aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 723 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  14

  Is the 1000 year reign literal?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this students on this forum, i would love to know what your view is?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Introduction to the Prophets
• 
  73

  Did God know adam and eve would sin?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this forum, i would love to know what your take on this vital question is..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @St George of England

  First of all, Scripture does not necessarily aim to speak specifically about Adam as an individual. It is not trying to tell the story of Adam as a person, but rather Adam as a corporate personality, meaning the story of humanity. In Hebrew, the word Adam (ha'adam) always means "the man" or "human." This is clearly seen in Genesis 5:2, where both "Adam" and "Eve" (the man and the woman) are called "adam." It only became a proper name later in various translations. Therefore, the first chapters of the Book of Genesis tell the story of the entire human race through the person of the first human. This does not mean that there was no first human (logically, there had to be one, and recent mitochondrial DNA research also supports this: all living humans can be traced back to a single mother), but the Book of Genesis does not necessarily address this. In reality, the name of the species became a personal name because Genesis, in the person of the first human, characterizes the entire human species (5:2). The term 'ha adam,' 'the man,' in Genesis chapters 2-4, was faithfully translated into the Vulgate as a personal name following the Septuagint. Scripture connects it with the word 'adamah' (= ground or earth) to illustrate the essential relationship: according to its origin (2:7) and destiny (3:19, 23), it is related to the earth; it must cultivate the earth (2:5), and the earth represents its living space (3:17). With this name or word usage, Genesis teaches about the human being, about who we are.

  According to monogenism, all members of the human race are literally descendants of the first parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism, on the other hand, argues that this idea is refuted by natural science and does not fit into the general theory of evolution or our genetic knowledge about humanity. The emergence of humanity did not occur in just two individuals, but in a broader context, possibly even geographically.

  The question of monogenism versus polygenism also has profound theological implications. This issue is discussed in studies by Kenneth W. Kemp, several posts on Edward Feser's Thomist blog, and writings by Mike Flynn available online. According to the second chapter of Genesis, God created a single man, Adam, and later, Eve. Modern theology raises the question of whether this chapter speaks of any factual event at all, or if the writer merely used this narrative and the figures of Adam and Eve to illustrate the unity of the human race. The question of the real existence of Adam and Eve is even more important for the correct understanding of original sin and the resulting original sin. The Catholic position can be summarized as follows:

  1. Adam was in a state of original holiness and justice, which included so-called preternatural gifts (dona praeternaturalia). The state of the first human couple is characterized by Catholic theology as a state of sanctifying grace. This state is not the natural state of man; it is not inherent to human nature but is a supernatural gift from God, a divine invitation. The preternatural gifts associated with this state (such as immunity from suffering and death) are not inseparable from the state of sanctifying grace, but the first human couple possessed these gifts as well.
  2. Due to Adam's sin, the original sin (peccatum originale originans), he lost the state of original holiness and justice along with the preternatural gifts.
  3. However, Adam did not lose these gifts only for himself but for all his descendants. Adam's sin is inherited by all humans as original sin (peccatum originale originatum) through procreation and descent. Original sin is not the personal sin of the descendants but a sinful state characterized by the absence of sanctifying grace, which would be God's gift to humans. As a consequence of original sin, human nature was also wounded, resulting in weakened faculties. According to the classic formulation, our intellect became darkened, and our will inclined toward evil.

  According to the above, original sin is Adam's personal sin, as a result of which every human being is conceived in the state of original sin through descent from Adam. The deliverance from this state was brought about by the redemption of Jesus Christ, and each person is freed from original sin through the sacrament of baptism. However, this exemption does not mean that we also regain the supernatural gifts given to the first parents; thus, in the current order of salvation, suffering and death accompany us on our path toward God.

  At first glance, the scientific concept of polygenism does not fit into this theological framework. According to polygenism, we cannot speak of Adam and Eve or their personal sin. If we cannot speak of Adam and Eve, and if we consider them only mythical figures, then obviously we cannot speak of original sin inherited by all humans through descent from them. Modern theology, therefore, for this and other reasons, has attempted a "weaker" understanding of the doctrine of original sin. In this view, original sin is not considered Adam's personal sin but a sin committed by a particular community. (It is noted that this idea does not necessarily exclude the personal nature of sin.) The inheritance of original sin through descent is also attempted to be weakened by considering this state not a direct personal state but the sin of the world, some kind of "structural sin," forgetting that these are only consequences of the original cause, original sin.

  Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) in response to such ideas, writing the following about polygenism (DH 3897):

  37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

  In the last decades of the past century, the examination of the genes of modern humans has found new arguments against monogenism. According to these arguments, there is a gene found in humans (DRB1) whose numerous variations could not have been passed on if there had been a "bottleneck" in the history of the human species (whether at its beginning or later) where the species consisted of only two individuals. These arguments are also debated by the scientific community. Hereafter, we will not deal with scientific questions but will present a theory that resolves the contradiction between the theologically justified monogenism and the polygenism better supported by natural sciences.

  The biological, developmental, and genetic examination of the human species suggests that human emergence occurred within the framework of polygenism rather than monogenism. At the same time, based on revelation and theology, the first individuals of this human species were only Adam and Eve. To resolve this contradiction, it is worth examining whether the human species, in a biological sense, is the same as the species in a philosophical-theological sense. We will not delve into the scientific question of defining the species in a biological sense. For now, it is enough for us to understand that within a species, individuals can produce offspring that belong to the same species.

  In a philosophical sense, the human species is characterized by individuals formed by an immortal soul. As a result, humans possess qualities that animals do not, such as the ability to acquire abstract, universal knowledge, and the desire for good that transcends their material environment. The human species, in a philosophical sense, began when, at the conception of an animal (or possibly later in its life), the role of form was filled by the immortal soul as a result of God's direct creative activity. This did not involve directly observable biological changes. The first human baby (whom we call Adam) began to grow in the environment of other animals—its parents, tribe, etc.—and during growth, it could notice that it was somehow different from its peers. Then Adam met a female who was also different from her peers, and thus they found each other. They became the first representatives of the human species in a philosophical sense without appearing as individuals of a new species in a biological sense. However, this beginning also signifies a new start in a theological sense because Adam and Eve were invited to friendship with God in sanctifying grace. Original sin ended this state. Due to original sin, the new supernatural possibility for development that lay before Adam, Eve, and their descendants was lost, resulting in a severe regression. Adam's descendants continued to live within the same biological species. The presence of the immortal soul became a characteristic of Adam's descendants, but this soul bore the wounds of original sin. Individuals of the biological species not descended from Adam did not possess an immortal soul. Within the biologically identical species, pairings could occur where one party, as a descendant of Adam, had an immortal soul, while the other party had only an animal soul. In these cases, due to descent from Adam, the offspring also possessed an immortal soul. Over time, Adam's descendants quickly became dominant due to the properties and evolutionary advantages of the immortal soul, making the philosophical-theological species and the biological species eventually identical in extent. Today, they can no longer be considered different. However, the former distinction may be suggested by genes whose variation diversity does not allow the assumption that the (biological) population ever consisted of only two individuals.

  In fact, we do not have certain knowledge about how hominization occurred; revelation focuses on the fundamental facts without detailing the "how." The above theory demonstrates that the Church's traditional position does not need to be abandoned even if it seemingly conflicts with some scientific findings. In such cases, it is necessary to thoroughly examine what the position pertains to and what the conflicting scientific findings pertain to. Ultimately, there can be no contradiction between the two because the Creator God and the revealing God are the same.
• 
  73

  Did God know adam and eve would sin?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this forum, i would love to know what your take on this vital question is..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @no-zombie

  May you please first read my comment (and the link within the comment) HERE regarding the histocity of the Genesis narrative?

  Your question is actually aimed at why God allows evil, this is the problem of theodicy, which has been written about many times and by many people, it would not hurt to clarify a few questions here theologically.
  

  God does not desire moral evil or sin for its own sake or for the sake of others; He merely permits it. This is a dogma in the Catholic Church. The Council of Trent excommunicates anyone who, like Calvin, claims that "it is not within man's power to turn to evil, but God performs evil deeds just as He does good ones, and does so in a special sense, and not merely by permission; so much so that Judas' betrayal is no less God's own work than Paul's calling."

  Both Testaments firmly oppose the notion that God is the author of sin or that He associates with it in any way. The Lord "has not commanded anyone to act wickedly, and He does not give permission to sin. He does not desire a multitude of unfaithful and useless children" (Sirach 15:20; Wisdom 12:10). "Indeed, my God, you do not delight in wickedness" (Psalms 5:5). "The Lord detests the way of the wicked" (Proverbs 15:9). "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone" (James 1:13).

  However, Scripture often speaks as if God were the cause of evil: He hardens people's hearts, blinds them, sends deceitful spirits; the crucifixion of Christr happened according to God's plan. Solution: Scripture presents God in absolute holiness, as the avenger of sin, with such definitiveness that it cannot intend to contradict itself with the cited passages. Rather, it could mean that God intended the hardening, etc., as punishment, or that He intended to make the wickedness of the obdurate sinners evident. Furthermore, Scripture emphasizes two opposing truths with full determination and energy: God's absolute holiness and omnipotence (nothing happens without the sovereign God's decree) and does not concern itself with reconciling these two truths. Scripture thus proves to be a supernatural cosmos that not only provides solutions but also raises new and significant problems. Specifically, Scripture does not yet employ the concept of permission to express more accurately God's omnipotence over sin, but rather uses the most direct and illustrative concept available (the concept of causation).

  The curses in the cursing psalms do not originate from God, but they are inspired because they express a zeal for God's cause.

  The understanding of the Church Fathers is clearly evident from the determination and tenacity with which they opposed Manichaeism, whose main teaching was that all evil, including sin, is the direct and specific work of an absolute principle. It is not difficult to comprehend with reason that God cannot desire sin. God desires everything for Himself; the formal object, or motive, of His love is Himself. However, sin is a turning away from God; God cannot desire His creatures to live without Him, or even against Him. In other words, sin is absolute evil; no good can equal it since it frustrates the eternal goal of spiritual creatures: reaching God, which is the absolute, unsurpassable good. However, the permission of sin does not contradict the absolute holiness of God's will. This only means that God does not prevent moral evil. God can do this if it serves a proportional motive (e.g., emphasizing the freedom of creatures) and if it does not frustrate the ultimate goal of creation, i.e., if God can turn it to good.

  Regarding objects in various theological contexts, the divine will is usually classified as follows:

  1. Necessary and free will: depending on whether its object is God Himself or freely created creatures. The following classifications all pertain to God's free will, which can be:

  2. Simple and ordered will (voluntas simplex et ordinata): depending on whether it is directed towards the ends of creation or its means; the ordered will presupposes the setting of goals. Thus, God desires the manifestation of His glory with simple will and the efficacious graces of the elect with ordered will. This generally corresponds to the distinction between the absolute and conditional divine will; the latter being a divine decision that takes into account the cooperation of free creatures. Similar is the distinction between effective and ineffective will, which comes into consideration in the distribution of grace: God's saving will is called effective as far as human free will cooperates with it; otherwise, it is ineffective.

  3. Antecedent and consequent divine will (voluntas antecedens et consequens): According to Thomas Aquinas, the antecedent divine will disregards concrete circumstances, while the consequent takes them into account. According to Molinists, the antecedent will precedes the good or bad use of human free will, while the consequent follows the foresight of the free choice. This distinction is significant in the doctrine of predestination.

  4. Internal will (will of complacency) and signified will (voluntas beneplaciti et signi): The will of complacency considers God's will as it is in Himself; the signified will is actually a manifestation of the divine will observable in creation, which is metonymically called will (just as a will is called "last will"). Five such divine will-manifesting signs are usually listed: command, prohibition, permission, counsel, and action (praecipit et prohibet, permittit, consulit, implet). These signs, however, do not equally express God's will. Action always accurately expresses the divine will: what God does, He also wills. Permission in itself is not willing, as we have seen regarding moral evil. Command, prohibition, and counsel sometimes do not express God's entire will, as in the command to sacrifice Isaac. In this sense, we can speak of God's revealed and hidden will. However, it is completely erroneous, even blasphemous heresy, to believe, like Calvin, that there could be a contradiction between God's hidden and revealed will; as if, for example, God openly willed everyone's salvation, but secretly only the salvation of the elect. In general, great wisdom, supernatural enlightenment, solid and profound knowledge of God and humanity, and great humility are needed to determine or at least sense what God's will is, especially in concrete situations and difficult life tasks (e.g., career choice). Only frivolity disguised as piety dares to label every personal idea and action as God's will and even impose it on others as such.

  These classifications, however, only pertain to the divine will considered in its results or endpoints (terminative). In God Himself, His absolute nature excludes the idea that He would decide without taking all possible factors into account; as if He would consider something purely as a goal, abstractly, or conditionally, or only in certain phases, and therefore, what He wills would not always be precisely fulfilled. The above distinctions are only offered by His works for the human mind bound to discursive thinking.

  The Molinists accuse Thomism of making God the author of evil, insofar as, according to the doctrine of physical premotion, God precisely predetermines the physical aspect of sin, which is, however, inseparable from the moral aspect. If God precisely predetermines every movement of the murderer, with which he thrusts the dagger into his victim's heart, it is difficult to see how God cannot be considered a participant in the murder. To this, the Thomists rightly respond: According to Molinism, God also cooperates with the physical part of the sinful act, with every single detail. If this accompanying cooperation is not incompatible with God's holiness, then the premotional cooperation cannot be incompatible either; because, like the accompanying cooperation, it also targets only the physical element of sin, which is not sinful in itself. If it is permissible for God to provide assistance in the act of murder while it is happening, it is also permissible for Him to predetermine it in advance; in both cases, naturally, assuming that there is a real distinction (distinctio saltem virtualis maior) between the physical and moral elements of sin. Thomism further reasons as follows: Sinfulness, as such, is the lack of proper moral alignment. Its source is human fallibility (defectibilitas); and this ultimately stems from the limited judgment suggested by the fallible will. When God provides His indispensable creative premotion, He respects the will He created (as fallible) and, according to His universal law of providence, grants the necessary creative cooperation even to sinful acts, but only to the elements that pertain to existence and are therefore good in themselves. That an act deviates from proper moral alignment is due to the weakness of the will that initiated the act; just as if someone's leg is crooked, their soul is the initiator and cause of their walking, but not of their limping, which results from the defect of the leg.

  Since Providence is universal, evil is also part of its plans. However, because evil runs counter to rational creatures, especially humans, who are the objects of God's special Providence, it is a deeply crucial question: how does evil fit into Providence? To answer this question meaningfully, we should distinguish between strictly physical evil, psychic evil (suffering; both together being physical evil in a broader sense), and moral evil (sin).

  Strictly physical evil in the realm of inanimate nature involves conflicting opposites (e.g., plants and frost; coal seams and mine fires), catastrophes, and destructions (volcanoes, storms, star deaths, Earth's cooling), and chemical decompositions. In themselves, these are not evil; they only become evil because they are sources of suffering for humans and animals. They greatly enrich the picture of creation and reveal various aspects of God's excellence. Additionally, they are inherent in the concept of the material world. Thus, God could have willed and included them in His universal plan of Providence just as He willed a material world governed by the present laws to declare His inner richness.

  Regarding psychic evil, suffering, we should again make distinctions. The suffering of animals has been illuminated in the assessment of pessimism.

  Regarding human suffering, even a philosopher who meditates solely on the natural world can determine that God did not will suffering for its own sake, but rather for the goods associated with it. This means that one can find perspectives that clarify this question: why did God arrange the world's course so that it entails so much suffering for humans. Namely, a) suffering is suitable for eliciting values from the depths of the human soul that would otherwise remain forever hidden, such as submission, endurance, assistance, and consolation, compassion. Pain itself, with its often shocking outbursts and sometimes quiet sorrow, brings the grandeur and depth of tragedy into existence. Thus, it indeed plays a role in creation like shading in a painting: it highlights the colors and deepens and enriches the artistic effect. b) Suffering is temporary. According to natural reason, eternal life awaits the just in the afterlife; compared to which the greatest earthly suffering is a mere trial. Experience shows that the greatest pain becomes bearable as soon as we are assured that it will end at a definite near time.

  Supernatural illumination presents suffering in a completely new light: a) In the actual order of salvation, God's extraordinary gifts were meant to keep humans away from all suffering and significantly reduce the suffering of animals. Death came through sin, and with death came its attendants: misery, disease, and pain. Thus, in the current order of salvation, suffering has a punitive character. However, punishing sin is a providential activity. b) Since Christ sanctified and made suffering meritorious through His own passion, every sufferer has the opportunity through grace to supplement in their body what is lacking in Christ's afflictions (Colossians 1:24), and in this sublime mystical way, make temporal sufferings valuable for eternal life and, through psychological means, make it a means of purification.

  Therefore, even if the just suffer in this earthly life (this was a severe problem for the pious in the Old Testament: Psalms 73; Job 21:7; Jeremiah 12:1. The solution is given by the Fathers: Augustine, City of God, 1; Chrysostom, especially Homilies on the Statues 1, 8; Letter to Olympias.), or suffer not precisely for personal sins, even finding themselves in a worse state than the godless or those with a lax conscience, they have no reason to doubt God's special Providence for a moment. For many of the just's sufferings would not be avoidable without frequent and significant interruptions of the natural order, or miracles (great catastrophes, the universal destruction of plagues); moreover, God raises His sun on the good and the evil alike (Matthew 5:45); inherited burdens, for example, could not be suspended for the just without miracles. But Providence, as the organic continuation of the Creator's activity, generally does not want to disturb the established order of nature unless it is necessary due to God's wisdom, goodness, or justice; there is indeed no just person who does not need the atoning and especially the educating blessings of suffering (see Hebrews 12:1-13. "ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς oὐ παιδεύεται," who has not walked the school of sufferings remains uneducated, says the Greek philosopher; and Goethe chose this as the motto for his autobiography). Conversely, there is no wicked person who does not deserve some good; and since eternal life only brings punishment for them, it is understandable if God rewards them in this life. When fully appreciating divine justice, one must never disregard the otherworldly recompense. It is a blessing for the just to follow in their Savior's footsteps: "If we suffer with Him, we will also be glorified with Him" (Romans 8:17).

  Thus, the believer does not face suffering with the same dullness as the pagan masses. They do not need to resort to the false and, especially in difficult situations, inadequate fakir self-narcotization of Stoic ἀταραξία (unperturbed calm). Nor will they be tempted to reach for the less realistic euphoria-chasing of our time (εὐφορία, good feeling), which places pleasure at the center of life values and tries to avoid suffering with modern technical, medical, and social inventions and arrangements. Nor do they need to adopt the primitive standpoint of the Old Testament: suffering as a punishment for hidden sins or a short trial followed by ample earthly compensation (Job and Tobit's standpoint; Wisdom already refers to the otherworldly recompense). For the believer, the key to all suffering is the cross; the meaning of Holy Week is revealed on Easter morning.

  Moral evil, or sin, by its nature, is something God cannot will, not even indirectly, as He does with suffering; He can only permit it. Why does He permit it? What is the purpose of sin in God's providential plans? Only revelation can clarify this question, offering the following perspectives: a) The possibility of sinning is inherent in the concept of a free creature; and since a creature that "could sin and did not sin" (Sirach 30:10) is a good and significant new creative idea, God could have willed to create such a being. All the more because, otherwise, creation would have had to do without the very creature that can consciously fulfill the goal of creation: the conscious glorification of God. Intelligence involves freedom, and created, non-absolute freedom involves the possibility of sinning. b) Although God has the power to prevent every sin with efficacious graces without infringing human freedom, He saw it good to allow freedom to be exercised negatively as well. For α) Sin also presents entirely new aspects of creation and the Creator: the depths of repentance, the mercy of forgiveness, the solemn majesty of punitive justice, and God's inexhaustible patience are all revealed by sin. Saint Augustine says: "God would not have created a single angel or human whose wickedness He foresaw if He had not also foreseen how to use them for the benefit of the good, thus adorning the order of the ages like a beautiful poem with certain contrasts." "The painter knows where to place the black color to make his painting beautiful; and should not God know where to place the sinner to make His world orderly?" β) The main point: The order of sin should not be viewed abstractly but taken as it is actually integrated into the current order of salvation. Here, the reality is that God would not have permitted sin if He had not already (in idea, secundum ordinem naturae) determined its sublime reparation through redemption by incarnation. Assuming that the incarnation happened solely in view of sin, the sublime mystery of the incarnation and all the good that comes with it can, in a way, be attributed to sin: "O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!" (Exultet of Holy Saturday).

  5. As certain as it is that all our paths and deeds are in the hands of the providential God, and that every difficult situation comes from His hand, as certain as we can be that even in the greatest abandonment and difficulty, God's tender and powerful hand leads (Psalms 55:23; 1 Peter 5:6), so certain it is that often in a given case, we cannot determine why divine Providence acts precisely this way.

  Facing an unexpected great individual or national calamity, or a severe trial of the Church, we can only echo the Apostle's words: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Romans 11:33). Christ energetically warns against hastily and presumptuously interpreting God's thoughts, especially regarding calamities. When His disciples questioned Him about the man born blind: "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" He replied: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him" (John 9:2). On another occasion, He instructs the disciples prone to quick conclusions that the Galileans killed while offering sacrifices were not more sinful than other Galileans; similarly, the eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them (Luke 13:1–5). No individual or historical situation, even one under special Providence, provides a sure basis for predicting or calculating precisely the direction of Providence (see Judas's betrayal, the Church's frequent humiliations, etc.).

  The faith of many pious people in Providence, and even in God, suffers shipwreck because they engage in such false calculations or expect extraordinary Providence in a situation where they should humbly submit to the ordinary. Saint Augustine aptly characterizes this mindset, which does not understand Providence and therefore denies its wisdom: "If an unskilled person wanders into a workshop, he sees many tools whose purpose he does not understand; if he is very foolish, he deems them unnecessary. If he burns himself or injures himself with a sharp tool, he considers them harmful. However, the master knows their purpose, smiles at the fool, and pays no attention to his foolish remarks but steadfastly continues his work. And behold, people are such fools: in the case of a craftsman, they rarely dare to criticize what they do not understand but assume that everything they see in his workshop is in order and useful. However, regarding the world's creation, of which we proclaim God as the creator and ruler, they dare to criticize much that they do not understand, acting knowledgeable about the Almighty Master's works and tools, while their ignorance is evident."

  We see only a tiny fragment of God's ways; our knowledge barely encompasses the present, even less of the past, and nothing of the future. It would be great audacity to try to construct their entire course from this. Divine wisdom guarantees only that however unfathomable the ways of Providence may be to us, they are not in vain: "God's ways may be hidden, but they cannot be wicked." In any difficult situation, it is always enough to know the universal law: He does not tempt us beyond our strength (1 Corinthians 10:13). And in any abandonment, one can always, with the strong arms of faith and love, grasp God and not let go (Tauler's beggar); and "if God is for us, who can be against us?" (Romans 8:31).
• 
  73

  Did God know adam and eve would sin?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this forum, i would love to know what your take on this vital question is..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The JWs' image of God is childish, like a fairy tale, it presents God like when someone scolds his 4-5 year old child by saying that God will be angry if he doesn't eat his vegetables.

  But God is not a bearded sky grandpa who is sitting on a big golden chair, watching live in his magic sphere fingers crossed to see if the little Johnny will eventually eat the vegetables, and if not, then he will be upset and will strike kittens and bunnies with lightning in his anger.

  How much more serious is the "actus purus" view instead of the Socinian one?
  
• 
  73

  Did God know adam and eve would sin?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this forum, i would love to know what your take on this vital question is..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The omniscience and foreknowledge of God
  

  http://www.standfortruthministries.com/pdf_articles/TheWatchtowerMisunderstandingofGod.pdf

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

  https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-watchtower-1180

  https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2014/12/07/refuting-the-jehovahs-witness-doctrine-of-selective-foreknowledge/

  http://daenglund.com/the-watchtower-rejects-biblical-authority-regarding-gods-foreknowledge/
• 
  14

  Is the 1000 year reign literal?

  by gavindlt in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  to all those on this students on this forum, i would love to know what your view is?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Verses 1-6 of Chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation are among the most challenging passages. The only correct and now almost universally accepted interpretation among Catholic exegetes sees the entire earthly life of the Church in the thousand-year reign of Christ and His saints, which essentially means the same as the forty-two months, one thousand two hundred and sixty days, and three and a half years mentioned in other visions (11:2; 12:6, 14). Satan's power received a fatal wound with his casting out from heaven and even more so by the redemptive death of Jesus Christ, which "bound" the devil in a certain sense, although it did not completely nullify his power on earth. At the end of the world, Satan will regain his power for a short time (11:9, 11: three and a half days), during which he will make a final assault on the Church of Christ with all his might. This struggle will end with the ultimate fall of the devil.

  In the early centuries of the Church, mainly some heretics and even some Christians believed that Revelation 20:1-6 should be understood literally, referring to a thousand-year earthly reign of Christ and His saints (chiliasm, from the Greek word "chilios" meaning thousand). In the Middle Ages, and even today, some interpreters have revived this interpretation, or attributed this view to the author of the Book of Revelation. However, this explanation fails to see that St. John speaks of a purely spiritual kingdom, completely misinterprets the basic ideas of the Book of Revelation, and leads to impossibilities.

  "1 And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain."

  The bottomless pit is hell (verse 3; cf. 9:1); the key represents the angel's authority over hell to open it, and the great chain (a symbol) serves to bind Satan. Therefore, an angel descended from heaven to bind Satan, and many recognize the archangel Michael in this angel. According to the Judaism of Jesus' time, the Abyss is the temporary prison for the rebellious spirits, where they await the final judgment (cf. 2 Pet 2:4). This realm is under God's control, as indicated by the fact that the key to the prison is in the angel's hand.

  "2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while."

  The prophet calls Satan the ancient serpent based on Genesis 3:1. The binding represents the limitation of Satan's power; the thousand years signify the entire earthly life of the Church. The binding lasts for a thousand years, during which Christ's faithful reign with Him. This thousand-year co-reigning has been the source of much debate. Those who took it literally fell into heresy. The concept of the thousand years may derive from Jewish thought: corresponding to the seven-day creation, the world would last for 7000 years, of which the last thousand years would be the thousand-year reign of Christ, and the subsequent eighth thousand years would signify eternity. St. Augustine and Jerome calculate the thousand years from the incarnation of Jesus. The sealing serves to confirm the (relative) binding of the evil spirit. After the redemptive death of the Savior, the evil spirit — according to St. Augustine — is like a chained rabid dog, which can only harm those who recklessly or carelessly approach it. Satan can tempt people throughout the entire earthly life of the Church, but he cannot force anyone to sin.

  "For a short time," in proportion to the Church's long earthly life. When the Roman paganism is destroyed, Satan's power is taken away for an indefinite long period so that he may not deceive the nations as he did during the Roman paganism. But as soon as this long period ends, he regains his former power, but only for a short time. When the Roman paganism is destroyed; because the present vision directly follows the previous one, which speaks of the destruction of Roman paganism. But opinions differ regarding the timing of the destruction. Some understand the year AD 313, in which the rule of idolatry was broken due to Constantine's conversion; others place the fall of paganism even earlier. Since paganism did not end suddenly, this date cannot be strictly determined. After this date, "Satan's power is taken away so that he may not deceive the nations as before"; because the "binding, shutting, sealing" do not mean the complete restriction of Satan's tempting power, just as the "releasing" does not mean unlimited power. These expressions, therefore, only refer to Satan's power over paganism, symbolically stating that his power was taken away only in relation to the Roman paganism. History also justifies this interpretation. After the fall of paganism, Christianity was never persecuted again on a broad scale, no ruler attempted to eradicate it where it had taken strong root, idolatry was not restored, and the associated abominations did not return. However, Satan was not entirely powerless. Here and there, Christianity suffered harm and persecution even among Christians, was distorted by heresies, its peace was disrupted by wars, and a more refined idolatry replaced image worship.

  The limitation of Satan's power lasts for an indefinite period. The text does say a thousand years, but since this is only a round number, it is evident that the final time, which follows those thousand years, is unknown to anyone (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7). According to Augustine and the best interpreters, this period is understood as the time from the fall of paganism to the final period. In the final era, Satan's former power will be returned for a short time. This will be discussed in verse 7.

  The binding does not signify a final, destructive judgment but a significant limitation of the rebellious spirits' and Satan's power. Although the evil spirits, whose power is now restricted, can still rise from the abyss to tempt and threaten the world of humans (cf. Rev 11:7; 17:8), cause conflicts, suffering, and earthly death, they no longer have the power to cast people into eternal damnation against their will due to Christ's atoning sacrifice. The thousand years represent the entirety of the Messianic era, thus equating to the final week mentioned by the prophet Daniel. The symbolic numerical value likely stems from the contemporary Jewish concept that the world's history spans seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven days of creation—each day being a thousand years in God's eyes (cf. Ps 90:4; 2 Pet 3:8)—and the last thousand years (as the seventh day of creation) represent the era brought by the Messiah (cf. Epistle of Barnabas 15, 2-8). The author of the Book of Revelation does not envision this period as some earthly paradise or undisturbed state of rest, but as the complete history of the Church, wherein the followers of the Messiah still struggle against satanic forces but are strengthened by the knowledge that Christ has defeated the world dominated by Satan. The members of the Church can experience the unfolding of God's kingdom and are blessed (cf. Rev 14:13), knowing that their eternal life has already begun on earth (cf. Jn 6:47).

  The Satan "bound" by Christ (cf. Mt 12:29; Mk 3:27; Lk 11:21) and "released for a short time" can still influence people, cause harm, instigate persecutions, and deliver the followers of the Messiah to death, but cannot take away those whom God intends to save. Christ's reign and the release of the bound Satan are concurrent, parallel processes that together constitute the history of the Church. Therefore, the phrase does not mean that after the thousand years, in the last phase of history, Satan gets another chance to thwart God's plan. By using the seemingly chronological term "after" and the term "must," the seer actually expresses that God's plan is of a higher order than earthly events: Satan's release follows the preceding divine plan and, in this sense, occurs "after" in the divine scheme as an act of God's will in history. The term "short time" (cf. Rev 12:12) in this case does not denote a duration but symbolizes Satan's weakness: he operates with only "half strength" and cannot thwart God's saving plan.
  

  "4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

  (cf. Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Corinthians 6:3) The description recalls Daniel's vision: the Ancient of Days judges and reigns with the Son of Man. According to the vision, the saints also partake in judgment and reigning (cf. Dan 7:9-28). In John's Revelation, these saints are the "souls" who have been given judicial authority and partake in the divine rule, which the seer believes has already begun in the world with Christ's sacrifice (cf. Rev 12:10-11). The martyrs and all those who resist Satan throughout history participate in Christ's reign by their actions that promote the unfolding of God's kingdom. Their judicial authority lies in presenting a witness of martyrdom or through acts of repentance, mercy, love, and forgiveness, providing an example by which even those distant from Christ can judge themselves.

  Those seated on the judgment thrones are the followers of the Lord Jesus, the already glorified martyrs (whose souls the prophet sees), and the other righteous (who did not worship the beast, etc.), whether they are still living on earth or already enjoying the happiness of heaven. The sanctifying grace also makes the righteous living on earth adopted children of God, heirs of heaven, and thus, in a certain sense, co-rulers with Jesus Christ. After Satan was chained and paganism fell, the reign of Christianity began. The glorified saints, especially the holy martyrs, reigned and judged with Christ during those thousand years. The seated ones generally represent the saved Christians; because reigning with Christ is promised to every true Christian (1 Thessalonians 2:12). The holy martyrs are specifically mentioned because they sacrificed their lives for Christ. The rule and judgment occur in heaven; because only souls, not bodies risen in the flesh, exercise it. The rule signifies participation in Christ's reign. Since Christ governs, guides, and protects His Holy Church, the saints share in this governance, and if we ask for their intercession for our salvation, their prayers can have great power because they reign with Christ. The rule of the souls lasts until the final era when, after the ultimate victory over the final struggle, the general judgment and the resurrection of the body will occur, so the judgment will be carried out not only by souls but by souls clothed in glorified bodies.

  "5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection."

  The "first resurrection" refers to the spiritual resurrection through baptism (or repentance) to the life of sanctifying grace; the rest of the dead are those who died without sanctifying grace. The rest of the dead, the ungodly deceased who sided with the beast, do not live during those thousand years, do not live and do not reign with Christ spiritually in heaven, but as their bodies, so their souls are dead, cast away from the sight of Jesus, excluded from heaven, consigned to damnation. These words "do not live, do not come to life" are in contrast with the previous verse's "they lived." Just as this indicates the blessed spiritual life of the righteous, so the ungodly's not living indicates their unhappy spiritual death. Note: the phrase "do not come to life until" does not mean that these dead will begin to live spiritually after the thousand years, but as the phrase "until" in Scripture generally does not continue the action beyond the specified time, it merely expresses negation, so here the happy spiritual life is altogether denied to these dead.

  Thus this happy spiritual life is the "first resurrection," the resurrection of the soul, preceding the "second" one, when at the judgment the body will also rise and unite with the soul. All those who partake in Christ's reign live a renewed life, which the seer calls the "first resurrection," anticipating the bodily (second) resurrection (cf. Eph 2:6; Jn 5:24-25). Those who share in the "first resurrection," that is, the faithful followers of the Messiah, need not fear judgment or the second death, meaning they will not be condemned to damnation after departing from earthly life. They constitute God's holy people, a royal priesthood (cf. Rev 1:6; 5:10; 1 Pet 2:9), that is, the Church. Those who show no sign of the "first resurrection," appearing not to belong to the Church, are called "dead" by the seer. They are those who, according to Jesus' parable, are outside the witnessing community, "on the roads and hedges," yet are still invited to the great feast of God's kingdom (cf. Lk 14:21-23; Mt 22:10).

  "6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

  This is the prophet's enthusiastic exclamation. The second death is eternal damnation (verse 14). All true Christians in a broader sense are priests of God and Christ because their lives are a constant sweet-smelling sacrifice before God (cf. 1:6; 5:10; 7:15; 1 Peter 2:9). Blessed and holy is one whose soul, after the body's death, reaches Christ in heaven to live, reign, and judge with Him. Those souls who live in God's grace on earth and die in that grace will reach heaven; therefore, the Lord calls this life of grace on earth a resurrection (John 5:25), as does the Apostle Paul (Ephesians 5:14). The first death is the death of the body, the second is the spiritual death, eternal damnation (Revelation 21:8). Those who live in Christ here and continue this life in Him when they die from this world, such people die the first death in body but do not die the spiritual death, the death of eternal damnation, but instead... serve God in heaven as priests, taking part in Christ's reign spiritually until the final time, when they will also rise bodily and live and reign in perfect glory forever. Satan lost his power with Jesus' redemption, and Christians have indeed become "kings and priests" through grace.

  Besides, John speaks of the first and second death and the first and second resurrection. John understood the second death as eternal damnation, so the first resurrection must be understood as a spiritual resurrection when one abandons sin and lives a life of grace. Thus, the members of Christ's thousand-year kingdom are Christians living in a state of grace, that is, those who have risen from sin through baptism. The thousand years thus last from Christ's birth until His second coming.

  "7 And when the thousand years are ended, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will come out to deceive the nations that are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea."

  The description of the great battle has a striking dramatic brevity. The sentence might suggest that Satan will have another opportunity to destroy the Church at the end of history. However, this is not the case. We must consider that the author of Revelation uses symbolic time references in a unique way. Previously, the three-and-a-half-year or one thousand two hundred and sixty-day periods expressed the limitation of Satan's power. The phrase "when the thousand years are ended" symbolizes a hierarchy: it indicates that Satan's release is logically "preceded" by the divine plan for Christ's thousand-year reign, which can already be considered fulfilled with the historical manifestation of redemption. St. Augustine († 430) also interpreted this biblical verse as indicating that Satan's release begins during the thousand-year reign (cf. De Civitate Dei 20.8.2). The release symbolizes, in the language of symbols, that even during Christ's thousand-year reign, the tangle of original sin persists in history, though it can no longer have fatal effects on those who accept Christ's redeeming gift. The attempt to mislead signifies an attempt to deceive, meaning that during the thousand-year reign, the forces of evil repeatedly try to destroy the Church, which represents Christ.

  The struggle of the devil and his allies essentially coincides with the continuous attacks of the Antichrist (the two beasts) against the kingdom of God (19:11-21); but the prophet separately describes the fall and punishment of the main enemies of God's kingdom (the pagan Roman Empire symbolically in the two beasts, the Antichrist, and the evil spirit).

  When the "thousand years" are ended: in the last period of the Church's earthly life. The release of Satan means that the evil spirit (with God's permission) will launch an even more intense final attack against the Church. The four corners of the earth represent all the regions of the world. Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 are the final great enemies of God's kingdom. According to Genesis 10:2, Magog is a people descended from Japheth, who lived around the Caspian Sea; Gog is also a people or the king of Magog. Here, Gog and Magog represent all the enemies of the Church. When, according to God's decree, the final period comes, God will allow Satan to gain a vast following among the nations to defeat Christianity and achieve triumph. For more on the thousand years and the release, see verse 3.

  The nations at "the four corners of the earth", not just those living at the farthest edges, but generally all the nations under the sky, represented by the four corners. Satan will find a huge following even among Christians; because Christ Himself says that in those days, when He returns, moral corruption will be almost universal (Luke 17:26–28), and He will hardly find faith (Luke 18:8). Gog and Magog were northern peoples, where the Greeks' Scythia was, the most savage barbarians (Ezekiel 38). They are not named here as those who will oppress God's Holy Church in the last days, but as symbolic names for the groups persecuting Christianity. These will gather for battle against God's Holy Church, working together to eradicate Christianity from the earth. According to apostolic teaching, the Antichrist will appear in the last days (2 Thessalonians 2), and he will be their leader or work with them. At the end of the world, Satan will fully attack the Church, but only for a short time, three and a half days (cf. Revelation 11:9). Gog and Magog symbolize all anti-church powers and cruelties. Ezekiel 38-39 describes Gog and his land, Magog. Gog was otherwise the king of Lydia.

  "9 and they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, 10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."."

  The "beloved city" is Jerusalem, as a type of the Church. The prophet describes God's punitive judgment, like many Old Testament prophets, as a great battle. The outcome of the great battle: Satan is ultimately cast into hell with his followers. This battle coincides with the struggle described in 19:21-17, but while the prophet mainly focused on the punishment of the two beasts there, here he primarily describes Satan's final fate. The lake of fire and sulfur is hell. Verse 10 again teaches the eternal nature of hell's punishments.

  The "thousand-year" reign of Christ and His saints is the entire earthly life of the Church, which was represented by the "42 months" and "1260 days" in other visions (Revelation 11:2; 12:6-14). The binding of Satan signifies the limitation of his power throughout church history. At the end of the world, Satan will regain his power for a relatively short time (Revelation 11:9-11: three and a half days) and launch a full-scale attack on the Church. Those seated on the judgment thrones are the already glorified martyrs and saints. The first resurrection refers to the spiritual resurrection, the divine sonship of sanctifying grace. The second death is eternal damnation (verse 14). Priests of God and Christ: see Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 7:15, 1 Peter 2:9. The final assault of the devil and his allies against the Church, and their ultimate downfall.

  Gog and Magog in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 are the ultimate great enemies of God's kingdom. Here they represent all the enemies of the Church.

  The "camp of the saints," besieged by the enemies of Christianity, represents God's Holy Church on earth. What this battle will be like, whether it is purely spiritual or actual physical combat, whether the beloved city is a real city where the small flock of believers will be gathered, or if it symbolizes only the Holy Church; what the fire represents, whether it will be literal or symbolic... all these questions must be left to the future to reveal; because the prophecy will only be fully understood when the future event it discusses has come to pass. A Christian's duty is to stay vigilant, carefully observe the signs of the times, and always be prepared for the Lord's coming (see Matthew 24). One thing is certain about this final period, that before the Last Judgment, the Jewish people will enter the Church (Romans 11). Here follows the concluding vision of the book and the prophecy, that is, the Holy Church's transition into and merging with the heavenly kingdom.

  As a result of Christ's redemptive activity, the forces of evil no longer have the opportunity to consign humanity to eternal damnation. The seer expresses Satan's weakening and the decline of his power with references to the brevity of time and the imagery of binding. The "thousand years", as a symbolic numerical value, refer to the complete history of the Church and Christ's spiritual reign: it denotes the process in which people accept the values of God's kingdom through repentance, forgiveness, mercy, and love. The members of the Church also partake in this reign, whose renewed life in Christ the seer calls the first resurrection. It is foreign to the author of Revelation to interpret the thousand-year reign of Christ as a worldly kingdom realized through political and economic successes. The millenarianism, or chiliasm, named after the Latin "mille" (thousand) and the Greek "khilias" (thousand), interprets the vision literally and teaches that the last judgment will be immediately preceded by a thousand-year kingdom, some earthly Paradise, where the righteous will reign with Christ, and Satan will have no power.
  

  * * *

  The Heresy of the Earthly Messianic Kingdom Lasting a Thousand Years (Millenarism, Chiliasm - Millennium, Chilion = 1000) arises from a misunderstanding of the message and symbolism of the Book of Revelation (Revelation 20), as well as a failure to recognize its genre. The core of this belief is that after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, He will establish a thousand-year earthly kingdom where He provides earthly happiness to His chosen ones. After this period, Satan will regain his power for a short time (three and a half days), which will be broken by the Last Judgment, and only then will God's final reign come. This misunderstanding, however, is deliberate, as its historical roots extend further back. The belief that the Messiah will establish an earthly kingdom in which the Jews will rule, and the pagan nations, especially the enemies, will serve, already existed as a compromise between the narrow-minded nationalist Pharisaism influenced by Parsism and the universal, blissful fulfillment of humanity. Among the Jews at the time of the incarnation of the Lord Christ, possibly under the influence of Parsism, there was a belief that served as a compromise between the narrow-minded nationalist Pharisaism and the universal eschatology that embraced humanity (cf. 4 Ezra 7:38). This belief held that the coming Messiah would establish an earthly kingdom in which He would rule together with the chosen people over paganism and specifically over all the enemies of the Jews. The pagan oppressors would become the oppressed, upon whom the Jews, having become rulers, would exact cruel revenge. They interpreted the curse psalms and similar passages (e.g., Isa 25:6; Mal 4:1-8) literally to apply to this time and condition. For the chosen, they promised all kinds of earthly, even sensual, and sinful pleasures, again through a crude literal interpretation of certain prophetic passages (e.g., Joel 3:14; Isa 11:8, 66:18, etc.). Some of these ideas were carried into early Christianity, where certain New Testament passages were interpreted literally for that time (cf. Mt 13:12; 25:28; Lk 14:16; 16:19; 19:11-7; Rev 6; 10; 19).

  It is no wonder that millenarism first emerged among Judeo-Christian sects (e.g., the Ebionites), who found the powerful symbolism of the Book of Revelation convenient, which they half-intentionally, half-ignorantly misinterpreted. Chiliasm so strongly permeated the Christian spiritual periphery that it haunted certain fervent Protestant sects through ancient church writers (e.g., Tertullian), some Church Fathers (e.g., St. Irenaeus), the medieval Joachim of Fiore, and the Hussites. This heresy can fundamentally be divided into two groups:

  1. Crude Chiliasm: In its rawest form, it was represented by the so-called Judaizing heretics (i.e., those reverting to the Jewish religion), who combined Jewish ritualism and exclusive particularism (i.e., the consciousness of being chosen) with the error of interpreting Christian freedom as libertinism. Thus, they filled the thousand-year earthly paradise with all kinds of earthly pleasures (often to the point of immorality). However, this standpoint inherently carries its judgment ("For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit" /Romans 14:17/). Its psychological root is correctly exposed by Eusebius when he writes of Cerinthus: "As he himself burned with desires, like any sensual man, so he dreamed of the kingdom of God in such terms."

  2. Moderate Chiliasm: This does not restrict itself to sensual pleasures and does not hold great horizons. Its source is the overestimation of the categories of this present world, practical disdain for the afterlife, and limited interpretation of Scripture. Its ultimate offshoot is the modern world-dominating aspirations of Bolshevism, infiltrated with the old Jewish political messianism's dark fanaticism and the Sadducees' this-worldliness.

  The leading idea of all chiliast errors is that heaven can be brought into this world and into a particular phase of history. However, there is strong resistance among the majority of Church Fathers. The Eastern and Alexandrian churches even questioned the apostolic origin of the Book of Revelation for a long time due to its potential for misunderstanding. (Although the Eastern Church now accepts the Book of Revelation, it still does not read it in public liturgy.) St. Jerome and St. Augustine also used their vast intellects in the service of combating this error.

  Despite appearances to the contrary (Revelation 20), millenarism has no scriptural basis. It primarily ignores that biblical prophecies reveal the supernatural connections of various moments in salvation history and are not meant to teach a preempted history. The texts of the prophetic books (especially those containing numerical data) should not be interpreted literally as descriptions but as deeply meaningful symbols. It is incompatible with the spirit of Scripture to use it against the purpose for which it was written, i.e., to interpret an inspired book about the divine origin and destiny of the Church against the Church and its interpretation. The constant interpretation of the Church aligns with St. Augustine's explanation (Augustine, De Civitate Dei XX.7), which holds that the thousand-year kingdom represents the spread of Christ's Church on earth and the glorification of the Church's saints in heaven. Satan is bound for a thousand years precisely because of the Church's historical triumph, and he will be released in the last times (for three and a half days, which is negligible compared to the thousand years) to attack the Church with all his might. This is confirmed by the clear scriptural evidence that the resurrection is so closely followed by the judgment that there is no room between them for a thousand-year earthly kingdom.

  It is the doctrine that God's kingdom will be realized visibly, materially, and physically here on earth, under God's personal reign, for a thousand years. Its essence is that the privileged ones—naturally, the millenarists—numbering 144,000, will rise again, each returning to their home, family, and pre-death occupation. This is the "material" version of millenarism. However, there is also a so-called "mitigated millenarism," which holds that Jesus will return visibly to earth to reign for a thousand years before the Last Judgment—whether preceded by the resurrection of the righteous or not. The difference between the two is that mitigated millenarism does not insist on the material nature of the thousand-year life and the spirit of anticipated vengeance. The source of millenarism is the first seven verses of the 20th chapter of the Book of Revelation.

  The scriptural passage in the previous paragraph, taken literally, would suggest that a thousand years will pass between the resurrection and the Last Judgment. In contrast: "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned" (John 5:28).

  Or: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' 'An enemy did this,' he replied. The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'" (...) "Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable. (...) Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, 'Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.' He answered, 'The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.'" (Matthew 13:25).

  Therefore, as soon as humanity is ripe for judgment, the judgment begins immediately. Similarly:

  "Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:47).

  "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done." (Matthew 16:27).

  "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." (Matthew 25:31).

  "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." (1 Corinthians 15:51).

  Thus despite appearances to the contrary, chiliasm has no root in Scripture. Above all, it disregards that prophecy reveals the supernatural connections of various moments in salvation history, follows divine pragmatism, and is not intended to be a preemptive history. It goes against the spirit of Scripture to classify apocalyptic and prophetic descriptions of the future as literal descriptions and not see them as symbols of God's abundant grace and power.

  This particularly applies to Revelation 20:1-10, which St. Augustine interpreted (Augustine, De Civitate Dei XX.7) to mean that the thousand-year kingdom is the spread of Christ's Church on earth and the glorification of the Church's saints and martyrs in heaven. We might get closer to understanding this difficult passage and positively appreciate the core truth that chiliasm holds with surprising tenacity within the atmosphere of revelation if we distinguish two phases in the history of the Church as the world representative of the gospel. The first phase is characterized by struggle along the entire line against anti-Christian directions and factors, with the militant King David as a prefigurement. Currently, we are still in this phase. The second phase is characterized by the Church's triumph over pagans and godless powers and the peaceful enjoyment of its spiritual and moral superiority, during which Satan is bound precisely because of the historical triumph of the gospel. This period of peace, prefigured by Solomon, the prince of peace, will see the full development of the gospel as contained in the ideal program of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount (abolition of the death penalty, cessation of war, at least among Christians, great simplicity, willingness to make sacrifices, intensive service to Christ, etc.). This is the legitimate element in the hopes of the spiritualists. But it is nothing more. We should not expect a new revelation and a new mission of the Spirit, but rather the full development of the gospel seed under the maturing effect of the history of the world. After this comes the great battle of the Antichrist and the second coming of the Savior. Regardless of how this unfolds, it is clear from Scripture (cf. Mt 5:10-21; 13:15-50; 16:27; 25:31-46; Jn 5:28; 1 Cor 15:31) that a chiliastic interpretation of Revelation 20 is impossible. According to the clear teaching of Scripture, the resurrection is so closely followed by the judgment that there is no room for a thousand-year earthly paradise.
• 
  5

  In Defense of the Crusades

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics.

  muslims really were gunning for them.

  by the time the crusades started, muslims had already captured two-thirds of the christian world.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. By the time the Crusades started, Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the Christian world. The Crusades were a direct response to more than four centuries of Muslim aggression. Fantastic articles:

  • Four Myths about the Crusades
  • The Real History Of The Crusades

  The modern perception of the Crusades is also unjust. The Crusades are often portrayed in the public mind as manifestations of Western imperialism, religious bigotry, and fanaticism, as well as material interests cloaked in religious garb. However, this image is a myth.

  In the Spring 2011 issue of Intercollegiate Review, Paul F. Crawford debunks four myths about the Crusades. The first myth is that the Crusades were unprovoked attacks on the Muslim world. In reality, by the time of the First Crusade, Islam had been in conflict with Christianity for 450 years.

  The second myth is that the Crusaders were only interested in getting rich, and the third is that the religious motivation was merely a facade, with the campaigns actually driven by material gain. This opinion is problematic because the Crusades were very expensive endeavors, with many Crusaders selling much of their belongings to embark on the journey. The mortality rate of the Crusades was also very high; according to one military historian, 75% of the participants in the First Crusade perished. Joining the Crusader armies was voluntary; there was no draft, and it was not mandatory. Everyone was aware at the time, and recruitment speeches even warned, that Crusader knights might face hardship, suffering, and even death.

  Crawford's fourth myth is that the Islamic world hates Christians because of the Crusades. In fact, until the 19th century, the Crusades were not a significant topic in the Muslim world. According to the author, Muslims didn't even have a specific word for the Crusades, which were simply seen as one chapter in the many Christian-Muslim conflicts. The Islamic world rediscovered the Crusades after 1899, thanks to the West, where the interpretation of the Crusades as barbaric, aggressive Western attacks on peaceful Muslims appealed to the emerging Arab nationalism and later to extremist Islamism.

  The eastern campaigns of the Crusader armies were defensive offensives initiated by Christian Europe (see the speech of Blessed Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095) (at least the first two certainly were) and they defended Europe. It is unfortunate that in later Crusades, not only religious enthusiasm but also greed and a desire for adventure played a role. Disgraceful events, such as the capture of Byzantium, also occurred (here too it holds that the sins of the Crusades were consequences of human frailty, but this does not mean that the institution itself was unnecessary). The claim that the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre, the protection of Christian pilgrims, the unification of Christianity, and the prevention of Islamic terror were merely propagandistic goals, behind which there were actually economic interests (e.g., the impoverishment of knights due to primogeniture, the Italian cities' desire for commercial monopolies, and the serfs' escape from feudal exploitation) is nothing more than making incidental reasons into the main cause driven by the prejudiced agenda of the "Enlightenment" and as such, is a common fabrication. After all, "crusading" armies existed even before the proclamation of the Crusades (1095). For instance, they defended Spain from the Moors who had penetrated at the Strait of Gibraltar, whom Charles Martel and his armies were only able to repel from the territory of present-day France (732). Without them, today - most likely - all of Europe would be living under Sharia law. But can a war to protect Europeans be considered defensive if it takes place far beyond Europe's borders? The affirmative answer consists of two parts:

  1. Any defensive or so-called "just" war can involve cross-border offensives (consider the USA's involvement in Europe [e.g., the Normandy landing] and Asia [e.g., Hiroshima, Nagasaki] during World War II, the Soviet Union's advance in Europe, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Gulf War, the United States' anti-terrorist campaign in Iraq, and the renewed State of Israel's armed conflicts with neighboring states - the note does not intend to sanctify or condemn any of these historical events, as the catechism does not aim to evaluate modern history, but merely to show that the concept of cross-border military action and self-defense can very well coexist in public consciousness). This could also be a preventive strike (the fact that Christianity delivered four decisive blows to Muslim armies on its own territory (Europe) is sufficient evidence that the Muslim world aimed to subjugate Europe, and action could and had to be taken against this even with cross-border means:

  • 732: Tours and Poitiers - Islamic aggressor: Abderrhaman — victorious Christian leader: Charles Martel.
  • 1456: Siege of Belgrade - Islamic aggressor: Mehmed II - victorious Christian leader: John Hunyadi.
  • 1571: Lepanto - Islamic aggressor: Ali Pasha - victorious Christian leader: Don Juan of Austria.
  • 1683: Vienna - Islamic aggressor: Kara Mustafa - victorious Christian leader: John Sobieski.

  Thus, the Islamic invasion was independent of the Crusaders' activities, as Muslim aggression in the West caused serious military problems for Europe centuries before and after the campaigns.
  

  2. A country and a community are obliged to protect their citizens or members of the community even if they are attacked beyond the country's borders or the community's territories (think about what would happen today if citizens of a major power were massacred en masse in a foreign country based on state-supported ideology simply because they belong to a particular nation). Christian pilgrims were systematically slaughtered or harassed by Muslims for centuries, depending on the prevailing interest. We consider it self-evident and legitimate that any country or nation should defend its interests with armed force. We can appreciate the welfare and existence of a country or nation. However, we deny the same to the Church. By doing so, we are either inconsistent or we do not sufficiently value spiritual matters.

  The so-called Children's Crusade (1212) also requires separate discussion, as its evaluation is also questionable. It is true that such a crusade occurred, and it was indeed madness, but it should not be forgotten that it was not organized by the Church but was a spontaneous popular movement. The Church did not support it; on the contrary, several bishops managed to turn back thousands of children from certain death. So it was not approved by the Church and was a spontaneous action. Moreover, in light of research, it was not a children's crusade but rather one of poor, young laborers. The term "Children's Crusade" originated from a mistranslation of the Latin term (pueri) in contemporary chronicles.

  * * *

  Many today regard the Crusades as manifestations of Western imperialism and colonialism, religious bigotry, and intolerance, often mentioned alongside the Inquisition as evidence of Christianity's moral decay. This view is mistaken: the Crusades primarily served a defensive purpose.

  In the Spring 2011 issue of Intercollegiate Review, Paul F. Crawford debunks four myths about the Crusades. The first myth is that the Crusades were unprovoked attacks on the Muslim world. In reality, by the time of the First Crusade, Islam had been in conflict with Christianity for 450 years. In 632, at the death of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and North Africa were all Christian territories. Consider that the Roman Empire encompassed the Mediterranean region. Christianity was born in Palestine, and its first major centers were in that area. In these regions, Christianity was the predominant religion, but there were also Christian minorities in Persia, such as the Nestorians, and many Christian communities in Arabia.

  Not long after Muhammad's death, in 638, Muslims captured Jerusalem, and in 717-18, they unsuccessfully attempted to take Constantinople. By 732, Christians had lost Asia Minor, North Africa, including Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and even southern parts of future Spain and France. Christians and Jews were expelled from Arabia, and hard times befell Persian Christians. Two-thirds of the former Roman Empire fell into Muslim hands. Later, from North Africa, Muslims launched attacks against the islands of the Mediterranean, and Muslim pirates ventured onto the mainland, even threatening Rome. Between 850 and 950, Muslim pirate strongholds were established along the northern Italian and southern French coasts, forcing many Benedictine monks to abandon their monasteries, and pirates even infiltrated the Papal States.

  Despite all these conflicts, Christian pilgrims enjoyed relative freedom in the Holy Land until the 10th century. In 801, Caliph Harun al-Rashid transferred ownership of the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem to Charlemagne and sent him copies of the keys to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a sign of his commitment to peace. The Byzantine Empire lost vast territories, but between 940 and 970, it managed to reconquer parts of Syria and Palestine, including Nazareth. However, they did not reach Jerusalem, and Aleppo and Antioch soon fell back into Muslim hands. The jihadists who reoccupied Syria in 966 vented their anger on Jerusalem, setting the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on fire. In 979, Caliph Ibn Moy had the church's gate set ablaze, causing the dome to collapse and the patriarch to perish in the flames. The church was not restored until 984.

  A crazed caliph, the Fatimid al-Hakim (996-1021), after suffering a defeat from Byzantium, vented his frustration on the Christians in his empire: he banned processions, excluded Christians from public offices, and over ten years, he plundered and confiscated 30,000 churches. He began to harass and execute pilgrims and Jews as well. In 1009, he had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem demolished, intending to completely erase it from the face of the earth, even planning to destroy the cave of the Nativity. After his death, Byzantium started negotiations with his successor, Ali az-Zahir, for the reconstruction of the basilica, but things did not return to normal, and pilgrims continued to be harassed. In 1056, for instance, 300 Christians were expelled from Jerusalem. Pilgrims increasingly traveled in groups and armed.

  Additionally, the Seljuk Turks arrived, who defeated the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, captured Syria in 1076, and Jerusalem in 1077. They disregarded the established Christian-Muslim modus vivendi that had developed between the region's Arab leaders and Christian residents, and began replacing leaders. At this time, smaller Christian successes occurred in the Western and Central Mediterranean region, from Sicily to North Africa. In the East, however, Kilij Arslan I found a new headquarters in Nicaea, the site of the first council in 325, just a stone's throw from Constantinople, about a hundred kilometers away.

  Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, in his final desperation, set aside the animosities caused by the Great Schism of 1054 and mutual excommunications, and turned to the Pope, Gregory VII, for help. However, at that time, Gregory was preoccupied with the Investiture Controversy, so his successor, Urban II, proclaimed the First Crusade in 1089. At that time, three of the five patriarchal seats of the Christian world were in Muslim hands (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria), and the other two, Rome and Constantinople, had already been attacked.

  Looking further ahead, Constantinople fell to the Muslims in 1453, and we Europeans are well aware of the history of the Turks' attacks on Europe. From this perspective, the Crusades fit into a series of defensive actions by the Christian world. We can also ask: how many times did Christians attempt to attack Mecca or Medina? The answer, of course, is never. It was never about imperialism or forcibly converting Muslims, but about protecting Middle Eastern Christians and pilgrims. The papacy, aware of Islam's teachings on apostasy, which prescribe death for apostates, did not even attempt to convert Muslims, as it saw no point in producing heaps of corpses. Later, the papacy explicitly sought good relations with the Islamic world.

  The Siege of Jerusalem and Muslim Subjects in the Crusader States

  On July 15, 1099, the Crusader armies captured Jerusalem. According to accounts, the victorious army carried out a massacre, with soldiers reportedly wading in blood up to their knees, a poetic exaggeration. The soldiers' behavior was terrible, but unfortunately not unusual for the time. Chroniclers may have amplified the horrors to emphasize the apocalyptic nature of the event. Arab sources, for instance, speak of 70,000-100,000 dead, although the city had a maximum population of 10,000 at that time. Before the assault, the besiegers allowed the city to be evacuated, and thousands of Christians, Jews, and Muslims left. However, 88 years later, the Christians lost Jerusalem, and in 1291, the Crusader fortress of Acre also fell.

  In the Crusader states that emerged over time, despite the atrocities that occur in any era, Muslims were free to practice their religion, own land, build mosques and schools, and pilgrimage to Mecca, as Michael Hesemann points out in his book discussing the lies about the Catholic Church. Furthermore, around 1180, the Spanish Muslim Ibn Jubayr wrote, during his pilgrimage to Mecca through the Holy Land, that Muslims fared better under Christian rule than in their own countries. Clearly, concepts of tolerance and pluralism were different then, but in its own way, the medieval world was distinctly pluralistic and tolerant.

  Material Motives in Religious Guise?

  Returning to Crawford: the second myth he addresses is that the Crusaders were only interested in getting rich, and the third, related myth, is that religious motivation was just a facade and the campaigns were driven by material interests. This opinion is problematic because the Crusades were very expensive endeavors, with many Crusaders selling much of their possessions to embark on the journey. One reason for the diversion of the Fourth Crusade towards Constantinople was that they ran out of money, and the Seventh Crusade by King Louis IX of France consumed the crown’s revenue for six years. One of the reasons for the ultimate failure of the Crusades was the continuous lack of funds. Most Crusader knights and commanders knew that they would not become wealthy through the Crusades.

  Michael Hesemann points out that among the leaders of the First Crusade (Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert of Normandy, Bohemond of Taranto, Raymond IV of Toulouse, Baldwin of Boulogne, and Robert of Flanders), all except Baldwin were firstborn heirs of significant counties or duchies, yet two of them mortgaged all their possessions to finance the campaign.

  The mortality rate of the Crusades was also very high; according to a military historian, 75% of the participants in the First Crusade perished. Joining the Crusader armies was voluntary; there was no draft, and it was not mandatory. Everyone at the time was aware, and recruitment speeches even warned, that Crusader knights might face deprivation, suffering, and even death. Thus, religious motivation played a significant role, particularly the promise of forgiveness of sins. In my opinion, it reflects on us and our era that we see material interests behind every past event. This mindset reveals more about our way of thinking than about people in the past. Of course, there were some who profited from the Crusades, but this was not the norm.

  The Children's Crusade

  The Children's Crusade of 1212 is often cited to illustrate religious fanaticism. It was allegedly launched on the belief that only innocent children could save the Holy Land. According to history books, a shepherd boy named Stephen from Vendôme claimed to have received a letter from the Savior and announced the Crusade based on miracles. He gathered an army of thirty thousand, and two merchants offered to transport them. However, the ships sank near Sicily, and many ended up as slaves. Around the same time, Nicholas of Cologne also gathered about 20,000 boys and girls of various ages. Most did not even reach the Alps, while others fell prey to Lombard robbers.

  The clergy in Paris opposed Stephen's initiative, and King Philip Augustus asked the crowd to return home after praying at the Cathedral of Saint-Denis. Part of the German group, which included many adults, servants, peasants, and people of various professions, turned back at Genoa, disappointed that the sea did not open for them. Some went to Rome, where the Pope received them kindly and then sent them home. Another group headed to Brindisi, where the local bishop forbade them to board ships.

  Interestingly, there are no records of the French crusade's passage in contemporary chronicles, which suggests that it may not have occurred as described. The stories of children turning back from the sea and some being sold into slavery in Africa appear in chronicles written a generation later, and contemporary southern French chronicles do not mention them. The primary source, Albericus Monachus' manuscripts from around 1250, do not claim that the members of the 1212 crusade were children. His expressions translate to pilgrims, poor people, men, and women. Later rural French chronicles speak of rural people leaving their homes and livestock.

  The misunderstanding arose from the term "pueri," used in all chronicles, which was simply translated as "children" by modern scholars. However, depending on the context, it could also mean young workers, low-ranking employees, laborers, household servants, and farmhands, in line with the patriarchal era. The Ebersheim Chronicle uses "pueri" to refer to household servants. The accounting books of the 13th and 14th centuries consistently use "puer" and "pueri" to denote temporary agricultural or household workers, such as hired hands and day laborers. During the economic crisis of the time, these people were the least tied to the land and the most mobile, making them the most likely to embark on such a journey.

  Muslim Repercussions?

  Crawford's fourth myth is that the Islamic world dislikes Christians because of the Crusades. However, it is worth noting that the Crusades were not a significant topic in the Muslim world until the 19th century. When Stéphen Pichon, after World War I, was negotiating with the future King Faisal I of Iraq and mentioned that his country had been interested in Syria since the time of the Crusades, Faisal jovially replied, "Pardon, but which of us won the Crusades?" Until then, Muslims had regarded the Crusades simply as one chapter among many in the Christian-Muslim conflicts.

  The Islamic world rediscovered the Crusades after 1899, thanks to the West. At that time, there were two schools of thought in Europe regarding the Crusades: one, represented by Voltaire, Gibbon, and Sir Walter Scott, saw them as barbaric and aggressive Western attacks on peaceful Muslims (their late successor being Sir Steven Runciman, the great mid-20th century chronicler of the Crusades); and the other, possibly epitomized by French writer Joseph-François Michaud, viewed the Crusades as heroic struggles against Muslim hordes. Additionally, secular "imperialists" also discovered these medieval enterprises for themselves, leading to the rise of Arab nationalism and, eventually, pan-Islamism and Islamic "fundamentalism." These movements seized upon the Western idea of the Crusades as barbaric imperialist attacks. Ironic, isn't it?

  Weighing the Balance

  Of course, we do not glorify wars, which we consider one of the worst things that can happen. However, we are not pacifists; unfortunately, warfare is sometimes necessary (see the theory of just self-defense wars), as sad as that is. It is undeniably impossible to judge how necessary the Crusades were. In any case, during the Middle Ages, when the chivalric ideal was flourishing, war was much more a part of life than it is today. Although battlefields likely presented a more horrifying and fearsome spectacle then, they fought face-to-face, without weapons of mass destruction, drones, or remote-controlled bombs.

  It is certainly possible to debate whether the Crusades were defensive wars; at the time, people saw them that way. It is also pointless to argue whether a defensive war can be waged for a territory that has been under different control for a few hundred years. Let’s not think in terms of decades; while the medieval person's life might have been shorter than ours, they measured time much more slowly. If we consider the Crusades as offensive wars, we should consider our wars against the Turks as such as well. As is evident, the conflicts at the boundary between the Christian and Muslim worlds were continuous, and the Crusaders were not attempting to reclaim a long-forgotten territory. Moreover, the eight Crusades to the East took place over three hundred years, among other wars.

  Egon Flaig, a professor at the University of Greifswald, wrote in an essay in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in September 2006, as cited by Hesemann, that Pope Urban II had a clear understanding of the situation. If Constantinople had fallen in 1100, the Turkish army would have descended upon Europe four hundred years earlier, and the flourishing late medieval culture that was beginning to emerge at that time might never have developed: the free cities, constitutional debates, cathedrals, the Renaissance, and the scientific boom. The excesses, which even the popes were horrified by and protested against, can be considered secondary from this perspective.

  In the Middle Ages, self-aware Europeans believed they had to defend their civilization.
• 
  28

  Did God know Adam and Eve will Sin? - JW perspective

  by bioflex in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i read about this topic sometime ago in one awake mag (cant rememer which one).

  and from the jw perspective, he didnt know which means it took him by suprise or which makes it seem god is not as almighty as we would believe.

  this is their reasoning.. http://www.watchtower.org/e/20110101a/article_01.htm.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  http://www.standfortruthministries.com/pdf_articles/TheWatchtowerMisunderstandingofGod.pdf

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

  https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-watchtower-1180

  https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2014/12/07/refuting-the-jehovahs-witness-doctrine-of-selective-foreknowledge/

  http://daenglund.com/the-watchtower-rejects-biblical-authority-regarding-gods-foreknowledge/

  According to JW theology, the God is not inherently and actually omniscient, just has an "ability" to "foreknow", which he exercises "selectively" according to his will. This view was actually adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses from the Socinians, who believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen) and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). The Socinians believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience.

  I don't think JWs would be able to give up this "selective foreknowledge" Socinian approach to God's knowledge without radically changing their whole theology. In principle, they only wanted to "solve" the whole "predestination vs. free will" issue, which otherwise required an explicitly chiseled investigation, in such a cheap way, with one cut of the axe, but in fact this Socinian view has a much deeper significance for them.

  Because the JW view of "paradise on earth" and "two-class salvation" is derived from this very principle: God did not "foresee" that Adam and Eve would sin, and Christ's ransom sacrifice is practically aimed at restoring this Garden of Eden for humanity. So for this hypothetical "what if?" question is their whole theology is built on. If God is truly transcendent and omniscient, then from God's point of view there is no such thing as an "original purpose" to which the course of history should be redirected.

  Since I acquired a significant part of my theological knowledge and discussion method through a long-term religious debate with a thick-necked, stubborn Calvinist (who, I admit, could corner me more than once), I therefore know the related views relatively well. Although I did not become a Calvinist, I was quite convinced during these times that the existing Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian tendencies, often found in many naive believers, should be avoided. This Socinian view is downright absurd.

  He used to always say that every time this "but, but... my free will!" tantrum strikes us, we should just re-read the 9th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

  God perfectly knows everything that is outside of Himself, including the smallest and most hidden things, namely, the innermost world of free spiritual creatures (cardiognosis); and He knows everything before it happens, thus also future free decisions. This is a dogma, as evidenced by the ordinary teaching of the Church, and explicitly set forth by the First Vatican Council. Only materialists deny this and pagans distort it.

  According to Scripture,

  a) God cares for everything and therefore knows everything most precisely: "He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name." (Ps 147:4) "Who can number the sand of the sea, the drops of rain, or the days of eternity? Who can find out the height of heaven, the breadth of the earth, or the depth of the abyss?" (Sir 1:2; cf. Job 28:23–28) He has even numbered every hair of a person (Mt 10:30; cf. 6:26, Heb 4:13).

  b) God instantly knows the most hidden and secret things: The sin of the first parents is immediately known to Him; He hears Hagar in the wilderness, Eliezer in a foreign land (Gen 3:9, 8:21, 16, 24, 18, Ex 3:9). Later, it becomes almost a proverbial expression that God is the examiner and knower of hearts and kidneys: "And no creature is hidden from His sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Heb 4:13, Jer 11:20, Prov 16:2, Job 11:11, 42:2, Sir 39:5, Lk 16:15, Acts 1:25, Rom 8:27, etc.).

  c) God knows the future: "The Lord God knew everything before He created it," (Sir 23:29; cf. 29:25, Is 46:10, Dan 13:42, Sir 8:8, etc.) including people's future thoughts (Ps 139, 94:11, Jn 6:64). Moreover, God's foresight distinctly sets Him apart from false gods, as elaborated in thematic and sublime turns in the second part of Isaiah: "Declare what is to come, and we will know that you are gods" (Is 41:23).

  Since the era of the apologists, the Church Fathers have been keenly and detailedly developing the argument from prophecy, and in opposition to paganism, with Augustine asserting, "He who does not know the future is clearly not God." Jerome says, "It is folly to see in God's majesty the knowledge of how many mosquitoes are born and die every moment"; but with this, he does not deny God's omniscience, which he also expressly teaches, but rather gives a somewhat sharp expression to the correct notion that God does not care for irrational animals in the same way as for humans.

  This doctrine can also be understood by reason:

  a) If there were something that God did not yet know, it would still be knowable to Him; therefore, He would still be capable in that regard. However, this contradicts His pure actuality. If God could increase in knowledge, He would no longer be infinitely perfect.

  b) God created the existing things, that is, with absolute autonomy, He provided every aspect of their existence: the content of existence with conception, the fact of existence with a willful act. Just as things would cease to exist if God's creative will no longer sustained them, so too would they cease to be understandable, that is, contentually determined beings if God were to cease their conception. Therefore, it is impossible for something to exist that God does not fully conceive or, in other words, does not perfectly know.

  Difficulty: If God knows future free actions in advance, they must occur, since God's knowledge cannot be deceived. However, if they must occur, they are no longer free. This has been a problem for many for a long time. Cicero (Divinat. daem. II cf. Aug. Civ. Dei V 9) and the Socinians, therefore, denied this knowledge of God, while the Stoics and fatalists denied human freedom.

  Solution: In the face of divine eternity, there is neither past nor future; everything is perpetually present before Him; eternity is equal to every moment of time and is with every point in time just as the center of a circle stands in the same relation to every point on the circumference. Consequently, God contemplates future things in the perpetual present of His eternity, and this contemplation influences their future occurrences no more than a lookout's observation influences the direction of a troop passing below. Just as our reminiscence does not alter or influence the past, so His foreknowledge does not influence the future (August. Lib. arbitr. III 4, 4; cf. Civ. Dei V 10; Boeth. Consol. phil. 5 pr. 3.). Therefore, it is correct to say: "Something does not happen because God knows it in advance, but because it happens, that is why He knows it."

  However, this solution only holds as long as we strictly consider divine knowledge, abstracting from divine will. In reality, however, God does not merely play an observant role with respect to future things; their existence is not independent of His will, which would then determine the divine intellect. How freedom can then be reconciled with this divine preordination is discussed in the context of divine cooperation. But these two truths stand unshaken: God knows the free future, and yet man has free will. Our understanding could fully reconcile these two truths only if we fully understood how God cooperates with creatures and what human freedom actually entails, or how it can coexist with divine causality. However, both exceed the capacity of the created mind.

  God knows all possibilities, whether they are realized or not. Scripture presents God as omniscient without any limitation; thus, it does not exclude possibilities from His knowledge. Even less so, because it attributes omnipotence to Him, which presupposes omniscience. We have furthermore seen that God knows everything before it comes into existence (Sir 23:29, Rom 4:17; cf. Mt 19:26, Jer 1:5); then, it is only possible.

  According to the Church Fathers, God created everything according to His eternal ideas; but His ideas concern not only actual but also possible things (August. Civ. Dei XI 10, 3.). It is not difficult to understand that

  a) if God did not know the possibilities, there would be a gap in His knowledge, which could at least be filled "in idea"; that is, in this respect, God would be in potentiality, which contradicts the reality of 'actus purus', or infinite perfection.

  b) According to the nomological argument, God is self-sufficient in understanding. In God, the content of existence and understanding coincide; His knowledge fully illuminates His nature, and therefore God knows Himself not only in His absolute reality but also knows that His absolute nature can be imitated through created existence in inexhaustible richness. But the imitability of God's nature outwardly is the world of possibilities.

  God also knows conditional future free actions. A conditional future free action (conditionate futurum, futuribile) is a free decision that never happens but would happen if a certain condition were fulfilled; for example, John would convert on his deathbed if he received a priest; Stephen would not become a wrongdoer if he embarked on a different path in life. These are not merely possible free decisions (mere possibility: John might or might not convert); nor are they simple future events, since the condition to which they are tied is not fulfilled.

  Scripture mentions several cases where God demonstrates knowledge of the conditional future: "He was taken away lest wickedness should alter his understanding" (Wis 4:11). When David learned that Saul was preparing to attack him in Keilah, he inquired of the Lord through the priest: Will Saul come down against Keilah, and if so, will the Keilahites surrender him to Saul? The Lord answered yes. David then fled, and when Saul learned of this, he did not march against Keilah (1 Sam 23:7-13). Christ says, "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. And you, Capernaum! ... if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day" (Mt 11:21–23; cf. Gen 11:6–8, 2 Kings 13:19, Jer 38:17, Ezek 3:6, Lk 10:13, 16:31, Acts 22:17).

  During the time of the Church Fathers, there were repeated non-Catholic attacks against theodicy in the name of divine foreknowledge of conditional future events. The Church Fathers never refuted these attacks by denying this knowledge but sought other solutions. For example, the Manicheans said: God knew that man would sin; why did He create him? Or why didn't He provide circumstances under which man would not have sinned? In the Pelagian debates, Saint Augustine himself discusses the question: Why didn't God take away all sinners (in the sense of Wisdom 4) before wickedness corrupted their minds? And when the Semi-Pelagians said that the baptism or non-baptism of infants occurs with regard to their foreseen conditional merits, the fathers did not deny God's relevant knowledge but objected to the conclusion.

  It can also be understood by reason that

  a) the events and actions of the conditional future are truly possible; therefore, they cannot be excluded from the scope of divine knowledge according to the previous proposition.

  b) God's knowledge can only be called complete if it penetrates not only the fruits but also the flowers and roots of creatures and events; true world governance is possible only based on such deep knowledge of creatures. – Therefore, the scope of divine knowledge is infinite; not only insofar as it primarily and specifically targets His self-knowledge towards the infinite, but also as it extends to possibilities.

  The world of possibilities spreads before the intellect as an unfathomable yet well-ordered boundless realm: infinitely many genus and species ideas, each with infinitely many possible combinations of types and individuals, with the endless possibilities of knowing and willing beings; the human mind reels at the thought of these infinite dimensions, which are faintly suggested by the concepts of transfinite numbers, infinite sets, sequences, and systems of infinite determinants, cf. Cf. August. Civ. Dei XI 10 XII 18; Thom I 14, 2; as far as God's knowledge concerning existing things is infinite when their number is actually finite, see Gent. I 70; Ver. 2, 9 ad 2. Lessius VI 2, 17.

  It is inconceivable that the divine world knowledge, relatively independent of the creative decisions, which signifies a new mode of knowledge, is not mediated by the object of knowledge; direct divine knowledge of the world cannot be anything other than knowledge caused by the world. This, however, contradicts the absolute nature of divine knowledge.

  Knowledge of the existing world, independent and distinct from God's creative decisions, cannot add any new element to the knowledge conveyed in the creative decision. This already includes every aspect of the created world's existence; no named reality, whether in terms of essence, existence, substance, or accident, would exist if it were not for God's conception and realization giving it existence. Thus, the existing world cannot tell God anything new. Knowledge from causes is more fundamental and thorough than knowledge from effects; the latter can only supplement the former for creatures, and the design engineer's implementation can only bring something new to his plan because he is not the complete cause of his creation (he does not supply the material, the physical laws; often, he is not capable of the technical execution). The same considerations apply to the question of the mediating medium for possible things. However, the mediating medium for the knowledge of future and conditional future free actions requires separate consideration.

  Divine knowledge is a unified, undivided act that encompasses everything knowable with the utmost intensity at once. Therefore, it does not involve a transition from potentiality to actuality, from lesser known to better known, from premise to conclusion, or generally from one piece of knowledge to another; in other words, divine knowledge is not discursive (August. Simplici. II qu. 2, 3; Thom I 14, 7 15; Gent. I 55–57).

  Consequently, God's knowledge is a single idea, which, however, equals the totality of the knowledge forms of all knowable realities; that is, it is of multiply infinite value. If there is no progression from subject to predicate, i.e., no judging knowledge in God, it does not follow that the excellence of this mode of knowledge is lacking in Him; only what constitutes imperfection in it, the discursive element, must be excluded (Aug. Civ. Dei XI 10; Trin. XV 14).

  God's knowledge is exhaustive: it embraces everything knowable to the degree of its knowability, without the obscuring and distorting influence of mediating or reflective mediums. Therefore, in God's knowledge, there are not first (even logically) goals as opposed to means, laws as opposed to individual cases, effects as opposed to causes, accidents as opposed to substances, or vice versa, but His unified and eternal understanding comprehensively and completely grasps everything at its root at once.

  In short, it can be said: God's knowledge is intuitive in the fullest sense of the word; that is, it is not symbolic or emblematic, like human knowledge, which is tied to signs (we think in words and argue in words), but it grasps the thing itself; it does not cling to appearances but opens to the essence; it is not merely observing, but creating; not progressive, but instantaneous.

  According to Genesis 2:17, God told Adam "in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die", not "IF you eat of it, THEN you shall surely die." According to 1 Peter 1:20 the Son was chosen as ransom before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4 likewise.

  From God's omniscience, it directly follows that God cannot not know anything. Moreover, this notion is flawed for the reason that God exists not in time but beyond time; thus, from His perspective, everything that happens in the created world essentially happens "all at once." If He knows what happens in the created world (and He does), then He knows everything that will ever happen in the created world. Therefore, if you thoroughly consider the JW's argument on this matter, it would significantly diminish God, as it metaphorically suggests that God was nervously biting His nails, anxious about whether the first human pair would sin, realistically hoping they would not. This is complete nonsense.

  God's omniscience is not His exclusive attribute, but it is an unalterable, inherent attribute. To put it more profanely: because He is God, He knows everything. But the definition can also be reversed: anyone who does not know everything is not God. For instance, I would consider God's love as a different type of attribute than omniscience. Translated, it means that it is inherent in God's nature to be omniscient, since anyone who does not know the future is clearly not God. However, conceptually, we could suppose a God who is not loving, like the Muslims' Allah, a rigorous, hard-hearted God. An unkind God would still be God, but an omniscient God would not be God. If God punishes, I wouldn't interpret it as God "balancing" between His attributes, picking this one out of His pocket, but rather, in His unchanging arrangement, punishment has its role, aiming for people to return to Him, the source of life.

  God does not merely foresee the future like a fortune-teller but is present at every point in time, including the future. God sees the future because what is uncertain future to us is present for Him, making the future as certain for God as the past. Thus, it follows that God knows the future, and yet humans have free will.Therefore, the objection brought up in this context can be refuted through mere logic. God's omniscience is as much an inherent attribute as it is inherent in human nature to have a heart, lungs, etc. If one did not have these, they would not be human. God is literally omniscient, and we can reverse the definition: nothing can exist that God does not know about. God cannot not know anything. Why? The answer is the same as to those amateur atheist "philosophers" questioning whether God can create a square circle. The answer is no, because God's omnipotence means He can do anything without limits, except what contains a conceptual contradiction. A God with any lack of knowledge about anything is a conceptual contradiction (paradox), just like a square circle. Therefore, God is incapable of not knowing something, just as He is incapable of non-existence, etc.

  According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, God had an "original plan" that He designed with the hope it would succeed, but it failed, and He was not even aware of its failure. However, logically considered, even according to the Watchtower, it's not God's original plan that ultimately materializes, because the original plan was for everything to remain without sin, thus we've taken a detour, which is not the same as the supposed "original plan." You admitted that God anticipated the possibility of the first parents sinning, therefore, while He cherished this so-called "original plan" at heart, He suspected it might not turn out that way. However, there is no uncertainty in God, only certainty. This means that even by your account, God was not completely ignorant about the fall into sin, but if He anticipated it from the start, wouldn't it be simpler to say that He knew it in advance? Is God such a being who needs to play two lottery tickets to hit the jackpot?

  In this process, among other things, the Jehovah's Witnesses relativize God's omniscience to a possibility, like deciding whether to take out and drink the coke in the fridge, and if so, when. However, God's omniscience does not stem from some optionally available prophetic ability but from His absolute and infinite reality, which conceptually transcends all created beings, naturally encompassing all dimensions (space, time) that organize our existence into limits, which do not exist for Him. They relativize God's supremacy, essentially implying covertly that God is somehow limited by a structure He created, specifically time. Think about it: before the created world was made, time did not exist, but God did not create the framework of time for Himself, such that now the clock starts ticking over Him too; this only applies to the created world. When we start talking about time in theology, it's useful to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing other than that time is the measure of change. That is, the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And this is what the Bible says about God in this respect: "with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17) Now, if time is the measure of change, it follows that in whom/which there is no change, time does not apply either. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": for God, the fall into sin happened at the same time as the current moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. He always has "today," there is no passage of time for Him, He is beyond time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "foreseeing the future," because what is future for us is present for Him.This issue also points out how much better Thomism's approach is, that things must be derived "from above", we must proceed from the larger, more abstract categories down to the more concrete ones. Then, if we encounter apparent contradictions along the way, we have to find solutions. This is the deduction. All other metaphysical trends are fundamentally infected with nominalism, they do not start from abstract categories, and their epistemology is inductive.

  What did you start with? That we _feel_ that we are free, for example, if I want to raise my hand, I will. But when we deal with metaphysics, we think about the abstract category of existence, we have to do it in a non-inductive way, starting from our feelings

  Can we imagine that if God knew all along that I would raise my hand at this moment, then ultimately I had no real choice? Not from God's point of view, because from his point of view it makes no sense to talk about possibilities, only certainty. However, it made sense from my point of view, since I run my life path by making decisions.

  In my opinion, the scientific world, imbued with an immanent positivist philosophy, frequently suggests that everything is determined, there are no miracles, and there is no Omnipotence, and thus no divine Grace either. Everything is determined by atoms and their interactions, and this determinism renders not only sin meaningless but also every human act and indeed everything Human. The untenability of this view is evidenced to me by the fact that both psychological and anthropological theories repeatedly fail to describe or understand the whole person while forgetting even the mere assumption of the existence of God and human orientation towards God. For my part, I reject the principle of determinism and listen to God's free self-disclosure, as revealed about Himself and about man, his true nature, ultimate purpose, and the feasibility and path to this ultimate goal in Revelation.

  Furthermore, even without Revelation, humans are capable of recognizing the dignity and freedom of creation, which is most fully realized in the feeling of love. We exist, but since our existence is not the foundation of being, someone must have ordained us to this existence, meaning someone wanted us. If someone wanted our existence, it implies that they love. And since love is only complete and perfect when it occurs in proper dialogue and accordingly, from free will and freedom. God does not love us as we might love a doll, but rather, approximately, as we love our child when they cuddle up to us and call us father or mother.

  Human freedom fits perfectly within causality. Freedom does not lie in choosing or changing the effect but in choosing in the fulfillment of causes. That is, our freedom is not in whether adding one and one makes two or something else, but in whether we add or not. Every person is created for communion with God, hence there is an intrinsic or fundamental cause within humans that always directs towards God, and this is also the final cause. However, humans are simultaneously affected by other causes, potentially contrary to the fundamental cause. And here freedom comes into play; we can choose which cause will causally create the new form.

  What determines our decisions, we do not know (even the scientific world cannot calculate what will happen to or in a person an hour from now), but I am certain that our decisions are not predetermined. Of course, a decision is influenced by learned behavior, a person's current mood, and a thousand other reasons, but the decision itself can still be free. Since the resulting cause-and-effect event is never necessary but contingent, based on contingency. Brain activity is neither the cause nor the counterpart, but at most a condition of, for example, mental phenomena. We can command our desires, educate ourselves, make sacrifices, take up our cross, etc. This is precisely what Jesus wants to lead us to. Original sin wounded and weakened our will, and thus limited our freedom, but did not destroy it. Those who have undergone conversion could tell the most about this. We are slaves to our desires and inclinations, but Christ can lead us out of this bondage by showing the correct human nature and the true goal of humanity, because "the truth will set you free." Indeed, with our relationship to transcendence, infinity, and eternity, we can transcend physical determinisms.

  This achievement of the goal is aided by divine Providence. God created humans not only for salvation but also helps them achieve it. His omniscience indeed knows everything in advance, but this knowledge includes the foreknowledge of actions carried out by human free will. And He respects even our wrong decisions. But He stands at every person's heart and knocks (only rarely pounds) on its door. Thus, Providence (providentia) intervenes in the created world with two aspects regarding the individual and the world: it directs beings towards a purpose and enables, through cooperation, the realization of this goal. It does not govern in a way that excludes freedom from events, nor does it change the events of the world retrospectively (after a decision). Rather, based on His Omnipotence, the moments of creation unfold in such a way that they include the independent realizations of both natural and free causes. For example, Thomas Aquinas writes about prayer: "We do not pray to change the divine decree but to obtain what God has decided should be obtained through the mediation of prayer."

  If your question remains unclear and you are still confused, I suggest reading some neothomist (e.g., Maritain), but mostly personalist literature, or philosophy books that often discuss this question as well. Books by Mounier or Lacroix might provide a more professional and detailed answer.
• 
  5

  The Old Testament TRINITY!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  clearly inferred & proven by scriptures - though not specifically stated - that the 3 were one & the same essence!

  (exodus 2:24) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 3:16) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 6:3) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 6:8) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 33:1) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (numbers 32:11) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (deuteronomy 1:8) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (deuteronomy 6:10) abraham, isaac and jacob.

  (deuteronomy 9:5) abraham, isaac and jacob.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The Old Testament Doctrine of the Trinity

  Today, among many theologians, it is a common view that the Old Testament does not explicitly teach the mystery of the Trinity. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Trinity does appear in the Old Testament, albeit in faint outlines, and the Old Testament concept of God is by no means the stark, impoverished monotheism that the post-Christ rabbinical schools professed in their rigid opposition to Christianity. Believers adhering to the Old Testament perspective could sense that the unity of God does not exclude the richness of being that unfolds in the plurality of divine persons; from the perspective of the New Testament, the mind finds the blueprint of the Trinity in almost every corner of the Old Testament economy of salvation. This corresponds to the relationship between the two covenants: the Old Testament is not exactly a complete prototype of the New, but at least its shadow; thus, at least in silhouette, it outlines what the New Testament reveals in colorful pictures (Heb 10:1; cf. Jn 1:17, 1 Cor 10:11, 2 Cor 3:14–16, Gal 3:24).

  The Old Testament was a time of preparation for the Redeemer (1 Corinthians 10:11; Galatians 3:24; 1 Peter 1:10). The preparation occurred in the form of God's gradual self-revelation. The gradual nature was necessary so that the chosen people, living in a polytheistic environment, would first and foremost engrave the oneness of God into their spirit. This did not happen all at once: in the early times, God revealed Himself as the only God of the chosen people, and only in the time of the prophets did He require the confession that He is the creator and Lord of the entire world. However much the Old Testament is dominated by monotheism, it does not lack phenomena and statements that, while not in themselves, but when viewed in the light of the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity, can be qualified as a preparation for the mystery of the Trinity.

  Can we go further and say, with Thomas Aquinas and most of the great scholastics, that the leading figures of the Old Testament revelation (the patriarchs, Moses, David, the prophets) came to a clear knowledge of the Trinity by the grace of God? The Old Testament itself does not provide enough basis for this (See, however, Jn 8:56; Mt 13:17, Lk 10:24.). Since the mystery of the Trinity is the cornerstone of the supernatural order and a precondition for the mystery of the Incarnation, it is difficult to imagine a supernatural revelation without at least an implicit revelation of these two mysteries. It is also certain that the explicit revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament was gradually prepared by God, especially after the Babylonian exile, so that by the time of the Savior's appearance, only the explicit seal was missing. The following traces of the Trinity's mystery can be found in the Old Testament:

  1. The plural expressions in Genesis – "Let us make man," "Adam has become like one of us," "let us go down, and there confuse their language" (Gen 1:26, 3:22, 11:7); these were mostly interpreted by the Church Fathers as conversations among the persons of the Trinity (Cf. Petavius II 7.). The Jews generally explained them (Philo) as God speaking to the angels or the elements. Modern rationalists mistakenly see in them remnants of polytheism. Earlier Christian interpreters thought of a majestic plural (pluralis maiestaticus), while contemporary scholars are more inclined to see a syntactic agreement with Elohim. However, this latter explanation is not in conflict with the Church Fathers' idea that there is some reference to the plurality hidden within the Godhead (Gen 16:7–14, 18:2 (in the Valley of Mamre Abraham "saw three, worshipped one" Ambrose), 21:14–19, 31:11–13, Ex 3:12, 14:19); after all, the name Elohim implies that the divine perfections, which pagans distributed among many deities, are all present in the one true God.

  2. The Angel of the Lord (יהוה מַלְאַךְ). – After the fall of man, with direct communication ceased, God ordinarily intervenes in the history of salvation visibly through His messenger (מַלְאַךְ). This messenger is often identified with Yahweh. Thus, it appears to indicate a duality within the Godhead: the duality of the sender and the sent. The early Church Fathers identified Yahweh's messenger with the eternal Word. When the Arians wanted to read their subordinationism into it, Augustine interpreted it as an angel representing Christ. The Scholastics followed: the second divine person becomes visibly present only in the New Testament. However, it cannot be ignored that, according to Isaiah and Malachi, the redeemer is the angel of the great council, the angel of the covenant (Is 9:6, Mal 3:1; cf. Ex 33:26 coll. c. 13–16).
  

  3. The Messiah. – The Old Testament doctrine of salvation is not explicitly tuned to the Trinity. But the Redeemer is undoubtedly a distinct personality; moreover, Ge is not only sent by God but is directly called God (Is 9:6–Lk 1:32; Is 7:19–Mt 1:23; Is 35:4–Mt 11:5; Is 40:3–10–Mk 1:3; Zech 12:10–Jn 19:37; cf. Mic 5:2). Moreover, His eternal mysterious origin within the Godhead is also hinted at: "The Lord said to me, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you'"; "From my womb, before the morning star, I have begotten you." (Ps 2:7–Heb 1:5; Ps 110:1–3–Mt 22:44.) Although from the text itself, it is not clear whether it refers to a metaphysical birth or merely an ethical (adoptive) sonship, it is certain that the Jews at the time of the Savior believed and expected the Redeemer to have a metaphysical sonship from God (See Jn 5:18, 10:33; but see also Acts 13:38, Heb 1:5, Rom 1:4). Such are the prophecies according to which God will be the Father of the Messiah in a very special sense, much more than He is with fatherly love towards His chosen people. The Messiah is called His eternally begotten son (Psalms 2; 110; Micah 5:1), to whom He gives His power (Daniel 7:13-14; cf. Matthew 26:64), and indeed, He receives the fullness of the Spirit (Isaiah 11:2), and this fullness pours out through Him onto all nations (Joel 3:1). Included here is the fact that God, who always signifies His presence through the communication of His word, wisdom, and spirit, promises for the fullness of time a presence that perfectly surpasses all conceivable modes of presence. The Old Testament does not yet know about what the New Testament presents as the fulfillment of this promise conveyed through the prophets: God's new mode of presence consists in His entering into human history through the Incarnation of His Word and the sending of His Holy Spirit, thus ensuring a new, eternal, and perfect presence of His wisdom and love.

  4. The Doctrine of Personal Wisdom. – Job and Baruch (Job 28, Bar 3:9–4:4) still conceive of wisdom in a substantive manner. With Jeremiah, then, begins the personification of wisdom in an autochthonous manner, without any foreign influence. The post-exilic books of wisdom generally present divine wisdom not merely as a divine attribute or simply a personification, but as a divine person (Prov 8, Wis 7–10, Sir 1:1–10, 4:11–22, 14:20–15:10, 24); especially notable is: "The seas were not yet, and I was conceived; before the springs of water were brought forth, before the mountains were settled in their heavy mass, before the hills, I was brought forth… When he established the sea by his decree, and ordered the waters not to transgress his command, when he laid the foundations of the earth: I was beside him, arranging everything, delighting day after day, playing before him at all times, playing in the world, and my delight was with the sons of men." (Prov 8:24.) The New Testament often dresses the teachings about the eternal Word in words borrowed directly from these passages (e.g., Prov 8:24–Jn 1:1; Wis 7:25–Heb 1:3; Sir 24:1–Jn 1:1). The Old Testament sometimes attributes a similar character and role to God's word (λόγος, דָּבָר), with references already in Gen 15:1, Num 12:6, 23:5, 1 Samuel 3:21, 1 Kings 3:9, Amos 5:1–18; Psalms 33, 70, 147:18, 148:8, 118:89, Isaiah 9:8, 55:10. Sir 42:15, Wis 9:1, 18:4–25, 16:12, 18:14–25. The spirit of God also appears with at least a definite personification as a cosmic (nature-forming), ethical, and charisma-distributing force (Gen 1:2, Job 26:13, 33:4, Judith 16:17); and also as the sum of messianic goods in the prophets (Joel 2:28, Isaiah 11:2, 44:3, 61:1, Ezekiel 11:19, 36:26 cf. Acts 2:16, 2 Peter 1:21).

  5. Many Old Testament phenomena and declarations inherently show a trinitarian character: The thrice-holy (trisagion), which Isaiah heard in his calling vision (Isaiah 6:3; cf. John 12:41, Acts 28:25); the first three commandments of the Ten Commandments relating to God ("I am the Lord your God"; "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain"; "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy"); the three major festivals (Feast of Tabernacles, Passover, and Pentecost); the three main parts of the temple; the triple blessing: "The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace" (Numbers 6:23–27; cf. Psalm 118:7). In blessing the people, the name of Yahweh must be mentioned three times, thus invoking the Lord's name upon the children of Israel (Numbers 6:22-27). Sometimes, it is as if we were reading a New Testament passage: "God of my fathers, who by your word created everything… grant me the wisdom that sits by your throne… Who knows your will unless you give wisdom and send your Holy Spirit from on high?" (Wisdom 9 (Solomon's Prayer for Wisdom); cf. Sir 1:1.8–10). Psalm 33 characterizes the Lord's word and spirit, or breath, as if they were personified forces.

  Augustine speaks about the "vestiges" (vestigium) of God. It is indeed true that every external activity and manifestation of the Trinity is the common work of the three divine persons, but it is also true that God is present everywhere as the Trinity. Therefore, it is appropriate that the results of His activities show some form of trinity. The human soul is tuned to these "vestiges" – all the more so because God created man in His own image – hence, when we attempt to approach any form of perfection, whether divine or otherwise, in our conception, we involuntarily associate it with the number three. This is the basis not only for the trinities in the Old Testament but also for the triads found in some pagan religions outside of revelation. Otherwise, there is an insurmountable gap between the latter and the New Testament doctrine of the Trinity: the pagan triads are associated either with the concept of God in polytheism or pantheism, thus they talk either about three separate gods or are poetic personifications of three different phenomena of the deified nature.
• 
  1

  Catholic mass

  by road to nowhere in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  tv was on and when i came back in the news was over and mass was on.

  the greeting and be with you response, a good in tune hymn, audience seemed awake.

  i think i could enjoy a half hour of thus better than a droning talk followed by read paragraph, ask, reread twice as "answer"..

  1. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Take Eat: How My View of the Eucharist Changed by Tom Cabeen

  
  How Does the Watchtower Organization Differ from the Catholic Church? by Tom Cabeen

  
  A Catholic Critique of Jehovah's Witnesses