aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 718 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  While Philo's writings and Jewish traditions contribute valuable context, they do not negate the unique revelation of the Trinity in Christian theology. Philo of Alexandria's description of the Logos as an intermediary between the uncreated God and creation reflects Hellenistic Jewish thought but falls short of the Christian understanding of the Logos. Philo presents the Logos as a created being, a "suppliant" or "hostage" between God and humanity.

  In contrast, the Christian view of the Logos, as articulated in John 1:1-18, identifies Jesus Christ as fully God (theos) and fully man, not a mere intermediary or subordinate entity. The Johannine Logos is not "in the middle" as Philo describes but is intrinsic to the divine essence. John’s prologue states unequivocally: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God” (kai theos ēn ho logos), affirming both distinction and unity within the Godhead.

  This surpasses Philo's framework and reflects the unique revelation of Christ's divine nature. While Jehovah’s Witnesses might align with Philo’s view of the Logos as neither fully divine nor fully created, this interpretation fails to account for the New Testament's depiction of Christ. The Bible ascribes to Jesus divine prerogatives—creation (Colossians 1:16-17), worship (Hebrews 1:6), forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-7), and eternal existence (John 8:58)—that go beyond Philo’s conception of the Logos as a subordinate entity.

  You argue that the Trinity contradicts Jewish monotheism because Judaism emphasizes God's ineffability and often does not conceive of God as personal. However, this reflects modern Jewish philosophical interpretations (e.g., Spinoza or Kaplan), not necessarily the biblical or Second Temple Jewish context. In fact, Two Powers in Heaven by Alan Segal and related scholarship demonstrate that early Jewish thought entertained concepts of divine plurality. For instance:

  • Daniel 7:13-14 describes a "Son of Man" receiving eternal dominion and worship, which parallels New Testament Christology.
  • Exodus 3:2-6 and other passages depict the Angel of the Lord speaking as God Himself, yet distinct from God.
  • Genesis 1:26 uses plural pronouns ("Let us make man in our image"), hinting at complexity within God's unity.

  These elements do not undermine monotheism but show that Jewish thought had categories that could accommodate a plurality within God. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity builds on these scriptural foundations, interpreting them in light of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

  You claim the Trinity was not developed in consultation with Jewish writings, implying it lacks a basis in biblical revelation. This overlooks how early Christians, who were predominantly Jewish, wrestled with the implications of Jesus’ divinity and the New Testament’s testimony. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and John 20:28 ("My Lord and my God") directly affirm Jesus’ divine nature. Paul’s writings, such as Philippians 2:6-11, describe Jesus as existing in the "form of God" (morphē theou) and being exalted to the divine name ("Lord," kyrios, a title used for Yahweh). The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit on equal footing, indicating shared divine authority. The early Church Fathers, far from “inventing” the Trinity, sought to articulate the faith handed down to them in Scripture. Their formulations were responses to heresies (e.g., Arianism) that distorted the biblical witness about God’s nature.

  The claim that Jesus is not uncreated but also distinct from creation reflects a theological middle ground that lacks scriptural support. The Bible consistently portrays Jesus as eternal and uncreated. If all things were made through Christ (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17), He cannot be part of creation. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as the "exact representation of God's being," affirming His divine nature. Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation imposes a hierarchical distinction not found in the text, diminishing the full deity of Christ and distorting the biblical teaching of His unique relationship with the Father.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Blotty

  Origen’s condemnation of birthdays is often quoted to argue against their celebration. However, the context reveals limitations in this argument. Origen lived in a time when Christians were distancing themselves from pagan practices. His comment reflects a reaction to the extravagant, often hedonistic birthday celebrations common in Greco-Roman culture, not a blanket prohibition on all birthday observances. His critique focuses on the sinful excesses associated with certain birthday customs, not the concept of commemorating a birth itself. Origen's argument against birthdays based on Pharaoh and Herod's examples (Genesis 40:20; Mark 6:21-28) ignores that the negative aspects of those events (e.g., executions) were due to the individuals' wickedness, not the act of celebrating a birthday. The Bible does not suggest that celebrating a birthday is inherently sinful. Origen's writings are not infallible or binding for all Christians. His personal opinions do not carry the authority of Scripture or Church teaching. While influential, his views on birthdays reflect his own cultural and theological framework, not a universal Christian mandate.

  Arnobius’ objection to birthdays must also be understood in context. Arnobius criticized the idolatrous and excessive practices associated with Roman birthday celebrations, which often involved sacrifices, feasting, and homage to pagan gods. His argument does not apply to modern Christian birthday celebrations, which are free from such pagan connotations. Modern birthday celebrations do not include idolatry or pagan rituals. Celebrating the gift of life given by God is not inherently sinful and can be done in a God-honoring way, focusing on gratitude rather than excess.

  The argument that traditional Jewish culture avoided birthdays, and that the Bible only mentions Pharaoh’s birthday, does not provide a sound basis for forbidding birthdays. While traditional Jewish culture did not emphasize birthdays, this was a cultural choice rather than a divine command. The Mosaic Law does not explicitly forbid birthdays. Josephus’ comment about sobriety and birthdays reflects his cultural bias, not a biblical mandate. The Bible is silent on many modern customs but allows freedom in matters not explicitly commanded or forbidden (Romans 14:5-6). Pharaoh and Herod's negative actions on their birthdays are not a condemnation of the birthday itself but of the sinful behavior associated with their celebrations. The Bible contains examples of God’s people celebrating life events (e.g., weddings, feasts) with joy and gratitude. Jesus Himself attended celebrations, such as the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11). Birthdays can be an opportunity to thank God for the gift of life and reflect on His blessings.

  The claim that birthdays are rooted in paganism and therefore should be avoided is a flawed generalization. Just because a custom may have pagan roots does not mean it retains those associations. Many practices, such as wedding rings or using calendars, have historical ties to pagan cultures but are not inherently sinful. Jehovah's Witnesses themselves acknowledge this distinction in other contexts, such as their use of calendars with pagan origins (e.g., days of the week named after Norse gods). The supposed link between birthdays and Mithraism or Saturnalia is tenuous. There is no evidence that modern birthday customs, such as cakes and candles, are directly derived from these pagan festivals.

  Modern birthdays bear no resemblance to the extravagant or idolatrous practices critiqued by Origen and Arnobius. Recognizing and celebrating the gift of life with gratitude to God is entirely consistent with biblical principles. Birthdays can be occasions for reflection, gratitude, and prayer, making them God-honoring events. Jehovah's Witnesses reject birthdays but celebrate anniversaries and other milestones. This inconsistency undermines their argument, as both practices commemorate significant life events.

  The argument that Christians should strictly adhere to Jewish customs and calendar dates, such as Kislev 25 or Nisan 14, is problematic. Colossians 2:16-17 teaches that Christians are not bound by Jewish festivals, Sabbaths, or regulations. These were shadows of what was to come, fulfilled in Christ. Christians are free to commemorate significant events, like Jesus’ birth, without being restricted to the Jewish calendar. Quartodecimanism was an early heresy insisting that Easter must be celebrated on Nisan 14, in alignment with Jewish Passover. The Church rejected this view because it subordinated Christian celebrations to the Jewish calendar, undermining the freedom brought by Christ’s fulfillment of the Law. Similarly, insisting that Christian celebrations like Christmas align with Jewish dates misunderstands the purpose of Christian liberty. The date of December 25 was chosen based on theological symbolism (e.g., the "integral age" theory and the symbolism of light after the winter solstice), not because of adherence to a Jewish or pagan calendar.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  It is true that Judaism does not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, but this does not invalidate its truth for Christians. The doctrine of the Trinity is a theological conclusion based on the totality of Scripture, including the New Testament revelation. While the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) emphasizes the oneness of God (Deut. 6:4), it also contains elements that hint at a complex unity in God's nature. In Genesis 1:26, God says, "Let us make man in our image," which implies a form of plurality within the divine nature. Throughout the Old Testament, the ‘Angel’ (messenger) of the Lord appears as distinct from God yet speaks and acts as God (Exod. 3:2-6; Judg. 13:21-22). Proverbs 8:22-31 describes Wisdom as a distinct person who was with God in the beginning, a passage often interpreted as prefiguring Christ. While these do not articulate the Trinity explicitly, they provide a framework that aligns with the later revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. The full revelation of God’s triune nature came through Jesus Christ (John 1:1-18) and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 2:1-4).

  The Trinity was not “invented” by the Church but articulated in response to the revelation of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Early Christians, who were predominantly Jewish, struggled to reconcile Jesus' divinity with the strict monotheism they inherited. The doctrine of the Trinity emerged as the Church wrestled with the Scriptural data, seeking to remain faithful to both the Old and New Testament teachings about God. The Trinity is not a foreign addition to Scripture but a coherent explanation of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully God while maintaining God's oneness. As Jesus declared in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one," demonstrating both distinction and unity.

  Philo's writings indeed reflect Hellenized Jewish thought and describe the Logos as a divine intermediary, but they fall short of the Christian understanding of the Logos. The New Testament identifies the Logos as Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14), who is not a mere intermediary or emanation but fully God and fully man. Philo's ideas show that the concept of divine plurality was not alien to Jewish thought, even if it was not fully developed in Judaism. The Christian understanding of Jesus as the Logos builds upon and surpasses these earlier ideas, showing a fuller revelation of God's nature as triune.

  Jews historically expected a political deliverer who would restore Israel's national sovereignty. However, the Christian understanding of the Messiah as a spiritual Savior who redeems humanity from sin is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. The Suffering Servant is portrayed as one who bears the sins of many and is crushed for our iniquities—a role fulfilled by Jesus (Isaiah 53). Psalm 22 describes the suffering of the Messiah in terms strikingly similar to the crucifixion of Jesus. The "Son of Man" is given eternal dominion, a title Jesus frequently applied to Himself (Daniel 7:13-14). The divergence between Jewish and Christian views on the Messiah reflects differing interpretations of these texts, not an absence of Scriptural basis for the Christian perspective.

  Christianity sees itself as the fulfillment of Jewish expectation, not a departure from it. The New Testament does not discard Jewish monotheism but expands it to include the fuller revelation of God through Christ and the Spirit. This is why early Christians, including Paul—a devout Jew—could affirm both the Shema ("The Lord our God, the Lord is one") and Jesus' divinity. Paul, for example, explicitly applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus, such as Philippians 2:9-11, where he states that every knee will bow to Jesus, echoing Isaiah 45:23.

  Jesus directly claimed divine authority, forgave sins (Mark 2:5-7), accepted worship (John 20:28), and equated Himself with the Father (John 10:30). These actions would have been blasphemous if Jesus were not truly God. The early Christians did not "make" Jesus God; they recognized Him as such based on His teachings, miracles, and resurrection.

  The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed distinct from Jewish monotheism as understood today, but it is not contradictory to it. The Trinity is a deeper revelation of the same God who spoke through the Jewish Scriptures. It acknowledges the complexity and mystery of God's nature without abandoning the core monotheistic truth.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  You refer to Richard Carrier's argument that Polycarp likely never met the Apostle John. While it is true that some modern scholars question this connection, Carrier's conclusion is based on speculative assumptions, not concrete evidence. Carrier dismisses the possibility of John's long life because of the average lifespan of people in antiquity. However, many historical figures lived well beyond the average lifespan, especially in positions like apostleship, which involved less manual labor and better care. Tradition holds that John lived into the late first century, which aligns with Polycarp's timeline. Carrier argues that because Polycarp does not explicitly mention meeting John in his letter to the Philippians, this proves he never did. However, the purpose of Polycarp's letter was not to recount his own biography or associations but to encourage the Philippians in their faith. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Carrier dismisses Irenaeus’s testimony as "telephone-game" legend. Yet Irenaeus specifically states he personally knew Polycarp and recounts Polycarp’s connection to the apostles. This is firsthand testimony from someone in a position to know. To dismiss this without solid evidence is speculative at best.

  You suggest that groups like the Gnostics could also claim lineage back to the apostles, making such claims unreliable. While it is true that many groups appealed to apostolic authority, their claims often lacked credibility for the following reasons. The proto-orthodox Christians (like Irenaeus) emphasized teachings that aligned with the apostolic writings and the Hebrew Scriptures, while groups like the Gnostics introduced esoteric and contradictory teachings. For example, Marcion rejected the Old Testament entirely, a position utterly incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. The Gnostics often relied on later, non-apostolic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas or other pseudepigrapha, which were written well after the apostolic era. The proto-orthodox tradition, on the other hand, preserved the apostolic writings that form the New Testament.

  You correctly note that early Christianity included diverse theological views, such as adoptionism, modalism, and docetism. However, this diversity does not negate the existence of a dominant theological trajectory. The New Testament itself provides a strong foundation for the belief in Christ's deity. Passages like John 1:1-14, Philippians 2:6-11, and Colossians 1:15-20 all affirm Christ's divine nature. These texts predate the theological debates of the second and third centuries, indicating that belief in Christ’s deitywas not a later invention. Groups like the Gnostics, Marcionites, and modalists were deemed heretical not because of political expediency but because their teachings deviated from the apostolic faith. For example, modalism denies the distinct persons of the Trinity, contradicting passages like Matthew 3:16-17 (Jesus' baptism) and John 14:16-17 (Jesus promising the Spirit).

  You mention that figures like Tertullian and Origen were later deemed heretical, suggesting that early orthodoxy was unstable. However Tertullian's alignment with Montanism occurred late in his life and pertained to issues of prophecy and church discipline, not core doctrines like Christ's deity or the Trinity. His earlier writings, which defended the Trinity, remain influential and orthodox. Origen was criticized centuries later for speculative theological ideas, such as the preexistence of souls, but his contributions to Trinitarian theology were foundational. Even his opponents respected his scholarship.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Duran

  You referenced John 17:20-23, where Jesus prays for His disciples to be one “just as” He and the Father are one. This passage emphasizes the unity among believers, mirroring the unity between Jesus and the Father. It's important to recognize that the term "one" (Greek: hen) can denote unity of purpose, will, and love, rather than numerical identity. While John 17 highlights the desired unity among believers, other passages indicate a unique and profound unity between Jesus and the Father that goes beyond mere agreement or harmony.

  • John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." Here, the context suggests a unity of essence and nature, which is why the Jewish leaders accused Jesus of blasphemy and attempted to stone Him (John 10:31-33). They understood His claim as making Himself equal with God.
  • John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This verse affirms the divine nature of the Word (Jesus) and His coexistence with God.
  • Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." This indicates that Jesus embodies the full nature of God.

  Therefore, while believers can share unity in purpose and love, the oneness between Jesus and the Father encompasses a shared divine essence, which is unique to the Godhead.

  You compared human sonship, where sons possess their father's DNA, to divine sonship, suggesting that Jesus, as the Son of God, possesses God's essence. Indeed, orthodox Christian theology affirms that Jesus shares the same divine essence as the Father. However, when referring to other beings called "sons of God," such as angels (e.g., Job 38:7), it's important to distinguish between created beings and the uncreated, eternal Son. Angels are called "sons of God" in a metaphorical sense, as created beings who serve God. They do not share the divine essence but are part of creation. In contrast, Jesus is referred to as the only begotten Son (John 3:16), indicating a unique and singular relationship with the Father. The Greek term "monogenēs" means "one of a kind" or "unique," emphasizing that Jesus is not a son in the same way as angels or humans but shares the very nature of God.

  Human reproduction involves the division and combination of genetic material. The offspring is separate and distinct in essence from the parents. In Christian theology, "begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) in reference to Jesus does not imply creation or division of essence. Instead, it conveys the eternal and unique relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son is eternally begotten, meaning He shares the Father’s divine essence fully and completely without division or beginning. This concept is qualitatively different from human fatherhood. Your analogy of "half DNA" misunderstands divine sonship, which is not material but metaphysical.

  You mentioned that Jesus is God's "Chosen Son" among all His spirit sons. While Jesus is indeed chosen for a specific mission, the New Testament emphasizes His preexistence and divine nature.

  Hebrews 1:5-6: "For to which of the angels did God ever say, 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father'? Or again, 'I will be his Father, and he will be my Son'? And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all God's angels worship him.'"

  This passage distinguishes Jesus from all the angels, affirming His superiority and divinity. The fact that angels are commanded to worship Him underscores His divine status since worship is reserved for God alone. As the incarnate Christ, Jesus was indeed chosen for His mission (Isaiah 42:1, Matthew 12:18). However, this refers to His role in salvation history, not to His divine nature. Jesus’ divine nature as the eternal Word (Logos) predates His earthly mission. John 1:1-3 declares that the Word (Jesus) was both "with God" and "was God," underscoring His eternal divinity.

  You referenced John 8:17-18, where Jesus says:

  "In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me."

  Your argument suggests that for there to be two witnesses, Jesus and the Father must be two separate persons, which is consistent with Trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the one Godhead.

  In Trinitarian theology God is one in essence but exists eternally in three distinct persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The persons of the Trinity are distinct but not separate beings. They share the same divine essence. Therefore, when Jesus refers to Himself and the Father as two witnesses, He acknowledges their distinct personhood within the unity of the Godhead. This does not violate the concept of one God but affirms the relational dynamic within the Trinity.

  You provided an analogy suggesting that claiming to be both a father and a son does not make one two witnesses if one is only a single person. In human terms, being both a father and a son refers to different roles or relationships of the same individual, not separate persons. However, in the context of the Trinity, the Father and the Son are distinct persons, not merely different roles or titles of one person. This distinction allows for genuine interpersonal relationships, such as love, communication, and, as in this case, providing separate testimony.

  The Bible presents a complex yet coherent picture of God's nature. From the opening of Genesis ("Let us make mankind in our image" - Genesis 1:26) to the Great Commission ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - Matthew 28:19), Scripture hints at a plurality within the one God. Jesus accepts worship (Matthew 14:33), forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), and uses the divine name "I AM" (John 8:58), all actions that signify deity. The Holy Spirit is described with personal attributes—He teaches (John 14:26), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), and intercedes (Romans 8:26).
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @joey jojo

  While it is true that the technical term "Trinity" as a formalized doctrine emerged later in Christian history, the foundations of Trinitarian belief are firmly rooted in the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic writings. In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands His disciples to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The singular "name" (not "names") underscores unity while identifying three distinct persons. In John 14:9-11, Jesus explicitly says, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father... I am in the Father, and the Father is in me." This profound unity between the Father and the Son is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology. Paul’s letters reflect a proto-Trinitarian understanding. For instance, in 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul speaks of "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit," implicitly presenting a triune understanding of God. Colossians 2:9 states, "In Christ, all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form," affirming Christ's divine nature. Thus, while the formal language of the Trinity developed over time, its essence is undeniably present in the New Testament.

  The Gospel of John does indeed contain some of the most explicit Christological statements, but Trinitarian ideas are not limited to John’s writings. In Mark 2:5-12, Jesus forgives sins, an act only God can perform. The scribes accuse Him of blasphemy for claiming divine authority, which He affirms by healing the paralytic. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus declares, "All things have been committed to me by my Father," emphasizing a unique and unparalleled relationship with God. The Old Testament hints at the plurality within God's unity, such as in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make mankind in our image." While not explicit, this provides groundwork for later Trinitarian understanding. As mentioned earlier, Paul frequently interweaves Father, Son, and Spirit in his writings (e.g., Romans 8:9-11). While John’s Gospel certainly contributes significantly to Christology, the Trinitarian framework is supported throughout the New Testament.

  While early Church Fathers, like Ignatius, Polycarp, Hippolytus, and Irenaeus were indeed influenced by Johannine theology, their writings reflect a broader consensus rooted in the entire apostolic tradition. Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD), though later than the others, coined the term "Trinitas" and provided a robust defense of the unity and distinction within the Godhead. These figures did not “invent” new theology but defended and articulated what was already present in the apostolic witness.

  The doctrine of the Trinity was not a mere “invention by men” but the result of careful theological reflection on Scripture and the lived experience of the early Church. The councils that formulated the doctrine (e.g., Nicaea in 325 AD) were not creating something new but clarifying and safeguarding the apostolic faith against heretical distortions (e.g., Arianism). The enduring nature of the doctrine is not a sign of human stagnation but of its profound truth and coherence. The Trinity reflects the complexity of God’s self-revelation while preserving the monotheism central to Judeo-Christian faith.

  Unlike myths about Zeus or Mars, the doctrine of the Trinity addresses profound metaphysical questions about the nature of God, the relationship between the divine and the human, and the unity and diversity within God’s being. The Trinity is not a trivial speculation but central to understanding salvation, worship, and the Christian life. It explains how God can be transcendent (Father), immanent (Son), and present (Holy Spirit) simultaneously.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  You are correct that early Christianity witnessed significant theological debates regarding the nature of Christ and His relationship with God. However, disagreement does not imply the absence of a foundational belief in Christ's divinity. The disputes were primarily about how to articulate that divinity within a monotheistic framework. The Logos theology, which you cite as "non-Jewish," was not an innovation but a theological reflection on scriptural truths. Even amidst debates, the vast majority of early Christians affirmed Christ's divinity, as evidenced in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD), Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century), and others long before the 4th century. What was debated was the nature of this divinity and its relationship to the Father, not its existence.

  Monarchianism, particularly its modalist branch (e.g., Sabellianism), did indeed challenge the Logos theology, but it was rejected not because it was "monotheistic," but because it failed to align with the full testimony of Scripture. Modalism conflates the persons of the Trinity, denying the distinct roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are evident in passages like Matthew 3:16-17 or John 14:16-17. The early church rejected Monarchianism precisely because it contradicted these biblical distinctions while attempting to preserve monotheism.

  The claim that Logos theology is "non-Jewish" overlooks its roots in both Jewish thought and the Hebrew Scriptures. The Logos concept draws heavily from Proverbs 8:22-31, Genesis 1 and Psalm 33:6. Far from being alien to Judaism, the Logos theology reflects Jewish monotheism interpreted through the revelation of Christ.

  While it is true that various groups, such as Marcionites, Valentinians, and Monarchians, claimed orthodoxy, the widespread acceptance of key doctrines like Christ's divinity among the majority of Christian communities shows a clear trajectory of consensus. The writings of the early church fathers combatting heresies are not evidence of chaos but of a refining process to preserve the apostolic faith. The fact that the church universally recognized these teachings and codified them in the Nicene Creed (325 AD) demonstrates the underlying continuity rather than later invention.

  The Trinity doctrine was not "created" in the 4th century but clarified in response to challenges. Early Christian worship practices, such as baptizing "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), demonstrate that Trinitarian belief was embedded in Christian practice from the beginning. The theological language (e.g., homoousios) was developed later to articulate these truths more precisely, not to invent them.

  The idea that Logos theologians "suppressed" other Christianities oversimplifies history. Groups like Marcionites and Valentinians were not considered heretical because they were politically weak, but because their teachings deviated from the apostolic tradition. Marcion rejected the Old Testament and parts of the New Testament, creating a truncated canon, Valentinian Gnosticism introduced dualistic cosmologies and esoteric teachings inconsistent with the apostolic faith. The rejection of these groups was not arbitrary but rooted in their departure from the Scripture and apostolic teaching.

  So while it is true that early Christianity was diverse, the idea that no dominant theological framework existed before the fourth century is misleading. The proto-orthodox position, which included the belief in the divinity of Christ and the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was widely accepted and articulated by Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Tertullian long before the fourth century.

  It is true that various groups, such as the Monarchians, opposed the Logos theology, but this does not mean all positions were equally valid or apostolic. The Church Fathers rejected these theologies because they deviated from the teachings handed down by the apostles. Dynamic monarchianism (adoptionism) claimed Jesus was a mere man "adopted" by God at his baptism. It was rejected because it denied Christ's pre-existence and divinity, as affirmed in Scriptures like John 1:1 and Colossians 1:15-17. Modalistic monarchianism (sabellianism) conflated the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one person, undermining the relational distinctions revealed in the New Testament (e.g., Jesus praying to the Father in John 17 or the baptismal scene in Matthew 3:16-17). These views were critiqued and corrected by early theologians because they failed to account for the full biblical revelation of God’s nature.

  The assertion that claims of apostolic succession were limited "only by lack of imagination" disregards the historical evidence of how the early Church carefully preserved and transmitted its teachings. Apostolic succession was not merely a political or organizational claim but a theological safeguard. Bishops like Irenaeus emphasized succession as a way to maintain doctrinal continuity from the apostles. For example, he lists the bishops of Rome in Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) to demonstrate the unbroken transmission of apostolic teaching. While theological disputes existed, the early Church viewed apostolic succession as a means of ensuring unity in faith and practice, distinguishing it from sectarian groups like the Gnostics or the Marcionites, who often disregarded apostolic teaching.

  The fourth-century councils (Nicaea in AD 325 and Constantinople in AD 381) did not invent Trinitarian theology; they clarified and codified what had been believed and practiced since apostolic times. The councils responded to heresies (e.g., Arianism) that distorted Scripture's teachings on Christ's divinity. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus commands baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," reflects an early Trinitarian understanding. Early creeds, such as the Old Roman Creed (precursor to the Apostles' Creed), affirm the unity of the Godhead and the distinct roles of Father, Son, and Spirit.

  ---

  @Duran

  The New World Translation renders John 17:20-23 with "in union with me," which introduces a nuance not found in the Greek text. The original Greek phrase "kathōs su, pater, en emoi kago en soi" (v. 21) translates to "just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you." The phrase "en emoi" means "in me," without any implication of being merely "in union." The translation "in union with me" in the NWT reflects a theological bias, softening the deeper unity expressed in Jesus' prayer. The Greek does not qualify or dilute the unity between the Father and the Son as being only "in union." Instead, it presents an intimate, ontological unity (i.e., unity of being) between them. The phrase "in me" supports the idea that Jesus and the Father share a profound relationship consistent with their shared divine nature. By translating this as "in union with me," the NWT downplays the depth of this relationship, aligning with the Jehovah’s Witness theology that denies the deity of Christ. The unity Jesus describes between himself and the Father is unique. While believers are also called to unity (v. 23), this unity is modeled after the unique relationship between the Father and the Son, which believers share only in a secondary sense.

  The acronym ΙΧΘΥΣ (Ichthys), used by early Christians, stands for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." This does not deny Christ’s deity; instead, it affirms his messianic identity and his role as Savior. The term "Son of God" does not imply subordination or created status but reflects his unique relationship with the Father. In Jewish thought, the "Son of God" often implied equality with God (cf. John 5:18), which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding. In John 5:18, the Jewish leaders accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God by calling God his Father. The title "Savior" in the Old Testament is used exclusively of God (Isaiah 43:11). By attributing this title to Jesus, early Christians implicitly affirmed his deity. The early Christians used ICTHYS as a shorthand for their belief in Jesus as the divine Savior. This does not diminish his divinity but reinforces the centrality of his role in salvation.

  In John 8:17-18, Jesus references the law requiring two witnesses to validate testimony (Deuteronomy 19:15). He states that he and the Father are two witnesses, affirming the distinction of persons within the Godhead, not a denial of the Trinity. Trinitarian theology does not claim that the Father and the Son are the same person. They are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. The Father testifies to the Son’s identity (e.g., at Jesus’ baptism, Matthew 3:17), and the Son testifies through his works and words. This mutual testimony fulfills the legal requirement without contradicting Trinitarian doctrine. The fact that Jesus can call the Father a separate witness emphasizes the personal distinction within the Godhead, not a denial of their shared divine essence.

  The prayer for unity in John 17 is often used to argue that the Father and the Son’s oneness is no different from the unity among believers. However, this misunderstands the text. The unity between the Father and the Son is ontological (sharing the same essence), whereas the unity among believers is relational (sharing purpose and love). Jesus says, "just as we are one" (v. 22), implying believers’ unity is modeled after but not identical to the divine unity between the Father and the Son. Believers cannot share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. The goal is for believers to reflect divine unity in their relationships, which is distinct from the intrinsic unity of the Godhead.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Earnest

  You point out that the New Testament often uses "Lord Jesus Christ" (Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ) rather than "God Jesus Christ" (Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ). However, this distinction does not negate the high Christology evident in the Megiddo inscription. While the exact phrase "God Jesus Christ" is not present in the New Testament, multiple passages affirm Jesus' deity: John 1:1, John 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13. These instances show that the title "God" for Jesus was recognized in early Christian worship and theology. In the New Testament, "Lord" (Κύριος) is often used interchangeably with "God" in reference to Jesus. For example, Philippians 2:11 proclaims Jesus as "Lord" in the context of worship, a role reserved for God in Jewish monotheism (Isaiah 45:23). The absence of the specific phrase "God Jesus Christ" in Scripture does not preclude its usage in early Christian inscriptions, especially considering the context of liturgical offerings and theological affirmation.

  You acknowledge the grammatical similarity between "God Jesus Christ" (Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ) and "Lord Jesus Christ" (Κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ). This similarity strengthens the argument that the Megiddo inscription reflects a natural extension of early Christian liturgical language. The use of appositional phrases like "Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" indicates that "God" and "Jesus Christ" are being identified as one entity, not as distinct. This is consistent with early Christian worship practices, where Christ was addressed directly in prayer and offerings as God. If the inscription intended to separate "God" and "Jesus Christ," we would expect additional grammatical markers (e.g., the conjunction καί) or a genitive construction (e.g., "God of Jesus").

  You argue that a "high Christology" did not exist until the fourth century. However, the evidence from early Christian writings and archaeology contradicts this assertion, Ignatius of Antioch repeatedly calls Jesus "our God", the Didache (ca. 50-100 AD) reflects early liturgical practices that treat Jesus as divine, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 130 AD) refers to Jesus as pre-existent and divine. The Megiddo mosaic (ca. 230 AD) predates the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), providing material evidence of early Christian worship. The use of nomina sacra (sacred abbreviations like ΘΩ and ΙΥ ΧΥ) was a widespread practice in the second and third centuries, reflecting reverence for Jesus as divine. The claim that early Christianity lacked a unified Christology until the fourth century oversimplifies the historical development of doctrine. While theological terminology evolved, the worship of Jesus as God was an integral part of Christian belief from its inception.

  You suggest that the inscription may reflect a modalist (e.g., Sabellian) theology. The phrase "Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ" does not imply modalism. It affirms Jesus' divinity without conflating the persons of the Trinity. The absence of a conjunction like "and" (καί) does not necessitate modalist theology but reflects the appositional style of early Christian liturgical language. The Megiddo inscription is situated in a broader context of early Christian worship. Modalism, while present in some early Christian sects, was not representative of mainstream theology. The use of nomina sacra and the Eucharistic reference in the inscription align with orthodox Christian practices. Modalist inscriptions or texts typically emphasize the unity of God to the exclusion of Trinitarian distinctions. The Megiddo mosaic, by contrast, uses language consistent with early Trinitarian worship.

  You argue that early Christianity was "more fluid" and suggest that the group associated with the Megiddo mosaic may have held unorthodox beliefs. While early Christianity experienced theological debates, key doctrines—such as the divinity of Christ—were widely affirmed. The inscription aligns with these core beliefs, as demonstrated by second-century writings and liturgical texts. The offering of a table (likely an altar) "to God Jesus Christ" reflects mainstream Christian liturgical practice, not an isolated or heretical theology.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as “Mighty God” (El Gibbor). This title is significant because El Gibbor is also used in Isaiah 10:21 to describe Yahweh. The parallel usage indicates that the Messiah shares in Yahweh's divine identity. To argue that this term implies a lesser deity ignores its usage in describing the one true God. The context of Isaiah 9:6 connects the Messiah with divine titles like "Everlasting Father," which reinforces His deity. This verse is not describing a subordinate or created being but someone who is fully God.

  Philippians 2:6-11 affirms that Jesus, though existing "in the form of God" (ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ), did not grasp at equality with God but humbled Himself. The phrase "in the form of God" signifies Jesus' true divine nature, not a representational role. Colossians 1:15-20 describes Jesus as "the image of the invisible God" and the one in whom "all the fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col. 2:9). The term "fullness of deity" (πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος) signifies the totality of God's nature, not a partial or subordinate aspect.

  Worship (προσκυνέω) is consistently directed toward Jesus in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 28:17, Revelation 5:13-14). This worship would be blasphemous if Jesus were a created being or merely a representative. Revelation 5:13 shows all creation worshiping "the Lamb" alongside "the One who sits on the throne," placing Jesus as an object of worship equal to God.

  John 1:1 explicitly states that "the Word was God." The Greek construction (kai theos ēn ho logos) identifies the Word (Jesus) as fully divine while distinguishing Him from the Father. This is not the language of a "mighty spirit creature" or subordinate being but of someone who shares in the very essence of God. Attempts to translate this as "a god" are linguistically flawed and inconsistent with the monotheistic framework of John's Gospel.

  Thomas's declaration, “My Lord and my God” (ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou), directly addresses Jesus as God. The Greek grammar makes it clear that Thomas is speaking to Jesus, not merely about Him. Jesus does not correct Thomas, which would have been imperative if this was a misunderstanding, especially in a monotheistic Jewish context. Instead, Jesus affirms Thomas’s belief by saying, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

  Thomas's exclamation is a direct address to Jesus. The Greek text is clear: the pronouns "my" (μου) explicitly connect "Lord" and "God" to Jesus himself. There is no indication in the text that Thomas is addressing someone other than Jesus. If the Gospel writer intended Thomas's words to refer to God the Father, it would contradict the entire dramatic buildup to this climactic confession of faith, in which Jesus appears to Thomas, addresses his doubts, and invites him to believe. The use of the vocative case (direct address) reinforces that Thomas is speaking directly to Jesus. The context of the passage does not support the idea that Thomas is addressing God the Father while simultaneously acknowledging Jesus.

  While it is true that Roman emperors claimed titles such as "Lord" (Kyrios) and "God" (Theos), the Gospel of John does far more than assert that Jesus is greater than Caesar. John presents Jesus not only as superior to human rulers but as sharing in the divine identity of the one true God. The parallel to Roman imperial titles may highlight the Gospel's polemic against the emperor cult, but it does not exhaust the meaning of Jesus being called "my Lord and my God." The Gospel of John repeatedly presents Jesus as uniquely divine, not merely in opposition to Caesar, but in unity with the Father (e.g., John 1:1–3, 1:14, 5:18, 10:30). The Gospel begins by identifying Jesus as the Word (Logos), who "was with God" and "was God" (John 1:1). This sets the framework for understanding Thomas's confession. Thomas recognizes what has been revealed throughout the Gospel: Jesus is not a mere intermediary or subordinate figure but is truly God.

  You cited passages like John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I") and John 17:3 ("that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent") to argue that Jesus is distinguished from and subordinate to God. Jesus's statement that "the Father is greater than I" refers to his incarnate state. During his earthly ministry, Jesus voluntarily assumed a subordinate role (Philippians 2:6–8). This does not diminish his divine nature but reflects his mission as the incarnate Word who came to serve and redeem humanity. In John 17:3 Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father, consistent with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead. However, this distinction does not negate their shared divine essence. The phrase "only true God" emphasizes the unique deity of the God of Israel, in contrast to false gods. Jesus, as the Word made flesh, participates fully in this divine identity.

  The claim that Thomas's confession must be understood without reference to the later doctrine of the Trinity misunderstands how doctrine develops. The Trinity is not an innovation but a formal articulation of truths already present in the New Testament. The New Testament repeatedly identifies Jesus with divine attributes, titles, and prerogatives. These include his preexistence (John 1:1, Colossians 1:15–17), his authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5–7), and his receiving of worship (Matthew 28:17, John 9:38). The doctrine of the Trinity was developed to synthesize and clarify the biblical witness to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It does not impose a foreign concept onto Scripture but articulates what is already present in texts like John 20:28.

  The analogy comparing the phrase "moon landing" in an early modern text to the theological interpretation of John 20:28 oversimplifies the issue. The doctrine of the Trinity is not a retroactive imposition but a systematic theological explanation of what Scripture reveals. The context of John 20:28 already supports Thomas's confession as a declaration of Jesus's divinity. This is consistent with John's overarching purpose: "that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). Christian theology recognizes that the fullness of God's nature was progressively revealed. The Trinity is a conclusion drawn from the entirety of Scripture, not an anachronistic addition.

  Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6, applying it directly to the Son: "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever." The writer of Hebrews uses this verse to establish the Son’s divine kingship and eternal nature. This is not the language of a subordinate representative but of a co-eternal and co-equal divine being.

  The argument that Moses and angels are also called "gods" (e.g., Exodus 7:1; Psalm 82:6) fails to consider the context and qualitative difference in how Jesus is described. Moses is called "a god" to Pharaoh in a metaphorical sense, representing God's authority temporarily. Psalm 82 refers to corrupt human judges who are ironically called "gods" but are condemned to die like men. In contrast, Jesus is not just called God; He is worshiped (Matthew 28:17; Revelation 5:12-14), He forgives sins (Mark 2:5-7), and He is identified as Creator (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). The examples of Moses being called "god" in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1 are not parallel to the way Jesus is called "God" in the New Testament. Moses is never worshiped, nor is he described as possessing divine attributes or participating in the creation of the world.

  It is true that Jesus refers to the Father as “my God” (John 20:17, Revelation 3:12). This reflects His incarnational role and His relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry, not an ontological subordination. Philippians 2:6-11 explains this: Jesus, being in the form of God, voluntarily "emptied himself" and took on human nature. His reference to the Father as "my God" reflects His humanity and role as the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) while not negating His divine nature.

  The claim that Jesus’ divinity was a later invention ignores the evidence from early Christian writings and councils, which sought to clarify, not invent, the Church’s understanding of Scripture. Early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch explicitly referred to Jesus as God: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary…”. The councils of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed this understanding in response to heretical challenges like Arianism, which denied Christ’s full deity

  Justin Martyr and Origen used language that reflects their attempts to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son in the framework of Greek philosophy. However, their writings, especially when read in context, affirm the Son’s full divinity. Origen’s term "second god" is a reflection of his subordinationist tendencies, but even he never argued that Jesus was a mere creature. Instead, he affirmed the eternal pre-existence of the Son.

  Justin Martyr's use of "god" (θεός) for Jesus alongside "angel" (ἄγγελος) does not imply ontological subordination. Rather, Justin explains that Jesus is "another God" in the sense of being distinct from the Father, yet He participates fully in divine nature. This reflects the early Christian distinction between the Father and the Son within the unity of the Godhead, not a denial of Jesus' full divinity. Origen's term "second God" (δεύτερος θεός) is often misunderstood. While Origen acknowledges the Son's distinction from the Father, he explicitly states that the Son is of the same divine essence as the Father and eternally generated from Him. Origen does not teach that Jesus is a mere creature but affirms His participation in the eternal Godhead.

  The description of Jesus as God’s "chief agent" misrepresents the biblical testimony. Jesus is not merely an agent or a representative; He is the eternal Word through whom all things were created (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16). He shares in the divine nature (Colossians 2:9) and is one with the Father (John 10:30). The Bible consistently attributes divine prerogatives to Jesus that are never given to created beings.
• 
  406

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that's what the word says.

  .

  colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Duran

  While Jesus never explicitly says, "I am the Creator," the New Testament authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, consistently affirm this truth. Rejecting their testimony as "outsiders" is problematic because their writings are part of the canonical Scripture, recognized as the Word of God. In John 1:1-3 Jesus (the Word) is explicitly identified as the agent of creation. This is not a vague statement but a direct affirmation of Jesus’ active role in the creation of everything that exists. In Colossians 1:16-17 Paul, another inspired writer, attributes all creation to Jesus. The phrase "all things were created through him and for him" demonstrates both Jesus' role as Creator and His divine purpose in creation. In Hebrews 1:2-3 the writer affirms that God the Father created the world through the Son, and the Son sustains the universe. Hebrews 1:10 speaks for itself.

  Proverbs 8:30, which speaks of wisdom as a "master worker," is often interpreted by non-Trinitarian groups as referring to Jesus. However, this passage personifies wisdom in a poetic manner, and its direct application to Jesus is debated. Even if one assumes it refers to Christ, it does not negate His role as Creator. Being a "master worker" implies active involvement in creation alongside the Father. Moreover, if one insists that Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus, it only strengthens the argument for His divine involvement in creation, as the "master worker" is not a passive observer but an active agent in the creative process.

  Jesus often acknowledges the Father’s overarching authority and role, as seen in Matthew 6:26. However, Jesus’ acknowledgment of the Father does not diminish His own divine role. Instead, it reflects the relational dynamic within the Trinity. 1 Corinthians 8:6 highlights the cooperative roles of the Father and the Son in creation. The Father is the source of creation ("from whom"), and the Son is the agent ("through whom"). There is no contradiction but harmony in their roles.

  Dismissing John and Paul as "outsiders" misunderstands their role as divinely inspired authors. Jesus Himself appointed the apostles and promised them guidance through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Paul, though not one of the original Twelve, was chosen by Jesus (Acts 9:15). Their writings carry the full weight of divine authority and are integral to understanding who Jesus is.

  The argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be the Creator fails to consider the broader biblical witness. Jesus didn’t explicitly claim many things in His earthly ministry, such as being the high priest or the fulfillment of Melchizedek's order (see Hebrews 7), but these truths are revealed in Scripture. Similarly, the apostles’ testimony about Jesus as Creator reflects a fuller revelation of His identity.

  The Trinity does not teach that Jesus acts independently of the Father. Instead, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work in perfect unity. Jesus as the Creator does not diminish the Father’s role as the source of creation. Rather, the Father creates through the Son (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2).

  You claim that Paul's statement in Galatians 1:12 refers only to the good news and not to "the history of the universe." This is true insofar as Paul's statement focuses on the gospel, but the gospel itself encompasses profound theological truths, including the identity and role of Jesus Christ as Creator. Paul’s revelation aligns with the rest of Scripture, which describes Jesus' preexistence and divine role in creation (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). To suggest that Paul's revelation excludes such truths is an artificial limitation not supported by the text. The gospel Paul received was a complete revelation about Jesus Christ, including His preexistence, deity, and work in creation.

  You state that Genesis 1:26 refers to Jehovah speaking to "another," who you believe is the Son. However, the text explicitly uses plural pronouns ("us," "our"), which suggests a plurality within the divine nature, the Godhead. This plurality is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of God: one essence in three persons. Moreover, Genesis 1 consistently refers to "God" (Elohim), a plural form in Hebrew, which reinforces the concept of a plurality within the Godhead. The New Testament clarifies that Jesus was actively involved in creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Genesis 2’s use of "Yahweh God" (YHWH Elohim) does not exclude Jesus; it reflects the unified action of the Godhead. The separation and sharp contrast between Yahweh and Jesus you propose is not supported by the broader biblical context.

  You argue that "firstborn" indicates Jesus was created, but this misinterprets the Greek term prototokos (πρωτότοκος), which means "preeminent" or "having supremacy." It does not imply that Jesus is a created being. Instead, Paul uses this term to affirm Jesus’ rank and authority over creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17 dispels the notion that Jesus is part of creation. If Jesus created "all things," He cannot be part of creation. To assert otherwise would contradict the text.

  The title "Son of God" does not imply that Jesus was created. In Jewish and biblical thought, "son" often denotes a unique relationship rather than temporal origin. For instance, in John 10:30-33, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God was understood as a claim to equality with God, prompting the Jewish leaders to accuse Him of blasphemy. Additionally Hebrews 1:3 and John 1:1-2 affirm Jesus' eternal nature and equality with the Father.

  You claim that Genesis 2 does not mention Jesus as giving life, but the New Testament provides the full picture. Jesus’ role as Creator and sustainer of life is affirmed in John 1:4 and Hebrews 1:10-12. The assertion that the Father alone created excludes the full biblical revelation of the Godhead’s unified work in creation.

  Trinitarians do not "elevate Jesus" to diminish the Father but affirm what Scripture reveals: the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one divine essence. The Trinity is not a contradiction but a mystery grounded in biblical testimony. Your assertion that Jesus was created to "make Him the Son of God" overlooks that Jesus is uniquely the "only begotten Son" (monogenēs, John 3:16), signifying His eternal relationship with the Father, not temporal creation.

  You suggest that since God cannot die, Jesus cannot be God. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man. While His divine nature is eternal and cannot die, His human nature could and did experience death. This is the mystery and beauty of the Incarnation: God the Son took on human flesh to experience death on behalf of humanity (Philippians 2:7-8; Hebrews 2:9). Even in death, Jesus’ divine nature remained fully active, sustaining the universe (Colossians 1:17). His resurrection vindicated His victory over death and affirmed His divine power.

  The claim that Jesus did not resurrect Himself because He was dead, and you interpretation of John 2:19-21 misrepresents both the biblical text and theological understanding. Psalm 115:17 highlights that the dead, in their earthly state, cannot engage in acts like praising God. However, this does not address the unique situation of Jesus, who is not merely a human being but also the eternal Son of God. Jesus’ resurrection is a divine act, one that He explicitly claims in John 2:19 and affirms elsewhere in Scripture. His divine nature (as God) is not subject to death, even though His human nature experienced it. Therefore, while His human body was in the grave, His divine power remained active, and He was able to raise Himself.

  In John 2:19, Jesus explicitly says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” While the Jews misunderstood this as referring to the physical temple in Jerusalem, the Gospel clarifies that Jesus was speaking about the temple of His body (John 2:21). The phrase "I will raise it up" is a first-person statement by Jesus. If He didn’t mean He would participate in His own resurrection, He could have said, "It will be raised." Instead, He took ownership of the act. The claim that Jesus didn’t predict His own resurrection simply misrepresents the text.

  The context of John 2 and the consistent testimony of the Gospels indicate that Jesus referred to His physical resurrection. His statement connects directly to His bodily resurrection, as John explicitly clarifies in John 2:21. Additionally in Luke 24:39 Jesus affirms His physical resurrection by showing His disciples His physical body, not a spiritualized or symbolic resurrection. In John 20:27 Jesus invites Thomas to touch His wounds, further demonstrating the physical nature of His resurrection. The idea of a "spiritual temple" is a theological concept tied to the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 3:16), but it does not negate the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus’ body. Your assertion that "Jesus' body was not raised" directly contradicts multiple New Testament passages (John 20:27, Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:4, Acts 2:31). To deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus is to contradict the core teaching of the New Testament and the faith of the early Church.

  The New Testament attributes Jesus’ resurrection to God the Father (e.g., Acts 2:24, Gal. 1:1), to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Rom. 8:11), and to Jesus Himself (e.g., John 2:19, John 10:17-18). These are not contradictory but complementary statements reflecting the Trinitarian understanding of God’s unified work in redemption. Jesus, as God, has the authority to take His life and raise it up again: See also John 10:17-18. Thus, Jesus’ resurrection is a Trinitarian act. Jesus, being fully divine, has the power to take up His life again (John 10:18), demonstrating His equality with the Father.

  In John 10:17-18, Jesus states that He lays down His life and takes it up again by His own authority. He then adds that this authority is given to Him by the Father. Far from undermining Jesus' deity, this highlights the unity and harmony of the Father and the Son in the divine plan of salvation. The phrase, "This command I received from my Father", underscores the relational order between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. It reflects the Son's willing submission to the Father, which is consistent with the Trinitarian understanding: the Son and the Father are distinct persons but share the same divine nature and will.

  The statement, "I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again," is critical. No mere human could claim such authority over life and death; it underscores Jesus’ divine power. The phrase shows that Jesus' death was voluntary and purposeful, not forced upon Him, and His resurrection was not dependent on external forces but was an act of divine power, which He possesses as God. This is consistent with other scriptures (John 2:19, Philippians 2:8-9). Thus, John 10:17-18 reinforces, rather than refutes, the doctrine of the Trinity. The Son operates with divine authority, fully aligned with the Father’s will. The "command" from the Father is not evidence of inferiority but of relational distinction and unity within the Godhead. Jesus’ power to take up His life after death demonstrates His divine nature.

  Paul’s reception of the Gospel directly from Christ in Galatians 1:12 does not conflict with Jesus’ role as Creator or His resurrection power (Colossians 1:16, John 1:3). Paul’s theology consistently affirms Jesus’ divine nature and creative authority. His role as Creator emphasizes His divine power, including His ability to raise Himself from the dead.

  You suggest that because Jesus says His authority was "given" to Him, He cannot be equal to God. Additionally, you cite John 14:28, where Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I," as evidence that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father. In Matthew 28:18:Jesus declares His universal authority after His resurrection, demonstrating His victory over sin, death, and the devil. The phrase "has been given" reflects His role in the economy of salvation, where the Son voluntarily took on human nature and subordinated Himself to the Father’s will for the purpose of redeeming humanity (Philippians 2:6-11). This voluntary subordination does not negate His divine nature but rather underscores His humility and mission.

  In John 14:28 the statement "The Father is greater than I" reflects Jesus’ earthly ministry, where He operated in His human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father. In His divine nature, Jesus is fully equal to the Father (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6). The Church has long affirmed that this statement pertains to Jesus’ human nature, not a denial of His deity. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in essence but distinct in their relational roles. The Father sends the Son, and the Son carries out the mission, which reflects an order of operations (economy) but not an inequality in deity.

  You argue that the statement "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) merely reflects unity of purpose and not equality in essence, citing Jesus’ prayer in John 17 for believers to be "one." The immediate context indicates more than unity of purpose. In verse 28, Jesus declares His ability to give eternal life, a divine prerogative. In verse 29, He asserts that no one can snatch His sheep out of the Father’s hand or His own hand, demonstrating co-equal authority. The Jewish audience understood this claim as a declaration of deity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). While John 17 does speak of believers being "one," this is not in the same ontological sense as the unity of the Father and Son. Believers share spiritual unity with God and one another, but they do not share the divine essence. The unity between the Father and Son, however, is intrinsic and essential, as Jesus is "the exact imprint of [God’s] nature" (Hebrews 1:3).

  You cite 1 Corinthians 11:3 ("the head of Christ is God") to argue that Jesus is ontologically subordinate and not part of a co-equal Trinity. This verse reflects the relational roles within the Trinity, particularly during Christ’s earthly ministry. The Son willingly submits to the Father in function, not in essence. The analogy of headship in 1 Corinthians 11 also addresses human relationships (man and woman), where headship implies order, not inequality (Galatians 3:28).

  The argument that Jesus having a "God" (as seen in John 20:17) somehow disqualifies Him from being God Himself or part of the Trinity reflects a misunderstanding of the incarnation and the relationship between the Father and the Son within the framework of the Trinity. When Jesus refers to "my God," it reflects His role as fully human during the Incarnation. In the Incarnation, the Son took on human nature (Philippians 2:6-8), fully experiencing the limitations of humanity, including dependence on and submission to God the Father. According to John 1:14 Jesus, the eternal Word, became fully human without ceasing to be fully divine. According to Hebrews 2:17 Jesus assumed a real human nature to accomplish His redemptive work. As a man, Jesus perfectly exemplified reliance on and obedience to the Father, modeling for humanity what a proper relationship with God should look like. His acknowledgment of the Father as "my God" is consistent with this role.

  The Trinity teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons who share the same divine essence. Jesus calling the Father "my God" does not contradict His deity. Within the Trinity, the Son eternally proceeds from the Father, not as a created being, but as an eternal relationship of origin. This relational dynamic allows for Jesus, in His human nature, to address the Father as "my God" without denying His own deity. While equal in essence, the persons of the Trinity fulfill different roles in the economy of salvation. The Son submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28) to accomplish His mission of redemption, but this submission does not imply inferiority in nature or essence.

  The Bible repeatedly affirms Jesus’ divine nature alongside His humanity (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, John 20:28). If Jesus were not God, His acceptance of worship and the divine titles given to Him in Scripture would be inappropriate and blasphemous.

  Jesus’ statement in John 20:17 emphasizes two key truths. First, Jesus differentiates between "my Father" and "your Father." His relationship with the Father is unique as the eternal Son of God, while the disciples are children of God through adoption (Galatians 4:4-5). Second, by calling the Father "my God," Jesus emphasizes His solidarity with His human brothers and sisters. This reinforces His role as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).

  Jesus referring to "my God and your God" does not place Him on the same level as His brothers in essence or nature. Instead, it underscores that Jesus bridges the gap between humanity and God. He relates to the Father as "God" on behalf of humanity while remaining one in essence with the Father as God Himself. As believers, we worship the one true God, revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus’ words invite His disciples into this shared relationship with the Father.

  Thus, the statement in John 20:17 does not deny Jesus' deity but highlights His dual nature as fully God and fully man. In His human nature, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "my God," consistent with His role in the Incarnation and the Trinity. This verse, far from disproving the Trinity, fits seamlessly within its framework, affirming both the relational distinctions and the unity of the Godhead.

  ---

  @Earnest

  The phrase in question reads:

  "The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial."

  The inscription uses the dative forms, Θεῷ (Theō) and Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Iēsou Christō), to indicate the recipient of the offering. The dative case and lack of a coordinating conjunction like καί (and) strongly imply that Theō (God) and Iēsou Christō (Jesus Christ) are being presented as appositional—that is, "God Jesus Christ." The use of abbreviated sacred names with horizontal bars (nomina sacra) unites the terms Θεῷ (Theō), Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou), and Χριστῷ (Christō) as a theological formula referring to Jesus Christ's divine identity. This abbreviation practice was prevalent in early Christian texts to denote sacred terms.

  The mosaic dates to approximately 230 CE, predating the Council of Nicaea (325 CE) and thus serves as an independent witness to early Christian theology. The clear ascription of deity to Jesus Christ in the inscription aligns with early Christian practices and writings. For example, second-century authors like Ignatius of Antioch explicitly referred to Jesus as God in phrases like "our God Jesus Christ." The inscription's reference to a "table" likely pertains to the Eucharistic altar, reinforcing a theological setting where Jesus is worshiped as divine.

  If the phrase was intended to separate God from Jesus Christ, we would expect more explicit syntactic markers, such as the addition of καί (and) or clearer grammatical distinctions. Other early Christian inscriptions and texts consistently use similar formulas to affirm the divine identity of Jesus, providing strong evidence for the unity of "God Jesus Christ" as the intended meaning here.

  The crux of your argument lies in the claim that Ἰησοῦ (Iesou) being in the genitive means “God of Jesus” and not “God Jesus Christ.” In Greek, it is common for appositional constructions to involve cases like the genitive or dative. For example, when referring to “God Jesus Christ,” the nominative would not necessarily be required. Instead, apposition allows for Θεῷ (God, in the dative) to be followed by Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus Christ, also in the dative, with “Jesus” in the genitive modifying “Christ”). This interpretation fits well with the inscription’s intended theological emphasis: “to God (namely) Jesus Christ.” The genitive Ἰησοῦ modifies Χριστῷ, not Θεῷ, making it read naturally as a single unit: "Jesus Christ."

  Early Christian texts often use apposition to clarify divine titles. For example, in the New Testament, John 20:28 states, “ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου” (My Lord and my God), where apposition identifies “Lord” and “God” as the same entity. The phrase “God of Jesus” would typically require a construction like ὁ Θεός τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, not the phrasing seen here. This specific construction in the mosaic does not include the article τοῦ, which would make the genitive relational (“of Jesus”). Furthermore, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ aligns with early Christian liturgical language, where dative cases frequently denote the recipient of offerings or prayers. The genitive here functions adjectivally or possessively, modifying the compound name Jesus Christ, not separating Jesus from God.

  The use of ΘΩ, ΙΥ, ΧΥ demonstrates a unified theological formula. This shorthand was specifically designed to express divinity and sacredness, often applied collectively to names and titles like “Jesus Christ” and “God.” In this context, the abbreviation underscores the identification of Jesus Christ with God, as part of an early Christian declaration of faith. The absence of καί (and) further strengthens the unity of “God Jesus Christ” in the inscription. If the intent was to separate “God” and “Jesus Christ,” the writer could have easily included a conjunction for clarity. The lack of καί supports an appositional reading.

  The genitive case for "Jesus" is τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsoû), and the dative case can appear as either τῷ Ἰησοῖ (tôi Iēsoî) or Ἰησοῦ (Iēsoû), depending on the form. The phrase in the mosaic, Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Theō Iēsou Christō), uses:

  • Θεῷ (Theō): dative, meaning “to God.”
  • Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou): in this case, the shorter dative form of Jesus.
  • Χριστῷ (Christō): dative, meaning “to Christ.”

  This means all three terms are in the dative case. Ἰησοῦ here is not in the genitive case but in its alternative dative form. In some instances, Greek uses the shorter Ἰησοῦ instead of the longer Ἰησοῖ as the dative. This occurs in some Koine Greek texts, especially in inscriptions and manuscripts, where space was limited. The same phenomenon occurs in New Testament manuscripts (e.g., John 1:17 uses Ἰησοῦ in the dative, meaning "through Jesus Christ"). As part of nomina sacra, sacred names were abbreviated and often lacked accents or breathings. This simplification supports the idea that Ἰησοῦ is the dative here, as nomina sacra frequently omit such distinctions when abbreviating divine titles.

  Thus, the phrase Θεῷ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ translates as:

  • "To God Jesus Christ."

  The structure does not separate “God” and “Jesus Christ”. Instead, it forms an appositional phrase:

  • Θεῷ: "to God."
  • Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ: Further identifies the God being referenced, namely, "Jesus Christ."

  If the inscription had intended to say “to the God of Jesus”, it would require the genitive case τοῦ Ἰησοῦ (toû Iēsou). The absence of τοῦ confirms that Ἰησοῦ is in the dative case, not the genitive.

  The argument for translating the phrase as “to the God of Jesus” relies on a misunderstanding of the dative case of Ἰησοῦ (mistaking it for genitive), and the absence of τοῦ, which is necessary for a genitive construction like "the God of Jesus." If the inscription intended to separate "God" and "Jesus Christ" into two distinct entities, it would have required the addition of a conjunction like καί (and) or a proper genitive structure (e.g., Θεῷ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ). Neither is present here. So the term Ἰησοῦ in the mosaic is the dative case, not genitive.

  The mosaic dates to a period when early Christians widely recognized Jesus as God. Second-century texts, such as those by Ignatius of Antioch, refer to “our God Jesus Christ” (e.g., Ignatius to the Ephesians). This shows that the theological identification of Jesus as God was well-established before Constantine. While later Byzantine inscriptions might prefer phrases like “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ our God,” this reflects evolving liturgical language, not a rejection of earlier Christological formulations. The mosaic’s phrasing aligns with pre-Constantinian Christian expressions.

  The phrase “God of Jesus” implies a subordinate relationship inconsistent with the high Christology evidenced in early Christian writings and liturgy. For example, in Philippians 2:6-11, Paul describes Jesus as being “in the form of God” and receiving worship, indicating equality with God. Early Christian texts and inscriptions often use similar phrasing to emphasize the deity of Christ. For example the Rylands Papyrus (P52) uses the nomina sacra to express divine titles without ambiguity. Other inscriptions referring to “God Jesus Christ” lack the relational connotation implied by “God of Jesus.”

  The presence of a Roman centurion (Gaianus) and other inscriptions commemorating women does not detract from the theological focus of the main inscription. The inclusion of such figures reflects the mosaic’s communal and liturgical significance rather than diminishing its Christological implications. Claims about the larger spacing between Θεῷ and Ἰησοῦ are speculative. Variations in spacing are common in ancient inscriptions and do not necessarily reflect a theological or grammatical distinction.

  Based on the linguistic, historical, and theological evidence, the most natural translation of the inscription is:

  “The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”

  This translation accounts for the appositional structure of the dative phrases, respects the theological unity expressed by the nomina sacra, and reflects early Christian worship and belief in the deity of Jesus Christ.

  The assertion that the Megiddo mosaic does not call Jesus "God" relies on speculative interpretations of spacing and an a priori theological bias. The linguistic, historical, and theological evidence overwhelmingly supports the traditional reading: the mosaic explicitly identifies Jesus Christ as God. This interpretation aligns with the broader context of early Christian worship and belief, as well as with the New Testament and other early inscriptions.

  The suggestion that the inscription should be translated as “God of Jesus and to Christ” misinterprets the Greek grammar and theological context. The use of the genitive Ἰησοῦ does not necessitate a relational reading (“God of Jesus”) but instead modifies the compound title “Jesus Christ” within an appositional phrase. The argument for "God of Jesus" misinterprets the grammar and fails to account for the absence of genitive markers or conjunctions. Instead, the mosaic reflects early Christian worship of Jesus as divine, consistent with both the New Testament and other early inscriptions. The inscription is a clear declaration of Jesus’ deity, consistent with early Christian theology and liturgical practice.
• 
  51

  Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

  by aqwsed12345 in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

  in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

  both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/theocratic-warfare-lying.php

  https://quotes-watchtower.co.uk/lie.html

  "From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian’s obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given: God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” ... There is one exception, however, that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. A Scriptural example of this is that of Rahab the harlot. She hid the Israelite spies because of her faith in their God Jehovah. This she did both by her actions and by her lips. That she had Jehovah’s approval in doing so is seen from James’ commendation of her faith." Watchtower 1960 Jun 1 pp.351,352 Questions From Readers

  "The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah's people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king's men. (Joshua 2:1-7) Jesus Christ himself refrained from divulging total information when doing so would have caused needless harm. (John 7:1-10) He said: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine." Why not? So that "they may never . . . turn around and rip you open."—Matthew 7:6." Watchtower 2004 Nov 15 p.28

  But isn’t it still perjury?!

  Perjury involves false statements under oath that are material to a legal proceeding. If Jehovah's Witnesses were under oath and withheld or misrepresented information material to the proceeding, it could meet this criterion. However, their teachings emphasize not lying under oath but suggest withholding information when deemed "appropriate". This could potentially be viewed as evasive but not necessarily perjury unless the omission directly affects the adjudication of a case.

  For perjury, the declarant must knowingly make a false statement. If Jehovah's Witnesses omit information but do not provide factually false testimony, they may not fulfill this criterion. Courts often distinguish between literal truth and deliberate attempts to mislead (as in Bronston v. United States), where evasive but truthful answers do not constitute perjury.

  Perjury requires the intent to deceive the court by asserting a falsehood under oath. Theocratic warfare doctrine might reflect intent to protect organizational interests but does not necessarily equate to intent to deceive the court unless a falsehood is knowingly stated.

  Perjury applies when statements are made under an oath to tell the truth. The cited doctrine underscores the obligation to tell the truth under oath, making outright lies less likely. However, withholding information might lead to obstruction of justice if it hinders an investigation or proceeding.

  If Jehovah’s Witnesses withhold information but do not make a factually false statement under oath, their actions do not meet the strict definition of perjury. Deliberately withholding information or being evasive in ways that materially affect a legal proceeding could be prosecuted under laws related to obstruction of justice or contempt, depending on jurisdiction. While their doctrine may justify withholding information in certain contexts, this could conflict with broader societal expectations for truthfulness and transparency in legal settings.

  Oath:

  Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

  The phrase "the whole truth" in the oath encompasses the expectation that a witness will disclose all relevant information that pertains to the case, not just provide truthful statements selectively. Withholding information intentionally, even without stating a falsehood, may violate the commitment to tell "the whole truth." The phrase requires not only that the statements made are factually correct but also that no relevant information is omitted. It obligates the witness to provide a complete and accurate account of the facts material to the case. Intentionally withholding information that is relevant to the proceeding could be considered a breach of this part of the oath.

  The doctrine described emphasizes that it is acceptable to withhold information from those not deemed “entitled” to it. However, when under oath, the expectation under law is to fully comply with the promise to disclose all material facts, regardless of personal or organizational considerations. Failure to do so might not constitute perjury (which requires a deliberate falsehood), but it could still undermine the integrity of the legal process and potentially lead to accusations of obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

  Courts take the "whole truth" requirement seriously, as partial disclosures or evasions can distort justice. If the omission is significant enough to materially affect the outcome of the case, it may be treated as a serious violation. While theocratic strategy might morally justify withholding information within the organization’s framework, it does not align with the legal standards required by the oath.

  Failing to disclose relevant information under oath violates the commitment to tell "the whole truth", even if no explicit falsehood is stated. This omission could result in legal consequences, as the oath obligates a witness to fully disclose all pertinent facts, not just selected truths.