Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

11
John 5:27 and Harners thesis
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?
aqwsed12345
"Jewish and Hellenistic culture referred to subordinate divine beings as “gods”"
In the Hellenistic culture, they called their gods "gods", the Greeks had a bunch of separates words for the category of lesser divinity, for example hemitheoi, i.e. demigods. There were many other terms in Greek for mythical beings with divine features, but the name "theos" was used only for their major/proper gods. So John, who wrote in Greek, would have had many other words available than "theos" to describe a lesser category of divinity, which is ontologically inferior to that of the Father, which is attributed to the Son in WTS theology.
In the Jewish culture, the command was "thou shalt have no other gods before me", and there were no minor gods, or lesser divine beings in the Judaism either. So no, the use of this terminology of Psalm 82 was not at all common.
"the same as Philo, and later Justin Martyr, Origen"
The Jewish Philo of Alexandria did not believe in such a secondary god, and Justin and Origen did not believe either, contrary what your secular-skeptic sources claims:
"Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts." (Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho, ch, 36)
"And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.") For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent." (Origen: De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (Origen: De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)
"John as a whole results in the conclusion that Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God."
Or at least distinct in person from the person understood by the term "the God" in the typical terminology of the NT (and as the Trinity also professes), but at the same time it also professes him to be the fully true God. He does indeed speak of a kind of subordination, which he does not attribute to an ontological inferiority, and which is amply explained by his human nature assumed by his Incarnation.
"Jesus said plainly in John 17.3 that the Father is "the only true God"."
The Father is indeed the only true God, which is not the same as the JWs read it, ie. that "only the Father is true God alone". The apostle Paul also uses this wording in 1 Cor 8:6. This is therefore not opposed to the deity of Jesus, but to the false deities. In the same way, the fact that Jesus is the only Lord does not mean that only Jesus is truly Lord alone, opposed to the Father. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
- Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term? He considers several Scriptural and liturgical passages – “That they may know thee [i.e. the Father], the only true God.” (Jn 17:3); “No one knows the Son but the Father.” (Mt 11:27); “You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ” (from the Gloria).
  
  Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc.
  
  Some terms, on the other hand, are not predicated of the Persons by reason of the Essence, but rather by reason of the relation. Examples of this would be: The Father alone is un-begotten; the Son alone is begotten; the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and the Son.
  
  Finally, in the case of the second Person, some terms are predicated not by reason of his divinity (either his divine Nature or his divine relations) but on account of his human nature. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son has died; only the Son will come again.
  
  Thomas Aquinas advises us, regarding the use of terms like “alone” or “only” or “no one”: “Such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but should be piously expounded, whenever we find it in an authentic work [whether of the Fathers or of Scripture].” Hence, it is clear that modern theologians and preachers should avoid speaking in this way, on account of the confusion that can be easily caused. Yet, it is important for theologians to discuss the question, for the pastoral benefit of the faithful who can be led into false opinions by the words even of the Bible and of the holy Fathers, who wrote before the modern heresies had yet plagued the Church.
"Nobody reading the gospel of John without any knowledge of Trinitarian dogma..."
But why should such person read John's Gospel, if the Bible is a church book? JWs also believe this:
11
John 5:27 and Harners thesis
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?
aqwsed12345

slimboyfat
I have read the article, and as far as the theological part is concerned, it is not at all convincing. The WTS (and its apologists) repeatedly refer to Psalm 82, where the judges are called "elohim", which literally means "gods". However, they do not address at all how typical this terminology, this designation was during the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament. Just because someone is called "a god" does not necessarily make them God (i.e., equal to God, possessing the fullness of deity, like Christ). This is a logically incomplete conclusion.
After all, if representatives of God can be called "gods", why aren't the apostles or angels called "gods" in the New Testament? Were they not representatives of God? Did Paul accept this (Acts 28:6)?
I believe that this wording found in Psalm 82 should be evaluated based on the logic of poetic hermeneutics in view of the literary characteristics of the book of Psalms, which does not establish such a general category of divinity. Otherwise, why don't the JWs call the members of the Governing Body "gods", saying: but then the judges were called that too?
The fact that it was possible for men so to represent God as to be called "gods" or "divine" in the Old Testament was actually a foreshadowing of the Incarnation. “There lay already in the Law the germ of the truth which Christ announced, the union of God and man.” (Westcott)
In the New Testament, designating the God's angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in one of the Psalms of the Old Testament, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Strength, Mighty One, etc., rather than "God" in proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions, but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, adorableness, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
JWs also refer to John 10:34-35. In that dialogue, Jesus was only highlighting the inconsistency of his accusers: if they could be called such in a certain sense, then so could he how much more? He did not say that his divinity would be just this much. However, JWs are also inconsistent, since the judges are clearly only "elohim" in the sense of "exalted position and power", while in WTS theology, the Son's divinity is not just this, but actually a kind of 'homoiousian' sense divine nature, even if they do not use this terminology.
If you think this passage proves that every reference to Jesus as "GOD" would mean just as much, and just as much, as in the case of angels, then this idea should appear in the pericope. However, there is no mention of this. There is no reference to this detail in the apostolic letters, even though there would have been a great need for such in a polytheistic environment to clarify in what sense Jesus can be called "GOD".
John 10:34-35 lacks the thought that Jesus could only call himself "GOD" in the sense that Psalm 82 called the judges "elohim". The essence of the pericope is that it points out the inconsistency of his accusers, that there was such a use of language in the Old Testament that called human judges "elohim", based on which if they could, then he (who is truly [the only-begotten] Son of God) how much more can be called so. He begins by saying: "If even they...". So his reference was a kind of apologetic bridge, somewhat like Paul spoke to the Greeks about their "unknown god".
On the one hand, the apostle sees equality with God in being in the form of God, on the other hand, we know about the angels that they are in a lower form of life than God. Christ has a higher dignity than the angels, according to the beginning of the letter to the Hebrews. So his divine form of life cannot be included in the use of language that occasionally calls angels (and human judges) gods.
In John 10, Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they could be called gods (in a certain sense), then how much more the only-begotten Son then? So it's clearly in the text He is God in a superior sense than the judges were called "gods" in the Psalm. In what sense namely then? He does not explain here exactly, but he makes it clear that it is not just in the same sense, but in a higher, superior sense. "Argumentum a fortiori" arguments are regularly used in Jewish law under the name kal va-chomer, literally "mild and severe", the mild case being the one we know about, while trying to infer about the more severe case. The Jews understood this and that's why they wanted to stone him "again" (v39). However, the evangelist understands this exchange of words coming from Christ's mouth: according to him, the two do not differ. Behold, he himself also approves of that interpretation, according to which Jesus, by calling himself the Son of God, made himself equal to God.
The study refers to John 20:17 where Jesus calls the Father "my God" and points out that Jesus said this after his resurrection. A logical step is omitted here, since according to Orthodox Christology, Christ possessed human nature not only until his death, or during his earthly existence, but he did not lay down the human nature he assumed with the Incarnation. Only Watchtower theology asserts that Christ ceased to be human through his death. So the resurrected Jesus, as a man, could continue to call the Father "his God", without this detracting from his real Godhead.
Hence, the study's argument that Thomas's statement in John 20:28 that he said to Jesus "my Lord and my God" was actually addressed to the Father, also collapses. The next verse reveals that Jesus did apply and understand Thomas's words to himself and evaluated the statement as a confession of faith. If one insists on finding parallels, then the words of John 20:28 remind us of the words of Psalm 35:23.
Regarding the apostles, who were convinced of Jesus' deity, they never used the Hebrew words Yahweh or Adonai when politely addressing or mentioning Jesus. The likely explanation for this is that these words reminded them very much of the "invisible name," the one who "dwells in unapproachable light," who no man has seen or can see directly while living on this earth (see Exodus 33:20; 1 Timothy 6:16; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12). However, the most stubborn member of the apostolic body, Apostle Thomas, when overwhelmed by the powerful impression of the resurrected Jesus and enlightened by divine grace, fell at the Master's feet and went so far as to declare Jesus as God in his confession of faith. His words, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28), are not mere exclamations of wonder, but the perfect confession of faith, acknowledging that Jesus is the God-man. It's as if he is saying, "You are my Lord, my Messiah, and I believe not only in your resurrection but also in your deity." Cornelius a Lapide correctly summarizes the content of Thomas' confession with the words, "With the words 'my Lord,' he confesses the human nature of Christ, with the words 'myGod,' the divine one." For reference, see J. Knabenbauer S.J. Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Joannem (Paris, 1898) p. 574 and other related works.
Some have tried to downplay the true meaning and significance of Thomas' words, arguing that they were not directed at the Savior, but were surprised apostle's exclamations directed at God the Father. As if he were saying, "Oh, my Lord and God, what do I see, what a miracle your power has performed! You have resurrected our Jesus!" This is how Theodorus of Mopsuestia (died 428) and subsequently the Socinians and some other exegetes interpreted Thomas' words. However, setting aside the fact that Theodorus' interpretation was condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Council (553), this understanding is refuted by: 1. Jesus, because he clearly refers to Thomas's words as a confession of faith (John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed"); 2. The words of Thomas, "He said to him" (John 20:28) and "My Lord" which can only refer to Christ; 3. Therefore, since the expression "My Lord" can only refer to Christ, to whom the apostles referred with this address, the associated "and my God" must necessarily also refer to Christ.
The fact that the word "God" is to be taken in its literal sense here follows also from the fact that John the Evangelist, through the content of his entire book and the communication of Thomas' confession, wanted to show that Jesus indeed led his disciples to the recognition of the truth he expressed at the beginning of his gospel (John 1:6-15), i.e., that Jesus is the God-man who has appeared.
And only with such an understanding of the word "God" used by Thomas can the closing words of the Gospel be in natural harmony with the evangelist's goal, which was nothing else but to prove that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and the Son of God, that is, the God-man, and therefore one must believe in him, because this is the condition of eternal life, which John expresses as follows: "But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
20
Awakening thoughts
by aqwsed12345 in
1. jw
2. friends
a "waking up", but still a member, jehovah's witness acquaintance of mine from eastern europe wrote the following lines:.

"i count among the main sins of the watchtower society:.

1. concealment.
aqwsed12345

"I'm giving the Jehovah's Witnesses a task. Explain on what Biblical evidence can Nebuchadnezzar's vision - which related to 7 times, and which the Bible states was fulfilled in the 7 years when Nebuchadnezzar was insane - be interpreted to also have a larger fulfillment. What rule states that Nebuchadnezzar's 7-year madness foreshadows a 2,520-year (the so-called "seven times") period. Prove from the Bible that Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the "seven times" (Daniel 4:7-14) not only had a one-time fulfillment but also has a larger fulfillment (which ended in 1914).
Read Daniel Chapter 4. The whole thing is about how this vision has already been fulfilled once: "All this befell Nebuchadnezzar the king." Daniel 4:28. So, this vision has already been fulfilled once. That's why I'm asking what the evidence is that it needs to be fulfilled again. I'm not interested in the calculation because I'm familiar with it. I'm interested in what biblical evidence exists that this particular vision has a larger fulfillment. Besides, there is another problem related to this. You know, when Nebuchadnezzar had this vision, Daniel was already in Babylon. So Nebuchadnezzar had this vision after 607 BC. So how is it possible that the larger fulfillment of this vision began in 607 BC, meaning the vision began to be fulfilled earlier than when Nebuchadnezzar received it?
Let's assume that this tree really represents God's earthly kingdom, which ended in 607 BC. However, in 1914, the kingdom was not restored on earth, only in heaven. The story would be complete if God's earthly rule had returned in 1914, just as God's earthly rule ended in 607 BC."
Ezekiel 21:26. "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one.'
This part simply asserts that Zedekiah will lose his throne, so, generously assuming that it also means that God's earthly rule ends in 607 BC. But I still can't derive from this biblical part that this "end" will last 7 times. Because the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in Nebuchadnezzar's madness has already happened. I still don't see the biblical evidence that the "Remove the turban, lift off the crown!" condition will last 7 times, so I don't see evidence that the duration of the "Remove the turban, lift off the crown!" condition is determined by a vision that the Bible says has already been fulfilled. So I still don't see evidence that there is a larger fulfillment of the 7 times. Does the Bible mention this specific "seven times" anywhere else?"
The first sentence you wrote:
"If you read the Bible, Daniel 4:10, 34 describes the prophecy related to King Nebuchadnezzar of 7 times which was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar, this period would be short to appoint a new king by Jehovah God at the head of Israel."
Alright, let's stick with that. This is true. However, this above part doesn't talk about God wanting to place a king at the head of Israel, but about God taking away the government from Nebuchadnezzar for 7 years.
Then you write:
"Jehovah God showed Nebuchadnezzar that he is not the only king as a world power, he had to recognize that Jehovah is mightier"
This is true too. Nebuchadnezzar recognized this.
But I still don't see any evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 7-year animal fate symbolizes something bigger. There's not a word about this in Daniel's text, the story is closed. The king was in an animal-like condition for 7 years, then by the grace of Jehovah, he could return to the throne, but there is no evidence that this 7-year period symbolizes 7 times, that is, 2,520 years. There is no concrete evidence for this. No biblical part that says this 7-year period has a larger fulfillment."
"You write:
"Nebuchadnezzar's power was not so great that it "reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth", but the power of Jesus is such, it suits him..."
Is this the proof? This is simply interpreted into the text. In the Bible, it says: "You are that one, oh king, who has grown and become strong, whose greatness has increased and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth." Daniel 4:20 - God himself says, "whose greatness has increased and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth" - and you say this is not true? This is true, but it is what we call a poetic exaggeration. There are many such exaggerations in the Bible, or for example, personifications of inanimate things can also be found. E.g. strong as a buffalo. Is he really as strong as a buffalo? :-) This does not prove at all that this vision can also be applied to something else. By the way, the Bible also states that "All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar." It happened, meaning it was fulfilled. You understand? Show me where it says that there is also some kind of later fulfillment."
Luke 21:24 - "and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled.”
What information does this verse convey? - It says that the time of Jerusalem's destruction (AD 70) falls within a so-called "times of the Gentiles". When this interval ends, this verse does not mention. Nor does it mention when it began.
Ezekiel 21:25-27: “And as for you, O deadly wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel, whose day has come in the time of the error of [the] end, this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this* also, it will certainly become no [one’s] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him.’"
This part is about the divine right of rule being taken away from Zedekiah. If we connect it with the previous verse, we can say that the times of the Gentiles began then.
So far it's logical.
So, we know that the times of the Gentiles began in 607 BC and it was still ongoing in 70 AD.
However, what is the proof that Daniel's vision will determine the end of the times of the Gentiles? There is no biblical evidence that there is a greater fulfillment of Daniel's vision. I admit that it's convenient to say that the greater fulfillment determines the end of the times of the Gentiles. You can come up with this, but there is no evidence for it. There is no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's dream determines the end of the times of the Gentiles, by linking it to the prophecies of Luke and Ezekiel. Understand, I'm not claiming that this is definitely not possible, but that there is no clear biblical evidence for it. If only there was some faint hint in the book of Daniel that this vision should be interpreted differently. But Daniel explained exactly to Nebuchadnezzar the dream, and did not even hint at a kind of greater fulfillment.
Then if it was true, would Nebuchadnezzar represent God? Would Nebuchadnezzar's earthly empire represent God's earthly kingdom? And if this is the case, then why did Jesus begin to reign in heaven in 1914? Why not on earth? After all, after his 7 years of madness, Nebuchadnezzar did not move his capital to heaven, but began to reign where he had left off 7 years before!! Or perhaps since 1914, the right to rule on earth also belongs to Jesus? However, if this is the case, then the "higher authorities" (letter to the Romans) are not the same as the worldly higher authorities, but Jesus Christ. So there are many contradictions in the whole story."
"You write:
"this period would be too short for Jehovah God to set up a new king over Israel"
Indeed, this would be too short for that, but what does this fact have to do with this prophecy? If I read Daniel 4, why should I speculate while reading it what this 7 years might be enough for? Why should I care about it? After all, Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream!!
You also didn't answer why, if it's as you say, Jesus began to reign in heaven? After all, Nebuchadnezzar also began to rule exactly where he had stopped ruling before he went mad, after the 7 years were over. So if Zedekiah ruled on earth until 607 BC, then in 1914 Jesus should have also started ruling on earth. This would only fit.
The calculations, please do not explain any more, because I have long understood that. I don't understand the basics, that once in the Bible with my own eyes I read that this prophecy of 7 times was fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar's 7 years of madness (""All this befell Nebuchadnezzar the king", Daniel 4:28), then someone on what basis can say that it has not been completely fulfilled. On what basis can you claim that Nebuchadnezzar represents God, and the Babylonian Empire represents God's earthly rule? Isn't this a bit morbid?
I just don't understand from this whole story, were these people completely idiots? How did they dare to announce the year 1915 after the failure of 1914, and then 1916? Then 1925?? What were they hoping for?
"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will mourn over him." (Revelation 1:7)
What nonsense is it that Jesus came invisibly in 1914? According to the Bible, Jesus comes in such a way that "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him." This is written in the Bible. How can this be turned into invisibility? How can this Bible verse be interpreted exactly the opposite way, as any sane person would interpret it, as every Christian in the world has interpreted it for 1900 years???
The claim that "every eye will see him" means just the opposite. It means that no one will see Him, only a very few, in fact, those who pierced Him will not see Him (since they are dead), but only those who have similar characteristics to those who actually crucified Jesus.
It seems that words do not mean what they should mean. It's not the text that matters, but the explanation. More precisely: sometimes the text is taken very seriously, sometimes it's some kind of explanation.
Do you know what theoretical problem would arise if this verse could really be interpreted as you think? This would mean that any clear words or sentences of the Bible could be claimed not to mean what we read, but - like some secret code - something completely different. This would essentially make the whole Scripture uncertain, and we would end up with the conclusion that the entire Bible could not have been understood for 1900 years.
From this statement: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over him" - nothing is as it seems!!!
1./ He doesn't come with clouds, but invisibly.
2./ It's not the eye that sees Jesus, but the mind that comprehends it.
3./ He doesn't even come, his presence just becomes apparent.
4./ His presence only means that he turns his attention to earthly things, so in reality, he is not present.
5./ Those who pierced him can't see him because they have long been dead. So if vision means mental comprehension, this can only refer to the evildoers who are similar to those who crucified Jesus, and for these evildoers, the presence of Jesus should be apparent - but even this is not true because for these evildoers, the presence of Jesus is not at all apparent, because they think the whole thing is nonsense. So even symbolically it's not true that "even those who pierced Him will see him."
Have you finally understood what I'm talking about? If there is a passage in the Bible like this one, which requires a Ph.D. to explain, then the whole thing is worthless and it was not written for ordinary people. It's as if I were reading the following:
"My grandmother said to love your siblings."
Then someone would explain that my grandmother is not my grandmother, but the 12-year-old son of my neighbor (not even a woman), and she didn't say anything, but she was throwing stones, and it was not about siblings but about my windows, and not about love but about breaking my head. So this is how it should be interpreted: The son of my neighbor was angry with me, so he threw stones at my windows with the intention of breaking them and accidentally hitting me on the head with a stone.
If he comes with the clouds, and if the clouds hide Him, then at least the clouds should have been seen, more precisely should have been seen in 1914. Anyway, this explanation is not good either. Because according to the Bible, Jesus has to come in a similar way as he left. Read the Bible. It says there that Jesus ascended in the sight of his disciples, and while he was ascending, a cloud obscured him. But when he started ascending, there was no cloud yet because if it had been there, they wouldn't even have seen that he started ascending, so they wouldn't have known who started ascending. Now play this event backwards - like a video recording. So first Jesus is still obscured by the cloud (i.e., invisible), then gradually becomes visible. Then in 1914, either the cloud or something should have been visible. But essentially nothing happened in 1914. World War I was not all over the world, but in most parts of the globe there was no war in 1914. However, the Bible says that "every eye" will see him. Well, indeed, "every eye" essentially means very few eyes. Is this another secret code?? Moreover, in 1914, the Bible students did not see his coming, not even symbolically, because even in the 1920s the belief was that Jesus came invisibly in 1874. I read this with my own eyes in Rutherford's book, "The Harp of God", which was published after 1920. So then the explanation is 100 percent wrong, in other words, nobody saw anything in 1914, not even symbolically, not even in the sense that they would have understood it spiritually. They did not understand anything, but later they invented an explanation to prevent the misguided masses from lynching them for their deception."
"This is what you write, now I think correctly:
"They only started to think about whether they interpreted it correctly when it was over."
This is fine. So they only started to think about whether they interpreted things correctly after 1914. But then - you essentially admit it yourself - they interpreted things wrongly in 1914. So with this, you are exactly refuting the thesis that Jesus came invisibly in 1914, because even if we take it symbolically (even if we take the statement "every eye will see him" in the sense that "a few chosen ones recognized his invisible coming from the signs"), things do not fit, because even in 1914 they did not see his coming, not even symbolically, because only after 1920 did they start to "correctly" interpret what they saw. So if in 1914 they had seen His coming symbolically, they should at least have recognized the invisible coming, they should have recognized it when Jesus came, not 10 years later!!!
In the JWs' teachings, it's not the teachings themselves that are repugnant, because indeed: there's a lot of truth in them, and there are plenty of errors and mistakes in other denominations as well - it's not the teaching that's repugnant, but this sycophantic, insincere, leadership-excusing nature of the simple Witnesses. Your answer is an example of this. The problem is buried in this foolish sentence of yours. Because you said:
"They didn't prophesy, but rather, there was an overheated hope in them."
What is this? Wordplay? And who are "they"? In whom? Maybe in Mrs. Johnson and Mr. Smith? Certainly not in them!!! These were just victims who were brainwashed. Because in the 1970s among JWs, such terror reigned that the slightest disagreement resulted in Mr. Smith being ostracized. So Mr. Smith believed what he believed because this ornate group of con artists, long ago having surpassed the boundaries of normality in their pride and arrogance, proclaimed that you should not study, not marry, not court, not do anything (except recruit more members, replicate like some mad virus), because the End is so near. And when it turned out that all of this was not true, then they say that there was an "overheated hope in Jehovah's people". But the overheatedness was not in the people, but in its ruling class, which, when there's trouble, blurs the outlines to distribute the responsibility between themselves and the powerless membership. Disgusting. Not a single leader had enough backbone to stand before the people and say, "Gentlemen, I was mistaken, but I also lied when I claimed that I received this information from the Creator."
This is nothing more than blending the Witnesses with the Governing Body.
1./ "The Witnesses" have no teachings of their own, the teachings are not theirs, since they can only say what the Governing Body deems good. There is no such thing as a Witness giving a talk. This is only an appearance. In reality, everything is written down for them, and they cannot deviate from the predetermined points, let alone biblical quotes. There is no such thing as someone voluntarily speaking up in a group and giving a talk that does not go according to the program.
2./ "They", the Witnesses, cannot interpret anything. But they can only repeat what the Governing Body publishes. So it is very misleading to say things like "they looked forward with great anticipation" and "they realized that they had misinterpreted certain things". This wording is essentially cheating, as these two "they" refer to two completely different groups. One "they" is the passive "they", who cannot have their own opinion about the faith, the other "they" is the active "they", who tell what the Creator's current daily message is. If you use the word "they" for both groups, you blur the difference and at the same time take the responsibility off the Governing Body's shoulders.
You write:
"[1975] It was emphasized, but nothing concrete was stated, only probable."
An educated person can distinguish between:
"it was not explicitly stated, only probable" and "it was explicitly stated".
But 99% of JWs absolutely do not have a sense of this!! The vast majority take the elder's talk as identical to the Scriptures and want to do it to the point of nosebleeds. So the Society can always cunningly hide behind words, because they make a statement (knowing that 99% will interpret it this way and take it as cash), and when this fails, they show that the statement should have been interpreted differently, and the common man will be the fool again because he was the one who misinterpreted it and had "unwarranted, overheated expectations" :-))
It's well done, just like the big money people and politicians manipulate the masses. The bottom line is: the smarter one always messes with the less smart one.
My parents were Witnesses and from morning till night at that time the record played that it's not even worth having children because the end is so near. And I believed it - why wouldn't I believe it, if everyone said for sure and even included it in prayers? At that time, an elder had much more power within the congregation than now. If I had gone to college, maybe my mom would have been kicked out, for much smaller things people were kicked out at that time. But why would I have gone if everyone really said the end was just a few years away?
Lastly, they burned themselves by spreading in millions of copies for decades that the Creator has a promise that the generation that experienced 1914 will not pass away until Armageddon. That's a big fall, isn't it? I know an old JW who in the 1970s preached that a specific large building wouldn't be built because Armageddon would come. And indeed, the building was built and still stands today. Then I know another person who was told in his youth not to play football because he could play enough football in the New World after Armageddon. And today he is so sick that he couldn't even play button football."
"A lot of arguments are made against JWs here, but essentially most of the arguments are too complicated and beyond the scope of an average Witness.
In my opinion, there is one argument that cannot be twisted and is a serious charge:
Until 1995, on the third page of every Awake! magazine, at the bottom, it was written that the Creator has a promise that the generation of 1914 will not pass away until God's new world comes. It was written exactly like this: "Most important, this magazine builds confidence in the Creator's promise of a peaceful and secure world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away."
This statement essentially even overturns the theory of gradual understanding, so it overturns that "the path of the righteous ... is like the light of dawn, which becomes brighter and brighter, until full daylight" (Proverbs 4:18).
Why does it overturn it?
Because they call this interpretation directly the promise of the Creator. So they don't write that according to the current state of bible study the Governing Body believes, etc. etc., but they lie that this invention is the promise of the Creator "FOR POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS" (thus to manipulate the Jehovah's Witnesses and instill an "urgency consciousness" in them). This is not mere ignorance, but deliberate lying, because the person (or persons) who first wrote this, and gave permission for it to be disseminated in millions of copies, knew best that the Creator did not promise such a thing.
They should not have written that this was the "the Creator's promise" because this statement was a lie even at the moment of its writing. Those who wrote this knew best that it was not the promise of the Creator, but they only concluded that the Creator probably wanted to convey this. But they couldn't be sure either, because they received no revelation from God. But if they themselves were not sure about this, then how dare they expect ordinary Witnesses to believe this?? And if anyone had voiced that it might not be certain, would they have been disfellowshipped? Well, what kind of work is this?? Is organizational unity more important than truth?? And after all this, how can we believe the words of the "faithful and discreet slave"? Or do we not have to believe, but just pretend as if we would believe, not to cause disturbance, and not to shake the faith of those with lower IQ???
How can one believe that "faithful and discreet slave" who wrote this until 1995 (on page 4 of the Awake! magazine distributed in millions of copies). Then this completely changed. Today this is not true. The February 2008 Watchtower states that this generation is not the same as the 1914 generation, but the 144,000.
Even this would not be such a big problem, after all, the light increases to full daylight. But why did they have to say that this was the promise of the Creator?? Why did they have to put a lie in the Creator's mouth?? Why couldn't this "realization" be proclaimed in a more humble style, for example, "we think our biblical interpretation is correct, which suggests a peaceful and secure new world will come into existence before the generation that witnessed the events of 1914 passes away." If this had been formulated so humbly, there would be no problem today. But why is there always this pride, this arrogance??
You write: "we just nod our heads..."
But this is really true!! Just try to say something differently, especially publicly. For example, in February 2008, they changed the definition of the "generation", the definition they gave in 1995. By the way, in 1995 they changed the previous definition. But someone should have questioned the current truth! At a minimum, he should not have been able to contribute to the studies anymore, and if he became too stubborn, they would have disfellowshipped him, on the grounds of causing others to stumble. The same situation was in the past as well. In 1990 it was still valid that young people could not choose civil service instead of military service. They argued with such nonsense that civil service is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Defense, just like military service. Then suddenly an Watchtower article appeared, which stated that deciding this is a matter of conscience. So if he wants to, he refuses civil service, if he doesn't want to, he doesn't refuse, but takes it. Everyone can decide according to their conscience. The most shocking thing was that suddenly no one was willing to choose jail. So this proves that before, when this article had not yet appeared, those who chose to go to jail were not guided by their conscience, but by fear of being disfellowshipped, or marginalized. Because I don't believe that everyone's conscience would have changed 180 degrees within a few months, and after the article appeared suddenly there would be no one whose conscience would still dictate that they should go to jail. Because the article did not call for civil service, it just said that everyone can choose according to their conscience.
With simple peasant logic, it can be seen that the part of the JW teaching that speaks about the constant closeness of Armageddon is also a mind manipulation. The story of the JWs essentially speaks of nothing else than "don't do anything, just preach, because the end is coming, and if you don't preach, you will die". This is how the "good news" could be briefly summed up. I just wonder why lawyers worldwide have not yet taken action against this, as it is nothing but spreading panic. Especially because they have been doing this for 100 years. JW generations are born and die with the consciousness of "urgency". Then when they get old, they can go to a Catholic nursing home, since they are not even able to maintain a miserable nursing home in a country. Their assembly is characterized by total lovelessness. It is no wonder they use the words "showing love" instead of the simple word "love". Yes, always the demonstration of things is important, the surface, the smiling, the raving about the "truth", that someone sits through the whole thing elegantly, in a tie, answers the questions posed, and gives such well-groomed answers that best reflect the words of the Watchtower. That's why many people don't even bother, they simply read the answers that have been underlined at home. And this home underlining is called "preparation", and "study". Even the questions are designed in such a way that thoughts don't accidentally veer off in an inappropriate direction. And this directed thinking is called "contemplation." Here is Orwell's 1984 realized, where words mean something other than what they should, right in front of our eyes, the language of "newspeak." The leader of the Watchtower study has to ask these prescribed questions, and the audience, in turn, has to recite the answers they underlined at home, albeit slightly rephrased. Like some kind of acting circle. Perhaps the most important thing is to prevent any manifestation of spontaneity."
11
John 5:27 and Harners thesis
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?
aqwsed12345

The verses elaborate in more detail what Jesus's life-giving and judgement activities mean. Jesus will not only resurrect the dead and judge people at the end of the world, at the time of his second coming. The decision about man's eternal fate is already taking place, according to whether he accepts or rejects his teaching. Whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life and has passed from death to life. The time to attain eternal life is already here when the spiritually dead hear the word of the Son of God.
The Son can do this (v. 25); for just as the Father, as God, possesses eternal life without end, and is therefore the source of all finite life, so too the Son, who received this from the Father. The Father has life in himself and not from the Son; the Son has life in himself, but from the Father. This parallels verse 21, and repeats its assertion that this power has been given by the Father to the Son.
"For the Son of Man", that is, the Messiah. The Jews believed even before Christ that the Messiah is the judge of the world. (This is also testified by the apocryphal Ethiopian Book of Enoch, 45. etc. chapters.) Verse 22b echoes this. In the gospel, this is the only non-contextual Son of Man expression that unexpectedly appears alongside the call to the dead (v. 25). This Son of Man image goes back to the primitive Christian usage, which describes the coming Jesus as a judge in the form of the figure appearing in Daniel 7:13, but in John, no other Son of Man saying refers to Jesus as a future eschatological judge.
Just as the Son took the life and the giving of life to others from the Father, so he gained the power to judge from the Father, which follows the resurrection of the dead, and he possesses this power not only by virtue of his divine nature but especially because he became a man and undertook the work of redemption. The conclusion of his becoming human is judgment; for it is by judgment that the holy and saved humanity is separated from the unholy and condemned, united with Christ, as the body with its head, so that Christ only then fully forms the new man with it, and man again fully submits to God, which is the aim and end of his work of redemption. If, therefore, judgment is the final act of the work of redemption and the incarnation of the Son of God, it is understandable why the Savior, the man of God, will hold it. Others interpret it as follows: because he as a man can judge in a manner suitable to humans. Or: because he as a man humbled himself, and therefore deserves to be glorified in judgment. Or: because as a man he will be merciful and gracious. All these touch only certain external circumstances; the real, inner, all-encompassing basic reason is that which was given above.
In this verse, the Son of Man saying is a prophecy of the resurrection to judgment, which originated from Judaism after the exile (Dan 12:2; 1Enoch 51:4; 2Esdras 7:32, 2Baruch 42:7; ApocMoses 10:41), and which in early Christianity was generally associated with Jesus, as the "Lord" or the "Son of Man" (e.g., 2Cor 5:10). While some writings regard the resurrection as the reward of the righteous (e.g., Phil 3:20), others imagine a double resurrection, which allows for judgment (e.g., Dan 12:2). Verse 29 adopts the latter view, while verse 21 links the resurrection of the dead with "revitalization," thus referring to the former view. The tension between the "future eschatology" of the physical resurrection to judgment and the "realized eschatology" of the judgment - which is realized by responding to the present call revealed in the words of Jesus - suggests that these verses are independent pieces of tradition.
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.
aqwsed12345

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/
The critics of the Watchtower Society, or Jehovah's Witnesses, who are familiar with their theology, are aware of their stranger than strange doctrines (end-time calculations, the resurrected Jesus is actually a recreated Michael, and similar), and we are familiar with the heresies that have occurred in their history (Arianism, millenarianism). However, there are only two doctrines that they likely have invented themselves. The second of these has been addressed by quite a few critics, but the first – although largely derived from the first – has been addressed by relatively few.
1. Anthropomorphic image of God
Although the Scriptures nowhere call the Son either a creature or Michael, they nevertheless profess this, thus belittling Jesus Christ. However, they also degrade the Father, because what they claim about "Jehovah" is a very anthropomorphized, paganic image of God, in which God essentially exists in space and time, shows change, changes his mind, and is taken by surprise.
w92 2/1 p. 9. They write that Jehovah has a huge, dynamic energy reserve (Isaiah 40:26). "At creation, when he created the matter of the universe, he had to use some of this energy." So he did not create from nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as Christians teach, but from his "energy reserve", which are apparently not infinite, but only "huge".
They exist so much in space that they even said that he lives in the Pleiades, and it took "time" for him and his angels to "get here" to Earth if he wanted something. I read somewhere that a child's letter was read at one of their conventions – it was read positively – the child wrote to NASA not to beam radio signals into space because they "disturb" Jehovah. The Pleiades teaching was dropped in 1953, but they still claim that there is literally a certain place in heaven somewhere in space.
They also claim that he exists in time, not in the traditional Christian teaching of unchanging eternity, but in the flow of time. This is absurd because time and space are created realities, and God cannot exist within the limits of created realities. This is related to their teaching that God is not inherently omniscient, but only has a "foresight ABILITY", which he exercises at his discretion.
This is such a mythical pagan image of God, as the Greeks imagined the gods living on Olympus, or as a 5-year-old child imagines God, sitting literally above the clouds in a literal chair, with a big beard, and gets angry if he finds out you ate the chocolate that Mommy forbade. Allegedly, Ottoman soldiers had similar conceptions about Allah, that since he is "up there", he does not see them if they drink alcohol or commit adultery in a covered place.
2.The two-class doctrine of redemption, and the restoration of the Garden of Eden
From the absurd theory of "selective foresight ability" comes the view that the fall of man into sin somehow caught God by surprise, and therefore he came up with redemption as a kind of backup plan, which for them is nothing more than the restoration of the Garden of Eden, because that is what must happen no matter what. Therefore, they inserted into the New World Translation that Jesus was a "corresponding" ransom, so he had to restore only the Adamic sin. In contrast, according to the Scriptures, the plan of redemption was ready before the creation of the world, see Romans 3:25, Ephesians 1:4. The New Testament says nothing about the Watchtower's class distinctions.
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.
aqwsed12345

This is an interesting topic too, as the theology of the Watchtower captures the divinity of the Father in a rather interesting way, read this article:
https://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JehovahWatchtower.htm
A distorted, anthropomorphic image of God: can be offended, changes his mind, the creation required energy from him, one needs to "gain" his "approval", etc. God is not omnipresent, but literally dwells in a place (Pleiades); has a (spiritual) body (rather than being simply spirit), is not absolutely omniscient in the first place, but only has the possibility/ability fore foreknowledge, which he either uses or not, these are based on a literal interpretation of certain (mainly Old Testament) anthropomorphic descriptions. This god does not suggest pure theism, but is just a magnified human, a kind of pagan image of God.
A classic example of this is their belief that God did not know "in advance" that Adam and Eve would sin. According to them, even God is not omniscient in an absolute sense, and they refer to verses such as Genesis 18:20-21. However, this view is not pure theism, and it is a figurative anthropomorphic expression, with which they want to prove this absurd statement. On the other hand, God alone is omniscient (1Kings 8:31-32, Psalm 44:21-22, 94:9-10, 139:2, Job 21:22, Daniel 2:20, Romans 11:33-34). The Father is omniscient (Mt 6:4,32, 10:29-30), the Son (Lk 2:46-47, Jn 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Colossians 2:3, Mt 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2, 40:13, Daniel 4:6, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), yet there are not three omniscient Gods, only one.
From Biblical statements like that God "regrets" things, one cannot draw the conclusion that there are multiple plans in God, or that he occasionally closed his eyes and did not see the future. The biblical description that God "regretted" creating man at the time of the flood is an anthropomorphic description because otherwise we know (1Samuel 15:29): "Also the Eternal One of Israel will not lie or have regret; for He is not a man that He should have regret." The authors of the Bible indeed use such human images for the sake of a more dynamic description, but we should know that in the final analysis these do not answer the questions of the relationship between divine and human will.
The point is that the human language, adapted to the terrestrial and material world, cannot fully express the infinity and complete spirituality of God, and therefore - in the past and today alike - can only speak of God with expressions taken from the human world. The Old Testament scripture, especially in its first parts, is full of such so-called anthropomorphic (= attributing human shape, hand, foot, eye, etc. to God) and anthropopathic (= attributing human emotion, anger, regret, etc. to God) expressions, which however should not be taken in their literal sense. This is how we should understand, for example, at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, that "God said," although God did not say anything but created by pure will.
Therefore, the strong anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of Scripture, especially of the Old Testament (God shows anger, regret, etc. - Genesis 6:6; Psalm 106:40, Hosea 1:6) etc.) should be measured and adjusted to the basic faith truth of God's immutability. These are said because of the observable outward effect, not because of the similarity of emotions. So "God regretted that he made man" means: what God did because of people's depravity achieved effects similar to when people regret their actions. So, of course, God did not decide the flood when the Bible indicates it, but decided it from eternity. And of course, God was not "grieving" in the strict sense of the word "in his heart", these (and similar) expressions are only used by Scripture because humans can only speak of God in a human way, and because it wants to teach man through them: to see how great the sin is, and to know that if the measure is full, God's punitive "hand" will reach him. So this is a human expression for God punishing the sinful man, and that because of his infinite holiness, he detests sin.
The Bible therefore uses the method of speaking about God in anthropomorphisms. It can only make God's personhood, his active behavior perceptible if it compares him to man. It talks about God's face, eye, ear, hand, ways, feet. These do not want to depict God's shape, but the way God affects man. The anthropomorphisms do not depict God himself. The prophetic visions do not show his shape either, but rather make his effect on humans perceptible. The Semitic spirituality is not interested in the external shape and the limbs, but rather their function. This is why, for example, we read in the book of Isaiah that the mountains rejoice and the trees clap their hands (55:12). When prophetic literature speaks of God in human terms, it does not provide a visual image of Him, but rather attempts to express His entire essence and personality, much like how individual parts are representative of activity and characteristics. God's personality is best illuminated by His being the sovereign actor, the creator of the world, the director of history, and humans being His image by subduing the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). God's personality is further elucidated by images that detail His activities: He sees, hears, speaks, laughs, gets angry, and reconciles. But human behavior can only be a tool of comparison because it is backed by spiritual consciousness, personality. Jehovah cannot be portrayed using animal depictions. The Old Testament does not forget that the distance between God and man is infinite (Genesis 18:17; Exodus 3:5; Isaiah 28:29). The prophets also adopted anthropomorphism because they saw no danger to the concept of God. Only theological reflection and the guidance of the people's thinking led later Greek and Aramaic translators to occasionally soften expressions that could endanger pure transcendence. Looking back from the New Testament, we can see the preparation for incarnation in anthropomorphism.
So, in explaining anthropomorphism, we always have to think of God's absolute spirituality, infinity, immutability, omnipresence, and sovereignty. For example, when it is said that He gets angry and reconciles, it is not He who changes, but we project the change in our relationship with Him.
The Watchtower merely speaks of God's "possibility" (!) of foreknowledge. Well, this proposition is simply false even logically. It would present God as if He were not omniscient by nature, but just has a kind of crystal ball, and if He feels the need to know what the future holds, then He peeks into it. But if He is "not curious" about the future, then He can plug his ears, like the clerk in the commercial, saying "pa-pa-pa-pa."
No, from omniscience, it directly follows that God cannot not know anything. This is wrong for the simple reason that God does not exist in time but above time, so from His point of view, everything that happens in the created world essentially happens "all at once." And if He knows what happens in the created world (and He does), then He knows everything that will ever happen in the created world. Therefore, if you rigorously consider the JW's argument in this regard, it significantly discounts God, portraying Him as figuratively biting His nails, worried about whether the first human couple will fall into sin, realistically hoping that it won't happen. This is complete nonsense.
Divine omniscience means He knows the past, understands the present, sees the future, and nothing is unknown to Him. God fully understands Himself and everything outside of Him. From God's infinity, it directly follows that nothing is unknown to Him. Infinity is only infinite if it is limitless in all respects, including in terms of knowledge. So God knows even the smallest, most insignificant, most hidden things, and even the world of possibilities, desires, and plans is not hidden from Him, whether they are realized or not. He knows about events even before they occur, and He never forgets a single moment.
In the face of divine eternity, there is no past or future, everything is constantly present before Him; eternity equals every moment of time, and is simultaneous with every point in time, just as every point on the circumference of a circle is in the same relation to the center. Consequently, God perceives future things in the constant present of His eternity, and this perception does not influence our future events any more than the observer on the tower influences the possible direction of a troop passing below him. Just as our remembrance does not change and does not influence the past, His foreknowledge does not influence the future. So we can formulate it like this: Something doesn't happen because God knows it in advance, but because it happens, He knows it.
God does not merely foresee the future like a seer, but is present at every point in time, therefore also in the future. God sees the future because what is an uncertain future for us is present for Him, therefore the future is as certain to God as the past. This means that God knows the future, and nevertheless man has free determination.
The Watchtower relativizes God's real omniscience to a possibility, like deciding whether to take my beer out of the fridge at all, to drink it, and if so, when. However, God's omniscience does not stem from some optional fortune-telling talent, but from the absolute and infinite reality, which means that He is conceptually beyond all created beings, so it is perfectly natural that all those dimensions (space, time), which organize our existence into limits, do not exist for Him.
The key thing is that in God, the knowledge of the creaturely world is not a skill or ability that he must want to use, but rather he has real, essential omniscience. This thesis automatically follows from the fact that time itself is a created reality, and the creator cannot be limited by a created reality. Furthermore, temporality implies limitation, but God has no limits, he is always present at the same time, which we perceive as a timeline. But regardless of this, the Holy Scriptures also claim God's real omniscience, so even if you deny this basic tenet (which you can't refute anyway), you should still accept it because the Bible declares this. Of course, it can be justified most easily metaphysically: just as every point on the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the center of the circle, every point on the timeline that denotes the change in the creaturely world is equally present to God. The infinity of God is in the Bible, I quoted a few such things in some letters. And countless times it is also in there that God's reality is infinitely more perfect than what can be described with human words, and this should be taken into account when "theologizing" about God himself. Time is the measure of change, so only a changing thing can be described by temporality, but God is unchangeable, this is even explicitly in the Bible! The infinity of God does not mean infinity in a mathematical sense, that you can add as much as you want, etc., but rather that the quantifiability and quantity are in fact creaturely categories, the creator God cannot be characterized by them.
The JWs relativize God's transcendence, essentially claiming covertly that God is somehow bounded by a structure He created, specifically time. Think about it: before He created the world, time did not exist, but God did not create the grid of time for Himself so that the clock starts ticking over Him from now on, this only applies to the created world. When talking about time in theology, it's important to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing more than that time is the measure of change. So the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And the Bible says this about God in this regard: "He never changes or casts a shifting shadow." (James 1:17) Now if time is the measure of change, it follows that where/who does not change, time does not apply. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": From God's perspective, the fall of man into sin occurred at the same "time" as the present moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. For Him, it is always "today", there is no passage of time for Him, He doesn't have time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "seeing into the future", because for Him, what is future for us is present for Him.
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
aqwsed12345

This is an interesting topic too, as the theology of the Watchtower captures the divinity of the Father in a rather interesting way, read this article:
https://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JehovahWatchtower.htm
A distorted, anthropomorphic image of God: can be offended, changes his mind, the creation required energy from him, one needs to "gain" his "approval", etc. God is not omnipresent, but literally dwells in a place (Pleiades); has a (spiritual) body (rather than being simply spirit), is not absolutely omniscient in the first place, but only has the possibility/ability fore foreknowledge, which he either uses or not, these are based on a literal interpretation of certain (mainly Old Testament) anthropomorphic descriptions. This god does not suggest pure theism, but is just a magnified human, a kind of pagan image of God.
A classic example of this is their belief that God did not know "in advance" that Adam and Eve would sin. According to them, even God is not omniscient in an absolute sense, and they refer to verses such as Genesis 18:20-21. However, this view is not pure theism, and it is a figurative anthropomorphic expression, with which they want to prove this absurd statement. On the other hand, God alone is omniscient (1Kings 8:31-32, Psalm 44:21-22, 94:9-10, 139:2, Job 21:22, Daniel 2:20, Romans 11:33-34). The Father is omniscient (Mt 6:4,32, 10:29-30), the Son (Lk 2:46-47, Jn 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Colossians 2:3, Mt 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13) and the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2, 40:13, Daniel 4:6, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), yet there are not three omniscient Gods, only one.
From Biblical statements like that God "regrets" things, one cannot draw the conclusion that there are multiple plans in God, or that he occasionally closed his eyes and did not see the future. The biblical description that God "regretted" creating man at the time of the flood is an anthropomorphic description because otherwise we know (1Samuel 15:29): "Also the Eternal One of Israel will not lie or have regret; for He is not a man that He should have regret." The authors of the Bible indeed use such human images for the sake of a more dynamic description, but we should know that in the final analysis these do not answer the questions of the relationship between divine and human will.
The point is that the human language, adapted to the terrestrial and material world, cannot fully express the infinity and complete spirituality of God, and therefore - in the past and today alike - can only speak of God with expressions taken from the human world. The Old Testament scripture, especially in its first parts, is full of such so-called anthropomorphic (= attributing human shape, hand, foot, eye, etc. to God) and anthropopathic (= attributing human emotion, anger, regret, etc. to God) expressions, which however should not be taken in their literal sense. This is how we should understand, for example, at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, that "God said," although God did not say anything but created by pure will.
Therefore, the strong anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of Scripture, especially of the Old Testament (God shows anger, regret, etc. - Genesis 6:6; Psalm 106:40, Hosea 1:6) etc.) should be measured and adjusted to the basic faith truth of God's immutability. These are said because of the observable outward effect, not because of the similarity of emotions. So "God regretted that he made man" means: what God did because of people's depravity achieved effects similar to when people regret their actions. So, of course, God did not decide the flood when the Bible indicates it, but decided it from eternity. And of course, God was not "grieving" in the strict sense of the word "in his heart", these (and similar) expressions are only used by Scripture because humans can only speak of God in a human way, and because it wants to teach man through them: to see how great the sin is, and to know that if the measure is full, God's punitive "hand" will reach him. So this is a human expression for God punishing the sinful man, and that because of his infinite holiness, he detests sin.
The Bible therefore uses the method of speaking about God in anthropomorphisms. It can only make God's personhood, his active behavior perceptible if it compares him to man. It talks about God's face, eye, ear, hand, ways, feet. These do not want to depict God's shape, but the way God affects man. The anthropomorphisms do not depict God himself. The prophetic visions do not show his shape either, but rather make his effect on humans perceptible. The Semitic spirituality is not interested in the external shape and the limbs, but rather their function. This is why, for example, we read in the book of Isaiah that the mountains rejoice and the trees clap their hands (55:12). When prophetic literature speaks of God in human terms, it does not provide a visual image of Him, but rather attempts to express His entire essence and personality, much like how individual parts are representative of activity and characteristics. God's personality is best illuminated by His being the sovereign actor, the creator of the world, the director of history, and humans being His image by subduing the earth (Genesis 1:26-28). God's personality is further elucidated by images that detail His activities: He sees, hears, speaks, laughs, gets angry, and reconciles. But human behavior can only be a tool of comparison because it is backed by spiritual consciousness, personality. Jehovah cannot be portrayed using animal depictions. The Old Testament does not forget that the distance between God and man is infinite (Genesis 18:17; Exodus 3:5; Isaiah 28:29). The prophets also adopted anthropomorphism because they saw no danger to the concept of God. Only theological reflection and the guidance of the people's thinking led later Greek and Aramaic translators to occasionally soften expressions that could endanger pure transcendence. Looking back from the New Testament, we can see the preparation for incarnation in anthropomorphism.
So, in explaining anthropomorphism, we always have to think of God's absolute spirituality, infinity, immutability, omnipresence, and sovereignty. For example, when it is said that He gets angry and reconciles, it is not He who changes, but we project the change in our relationship with Him.
The Watchtower merely speaks of God's "possibility" (!) of foreknowledge. Well, this proposition is simply false even logically. It would present God as if He were not omniscient by nature, but just has a kind of crystal ball, and if He feels the need to know what the future holds, then He peeks into it. But if He is "not curious" about the future, then He can plug his ears, like the clerk in the commercial, saying "pa-pa-pa-pa." :-)
No, from omniscience, it directly follows that God cannot not know anything. This is wrong for the simple reason that God does not exist in time but above time, so from His point of view, everything that happens in the created world essentially happens "all at once." And if He knows what happens in the created world (and He does), then He knows everything that will ever happen in the created world. Therefore, if you rigorously consider the JW's argument in this regard, it significantly discounts God, portraying Him as figuratively biting His nails, worried about whether the first human couple will fall into sin, realistically hoping that it won't happen. This is complete nonsense.
Divine omniscience means He knows the past, understands the present, sees the future, and nothing is unknown to Him. God fully understands Himself and everything outside of Him. From God's infinity, it directly follows that nothing is unknown to Him. Infinity is only infinite if it is limitless in all respects, including in terms of knowledge. So God knows even the smallest, most insignificant, most hidden things, and even the world of possibilities, desires, and plans is not hidden from Him, whether they are realized or not. He knows about events even before they occur, and He never forgets a single moment.
In the face of divine eternity, there is no past or future, everything is constantly present before Him; eternity equals every moment of time, and is simultaneous with every point in time, just as every point on the circumference of a circle is in the same relation to the center. Consequently, God perceives future things in the constant present of His eternity, and this perception does not influence our future events any more than the observer on the tower influences the possible direction of a troop passing below him. Just as our remembrance does not change and does not influence the past, His foreknowledge does not influence the future. So we can formulate it like this: Something doesn't happen because God knows it in advance, but because it happens, He knows it.
God does not merely foresee the future like a seer, but is present at every point in time, therefore also in the future. God sees the future because what is an uncertain future for us is present for Him, therefore the future is as certain to God as the past. This means that God knows the future, and nevertheless man has free determination.
The Watchtower relativizes God's real omniscience to a possibility, like deciding whether to take my beer out of the fridge at all, to drink it, and if so, when. However, God's omniscience does not stem from some optional fortune-telling talent, but from the absolute and infinite reality, which means that He is conceptually beyond all created beings, so it is perfectly natural that all those dimensions (space, time), which organize our existence into limits, do not exist for Him.
The key thing is that in God, the knowledge of the creaturely world is not a skill or ability that he must want to use, but rather he has real, essential omniscience. This thesis automatically follows from the fact that time itself is a created reality, and the creator cannot be limited by a created reality. Furthermore, temporality implies limitation, but God has no limits, he is always present at the same time, which we perceive as a timeline. But regardless of this, the Holy Scriptures also claim God's real omniscience, so even if you deny this basic tenet (which you can't refute anyway), you should still accept it because the Bible declares this. Of course, it can be justified most easily metaphysically: just as every point on the circumference of a circle is equidistant from the center of the circle, every point on the timeline that denotes the change in the creaturely world is equally present to God. The infinity of God is in the Bible, I quoted a few such things in some letters. And countless times it is also in there that God's reality is infinitely more perfect than what can be described with human words, and this should be taken into account when "theologizing" about God himself. Time is the measure of change, so only a changing thing can be described by temporality, but God is unchangeable, this is even explicitly in the Bible! The infinity of God does not mean infinity in a mathematical sense, that you can add as much as you want, etc., but rather that the quantifiability and quantity are in fact creaturely categories, the creator God cannot be characterized by them.
The JWs relativize God's transcendence, essentially claiming covertly that God is somehow bounded by a structure He created, specifically time. Think about it: before He created the world, time did not exist, but God did not create the grid of time for Himself so that the clock starts ticking over Him from now on, this only applies to the created world. When talking about time in theology, it's important to logically define the concept of time. The concept of time is nothing more than that time is the measure of change. So the passage of time measures the degree of change, just as a video recording consists of frames. And the Bible says this about God in this regard: "He never changes or casts a shifting shadow." (James 1:17) Now if time is the measure of change, it follows that where/who does not change, time does not apply. For God, every moment of the entire created world condenses into a single moment, a cosmic "now": From God's perspective, the fall of man into sin occurred at the same "time" as the present moment. For God, there is no past, present, and future. For Him, it is always "today", there is no passage of time for Him, He doesn't have time, so from His perspective, it makes no sense to talk about "seeing into the future", because for Him, what is future for us is present for Him.
Returning to our original debate, Christians do not merely confess and proclaim the true divinity of the Son because the New Testament Scriptures use the word "GOD" (theos) for him, but because the attributes attributed to the Son in the Scriptures have no other meaning in this regard. JWs defend themselves by saying that, yes, but the Scriptures do not call the Son "almighty". Well, the 'sine qua non' of true deity is not that the word pantocrator appears literally, if otherwise EVERY attribute necessary for deity, and the emphatic assertion of the "God" statement is present. Especially since the Scriptures implicitly teach the omnipotence of the Son (Mt 28:18, Jn 3:35, 5:19, Heb 1:3), if you do not accept Rev 1:8.
By the way, in Rev 1:8 it is most likely not God the Father speaking (not only he is "Jehovah"), but the Son/Word, as far as I know, in the book of Revelation either John or the Son speaks in the third person singular. Rev 1:11.17 nicely identifies who the Alpha and Omega, First and Last are. Moreover, according to 1:8, He is also the Coming One (ho erhkomenos), of whom 1:7 already spoke ("He comes with the clouds"). So, according to these, Jesus is the Almighty. According to the text variant inserted into the NA text, he is also "the God" (ho theos). And in Rev 1:11a, according to the NA text, the Alpha and Omega are not present for Jesus. But the other place is still authentic, and here it is specifically Jesus who, speaking, calls himself Alpha and Omega:
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are those who keep His commandments [...] I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." (Rev 22:13.16)
And here from verse 16, it is clear that these are the words of Jesus Christ, and there is no change of speaker between them. Plus, the First and Last (1:17), which essentially means the same as the Alpha and Omega, is also Jesus' title according to the Watchtower (although they explain that he is not "the First and Last" in the same way as the Father). Plus, this, unlike the word "apostle", cannot be applied to two person of different ranks, only to co-equals. Therefore, by acknowledging that this title is applied to the Father in Rev 22:13, the Watchtower admits that the Son is at least as much "first and last" as the Father.
Moreover, as I said, Christian Christology not only asserts the Son's divinity but also his true humanity, and thus, as a man, he is naturally the servant of the Father, and God for him is the Father, this does not exclude that he is otherwise one (in reality) with him in terms of his divinity. Here is a well-developed aid diagram: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG
The main Christological directions can be debated, but I think this would be interesting only from a historical-theological perspective, unless the Watchtower would always want to confuse the Trinity with modalism or tritheism, to then get a more easily "refutable" straw man. The type of Christology that eventually explicitly crystallized at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, was also palpable in the first 3 centuries, as a solid point that was always implicitly confessed in the mainstream tradition of the Church. These cannot be compared to the selectively picked up completely insignificant, regional sectarian movements.
If the Son is the true, metaphysical Son of God the Father, and not just an adopted Son, then he is also God. The high priest and the Jews, for example, understood exactly what it means to say that Jesus is truly the Son of God, because in Jewish tradition, the son inherited his father's name, title, and social position: "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God" (Jn 5:18).
If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus is the almighty God. Jesus confirmed this. He showed divine power through miracles: "Behold, I cast out demons and perform healings today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish" (Lk 13:32). He claimed divine right by forgiving sins and modifying divine laws: "So that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Mk 2:10). "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago (...) But I tell you: (...)" (Mt 5:33). He claimed the divine name by often referring to himself by the name by which God introduced Himself to Moses at Mount Horeb (I Am): "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins" (Jn 8:24). "Very truly I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am" (Jn 8:58). With this, Christ also teaches His eternity, because He says that Abraham was created, and time-bound, but He, as God, is independent of time: "I am."
The introduction of the Gospel of John, which calls the second person, the Son of God, the "Word". Of course, only the spiritual word can be understood here. Because before we, as humans, would utter a word, we must first form a clear concept in our minds. If I don't understand something, I can't talk about it. Before I say "human", I need to have understood what this word means, in other words, I need to form a concept of what a human is. This concept can be called a spiritual word and it precedes the spoken word. In the same way, God understands Himself, knows Himself, and forms a perfect concept of Himself from eternity, expressing His own essence in a spiritual "Word", "which was in the beginning, was with God, and was God" (Jn 1:1). Our concepts are poor, imperfect, lifeless, even our highest spiritual "creations". God's Word is the summary of His own most perfect essence, it is God, the Son of God; alive, like God the Father; the personal divine Wisdom.
It's entirely unnecessary for you to argue that "the Son received everything from the Father", because this is also confessed in the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is included in the Nicene Creed, that the Son "was born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father; by Him all things were made." Therefore, there is a logical (but not temporal) sequence between the Father and the Son: the Father begets the Son, the Son is born of the Father: He received His existence from the Father (but not in time, but outside time), and shared His entire essence with Him ("My Father has handed everything over to me"), therefore He also received His (full and essential) divinity from Him according to us – this however does not empty His divinity. We even confess that the Son receives all His knowledge from the Father from eternity. Due to the Trinitarian origin, the Son is conceptually dependent on the Father, and this provides sufficient logical basis for the way of speaking that the Son follows the Father, and is subordinate to Him, and the Father is the source of the Trinity, therefore it is especially Him who can be attributed (but not monopolized against the Son and the Holy Spirit) the name of God. In the words of St. Hilary: "The Father is greater due to the primacy of the gift of love, yet not lesser is He who is given existence". Because of this Trinitarian origin, Jesus's deity does not become an incidental, peelable "plus", since this did not happen in time: Jesus's existence cannot be separated from His divinity – thus the act of receiving does not take on the meaning with which you want to justify your Arianism.
The Word, as God, is of course timeless and unchangeable. Thus, everything related to Jesus that implies change and temporality must be attributed to His humanity. He was conceived as a human, was born, was crucified, died, resurrected, "ascended" to heaven, was exalted, was inaugurated as the Messiah-King, etc. These all apply to Jesus as a human.
Jesus Christ as God never changes. But because He took human body and soul onto Himself and united personally with them (hypostatic union), after His Ascension, somehow the human nature was also glorified in Him. Not in a way that it became part of the Trinity*, but in a way that it got closer to it; approached and forever the divine light and blessing of the Trinity flows onto it. Since the human nature of Jesus was also glorified, it includes us in the trinitarian life of God.
* Because we do not claim divinity for Jesus's humanity, what is created, can never become God.
The Son is due all divine and royal titles and honors, while the angels are merely called "ministering spirits" (v. 14), who worship the Son. For the Son is fully God - not an angel. Angels should not be worshipped, as that would be an act against God. Only God deserves worship. Rev 22:8-9 emphasizes this: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”" In both Rev 22:8 and Heb 1,6, the same Greek word: proskuneo ("worship, adulate") is used. The worship that, according to Rev 22:8k, is due only to God, and which angels should not accept, is the same worship and adulation with which, according to Heb 1:6, the angels worship the first-born Son. The fact that it is possible to pray to Jesus, and that he is thus God, is confirmed by many other verses, such as Jn 14:13k; Acts 7:59k; Rom 10:9.13; 1Cor 1:2 and Col 3:17 (see above). Therefore, Jesus is not an angel, but God.
Bruce M. Metzger: The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
aqwsed12345
It's a pity that you don't want to touch on the issue of the legitimacy of the Church, after all that would be the key, not the biblical ping-pong, and linguistics, which can hardly be a measure of the truth, after all God, who wants everyone to be saved, gives the truth to everyone provided with recognizable marks.
"There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." (Thomas Babington Macaulay)
"Firstborn, not having a temporal priority" - In fact, the title "Firstborn" has nothing to do with temporality, but with preeminence, supremacy.
"For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims" - I never said that you should accept anything on my authority. I am just a "dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants", as Bernard of Chartres said.
""you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I haven't read them all before" - From the fact that your arguments show that you don't know the counterargument. Like when in chess it seems that the opponent does not foresee my next move. However, here I myself hinted at what it would be.
""you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you haven't answered?" - Feel free to do it. Anyway, this is called a 'te quoque' argument.
""together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone" - What does this have to do with the alleged NT "Jehovah"? If I have a sink in my bathroom, does it follow that my living room has to have one as well? In any case, the fact that there was a text variant of the Septuagint that contained it was nothing new, after all Origen and Jerome (who even allegedly saw the Hebrew Matthew) reported on it, but no one about in the NT. Otherwise, the Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and the Song of Songs. Couldn't it have been there as well, only the "apostate" copyists removed it, and should it be "restored" in the NWT? After all, with your logic, it's impossible that if it's in one book, it can't not be in the other. In any case, according to the majority opinion of researchers, this was a later, re-Hebraizing, heterodox reading of the LXX, and the fact that it was not included in the NT in the first place is simply justified by the different theological environment.
"and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim accurate bible translation)" - No one disputed that it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, and no one ever made any edition of the Hebrew text where it would have been transcribed to Adonai. And whether Yahweh should be written in the vernacular translations of the Old Testament or not, and that is not a forgery, it can be argued, Christianity has freedom in this matter. There are a number of Christian translations that include it and some that don't. Where it is translated as "Lord", the preface and the footnote always refer to it, and usually bring it in small capitals (LORD). It's not a matter of salvation, that's the point. On the contrary, writing it into the New Testament without manuscript evidence, based on speculation, is indeed a forgery, just like many well-known, theologically biased insertions and distortions.
"" the latter should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistent because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1." - Simple: in the light of the fuller statement, the Holy Scripture attributes a full ("active") contribution to creation to the Son, which is described elsewhere with different grammatical devices and a different way of phrasing. Just as there are differences in the description of certain events in the synoptic gospels, it can be described in the same way the same theological truths, sometimes in a more complete form, sometimes in a partial form. By the way, the grammatical passive is not the same as the theological description, the Father's role as creator can also be described in a grammatically passive sentence, e.g. "the world was created by the Father." This is grammatically passive, in any case it does not detract from his creative contribution.
"why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"" - The "only" difference is that it is not stated anywhere that Solomon built the Temple "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands," whereas it is written that YHWH God "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands" created the world, so not through the cooperation of an "agent" creature outside of Him.
""The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your counsels, they can claim what they like" - This shows that you did not even read what I wrote, let alone my links, with understanding and attention. I never said that the universal councils were "inspired", but only that they were "infallible". But even if you do not accept this, their content is still relevant, after all, without understanding what the teaching is that you are trying to refute, you will try to refute it in vain, since you're attacking a straw man. The point is that Catholic theology is a systematized summary of revealed religious truth that does not contradict any statement of Scripture.
"and just because it is not inspired doesn't mean it can't be cited for grammatical structures." - Indeed, but since hundreds of years passed between the end of the Old Testament revelation and even the translation of the LXX and the writing of the New Testament books, it can only have limited significance due to linguistic changes and the theological environment. And as we see in the New Testament, there is not a single precedent that the level of adoration described with the verbs 'proskuneo' AND 'latreuo', can be legitimately applied to a creature. After all, why does the apostle reject this in Acts 10:25-26?
""and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too." - The fact that the cherubim are above the angels and archangels is also clear from the Scriptures, but this has always been the teaching of Judaism and Christianity about the angelic hierarchy. Considering 2 Peter 2:11, this gives a good justification for Jude 9. Jesus, on the other hand, pronounced a clear judgment on Satan (Jn 16:11; cf. Jn 5:22, 27; 1 Jn 3:8; Col 2:15).
""Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both categories so he can be a mediator." - Jesus Christwas never sinful (what kind of impious blasphemy is this?), let alone in his life or death. The apostle asserts that "the man Jesus" is the mediator. I still don't know where you read that the Son was an archangel either after his incarnation or after his death. The existence of a person (both Christ's and man's) does not end with death, but there is continuity between the present and the future existence. Jehovah did not re-create Jesus as the glorified Archangel Michael, but he appeared to his disciples as he was: their crucified and resurrected Lord and Master. Thus, he certainly had a new, glorified body, a (beyond earthly imagination) "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44 ff.), but he was clearly identifiable. The dead and buried Lord was brought back to life by the action of God (cf. Acts 2:31-34; Eph 5:14), and although in a new, materially not identical, but not just seeming bodily existence (cf. Jn 20 and 21). He appears to the disciples in visible and tangible form (Jn 20:27; Lk 24; Acts 1:1-6; cf. Jn 1,1-3), even if he does not always allow such contact (Jn 20:17), because from now on they must recognize him as glorified – therefore, independent of his bodily form (2Cor 5:16). Although Jesus is in the light and spirit world of the new era (aión), he practices human fellowship with them by eating and drinking (Lk 24:29k; Jn 21:12-14).
If the Watchtower Society claims that Jesus did not really rise bodily, but showed himself with a seeming body "similar to other angels," it dangerously skirts spiritualism and Gnostic docetism (even if only in connection with Jesus' post-death state). Scripture emphatically emphasizes the physicality of the resurrection against any claim of seeming corporality and spiritual manifestation (see the above scriptures). It contradicts the nature of the biblical Jesus, who is "the truth" (Jn 14:6) in his person, to attribute a seeming manifestation in body to him. Specifically, for the purpose of simulating a resurrection for the disciples, which, according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, is allegedly not possible in this form.
The believers never - even after the resurrection - partake in the mode of existence in which Christ is, because Christ is God and we are human. Human resurrection - according to biblical revelation there are no exceptions - follows from the resurrection of Christ, "the firstfruits of the dead" (cf. 1Cor 15,20-24). However, this never provides the same divine mode of existence that Christ has had eternally. The Bible also knows several types of resurrection, but not like Jehovah's Witnesses. It speaks much more clearly of resurrection for eternal life or eternal damnation (Mt 25:31-36; Rev 20:11-15), and additionally (or identifying it with the first) speaks of "resurrection" (exanastasis) or "first resurrection" in the case of those who died in faith, which occurs concurrently with the "rapture" of living believers and preceding the general resurrection of the last day (Phil 3:11; 1Thes 4:16). It mentions nothing about the alleged trial opportunity for those who come to life during the millennium. Rather, it applies: "...it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment..." (Heb 9,27). Finally, the scripture does not know about the class divisions imagined by the Watchtower Society.
"if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because he is God" - If he was "only" God, then really no, fortunately, according to Catholic teaching, he took on human nature with the Incarnation and will not put it down ever. So Jesus Christ is still God AND man, united in the hypostatic unity, so we have a mediator.
"" according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.." - Since the Scriptures nowhere state that he ceased to be a man and is only an archangel now, therefore there is no contradiction here, at most, between this statement of the apostle and the Christology of the Watchtower.
""giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi" - I've already answered this, I'm just quoting myself:
The word "honor" (gr. time) is a broader concept than worship, so all worship is also respect, but not all respect is worship. In other words, if we read that the Son must be honored just as the Father is, that includes all kinds of honor for the Father, including worship. On the other hand, all kinds of honor for the Father are adoring respect, since no respect can be imagined that is not addressed to him as God. After all, the Father is none other than God: he is not a man and not a state body to be respected in a civil sense. Therefore, since all this honor also belongs to Jesus, his worthiness of worship is immediately given, and thus also his divinity of the same essence as that of the Father.
""if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really?" - Yes, according to John, Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, and Isaiah writes that he saw the glory of Yahweh, so Jesus is (also) Yahweh.
""it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out" - In my eyes, "philosophy" is not a pejorative term; it involves "auxiliary concepts" that are not found in the biblical (basic) vocabulary but are used by every theological trend. Each of these has its own legitimacy. It can't even be said that theology was the one that introduced these "words, expressions, concepts, and even thought algorithms". It is more the case that in the era when the foundations of theology were laid, these were completely well-known among the intellectuals dealing with these matters. In this sense, the Middle Ages were not "dark" at all, but in terms of certain intellectual truths, it was much more open than today.
I think the problem lies in the fact that many individuals who identify themselves as Christians are so characterized by extreme anti-intellectualism and a cult of stupidity, as well as the resulting fideism, that they simply approach every such concept with inherent disgust. The cult of stupidity, of course, is not only prevalent in religions today, as stupidity has generally gained civil rights in the world. A few decades ago, if someone was a simple laborer, they did not brag about their vocabulary extending to only a few thousand words, and they would probably be ashamed to go on television to show their primitiveness. Today, due to so-called "reality shows", it has almost become fashionable to be stupid. Today, to be "cultured" is "uncool", identified with alienation and bookwormness.
If in the past someone didn't know the basic categories of logic, they wouldn't dare to go up to a professor and educate them, saying "What are you being smart about? Just think simply, and it's all good!" Today, this is completely appropriate, and it's evident on this forum as well. If I use an expression that the person doesn't understand, it doesn't trigger them to look it up and become more knowledgeable, but rather like a male gorilla during mating season, they start beating their chest saying, "I don't understand this, I'm stupid and proud of it!" and they start jabbing at me for "being smart" here.
To return to the point: these technical terms do not speak of a fictional, created reality, they are not completely artificial categories introduced just to eliminate contradictions, but they describe reality. So the question indeed is, what is the truth? But here, I think it leads back to the theory of knowledge, to which I would say that Christianity is not complete without Thomistic epistemology :) Because if truth cannot be recognized, then we are in agnosticism, and we might as well throw everything out the window. If not, then the question immediately arises: where can we acquire knowledge. New Christian sectarians rely solely on the formal logical nitpicking of the Bible, which is a one-sided shift in favor of faith over reason. Our answer is that God made man an intelligent being so that he could use his intellect, so we profess that true knowledge can be acquired logically as well: e.g., by inference. This is the so-called speculative method (note: if someone who does not know what I'm talking about and just wants to argue is reading this, let me signal that the so-called "speculative method" is not the same as what is slightly pejoratively called speculation in today's colloquial language). This kind of thing fits your character exactly, because you have the ability to understand these things, that's why I recommended works of such as Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
Of course, this cannot be used in a religious debate with a fideist-biblicist "new Christian", because their approach would be to spit in their palm, pick up a verse from here and one from there in the Bible, and then slap it down, saying here you go. What can I do in this case? Well, if you watch my debates with such people, you can see that I am quite trying to adapt to my debate partner's method. Staying with the example you also cited, I didn't just point to the categories used by Thomas Aquinas, because then I would have had to start another 3-page explanation about how dare I do this, because "the Bible is written for simple people", etc. Instead, I also showed biblical examples to demonstrate to my debate partner that the regulations of the wording I referred to do indeed exist in the Scripture as well.
An ancient author didn't need these concepts to correctly interpret the Scriptures, because the spirituality of the given era was different. It's something like if the English language, with its natural environment of the language, disappeared, and two thousand years later, various linguists would argue about the meanings of such English words as sunrise. We use this word completely naturally, we know what it means literally, and how it relates to the cosmological reality indicated by it. But two thousand years later, this would no longer be natural, but scholars would probably describe these meanings with various technical terms.
A more everyday example: a small child learns their native language without realizing that the language they are acquiring can be organized into structures, can be described. They don't know phonemes, morphemes, parts of speech, etc., but simply use it naturally.
The same is true with the Bible.
This interpretation of the scripture does not create contradictions, at most explaining it to someone who previously imagined that they approached the Bible with such a "blunt axe" attitude. In fact, it eliminates all contradictions. Let's see a concrete example: The Scripture teaches that there is one God: yet it states both explicitly and implicitly that there are three subjects who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the created world, we might think that this is not possible. This is where we have concepts that resolve this contradiction. Sticking to this specific example: the distinction of such concepts as the person (the being) and the essence (the entity, substance). These concepts describe existing reality, just in the created world we don't often need them because for us person and essence coincide. However, if we want to organize God's revelation found in Scripture into structures, these concepts are of great service. In the first centuries, there was not much need for this, they were satisfied with the faith that there is one God, but God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most comprehensible form possible for human reason, did not concern them. This was enough at the given stage, but as certain heresies arose, it was no longer possible to avoid the matter by saying "we don't understand it, let's not deal with it", but the Church had to formulate its faith, now cast in definitive form. But the "basic vocabulary" is not enough for this, we need analytic-descriptive concepts. The Jehovah's Witness response is satisfied with the fact that it begins to grumble that the Οὐσία and the ὑπόστᾰσις expressions have a linguistic history with the works of ancient Hellenic philosophers. I replied to this, "we cannot accept as a basis for debate the stupid, concrete-headed and paganophobic attitude that if a Greek philosopher used a certain expression (e.g., ousia, hypostasis, physis, etc.), then every Christian tenet that ever used these concepts for its description should be considered false based solely on this fact."
Another example: in the New Testament, the statements about Jesus seem to be formally contradictory, as on the one hand there are those about the person that we must confess that He is a real God, with all the consequences; on the other hand, there are statements that He is not God, but just a human. This is formally impossible, as there is nothing like this in the created world. However, this is what we find in Scripture, and then either we throw the Bible out the window, or try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response to this is to absolutize the attributes suggesting one nature and then start to cut away at the other with a chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, I think you realize it too. Again, we are at the point where this needs to be put into harmony, and this contradiction is resolved by Jesus' dual nature. Then there was a problem, there is no problem? Do you understand? :)
If you make the criterion of a religious truth the simple people's "common sense" compliance, indeed, not much would remain of Christianity, as it is full of miracles: they simply do not meet the "common sense". Now I don't mean the quick answer that "God can do it", but the question of how exactly. But it shows that if you have to explain miracles, even the wildest rationalist-biblicist can dismiss it by saying that it is supernatural, and it does not matter if it does not match formal logic, whereas with the Trinity, they are no longer able to do the same. What an inconsistency! By the way, Russell's method was also this: no longer starting from what traditional theologians do, which is to summarize what is in the Bible, and based on this, establish certain regularities, etc., but more like this: let's sit down and think about whether it's reasonable to be this way. If not, then this must be used as a starting point for interpreting Scripture. This is rationalism, which essentially a priori excludes the existence of a mystery.
"Rationalist: intellectual; rationalism – intellectualism; rationalist theology– a scriptural interpretation and theological direction, following the spirit of the Enlightenment, which places human reason above the Holy Scripture; what it does not find reasonable, it is not willing to accept as God's word, but considers it to be human weakness, error, or subsequent, deliberate, detectable, and correctable changes of the writers or the copiers. The Rationalism is the cognitive theoretical conception proclaiming the absolute authority, unlimited cognitive ability of human reason; a theological direction accepting dogmas that can also be understood with rational arguments.
The rationalists and their peculiar doctrines
E.g. Unitarian Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphian Bible Mission
- Their handling of the Bible is liberal: reason overrules the revelation, so what does not seem logical at first, must be denied (e.g., the Trinity). - Cf. Acts 17:29
- If there is still something "illogical" in the Bible for them, it is either the human error of the writers (unitarians), or it was caused by an ancient Bible forgery (e.g., according to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and God "became confusable"). Cf. Mt 24:35, 1Pt 1:23-25
- The two ways of rationalism: individualism (the unitarians only agree in doubting the Trinity) or uniformism (the Witnesses cannot interpret the Bible independently of the publications of the Watchtower Society). - Cf. 1Jn 2:27; 2Tim 3:14-17
- Jesus' death was only caused by human wickedness, it was not God's will (unitarians), or his death was just an archangel's redeeming death (Witnesses). - Cf. Mt 16:21, Heb 10:3-7; Heb 1:5-8, Phil 2:6-11, Jn 1:1,14
- The process of redemption: "Following the religion of Jesus," the individual realization of the "Jesus life ideal" (unitarians), or active and faithful service within "God's visible organization" is a prerequisite (Witnesses). - Cf. Eph 2:1-10, Tit 3:4-5; 1Pt 1:5-9
""he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born." - yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a response to this [false] claim" - It seems that repeating is not enough, because it still does not occur to you that the Scriptures do not say anywhere that the Father "created" the Son, nor that he is a "creature." I wonder why not? If you have found where the Bible states these, I look forward to it :-)
View Origen quotes.
""are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research." - If you agree with Watchtower theology 80% of the time (according to your statement), then I assumed that you know their literature well. Well, they can't help emphasizing that their teachings are "completely clear" in the Bible, as we can see, none of the specific JW doctrines are stated in the Scriptures, that's why they emphasize that you can't understand the Bible without the "spiritual food" (=interpretation) of the "faithful and discreet" class (=GB of the WTS). So these doctrines only have the (alleged) basis in the Bible, isn't it a double standard and hypocrisy to mock the Trinity for the same reason?
""Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?" - Where it begins with the words "in the beginning", which refers back to Genesis 1:1 (also according to the NWT marginal note), when God created "the heavens" (=spiritual world) and "the earth" (=material world), so he created these two simultaneously. And when these were created, then the Son already "was", so He is not part of the creation.
"John was inspired to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details?" - He didn't need to know all the "details", just what he wrote: the Son already WAS "in the beginning", so when God created the world, so he is not part of the created world.
"" then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept." - No, this is only based on your interpretation, the Trinitarian interpretation of these two statements establishes that there is no contradiction between the two. God created "alone", and at the same time the Son was also created. And since the Son is one God with the Father, this already solves the puzzle: since the Son is also YHWH God, God was able to create "alone" so that the Son could also create. The explicit statement that God alone and exclusively created conflicts with your interpretation, if in fact he used an "agent" outside of God, a creature, which, in addition to contradicting the Scriptures, also contradicts logic.
"" You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians any day." - It wouldn't hurt you to delve into the early Christian literature, maybe you would realize that there was never an early Watchtowerite Christianity.
When it comes to the meaning of the word "arkhe", it must be taken into account that it does not mean "temporal beginning", but principle, primordial source, from which the creation pours out.
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
aqwsed12345

Blotty
You read all my sources pretty quickly, well, not really, you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading", it's easy so...
Well, the study of early Christian literature is important because the basic idea of the Watchtower is that they represent the "restoration" of the faith of early Christianity. Although you didn't answer where in the New Testament it was prophesied that heresy ("apostasy") could come to rule in the apostolic church ("congregation") at all, let alone that it would actually happen this way, and a 19th century schismatic Adventist movement will only restore the "true faith." And the alleged legitimacy of the Watchtower is based on the alleged parousia of 1914.
So, if you claim that the current belief of the Watchtower (Why exactly the current one? Maybe "new light" will be announced tomorrow...) is exactly the same as the belief of the early apostolic church, then it is perfectly appropriate to look at extrabiblical sources, whether they suggest this at all. Well, the answer is absolutely not.
Of course, you can push aside all the church fathers, that they were all "apostates", but then were your "non-apostate" church fathers? Or do you think that this wicked "apostate" church is such a perfect falsifier of history that it was able to completely disappear all traces of the alleged anciente Watchtowerite Christianity together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts? That just sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.
""John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from" - a similar verb is used of a certain human.." Which other person is "made flesh"?
The examples cited for the Watchtower quote collection all show that they do not even respect their sources enough to at least cite the entire text with context. This will result in some of the author's more cautious wordings being presented as "scientific consensus", deceiving their readers: "You see, even they ADMITTED IT in their lexicon!!". This triumphalist talk is unfounded, and it is not scientific methodology.
"The point is even trinitarians themselves admit the NT is only the BASIS for the doctrine and it is not taught in scripture." - And that is more than enough. Check THIS about their quote from the Encyclopædia Britannica, which is just a secular encyclopedia, not "the Trinitarians". I note: perhaps the specific teachings of the Watchtower (Jesus = Michael, Jesus is a creature, 1914, two-class system, etc etc.) are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation? Double standard...
"Luke 24:39 - you convieniantly omit 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 from your list." - Or the latter two should be interpreted in the light of the first given verse (and John 2:19-22), and not the other way around. "Body" (soma) and "flesh" (sarx), "flesh and blood", "flesh and bone", these all represent different shades of meaning and cannot be played against each other. The 'sarx' is just the carnal, mortal, corruptible body. Jesus' resurrected body was a real body, but now with incorruptibility. That he became an (arch)angel is not claimed by any text.
""You continue to avoid the statement" - am I avoiding?" - Yes, you are. I keep asking you that, if Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel, then who is now the mediator (in prayers, etc.) that, according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?
""Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God?" - the answer is yes (in some sense of the word)" - Nope, giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry.
"the same word [proskuneó] is used in the LXX of God and humans.. thats how I would answer ""And how do you know that it is the other one?"" - The LXX is not an inspired work, but a translation (with numerous errors), which is a valuable source for textual criticism, but is of no importance in this case. Where in the New Testament is the verb 'proskuneo' used to legitimately honor people? It is found only in Acts 10:25, but as the next verse shows, Peter rejects it too. So yes, the burden of proof is on you that the verb 'proskuneo' means something different for the Son than for the Father. Check THIS too. Luke 4:8 quotes the Ten Commandments:
"Worship [proskuneo] the Lord your God and serve [latreuo] him only."
Therefore, both 'proskuneo' and 'latreuo' can be rendered only to the one true God (YHWH), and as we see, the degree of adoration described with both with the first (Hebrews 1:6) and the second verb (Revelation 22:3) is to be renderes to the Son too. Anyway, if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too.
"" According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? " - didnt know someone could distort my point so much they get this out of it." - I just reversed your logicel: if you think there is only one archangel, because where the New Testament says "archangel" it is in the singular, then by this logic there is only one thing of all that is only mentioned in the singular.
"Where is another Archangel meantioned in the bible?" - Where it's writing about the seven chief prince angels standing before God's throne. By the way, Satan was a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14, cf. Isaiah 14:12), and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan.
""if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10." - Hebrews 1:10 must be taken in light of the passive role" - Why "must" be? Or just the other way around: the latters should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement.
""he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation" - the scriptures above would disagree" - They wouldn't, just your interpretation of them. If we start from the fact that the Son is also Yahweh God, then the statements about Jesus' participation in the creation do not violate the specific statements that God creates "alone", "by himself", "with his own hands", nor logic.
"The Father alone created through the agent (Jesus)" - If the Father created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.
Genesis 1:26 - God does not speak to the angels, but it is either a plural of majesty (as 'Elohim' is also plural), or to the Son, who is not "of the angels". Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1). Even the WTS didn't claim this either. Nowhere do we find angels involved in any type of creation. According to the Bible, angels are created beings, not co-creators with God. The psalmist wrote:
"Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts . . . Let them praise the Lord for He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2,5).
Genesis 1:26 has a possible Trinitarian interpretation, since the one to whom he first spoke (the Son) is God as well as the Father - since it is written that in the image of God, and the expression "in our image" extends the deity to the addressed. The Bible specifically states that only YHWH God created, thereby excluding all things other than YHWH from participating in creation. Thus, if the Son is said to be the creator, then we must place him within God, not outside. If the mason was helped by an assistant to build, then it can no longer be said of the mason that he alone built the house. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. Only God created, yet there are several persons, so these persons must be placed within the one God, otherwise it would be a self-contradiction.
"he is not just a "creature" - while he is part of creation he holds a very speical position far from any mere "creature"" - Even if you maintain that he is a creature in a "special position", he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born.
"John 2:19 - Even A.T Robertson would disagree, which of the church fathers said this? since they are infallible according to you" - The text itself says that 1) Jesus also actively participates in his own resurrection, 2) it is about the resurrection of his BODY, not his "recreation as an archangel". Individual church fathers are indeed not infallible, but collectively, as witnesses of the early Christian faith, they prove the faith of the early church. You can see what they said about this verse HERE.
""it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - if it contradicts the bible it is, but hey how about i just leave a citation for you to read" - That "the philosophy" generally contradicts the Bible, the Bible does not say so. If it contradicts the revelation in terms of a proposition or train of thought, it must of course be rejected, but such a general shift does not follow from nowhere. The apostles themselves used a series of terms and concepts that had obvious parallels with Greek philosophy.
Regarding the Durant quote, the WTS fails to mention that historians Will Durant made similar dismissive statements about things that the Society believes in. For example, according to pages 594-595 of Durant's book (Caesar and Christ), "The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the fourth gospel is Greek philosophy... John joined the Greek philosophers." The Society's quote from him: "The idea of the divine trinity originated in Egypt" is incomplete, Durant also includes the Last Judgement among Egyptian ideas, and a little lower he declares: "Millennialism originated in Persia" (i.e., the hope of the Millennial Kingdom, a teaching of fundamental importance for Jehovah's Witnesses). Check HERE the full quote of Durant.
And philosophy should not be "destroyed" anyway, but dealt with as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says: "examine everything; hold firmly to that which is good".
"cite me an instance, where firstborn followed by a genitive (or in general) where the subject is not part of the category it is firstborn of?" - Why should I? If the title "Firstborn" refers to his pre-eminence, supremacy, then the natural reading is that he is the Lord, the ruler of all creation. This reading is supported by the context and the continuation: THEREFORE he is the "Firstborn" (the ruler) of creation, BECAUSE all things were created in him. Check THIS too. Another source:
Trinitarian Exegesis and Theology: Prov 8.22 according to the Cappadocian Fathers

""which are about the creation of created things." - John 1 doesnt talk about the creation of the heavens and earth, only earth." - Where did you read this? In John 1, he does not limit "the beginning" to the earth at all, he refers back to Genesis 1:1, according to which God created heaven and earth together. When he says "all things that has been made" in verse 3, he includes all created things, including the angels.
"I notice the angels being present is also omitted, not to mention the holy spirit" - Angels were not "present" at creation of the world, since they were also created "in the beginning", and especially they did not participate in the creation at all. Job does not contradict, since 38:4–7 can be interpreted for the second story of creation (Genesis 2. chapter), which is mainly about man and man's relation to the world and society. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, was present at creation, see Genesis 1:2 (cf. Job 33:4, Psalm104:30), which the NWT also mistranslates.
"John 17:3 - Jesus talks about "before the world was" not before "time" or anything else you want to come up with." - Besides, I'm assuming you didn't mean verse 3, but verse 5: "before the world began." On the one hand, the (created) "world" includes the time. According to them, Jesus does not include himself in the created world. He was before the "world" began.
""not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies" - So he made God? thats what 'all' implies, Paul even marks God as a "thing"" - No, since it is not about everything in general, but about everything that has become, that is, about all creatures. And he did not include Jesus among them, just like John 1:3.
"" how do we know that it actually means exactly that here?" - Rev 3:14, Where John follows the model of Micah 5:2 with: Arkhon = ruler, arkhe = begining" - According to Colossians 1:18 and Revelation 1:11, "the beginning" (arkhe) is Jesus himself, it's one of his titles. So the "beginning of creation" does not mean that he is the first created being, but that he is the principle of creation, the source from which creation flows out. Interestingly, even the Arians of the 4th century did not refer to Revelation 3:14. The Father is also called the "arkhe" in Revelation 21:6.
The Son was born before the beginning of time, that is, He was "in the beginning" (Jn 1:1), not that He became at the beginning. He was there when time did not exist (which is a created thing), so it cannot be said that "there was a time when the Son did not exist."
Birth and creation are indeed two separate acts. But that's the point: the Son was not "sometime" born from the Father, but before the beginning of time, that is, when there was no time yet, so we cannot speak of a "time" when the Father was "alone", since the Son was already born from Him when there was no time. This is expressed by the beginning of Jn 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word..." Even if we theoretically assume that the Son is not through birth, but through creation, there would not have been a time when the Father existed alone (was there no Father until then? God does not change!), since time itself is a created entity, and there is no passage of time in God. In layman's terms: the Son was there when the clock had not yet started ticking. Because - once again - how does the Gospel of John begin?
“In the beginning was the Word…”
So He did not become, but was there at the beginning.
The “beginning”: when there was no matter, hence no world, no space and time, but from God's eternal will, His "let there be" word, the world came into being… In this beginning, the Word, the Logos, the divine nature of Jesus Christ, was already present.
So, the Word was there before the creation and time. He did not become, was not created in time, God did not create Him: He has been there from the beginning.
The creation of time only happened “after” the “beginning” (before time was created, we can't talk about before and after), as symbolically described in the Book of Genesis:
"God saw that the light was good. God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning: the first day."
The logic that because the Son was born of the Father, you think it follows that the Son must be “later” in time, is quite flawed, because the words begetting and birth should not be taken in the everyday sense.
The Son is born of the Father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense. The Son is derived from the Father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of His essence. So, the birth of the Son is an intellectual activity of God.
Birth should be taken in a narrower sense. Its broader sense is that what did not exist comes into being, but the narrower sense is that a living being comes from a living being, and the two are of the same nature.
The Son had no beginning in time, for he was there before the beginning of time. We can talk about logical succession, but this is not temporal succession.
Let's assume that the Son is not through birth, but through creation, so He was not, but became, specifically the first thing that came out of the Father, by way of creation. So this is the first creation. If this is the first, then “after” this (logically, not in time, since there is no time yet!) God creates heaven and earth, “after” this (still only logically, there is still no time), then time ("He separated the day from the night" - symbolic description!), etc.
So, the clock started ticking from the time God created time. In this case too, it would be true that we cannot say that there was a time when the Son did not exist. (After all, the definition of eternity is that there was a time when it was not yet) Because time, as such, was created "later" than the Son. So the Son was there even when there was no time. However, this leads to circular reasoning:
So if the Bible phrases it that the Word was in the beginning (not that he became in the beginning), it logically follows that it is Eternal.
The Arians took the (personal) originlessness as a divine basic attribute, and they applied it only to the Father. It followed that the Son and the Holy Spirit, as their origin is in the Father, cannot be equal to Him, but are only creatures. They did not think that originlessness, self-existence, applies to the divine essence itself, and all three persons possess this equally, and one with it. The difference is only in the relations of the persons. The Son is born of the Father in such a way that the Father communicates His entire essence to Him, not in time, not in succession, but in His eternal existence.
This shows that the Watchtower Society has no idea what it is denying. Trinitarians do not claim that the term "only-begotten" in itself implies timelessness, but rather that he was not created, but came into existence through spiritual generation, and in his kind, he is completely unique, differing from every (not every other) creature, and not only in the sense that he was created directly or through an intermediary.
The concept of spiritual generation is indeed emphasized in the doctrine of the Trinity: just read the Nicene or Athanasian creed, it explicitly states that the Son was begotten/not created by the Father.
The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'ne Elohim) (Job 38:7, Ps 36:9) and collectively refers to the Jews as God's "son" as a whole people (Hos 11:1). However, no Jew could call God his own father personally, as if he himself originated from God, because this would have made him a God too (see Jn 10:33).
Jesus referred to himself using two unique expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man". The "... son" construction, like in other languages, usually expresses kinship in Hebrew (e.g., son of Jonah, Simon), but it is also a unique Hebrew grammatical phenomenon that does not express kinship but characterizes, for example, "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.
Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the "Son of Man" (Mt 16:13), it first of all means: "who is a Man". Secondly, this expression is a figure of an Old Testament apocalyptic vision who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty" and who will return to Earth to be the king of the nations (Dan 7:13-14 cf. Mt 26:63-66, 25:31). Judging from the reactions, Jesus' contemporaries understood exactly what power Jesus claimed for himself with the title Son of Man.
On the other hand, Jesus also claimed to be the "Son of God", which means: "who is God". Considering his relationship with the Father, he is the only Son of God (Jn 3:16; "only begotten" = only one), so he is the Son (1Jn 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12 etc.), who has God as his own Father personally (Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, Jn 10:32-38), who is taught and acts by the Father (Jn 14:10-11). As he said: "all that the Father has is mine" (Jn 16:15), since "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). The Jews understood Jesus' statements about himself as "making himself God, being a man" (Jn 10:33), because his words could not be understood in any other way with an Old Testament and Hebrew ear.
It should be noted that according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Gal 3:27), but while The Son is inherently, eternally, by nature God, believers only partake of his divine nature - in character, immortality, glory - by the grace of God (2Pt 1:4, 2Cor 3:18, 1Jn 3:2, 1Cor 15:53-54).
33
"How Long Would Jesus' Reign Be?"
by BoogerMan in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
simple enough question for a jw to answer, because the org has told them for over 100 years that, .

a) jesus would reign for 1000 years, and.

b) that his reign began in 1914 when he became king.
aqwsed12345

The interpretation of the Book of Revelation by the Watchtower Society is typically millenarian heresy. The subject of Chapter 20 is the "millennial" reign of the saints with Christ, and the final assault of Satan and his allies against God. But how should this be interpreted? Let's see the Catholic interpretation.
Revelation 20:1-6 is its most difficult part of this book. The single correct and now almost universally accepted interpretation among Catholic exegetes sees the millennial reign of Christ and His saints as the entire earthly life of the Church, 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). The power of Satan suffered a mortal wound when he was cast down from heaven and even more so by the redeeming death of Jesus Christ, which "bound" the devil in a certain sense, although his power was not completely annihilated 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") and will launch a final attack on the Church of Christ with all his strength. This struggle will end with the definitive fall of the devil.
Thus the Millenarianism is an eschatological heresy about Christ's thousand-year reign, which he will establish on Earth before the end of the world with those whom he has already resurrected to eternal life. The belief harks back to a scene from Revelation (20:1-6). After Jesus has defeated the two beasts symbolizing the power of evil and their followers, an angel chains up the devil and throws him into the abyss for a thousand years, so that he cannot harm the righteous. The souls of the martyrs emerge and rule with Christ as priests of God and Christ. This is the "first resurrection", and he who partakes in it, the "second death" does not harm. The rest of the dead do not rise yet. After a "thousand years", Satan is set free, and he provokes nations to wage war against Christ again, but God permanently deprives him of his power (20:7-10). This is followed by the so-called resurrection and the judgment of the world (20:11-15). Interpreting the referenced scripture is not easy, but interpreters agree that the numbers have symbolic meanings. The relatively short persecution ("three and a half years") is followed by the Church's long period of peace ("thousand years").
We should rather think of an eschatological interpretation, that is, a heavenly event that impacts the earthly life of the Church. The scripture's teachings on the afterlife salvation must be the basis for our interpretation. The text does not intend to symbolize events happening in temporal succession, but a symbolic logical order, that is, that persecution and suffering on Earth are followed by salvation, and that within the Church, the hope and grace of final salvation coincide with earthly trials.
In the first centuries of the Church, especially some heretics, but also some Christians believed that Chapter 20, verses 1-6 should be taken literally, meaning a thousand-year earthly reign of Christ and His saints (chiliasm, "chilios" = a thousand in Greek). The first determined representatives of millenarianism were Cerinthus and Papias. According to Eusebius, Cerinthus professed that after the resurrection, the righteous will live on earth in the "New Jerusalem", and their bodies will serve desires and pleasures. Papias referred to an alleged revelation of Jesus, according to which the paradise abundance will be realized in the thousand-year earthly kingdom, including physical activity, which he adopted from the rabbis' view. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus only affirm its spiritual bliss. Early Creeds do not mention millenarianism, and the Gnostics did not accept it either. In the early 3rd century, Origen declared millenarianism an infiltration of Jewish tradition. He interpreted the referred part of the Book of Revelation allegorically. There were some who engaged in temporal speculation even regarding its beginning. In Africa, Tertullian deemed it worthy of God's justice that after the resurrection, the righteous first receive their reward here on earth, where they suffered. Millenarian writings are still known from the 4th century (Apollinarius of Laodicea), but they mainly understood the "thousand-year" kingdom in a spiritual sense. Eusebius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret outright rejected it. In the early 7th century, Andreas of Caesarea counted the thousand years from the Incarnation to the appearance of the Antichrist, thus for the first time, he interpreted millenarianism historically within the Church. Augustine understood the first resurrection as a spiritual effect of faith and baptism, the thousand years as the remaining part of the 6th world day or era, or as the remaining entire time.
In the Middle Ages, and even in our times, some interpreters have revived this interpretation, or have attributed this interpretation to the author of the Book of Revelation. However, this explanation fails to notice that John is speaking of a purely spiritual kingdom; it completely misinterprets the basic ideas of the Book of Revelation and leads to impossibilities. The idea of moderate millenarianism also reappears in some medieval theologians. Thomas Aquinas rejected the historical interpretation. Joachim da Fiore interpreted the thousand-year kingdom as the reign of the Holy Spirit, and accordingly, he interpreted the gospel in a prophetic-pneumatological sense. He felt that the true realization of the gospel is still to come. Some writer communities adopted his teachings. In modern times, only certain sects revived the expectation (Anabaptists, Moravian Brethren, Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses), but Lessing, Hegel, Kant, and the Romantics also dealt with it. Post-Trent theologians unanimously rejected the dual resurrection, and the official Church position also became that even moderate millenarianism cannot be taught without endangering faith (Denzinger 2296).
When Roman paganism is destroyed, Satan's power is taken away for an indefinite period of time so that he can no longer deceive the nations as he did in the time of Roman paganism. But as soon as this long period of time passes, he regains his former power, but only for a short time. "When Roman paganism is destroyed;" because this current vision directly connects to the previous one, which is about the destruction of Roman paganism. However, opinions vary as to the time of the destruction. Some theologians understand AD 313, in which the rule of idolatry was broken as a result of the conversion of Constantine; others place the fall of paganism even earlier. Since paganism did not end suddenly, this point in time cannot be strictly defined. After this point in time, "the power is taken from Satan, so that he may no longer deceive the nations as before;" for "binding, locking up, sealing" in no way implies a complete limitation of Satan's seductive power, just as "release" does not mean its unlimited power. These expressions therefore refer only to the power that Satan exercised over paganism, and metaphorically mean that his power was only taken away to the extent that he exercised it with regard to Roman paganism. This interpretation is also confirmed by history. After paganism fell, Christianity as a whole was not persecuted at any time, no ruler ever sought to exterminate it anymore, where it took strong root, idolatry was not brought back anymore, and the abominations that came with it did not return anymore. However, Satan was not entirely powerless. Here and there Christianity and Christians themselves suffered maltreatment and persecution, were distorted by heresies, their peace was disturbed by wars, and a more subtle form of idolatry replaced the worship of images.
The restriction of Satan's power lasts for an indefinite period of time. The text indeed says a thousand years; but that this is just a round number is already clear from the fact that the last time, which follows the thousand years, is known to no one (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7). According to Augustine and the best interpreters, under that time is meant the time that flows from the fall of paganism to the final period. In the last era, Satan's former power will be restored for a short time. This will be the subject of verse 7.
This thousand-year co-reign has been the source of much controversy. Those who took it literally fell into heresy. The thousand years may originate from a Jewish idea: according to the seven-day creation, the world would last 7000 years, of which the last thousand years would apply to Christ's thousand-year rule, while the following eighth thousand years would mean eternity. Augustine and Jerome count the thousand years from the incarnation of Jesus. In the writings of the rabbis, one can find the concept of the world's 7000-year future. The first 6000 years are the unfolding of history, the last thousand correspond to a peaceful rule with the Messiah like the Sabbath. But this schema does not appear in Revelation. Especially because the ancient Creeds only speak of the general resurrection, and it is clear that the fate of the disciple on earth is similar to that of the Master, and the reward awaits us only in the afterlife (Lk 9:23; Mt 10:24; Rom 8:17). We can understand the allusion of Revelation to mean that the thousand-year kingdom represents the full kingdom of Christ, which began on earth and reaches its fullness in the afterlife (1 Cor 15:24-28).
v2-3. The abyss (bottomless pit) is the hell (3. verse; see also 9:1; the "key" represents the angel's power over hell, and the great chain (symbol) serves to bind Satan, or to unlock the power to open hell. The prophet refers to Satan as the ancient serpent, based on Genesis 3:1. The "binding" symbolizes the limitation of Satan's power; the thousand years represent the entire earthly life of the Church. An angel descended from heaven to bind Satan. Many interpreters recognize Michael the Archangel in this angel. The binding is for a "thousand years", and during this time, the faithful of Christ reign with Him.
v4. The sealing serves to confirm the (relative) binding of the evil spirit. After the Savior's crucifixion, the evil spirit - in the words of Augustine - is like a chained rabid dog, which can only bite those who recklessly or carelessly approach it. Throughout the earthly life of the Church, Satan can tempt people, but he can force no one into sin. "For a little while", in proportion to the long earthly life of the Church. After Satan was "chained", paganism fell, and the rule of Christianity began. The glorified saints, especially the holy martyrs, ruled and judged with Christ during those thousand years. Those seated on thrones generally represent the blessed Christians; for every true Christian was promised to rule with Christ (1 Thessalonians 2:12). The holy martyrs are particularly mentioned, for they sacrificed their lives for Christ. The rule and judgement take place in heaven; as it is exercised by spirits, not by the resurrected bodies of the righteous. Sharing in Christ's rule signifies participation in His reign. As Christ governs, guides and protects His Church, so the saints partake in this governance, and if we seek their advocacy for our salvation, their intercession for us can be powerful, since they rule with Christ. The rule of the spirits lasts until the final era, when after the victory over the last struggles of paganism, the resurrection of the body and communal life occur, the judgement will then be held not just by spirits, but by those spirits who are endowed with a glorified body. (See Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30, 1 Corinthians 6:3.) Those seated on the judgement seats are the followers of the Lord Jesus, the already glorified martyrs (whose spirits the prophet sees) and other righteous people (who did not worship the beast, etc.), whether still living on earth or already enjoying the bliss of heaven. The sanctifying grace makes the righteous people on earth God's adopted children, heirs of heaven, and thus in a certain sense co-regents with Jesus Christ.
v5. The "first resurrection" symbolizes the spiritual resurrection through baptism (or repentance) into the life of sanctifying grace; the other dead are those who died without the sanctifying grace. The other dead, the deceased godless, who sided with the beast, do not live during those thousand years, they do not live and do not rule with Christ in heaven spiritually, but as their bodies, so their spirits too have died, they were taken from Jesus's face, excluded from heaven, condemned to damnation. These words "they do not live, they do not resurrect" are opposed to the previous verse's word "they live". As this signifies the blessed spiritual life of the righteous, so that they do not live proves the miserable spiritual death of the wicked. It should be noted: this expression "they do not resurrect, until etc." does not mean that these dead begin to live spiritually after the expiration of these thousand years, but as the phrase "until" in scripture does not continue the action beyond the specified point but expresses denial (see Matthew 1:25), here too the blessed spiritual life is denied from these dead.
v6. The prophet's inspired exclamation. The "second death" is the eternal damnation (14. verse). All true Christians, in a broader sense, are priests of God and Christ, because their life is a constant fragrant sacrifice before God. (See also 1,6; 5,10; 7,13; 1 Peter 2:9.) Blessed and holy can be said of one whose spirit, after the death of the body, reaches Christ in heaven, to live there, rule and judge with Him. Those spirits get there who truly live in God's grace in this life and die in this grace; that is why the Lord calls this life of grace on earth a resurrection (John 5:25), just as Paul the Apostle does (Ephesians 5:14). The "first death" is the death of the body, the "second death" is the spiritual death, the eternal damnation (21:8). Whoever lives with Christ, has begun to live in Him here, and ends this life lived in Him in this world, such a person may die bodily with the "first death", but does not die the spiritual death, the death of eternal damnation, but etc. in heaven, as if they were priests, serving God, they share in Christ's rule spiritually until the very end, when they will then resurrect bodily, and will continue to live and rule in perfect glory forever.
Satan lost his power with Jesus' redemption, and through grace Christians truly became "kings and priests". John also talks about the "first" and the "second death", as well as the "first" and "second resurrection". John understood the other death as eternal damnation, so the "first resurrection" should be understood as a spiritual resurrection, when someone leaves their sins and lives a life of grace. Thus, the members of Christ's thousand-year kingdom are Christians who live in a state of grace, that is, they have risen from sin through baptism. The thousand years therefore lasts from the birth of Christ until His second coming.
v7-9. The final attack of the devil and his allies against the Church, and their ultimate downfall. At the end of the world, Satan will attack the Church with full power, but only for a short time, "three and a half days" (cf.: Rev 11:9). The brevity of the description of the great battle is shockingly powerful. The battle 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 downfall and punishment of the main enemies of the Kingdom of God (in the sense of the pagan Roman Empire, - the Antichrist struggling in the two beasts - the evil spirit).
When the thousand years are over: in the last period of the earthly life of the Church. The release of Satan means that the evil spirit (with God's permission) will embark on an even more intense final attack against the Church. The four corners of the earth represent all directions of the world. Gog and Magog are the final great enemies of God's kingdom in Ezekiel 38 and 39. According to Genesis 10:2, Magog was a people descended from Japheth, who lived in the vicinity of the Caspian Sea; Gog was also a people, or the king of Magog. Gog was otherwise the king of Lydia. Here, Gog and Magog represent all enemies of the Church, symbolize all anti-Church powers and cruelties.
When the last age comes according to God's decree, God will allow Satan to gain a vast multitude among the nations, in order to overcome Christianity and gain victory for himself. For the thousand years and the release, see verse 3. The peoples at the four corners of the earth, not just those living at the extreme limits of the earth, but all peoples under the sky, as indicated by the four corners. Among all peoples, even among Christians, Satan will find a vast number of followers; because Christ himself says that at that time, when he comes again, moral decay 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 wildest barbarians (Ezekiel 38). They are not so called here as if they would be those who will oppress the Church in the last times, but only serve as symbolic names for groups persecuting Christianity. They gather for battle against the Church, cooperate to exterminate Christianity from the earth. According to apostolic teaching, the Antichrist will appear in the last times (2 Thessalonians 2), this will be their leader, or he will cooperate with them.
The beloved city is Jerusalem, as a prefiguration of the Church. The prophet describes God's punitive judgment, along with several Old Testament prophets, as a great battle.
v10. This vers again teaches the eternity of the punishments of hell. The outcome of the great battle: Satan is finally cast into hell with his followers. This battle coincides with the struggle described in 19:17-21, but while there the prophet mainly focused on the punishment of the two beasts, here he mainly outlines the final fate of Satan. The "lake of fire and sulfur" is the hell. The "camp of the saints", which is besieged by enemies of Christianity, is the Church on earth. What this battle will be like, whether it's purely spiritual or an actual battle; whether the beloved city is a real city, where the small army of believers will be gathered, or whether it only refers to the Church; what the fire signifies, whether it will be actual fire or just a metaphor... we must leave the interpretation of all these to the future; because the prophecy will only be fully understandable when the future event it discusses has occurred. The duty of a Christian is to be vigilant, to pay close attention to the signs of the times, and to always be ready for the coming of the Lord (see Matthew 24). However, it is certain with regard to this last age that before the Last Judgement, the Jewish people will enter the Church (Romans 11). Here follows the concluding scene that completes the book and the vision, i.e., the transition of the Church, its dissolution into heaven.