Posts by aqwsed12345

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

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

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

aqwsed12345

JWs argue that the Father is not called Firstborn, well that's false:

"The Greek for "firstborn" is prototokos, which means "preeminence" and "eternal preexistence," according to Greek lexicons. It does not mean "first-created." Apart from being untrue linguistically, this heretical interpretation is contradicted in the next two verses, which inform us that Christ "created all things," and that He "is before all things." The Hebrew usage of "firstborn" is also instructive, since it illustrates its meaning as "preeminent." David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, whereas Manasseh was the first child born (Gen 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called "my firstborn" by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn of all creation," that is, the Creator. This is precisely how St. Paul uses the "firstborn" phraseology in Col 1:15.
If Jesus created "all things," then He Himself cannot be a thing (i.e., a creation); ergo, He is not created, but eternal. For this very reason, Jehovah's Witnesses (with no justification in the Greek text whatever), add "other" to the passage, in order for Jesus to become a creation, as they imagine, according to their Arian heretical views. Mormons (though not the Book of Mormon) also deny that Jesus was eternal and immutable, so they set forth some of the same fallacious and unbiblical arguments towards that end. As for being "in the beginning" with the Father, this, too, is in an absolutely unique sense, not applicable at all to created human beings"

Clarke's Colossians 1:15 Bible Commentary:

"The first-born of every creature - I suppose this phrase to mean the same as that, Philippians 2:9 : God hath given him a name which is above every name; he is as man at the head of all the creation of God; nor can he with any propriety be considered as a creature, having himself created all things, and existed before any thing was made. If it be said that God created him first, and that he, by a delegated power from God, created all things, this is most flatly contradicted by the apostle's reasoning in the 16th and 17th verses. As the Jews term Jehovah בכורו של עולם becoro shel olam, the first-born of all the world, or of all the creation, to signify his having created or produced all things; (see Wolfius in loc.) so Christ is here termed, and the words which follow in the 16th and 17th verses are the proof of this. The phraseology is Jewish; and as they apply it to the supreme Being merely to denote his eternal pre-existence, and to point him out as the cause of all things; it is most evident that St. Paul uses it in the same way, and illustrates his meaning in the following words, which would be absolutely absurd if we could suppose that by the former he intended to convey any idea of the inferiority of Jesus Christ."

Let's see this in the Talmud:

"“You shall redeem every firstborn of your sons. They shall not appear before Me empty-handed.” If someone has the good fortune to be a firstborn this is a true distinction. To some degree he shares this distinction with G’d Himself Who is also “a first in the universe.”" (Shemot 34:20)

So when the apostle Paul called Jesus "the firstborn of creation", it rhymed with Jewish phraseology, in which God was called "firstborn of the world" ('bekoro shel olám' - firstborn-of-the-world; or 'qadmono shel olam'-First-Primordial-of-the-world), the general idea is clear: the Jesus is above all of creation.

"Bekoro shel olam" (בכורו של עולם) translates to "the firstborn of the world," and it's a term used to denote someone or something as the primordial or foremost of creation.

"Qadmono shel olam" (קדמונו של עולם) translates to "the Ancient One of the world" or "the Primordial One of the world." In Jewish thought, particularly in Kabbalistic literature, it is often used to refer to God as the Eternal and Primordial Being who precedes all creation.

Hence the term "בכורו של עולם" (bekoro shel olam) in Hebrew translates to "the firstborn of the world," while "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (prototokos pasēs ktiseōs) in Greek translates to "the firstborn of all creation." These term essentially mean the same thing. Both refer to the concept of the "firstborn" or "preeminent" one of all creation or the world. In Christianity, the Greek phrase is used in the New Testament (Colossians 1:15) to describe Jesus Christ, emphasizing his preeminence. The concept of "firstborn" as a special status can also be found in Jewish thought, with the Hebrew phrase carrying the idea of being the first or preeminent one.

Paul makes several key statements about the Messiah: "The firstborn of the world." He continues by saying that through Him, all things were made; visible and invisible. Everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. The overall idea is clear: the Messiah is above all creation.

When the apostle speaks of the "firstborn of the world" (v.15), he is alluding to the preexistence of the Messiah as God. In Hebrew, it is said "Bekoro shel olam" ("Firstborn of the World"), and it was used in Jewish literature to refer to God. Bahiá ben Asher (13th century), a disciple of Rashba (considered an extraordinary rabbinic authority), in his commentary on the Torah, says of God: "He is the firstborn of the world." In his commentary on Exodus 13:2, Bahiá again refers to God as "the firstborn," interpreting this text as "consecrate to me every firstborn."

Thus, Paul, fully immersed in his people's culture, when referring to the Messiah with these terms, native to Judaism, is alluding to the preexistence of the Messiah as God -- this fits perfectly with the context; everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. There could not be a more explicit statement that the universe was created by the Messiah than this one.

These were expressions specific to the Jewish people that could be immediately recognized by the Jewish community members of the Second Temple period. What must certainly be excluded is that the Messiah, by being considered as the "firstborn of the world," should be included among creatures.

He is not the first of creation or the first creature that God made because, as v.1.16 says, everything was created by Him, so He cannot be a creature. He cannot, with any propriety, be considered as a creature, having Himself created all things and having existed before anything was made.

The phrase "firstborn of the world" also cannot be considered the "first creature" of God. To expose the error of this interpretation, we can use King David as an example; he was the firstborn of his brothers (Psalm 89:27), but not the first to be born (1 Sam. 16:1-13). However, he is called "firstborn." Ephraim, the second son of Joseph (Gen. 41:52), is also called the firstborn (Jeremiah 31:9).

The phraseology "firstborn of the world" is Jewish, and as they apply it to the Supreme Being -- the Infinite, only to denote His eternal preexistence, and to identify Him as the cause of causes. It is more than evident that Paul, as a Jew raised in Jewish and Pharisaic culture and an honored sage of the Jewish people, uses this phraseology in the same way, illustrating its meaning with the following words: everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything subsists in Him. Thus, the interpretation that says that "He is the first creature" or included among creatures is excluded by the statements that followed when it is said of Him that "everything was created in Him, by Him and for Him," and that He is "before everything, and everything subsists in Him" (v.16-17). All these expressions clearly demonstrate that the Son is in a unique rank, outside the series of creatures.

Another rabbinic parallel, perhaps equivalent to Bekoro shel olam (firstborn of the world), is the term "Qadmono shel olam-First or Primordial of the world," used to refer to God, as did, for example, the 2nd-century Jewish sage Eleazar ben Shimeón (Bereshit Rabá 38.7 on Gn. 11:2). And also in the Zohar, where God is referred to as "Qadmono shel olam-First or Primordial of the world" (Zohar, Lech-Lecha 1.84a). It is quite likely that the apostle Paul, as a Jew immersed in his people's culture, used one of these two Jewish phraseologies in this doctrinal exposition recorded in his letter to the Judeo-Messianic community located in Colossae vv. 1:16; "Qadmono shel Olam-First-Primordial of the world" or “Bekoro shel olam–firstborn of the world." Both are words used to refer to God.

Reading Paul's key statements about Jesus, as a Jew would have done, completely immersed in his people's culture, such as when he calls Him "firstborn of the world" (bekoro shel olam-firstborn-of-the-world; or Qadmono shel olam-First-Primordial-of-the-world"), clarifies the text's message, which perfectly aligns with Jewish phraseology and ideology and with the entire content of the praise written by the apostle; “everything was created in Him, by Him and for Him,” and He is “before everything, and everything subsists in Him.” The overall idea is clear: the Messiah is above all creation. He is God.

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

"as you might have noticed, I interpret the Scriptures quite literally." - I don't think so, the JW biblical "hermeneutics" is not accidentally called the "Scripture sandwich", or "knight's jump" exegesis (jumping from one place to another in the Scripture like a knight moves on a chessboard), without regard to the context of salvation history. Just as stones are extracted from a quarry, revelations are drawn from the most diverse places in the Bible and - mostly without regard to context and the circumstances of origin - are freely combined.

"On the one hand, I view the soul as a living person (or animal). Adam became a living soul when he started breathing (Gen. 2:7)." - You may have heard or read about the broad nuances of the Hebrew term "nefesh", but basically your denomination wants to derive the doctrinal description of anthropology from the earliest Old Testament meaning of the word "nefesh". Any Catholic theology book will tell you that "nefesh" in Genesis 2:7 does not mean soul, which is what we specifically mean by "soul". This meaning also appears clearly in the Bible, although it is a fact that it is mainly in the later books.

The body-soul dichotomy appears quite concretely, for example, in the first half of Matthew 10:28. In Matthew 10:28, the psyche obviously does not mean either the whole person (because it is about his physical death) or his (eternal) life, since it is not denoted by the term 'psyche', but by the term 'zōē aiōnios' in the New Testament. Read THIS.

And it remains unanswered why, if Israel's original faith was annihilationism, why the translators of the LXX translated 'sheol' as 'hades' and 'nefesh' as 'psyche', when these words clearly have an after-life meaning in the Greek language. And then the writers of the New Testament adopted this terminology and then proclaimed the Gospel in the Greco-Roman world, without saying a word about these converted pagans abandoning their faith in the after-life in its entirety, since there is supposedly nothing until the resurrection.

At that time, the Greeks understood two things by the word 'hades'. Hades, the god of the underworld, one of the sons of the god Zeus, and the realm over which the god Hades ruled, i.e. the Underworld, where, according to their belief, the souls of the dead go. This was the Greek world of faith, the Greeks believed in this. My question is: why did the Jewish translators who first translated the Hebrew scriptures into Greek translate the Hebrew sheol into 'hades'? Hehehe, good question, right? Perhaps the Watchtower-like answer could be that the translators were not inspired, and apostate copyists inserted the same words into the New Testament. I am already waiting for a 'Brand New World Translation' to be published, in which, in addition to the 237 mentions of Jehovah, the ten mentions of Sheol will finally regain their "rightful place"...

You should probably read a chapter from a book on biblical anthropology about the word "nefesh" to see that this word in the Old Testament signified throat, neck, desire, life, a complete person - and indeed the soul, in its usual theological sense. You all have a great battle against those scripture passages where the word cannot mean a complete person, because it is about a person's breath. Such are Exodus 23:9, Job 19:2, Isaiah 53:11, and many others that I could copy from my source, Hans Walter Wolff's book 'Anthropology of the Old Testament'. These cannot be pinned down to mean the "complete person", but rather a constituent part of the person. Obviously, in many places 'nefesh' means the whole person, but these do not absorb the ones I mentioned, nor several key places in the description of the soul, such as 1Thes 5:23, Hebrews 4,12. Therefore, neither nefesh nor psyche exclusively mean the complete person.

Ezekiel 18:4 - Here, the Hebrew term 'nephesh' obviously does not mean what Christian theology means by the soul, and thus by definition does not teach the death of IT. Such phrases in the Bible: "may my soul die with the death of the righteous", are Hebraisms. The Scriptures describe the origin of man not philosophically, but illustratively, and therefore attribute the נָפֶשׁ (nefesh, the principle of life manifested in warm breath) to both man and animal. The nefesh often replaces the reflexive and personal pronouns in Hebrew; thus such statements should be understood: "my soul shall die" = "I shall die". With regard to the terminology of the Old Testament, it is not new, it is even included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (363):

"In Sacred Scripture the term "soul" often refers to human life or the entire human person (Cf. Mt 16:25-26; Jn 15:13; Acts 2:41) But "soul" also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him (Cf. Mt 10:28; 26:38; Jn 12:27; 2 Macc 6 30.), that by which he is most especially in God's image: "soul" signifies the spiritual principle in man.""

The term "onoma" (=name) plays a similar role in the New Testament, e.g. Acts 1:15: "the number of names" = "the number of people".
Anyway, although JWs often accuse us of taking our concept of the soul from Plato, in fact, the Platonist understanding of the soul was condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church in 1312 at the Council of Vienne, where extreme monist and extreme dualist conceptions of man were condemned.

The historical fact is that in the time of Jesus, with the exception of the Sadducees, the Jews believed in the afterlife, and Jesus did not reprimand them for this, and in an interesting way he told a parable in which the rich man suffers in a fiery place. If a JW used such illustrations in his preaching work today, I would certainly not praise him for it. Because maybe he meant it symbolically and not literally. However, it is impossible that these symbols will only be "deciphered" by JWs after 1900 years and for 1900 years everyone will be forced to explain this as if this parable has a realistic basis.

There is a good article about the many uses of the word "soul" in the Bible: https://www.oodegr.com/english/dogma/diafora/enoies2.htm

"And is that not what the memorial is all about, the sacrifice of Jesus' body and blood?" - "Memorial" is a JW jargon, in Christianity it is called the Eucharist, and it is not only an annual event, and the majority of believers are not inherently excluded from it.

"And the fact that nobody recognized the resurrected Jesus, is also an indication that he rose with a different body." - It's enough for me to quote again:

He was not recognized for several reasons, all of which are indicated by the contexts.
-John 20. It was early in the morning and still dark, (vs. 1), and Mary was not expecting to see Jesus alive. Nowhere does the text say Jesus appeared to Mary as a gardener. It was Mary's mistake, not Jesus' appearance.
-John 21:4-12. Jesus was on the seashore, while the disciples were at sea in a ship. It was early morning. The disciples were 200 cubits (approx. 100 yards) from the land. Fog would have been raising from the water at that early hour obscuring the disciple's view.
Jesus' subsequent actions were those of someone possessing a body.
-Luke 24:16. The eyes of these disciples were "holden," or "veiled."
Jesus did this so they could not recognize Him because though He was the Living Word and had taught them for over three years He now wanted to direct their attention to the written Word.
When they saw from the scriptures that Jesus must suffer and be raised again He then unveiled their eyes so they could recognize Him.
The implication is very plain if Jesus had not "veiled" their eyes they would have recognized Him. If He was in "another form" there would have been no need to veil their eyes at all.

1 Corinthians 15:38 proves that the resurrected body is the same own body, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54 speaks of the "change" of this original body.

"In my mind the word “sacrifice” means the death of the victim." - That's what I said too, that's why Jesus' sacrifice already fully "finished" on the cross when he died, not when God allegedly vaporized his body in the grave, especially since the Holy Scriptures does not say a word about this or the allegd necessity of it.

""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." - It does not disprove it either." - The burden of proof is on you, since if you look at the commentaries, Christian and Jewish exegetes almost unanimously interpreted it as I wrote. By the way, logic also supports this, since angels are pure spirits who are able to appear visibly (with God's permission), but this is only apparent, they cannot concieve children.

"So where do the violent Nephilim ("giants"), "the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" fit in then? (Gen. 6:4 ESV)" - The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the "sons of God" (men from the tribe of Seth) went in to the "daughters of men" (women from the tribe of Cain), and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, known from ancient times The Hebrew word "Nephil" does not necessarily mean a giant—though according to Numbers 13:33, the Nephilim could have been tall in stature—but rather generally refers to a violent, wild, unruly person. The Scipture here is talking about those heroes (heroi), whose deeds were later so colored and glorified by the (pagan) myth, - and precisely against their respect, it wants to emphasize that their wickedness hastened the coming of the flood.

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

In fact, God Himself is a mystery, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God. The fact that the Trinity is a mystery does not mean that what is in Revelation cannot be understood by reason. The doctrine of the Trinity summarizes the biblical data: there is only one God, but at the same time there are three persons, who by nature are what only God can be, and who do things that only God can do. God is one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not meaningless, it is just beyond reason, unprecedented in the created world: God bless you. it does not resemble human ideas (cf. Acts 17:29). Otherwise, the term "Jehovah" or "theocratic organization" is not in the Bible either. 1 Cor 14:33 does not speak about the being of God, but about the need for church order (i.e. he is the God of peace).

Read this: https://justpaste.it/9jizw

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

The fact that God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit does not "sum up the number of gods" (1+1+1 = 3, which would be tritheism), but rather declares the existence of three persons (who are not separate Gods but have one, common nature), always bearing in mind that "there are not three gods, there is only one God."

The fact that God is the Father, God is the Son, and God is the Holy Spirit does not "sum up the number of gods" (1+1+1 = 3, which would be tritheism), but rather declares the existence of three persons (who are not separate Gods but have one, common nature), always bearing in mind that "there are not three gods, there is only one God."

No one talks about three Gods. The fact that, in accordance with the Bible, we refer to three different persons as God, is not equivalent to the statement that there are three Gods. Since these persons are not three different Gods, as their divinity, their essence, is one, common. The Trinity refers only to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; that is, there is only one God. What is single in God, we call divine essence or nature; what is three in God, we call person or subject. So, God is three persons in one essence, while Jesus Christ is one (divine) person in two (divine and human) natures. The multiplicity of persons in no way can be contrasted with the unity of essence, although it is true that without revelation, we would have no idea that "personality" and "essence" do not always coincide. From the fact that in us humans the two coincide, it does not follow that the two are conceptually the same thing. In this, there would only be a conceptual contradiction if we said: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons are no more contradictory than if I say; three people and one family, or: a hundred soldiers and one company. We are not identifying the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. In this, a conceptual contradiction cannot be demonstrated.

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

If you're already asking about my math knowledge, let me note that I was a multiple math contest winner during my high school years. And for this stupid "1 + 1 + 1 = 3" argument, just that, of course, the fact that there are three divine persons does not mean that there are three Gods, since the three divine persons share the on Deity, they are the subsistences of one Godhead.

"I thought we were talking about Romans 9:5?" - That was the opening theme, but you were the first to refer to John 14:28, and I responded to this in my comment, explaining why this does not support the Arian heresy.

"I know Jesus, and I've heard of Paul, but who are Hilary of Poiters and John Chrysostom?" - It wouldn't hurt to look it up, I think that if you call yourself a Christian, knowledge of the most important figures of the early Christian church is part of general education.

Then you quote the verse 1 Timothy 2:5, also in a NWT translation, "corresponding" is an insertion, not part of the original text. On the other hand, this verse is particularly problematic for the WTS theology, since they believe that Jesus ceased to be human when he died, and that his resurrection actually means recreation, restoration to be an angel.

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

So if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator. Let's say that in the case of JWs, he is not mediator for the rank-and-file members (only for the "anointed" class, thus the inner party), to whom the majority of members belong based on the two-class salvation regime invented in 1935.

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

1Timothy 2:6 in the original text there is no "corresponding", this is also one of the infamous Bible forgery inserts in the NWT. Check THIS. While in the WTS theology the ramsom is of equal value, Jesus gives more than the restoration of Adam's perfect condition to those who believe in Him (Romans 5:15-16). Check these:

But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'"

Check THIS too.

Whoever believes, God declares them justified (Rom 3:22-26), adopts them as His child (Jn 1:12-13, Gal 3:26, 4:6, Rom 8:15-16), is born of God (1Jn 5:1 cf. Jn 3:1-8), has received the Spirit (Jn 7:37-39, 1Cor 12:13-14), is sealed and anointed with Him (Eph 1:13, 2Cor 1:21-22), God dwells in them (Jn 14:17, Eph 3:17, 2Jn 9). All this is the work of God (Phil 1:6), whoever trusts in Him will not perish (Jn 3:16,10:28-30, 1Pt 1:3-9, Jude 24). Believers have one, common hope (Eph 4:3-6), the faith of the apostles and the believers is of equal value (2Pt 1:1).

Isn't it an unjust reward? According to the Watchtower Society, if after Adam's fall, converts would not only regain eternal life on earth, but could also go to heaven, then humanity would actually receive a higher reward through the fall, without deserving it, which would be unjust. Isn't that logical? However, let's take a look again at the scriptures referenced by the Society, and their claims about them:

Genesis 2:16-17 The Society claims that the "death" due for Adam's fall "is not the gate of heaven, but the punishment for disobedience."

This is indeed the case, and every Christian denomination views death as a punishment, as an enemy. The referenced section, however, says nothing about man's state after death.

1 Timothy 2:6 In the Society's translation, it reads: Christ "gave himself a corresponding ransom for all" (NWT). The ransom is "corresponding" in their translation, that is, equivalent. Adam lost perfect human life, and the last Adam, Jesus Christ, regained it by sacrificing his own perfect human life, he regained it for believers.

First of all, the original expression (antilytron = ransom) only appears here in the New Testament, and is just one of many similar expressions that describe the same redemption (Mt 20:28 lytron, Eph 1:14 apolytrosis, etc.). It cannot be claimed that a ransom - either in the Bible or in the world - is necessarily of equivalent value.

Secondly, God, according to the Bible, wants to give more than a perfect human life, even if it seems "unfair" to the Society. According to Paul (Rom 5:12-21), Adam is indeed a prefiguration of Jesus at one point: as sin entered the world through Adam and spread to everyone, so too did justification enter the world through Jesus, and is given to every believer (see 5:18-19). However, he continues: "But it is not true that the sin is like the gift of grace (...) God's grace and gift poured out even more abundantly (...) where the sin increased, there the grace poured out even more abundantly" (5:15-16,20). For example, according to 2Pt 1:4, believers "have become partakers of the divine nature", and according to 1Jn 3:1-2, they will become like Christ, etc. The question is not whether this applies to all believers or just 144,000, but whether, if it applies to even a single person, how could Christ's life be of equivalent value to Adam's?

Perhaps these few examples have shown how important it is to take into account the context of the text, the internal connections of a given section, and its original and true message before linking it to another. There is a big difference between searching the Bible for snippets that can be quoted to support our own theory, or letting the entire message of the Bible shape our own thinking.

It's easy to find sentences in the Bible that we could say too, but nobody would be interested in that. But if they are in the Bible, they support our thoughts with divine authority - or so it may seem. I encourage you to always study carefully the scriptures that "support" other teachings of the Society, and always try to discover the internal connections of the text, the real intention of the speaker. You will be surprised many times, but it is worth it!

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

John 14:28

"You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater [meizon] than I."

This is one of Jehovah's Witnesses' favorite cherry-picked Bible verses, a "showy" verse that they bring up to support Jesus' created and angelic nature. But does it truly speak against Jesus' actual deity? The Trinity doctrine asserts that the Son is equal to the Father in divinity but lesser in humanity. The Scripture does not mention both these things without reason, i.e., that the Son is equal to the Father, and at the same time, the Father is greater than the Son - the former due to the form of God, the latter due to the form of a servant, without any confusion. Now the lesser is subordinate to the greater. Therefore, in the form of a servant, Christ is subordinate to the Father.

The Son was indeed "lesser" than the Father as a human, and as the Messiah, as a human, lived in total dependence on the sending God. However, Scripture clearly refers to Jesus as Lord and GOD several times and attributes characteristics to Him that only the true God can possess. Therefore, according to Scripture, He possesses a divine reality with the Father, one God with Him, and is equal in this regard. This interpretation is not excluded by John 14:28, and there are two brief reasons for this:

The Son (in contrast to the Father) became human, and as a human, can indeed call God the Father essentially superior to Him, God, whom He also worships, etc. This does not exclude that He may also be God.
The Father is greater than the Son, not in divinity, but in fatherhood, for it is written: In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (What kind of divine nature is that which has a greater or fuller one?) On the other hand, Jesus was the Son, and as such, was inherently obedient to the Father (although equal with Him in divinity). From this obedience, He became human (as He owed it to no one, not even to the Father), and as a human, learned obedience from a new perspective: as a creature. This is the other reason He could acknowledge that He was lesser than the Father.

The context makes clear that this is about the action between the Father and the Son within the Trinity: Jesus talks about His coming from and returning to the Father. The Father is greater since all action within the Trinity originates from Him, as He is the one who sends the Son and the Holy Spirit. The unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as well as the sending of the Son and the Holy Spirit by the Father, is emphasized especially in the entire 14th chapter of John's Gospel. Therefore, this statement: "The Father is greater than I" can only be appropriately placed based on Jesus' statement in the same chapter (v. 9) and similar ones: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The Son's subordination to the Father, His emptying during His earthly existence, does not negate His deity. He was God in quality, manifested in the flesh, while limited in quantity as a human.

The text speaks of how the apostles should rejoice that Jesus is going to the Father, justifying it by the Father being greater than Him. Greater, not in divine nature, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and indivisible, but in His human nature. Jesus, in His human nature, was indeed lesser than the Father. So, as a human, He was indeed lesser than Him. The apostles have more reason to rejoice than mourn Jesus' departure because His resurrection glorifies His human nature. The meaning of the verse is: I spoke to you about my departure and return. You mourn the former; but if you would consider my happiness, which is bound with yours, you would rejoice in it; for the Father, to whom I am going, is greater than I, and He gives me the greater thing, the glorification, from a lowly state to a more glorious state, which will have the most joyful consequences for you as well. Christ speaks here of Himself as a human because He is talking about His departure. As the divine Word, He never left the Father's glory, and there can be no talk of the Word going to the Father. However, these words: "The Father is greater than I" are reconcilable with Jesus Christ's divine nature; for the Father is indeed greater than the Son, not in nature and dignity, but insofar as the Son is begotten of the Father.

Sects influenced by Arianism misinterpret this teaching when they relate Jesus' divinity to Jn 14:28 ("...the Father is greater than I"), as if Jesus were essentially lesser than God the Father; of lower rank; or even a created being. Yet Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15, 23).

There is an important reason why Jesus (when characterizing his relationship with the Father) chose to use the expression "meizon," which is translated as "greater," instead of the expression "kreitton," which means "superior." The "meizon" denotes a higher position, while the "kreitton" denotes a higher rank, a superior nature. The difference between these two words can be observed in John 14:12, where we read that believers will perform "greater" (meizon) works than Jesus. Since we know that this verse does not imply that we will perform "greater" works than Jesus's, it is clear from the context that Jesus used the same word when referring to the Father's position (who was in heaven) as opposed to Jesus's position (who was then on earth).

A modern illustration of this kind of relationship can be recognized in the analysis of the Watchtower's own authority structure: A presiding overseer can be said to be "greater" than an elder. Yet with this statement, one does not imply that the elder is inferior to the overseer, but rather that the overseer's authority is "greater" than the elder's. Similarly, it is only Jesus's human nature that can be said to be "greater" than the Father. However, this analogy cannot be applied to the relationship between Jesus and the angels, as in Hebrews 1:4 the other expression is found (kreitton, translated as "better"), used to show that Jesus is "greater" than the angels by nature. The angels and God differ not only in rank but also in nature, in essence. The essential difference leads to the difference in rank.

The Father's position is "greater" than the incarnate Christ, since Christ's humanity is a created reality, though he is equal to the Father in his divinity. His position differed from that of the Father, not his nature. Jesus called the Father greater, not because he is not God, but because Jesus was also a man, and as a man, he was in a lower position.

According to Hebrews 2:9, Jesus was made "lower than the angels" at the Incarnation.

Matthew 11:11 states that "among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Does this mean that John has no human nature? Does this mean that those in heaven, who are greater than John, have a different nature? If John the Baptist is the greatest man who ever lived, and Jesus was merely a man, does this mean that John the Baptist was greater than Jesus, in the sense that he was of a higher nature? Does this mean that Jesus and John could not both have possessed human nature?

According to Galatians 4:4, Christ was under the Law. Therefore, as a man, he was in a lower position than the Father but did not differ from him in divine nature. This is the same explanation for why he grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52).

For comparison, a husband is the head of the family, while the wife is not. Though their positions are different, the man has greater power, while their nature is the same. Biblically, the husband enjoys a higher position and authority than his wife. But he does not differ from her in nature, and he is not superior, or higher in order than her. They share human nature, and work together in love. So it is with Jesus as well. His nature is the same as the Father's, but the Father sent Him (John 6:44), and He was in a lower position as a result of the Incarnation, and was under the Law.

According to Philippians 2:5-8, Jesus “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men…”

This is what the Athanasian Creed says:

"...our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ."

From the time of His Incarnation, Jesus had a dual nature, taking on human nature as well. Jesus never denied that He was God. He simply acknowledged the fact that He was also human, and subjected Himself to God's laws, thereby redeeming those who were under the Law, namely the sinners (Galatians 4:4-5). Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, He was in a lower position than the Father. He added to human nature (Colossians 2:9). He became man to die for men.

Since Jesus Christ is both true God and true man, two sets of statements can be made about Him: divine and human. Therefore, as a man (the man who is also God), Christ is less than the Father. But in the Trinitarian relations, there may also be a place for the Savior's statement. On the one hand, in the communication of the mystery, the revelation attributes a certain superiority to the Father (by appropriation), since He is generally called God. Furthermore: since the Father is without origin, and the Son is begotten (but not created!), there exists, in the aspect of origin (not nature and essence), a Trinitarian sequence, and thus, according to human understanding and expression, there can analogically be talk of a certain kind of subordination. Meaning

Jesus Christ is a real man as well, so He could say and do everything like a man.
In terms of Trinitarian origin, that is, the Son is begotten of the Father, the Son is conceptually dependent on the Father, providing a sufficient logical basis for the speech mode that the Son logically follows the Father and is subordinate to Him, and since the Father is the source of Divinity, He can be exclusively attributed (but not appropriated against the Son and the Holy Spirit) the name of God.

The statement "The Father is greater than I" must therefore be understood on the basis of the meaning of "I am going to the Father." The Son does not go to the Father because He is the Son of God, for as the Son of God, He was with the Father from eternity - thus even when He spoke these words. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God" (1:1). Rather, we say that He goes to the Father because He has a human nature. Thus, when He says, "The Father is greater than I," He does not say it in the sense of "I, as the Son of God," but as the Son of Man, for in this sense, He is not only less than the Father and the Holy Spirit but even less than the angels: "He was made a little lower than the angels" (Heb 2:9). Moreover, in some things, He was subject to humans, such as His parents (Lk 2:51). Therefore, because of His human nature, He is less than the Father, but because of His divine nature, He is equal to Him: "He did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6-7).

We could also say, as Hilary of Poitiers does, that even according to the divine nature, the Father is greater than the Son, yet the Son is not less than the Father but equal to Him. For the Father is not greater than the Son in power, eternity, and greatness, but in the dignity of a giver or source, of origin. For the Father receives nothing from another, but the Son receives His nature from the Father by eternal generation. Therefore, the Father is greater because He gives; but the Son is not less but equal because He receives everything that is the Father's: "He gave Him the name that is above every name" (Phil 2:9). For the one to whom an act of existence (esse) is given is not lower than the giver.

John Chrysostom explained the statement contained in John 14:28 by saying that the Lord said this considering the disciples' opinion, who did not yet know of the resurrection, or did not think that He was equal to the Father. Therefore He said to them: if you do not yet believe me on the basis that I cannot help myself, or do not expect to see me again after my cross, then believe me because I am going to the Father, who is greater than I.

From the beginning, human nature shows a threefold subordination to God. The first refers to the measure of goodness, in the sense that the divine nature is the essence of goodness itself, while the created nature only shares in divine goodness, as if it were subject to the rays of goodness. Secondly, human nature is subject to God in terms of God's power, since human nature, like every creature, is subject to the operation of divine ordering. Thirdly, human nature is especially subject to God through its own action, in the sense that it obeys His commands by its own will. Christ confesses this threefold subordination about Himself.

The first (Matt 19:17): "Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good, God." What does this mean? Whoever called Him a good master, and did not confess that He is God or the Son of God, learns that no single person, however holy, can be good in comparison to God. And with this, He prompted us to understand that He Himself, in His human nature, did not attain the height of divine goodness. And since in things that are great, but not in their greatness, to be great is the same as to be good, it is therefore said that the Father is greater than Christ in His human nature.
The second subordination of Christ is understood in the sense that all that happened with Christ happened by divine disposition, so Christ was subject to the ordering of God the Father. And this is the subordination of servitude, by which every creature serves God, is subject to His ordering, because the creature serves the Creator. And in this sense, the Son of God took "the form of a servant." (Phil 2:7)
The third subordination He attributes to Himself, saying (John 8:29): "I always do what pleases Him." And this is the subordination of obedience. Therefore, the Scripture says of Him that "became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross." (Phil 2:8)

http://www.carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/if-jesus-god-then-why-did-he-say-father-was-greater-he

http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1428-father-greater-i

Bonus:

A Study of John 1:1a, b: A Defense of the Deity of Christ Apart from the Argument of 1:1c.

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

Please calculate for me mathematically:

1 x 1 x 1 = ?

2

Justus Lipsius' De Cruce Liber Tres

by senojes in

i have recently posted to my blog jesusisjehovah!

[http://tinyurl.com/yws8dt] a set of digital photos i took of the woodcuts depicting crucifixion in lipsius' book de cruce liber tres.

i posted the above in reply to de cruce - justus lipsius pdf, but as it may be missed there, i decided to post it again separately.

aqwsed12345

The New World Translation replaces the cross with the word "torture stake" and attempts to justify this in Appendix No. 6. Therefore, in the NWT, Jesus did not die on a cross, and Paul's words are rendered: "But may I never boast, except in the torture stake of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been put to death with regard to me and I with regard to the world." (Gal 6:14)

Jehovah's Witnesses are not, of course, "enemies of Christ's cross" (Phil 3:18), since they do not deny Jesus' death and its significance, but believe that the instrument of execution had a different shape from the traditional concept. The shape of the execution tool naturally has no theological significance. It's not a subject worth dwelling on. Instead, it is significant that the organization manipulates its readers for the sake of its "own truth." This time with a picture.

The article in the Appendix portrays the cross as a pagan symbol (People used the equal-armed cross, always as a symbol of cardinal directions, seasons, sun-disc, space, and time, and never marked it as an execution tool) and cites four specialist books to claim that Jesus died nailed to a vertical pole. Why is this so important to the Society? Because it "does not want to add anything to God's written word."

Before mentioning the picture, it cites the Lewis-Short Latin dictionary about the meaning of the Latin word crux: "A single stake for impalement of a criminal was called in Latin crux simʹplex. One such instrument of torture is illustrated by Justus Lipsius (1547-1606) in his book De cruce libri tres, Antwerp, 1629, p. 19, which we here present."

It must be acknowledged that the Society does not specifically claim that Lipsius depicted Jesus' crucifixion with this picture. Yet it suggests this in various ways. First, it fits into its own line of reasoning: the whole point 6 of the Appendix is meant to prove that Jesus died on such a stake. Secondly, the picture almost completely fills page 418, so in the minds of Witnesses and interested readers, the topic and picture are guaranteed to be linked. Thirdly, the Society plucked only one picture from Lipsius's book, omitting what the author wrote about the subject and specifically about Jesus' agonizing death. Some have researched this rare book and had its Latin text translated. As it turned out, the picture presented in the Appendix is indeed in Lipsius' book but on page 647 and depicts a medieval criminal's execution. According to the Society, Lipsius' picture depicts the ancient (contemporary with Jesus) crux simplex discussed in the Lewis-Short Latin dictionary ("It depicts such a torture device..."). Secondly, Jesus' name does not even appear on this page! Thirdly, Lipsius wrote and depicted Jesus' execution in his book. The Society did not mention this because it would reveal that the author did not agree with it.

Page 661 indeed talks about Jesus and depicts Jesus on a cross, sharing the reflections of early Church Fathers and Lipsius on the cross. Here's an excerpt from Lipsius' commentary: "The Lord's cross had four pieces of wood: the vertical column, the crossbeam, a piece placed below [i.e., to sit on], and the piece above with the inscription. This [report] was also passed on to Irenaeus: "The structure of the cross had five ends: two horizontal, two vertical, and one in the middle where the nailed person rested." Lipsius then cites reflections on the cross by other 2nd to 4th-century writers (Tertullian, Augustine, etc.), finally noting: "When someone adores God with outstretched arms and a pure heart, they form the Cross."

As for the word "cross" itself, its Greek origin is stauros. In classical Greek, it indeed originally meant an upright pole, stake, and the like. Still, I cannot imagine Jesus setting out for Golgotha with a minimum three and a half-meter telephone pole on his back, and I consider it physically impossible that his body would not have fallen off such a pole if only two nails held it.

Two Bible passages, however, prove that the wood on which Jesus was executed could have been T-shaped or Latin cross-shaped. First, the three-language tablet (titulus) justifying the punishment, surely not just a small slip of paper, was nailed above Jesus' head (Mt 27:37), not over his hands, as the Society usually depicts. Secondly, Jesus' hands were pierced with nails, at least two (Jn 20:25), not just one, as the Society usually depicts. Which do you think better matches the biblical description?

Regarding the ancient Near Eastern practice of hanging on a pillar, the already executed, i.e., dead criminals were displayed this way as a deterrent. The Roman crux, however, was both an execution and a torture device, where the tied or nailed person could suffer for days. The leg was also usually broken after a while (cf. Jn 19:31-33) so that the condemned could not repeatedly straighten up to take deep breaths. Thus the condemned - if not bled to death - usually died of suffocation. With all this in mind, Pilate's astonishment that Jesus died after only about six hours is understandable (cf. Mk 15:45). Of course, there was another reason for this (see Jn 10:17-18).

The existence of the upper, horizontal crossbeam is also proven by archaeology. The Society should have known about these relatively old and well-known finds, just like the authors of the books it cites. Pompeii and Herculaneum were covered with lava and ash in AD 79. In one of the houses in Herculaneum, in 1938, they found a small home altar with a Latin wooden cross embedded in the wall.

In Rome, on the Palatine Hill, in the area of the imperial court's slave quarters (paedagogium), 1st-2nd century graffiti were found while digging in 1857. One of the drawings depicts a man pointing to a donkey-headed, crucified human figure. The accompanying text is: “ALE XAMENOS SEBETE THEON” ("Alexamenos worships [his] God"). Of course, there is no ancient deity with a donkey's head who would have died on the cross in shameful agony, who anyone would have worshiped or whose worship anyone would have mocked. Only a Christian's faith could have been regarded by contemporaries as such great foolishness (cf. 1 Cor 1:18-25).

Finally, it should be noted that the cross could not have entered Christianity from the symbol system of pagan religions either. Their crosses were mostly equilateral (+, with only the Egyptian ankh being an exception), and they were always associated with complex, mystical philosophy, and never referred to execution or torture devices. The cross represents only this shameful method of execution, and this is why it could only become one of the most important symbols for Christians centuries later when this method was no longer used.

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.