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

Let's see Ezekiel 18:4...

First of all, God, through the prophet, is fighting against an Israeli proverb: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge," meaning the children are also punished for the fathers' sins. Ezekiel's message is clear: everyone is accountable for themselves before God. Secondly, the literal translation ("which soul...") is misleading because the expression just means "who...". It is not about a person's "part," the soul (which proponents of soul mortality do not even regard as a separate part), but about the whole person and personal responsibility.

In other texts, the literal translation of this text can be misleading. Acts 3:23 "And it shall be, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" – meaning everyone. Joshua 11:11 "And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them..." – meaning everyone.

The Watch Tower Society cites this verse in response to the following question: Is there a part of man that lives on after the death of the body? The answer, according to them, is no. They point out that in some translations at this verse, "he who sins will die" can be read. Therefore, the word "soul" (Hebrew: nefesh) does not refer to the intangible nature of a person but to the actual living individual. So they claim that the "soul" is not something that survives the death of the body.

Biblical Teaching: The statement in Ezekiel 18:4, which says "the soul that sinneth, it shall die," does not conflict with the idea that humans have an intangible nature that remains conscious after death. It is true in this textual context that the Hebrew word for soul (nefesh) is used in the sense of "living creature" or "person." Christians do not dispute this (in a given textual context, the word 'nefesh' means "living creature"; it can have other meanings - such as a human creature's "inner self").

Christians point out that since the intangible nature of man is not discussed in Ezekiel 18:4, we cannot draw conclusions about it, either for or against, based on this verse. All Ezekiel intended to do was combat a false teaching that had arisen at that time - a teaching related to the doctrine of inherited sin. Some people began to argue about why children suffer and die for the sins of their fathers. While it is true that sin has an inherited effect (see Exodus 20:5-6), Ezekiel emphasizes in this verse that each individual person is responsible for their own sin. That's why he said that the "soul" (or person) that sins is the one who will die. Ezekiel was not attempting to teach anything about the existence or absence of the intangible nature of man.

Although the Hebrew word 'nefesh' in Ezekiel 18:4 refers to a "living creature" or "person," there are numerous verses in the Old Testament where the word is used in another sense. For example, in Genesis 35:18, the word nefesh can be interpreted as referring to the intangible nature of man: "And it came to pass, as her soul (nefesh) was departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin". This verse clearly identifies the soul as something distinct from the mortal physical body. Many New Testament passages unequivocally prove that man has an intangible nature (see, for example, Matthew 10:28, 2 Corinthians 5:8-10, and Revelation 6:9-11).

When read in its full textual context, the simple essence becomes evident: the person who commits sin will die, and the person who obeys God will live. The cited section does not address the question of whether or not there is life after death or in the afterlife.

Furthermore, they overlooked the spiritual meaning of "death" found in the Bible. For example, 1 Timothy 5:6 reads:

"But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives." (cf. Eph 2:1 and Lk 15:24)

The fact that Ezekiel 18:4, 20 refers to spiritual death (meaning: separation from God, not annihilation) is evident from its context, as 18:21 states:

"But if the wicked turns from all his sins that he has committed, keeps all my statutes, and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die."

Since every person dies physically, this clearly refers to spiritual or "second" death.

Expressions like "let my soul die the death of the righteous" are Hebrew idioms. The Hebrew word 'nefesh' can often replace the reflexive and personal pronoun in Hebrew. So, such expressions should be understood as "my soul shall die" = "I shall die". The same word in the Bible can have different meanings, and sometimes different words can express the same thing. For instance, the Hebrew 'nefesh' is often translated not as "soul," but as "living being". Therefore, when speaking of the death of the 'nefesh', it does not deny the immortality of the soul, contrary to what Jehovah's Witnesses might think.

Moreover, based on the context, it's evident that this isn't about hope after death, but about personal responsibility. The Lord says that He loves and judges everyone, both the father and the son. Why would He punish the son for the father's sins? Only the sinner is punished, whether he is a father or a son; they are not punished for their fathers’ sins but for their own.

When the Bible speaks of the 'soul' dying (for example, Numbers 23:10; 1 Kings 19:14), it always refers to the whole person (in a broader sense) and never to the soul as an element of human creation (in a narrow sense). This is especially true for passages like Ez 18:4, often cited by the Watchtower Society. When the prophet says that 'the soul that sins shall die', it obviously refers to the human as a spiritual-physical entity because an isolated soul cannot sin or die. Mortality is a characteristic used in the New Testament only in relation to the earthly body (Rom 6:12; 8:11; 1 Cor 15:53k; 2 Cor 4:11; 5:4). For the earthly body belongs to the visible and transient realm (2 Cor 4:18). However, the new body, in which the person continues to exist after the last day's resurrection, is immortal (1 Cor 15:35-54; 2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil 3:21).

The Scripture doesn't describe human origins philosophically but vividly, attributing the נָפֶשׁ (nefesh, the principle of life manifested in warm breath) to both humans and animals alike. When describing the creation of the first man, the Scripture only mentions the body formed from the earth's clay and the breath of life, nothing else. This perspective continues in later books. However, there's no doubt about the divine origin and distinct nature of the human soul: God directly breathes the breath of life into humans, whom He created in His image, distinguishing them from animals. Only humans possess נְשָׁמָה (neshama, rational soul). The soul is not subject to the fate of the body, thus having a different essence. "The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it." [Eccl 12:7; Ez 37:7.10] "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." [Mt 10:28; cf. 16:26.] It's paralleled with the spirit of God: "For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God." [1 Cor 2:11] The soul has the ability to recognize truth [Job 20:3 32:8; Ex 28:3, Ps 138:14]; therefore, it is different from the soul of an animal.

Many rationalist religious historians believe that the older Old Testament books do not know about the soul's afterlife (according to some newer views, they are only silent so as not to feed the widespread animism among the Semites). In this matter, we must ascertain that

the entire Old Testament is set directly and straightforwardly not on the afterlife, but on God. But in this, the belief in immortality is implied, as the Savior indicates: "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live unto Him." [Lk 20:38]
It is also certain that God gradually advanced the people bearing the revelation to a higher religious standpoint in this matter as well. He did not presuppose spiritual development as a Deus ex machina, but connected his revelations regarding the afterlife and thus immortality to its phases.
Finally, it should not be overlooked that the Scripture does not treat immortality as an abstract philosophical proposition but presents it in its truly realized form, in connection with the resurrection of the body.

In the first phase of revelation, due to the obscurity of views and concepts regarding the afterlife, the sacred writers were also under the impression of experience: the present life speaks to man with its definite forms, joys, and colors; compared to it, the afterlife is colorless, joyless, shadow-life [Job 10:21, Ps 87:12 113:17, Isa 38:18, etc.]; although not the same for the good and the wicked [Deut 32:22]. And the passing of this earthly life, the course of all living beings seemingly leading uniformly into death, attunes the Old Testament thinker to melancholy [Job 14:7–14, Ecc 2:14–16, 3:11–22, 6:6 9:4–6, etc.].

Yet even the oldest Old Testament books know about the afterlife of the soul:

Jacob calls his and his fathers' earthly life a pilgrimage [Gen 47:9; cf. Heb 11:9.]
the descent into Sheol, the gathering to the fathers, often does not simply mean the expression of burial [Gen 15:5 25:8 35:29 37:35 49:32.]
evidence is also the prohibition and fact of summoning spirits [Lev 19:31 20:6.27; Deut 18:11; 1Sam 28:75]

Such expressions: "may my soul die with the death of the righteous," are Hebraisms. The word 'nefesh' often substitutes the reflexive and personal pronoun in Hebrew; such statements like "my soul will die" = "I will die" should be understood this way. Later Old Testament books and the New Testament specifically say: "God created man immortal, and made him in his own image" [Ecc 12:7; Dan 12:1–3.]; "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." [Mt 10:28; cf. Lk 20:36–38.] "He who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." [Jn 12:25; cf. all those places where eternal life is mentioned in the New Testament concerning man.]

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

Even if you are no longer a member of the Watchtower denomination, you still hold Watchtower doctrines. Why don't you start revising them?

You work with 'a priori' preconceptions: you logically start from the assumption that God/YHVH only denotes the person of the Father, so if the singular speaks in the first person, as a person separate from him, to Jesus, this already proves that Jesus cannot be God. However, such usage is nothing more than WTS jargon.

When the WTS thinks of God, Jehovah, of course, it automatically thinks of the Father. It is true that the name of the God of Israel is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But of this, the formula Jehovah / God = the Father is only logical for the Watchtower Society. The divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not denote only one person, but the Godhead itself (theotes, Col 2:9), in whom three persons can be identified. The name of the second person is "the Son" (ho húios), his human name is "Jesus", and his mission is "Christ." The third person does have a name, since there is only one "Holy Spirit" in the Bible, so it is often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). Christians worship the same God with the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, they only claim that Jehovah God is more than Father: Son and Holy Spirit as well.

Talking about "Jesus and Jehovah" is a Watchtowerite, JW theological jargon, and of course can only be interpreted in this context.

In order to emphasize antitrinitarian teachings, the divine name YHWH is limited to God the Father only. This is why, for example, if a Christian says "Jesus is Jehovah", then the JW brain understands that "Jesus is the Father", which is obviously ridiculous not only for JWs, but for theologically correct Christianity. With the use of words such as "Jehovah and Jesus" also force their Arian theology, so that the antitrinitarian dogma is embedded in the JW even at the linguistic level. Cf. Newspeak.

But of course, if we expand the wording, it becomes understandable. We do not say, for example, that Jesus is "equal to Jehovah", but that the divine name YHWH is not the name of just one person, namely the Father, but rather the deity itself, in which three persons can be identified.

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

Dear EasyPrompt,

these links are for you:

Regarding Colossians 1:15: https://justpaste.it/apztr

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.