Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

26
Jehovah's Witnesses - summary critique
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.

founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).

jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
aqwsed12345

ADHD everywhere...
26
Jehovah's Witnesses - summary critique
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.

founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).

jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
aqwsed12345

Since 1931, they have called themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses. Founded in 1879 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916). JW’s publisher is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, and their publications include "The Watchtower" and "Awake!" magazines, with their leaflets, booklets, and pamphlets easily recognizable by their distinctive color scheme.
Russell was a childless, divorced clothing manufacturer and merchant, originally a Presbyterian, then a member of an Adventist group expecting the end times, and finally the founder of the world’s largest printing and publishing conglomerate. He did not know Hebrew or Greek. His speculations were further developed by later leaders of the Watchtower Society (Rutherford, Knorr).
Their teachings deny every essential point of Christianity, so it is enough to mention the most important heresies. They deny the doctrine of the Trinity. God’s name is Jehovah (cf. Psalm 83:18, KJV), who is the only God. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but only God’s invisible "active force," "holy spirit" (cf. Acts 1:8, 2:2-4, etc.). Jesus Christ was a perfect man, but it was not God Himself, not Jehovah, who became flesh in him, but only God’s Son (cf. Matt 16:13-17). God’s Son is merely a "divine being," Jehovah’s "only-begotten" [firstborn], the first being created directly by Jehovah, who is none other than Michael the Archangel. Jehovah created everything else through him (cf. Col 1:15-16, Rev 3:14). According to JW, Jesus became the Anointed only from his baptism. He did not die on a cross, but on a "torture stake" (cf. the basic meaning of the Greek word stauros: stake). His death was the humble sacrifice of a perfect human life for sinful, imperfect humans condemned to eternal death. On the "scale of redemption," the sin of Adam, the first man, was balanced by the sinlessness and sacrificial death of the perfect man, Jesus, on behalf of others.
By nature, humans are sinful, their life imperfect without God’s blessings, and their punishment is eternal death beginning at the body's death. Humans are merely a temporary combination of dust and life force, the latter carried by the blood. There is no immortal soul; the dead exist only in God’s memory, in an unconscious state (cf. Eccl 9:5), awaiting resurrection for judgment. Their fate will be annihilation, not eternal suffering.
Redemption is deliverance from the power and consequence of sin: final death. The Redeemer was granted the right by Jehovah to resurrect humans to eternal earthly, physical life. Rebirth (see John 3:1-8) is nothing other than resurrection to heavenly life as a spiritual being.
However, this is not granted to every believer, only to the first 144,000 of the "heavenly class," who possess special privileges compared to the "great crowd," the millions of Witnesses (cf. Rev 7, 14:1-3, Heb 12:22-24, Matt 22:14, Luke 12:32). The privilege of the 144,000 includes rebirth, divine sonship, priesthood, kingship, inheritance; they are Christ’s Body, Bride, God’s Temple, and Church. The masses of the "earthly class" are rewarded with eternal life in an earthly paradise, complete health, peace, and constant material abundance (cf. Isa 2:4, 65:17-23, John 10:16). The approximately 8,000 remaining living members of the 144,000 have become worthy through their faithful, devoted service to receive the personal divine revelation that they have a "heavenly hope." Only they can participate in the annual "memorial" held on Nisan 14 (the Lord’s Supper, cf. Luke 22:29), while the "great crowd" are merely "observers."
Salvation is limited within the JW organization, but a Witness can only claim to be currently saved. Salvation can be lost due to one's own fault at any time. According to the Society, all other denominations and churches are erring and the work of Satan.
The Watchtower Society, based on speculations drawn from the Book of Daniel, initially predicted Christ's "second presence" for 1874 and then for 1914 (citing one meaning of the word parousia; they use this instead of "coming"), the destruction of Christian churches for 1918, and the beginning of Christ’s thousand-year reign (millennium, see Rev 20:1-6) for 1975.
The most important belief is that, according to them, Jesus Christ already returned invisibly in 1914 (cf. Rev 11:15). He exercises his rule through the fourteen-member Governing Body, which calls itself the "slave class" and, as the "faithful and wise servant" (cf. Matt 24:25), takes on the task of interpreting the Bible and making moral decisions on behalf of individual members. As a "theocratic organization," it proclaims Jehovah’s kingdom, the New World.
In 1914, "the last days of the current evil system began," and "the evil world will soon be destroyed." According to the organization, the battle of Armageddon (Rev 16:12-16) is imminent, during which all states and all people who do not do the will of Jehovah God will be destroyed. After this, God’s kingdom will visibly come to earth, and every Witness will enjoy eternal prosperity, material abundance, health, and peace. The "Watchtower" magazine has always presented the battle as an "imminent" event (1914, 1918, 1925, 1942, 1975).
The organization opposes all state power and social organizations that do not proclaim Jehovah’s kingdom. For them, Revelation 13:2 represents "human rulership, not individual governments, but the global system of political powers. Its ruler is Satan" (cf. John 14:30, 1 John 5:19, Rev 16:4). Members cannot hold public office, remain neutral in times of war, and will not bear arms. Singing the national anthem, standing for the anthem, or saluting the national flag are considered idolatry, thus prohibited for JWs for their salvation.
JW’s door-to-door preaching service is well-known. The service includes street literature distribution and door-to-door preaching. Two Witnesses regularly visit those interested to conduct Bible studies (teach).
One can become a Witness by adopting the Society’s teachings, showing signs of moral change and devoted service, and getting baptized. Baptism is essentially an initiation into the preaching service as a "herald of the kingdom." Congregation leaders, called "elders," encourage members to serve through constant training, reprimands, and praises. They must consistently meet a certain number of hours (cf. Ezek 3:18) and report to the elders with "field service reports" detailing the hours spent preaching, the number of publications distributed, the addresses of interested people, and the results of conversations.
Witnesses are classified based on their performance, which determines their esteem and, ultimately, their salvation. Only those Witnesses who are loyal to the organization and obey it in everything will be saved (cf. Zeph 2:3); therefore, no one can be sure of their salvation (cf. 1 Cor 10:12, but see 13).
Regular attendance at "Kingdom Halls" (places of worship and instruction) is mandatory. Participation in social and Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter, national holidays, name days, birthdays) is prohibited, as these are considered to honor pagan powers or customs.
Referring to the biblical prohibition of eating blood (Acts 15:28-29), Witnesses cannot donate blood, and in the case of accidents or surgeries, they can only receive blood substitutes. This belief has already caused many fatalities, as blood substitutes sometimes are not enough, and a full blood transfusion is needed. Witnesses authorize the organization’s legal representative with a written statement to prevent this form of medical aid. Since the 1950s, they can receive smallpox vaccinations, and today the acceptance of organ transplants is left to individual conscience. Witnesses can drink alcohol in small quantities, but smoking results in disfellowshipping.
The appeal of Jehovah’s Witnesses lies in the elitism and self-righteous mission consciousness of the chosen ones. Their activity and fanatical loyalty stem from the hope in a marvelous future (earthly paradise) and the constant fear of losing it due to their own fault (annihilation). Internal control within the organization is relentless; members immediately report any rule-breaking to the elders, acting as "each other's conscience." Due to the constant pressure to conform before the elders, many Witnesses eventually fear the organization more than God. Instead of Jesus' "refreshing and light yoke" (cf. Matt 11:28-30), they suffer under the yoke of modern Phariseeism. This likely explains why, according to their own data, thirty thousand Witnesses leave the organization worldwide each year, despite being warned by the elders that their fate will be annihilation, and no Witness will speak to them anymore, and their loved ones cannot even pray for them. The severe emotional wounds caused by leaving or disfellowshipping heal slowly, and many people suffer spiritually, with only a few able to take up the Bible or pray again.
The Society claims to answer all questions based on its many decades of Bible study experience and (alleged) knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek languages, thus taking on the interpretation of the Bible and the responsibility for it from the Witnesses. They completely trust the leadership and do not dare interpret the Bible without its explanations.
Today, the Brooklyn-based Watchtower Society has become one of the world’s largest printing and publishing conglomerates, a huge and successful economic enterprise that distributes the Society’s publications in the hundreds of millions monthly through the self-sacrificial service of Witnesses. The company is not profit-oriented; all income is reinvested in production for the sacred cause. Witnesses see only the Work in all this, in which they wish to function as small cogs.
WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH?
The fabricated explanations for unfulfilled prophecies cast doubt on the militant truthfulness of the "Serious Bible Students." The "Watchtower" is not "God’s mouthpiece" but that of false prophets.
The "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures" (New World Translation) justifies the Society’s doctrines by distorting the original text's meaning. The critical parts of the NWT are justified using obscure, faulty translations by individuals, well-known blunders of common translations, selective quotations from professionally accepted Greek textbooks, a misleading series of "examples" that prove nothing, and works by liberal Catholic and Protestant authors who do not regard the Bible as God’s reliable word. Naturally, the large volume of "evidence" is very convincing to non-experts, and the Society remains silent about the fact that the authors of the referenced textbooks have already voiced their protests in open letters against falsifying the Bible by citing their works.
A Witness is only truly willing to accept Christian teaching when they dare to step out from under the shadow of the Society’s authority. However, this requires confronting nothing less than the Society's false prophecies and linguistic incompetence.
The Gospel and Jesus Christ
The Old Testament animal sacrifice system pointed forward to the Lamb of God: the sacrifice brought by God. In the God-man Jesus Christ, our Judge suffered in our place (John 1:29, 1 Peter 1:18-19, Hebrews 2:14-17, 7:27, 9:12-14, 10:11-14). Jesus, the Son of God, was never an angel (Hebrews 1:2-14); he is not merely the first, directly created "divine" being, but God himself. The secret of his perfect, sinless life, his sacrifice acceptable to God, and his immortality (John 2:18-22, 10:17-18) lies in his being the God-man.
Moreover, no creature could atone for the sins of other creatures. Sin is rebellion against God; the sinner owes God, and either God punishes the sinner, or he pays the debt himself by forgiving it, thus taking on the damage himself. If the offended party, God, had not paid our debt but rather another innocent creature, then God would be unjust by taking satisfaction "at the expense of another."
Salvation offered by grace is guaranteed by God himself from the first moment of faith until eternity (Philippians 1:6 cf. Romans 8:31-39). One cannot fall out of the Good Shepherd’s hand, who gave his life for him (John 10:11, 28-30), and does not have to live in fear of falling due to their own fault (1 Peter 1:5-9, 1 Corinthians 10:12-13). The God of the Bible knows what it means to be human; the Society’s god does not.
There is no first and second class in God’s kingdom. Whoever believes is adopted by God as his child (John 1:12-13), is a son of God (Galatians 3:26, 4:6, Romans 8:15-16), born of God (1 John 5:1, John 3:1-8), has received the Spirit (John 7:37-39), sealed by the Messiah with the Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14, 2 Corinthians 1:22), baptized and filled with the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), Christ dwells in him (Ephesians 3:17), and has become the temple of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). The 144,000 refer to Jews who convert during the great tribulation; according to the Society, they cannot be Jews because the tribal names do not match one Old Testament list. However, out of the twenty tribal lists found in the Old Testament, only three match (!), and Dan and Ephraim are likely missing due to idolatry. In Luke 12:32, the twelve disciples, as the new Israel, were indeed a "little flock" that relied on trust in God’s providence (see the context).
From the preceding parable in Matthew 22:14, it is clear who the "many invited" and the "few chosen" are; the invited (the contemporary Jews) did not come to the royal wedding, while the guests called in from the streets (the nations) received festive garments from their host according to the custom of the time. The silent "guest" who only consumes but does not participate in the celebration insults the host and is rightly thrown out; those who remain inside are the chosen ones—not the 144,000. The "other sheep" in John 10:16 do not refer to the JW’s "earthly class" but to the nations. In Revelation 7:9, the "great multitude" is indeed in heaven, "before the throne" (enópion), not merely in the throne’s "sight" (NWT), just like the 144,000 in Revelation 14:3 (enópion here as well, twice). 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14 does not refer to the 144,000 being chosen to "share in the [heavenly] glory of Christ." The previous verses speak of those who do not believe the truth but delight in wickedness, whom God delivers to delusion and whom Satan deceives; in contrast, the Thessalonian believers were "chosen from the beginning for salvation" (rescue). This is not about pre-selection (eklegomai is not in perfect tense), but about God’s selection during evangelization (haireó is in aorist tense, indicating a single choice between two options); unbelieving disobedience and believing obedience are contrasted, with no mention of the 144,000. 1 Peter 1:5-8 does not guarantee the salvation of the 144,000; Peter writes to scattered believers (1:1-2) who are born again (1:3) and who share the same precious faith as his own, who through this faith have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped corruption (2 Peter 1:1,4). In Hebrews 12:22-24, the "festal gathering of the firstborn" has their names written in heaven, in the "book of life" (cf. Rev 20:11-15); if this "festal gathering" referred to the 144,000, then only they would be saved—no one else.
In the New Testament, the existence of heavenly and earthly classes would have necessitated clear references as to which verse, passage, or letter refers to and is addressed to whom. There are no such references, so either we must discard the New Testament due to the astonishing and misleading negligence of the sacred writers, or the doctrine of separation. Otherwise, considering the alleged privileges of the 144,000, the masses of Witnesses take the Bible into their hands completely unnecessarily, as only a fraction of it pertains to them. For the 5.6 million Witnesses, only the "Watchtower" remains to be read...
Furthermore, it is questionable how many of the 144,000 were converted during the first Christian generation, and where the count stood at the time of Russell and his followers' emergence.
Jesus’ return will be unpredictable, sudden, and immediately visible to everyone; cf. the meanings of the related words and nouns in these passages.
The most common is horaó - to see, look at, observe, cf. Matthew 24:15, 30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27; John 1:39, 51; Hebrews 9:27; 1 John 3:2; Revelation 1:7. According to the Society, in Revelation 1:7, "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him" does not refer to physical seeing, but to perception and recognition. However, this contradicts the Hebraism present in the Greek text. In Hebrew thought, "seeing" in some contexts means experiencing something in a specific way ("not see death/life"), but if someone "sees with their eyes" or "the eye sees" something, it refers only to concrete, physical sight, as in Revelation 1:7 (fainó - to appear, become visible, cf. Matthew 24:27, 30; Mark 16:9; Luke 9:8). According to Matthew 24:27, the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning visible from one end of the sky to the other; according to verse 30, the sign of the Son of Man will appear (fainó) in the sky, and they will see (horaó) the Son of Man. The "sign of the Son of Man" (genitivus subiectivus) means that the sign is the Son of Man himself appearing and becoming visible (cf. Acts 2:38, "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" means: "the Holy Spirit as a gift"). Other nouns also affirm the visible coming: epiphaneia - appearance (cf. 1 Timothy 6:14, 2 Timothy 4:1, Titus 2:13); apokalypsis - revelation, unveiling, becoming visible (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:7, 2 Thessalonians 1:7); parousia - coming, visit, appearance, (post-appearance) presence (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8).
On the Trinity
God is who He is. He is simply the "I Am" (Exodus 3:14-15). Out of reverence, the Jews always referred to Him as the Lord (Adonai) or the Name (Ha Shem). The Hebrew script originally recorded only consonants, so the original pronunciation of the word YHWH has been completely forgotten. The only certainty is that it was not "Jehovah," as this is a medieval theological term: when the text was provided with vowel marks, the vowels of Adonai or Elohim were written under the consonants YHWH, resulting in Jehovah or Yahweh. However, the problem is not with God’s name, as its pronunciation, regardless, is an important element of our faith.
According to JW, however, Jehovah or Yahweh and Jesus are not the same person, so faith in Jesus’ ransom, knowledge of Jesus’ name, and calling upon Jesus are not enough for salvation; one must call upon Jehovah for salvation. Yet, the meaning of Jesus’ Hebrew name (Yeshua, Joshua, or Yehoshua) makes His essence clear: in Him, "YHWH saves." To the question of who is the "First and the Last" in the Bible, that is, the one true God (Isaiah 43:10-11), every Witness would answer, "Jehovah." However, Jesus and "Jehovah" must be the same (Isaiah 44:6, Revelation 22:13); otherwise, when did "Jehovah," the First and the Last God, die and rise again (Revelation 1:8, 17-18), if not in Jesus’ human body? If a Witness understands this, they can accept that in Jesus, the Almighty became man for them, not just a creature. Then, through the Holy Spirit, they can finally call Jesus Christ "Lord" (Luke 1:48, 2:11, John 20:28, 1 Corinthians 12:3, Colossians 3:24), and they can kneel before Him, before whom every creature in heaven, on earth, and under the earth will one day bow their knees (Isaiah 45:23 cf. Philippians 2:9-11, Acts 4:12).
Other Matters
Regarding humans, their souls, and their fate after death, the "blood = soul" equation is not accurate, as the Bible never equates blood with the ruach (spirit), only with the nefesh (and the psyche), which most often denotes life or the person themselves. The correct translation of Deuteronomy 12:23 "the blood is the soul (nefesh)" is: "the blood is the life [force carrier]." Leviticus 17:11—"the life (nefesh) of the body is in the blood"—also states that the blood carries the life force.
The prohibition against eating blood aimed to prevent pagan blood magic (the incorporation of the life force of a killed animal or human) and to avoid infections from scavenging. Moreover, it upheld the significance of blood sacrifices (Hebrews 9:22), as God temporarily accepted the blood of sacrificed animals in place of the sinner’s blood (Genesis 9:3-4, Leviticus 17:10-11, Deuteronomy 12:23, Acts 15:19-20, 28-29, 21:25, 1 Corinthians 8:8). In the New Testament, the apostolic decree to "abstain from blood" (Acts 15:29) reiterates the Old Testament prohibition against consuming blood. Why should one make a sacrifice by rejecting life-saving blood transfusion, which God does not demand?
Although it has no theological significance, it is worth mentioning that Jesus did not die on a "torture stake" (NWT: torture stake). The Greek word stauros indeed means a stake or pole, but the Roman execution instrument was cross-shaped. Two 1st-century AD depictions of this have survived. One is a graffiti found in the Palatine Hill excavations in Rome, showing a figure with a donkey’s head crucified on a cross, with an inscription below: "Alexamenos worships his god." In Pompeii, destroyed in the AD 79 eruption, a Latin wooden cross was found embedded in the wall above the altar in one of the excavated houses.
Christian Holidays and Attitude Towards the State
The essence is this: our task is to live in and influence our surroundings without conforming to this world (Matthew 5:13-14, John 17:15, Philippians 2:15). Since no one knew the date of Jesus' birth, His incarnation began to be celebrated only from the 4th century. The festival of the "Invincible Sun" was filled with Christian content ("light of the pagans"). By the early Middle Ages, the celebration had lost its initial pagan roots, but from the 17th-18th centuries, even the Christian content began to wear off. Today, it seems to be a true civic holiday, a costly social event with a lot of running around. Nevertheless, it is traditionally the festival of love. If it is important for us that our neighbors notice something different, namely God's gift (John 3:16), amidst the great holiday rush, we can lovingly tell them that during this time, we rejoice in God’s love, and that’s why we gift each other—and them. It is not about trying to behave well during this time, but about having something to give to each other and others because we experience our Lord’s love. The good news for people weary of daily life and rightly feeling the holiday as collective hypocrisy is that God became man, "walked in our shoes," not that Christmas is pagan.
Attitude Towards Power
All authority is from God (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14), and—optimally—those in administrative roles fulfill a God-given function with God-given talent. In subordination to God, for the common good, people give thanks to God for good governance. (This is not naive wishful thinking; there were times when kings were "by the grace of God," who could be rebuked by simple preachers if they forgot the King of Kings.) Nowadays, many people in leadership positions serve themselves rather than God or their country with their talent and position.
Even though we are also heavenly citizens (Philippians 3:20, Ephesians 2:19), it is our duty to pray for social order and justice and to strive for it with our lifestyle (1 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1-2). If the apostle demanded this attitude during the pagan Roman Empire, our attitude cannot be different in today's democracies. If our worldly task and talent call us to administration, and the existing system is not an anti-Christian dictatorship, we can perform our duties in God's name and with a clear conscience (Acts 5:29), having a beneficial impact on our world (Romans 16:23).
There is indeed a difference between systems, and Jehovah’s Witnesses should know this best, as they are still discriminated against in many countries—but not always and everywhere.
The history of great evangelical awakenings in modern and recent times all speak of Jesus’ transformative power, who can liberate entire regions from the devil’s power and cleanse them of all impurities. However, only those who regard Jesus Christ as the Lord God himself could and can receive such authorization (1 Corinthians 12:3, 13, Philippians 2:11, Matthew 28:18).
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345

Colossians 1:15
Let's delve into the "partitive" issue. Scripture frequently states in the New Testament that the Son is begotten (eɡénnese) or born (eteke) of the Father. However, nowhere in the New Testament do we read that He was "created" (ektise), "made" (epoise), or "came into being" (egeneto).
First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Corinthians 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born ofthe Father, period.
But no, you insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist, you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Proverbs 8:22 and Colossians 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Revelation 3:14, as no ancient Koine Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Book of Revelation.
Now, let's focus on Colossians 1:15 and its alleged "partitive" nature.
The genitive structure (“something of something”) inherently expresses a relationship, and what kind of relationship depends on the narrower or broader context and the meanings of the words. Moreover, Greek allows for nuances to be fine-tuned with word order, which you can't reverse in English. "The house of the dog" is different from "the dog of the house," etc.
The standard interpretation of Colossians 1:15 is that the Son holds the position of "preeminent one," "distinguished heir," "supreme one" concerning "all creation." According to Matthew 28:18, this is trivial. The relationship is therefore one of supremacy. Whether He is a creature or not, the statement does not determine this positively or negatively—it does not declare Him a creature nor declare that He isn't. You claim that besides confessing His supremacy, this statement also declares that the Son is part of the created order.
On what basis do you claim this? You assert that since the Scripture generally portrays firstborns as members of the category to which their "firstbornness" is related, it follows that the "firstborn of X" inherently and automatically means partitive—it is impossible to declare someone the firstborn of a category without simultaneously acknowledging their inclusion in that category. What a bold claim! But let's see!
This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," at most tendencies. Interestingly, in Luke 23:43, the comma is after "to you," as in all other introductory phrases (even in the NWT, 73 out of 74 times!). Still, they do not follow the logic that it should always be the same.
Indeed, there are inherently partitive expressions. For example, if someone is "the best student of the university," it not only means that they are the best but also that they are a student of that university. This follows because conceptually, one cannot be the "best student" without being a student.
But can one be the "firstborn" of something without being part of that category? It depends on the meaning of "firstborn" in the given expression. If we take the standard, everyday literal meaning, i.e., "the person who was born first," then no, because one cannot be the firstborn of a family or a person without being born from them, thus conceptually belonging to that category. But here, it is not the "firstborn of X" formula that establishes inclusion in the category but the applied meaning of "firstborn."
The situation is different if "firstborn" refers not to "being born first" but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy. In Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" clearly means preeminent status, possession of the birthright, and then we only need to ask: Can someone hold a preeminent status concerning a category without being part of that category? If the answer is yes, as it evidently is, then it is not true that the expression used there is inherently partitive. The key is the required conceptual necessity.
You can interpret it this way, but a "maybe" is not evidence, just as a prosecutor cannot cite something as "evidence" that only shows "it may prove the defendant's guilt."
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest
The problem is that although JWs use biblical terminology, they wish to derive non-biblical thoughts from it. From the expression 'Son of God,' they want to deduce that the Son is not God, although it does not mean that. It is a silly play on words by the JWs that "Jesus is not God but his Son." One should just understand the expression "Son of God." When we say 'Son of God' referring to Jesus, it answers the question of who he is, and the statement that he is 'God' answers the question of what he is. It is entirely clear that a person whose father is God will himself be God. Just as the son of man is man, and the foal of a horse is a horse.
There are three senses in which someone can be "Son of God." In the broadest sense, every human is a child of God, that is, a creation of God's providential care. In a more narrow sense, sonship to God means being the possessor of supernatural grace, of supernatural rebirth in God, which comes about when God no longer regards us as servants, but as adopted sons. In the narrowest sense, "Son of God" refers to the second divine person, who in some way beyond our comprehension has been "begotten" by the Father from eternity, proceeds, emanates from Him; but in such a way that they are one in being, essence, one God. That Jesus was the Son of God in this last sense has been shown above. This sonship is expressed in Scripture as talking about the "only begotten Son," while we humans can only be God's adopted sons, metaphorically speaking, his children. Jesus himself feels a different relationship with the Father than we do; he never says, for example, "our Father," but rather "my Father and your Father." He is the "only begotten Son," who is "in the bosom of the Father." (John 1:18).
In Jewish tradition, a son inherited his father's name, title, and social position. If Jesus inherited the Father's power, rights, and especially His name, then this means that Jesus is the Almighty God. Jesus confirmed this himself.
The Bible calls angels "sons of God" (Hebrew b'né Elohim) (Job 38:7, Psalm 36:9) and collectively refers to Judaism, the whole nation, as God's "son" (Hos 11:1). At the same time, no Jew could personally call God his own father, as if he were directly descended from God Himself, because this would have made him God as well (cf. Jn 10:33).
Jesus referred to himself with two specific expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "son of ...." structure, like in other languages, mostly expresses a genealogical relationship in Hebrew (e.g., Jonah's son, Simon), but it is also a unique grammatical phenomenon in Hebrew that does not relate but qualifies, for example, the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.
Firstly, therefore, when Jesus declared himself to be "the Son of Man" (Mt 16:13), it primarily means: "who is Man." Secondly, this expression is a figure from an Old Testament apocalyptic vision, one who "sits at the right hand of the Mighty One," and who, returning to earth, will be the king of the nations (Dan 7:13-14 cf. Mt 26:63-66, 25:31). From the reactions, it is clear that Jesus' contemporaries understood precisely the kind of authority Jesus claimed for himself with the title Son of Man.
On the other hand, Jesus also declared himself to be "the Son of God," which means: "who is God." In terms of his relationship with the Father, he is God's only Son (Jn 3:16; "only begotten" = unique), therefore he is the Son (1Jn 1:3, 2:22-24, 3:17, 4:9,14, 5:12, etc.), to whom God personally is His own Father (Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, Jn 10:32-38), through whom the Father teaches and acts (Jn 14:10-11). As he said: "all that the Father has is mine" (Jn 16:15), since "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). Jews understood Jesus' self-proclamations as making himself "God, being a man" (Jn 10:33), because his words could not be understood differently with an Old Testament and Hebrew ear.
It is noteworthy that, according to the New Testament, believers are also "sons of God" (Gal 3:27), but while the Son is inherently, eternally God by his own nature, believers become partakers of His divine nature – in character, immortality, glory – through God's grace (2Pt 1:4, 2Cor 3:18, 1Jn 3:2, 1Cor 15:53-54).
From the idea of "sonship" here, we naturally must distance ourselves from any notion derived from human life according to which the father exists first, and only after some time does the son come into being, which means the father is greater, stronger, wiser, and in comparison, the son is for a long time entirely subordinate. Instead, we should consider what "sonship" meant in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal conditions, where in the son, the entire household could see the father's alter ego, the heir to all his possessions, a sharer in all his authority. And we can think of the often-occurring phenomenon where the adult son often indeed appears as a carbon copy of the father. The same facial features, the same movements, the same way of speaking and thinking, as if the father lives a second life through the son. When the Father is God, not at a certain point in time, but from eternity to eternity, He pours out the life of the Son of God from Himself, in that He can contemplate a mirror image of His own being, and He projects His true likeness before us so that we may know Him from it. The Son is the same God but in a different manner: in the form of God revealing Himself. The Bible expresses this clearly and aptly when it refers to the Son with a different designation as the "Word," which – or rather who – was "with God" from eternity, and "was God." The Son of God is thus the living God in His articulation, the eternal Word, in which God expresses Himself.
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest
I really liked your comment, this is really the fundamental problem with JW "hermeneutics", this collection of one-liner "proof verses", and therefore arguing with them doing this silly Biblical "ping-pong" is more tiring than fruitful. A similar thought can be found by John Chrysostom in his Homily on the Gospel of Matthew:
It were indeed meet for us not at all to need the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure that the grace of the Spirit should be instead of books to our souls, and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second-best course.
For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words and by His doings. Since to Noah, and to Abraham, and to his offspring, and to Job, and to Moses too, He discoursed not by writings, but Himself by Himself, finding their minds pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tables, and the admonition which is given by these.
And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For neither to the apostles did God give anything in writing, but instead of written words, He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit: for “He,” says our Lord, “shall bring all things to your remembrance.” (John 14:26) And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He says by the Prophet: “I will make a new covenant with you, putting my laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,” and, “they shall be all taught of God.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33; Isaiah 54:13; Hebrews 8:8–11; John 6:45.) And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law “not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” (2 Corinthians 3:3)
But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.
Reflect then how great an evil it is for us, who ought to live so purely as not even to need written words, but to yield up our hearts, as books, to the Spirit; now that we have lost that honor, and have come to need these, to fail again in duly employing even this second remedy.
19
Not only the ORG who perverts Scriptures!
by BoogerMan in
1. watchtower
2. bible
john 14:6 - "jesus said to him, “i am the way, the truth, and the life.

no one comes to the father except through me.".

certain christian denominations lie & contradict jesus' crystal clear statement, by promoting the following dogma:.
aqwsed12345

The Protestants abolished the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. This may be the most incomprehensible aspect of all Protestantism. Who does not love and honor their mother? A bad person. Jesus tenderly cared for his mother, even while hanging on the cross. If Christ loved her so much, then his mother must have been superior to all other people, and thus we are also obliged to honor her. Protestantism does not honor the Virgin Mary. They say she is just like any other person, therefore not deserving of greater reverence.
We not only do not understand this, but we have a completely different view. The Virgin Mary is the mother of God, as Scripture says: full of grace, that is, endowed with spiritual beauty. A virgin, pure, white from all sin, immaculate even from original sin, the sin of Adam and Eve. She is goodness, piety, gentleness, the noblest human being, whom every Catholic, especially those in Marian congregations, honors as their mother, a model to follow, and a heavenly patron. We gladly believe that the Virgin Mary lives close to God in heaven, prays for us, and intercedes for us with God.
In their zeal for destruction, Protestantism also dethroned the Virgin Mary, and to further compound their mistake, they throw the slander at us that we worship the Virgin Mary. If we asked where they saw this written in any Catholic book, they would not be able to answer. Yet, they repeat it every day. We say: it is a sad religion that cannot exist without slander.
By the way The title "Mother of God" (Theotokos) for Mary was also used by Origen (+254), and its legitimacy was declared by the Council of Ephesus in its canons. This is also expressed in the prayer called Sub tuum praesidium, preserved in the Rylands Papyrus found in Egypt, which originated before AD 250: "We fly to thy protection, O Holy Mother of God..." So the faith and practice of the pre-Constantinian Christians was the same as that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Many Fathers of the early Christian Church used the title Theotokos for Mary since at least the third century AD. Origen (d. 254) is often cited as the earliest author to use Theotokos for Mary (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 7.32, citing Origen's Commentary on Romans). Dionysius of Alexandria used Theotokos around 250, in an epistle to Paul of Samosata. Athanasius of Alexandria in 330, Gregory the Theologian in 370, John Chrysostom in 400, and Augustine all used Theotokos. Theodoret wrote in 436 that calling the Virgin Mary Theotokos is an apostolic tradition.
The veneration of saints is like the veneration of distinguished people. If we honor the greats of our nation, why should we not honor the great heroes of faith, who sacrificed their lives, work, and even blood for Christ? These are the great examples we follow, whose words inspire us, and through whom we strive to be better, more moral, purer, and more God-fearing.
Here, Luther followed a strange principle, one we saw with the communists, who did not respect talent, virtue, or excellence, but degraded everyone to the level of the proletariat. Luther's followers accuse us of idolatry again. Poor souls!
We use two meanings for intercession. One meaning refers only to Jesus Christ. In the full sense of the word, He is the only mediator between God and man. His divine-human nature is the link between man and the incomprehensible divine Being. His crucifixion brought redemption to man, and this will be effective and sufficient for salvation as long as the world exists.
However, we use another, everyday meaning of intercession: providing help through mere prayer, asking on behalf of others, interceding before God or man. It is certain that we can and should pray for each other, so we cannot deny this type of intercession. Therefore, we should not make a conceptual issue out of it and deny the possibility of human intercession on the basis that only Jesus is the mediator. Here, it is clear that two completely different qualities of intercession are at play. Jesus' intercession is absolute, while that of the saints, including the Virgin Mary, is conditional. Jesus' intercession is infinitely powerful, while that of the saints is always finite and always realized through the work of Jesus. Playing these two meanings of the word against each other can easily lead to absurdity.
According to the Catholic Church, the veneration of saints is essentially the veneration of God, and this is its essence. We do not primarily honor and love the saints because they were virtuous and exceptional people—though they deserve respect for that as well—but mainly because they loved and served God with extraordinary devotion. This allows us to approach God with greater confidence in their company. In the saints, we Catholics ultimately honor and love God as well.
A typical Protestant objection is, "I don't need saints to approach God." It is true, you can approach God alone. In fact, even if you seek the intercession of the saints, the main thing is still that you yourself wholeheartedly prostrate before God. However, you should not object if someone prefers to approach the king after having already asked the king’s mother and close servants to speak a good word on their behalf.
Protestants also say that "God knows what I want to ask Him, so it is unnecessary for the saints to tell Him first what I want." But one does not seek the help of heavenly patrons to "tell" God what He already knows, but so that they also pray for me. This increases my hope that God will be more inclined to hear my prayer, considering their supplication.
So, is there favoritism in heaven too? If by favoritism we mean support based on nepotism or camaraderie, then of course, this cannot be the case with God. But if we take the word 'favoritism' in its original sense ("protegere" = to protect), then yes, we are right to seek the protection of God's friends.
Intercessory prayer to the saints would only contradict monotheism if the believer praying to them turned to them in opposition to God, as rivals to God, or as beings independent of and equal to God. This would mean believing that what is received from them is given by their own power, independently of God, rather than because they are the dearest of God's creations, and what they ask from God is granted more readily than what we alone request.
The fact that Protestants directly approach God, while Catholics often do so through the saints, only proves that Protestants are much more arrogant and much less aware of their sins than Catholics. It also demonstrates that Catholics have a stronger belief in eternal life than Protestants.
Catholics truly believe that the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus, the apostles, and other pious early Christians, despite having died, are still alive today, that they still love us, strive to help us, and naturally have the means to do so. Protestants believe none of this. At least they act as if they don't believe it. According to them, the Virgin Mary no longer exists, there are no apostles, and St. John the Baptist and St. Paul are no longer alive. They do not say this openly (although some of their theologians do), but their actions imply it.
Who has ever seen a glorified soul that, having been glorified, becomes lesser than before? How is it possible that we, who are still struggling here on earth, full of weaknesses and even sins, can understand the requests of our fellow human beings and, if we are kind-hearted, help them, but those who are already glorified, and even we ourselves when we are glorified, will no longer understand the requests of our fellows or be able to help them? Considering prayer to the saints useless is not the same as not believing in eternal life and eternal reward?
We can assume that even in the modern age, especially in the Western world, even the most humble village grandmother knows that saints are prayed to not as independent gods but as God's servants, whose strength comes not from themselves but from their good relationship with God. Therefore, it is deeply insulting to us and an intolerable arrogance and unprecedented breach of Christian love from our Protestant counterparts to assume we lack such understanding. Even if a Dante or an Ampère did what they consider idolatry.
It does not offend God's majesty, greatness, or sole lordship if we worship and ask Him not only directly but also through the intercession of His beloved creations who have already reached His holy presence. Naturally, it would not offend if all our prayers reached Him through these intermediaries. This only proves that we believe in eternal life and that we believe our fellow humans who have already reached the sight of God are just as alive now as when we saw them with our physical eyes and communicated our thoughts or desires to them through the vibration of air molecules.
How could it be offensive to God's uniqueness if I ask through His beloved creations when all the honor, authority, and power of the Virgin Mary and all other saints derive solely from the fact that they served God well and are therefore dear to Him in my eyes?
If we extend our reverence not only to God but also to those who are dear to Him, it is certainly not a sign of diminished worship towards God, but quite the opposite, a sign of greater devotion. One who prays only to God shows reverence, but with pride; one who also prays to the saints shows such great reverence that even their pride and self-consciousness dissolve in it. There, we worship God and also ourselves; here, we annihilate ourselves, and only God remains.
In Catholic liturgy, the difference between God and the saints, i.e., the creatures, is so sharply emphasized that everyone must notice it. In the litany, we say, "Heavenly Father, have mercy on us!" and then, "Holy Virgin Mary, pray for us!" Thus, we ask for God's mercy, but only for the intercession of the Virgin Mary. She helps us only by praying. Who has ever seen a God, or even a "substitute God," who proclaims that there is only one God, before whom even the Queen of Heaven can only pray? Another frequently occurring prayer in Catholic worship is: "Pray for us (formerly: Pray to God for us), Holy Mother of God!" This also reminds us of the Blessed Virgin's servant status alongside God. Before God, humans can only be servants, which is natural. But we see that in the great Marian devotion of the Catholic Church, this truth is not only not obscured but is highlighted and—what's more—is considered natural.
The Virgin Mary herself called herself the "handmaid of the Lord." The Church frequently reminds us of this, as we recite it every morning, noon, and evening in the Angelus.
Before the Blessed Sacrament (which is truly the body of Christ), we kneel, but before images or statues of saints or the Virgin Mary, we do not even bend our knees; we merely bow, even inside the church, and most of the time, we don't even look at them. Because God is present in the Blessed Sacrament in all our churches, this draws our attention away from them. When the Lord Himself is present, we do not concern ourselves with His servant, even if that servant holds the rank of a prime minister.
It's true, we do kneel before an image of Mary, but only if we are going there to pray. Kneeling, therefore, is not for the image or the crucifix but for the prayer. We kneel when we pray, whether or not we do it in front of a crucifix or an image of Mary. It would be strange if we did not kneel just because we were praying before an image of Mary. The prayer is always directed to God, even if it is done through the intercession of the Virgin Mary or the saints.
The Protestant is only scandalized by the sight of a Catholic praying kneeling before an image of Mary or a crucifix because the truth is, he does not even kneel before God. For him, the greatest reverence before God is to stand. He gives everything to God but still retains his human dignity even before God. This, however, is not dignity but pride. There is only one being, God. Those who exist outside of Him do so by His grace. There is no being independent of God, and therefore there can be no self-esteem before God, only intolerable and at the same time ridiculous pride.
This cannot be excused even if someone convinces themselves that this is only to maintain the purity of monotheism and hatred against idolatry and foreign gods. Standing instead of bowing to the ground during prayer clearly reveals that there is enough defiance among Protestants, even against the one true God.
If a Protestant sees a Catholic praying kneeling before a crucifix or an image of Mary, he should not be scandalized that this person worships people or even, heaven forbid, wood, marble, or plaster, but rather be ashamed that even the One God does not receive as much from him as the symbol of redemption or the saints do from a Catholic.
What a sign of malice, arrogance, and hatred (perhaps unconsciously) it is that when a Protestant sees a Catholic kneeling before a crucifix or statue of Mary, he thinks that the person is worshiping the marble or wood from which the crucifix or statue was carved. Yet, when he salutes the national flag (in the Protestant United States, this salute is regular and even prescribed in schools), it never occurs to him that he is saluting the cotton, jute, or canvas from which the flag is made, but rather that he is expressing feelings and respect for his homeland.
When saluting the national flag, he does not think of it as merely fabric. At such times, he sees only his homeland. But before a crucifix or statue of a saint, it does not occur to him that it is not wood or marble, but a symbol or reminder of the Mother and heroes of God.
This is how blind, biased, and one-sided a person can be when led by passions and accustomed to hatred. Yet, the same person otherwise cannot talk about anything else but not hating, not differentiating between people based on religion, since we are all children of the same nation, and ultimately worship one God.
I do not understand why someone cannot comprehend that when we pray, it is wise to kneel rather than sprawl in an armchair, and to fix our gaze on the crucifix or the image of the Mother of God rather than on a tobacco pouch, thermometer, or even a picture of the founding fathers of our nation hanging on the wall. We kneel before a religious image or statue because it helps us more easily enter the mindset necessary for prayer, and during prayer, we are less likely to let our minds wander than otherwise.
I can assure every Protestant that it never occurred to the Catholics praying in this way that they were actually kneeling before a piece of wood or limestone, let alone worshiping it, until they learned this from their well-meaning Protestant brethren. They should not be surprised, as surely it never occurred to them when seeing the national flag that the fluttering object they eagerly follow is just a piece of cloth, nothing more, and that showing respect to pictures of the heroes of our nation contradicts human dignity and common sense.
However, the main reason Protestants have only their God and no Mary or saints, and especially why they do not pray to Mary or the saints, lies deeper than this. The true reason, as I mentioned earlier, is that they do not seriously believe in eternal life. They do not believe even if they think they do. If they seriously believed, they would also venerate the saints and pray to them.
Protestants do not pray to the saints primarily because they think they are Christians, but if we scrutinize the matter closely, it turns out that they are not truly Christians. They do not seriously believe in eternal life, which is the foundation not only of Christianity but of all religious faiths. Their inability to bring themselves to invoke the saints is actually proof that they do not seriously and truly believe in life after death. However, to avoid openly admitting this, they claim that it is not this but rather the concern for the purity of monotheism that prevents them from praying to the saints and giving them religious reverence.
If there is life after death, and in this life after death, there is salvation, that is, heaven; if it is certain that those who have died are still alive today, then at least those who have received the reward of eternal happiness in the afterlife not only live but can also do good, help those they love, and pray for them. In this case, belief in the saints and praying to them is self-evident. Anyone who thinks that praying to the saints is unnecessary because they cannot help us is essentially claiming that those who are already saved and have received their final reward from God have become inferior beings compared to when they were still alive on earth. At that time, they could pray for others and help those they loved.
For example, a mother can pray for her children while living on earth, and she does so if she is a good mother. But is it possible that if she dies and is saved, having reached the sight of God and glorified, she can no longer do the same?
If that were the case, then salvation would be a punishment, as it would make us more helpless than we were before. If the dead live, they can love and do love in the afterlife, and if they are saved, their word carries even more weight before God, so their love is more effective than it was in their earthly life when they were still struggling for eternal salvation.
It is clear that the saved can be asked to help us, and even clearer that it is the most basic requirement that they hear, understand, and acknowledge our requests.
Salvation means someone has become a saint (because not only those who are canonized are saints). It would be a punishment for a mother if, in this state, she could love her child left on earth even less and could help even less than she could during her earthly life. What kind of salvation, what kind of happiness would it be if even the exercise of love, the most sacred human activity, was paralyzed and condemned to inactivity?
Therefore, it is clear that the saints, and generally all the saved, hear our requests even better than they did in their earthly lives (if this were not the case, glorification would not be a perfection but a diminution), have even greater goodwill to fulfill our requests than they did when they were still on earth (because saints are certainly better than we are), and have even greater power to fulfill our requests than they did when they were still earthly beings.
Therefore, it is undeniable that it is possible and worthwhile to pray to the saints, and even more undeniable that this is worship, not something displeasing to God. To say, for example, that praying to the Virgin Mary is meaningless can only be said by someone who believes that the Virgin Mary ceased to exist at her death and therefore does not live today. If she lives, she certainly does not live in damnation. And whoever is in heaven is certainly wiser, better, and more powerful than they were in their earthly life. Who has ever seen a saint who, though alive and glorified, is condemned to inactivity, knows nothing about what is happening with their loved ones on earth, and is even less able to help them? Such a "salvation" is inconceivable, as it would be more of a punishment than a reward.
Many Protestant theologians have realized the illogicality of this view, and not only Adventists teach this, but I have also encountered this assertion in Baptist and even Lutheran publications that with death, not only the body dies but the soul also ceases to exist and that God will resurrect both body and soul only at the end of the world.
Therefore, they argue that there is no need to pray to the Virgin Mary or the saints because they currently do not exist. They too will only come back to life, be resurrected at the end of the world, along with us. These Protestant theologians openly admit that they do not believe in eternal life now, postponing its beginning to the end of the world. According to them, there is currently no eternal life (thus no hell either), but it will only come after the end of the world.
This view is logical to the extent that it explains why Protestants do not pray to the saints, why they generally do not believe in saints, and why they think praying for the dead is unnecessary. (Interestingly, in this last point, all Protestant denominations unanimously agree, even though it is rare for them to agree on anything. We can see that when disbelief rather than faith is required, they easily agree.)
This explanation is also logical in that it accounts for the fact that the concept of eternal happiness is incompatible with the idea of saints or the saved living and being happy but unable to communicate with us, unaware of what is happening with us on earth, and that it is useless for us to turn to them because even if they understood our requests, they could not help us. They argue that if the saints helped us, it would offend God's exclusive majesty. These wise theologians do not consider that in eliminating these illogicalities, they fall into another, much greater illogicality than the ones they mentioned.
The main argument of Protestantism against the intercession of saints and consequently against praying to them is that, according to the Bible, we have only one mediator with the Father, and that is His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Clearly, this is true; thus, no one else can be our mediator in the same sense as Jesus. However, it is equally clear that this truth does not make it impossible or incorrect to have other, lower-ranked intercessors alongside Him.
If this were not the case, then we could also reprimand a mother praying for her child or a bride praying for her groom, telling them to stop because, don't you know, we humans have only one mediator, Christ? On what grounds do you think you can push yourself into that role as well? Yet, we know that the poor mother and the poor bride are far from such presumptuous blasphemy and have no other fault than that they love deeply. So too, the saints are our intercessors only because of their deep love.
Naturally, these human intercessors, whether still living on earth or already glorified, belong to an entirely different order from the intercession of our Lord Christ, and they cannot even be compared to it. Our Lord Christ is the source of our entire salvation; His crucifixion is the foundation and the only indispensable condition for the salvation of all people. But it is also undeniable that if a good mother constantly implores heaven for the conversion of her wayward son, she too is an intercessor with God for her son, even if she is not otherwise a saint and is full of her own flaws. It is also unquestionable that only a deranged mind could interpret her prayers as being offensive to our Lord Christ, the sole mediator.
Not only sinful earthly humans but also the glorified saints stand as far from Jesus Christ as any creature stands from the infinite God. But from this truth, it does not follow that only Jesus can propitiate God, only He can pray, only He can love, and we cannot. On the contrary, it follows that we too must do what He did and does, which means we must pray and intercede for others.
Even less does it follow that it is forbidden for us to turn to Jesus, our supreme and sole mediator with God, through the intercession of other more deserving people. Quite the opposite. This is pleasing to God because it is a sign of humility and awareness of sin if we prefer to approach Him not directly but through His mother or other glorified people far more worthy than we are.
Both the praying earthly mother and the glorified saints in heaven praying for us, as well as the Blessed Virgin, draw upon the infinite value of Christ's redemption and His mediating role when they intercede for someone or pray on behalf of someone. This does not happen by ignoring or belittling Jesus' mediating role, but precisely to secure His redemption for ourselves and obtain this supreme intercession for ourselves. We too believe there is only one mediator because there is only one redeemer, Jesus. There could be no intercessors or saints without Jesus and His redemption. The Virgin Mary, the mother of God, could especially not exist without Jesus. Everything happens through Jesus' intercession and for His intercession, whether directly or indirectly.
We also do not see from the Bible that God views human intercessors, aside from Jesus, unfavorably. Quite the opposite. Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom, where his relative Lot lived, and his intercession was successful. (Genesis 18:17-33) Initially, God intended to destroy the city outright, but due to Abraham's intercession, He was willing to spare it if righteous people could be found there, and Abraham's further pleading reduced the number of righteous needed.
In the Book of Kings (2 Kings 19:34, 20:6), the Lord says: "I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of my servant David!" He frequently emphasizes that He acts favorably towards David's descendants because of David's merits. In Daniel 3:35, we find: "Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham, your beloved, Isaac, your servant, and Israel, your holy one." At this point, neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob (Israel) were alive. So we see that asking God because of His saints, for their merits, and through their intercession is not only not contrary to God's will or Scripture but is recommended by Scripture, emphasizing that it is for their sake that God forgives us.
We can even find evidence in Scripture for the veneration of saints' relics, which Protestants so harshly condemn and despise. In Acts 19:11-12, we read: "God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured, and the evil spirits left them."
We see how Catholic the Scriptures are and how the apostles' direct disciples were very much like today's Catholics. The "superstition" of relic "worship" was already present among them, just as it is among contemporary Catholics, and the Scriptures not only do not condemn this but consider it appropriate and natural, with God affirming and rewarding this supposedly intolerable behavior and darkest superstition with miracles.
It cannot be denied that even the very first "Christians" were Catholics and that the Scriptures are too. Regarding the veneration of saints, the apostles thought and acted exactly like Catholics of the Middle Ages or our present day.
According to the accusations of Protestants, Catholics "worship" Mary alongside God. Although many Protestant theological textbooks stubbornly repeat this, it is nothing more than a complete and perfect misunderstanding. Catholics also worship and honor only the one true God as God. There is a clear difference between simple religious respect and worship. This conceptual difference exists in every language (adorare - venerari, anbeten - verehren, adorer - vénérer). The fact that in certain places for four hundred years they have refused to acknowledge this obvious distinction has its psychological reasons. We cannot be blamed for that.
Protestants say, "but yes, Catholics kneel before the image of the Virgin Mary and pray to her." Neither kneeling nor praying, in themselves, constitute worship. Worship means recognizing and honoring as God. When we Catholics kneel before an image of Mary, we do so because we honor the Virgin Mary with deep respect, and kneeling is a worthy and permitted expression of this respect. If Protestants say that only what is in the Scriptures is true, then let them show where the Scriptures forbid the expression of non-worshipful respect by kneeling? Praying to the Virgin Mary is simply supplication and invocation. Where in the Scriptures is it stated that it is forbidden to seek the help of the Mother of God and to pray to her? Moreover, the Hail Mary is partly a repetition of the greeting that God Himself had delivered to the Virgin Mary through the angel and that Elizabeth addressed to the Holy Virgin. If it were a sin to address the Virgin Mary with "Hail, full of grace," then God Himself would have committed this sin first! The first part of the Hail Mary is explicitly in the Scriptures.
Accusation: "According to the Scriptures, 'honor and glory belong to God alone'; yet Catholics share this glory with the saints." In the absolute sense in which glory belongs to God, we Catholics do not glorify anyone other than the one true God. We revere only Him in this way, acknowledging Him alone as the supreme Lord of the universe. But should we understand the above Scriptural phrase to mean that we should not give any honor or respect to anyone other than God? Does not God Himself command the opposite? Does He not, for example, require in the 4th commandment that we honor our parents? If we can honor great people, kings, governors, scholars, poets, and patriots, do the saints, especially Christ’s Virgin Mother, not deserve special religious respect because they are God’s friends, His most faithful servants, and the distinguished recipients of His grace? Especially the Holy Virgin, whom Jesus Himself bestowed the greatest glory and honor by choosing her as His mother?
According to the Protestant objection, "God strictly forbids the making of graven images; the Catholic Church, like the Greek Church, carves crucifixes and holy statues and fills its churches with images."
God’s law does not say not to make graven images, but rather not to make graven images for the purpose of worshiping them. This is a typical example of the arbitrary and truncated interpretation of Scripture, a constant phenomenon in anti-Catholic debates. They pluck a Scripture quotation out of context, ignore the necessary circumstances for proper interpretation, or overlook other clearer Scriptural passages that contradict their thesis—thus forming their argument. In this way, one can "prove" anything from Scripture.
The difference between idolatry and Christian veneration of images lies in the fact that an idolater worships the statue or fetish as a god, attributing divine powers to it; while a Christian Catholic does not worship the holy images, statues, or crucifix but regards them as reminders of God and His saints, holding them in esteem. When we kneel before a crucifix, it is not the wood or stone we respect, but the one whom the crucifix represents: Jesus Christ. Every Catholic child knows this, and Protestants know it too, but their zealous individuals persistently propagate this malicious tale.
Moreover, we find crosses, statues, and holy images in Lutheran churches as well: why, then, do Calvinists never thunder against these but are only scandalized by them in Catholic churches? This is a clear sign that it is not common sense or religious fervor speaking here, but passion and hatred.
Is it idolatry if someone hangs a picture of their deceased mother in their room or the president's portrait in their office as a sign of respect?
19
Not only the ORG who perverts Scriptures!
by BoogerMan in
1. watchtower
2. bible
john 14:6 - "jesus said to him, “i am the way, the truth, and the life.

no one comes to the father except through me.".

certain christian denominations lie & contradict jesus' crystal clear statement, by promoting the following dogma:.
aqwsed12345

Instead of making a strawman argument, read this instead:
Praying to the Saints
The Catholic dogma simply states that the saints intercede for us before God, and therefore it is permitted and beneficial to invoke their aid.
The Old Testament bears witness to the fact that God listened to the intercession of His saints while they were on earth; He heard Abraham for Sodom, Moses for Israel, and Job for his friends (Gen 18:23; Ex 32:10; Job 42:8). Thus, He is even more likely to hear those friends who are irrevocably established in His grace. Indeed, according to the Old Testament historian, Jeremiah and the high priest Onias prayed much for the people and the entire holy city (2 Macc 15:11). Tobias prayed to the angel (Tob 12:12); hence, by analogy, it is also permissible to turn to the saints.
In the New Testament, the Savior teaches in a parable that the rich man prayed to Abraham (Luke 16:24); He Himself, after His ascension, stands at the right hand of God and "always lives to make intercession for us" (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25); thus, the saints, who are definitively united to Christ, the head, and have fully conformed to Him, do the same. Indeed, the apostle Paul effectively prays for the shipwrecked (Acts 27:44); in the Book of Revelation, the twenty-four elders fall before the Lamb, "each having a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."
Among the Church Fathers, Origen is the first to explicitly mention and recommend invoking the saints' aid, citing the apostle Paul. The many epitaphs where the living request the intercession of the departed bear eloquent testimony to how deeply rooted this practice was among the faithful. The same is attested by the acts of the martyrs and the litanies. In the 4th century, both theoretical and practical testimonies multiply.
Theological reflection concludes that
a) the saints want to intercede for us. For on earth, they embraced with great sacrificial love the members of God’s kingdom; now, in the holy fire of the beatific vision, those whom God has called to the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven appear to them in a wholly new loveliness; their love and their will to help are intensified by a clearer view of the difficulties and helplessness of earthly pilgrims and the dangers of their journey. The Protestant belief that the love and mercy of the most noble-hearted people cool as they pass through the gate of eternity and enter the atmosphere of God's pure love is a pagan notion and a serious doctrinal error.
b) They can intercede for us. On the one hand, they become aware of what is happening in God's earthly kingdom; on the other hand, it is inconceivable that the God of mercy and love, of life and vigor, would obstruct them in the most beautiful service of mercy, promoting the salvation of struggling souls. From this, theologians rightly infer that the blessed inhabitants of heaven intercede even for the souls suffering in purgatory.
c) Their intercession is effective. This is assured by God's promises in Scripture and by the consideration that they ask of God nothing other than what His merciful love itself intends to provide for people; thus, they are not in conflict with God’s helpful love for humanity.
Protestant critics, however, argue that invoking the saints and their intercession obscures the unique mediating role of Jesus Christ and tempts believers to place their trust not solely in God but also in people. Solution:
a) According to Catholic truth, we expect help solely from the almighty love of God; we turn to the saints to teach us as masters of prayer and to help us pray well to God's majesty as mature brothers in Christ. The devout person clearly sees how unprepared they stand before God; therefore, they seek helpers and friends in whose company they can more confidently appear before God's royal throne. Thus, in the end, Catholic piety does not pray to the saints but to God in the company of the saints. It is telling that the official prayers of the Church (which begin with Oremus) are always directly addressed to God, even if they mention a saint. This alone is a strong refutation of the Protestant charge that Catholicism, even if it does not worship the saints, places devotion to them above the worship of God.
b) It is a law of divine activity that His sovereign and unassailable will is implemented in creation and in the supernatural world through secondary causes. God cannot be swayed by flattery or unauthorized patronage; His conduct is guided solely by His eternal perspectives. But these include the intercession of the saints. Therefore, we are indeed following God's footsteps when we turn to the steward of supernatural goods for help. Since God uses secondary causes to carry out His plans in both the natural and supernatural order, it is reasonable to conclude that just as He does not distribute natural goods equally among creatures, He does not assign the same role to all saints in the supernatural order but sets different tasks for them according to the membership of Christ's mystical body. Therefore, the Catholic practice of turning to different saints for various needs, often even lesser ones, and seeking and honoring different heavenly patrons for different matters and institutions is justified. This practice is commendable because its greater variety is highly suitable for kindling the zeal of the faithful.
c) The intercession of the saints does not overshadow Christ's unique mediating role; the saints derive their intercessory role from Jesus Christ, and thus, as secondary and essentially Christ-dependent intercessors, they testify to the power of Christ's primary intercession.
Either-Or and Both-And
Some Christian communities are quite characterized by the "either-or" stance, which operates as follows:
"Either you believe that you are saved by faith alone, or you believe that only works are necessary." (Catholics are completely falsely accused of this) "Either you believe only in Scripture, or you are a follower of 'human traditions.'" "Either you believe that we can cooperate in our salvation, or you deny that Christ is sufficient for it." "Either you believe that someone can freely turn away from God, or you deny that God is almighty." etc.
These "either-or" arguments are based on a false assumption, namely, that two statements can only be used in an exclusive sense and can only be opposed or contradictory. Either preaching or sacraments; either personal prayer or liturgy; either the Bible or the Church; either the Bible or Tradition; either the Holy Spirit or Tradition; either church authority or personal freedom; either commandments or grace; either worship of God or veneration of the saints, etc., etc.
Catholics deny these statements and consider that two statements can also complement each other.
"We are saved by grace, through faith and works prompted by the love of the Holy Spirit." "The source of the Christian faith is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, whose source and bond is the Bible." "We are saved exclusively by the grace of the Cross, with which we must cooperate." "God can do anything He wants, but He chooses those who freely choose Him." etc.
Thus, the Catholic Church holds these in a "both-and" sense because they are not contradictory but complementary. Preaching is necessary, but so are the sacraments; personal prayer is necessary, but so is liturgy; the Bible is necessary, but so is the Church; the Bible is necessary, but so is Tradition; the Holy Spirit is necessary, but so is Tradition; personal freedom is necessary, but so is church authority; grace is necessary, but so are the commandments; worship of God is necessary, but so is the veneration of saints.
We can also express this as the "Yes, but..." stance:
"Yes, we are saved by grace through faith – but through active faith." "Yes, Christ is the only way to the Father – but we, as Christians, cooperate with Him in the divine plan, so in a real, though limited, sense we have a co-redeemer role in the history of salvation." "Yes, we must be born again – but being born again means baptism." "Yes, Christ is the rock of the Church – but Christ appointed Peter as His earthly Rock and representative." etc.
So, as I said before, a little subtlety is needed. We should not see contradictions where there are none.
In a broader sense, saints are those who died in God’s friendship and attained salvation. The Church specifically venerates (canonizes) as saints those who possessed all Christian virtues and practiced at least one to a heroic degree.
Holiness can be applied to humans without diminishing the holiness of the Creator God. Public veneration of holy people is appropriate, while the worship and primary object of religious cult is exclusively God. To honor and love a creature with the same level of devotion and submission as the Creator God is a grave sin, sacrilege, and idolatry. However, every person deserves respect precisely because humans are "made in the image of God." We offer religious reverence to those who have led many to God and continue to guide through their writings and lives (prayers). This reverence is justified because of their heightened connection to God. We call them saints because they make God’s holiness tangible. In an absolute sense, only God is holy. Everything and everyone else is holy insofar as they belong to Him (the Bible, the Church, the saints). We give them reverence only to the extent that they are intertwined with God’s world, hence in a narrower sense, they are "holy." (We kiss the Bible and the relics of the saints, doing so without believing the paper or bones to be God. We show signs of reverence because these things intensely remind us of God and His commandments and connect us to the supernatural milieu.) Therefore, in summary: worship (cultus latriæ) is due to God. Veneration (cultus duliæ) is due to the saints. The Church canonizes someone (declares them a saint) precisely because their life example urges others to follow Christ more seriously. The life of a saint is, in essence, an actualized gospel. Every saint, in their specific situation, era, and state of life, demonstrated what the Gospel means in its full strength, even if human weaknesses are sometimes discovered in the saints. (This is even more encouraging: "If they could be saints, friends of God, then so can we.") Therefore, we assert that in every saint, we venerate the one God in the Holy Trinity, and thus all religious cult ultimately, directly or indirectly, is directed to God. The word "prayer" used in relation to the saints can indeed be misleading. However, it must be understood that prayers addressed to the saints are only prayers in an analogous sense. They are prayers in that they are messages addressed to the supernatural world. Their form, nature, and method resemble prayers addressed to God, but their content, formulation, and especially the degree of humble devotion are recognizably different.
Scripture also acknowledges the application of holiness to humans: "Although there is only one [God], who can do all things, and while remaining in himself, renews all things. Generation after generation, he enters into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets" (Wis 7:27). St. Paul the Apostle also calls those who have fully embraced Jesus’ teachings saints, meaning those who have repented and are serious Christians: "And such were some of you [sinners fulfilling the sin catalog of St. Paul]; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). The Old and New Testaments use the term "saint" for people a total of eighty-four times. This is too frequent for it to be a mere slip of the tongue, mistranslation, later addition, or misinterpretation. The Bible also acknowledges the multifaceted (analogous) use of the term "holy," meaning that something is holy as long as it is connected to the Holy One, even indirectly: "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the saints greet you" (2 Cor 13:12).
The intercession of saints means that the glorified people who have attained the beatific vision of God can effectively support those who have not yet reached heavenly glory with their prayers.
Trusting in the intercession of the saints means living out the belief in the communion of saints, which we also profess in the Apostles' Creed. A conceptual clarification is also needed here: We use the term intercession in two senses. One meaning applies only to Jesus Christ. In the full sense, He is the only mediator between God and man. His divine-human nature is the link between humans and the incomprehensible divine Being. His death on the cross brought redemption to humanity, and this is effective for salvation as long as this world exists. However, we also use intercession in another, everyday sense: to help someone through mere prayer or request, to intercede for someone before God or humans. It is certain that we can and must pray for each other, so we cannot deny this type of intercession. We should not make a conceptual issue out of it and deny the possibility of human intercession based on the fact that only Jesus is the mediator. It is clear that there are two completely different qualities of intercession. Jesus’ intercession is unconditional, while the saints' is conditional. Jesus’ intercession is infinitely powerful, while the saints' is always finite and always realized only through the work of Jesus. The intercessory power of saints depends on the perfection of their love for God and their closeness to Him (Thom. Aquin. STh. III. 211. 83,11). Therefore, it is worthwhile to pray for each other, but the intercessory power of the saints’ prayers is immeasurably greater.
Scripture eloquently teaches the power and possibility of human intercession and that the power of intercession depends on the sanctity of the intercessor: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is very powerful in its effect. Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and for three years and six months, it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and the sky gave rain, and the earth produced its fruit. My brothers, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, let him know that whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins" (James 5:16). Both Scripture and Jewish tradition acknowledge that the prayers of saints are more effective than those of sinners: "We know that God does not listen to sinners. He does listen to the one who worships Him and does His will" (John 9:31). Jesus accepts human intercession and fulfills His mother's request in a matter that was not originally His intention: "On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and His disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to Him, 'They have no more wine.' 'Woman, why do you involve Me?' Jesus replied, 'My hour has not yet come.' His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever He tells you.' Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, 'Fill the jars with water'; so they filled them to the brim. Then He told them, 'Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.' They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, 'Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.' What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which He revealed His glory; and His disciples believed in Him. After this He went down to Capernaum with His mother and brothers and His disciples. There they stayed for a few days" (John 2:1).
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345
@LostintheFog1999
Luke 1:43 specifically referred to Mary as the "mother of my Lord."
Mary is the "Mother of God," but not a goddess. The dogma does not teach that divinity originates from Mary, but rather that whom Mary gave birth to was truly God. He did not assume divinity, but from the moment of his conception, he was truly human—an unconscious and helpless embryo—and at the same time the omnipotent and omniscient God. Therefore, Mary's divine motherhood proclaims and reinforces the dogma that Christ is truly God and truly human, in whom the two natures are united. It is no coincidence that Nestorius, who so separated the two natures in Jesus that it was hardly possible to speak of a single person, also attacked the term "Mother of God." He understood that the expression guarantees the teaching that in Jesus, the two natures are united in one person. There is no notion of theogony here, as motherhood directly involves only conception and birth, and Mary conceived and gave birth to God. This, however, does not mean that God originated entirely from her. St. Thomas Aquinas rightly points out: "Even in natural birth, it is true that the mother gives only the body, not the soul, to the offspring, since the latter is directly created by God at the moment of conception. Nevertheless, we never say that a woman is the mother of Peter's body, but only that she is Peter's mother" For the same reason, St. Gregory Nazianzen says: "He who does not believe that Mary is the Mother of God is godless".
Justification: Our proposition is essentially a syllogism (the logical conclusion of a third statement from two premises):
1. Jesus Christ is God.
2. The Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ. Therefore:
3. The Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. To prove the dogma, it is sufficient to prove the first two statements.
It indicates that Jesus born from her is the eternal Son according to his person, that is, a divine person. Therefore, Mary can be called the Mother of God, even if the Son took only the human nature from her.
The term Theotokos can already be found in Origen. Its true significance emerged during the Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries. It was implicitly referenced by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in 381 when they defended the divinity of the Son and his true incarnation from Mary. Explicitly, the Council of Ephesus in 430 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451 sanctioned its use. Subsequently, it entered the Church's liturgy (the Feast of the Motherhood of Mary) and the consciousness of the faithful. - The doctrine of Theoktokos opposes the Gnostic view, affirming that Jesus assumed a real, not merely apparent, body from Mary; and it opposes Nestorius, affirming that in Jesus, the divine and human natures are united in one person, the person of the Son, making him one reality. Nestorius wanted to recognize only the term Christotokos, 'Christ-bearer,' meaning that Jesus, born of Mary, was only a human person, possibly later filled by the Word at his baptism, thus becoming the Christ, the Anointed.
The title "Mother of God" is not applied to Mary by Scripture itself, but its two theological precedents are present: namely, that Jesus was born of Mary, and that he was truly the Son of God, that is, a divine person. It must also be seen that in Mary, motherhood was not merely a biological process, but a real personal mother-child relationship. The title and its usage thus contribute to a deeper understanding of the mystery of Christ and the mystery of Mary. It acknowledges that in Christ, the divine and human natures truly form a unity, that is, his humanity was united with the person of the Son (hypostatic union) from the first moment of his earthly life. Furthermore, Mary gave her child what a mother can give, but the one born of her, in terms of his personality, was God, and Mary is the mother of this person.
Theology has always regarded Mary's Theotokos-motherhood as the greatest grace privilege and the source of her entire sanctification, as no one could enter into a closer relationship with Christ's humanity, the source of grace, than she, the mother. However, her motherhood rests on God's creative activity, and Jesus's virginal conception must be interpreted in this way. Therefore, her privilege has nothing to do with mythological analogies where gods engage in sexual relations with earthly women.
It is natural that God, as such, could not have a mother. But because Jesus was both God and man in one person, it is perfectly correct to call the Virgin Mary the "Mother of God." For although she was not the mother of God as such, she was the mother of Jesus, who was also God. Similarly, we rightly call the Pope's mother the mother of the Pope, even though she gave birth to him not as a Pope, but as a small child.
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345

Colossians 1:15-16
*
What does Colossians 1:15 mean according to rabbinical sources?
*
Revelation 3:14
*
Proverbs 8:22
*
Proverbs 8:22 according to the Cappadocian Fathers
*
John 1:1
*
The Trinity exposed
*
Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
*
Yes, You Should Believe In The Trinity
*
In Defense of the Trinity Doctrine
*
Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ

*
"Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
*
Did the Trinity Come from Paganism?
*
John 14:28
*
Matthew 24:36 / Mark 13:32
*
Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity
79
John 1:1 in Coptic Translation
by slimboyfat in
1. jw
2. friends
apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.

i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.

here is what i gather: .
aqwsed12345
@Rattigan350
"John was stating that the Word, Jesus was a spirit being alongside God."
In his prologue, John does not call him a "spirit being" (?), contrasting his being with the one he was with. John does not refer to Jesus as a "spirit being" but emphasizes that the Word was both with God and was God. The term "theos" without the article in Greek emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being divine, not a lesser spirit.
"He was not saying that the Word was Jehovah God."
John nowhere speaks of any kind of "Jehovah", but since in a positive and affirmative sense in the theological framework of the NT, the term THEOS only refers to the true God, the almighty God of the Bible, this is only possible if the Son/Logos is just as much YHWH, like the Father, in addition to the fact that he is obviously not identical with the Father in person. The New Testament does not use the term "Jehovah." Instead, it uses "theos" to refer to the true God. John 1:1c clearly states, "the Word was God," which in the context of John's theology refers to the true God, not a lesser being. John 1:1 establishes the divinity of the Word while maintaining a personal distinction between the Word and God the Father.
"...he was a lesser spirit..."
John did not call the Logos "lesser" "spirit" in his prologue, and if you refer to John 14:28, that does not prove the Son's createdness and ontological inferiority. In short: "greater" here does not mean "ontologically superior", and this is excellently justified by the fact that the Son is begotten of the Father (not vice versa), and also by the fact that the Son (unlike the Father) became man (incarnated), thus "greater" does not prove that he was a creature or an archangel, as asserted by the WTS. Nowhere in the prologue of John or elsewhere does John call the Logos "lesser" or a "spirit." John 1:14 states, "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us," emphasizing the incarnation of the divine Word. John 14:28 ("The Father is greater than I") refers to the economic function within the Trinity and the incarnation, not to an ontological inferiority.
"...being different from God."
The Nicene theology does not claim that the Son/Logos is the same person as the one who is meant by the name "God" in John 1:1b, i.e. the Father. The text explicitly states that the Word was both with God and was God. The term "theos" without the article in the Greek emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word being divine. This does not imply a "lesser" divinity but rather affirms the Word's full divinity.The Nicene theology, as reflected in John 1:1, does not claim that the Son is the same person as the Father. The text says the Word was with God (indicating distinction of the persons) and was God (indicating unity of essence). This affirms the full divinity of the Word without implying that the Word is a different, lesser deity.
Thomas addresses Jesus as "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28) This clear confession acknowledges Jesus' full divinity, not as a lesser being, a creature but as truly God. If Jesus was a mere creature, Thomas's statement would be inappropriate. The clear acknowledgment by a disciple of Jesus' divine nature affirms the belief in Jesus as truly God.
@Wonderment
I'm not just criticizing the NWT, they're all mistranslations, but since this is a NWT forum, that's by definition the focus. While some translations have nuanced differences, the overwhelming majority of reputable translations (e.g., NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV) render John 1:1 as "the Word was God," emphasizing the Word's full divinity.
In the New Testament, when referring to Jesus and the true God, "theos" consistently denotes full divinity. In the New Testament, "theos" consistently denotes full divinity when referring to Jesus and the true God. The context of passages like John 1:1 and John 20:28 affirms the divinity of Jesus in the same sense as the Father.
" Your cursory mention of John 10.34 by Jesus gives you away."
In John 10:34-36, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 to defend against the charge of blasphemy. The context shows that Jesus uses the term "gods" in a lesser, figurative sense for humans. However, this does not diminish his claim to divinity. Jesus distinguishes His unique relationship with the Father from the way "gods" is used for judges in the psalm, asserting His divine Sonship. Jesus' reference to Psalm 82 in John 10:34 illustrates a rhetorical strategy, not a denial of his unique divinity. The psalm's use of "gods" for judges was symbolic, and Jesus used it to demonstrate that his claim to be God's Son was even more justified.
The issue is the context in which this was stated and why John NEEDED to render this as 'theoi' when writing his gospel in GREEK, whereas all other apostles did not translate OT passages where creatures are affirmatively called 'elohim' in this way. Therefore, the NT concept of 'theos' is not identical to the early OT books' concept of el-eloah-elohim because, in the NT theological context, there is no general sense of calling someone "god," which is no more than calling someone "cool" in modern English vernacular. This pericope does not claim that the divinity of Jesus is identical with this symbolic psalm terminology, on the contrary. he simple reason for this is that Christ's answer would not have been understandable otherwise, but you can't provide a single example where creatures are described as "theoi" in an affirmative and positive sense in the NT, so there is no NT precedent for this.
The Son is God not only in the sense that "elohim" is used in the OT in a general sense (even ironically, e.g., in the case of judges), but in reality, the NT does not recognize this concept of "theos."
In the NT, designating angels as THEOS does not occur, so this only appears in this OT quote, and moreover, "Elohim" in Hebrew is a much more general term, which in this case might be better translated as Mighty Ones, etc., rather than "God" in the proper sense. The word "GOD" in Greek, English, etc., always refers to the omnipotent, creator, infinite single God, and no one else. In the case of Jesus, we do not only rely on the application of the word "THEOS" not just once and without any diminutive additions but also on such attributes (omniscience, timelessness, hearing of prayers, to be worshipped (both proskuneo AND latreou, etc.) which cannot apply to the created angels.
John 10:34-35 just proves that the divinity of the Son is superior compared to calling the judges "elohim" in Psalm 82, where Jesus uses this for a so-called "kal va-chomer" argument.
The statement "you are gods" comes from Psalm 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented men as elohim, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but they have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the OT, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a HIGHER right to divinity than theirs. Ps. 82 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Ps. 82: IF God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
"you want to have John 1.1 say that it supports a sort of Trinity. "
I wasn't talking about the Trinity, but the Nicean undrestanding of the nature of the Son. The focus is on the Nicene understanding of the nature of the Son, not the full Trinitarian doctrine. John 1:1 supports the divinity of the Son, consistent with the Nicene Creed's affirmation of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father.This is precisely why I don't like to debate "the Trinity" with Jehovah's Witnesses initially. Instead, we should approach this whole discourse chronologically as it emerged in church history, starting with the Council of Nicaea, not "the Trinity." The Trinity is just the final result, which can only be understood if you are familiar with the basics, just as you cannot jump to advanced mathematics without understanding the fundamental mathematics.
"These Church Fathers lived historically in a time period noted for its ambiguity and confusion."
Patristics and extrabiblical sources, even if they do not hold the same authority as the Bible, are still essential. The early Church Fathers provide crucial insights into the interpretation of Scripture and early Christian doctrine. They were closer to the apostolic tradition and provide valuable context for understanding the New Testament. The early Church Fathers provide crucial historical context, demonstrating the continuous understanding of Christ's divinity. They were closer to the apostolic teachings and their interpretations hold significant weight against later heterodox claims.
Assuming that the NT was not misunderstood immediately after the death of the Apostle John, these sources show the beliefs of ancient Christians. Of course, one can play biblical ping-pong, but Christianity is also a historical phenomenon. Various Bible passages have been interpreted differently over time. For me, the interpretations of those almost contemporaneous with the apostles carry more weight than speculations made two thousand years later.
The early Church Fathers provide valuable insights into the interpretation of Scripture and early Christian doctrine. Their proximity to the apostolic tradition offers a credible understanding of the New Testament. They consistently affirmed the divinity of Christ and countered early heresies.
Many individuals have abandoned, are abandoning, and will abandon their faith, gathering followers around them, as the Scriptures testify (Acts 20:28-31; 1 John 2:18-19). According to every known secular and theological definition, "apostasy" refers to individuals abandoning their religion or belief system (1 John 2:19), not a collective heresy of an entire group. The Bible nowhere states that the entire Church established by Jesus would or could ever abandon Him. Such a departure is impossible, considering His promises (Mt 16:18; 18:15-20; 28:20; John 14:16-17, 23, 26; 16:7, 12-14; 17:9-23), along with the inspired apostolic doctrine that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), the command to "hold to the traditions you were taught by us, either by spoken word or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15, referring to "oral tradition" AND "Scripture"), and the fact that "through the Church, the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places" (Eph. 3:10).
In the writings of the Church Fathers, there is no mention of a great apostasy of the entire Church or of a significant struggle for the faith. They mention individual heretics and certain heretical movements that began and grew after Christ's ascension and Pentecost, but there is no mention of a complete apostasy. If the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy, they would likely have mentioned their new doctrines to condemn Christians adhering to older apostolic teachings! But there is no sign of such a debate, and no writings support the idea of a mass apostasy from the true faith. History is completely silent. History mentions other great schisms within the Church (such as the Ebionites, Arianism, the Great Schism in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation in 1517), but about this massive schism ("great apostasy"), there is complete silence.
Orthodox Catholic theologians have not been silent about being condemned as heretical teachers of devilish doctrines. Every movement deemed heretical by Catholic orthodoxy in the first four centuries either died out or faded away. All of them strongly contradicted one or more NT teachings, and some even rejected protocanonical biblical books accepted by all Christians from the beginning of the Church. Collectively, they do not represent a unified Christian theology that could be called the original apostolic Christian gospel from which the Church apostatized. The various doctrines and groups rejected by Catholic orthodoxy even contradict each other. Their writings, which have survived and are accessible, show that none represent or resemble the teachings of JWs, Mormons, or fundamentalist Protestants. So they do not represent any writings from the first four centuries of Christianity. This historical silence is taken as evidence that the "Great Apostasy" from evangelical Reformation Christianity must have happened, which is circular reasoning.
It is unreasonable to assume that the earliest Church Fathers—personally taught by the apostles—would teach heresies, and that the truly faithful followers of the apostles' doctrines, who had their writings and knew the older generation that personally heard them teach and preach, would have remained silent about such a massive paradigm shift in the Church's fundamental teachings.I did not claim that individual Church Fathers were "infallible" in their Christology, but the fact is that there is not a single early Christian source that states the Father "created" the Son or that the Son is Michael the Archangel, etc. On the contrary, there are countless sources affirming that the Son is God. Now, this is only possible if Christianity "collapsed" almost immediately after the Apostles, like a new car breaking down on its first turn out of the dealership. This implies that practically everyone "misunderstood" the Apostles' message.
"John 17.3 points to the Father [not the Son] as the true God, who we owe our lives to. "
The fact that "not the Son" is already your forced eisegesis explanation, the text does not contrast this with the Son. John 17:3 does not exclude the Son from being the true God. The verse highlights the Father as the only true God to contrast with false gods, not to deny the divinity of the Son. Other passages, such as 1 John 5:20, also affirm the Son as the true God.Jehovah's Witnesses often refer to this scripture when disputing the deity of Jesus. In contrast, Christians who believe in the Trinity usually point out that the expression "the only true God" is not meant to contrast the Father with the Son, but rather to contrast the only true God with false gods (Jeremiah 10:10-11; 1 John 5:20). This verse merely states that "the Father is the only true God" (which corresponds to the Trinitarian Christian teaching), but it does not say "only the Father is the true God alone," which some would like to infer. There is a clear difference between the two statements. Not only this verse, but also the understanding of several other texts, requires us to recognize that the expression "and" (kai) can also mean "that is," "more precisely," or "as well as." For the use of the "kai" conjunction in this sense, see for example John 15:8 and 18:35.Based on these words, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Father is the only true God. However, the structure and meaning of the scripture suggest that "they may know you, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent, to be the only true God." The Bible here names the Father as the only true God, not to exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit (who are just as much the only true God together with the Father); but rather to exclude the false gods of the pagans. The Witnesses should consider that the Son of God, Jesus Christ, is expressly called the true God (1 John 5:20), with the definite article in Greek, which Jehovah's Witnesses usually emphasize heavily.
The quickest way to demonstrate the flawed interpretation of John 17:3 by Jehovah's Witnesses is through examining Ephesians 4:4-6 ("one God and Father of all, and one Lord, Jesus"). If the title of "One God" for the Father excluded Jesus from divinity, then Jesus' title of "One Lord" would similarly exclude the Father from being Lord. Yet, we know that both are Lord. On the other hand, Jehovah is called not only the only true God (John 17:3) but also the "Only Savior" (Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4; Jude 25), "Only King" (Zechariah 14:9). If John 17:3 excluded Jesus from being the "True God," then Jesus would also be excluded from being Savior or King. In contrast, Jesus is called the "Only Teacher" (Matthew 23:8, 10; Matthew 10:24 and John 13:13), "Only Master" (Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:1), and "Only Lord" (Jude 4; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4,6; Matthew 6:24). If we were to exclude Jesus from being the true God based on John 17:3, then we would also have to exclude the Father from being our Teacher, Master, or Lord.
Can the term "only" referring to exclusivity be applied to a person? Several scriptural passages use such language: "That they may know that you [i.e., the Father] are the only true God." (John 17:3); "No one knows the Son except the Father." (Matthew 11:27);
These verses should be understood not to exclude the other persons of the Trinity but merely other natures. Thus, "no one else" means not another person, but rather not another nature. So, when the term "only" is applied to divine persons, it does not exclude the other persons – as they are all one through the unity of the single divine reality. This, of course, is true only for statements that can be made about the persons regarding their common divine essence. Thus, every Person of the Trinity knows the other, is almighty, holy, etc.
This hyperbole do not exclude other persons from the Godhead, but exclude other deities. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1031.htm#article3
Thomas Aquinas explains that all these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures. Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc.
However, other attributes are not based on the common essence but on their relations. For example: only the Father is "unbegotten"; only the Son is "begotten"; only the Spirit "proceeds from the Father."
Finally, we must point out that some attributes of the Son are not about His divinity but His humanity. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son died; only the Son will come again, and so on. For those who need further arguments against the Watchtower-Arian interpretation, I can recommend the following articles:
"And Jesus even said, "The Father is greater than I am.""
I touched on this primitive argument above. This refers to the economic roles within the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation, not to an ontological inferiority. The Father and the Son share the same divine essence, but the Son took on human nature and a subordinate role in the Incarnation.

"Jesus thus said: 'Worship the Father.' (Jn 4.24)"
Besides, he also said that: "all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." (John 5:23) Jesus claims equal honor with the Father, which would be inappropriate if He were merely a lesser being, a creature.
"But for ego-seekers, this may be way too simple."
Unless you're not the examiner of hearts and kidneys, do yourself a favor and don't dig into other people's hearts, especially not in such a pseudo-psychological way. The context of the New Testament consistently maintains the distinction between the one true God and created beings, whether angels or humans, and affirms the unique divinity of Jesus Christ.
"Greek philosophy disguised in complicated dogmas, like the Trinity..."
Cf. Genetic fallacy
The doctrine of the Trinity as a doctrine is merely an organization certain biblical facts into a system. So the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretation and systematization of biblical facts published in a philosophical guise. the CONTENT of Catholic theology was not influenced by some kind of evil "philosophy", and you will not be able to attack it, based on the fact that the philosophical concepts used for the TERMINOLOGY for formulating the doctrines are also used. Read this:
From the New Testament to the Council of Nicaea
1. The theologians who in our time raise doubts about the divinity of Christ often argue that this dogma cannot have emerged from genuine biblical revelation; its origins are traceable to Hellenism. Deeper historical inquiries show, on the contrary, that the thought pattern of the Greeks was totally alien to this dogma and that they rejected it with the utmost vigor. To the faith of Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Christ, Hellenism opposed its own dogma of the divine transcendence, which it regarded as irreconcilable with the contingency inherent to the human history of Jesus of Nazareth. Greek philosophers experienced the particular difficulty entailed in accepting the notion of a divine incarnation. In the name of their teaching on the godhead, Platonist philosophers regarded this notion as unthinkable. The Stoics, in turn, could not manage to reconcile the Christological dogma with their cosmological doctrine.
2. It was in order to respond to these difficulties that, more or less openly, many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge. Obviously, this was tantamount to clearing the way to the threat of subordinationism. This subordinationism was already latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen. Arius made a formal heresy of it. He maintained that the Son occupies an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures. The Arian heresy offers a good illustration of how the dogma of Christ’s divinity would have looked had it truly emerged from the philosophy of Hellenism and not from God’s own revelation. At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.
To be sure, "homoousios", the term used by the Council of Nicaea, is a philosophical and nonbiblical term. It is evident all the same that, ultimately, the Fathers of the Council only intended to express the authentic meaning of the New Testament assertions concerning Christ, and to do this in a way that would be univocal and free from all ambiguity.
In issuing this definition of Christ’s divinity, the Church found support also in the experience of salvation and in man’s divinization in Christ. In turn, the dogmatic definition impressed its own determination and mark on the experience of salvation. There was, then, an in-depth interaction between lived experience and the process whereby theological clarification was achieved.
3. The theological reflections of the Fathers of the Church did not ignore the special problem connected with the divine preexistence of Christ. Note in particular Hippolytus of Rome, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus. Their attempts are bent on presenting the preexistence of Christ not at the level of ontological reality but at that of intentionality: Christ had preexisted in the sense of having been foreseen (kata prognosin).
These presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned. Thus the Church gave expression to her own belief in an ontological preexistence of Christ, for which it found support in the Father s eternal generation of the Word. The Church also referred to the clear-cut New Testament affirmations concerning the active role played by the Word of God in the creation of the world. Obviously, someone who does not yet exist, or is only intended to exist, cannot play any such role.
The arguments presented by the Jehovah’s Witnesses often overlook the full context of the scriptures and historical theological interpretations. The New Testament consistently upholds the full divinity of Jesus Christ, distinguishing him from created beings, whether angels or humans. The nuanced theological explanations by the Church Fathers further reinforce this understanding, demonstrating a coherent and consistent belief in the deity of Christ within the framework of early Christian doctrine. The New Testament consistently maintains the distinction between the one true God and created beings while affirming the unique divinity of Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers and reputable scholars provide robust support for the traditional understanding of John 1:1c, which affirms the full divinity of the Word. The arguments presented by Jehovah's Witness apologists do not hold up against the weight of biblical and historical evidence.

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

On the Trinity

Other Matters

Christian Holidays and Attitude Towards the State

Attitude Towards Power