Posts by aqwsed12345

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

aqwsed12345

@EasyPrompt

I didn't see any specific arguments in your post, only the criticism of the church fathers that it doesn't coincide with your professed interpretation of the Bible, so therefore they must be wrong in every instance then too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

So you are a non-JW JW?

The only question is, if all extra-biblical ancient sources were "apostate" (after all, none of them refer to any alleged JW-like primitive Christianity), then where did the ancient JW-like Christians go? Maybe the cat took them away?

The literature of the ancient church is abundant and diverse, but it does not at all support the conspiracy theory propagated by the Watchtower Society, according to which the Christians of the first centuries believed in what they teach according to their current "light": the "use" of the name Jehovah, Jesus as Michael, the Holy Spirit as "active force," two-group salvation, endtime speculations, 1914, true worship disappearing for 1800 years, "house to house" "preaching", only yearly Eucharist without "partaking", etc ec..

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... What about Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18? Where does the Bible talk about the 1,800-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the 'ekklesi'a, the second foundation?

The JW denomination did not exist until the end of the 19th century, and its most distinctive doctrines did not develop until at least the 1930s. So if this is the true Christianity, and supposedly the apostles professed the current "lights" of the WTS, then true Christianity did not exist for 1900 years. What is the explanation for this 1,900 year break? Where was your church before Russell, or rather Rutherford?

Everyone who has studied early Christian literature, with the exception of some fluctuations, is basically clear that practically all extra-biblical sources, even before the Constantinian shift, refer to exactly the theology, creeds and Christian self-consciousness that are exclusively reminiscent of Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. Those who opposed this early Christian mainline were smaller, heterodox factions (e.g. Gnostics), in which no Protestant or Protestant background (such as the JWs) today sees its predecessor. In the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no break of such a nature that the contemporary Christian consciousness would have experienced as a substantial change.

Relevant scriptures: Mt 16:18, Mt 23:2, Jn 14:16, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 2 Tim 2:13, 1 Tim 3:15.

JWs and various Protestants usually invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his First Epistle to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, SOME will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’.. But this passage of 1 Timothy 4:1 doesn’t imply that the ENTIRE Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that “…SOME will apostatize from the Faith….”, not the entire Church

The Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which SOME – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (1 Timothy 1:19); “which SOME, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “SOME MEN will appear, who will teach the truth falsified”.

The Bible says: “They WENT OUT from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their GOING showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated.

See: http://probe.org/scripture-and-tradition-in-the-early-church/

The WTS uses the terms "apostate" and "nominal" for other Christians, and there is also a terminological difference that they use the term Christianity only for themselves, while they use the term Christendom for others.

The terms "apostasy", "apostate" are known in Christian tradition and are also used in modern Catholic canon law. They apply to those who specifically left the Christian faith, i.e., converted to a completely different religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

Those who did not reject Christianity itself, but adhere to a belief that is officially condemned, contrary to the declared truth, are not referred to as apostates but as heretics.

So, the word the Watchtower would want to think of when talking about the "great apostasy" would actually be heresy instead of apostasy, but they don't use this, let's consider why:

1. Because due to the "black legend" anti-Catholic propaganda literature, films, etc., about the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, the public associates a negative connotation with this word, and if they were to use the term heresy frequently, they would appear dogmatic, while they actually want to appear flexible, researching, and seeking outwardly.

2. Because they specifically consider only themselves to be Christians, everyone else is not only a branch of Christianity that they consider heretical, but actually qualifies as a different religion, just like Islam. However, this is a very harsh claim, as even the "wicked Inquisition" did not consider Christian movements that did not deny the Christian name but denied many Catholic teachings to be apostates.

They regard Catholics as dogmatic, yet they consider anyone who has been validly baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be a Christian, and only those who explicitly renounce the Christian name despite being baptized are considered apostates.

12

Will the G.B. ever give a "new light" on Romans 6:7?

by BoogerMan in

jehovah' witnesses are taught to believe that romans 6:7 refers to a person's own literal death:.

watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.

8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.

aqwsed12345

Romans 6:6: The old man: a specific expression of the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9), and it signifies man when under the domination of sin, and on him is the wrath of God. The old man was crucified with Christ: he died with Him with that painful death by which Christ destroyed the domination of sin. May the body of sin be destroyed: the body that surrendered itself to the dominion of sin, such a body may be destroyed, so that it may no longer stand under the dominion of sin. For we know that Jesus' crucifixion is also our crucifixion, or at least should be, as long as we deny our old sinful nature inherited from Adam, so that in us, all guilt may be destroyed, and we no longer serve sin as slaves to a master. The old man, the man descended from Adam, our corrupt nature, with its errors and sinful desires. Christ crucified them, as it were, with Himself, because He suffered for them and merited for us the grace of transformation. We ourselves must crucify them, by denying them and striving to gradually eradicate them. The body of sin, in us, our whole sinful life, its members the individual desires (as per John Ambrose).

Romans 6:7. For he who died (to sin in baptism) has been freed from sin, therefore has been purified, and remains pure. If natural death frees a man from the debt of sin, the same holds true for mystical death.

Romans 6:8. We will live: this is not primarily about the future resurrection, but about the Christian's new life, which by its nature is eternal life.

Russell argued in the 1890s that the serpent (Satan) in Eden debated the immortality of the soul. Which of course is not true, but we'll look at it soon, but first, let's take a brief conceptual overview.

The first human pair was free from the compulsion of death before the fall. Exemption from the compulsion of death is not entirely synonymous with immortality. So the first human could have died even without sin if he ended up in a situation incompatible with life (e.g., drowns, falls from a great height, gets decapitated). Violent death was a possibility, deriving from his physical nature.

Exemption from the compulsion of death means that for man (and probably the whole living world) natural death (aging) and disease would have been unknown. St. Augustine makes a precise distinction when he defines the gift of human immortality: in its original state, man was "able not to die" (posse non mori). For true immortality, or the fact that one "cannot die" (non posse mori), is only in God (August. Gen. against. VI. 25,36).

God warned Adam not to eat from the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil,' or he would die that day (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve ate from it, but did not die a biological death that day, as they lived for a long time (Gen 5:5). However, Adam lost communion with God (he was expelled from Eden) and eternal life (he could no longer eat from the tree of life, Gen 3:23-24). Adam's (man's) death "on that day" was a spiritual-religious death (cf. Eph 2:1), which then led to biological death.

Death, both spiritual and biological, spread to all of Adam's descendants, to every human, as all have sinned and continue to sin (Rom 5:12-14, 1 Cor 15:22,56). However, the phrase "the wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23) does not mean that death is a punishment for sin from God, but rather that the wages received for serving sin is death, as opposed to eternal life, which can be freely received as a gift from God (based on the context, the question is: whom does the believer want to serve, sin or God?).

So what they quote does not exactly fit here, since it was not about the immortality of the soul, but about the original grace gift given to the first human pair, which they lost.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

aqwsed12345

In fact, Jesus' LIFE was the ransom sacrifice, which was fulfilled with his death, for which his earthly body did not have to be destroyed:

"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46

When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)

The Greek word translated "It is finished" is 'tetelestai' (τετέλεσται). The verse has also been translated as "It is consummated." On business documents or receipts it has been used to denote "The debt is paid in full".

Even in the apostolic letters, where the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is discussed, there is not a single mention of the fact that this would mean the destruction of Jesus' body and the cessation of being a human. So the sacrifice of Jesus is not the destruction and vaporization of his body, but the offering of his LIFE, which was fulfilled when he died on the cross. With JW logic, the ransom hasn't been finished on the cross, but only when God vaporized Jesus' body, although the Bible writes nothing about this, neither of its alleged necessity for the completion of the ransom.

It was the blood of Jesus which was shed for our redemption. In the Old Testament sacrifices which typified Christ it was the blood which was carried into the Holy of Holies, not the body. Likewise it is Jesus' blood which paid the debt for our sins, (Hebrews 9:22).

Would not the taking back of his life be equally disastrous according to this Watchtower logic? But Jesus said he had power to lay down his life and take it again, (John 10:17-18).

Where is Jesus' body after the Ascension?

1 Corinthians 15:45 - "a life-giving spirit" I just need the quote:

Regarding this passage Apologists Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe explain: “’life-giving spirit’ does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the divine origin of the resurrection. Jesus’ physical body came back to life only by the power of God (cf. Rom. 1:4). So, Paul is speaking about its spiritual source, not its physical substance as a material body … In summation, the resurrection body is called ‘spiritual’ and ‘life-giving spirit’ because its source is the spiritual realm, not because its substance is immaterial. Christ’s supernatural resurrection body is ‘from heaven,’ as Adam’s natural body was ‘of the earth’ (v. 47). But just as the one from ‘earth’ also has an immaterial soul, even so the One from ‘heaven’ also has a material body.” (When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, pp 467-468 [Victor Books, 1992])

The "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44) does not mean the spiritual form of the angels, but the transformed, glorified real body. Angels do not have such a "spiritual body", they are simply spirits.
"Flesh and blood" is a way of expressing, not the ascension of the body in general, but the perishable, mortal, corruptible one, we all have before the glorified resurrection. The idea that the human body generally could not enter heaven is clearly contradicted by: Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1-13; 2Cor 12:2-4; 1Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5; Rev 11:11-12. "Flesh and blood" is a term for the corruptible body, but the transformed, incorruptible "spiritual body" enters to heaven.The JW explanation confuses the term "spiritual body" with angels and God being pure spirit who have no body whatsoever. Anyway, where does the Bible say that either God or the angels have a "spiritual BODY"? The transformed or resurrected body of the saved is a real physical body, but it is spiritual, it has already been transformed and glorified. The "spiritual body" is not the same as the spirit. Angels are nowhere said to have such a "spiritual body", that is for the resurrected-transformed righteous. Jesus always spoke about the resurrection and glorification of his body, and this glorified "spiritual body" could go to heaven.
Check these:
* https://shorturl.at/kyXY2
* https://justpaste.it/b6haa
* https://shorturl.at/rMRX1
Jesus was raised in an imperishable and glorified body. This is what 1Cor 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc.
Jesus said that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have", so he was not a spirit. He had a "spiritual body", which does not mean that he is a spirit. Precisely according to the apostle Paul, all those who do not deserve the second coming, but are among the righteous, will be resurrected with the same way, and the same kind of body as Jesus. The chosen resurrection of the 144k Jews will be the same as the rest.
"He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself." (Philippians 3:21)

"See references to "Sons of God" .." - At most, your references prove that "sons of God" can mean angels, but they do not prove that it also actually means angels in Genesis 6:2.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

aqwsed12345

@PetrW

By the way, it is not Sheol / Hades that is fiery, but Gehenna is. The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older liturgical texts which say that "Christ descended into hell." So Jesus was in Hades, every Christian who knows the Apostles' Creed knows it. While Jesus was dead, the human soul descended into "Hades", within that to Abraham's bosom, also known as “paradise”, also known as "limbus patrum". Acts 2:27 specifically says that Jesus' soul (psyche) went to Hades. Acts 2:27 says Jesus' soul _WAS_ in Hades, and Eph 4:9 says that He descended to it. You only have to read these two verses together and you will get what the Apostles' Creed contains.

Since the two verses report on the SAME event (what happened to Jesus between his bodily death and his resurrection, and this is what 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6 also talks about), it is therefore simply necessary to read these parts TOGETHER.

According to this, when Jesus died, while the disciples put his body ('soma') into the tomb ('mnemeion'), but his soul ('psyche') descended to the underworld ('hades'), and within that to the "part" of it, which was called on the one hand "paradise" ('paradeisos', Lk 23:43), on the other hand "Abraham's bosom", and in Latin theological language it was called 'limbus patrum'. And here he proclaimed the gospel to the spirits of the DEAD in "prison" (that is, in sheol) and set them free, that is, as Ephesians 4:8 says "when he ascended, he took many captives" (with him to the heaven), he therefore took the righteous of the Old Testament times to heaven, only then did the closed gates of heaven open.

1Peter 3:19 - here it is clearly not about (fallen) angels, since 4:6 clearly calls them deads, and the Scriptures always only call people dead. Besides, why would Jesus have preached the GOSPEL to the fallen angels in 'hades'? Furthermore, according to Ephesians 4:8, Jesus took these imprisoned spirits into heaven with him.

In 1 Peter 3:13-22, Apostle Peter offers consolation in persecution, and to strengthen them in the sufferings of persecution, he points to Christ, who was killed in his body for our sins, but his soul was revived or enjoyed the beatific vision of God due to his personal unity with divinity. At the moment of his death, his sacred soul descended to the souls in prison, or the porch of hell, where there were also the souls of those who did not believe in Noah's call to repentance while the ark was being built, but in the face of impending danger they turned to God. He preached redemption to all of them, which was completed with his death.

The meaning of verses 19-20 is this: After the death of his body, the soul of Jesus descended to the underworld, not only to the holy patriarchs but also to the unbelievers who, while the ark was being built, did not believe God's threats, but when punishment came upon them, they found salvation in faith and repentance. Christ proclaimed to these righteous forefathers, and to these once unbelievers but later converts, that he had completed the redemption and opened the gates of heaven. Before Christ died, all the souls of the dead, both the good and the bad, went to the underworld. But this was separated in itself (Luke 16:26) so that the righteous went to a place where they awaited the Redeemer, while the wicked were pushed to the place of eternal torment. This is properly called hell, while the former is called the limbo of hell, which also existed in the underworld, but at the same time was a purgatory for the heaven. The underworld (Genesis 4:16,30,33), where all the dead gathered (Job 30:23) before Christ had completed his great work, was indeed a place of prayer for the wicked (Job 26:5.), but for the righteous too, as the limbo of hell, it was not a place of joy, but of silent sorrow (Psalm 30:10. 87:13. Isaiah 38:18. Ecclesiastes 9:10), and in this respect it was not that place where God is exalted and praised, as on earth. Only through Christ did death cease to be sad, because he opened heaven, the place where God is exalted and praised. When the Apostolic Creed says: "descended into hell," this does not mean the actual hell, the place of punishment for the damned, but the underworld, into which Christ descended insofar as he appeared in its part, in the limbo of hell. Apostle Peter calls the limbo a prison because souls were kept there until the coming of Christ. That's why it talks elsewhere (Acts 2:24-25) about the chains of Hades. Under the unbelievers, some understand those who died in unbelief and wickedness, to whom Christ proclaimed repentance to convert them, or at least some of them. According to others, these were irretrievably damned, whose condemnation Christ confirmed. This latter opinion is unlikely, because confirmation of damnation is not preaching, especially not the gospel (good news), as Christ's teaching here is called in 4:6.

The first opinion cannot be accepted because there is no salvation for those who die in unbelief, i.e., outside the grace of God. However, the Church Fathers and older Bible interpreters, correctly understanding the words of the text and comparing them with the teaching of Scripture in this regard, found a suitable solution. Since, on the one hand, the text only speaks of such unbelievers who were unbelievers at the time when the ark was being built, and it does not exclude that these unbelievers could still repent before their death; on the other hand, because the clear teaching of Scripture stands that the one who dies in unbelief can do nothing more for his salvation, - so we must understand such unbelievers who did not persist in unbelief and sin, like the monstrous rebels at the time of the flood (Job 26:4), but who by repentance and contrition did not physically, but at least spiritually saved their lives. Furthermore, the text says: Christ preached also to those who were once unbelievers, so he preached not only to these unbelievers but also to others, i.e., to all the ancient righteous and saints; because the word "also" cannot refer to people living on earth, because it is not Christ who taught on earth, but Christ who preached in the limbo. The fact that Peter does not mention these righteous here, but only mentions these unbelievers, is particularly explained by the opinion generally held among the Jews at the time, that those who perished in the flood were completely rejected by God, and could not even appear in public life. The baselessness of this opinion could not be better illustrated by Peter than by bringing up from those unfortunate ones who Christ proclaimed the redemption. These are in the best agreement with the context. Since it is said of Christ that he died a violent death bodily for the sins of others, but preserved his spiritual life: so it is quite appropriate to talk about those who died violently bodily for their own sins, but saved their lives spiritually. In addition, they serve as special examples for the peaceful endurance of life's sufferings, to which Peter advises above.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

aqwsed12345

@Vidqun

So if "the man Jesus" is the mediator between the faithful and God (e.g. in prayers), does Archangel Michael have to take on a human form for every prayer? What about Hebrews 2:5?

John 2:19-22 clearly means the resurrection of Jesus' body to life, not his re-creation as a spirit. And if he rose with his body, he also ascended with it. And this does not merely proves that His real body will be resurrected, but also that also He will do it as well. How else could he say a parable about rebuilding (which cannot be a pasive role) the temple himself?

“Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

(repeat this sentence, until it gets into your mind)

1 Peter 3:18 - "but made alive in the Spirit." - This does not mean that he became an angel (spirit), but that he was resurrected by the (Holy) Spirit. The preposition "in" is often understood in the sense of "by" (cf. "all things were created in him", Col 1:16) He was raised "in the Spirit", but not "as a spirit." In Romans 8:9 all the believers in Rome are said to be "in the Spirit." Were they spirit creatures? The expression "in the Spirit" simply means "in the power of the [Holy] Spirit." First Peter 3:18 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead and quickened him.

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15:50).

In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, I uploaded a text here for you, please feel free read it: https://justpaste.it/avwxj

The expression "flesh and blood" occurs only five times in the New Testament. We must derive our definition of its meaning from these occurrences. Webster's Dictionary is of no use here. Examine the following references and see if the writers are not just as often speaking of "flesh and blood" as being "fallen man" as they are of the physical body. You might try substituting the words "fallen man" in the place of "flesh and blood."

Matthew 16:13-17, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven." Is this speaking of the physical flesh, or corrupt, sinful man not revealing Christ's identity to Peter?

Galatians 1:16, "Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood...." Obviously Paul was not referring to the physical flesh but rather to corrupt and sinful man.

Ephesians 6:12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...." A case can be made either way in the interpretation of this text. For instance, because Christians do not physically wrestle with their opposition Paul may not be referring to the physical body, but rather we wrestle against sinful corruption of man and the spiritual forces of evil influencing him.

Hebrews 2:14, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...." Here the text does refer to the physical flesh because Jesus did not take on Himself a sinful nature.

I Corinthians 15:50, "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." Paul is answering the question of what kind of "body" believers will have in the resurrection (vs. 35). It will be a "spiritual body" (vs. 44). A "spiritual body" must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the body of Jesus.

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

aqwsed12345

@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?

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

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...

https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/apostasia2.htm

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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.

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 in

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.

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 in

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.

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