a booty, what he needs/wants to retain at all cost), so he did not cling to this glory arising from equality with God at all costs, etc. Holloway also speaks without any basis: where does Philippians 2 say that Jesus is an "angelic being"? Nowhere.

"James Dunn argues that the first Christians did not worship Jesus in the highest sense because they believed that only God should be worshipped"

False: according John 5:23 Jesus commanded his believers that "all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father." This means that the Son deserves exactly the very same obeisance as the Father. And this is called worship, to worship a creature would be idolatry. The word "honor" (time) is a broader concept than worship, so all worship is also respect, but not all respect is worship. In other words, if we read that the Son must be honored just as the Father is, that includes all kinds of honor for the Father, including worship. On the other hand, all kinds of honor for the Father are adoring respect, since no respect can be imagined that is not addressed to him as God. After all, the Father is none other than God: he is not a man and not a state body to be respected in a civil sense. Therefore, since all this honor also belongs to Jesus, his worthiness of worship is immediately given, and thus also his divinity of the same essence as that of the Father. Having a lesser god is also forbidden by the commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Your sources may keep coming up with quoting out of context from Origen, it is true that he was an exotic theologian, he often used confusing formulations, but you can only understand what he really taught if you read his entire writings, not by abusing some one-liners. It is no coincidence that the Arians did not refer to the authority of Origen to justify their position, since Origen clearly taught that the Son is begotten of the Father in the sense of eternal generation, within the being of God. Check: De Principiis IV.27, I.6, II.2.2, II.4.3, etc.

Your method is a typical WTS propaganda tactic, that just like the dung beetle collects pieces of feces and turns them into a ball, they also cherry pick the quotes from the hands of authors whose general teaching they would not even accept at all.

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

Now the topic was not the finished dogma of the Trinity, but a narrow question: according Nestle-Aland NT based on the best available manuscripts, is the Son begotten/born of the Father, and truly God, as the Council of Nicea established, or just a created beging, an angel, as the Arians and JWs claim? The conceptually and logically next question is how to proceed in this case. Anyway, stop parroting Jesus is "separate" from the Father, only the Sabellian Modalism maintains he was the same person as the Father. "Subordination" is still not an argument, since our theology gives a thorough answer to this (cf. the dual nature of Jesus), not to mention that it does not mean ontological inferiority here at all.

Now you're doing the same thing as WTS do, for example in their "Should you believe in the Trinity?" brochure: the quote certain Christian lexicons like this way: "The doctrine of Trinity is not found in the Bible . . .", but the end of the sentence is omitted from the quote, which was like "...in the a strictly ontological terms" and that that all elements and building materials for the doctrine are found in Scripture, just not the theologically formulated doctrine itself.

On the contrary, the NT does not state anywhere that the Son is a created angel, not just "not explicitly", but noway, no matter what opinion your sources state about it. And I maintain that if the word of these authors should be accepted as an authority, then it should also be accepted that Christianity is a fraud and the Bible should be discarded.

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

Instead of quote mining, try to do some own research, by reading whole works of early Christian literature yourself. It's not needed for you to seek the answer from these "very modern" skeptical-atheist authors as to what they really thought.

If you agree with Ehrman, you can throw the Bible away:

https://www.youtube.com/live/dKShBLRixR8

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

"scholars who are not tied to any theological position tend to interpret NT Christology"

Your last source (Paula Fredriksen) is not even Christian, but Jewish. Of course, non-Christian and/or non-believing authors will say that Christianity is a hoax, the Church is corrupted, Jesus didn't even exist, or even if he did, he wasn't quite what they "later" believed him to be, blah blah blah. There are tons of such literature, the sad thing is that you rely on them. At the same time, you probably wouldn't identify with his conclusions, but instead you brandish one excerpted quote as a weapon. These athors are not ideologically "neutral" (there is no such thing a priori), but represent an ideology themselves, and they articulate this in their in their works.

For example, some JW apologist, I've debated with, also refered to Bart D. Ehrman, who is focusing to prove that the whole NT, and Christianity is a later invention, and also JWs cannot agree with him on most of his consluson.

Of course, it's not "forbidden" to quote anyone, it's just a bit transparent what the game is about. For example, read what the Jewish encyclopedias write about Paul. Do you identify with what was written there? Of course not, but this is such a typical WTS propaganda tactic that if they find something "yummy" detail there, they pick it out and show that "do you see how serious scholars said this?! If you don't accept it, then you are against "the science!"