@Blotty
"its stated Jesus stopped being "human" after his death"
Where is it stated? And who is the man mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31?
aqwsed12345
JoinedPosts by aqwsed12345
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Sea Breeze
JWs basically claim that the current belief of the Watchtower (Why exactly the current one? Maybe any kind of "new light" will be announced tomorrow...) is the same as the belief of the early apostolic church ("congregation"), then it is perfectly appropriate to look at extrabiblical sources, whether they suggest this at all. Well, the answer is absolutely not.
Of course, they can push aside all the church fathers, that they were all "apostates", but then were their "non-apostate" (e.g. JW) church fathers, who are testifying about the alleged Watchtowerite beliefs of the primitive church? 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 JW-like Christianity together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts? That just sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.
It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera' ("ivy"), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading it aloud, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate finally replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the theologically fundamental changes in the Bible about the identity of God would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?
There is no mention in any of the writings of the early Fathers of a great apostasy of the whole Church or any sort of battle for the faith on such a scale. They mention individual heretics and certain heretical movements which began years after the ascension of Christ and the day of Pentecost which grew and spread, but there is no mention of any sort of total apostasy. If it is assumed that the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy then it is likely that the Church Fathers would have mentioned their newly developed doctrine as a contrast in condemnation of the Christians who still stubbornly remained faithful to the older apostolic teachings! But there is no sign in the writings of the Church Fathers of such a controversy, nor are there any other writings which support the notion of a mass apostasy from the true faith. History is totally silent. History mentions other great splits and schisms within the Church (such as the Ebionites, Arianism, the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Catholics in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517) but about this massive schism there is total silence.
of course, the early Christians did not have an exact crystallized theology or dogmatic textbook, but if we look at the earliest extra-biblical sources, the facts are that the early Christians
- Jesus was recognized as a real God, not as Michael the Archangel
- they did not calculate the end of the "time of the Gentiles" (just like the apostles), although I don't think they would have heard of the book of Daniel
- not a single one mentions any kind of two-class doctrine of salvation
... and I could list more and more facts, the bottom line is that the distinctive teachings of the WTS simply have no trace in early Christian literature.
So if you were saying that the first century Christians professed today's JW theology, then this is only possible if the so-called "apostate" Christians managed to commit the perfect crime and wipe out the "original" Christians without a trace and take over their place. And that sounds exactly like a silly conspiracy theory.
Where does the Bible talk about the 1,800-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the 'ekklesia', the second foundation? How often do your doctrines change?It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1,800 years...
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
aqwsed12345
PetrW
"But it doesn't even attempt to prove that Jesus is παντοκρατωρ?"
Because it is not in the text here, regardless of this, the Bible teaches that the Son is also omnipotent - but what kind of Lord and God is there who is not almighty? Anyway, proving the real deity of the Son does not require the explicit mention of the word 'pantokrator', if every attribute necessary to deity, and the prominent assertion of the "God" as predicate is present. Especially since, in an implicit manner, the Scripture does indeed teach the Son's omnipotence (Mt 28:18, Jn 3:35, 5:19, Heb 1:3), even if you do not accept Rev 1:8.
By the way, it is most likely not the Father who speaks in Rev 1:8 (He is not the only "Jehovah"), but rather the Son/Word, as to my best knowledge, in the Book of Revelation, either John or the Son speaks in the first person. Rev 1:11.17 nicely identifies who the Alpha and Omega, First and Last are. Moreover, according to 1.8, He is the Coming One (ho erhkomenos), who was already mentioned in 1.7 ("He is coming with the clouds"). So, Jesus is the Almighty. According to the text version incorporated into the NA text, He is also "ho theos". In Rev 1:11a the NA text indeed does not include the Alpha and Omega for Jesus. But the other place remains 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 these things in the churches. I am the root and offspring of David, the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:13.16)
And from the Rev 1:16, it is clear that these are the words of Jesus Christ, and there is no change of speaker between them. Furthermore, the First and Last (1:17), which essentially means the same as the Alpha and Omega, is also a title of Jesus according to the Watchtower (though they explain this in a way that He is not the "First and Last" in the same way as the Father). Moreover, unlike the word "apostle", this title cannot be applied to two people of different ranks, at most to those in a dead heat. So the Watchtower, by acknowledging that this title in Rev 22:13 is applied to the Father, admitted that the Son is at least as much "first and last" as the Father.
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
aqwsed12345
Were the Early Christians really JWs?
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 – c. 113), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".
Tacitus wrote about during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism. I note that the latter proves that the early Christians professed the deity of Jesus and also in his real presence in the Eucharist.
Alexamenos graffito: "Alexamenos worships [his] God", this also disproves the JWs' "torture stake" idea.
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
aqwsed12345
slimboyfat
"Jesus instructed his followers to pray to the Father"
"Our Father" does not mean in the Lord's Prayer only the Father of the Logos, since the faithful are in a Father-child relationship with the entire Godhead. In Catholic theology, the entire Trinity is "the Father" for the people, not just the first person of the Trinity, from whom the Son was born. When we are not talking about "the Father" and "the Son" within the Trinity, about their relation to each other within the Godhead, but generally in the relation between God and creatures, then the whole Trinity is the Father, not just the first person (God the Father) of the Trinity. For example, Isaiah 9:6 also calls Jesus Father. In this sense, "Father" is not necessarily a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Cf. http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/trinity-is-our-father.html
See: Acts 7:59, 1 Corinthians 1:2
-
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 inna28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .
nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.
god, who is over all, be praised forever.
-
-
aqwsed12345
NA28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.
NA28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho Khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.
KIT:
NWT: To them the forefathers belong, and from them the Christ descended according to the flesh. God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen.
NIV, NKJV: "...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised"
KJV, NASB, NBV: "...Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever."
* * * Even the Watchtower Society's publication'Reasoning From the Scriptures' quotes the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, which acknowledges that Romans 9:5 "...can easily and linguistically perfectly be applied to Christ. The verse would then read: 'Christ, who is God over all, blessed be forever. Amen...'".
This verse means this: As regards Christ's human nature, He comes from among the Jews; but He must not only be seen as a man, for He is also the eternally blessed God over all. With this explanation, this scriptural place attributes to Christ the name God. But some, placing the commas differently than they are commonly in the Greek text, say that a full stop must be put after 'flesh', and thus in the following words, there are the Jews' usual ancient Doxologies referring to God the Father, so this verse means: Christ comes from among the Jews according to the flesh — but God the Father is eternally blessed over all.
But this cannot be, as will be shown from these:
a) Grammatically, in this case, Paul would have arranged the Greek words like this: 'The God, who is over all, etc.' - 'Let Him be eternally blessed. Amen', as he did in 2 Corinthians 11:31, since there is no subject before it if it does not refer to Christ.
b) This Greek construction 'ο ων' means 'who is' (qui est), as in John 1:18, John 3:13, 2 Corinthians 11:51. As in these and other scriptural places, the 'ο ων' refers to the nearest subject, so here it must refer to the subject preceding these words, that is, to Christ, because with this, as a referential particle, the already begun speech is only continued, not started by it.
c) If this expression: who is the eternally blessed God, is not referred to Christ, then why does Paul mention it when he speaks exactly of Christ's birth among the Jews, that Christ comes from the Jews according to the flesh, even though everyone knew that He is human and Jewish by birth? He surely wanted to let the Jews know with these words that the Messiah was not only a man but also God, as Romans 1:3,4. 'Concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead.'
d) Let us also consider that Paul does not usually use such a casual Doxology about the Father as would be the case here; but when he says this doxology about the Father, he always first puts the Father as the subject, e.g., Romans 1:25, Romans 11:36, 1 Timothy 1:17. How could he now speak of the Father, when neither the preceding nor the following verses mention Him even remotely?
e) The difficulty is also easy to clear up that nowhere in the whole Bible is it said that Christ is 'the God who is over all, forever blessed', but of the Father in Ephesians 4:6; and so here too, Paul means it of the Father. — However, those things which Paul here connects are said separately about Christ in many places in the Scriptures, e.g., John 1:1 says that He is God, Ephesians 1:22 says that all things are put under Christ's feet. Therefore, why shouldn't Paul say these things here together? If the Scriptures attribute such Divine perfections to Christ, which are attributes of the Father, isn't He then above all? Isn't He one with the Father? Indeed, isn't it clearly said of Christ that He is the Lord over all, Acts 10:36, John 3:31, 1 Corinthians 15:27, Hebrews 2:8, Titus 2:13?
The flexible sentence structure of ancient Greek and the absence of punctuation in the original New Testament text sometimes makes it difficult to recognize emphasis and clause boundaries. Translations and Greek editions primarily differ based on where they place punctuation. The sequence of words, not their meaning, is the issue in interpreting the sentence.
We have two main possibilities. (1) If we put a period after "pántōn" (all), the following clause's subject becomes "God," and it becomes an independent blessing. (2) If we look at modern editions that place a comma after "sárka" (flesh), the subject of the sentence doesn't change, and everything that follows still refers to Christ.
If Paul wanted to start a new sentence: "God, who is above...", the text could be "Ho [...] epi panton theos…" However, "ón" (being) after "ho" (who) excludes the translation "God, who...". Paul doesn't change the subject, and "ho ón" (“…who being...”) retains the previous clause's subject, Christ.
The Watchtower Society denies that the Eternal One became man in Christ, their interpretation points to the some verses, praising God's power. But this doesn't contradict Paul naming Christ as "God over all." Jesus himself said he had power over all (Mt 20:28), and the Bible calls Christ GOD (Jn 1:1), or MIGHTY GOD (Is 9:5), even THE GOD (John 20:28).
The study of Paul's blessings also helps. Greek scholars examining all of Paul's prayers found that blessings always relate to the subject of the preceding clause. In every single blessing throughout the Bible, "eulogētòs" (Blessed...) precedes "theos" (God...). In Paul's mother tongue, the first word of a Hebrew blessing is also this: "Blessed..." (Baruch...).
But I looked at one of the old, ancient translations of the Bible. You may have heard of Wulfila (Ulfilas)'s Gothic translation. It's important to note that the Goths were Arians (i.e., they denied the Trinity), so they cannot be accused of trinitarian bias. In this translation, it appears as:
"þizeei attans, jah us þaimei Xristus bi leika, saei ist ufar allaim guþ þiuþiþs in aiwam, amen."
Let's look at the relevant words:
- Xristus : Noun, proper (inflection: Noun): Christus Nominative Singular
- saei : Pronoun, relative (inflection: Pron.): the/who - Masculine Nominative Singular
- wisan : Verb (inflection: abl.V.5): to be, exist [not perfective durative] Active Indicative Present 3rd Person Singular
- guþ : Noun, common, masculine (inflection: Noun): God; Nominative Singular / Vocative Singular / Accusative Singular
According to Bruce Metzger, the Old Latin, containing no punctuation other than two suspended points surrounding "amen," is indeterminate. The same is true of the Amiatinus codex, though Metzger believes the rhythm of the text as it stands in the edition by Wordsworth and White makes the second stichos easier, in his mind, to take in reference to the Christus ("Christ") of the first stichos, rather than as an independent sentence. Metzger also presents translations from the Peshitta, Harclean Syriac, the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions, the Gothic, the Armenian and the Ethiopic versions that apply the term "God" to "Christ" in Romans 9:5.
Metzger refers to several early Christian writers who apply the words of Romans 9:5 entirely to Christ. For example, he refers to Irenaeus of the second century (CE), Tertullian, Hippolytus, Novatian and a letter from six bishops to Paul of Samosata of the third century, as well as a host of writers in the fourth century (including Athanasius, Basil, Jerome and others) to show that this passage has from early times been understood as calling Christ "God".
Summary: The Bible verse calls Christ the God over all, blessed forever.
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis 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
THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF THE FIRSTBORN:
A PRELIMINARY STUDY FOR UNDERSTANDING
“THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION” (COLOSSIANS 1:15)
by Robert Keay, Ph.D.(Dr. Keay is Academic Dean of New England Bible College, South Portland, Maine.)
Christian Apologetics Journal, Volume 1, No.1, Spring 1998.
INTRODUCTION
Any person spending time with a Jehovah’s Witness discussing the deity of Christ will likely be confronted with the claim that Jesus Christ cannot be God because Scripture declares that he is the first created being. To support this claim the Jehovah’s Witness will point to Colossians 1:15 (“the firstborn of all creation” NWT), Revelation 3:14 (“beginning of the creation by God” NWT), and Proverbs 8:22 (“Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way” NWT). This article examines the meaning of the term “firstborn” in order to assess the accuracy of the Witnesses’ claim concerning Colossians 1:15. The article will first examine the Old Testament background of the term “firstborn,” showing how Paul would have understood and used the word. This will be followed by an evaluation of the arguments the Watchtower uses in Reasoning from the Scriptures to defend their claim.
OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND OF FIRSTBORN
The term “firstborn” has a rich background in Israelite history and literature. The frequent use of the word in the Old Testament (c. 158x) provides a good starting point for understanding its meaning. Additionally, the firstborn concept occurs in passages where the word does not. These passages must be consulted to avoid the “word study fallacy.” The occurrences in the Pentateuch (over half), describing Israel’s ancestry and earliest history, are especially important in establishing the significance of the word for the covenant people.
Basic Meaning of Firstborn
In a basic sense the word “firstborn” is related to two concepts: birth order and birth right. When “firstborn” is related to birth order it refers to the oldest child in a family, the first child born, either male (Gen. 22:21; 1 Chron. 2:25) or female (Gen. 19:31,33,34,37; 29:26; 1 Sam. 14:49). Additionally the word is also used in contexts involving the birth order of animals (Ex. 11:5; 12:29; Lev. 27:26; Num. 18:15-17) and with the first produce of the harvest (translated “firstfruits” or “firstripe” or “earliest fruit” Lev. 2:14; 23:7; Isa. 28:4; Jer. 24:2). When “firstborn” is related to birth right it refers to the child who is the principal heir to the family estate (Gen. 25:32,34; 27:36; Deut. 21:17). This heir must be a male and is usually, though not necessarily, the first in birth order. The “firstborn” as it relates to birth right may not have been first in birth order if he had an older sister or if the birth right was transferred to him. It was believed that the first male born possessed the father’s strength and virility to a greater degree than all subsequent children (Gen. 49:3; Deut. 21:17; Pss. 78:51; 105:36); therefore, he should be the heir, for he could best fulfill the responsibilities of the father when the father grew old and weak. If this first born son proved himself incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the heir, the birth right, and therefore the title “firstborn”, could be transferred to another son of the father’s choosing (Gen. 49:1-4; 1 Chron. 5:1-2; 1 Chron. 26:10).
Covenantal Significance of Firstborn
However, this basic sense of the word does not fully convey the importance of the firstborn concept in Israelite history. Israel’s history was governed by major covenants and these covenants promised salvation through a coming Messiah. The firstborn concept played a major role in this covenantal- redemptive history of the nation.
Abrahamic Covenant: Birth-Right Not Birth-Order
The importance of the firstborn is evident, first, in the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham had two sons: Ishmael and Isaac. Ishmael was the firstborn son of Abraham, but God chose Isaac to be Abraham’s heir and receive the birth right, the covenantal promise. Isaac then had two sons: Esau and Jacob. Esau was the firstborn, but Jacob received the birth right as heir, the covenantal promise. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, and he became the father of that great nation. God chose this nation to be His firstborn son (Ex. 4:22). God then made another covenant with Israel, the Mosaic Covenant, developing further the promise of salvation. Throughout this early covenantal history between the time of Abraham and Moses the son who is first in birth order is set aside and another becomes the “firstborn,” obtaining the birth right. This transfer of the firstborn’s honor and privilege to another is not without precedent, however, for God had chosen Abel instead of Cain in the beginning. This transference of birth right is both unusual and consistent. It is unusual in that it goes against the normal practice in which birth order determines birth right. Yet throughout Israel’s covenantal history, God consistently overrules the norm and names His own choice as “firstborn.” So consistent is this practice within Israel’s covenantal history that it establishes a definite literary pattern and a significant theological theme. In the light of Israel’s early covenantal history, the “birth order” meaning of the term “firstborn” fades into insignificance as the “birth right” meaning takes on greater significance, because the birth right privilege includes participation in furthering the covenantal promise of salvation through a coming Messiah.
Mosaic Covenant: Redemption by a Representative Substitute
Another event in Israel’s history gives greater meaning to the term “firstborn.” The importance of the firstborn is evident, secondly, in the Mosaic Covenant. Throughout the ancient Near East it was believed that the firstborn son, as well as the firstfruits of the harvest and the firstborn from the cattle rightfully belonged to the local deity. Offering the firstborn as a sacrifice to the deity was believed to be significant for the group’s survival. The firstborn became a representative figure for the whole group, who depended on the favor of the gods for protection and sustenance. Therefore these firstborn were sacrificed to the gods. This fact sheds light on events surrounding the exodus. Before God rescued the Israelites from Egypt he sent ten plagues on the nation of Egypt (Exodus 7-12), which are often interpreted as judgments on the false gods of Egypt, the last plague being the death of all firstborn children and animals in Egypt (Ex. 11-12). With this plague Yahweh was showing that the firstborn belonged to Him, that He alone is the true God (Ex. 7:5), that the Egyptian gods are not gods. Then, following the death of Egypt’s firstborn, the Lord commanded the Israelites to set apart all their firstborn to Him, for they too belonged to Him (Ex. 13:2). In the case of the firstborn animals, this meant sacrificing the animal to the Lord. However, human sacrifice was not tolerated by God. He therefore instituted a program in which the Israelites could redeem, buy back, their firstborn children. This redemption was achieved through a substitute. An animal was sacrificed in place of the firstborn son (Ex. 13:13-15). But this was not a one time event. God instructed Israel to continue this tradition of redeeming their firstborn sons throughout their history as a way of symbolizing God’s act of redeeming the whole nation from Egypt (Ex. 13:14-15). Thus, the firstborn son in Israel had tremendous symbolic significance. He represented the redemption of the nation (as the firstborn in Egypt represented God’s judgment of the nation). Later, the Levites became the substitute for the firstborn. The tribe of Levi was set apart to God for service in the sanctuary (Num. 3:12-50; 8:16-18; 18:15-17). In this case the firstborn represented the sacred service of the nation.
Summary of Old Testament Background
This use of the concept and term “firstborn” in the early history of the nation established the real significance of the firstborn for Israel’s later history. The firstborn in Israel had a highly significant symbolic role in the nation. As a representative of the whole nation, the firstborn represented the redemption of the nation from servitude and bondage in Egypt as well as the promise that the nation would ultimately bring salvation to mankind through the Messiah. In later Israelite history usage of the term “firstborn” revolved around this covenantal-redemptive-representative significance of the word. Thus, David, the King of Israel, obtained the title “firstborn” because, as King, he represented the nation (Ps. 89:27). Furthermore, God established a covenant with David, promising to establish David’s kingdom forever, indicating that a son of David would rule on David’s throne throughout history (2 Sam. 7:12-16). Not only was the nation God’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22), but the King, the representative of the nation, was also God’s “firstborn son” (Ps. 89:27). The Davidic King as God’s firstborn son carries on the literary pattern and theological theme established in Israel’s earliest history in which God advances his promise of salvation through the coming Messiah by choosing one to be His own firstborn son (without regard to birth order) and covenanting with him.
The firstborn son in Israel represented the nation’s calling to be God’s firstborn son. As such he represented the nation’s redemptive purpose and hope. The nation was called into existence to serve God by bringing salvation to the world. Ultimately this calling and hope centered in a coming Messiah who would realize the promise of salvation. The title “firstborn” had definite Messianic overtones for the Israelites. Redemption would be accomplished through God’s “firstborn” son Israel (Ex. 4:22), who is represented by the King, God’s “firstborn” son (Ps. 89:27), whose son would redeem the nation and rule forever on David’s throne (2 Sam. 7:12-16). It is no surprise, then, that later Rabbis spoke of the Messiah as “firstborn.” Rabbi Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Ex. 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a firstborn (Ps. 89:27)” [Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4]. And since God is ultimately the savior of the world, Rabbi Bechai said that “God is the firstborn of the world” [Pent. fol. 124:4].
WATCHTOWER INTERPRETATION OF FIRSTBORN
In Reasoning from the Scriptures (pp. 408-409) the Watchtower provides the Witnesses with three arguments for why the term “firstborn” cannot refer to one who is “prime, most excellent, most distinguished,” the pre-eminent one, as Christians claim. They argue that the word “indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons” (p. 408). This is based on “the customary meaning of ‘firstborn’” (p. 408). Thus, the Watchtower argues that the term is used in the “birth order” sense and not in the “birth right” sense.
Reason # 1: The Father is not called Firstborn
First, the Watchtower reasons, if “firstborn” simply refers to the one who is most excellent, “why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?” [p. 408]. Why is only the Son called “firstborn”? The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the term cannot refer to pre-eminence because God the Father, who is undoubtedly pre-eminent, is never called “firstborn.” This reasoning betrays a logical fallacy, however. One cannot evaluate a statement about one person on the basis of statements made or not made about another person. For example, a young mother says to her daughter, “you have two hands.” According to the Watchtower argument, her young son could deny the truthfulness of his mother’s statement about his sister, claiming, “you never said I had two hands!” The argument is absurd. Moreover, this reasoning betrays ignorance of Jewish literature, for God is called the firstborn. Rabbi Bechai called God “the firstborn of the world,” as was shown above. More importantly, however, the term firstborn does not simply indicate pre-eminence in the manner the Watchtower describes. Instead it describes a specific type of pre-eminence: Messianic pre-eminence. The term “firstborn” is a Messianic term; therefore, it is appropriate only for Jesus, not for the Father or the Holy Spirit. Thus, the term was not be used of either of them in Scripture.
Reason # 2: Firstborn is Always Part of the Group
Second, the Watchtower argues that “the firstborn of” always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms is one involving a basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If in fact the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is a part of that animal group just because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being “part of” from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is now applied to Jesus as “firstborn of creation”, the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then the Creation truly is “Mother Earth.” Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously the phrase “firstborn of creation” is not being used in the fashion that the Watchtower claims. The phrases “the firstborn of” that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as does the Watchtower. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is because they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As was shown above, the “birth order” meaning of firstborn fades as the “birth right” significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to “birth order” cannot be justified.
Reason # 3: Jesus Created “All Other Things”
Third, the Watchtower claims that it is proper to translate Colossians 1:16,17 using the word “other”: “all other things were created.” They then claim, “Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God” (p.409). They defend this claim on the basis of Luke 13:2, for several translations insert the word “other” after “all”: “all other Galileans.” They claim that the idea “other” is actually contained in the meaning of the word “all” in Luke 13:2, hence “all other.” But the argument will not hold up, for the insertion of “other” in Luke 13:2 is contextually warranted, not linguistically. The insertion of “other” has nothing to do with the word “all.” The sentence reads, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?” Quite obviously Jesus is comparing Galileans with Galileans, two equal items. The insertion of “other” is warranted by the context of comparing equals [Galileans] and has nothing to do with the word “all.” It is entirely appropriate to insert “other” in Luke 13:2 without changing the meaning of the sentence in any way. However, there is no contextual warrant in Colossians 1:16,17 for the insertion. The two items in the discussion, Jesus and the creation, are not being compared or equated as the two items in Luke 13:2 [Galileans and Galileans]. To insert “other” in Colossians 1:16,17 changes the meaning of the sentence significantly, because it is has no contextual justification. The linguistic argument fails to support their claims. However, this is not the real basis for their insertion of “other” in Colossians. The real reason is theological. It is necessary for them to change the meaning of the sentence, otherwise they must acknowledge that Jesus is not part of creation. The Watchtower indicates this is their real motivation when they explain that they are seeking to harmonize this verse with “everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son” (p.408). However, their mishandling and changing of the text, rather than harmonizing with other Scriptures, contradicts other Scriptures (John 1:3; 1:10).
CONCLUSION
The Old Testament background of the “firstborn” concept reveals the falsehood of the Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created being, the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. The use of the term in the Old Testament to signify the one who held the birthright took on greater significance when the birthright included the covenant privilege of advancing the promise of salvation through a coming Messianic savior. In fact, the term did not mean birth order when it involved this covenantal-redemptive privilege, for none of the patriarchs carrying the covenantally significant birth right was a firstborn son in the sense of birth order. They were firstborn only in the birth right sense. Ultimately the firstborn son who held the birth right in this covenantal-redemptive sense was the Messiah, Jesus.
Jesus is the “firstborn” who brings the hopes and promises of the nation to realization. He is the firstborn who redeems the world (cf. Ex 4:22). He is the firstborn who rules His Kingdom (all creation) as the son of David (cf. Ps. 89:27; 2 Sam. 7:12-14). All previous history pointed to him and waited for him. The “firstborn” is the promised savior Messiah of Israel who rules and reigns over his creation. When Paul called Jesus the “firstborn” in Colossians he was declaring Jesus to be the long hoped for Messianic Savior.
-
33
I and the Father are one. John 10:30.
by dgp ini'm not that good at quoting the bible.
i see no value in learning verses by heart, sorry.
however, i just learned that in the new world translation (the organization's bible), john 10:30, jesus is said to say "i and the father are one".
-
-
aqwsed12345
It it should be noted that while in the Old Testament this usage of the word "gods" (elohim) does occur, in the New Testament it does not, there are only two categories of "THEOS": 1. the one true God, and 2. the false gods of the pagans (possibly Satan, as "the god of this world ").
In John 10 Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they can 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).
JWs refer to this too, but Luke does not claim in Acts 28:6 that Paul was actually "a god", but only reports that, based on his miracles, the people believed that he was like a (pagan false) god. So, yes, "theos" here still does not justify a true, but inferior (demigod-archangel) category of divinity claimed by the Watchtower, and it is not because of the latter that it is written there with a lowercase letter. There are two kinds of "THEOS" in the New Testament, 1. the one true God, 2. the false gods of the pagans, and Satan. Paul was only thought to belong to the 2nd category.
But you claim that there is a third category, some kind of demigod-minor-god-archangel. Well, this alleged third category is not based on the verse you quoted, because Paul was actually classified in the 2nd category by the pagan people.
Having a lesser god is also forbidden by the commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
If saying "gods" means nothing special, why don't you call the members of the GB such?
John only recalls a dialogue that took place in a non-Greek language, where Jesus does not claim that his divinity is no more than is customary in the Old Testament usage of words. The idea is not that Jesus could only refer to Himself as "GOD" in the same way that the Psalm referred to judges as "elohim". The essence of the pericope is to point out the inconsistency of His accusers, by indicating there existed an Old Testament usage that called human judges "elohim", so if they could be so called, then how much more appropriately He (who is indeed the [only begotten] Son of God) should be called. He begins like this: "If even those...". Thus, His reference was a kind of apologetic bridge, somewhat like how Apostle Paul spoke to the Greeks about their "unknown god".
JWs claim that in John 10:31-38 Jesus denies the Jews interpretation. But does he? A careful reading will reveal that Jesus' response is much subtler than this. He first of all points out that his works are good, which of course implies that the doer is good and worthy of no punishment such as the Jews want to inflict. In response to their charge that Jesus is blaspheming by making himself out to be equal with God (they may have been thinking that Jesus was setting himself up as a rival God) Jesus does not give a straightforward "no, your wrong, I wasn't saying anything of the kind, I just meant that God was my Father because he created me a few thousand years ago". Instead he gives an answer that is designed to make them think about what his equality with (yet distinction from) the Father might mean. He argues from the lesser to the greater. IF the scripture can call mere humans "gods" (Theoi in Greek and elohim in Hebrew) THEN what about the one who has an absolutely unique relationship with the Father, a relationship best designated by the term son? By the way there has been a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation on exactly what elohim meant in Ps 82:6. It is obviously a highly metaphorical application, but its precise nuance does not affect the point Jesus is making.
The Father has set him apart and sent him into the world to perform has saving office. In fact, the Father dwells in the Son and the Son in the Father. Again, Jesus gets back to the fundamental equality that was suggested by the context above. And once again the Jews get the point and seek to kill him, for any mere man claiming equality with God is blaspheming, and must receive the death penalty. While sonship in itself does not necessarily imply equality, the language used of Jesus' sonship here and elsewhere strongly suggests a uniqueness and an equality that exists only between these two.
Read these:
* https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html
* https://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jn10-34-36.html
* https://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1030-33-what-made-the-jews-want-to-kill-jesus/
By the way, the NT does not call the apostles or the angels "theos" anywhere, so it cannot be said that the NT calls the persons representing God "theos", so it cannot be said that in the New Testament this that's all it would mean.
There is enough reference point around John 10:30: the audience immediately understood that Jesus did not merely claim a moral or volitional unity between Him and the Father, but more: unity in divinity. They said, "you, being a man, make yourself God." And the Lord did not start explaining that He was only talking about the alignment of their purposes, but in His characteristic rabbinic (see: kal va-chomer) response, He even added a challenge: "Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?!" - In other words, He used the authority of Scripture against them, silenced them, and affirmed His claim to deity.
If perhaps Jesus proclaimed His own deity more reservedly than the apostles who followed in His footsteps, this can be explained by His self-emptying, as well as by the fact that He came to make the Father known, and testified more by His actions and teaching than by Himself. But Jesus did proclaim His own deity, for example where He was accused of "making Himself God while being a man," and He did not protest, but justified His action with an Old Testament reference, all the while emphasizing that His designation as God is of a much higher order than those to whom the Word spoke, and therefore they appear as "gods."
There is indeed a significant difference between the deity of the so-called gods and the common nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and I am indeed not willing to make this man a god in the latter sense. There are scripture passages where the Word calls man a god or gods: "I have made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron will be your prophet," "Ye are gods," "The Lord judges among the gods." In these places, there is certainly no talk of possessing the same nature, but rather of some kind of assumed dignity. This can also be seen in the way that elsewhere Yahweh deems the foreign gods as nothing compared to Himself: they did not create the world, they are not rocks, and so on. Similarly, he also calls the "gods" he judges mortal and rebukes them in the psalm. The concept of deity that I base here necessarily includes the attribute of being worthy of worship, just as it does of being the creator. However, in this sense, man is not God (and never will be), while the Son is (and has always been).
So, neither with this nor with Paul's expression of "so-called gods" have you succeeded in establishing a category of "small deity" prepared for Jesus, or even if we assume a category of "real, but not fully god" small deity, it would not automatically follow from this fact that Jesus would belong to this category.
A JW once referred to me that even Satan is referred to as "theos" in the NT. But you don't claim that all we know about Jesus and Satan is "well, both are called theos, so neither is the real God and that's fine". Does the scripture make such claims about Satan as it does about Jesus? That He was from the beginning, that He is the only begotten of the Father, that He received all power, that He is omniscient, etc? This fact alone proves that Jesus is not just a "theos" in the same way as Satan. Indeed, it is true that being a "theos" does not necessarily mean being the real God, but when it's not just claimed that he is THEOS, but a number of other statements are made about Him, attributes are stated about Him, which can only characterize the Almighty God, from these two facts combined it certainly does follow that He is "identical" (not in an equivalence sense, but in a predicate sense) with the one, true, omnipotent God.
Furthermore, the original Greek text, and Greek copies prior to the 7th-8th centuries, did not differentiate between uppercase and lowercase letters, as they used exclusively uppercase letters. This by default proves that the Son is just as much and in the same sense GOD as the Father - unless Jesus is a false god. The original biblical language texts did not use upper and lower case distinction. Anyone who has read even the original copy from the hands of the inspired writer would have seen that the same title and the same initials are used for the Son and the Father: KYRIOS and THEOS. The Bible does not know about minor gods and demigods, there are two categories: a true God and the imagined, false gods of the pagans. Is Jesus a true or false GOD?
It's not about us making uppercase letters, but rather that this minor god category does not exist, and anyone who read an original copy of the Greek New Testament in antiquity would not have even considered such a distinction. So, the accusation of distortion is on the Watchtower, which introduced this artificial distinction, of which the Apostle John had absolutely no idea.
Of course, in the thinking of the Arians, the reader must always think of the Father when they see the word "GOD", but when the Bible calls the Son the same (see Jn 1:1.18, 20:28 etc.), they believe it must immediately be considered in a relativized sense as a "title" (?).
The statement "you are gods" comes from Psalm 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented to call a man a god, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but the Father and the Son have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the Old Testament, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a higher right to divinity than theirs. For to them only the word of God was spoken, whereas He was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world.
The meaning of the Hebrew 'elohim' is only "gods" if the verb following it is also plural (with a few exceptions for pagan gods), but if the verb is singular, its meaning is "the Deity" (because Hebrew forms abstract nouns with the plural form of the noun).
Psalm 82:1.6 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as ordinary people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Psalm 82: if God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
-
30
Abaddon the destroyer is he Jesus?
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inrev 9:11 the angel with the key to the abyss is called abaddon which means destroyer.. the cross references show jw doctrine teaches he is jesus himself using the account in luke where jesus got the demons out of that girl and they said don’t throw us into the abyss.
and revalation 20:1 shows an angel with the key to the abyss.. either watchtower are right and it’s jesus or there are more than one angel with the key to the abyss.. if it is jesus the destroyer of souls it sounds like conan the destroyer.. from the research guide-abaddon, the angel of the abyss—who is he?.
at revelation 9:11, however, the word “abaddon” is used as the name of “the angel of the abyss.” the corresponding greek name apollyon means “destroyer.” in the 19th century there were efforts made to show that this text prophetically applied to individuals such as emperor vespasian, muhammad, and even napoleon, and the angel was generally regarded as “satanic.” it should be noted, however, that at revelation 20:1-3 the angel having “the key of the abyss” is shown to be god’s representative from heaven, and rather than being “satanic,” he binds and hurls satan into the abyss.
-
-
aqwsed12345
"The angel of the Abyss was their king, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon [απολλυων]." (Rev 9:11)
The Greek name Apollyon is a sarcastic play on words with the name of one of the most famous gods of paganism, Apollo.
Therefore, Apollyon corresponds to the Greek Apollo, who was originally a Hittite-Babylonian god, and later became the protector god of the empire in Rome. The apostle John, purely in mockery, makes the protective deity of the empire into the destructive prince of the underworld.
Abaddon in Greek is called Apollyon, which means "destroyer". The word refers to the name Apollo, which the Greeks also derive from the verb apollymi. Apollo is the god who destroys with plague, his favorite animal is the locust. Augustus revered Apollo as a protective deity, and later, as the protector of the emperors, he was held in special honor, so we can see this as a veiled attack against the cult of the emperor.
In Greek mythology, Artemis and Apollo are twin siblings, and the symbol of Artemis' head was exactly the bastion, which is the symbol of the Watchtower Society, and which, after her birth, helped bring Abaddon/Apollo(i)on into the world :-))
Abaddon (Hebrew: אֲבַדּוֹן, 'Ǎḇaddōn, Greek: Apollyon, Latin: Exterminans, Coptic: Abbaton; from the Heb. abad, 'destroy'): the place of destruction, devastation. - Ps 88:12; Prov 15:11; Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12: the underworld. Job 28:22 personifies it; it occurs in the book of Enoch (Ethiopian) and the Apocalypse of Elijah (10:7). Rev 9:11: the Hebrew name of the angel of the Abyss, the king of the locusts, the Greek equivalent is Apollyon (destroyer, bringer of ruin; allusion to Apollo?). In later rabbinic literature, one of the four parts of hell.
Job 26:6: The realm of the dead (abaddon, i.e., the place of devastation) is uncovered. That is, it is delivered to him, cf. 38:17; Prov 15:11; Ps 139:8.
Prov 15:11: Hell and perdition = the place of ultimate destruction.
Satan is the Star that fell from the sky. Because it is true that both Jesus and Satan came from heaven, but the former came by himself, respectfully, while the latter was thrown out.
In addition, there are several scenes in the Bible where God allows Satan to do harm. So, in the case of the key, you read in one case that it was originally with him, and in the other case that it was given to him.
Revelation 9, 1-11. At the sound of the fifth trumpet, an entire army of evil spirits comes forth from the underworld to torment and despair people with the gnawing of their conscience. The vision is fulfilled throughout the course of history.
1. The star that fell from the sky is Satan. (Luke. 10, 18; Rev. 12, 7-9.) The well of the abyss is hell; its key is the power over hell. - 2. Our verse means that the temptations of hell fill the whole world. This plague also strikes the fourth element of the ancients, the air, in symbolic description, - 3. Locusts are underworld creatures: evil spirits. The locusts in Joel chapters 1 and 2 are also instruments of divine punishment, albeit in a different sense. The scorpion is also a symbol of Satan. Verse 4 (and its continuation) speaks of the desperate guilt of the wicked. - 5. The scorpion is the astronomical sign of the month of October; from there to the end of the year according to the Greek calendar (the end of February) is a period of five months. So our verse means that the torment of conscience will torment the wicked all the way. According to other commentators, the sacred author mentions five months because in the East the locust plague is a frightening blow during the five hottest months of the year. - 6. The gnawing of conscience is more painful than physical death. - 7-10. The description of the locusts reminds of centaurs in popular imagination. Parts of the description highlight the strength, power, and cruelty of the evil spirits symbolized by the locusts. - 8. The woman's hair, according to some commentators, represents the sinful pleasure which the evil spirits lure people to enjoy. - 9. The breastplate like iron armor represents the heartless cruelty of the evil spirits. (Cf. Sir. 3, 65.) - 11. The king of the locusts is the fallen angel mentioned in verse 1. The abyss is hell; Abaddon (devastation) is, according to the rabbis, the name of the bottom of hell, The Greek name Apollion = destroyer) is undoubtedly a sarcastic pun on the name of one of the most famous gods of paganism, Apollo.
Verse 12 means that after the horrors of the fifth trumpet, even more terrible plagues will follow.
Rev 9,1 - Rev 9,12
At the sound of the fifth trumpet, a star falls from the sky. The star is synonymous with Satan, of whom Jesus Christ spoke: "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven" (Lk 10,18). Satan has gained power over the underworld, hell, so he is given the key to the well of the abyss. A large army of underworld spirits pours out of the abyss, like smoke. In the Eastern man's conception, evil spirits were locked in an underground prison (Jude 6). John represents the evil spirits in the form of locusts. The locust was a well-known natural disaster (Ex 10,12-15), but also represented the enemy attacking on horseback (Joel 1,4). The scorpion, whose sting is very painful, lends a tail to the locust. It symbolizes the Parthians, who kept the Roman Empire in fear, and shot arrows even when turned back on horseback, just as a scorpion stings with its tail bent backward. The torment is the gnawing of conscience. Five months - this is usually how long the worst locust plague lasts on the border. Kings Abaddon = destruction, or Apollion = destroyer, and identical to Satan himself. Recently, he has been identified with the Greek Apollo, who was originally a Hittite-Babylonian deity, but later became the patron deity of the Roman Empire in Rome. John, out of sheer mockery, makes the patron deity of the Empire the destructive prince of the underworld.
At the sound of the fifth trumpet, an entire army of evil spirits came forth from hell to torment and despair people with the gnawing of their conscience. The star that fell from the sky is Satan. (Lk. 10,18, Rev. 12,7-9.) The locusts remind of centaurs in the people's imagination. Parts of the description express the tempting power and cruelty of the evil spirits. The king of the locusts is the fallen angel mentioned in the first verse. Abaddon, devastation, is the name of the depth of hell. Apollion, destroyer, is likely a pun on the pagan god Apollo's name.
According to Rev. 12,9, Satan is cast down to earth, and power is given to him to bring about ruin, and Christ Himself sees Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke. 10,18). Therefore, the star mentioned here is Satan, so the meaning of the verse is this: The fifth punishment consists in the power given to Satan to release the spirits of hell for the ruin of people. To give a key is to give power; the well of the abyss, its throat, is hell.
Hell, in symbolic speech, is a vortex of fire, which, when opened, smoke rises from it, as the result of fire.
Locusts come from the throat of hell with the smoke. Locusts, according to prophetic language, represent armies (Joel 1:4). This is how they appear here, because they are represented as armed warriors, empowered to harm (vv. 7–10), under one leader (v. 11); however, looking at the verbs of the text even in passing, it is immediately noticeable that these are not earthly warriors; for they do no harm to the country (v. 4), which is inevitable with earthly warriors; they do not kill, which cannot be said of earthly champions; but they only hurt people, and among them only those whom God did not take under his protection. It is clear from these signs that this army is hellish, the army of Satan, the army of evil spirits. They were given the power to tempt the Jews to the most terrible evil and the most heartless acts for a while, and at the same time to torture them in a terrifying way.
Scorpions are very venomous, they sting quickly, and their sting, if prompt help does not arrive, causes death.
"There is no sign of God on their foreheads" = they are not among the elect to be protected from the punitive judgment (Rev. 7,3).
"for five months" = for a while.
The scorpion torments when it hurts a person, that is, it does not kill immediately but tortures slowly.
For 9,6 see Rev. 6,15.16.
"horses prepared for battle" = a symbol of savagery.
"their heads were as if crowned with gold" is a symbol of victorious power.
"their faces, like human faces" they appeared to be human-shaped, yet they were scorpions.
They appeared to be gentle, yet they were predatory lions.
"their breastplates were as it were breastplates of iron" = a symbol of strength.
The angel of the abyss is one of the evil spirits who differ from each other in terms of power and authority (Eph. 6,12).
Abaddon = Apollion = Exterminans. The fulfillment of this prophecy about the hellish locust army can also be demonstrated in Jewish history. The Jews were already in the time of Christ, outwardly full of holy deeds, inwardly full of evil (Matthew 12,44.45). But their fallen state, after committing the horrendous Messiah murder, has been growing ever since, peaking just before and during the Jewish war. Totally divided into factions that persecute and torment each other, immersed in all evil, devoid of all virtue, trampling human and divine rights underfoot, and driven only by blind rage and the most unappeasable hatred, shortly before their complete destruction, they were true images of satanic evil and examples of such fear, despair, and spiritual abandonment, as only Satan could create. Flavius Josephus, also a Jew and partly an eyewitness to this misery, describes this terrible state. However, we should not overlook the fact that this punitive judgment also includes both the near future, outside the time of the Jewish war, and at the same time the distant one, the last time; because Satan's rage, the power given to him to tempt and torment people, in the extent presented here, will only literally and literally occur in the final era, shortly before the public trial (20. v.), so that everything he does before this era is just a prefiguration of his last and most violent efforts.
The events triggered by the fifth trumpet blast partly resemble the eighth Egyptian plague (Ex 10:1kk.), and partly the locust plague described in Joel 1-2. The image is coloured by demonic features of the eschatological situation and apocalyptic mode of expression, and is escalated to cosmic proportions. The star falling from heaven to earth depicts a celestial being (cf. Enoch 86:3; 88:1; cf. Rev 20:1). The angel was "given" the "key to the depths of the underworld." The abyss (which biblical tradition sometimes separates from Sheol, sometimes places together with it cf. Job 41:22kk.; Rom 10:7), according to apocalyptic literature, is the prison of evil spirits (cf. Enoch 10:4kk.; 18:11kk.; 19:1; 4 Ezra 7:36; cf. Lk 8:31). This key is in Christ's hand (cf. Rev 1:18). Now an angel has received it to open it and release the demons onto the human world. According to the ancient worldview, the universe is arranged in three layers: above is heaven, the dwelling place of God and celestial beings, in the middle is earth, the world of people and earthly life, plants and animals, and below, under the earth, is the world of the dead and evil spirits. There is fire in the depths. This worldview, which biblical people also take for granted from the spiritual heritage of antiquity, does not oblige us. For us, just as for the intermediaries of biblical revelation, it is not the form of expression, but its theological content that is important. In the end times, God allows evil to rage in the world as a punishment for sin.
According to the apocalyptic image, smoke first bursts from the depths, which blurs the sun and the air. The life-giving sunlight disappears as a sign of judgment. From the smoke, creatures similar to locusts emerge. These are not locusts, but, as can be seen from the description in verses 7kk., they are fantastic apocalyptic, demonic monsters. The basic image is the locust invasion and the locust cloud, which, in its destructive, terrifying, and irresistible reality, was an apocalyptic phenomenon for the Eastern man. These demonic monsters are not real locusts because they do not harm the vegetation, only the people. They only harm those people who "do not have the seal of God on their foreheads" (v. 4). The demonic world descends on those who obey evil, in a new, previously unknown form of torment. The torment caused by the demonic monsters is such as "the torment caused by a scorpion" (v. 5). A scorpion's sting in Palestine is fatal only to children. It only causes torment to adults. The torment caused by the demons is similar, but still quite different. It probably causes spiritual distress. It is possible that today the seer would describe this torment with different terms of neurosis. Because of the torment, people "seek death," they want to flee into death, but death "flees from them." Man cannot escape from God's judgment into death. There are questions that death does not solve. Verse 6. highlights the parainetic character of Revelation.
The power of the locust-like demonic creatures lasts for five months (v. 5). The five months is the lifespan of a locust, on the other hand, it is a specific round number (cf. Gen 7:24; cf. Mt 25:15; Lk 12:6; 14:19; 1Cor 14:19). There is a limit to the raging of demons. Their release does not mean their permanent rule. God remains the Lord in the world.
The seer describes in detail the appearance of the demonic creatures. They are similar to war horses, they have a crown on their heads, their faces are human faces, their manes are like women's hair, their teeth are lion's teeth, their clothing is like iron armor, their voices are like the sound of chariots rushing into battle. Attractive appearance, human face, and behind it lion's teeth, demonic distortion, which, however, also points to the essential features of sin and evil.
The demonic armies also have a king, his name is Abaddon. This name corresponds to the meaning of Sheol and abyss. Job 28:22 personifies it. In the Rabbinic and Mandaean literature, it is the deepest part of hell. The Hebrew name hides the secret of this angelic being appearing in royal form. That's why there is an explanation right next to it. In Greek, he bears the name Apollyon. Its meaning is "destroyer". The word points to the name Apollo, which the Greeks also derive from the verb apollymi. Apollo is the god who destroys with plague, his favorite animal is the locust. Since Augustus honored Apollo as a protective god, and later also as the protector of the emperors, he was given special honor, some exegetes identify Abaddon with the Roman emperor. However, the whole picture is so apocalyptic-mythological in character that it lacks any historical connection. At most, we can see an allusion against the emperor cult in it, but it would be a violence against the text to connect this vision to any historical date or person. The revelation has an eschatological meaning referring to the end times.
After the "five months" have passed, the plague subsides, but the judgment continues. The seer signals that the judgment has not yet reached its climax. One "woe", i.e., a wave of pain and terror has passed, but there are still two more to come.
-
113
Luke 23:43 the NWT
by Ade inluke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.
now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.
-
-
aqwsed12345
"I don't believe something just because the Jehovah's Witnesses borg believes it"
I didn't say this either, but what they believe correctly, other denominations also believe, and their distinctive views are not good.
"Jehovah and Jesus are two different people."
We did not say "Jehovah and Jesus", this is WTS jargon, the NT does not use such terminology. However, Trinitarian theology does not claim that the Father and the Son are the same person.
"There will be a literal paradise on earth again."
Nope, the current earth will be destroyed, and the new heaven will descend on the new earth, the Jerusalem of the bride, so there are no two castes or classes within salvation.
Let me recommend the following articles to your attention:
* https://tinyurl.com/37hyph6b from page 464 (or 468 according to the pdf)