aqwsed12345

Joined

Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your perspective highlights an interesting approach to understanding early Christianity, particularly in how you emphasize a mystical origin model and the possibility that early Christians viewed the death and resurrection of Christ in a different, more spiritualized way before the Gospel narratives took shape. While it's true that some early Christian texts, such as The Ascension of Isaiah, reflect a mystical or spiritualized understanding of Christ's descent and ascent, this does not negate the historical claims of early Christianity regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The foundational Christian belief, as articulated by the apostles, particularly Paul, was firmly rooted in the historicity of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Paul, for example, consistently emphasizes the historical nature of the resurrection in his letters. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, he lists specific individuals who witnessed the resurrected Christ, underscoring that this event was not merely a spiritual or metaphorical occurrence but a real, historical event verified by eyewitnesses. Paul's focus is not on a mystical Christ hidden in the heavens but on a risen Christ who physically appeared to his followers.
While the mystical elements in early Christian thought are certainly intriguing, they do not represent the core message of the earliest Christian communities, which centered on the tangible, historical reality of Jesus’ death and resurrection.
You suggest that Paul’s Christology is more aligned with the Ascension of Isaiah than with the Gospel narratives, implying that Paul’s understanding of Christ was more spiritual and less grounded in historical events. However, this overlooks Paul’s own statements about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
In Philippians 2:5-11, Paul speaks of Christ’s incarnation in very concrete terms, describing how Jesus, "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." This passage explicitly refers to Christ’s earthly life and humiliation, followed by His exaltation. Paul’s Christology includes both the historical Jesus and the exalted Christ, making it clear that these two aspects are not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, the idea that Paul did not discuss Jesus’ earthly life in detail does not imply that he viewed Jesus merely as a spiritual being. Paul’s letters were written to address specific theological and pastoral concerns, and the Gospel accounts, which detail Jesus’ life and ministry, complement Paul’s theological reflections. Together, they present a coherent picture of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine.
You argue that the Gospel narratives, with their focus on a corporeal Jesus performing miracles, gave Christianity a competitive advantage by creating a more accessible and relatable figure than abstract, metaphysical ideas. However, this interpretation downplays the central role of the Gospels as historical testimony rather than as mere theological constructs.
The Gospels were written by or based on the accounts of eyewitnesses who knew Jesus and followed Him during His ministry. Luke, for example, makes it clear in the prologue to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) that he carefully investigated everything from the beginning and based his account on the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses. The Gospels are not simply literary creations to promote a new religious movement; they are historical accounts meant to preserve the teachings and actions of Jesus for future generations.
It’s important to recognize that while early Christianity did indeed interact with pre-Christian Jewish and Greco-Roman thought, it did not simply “adopt” these ideas wholesale. The early Christians reinterpreted Jewish messianic expectations and transformed Greek philosophical concepts like the Logos into a radically new understanding of God’s revelation in Christ. The Logos in the Gospel of John is not just a philosophical abstraction but is identified as God Himself who became flesh (John 1:1, 14). This is a significant departure from both Jewish and Hellenistic thought, demonstrating the uniqueness of early Christian theology.
The suggestion that Christianity merely borrowed from Jewish and Hellenistic ideas and evolved them into a more accessible narrative overlooks the revolutionary nature of early Christian claims. Christianity did not simply adapt existing metaphors and mythological frameworks; it introduced a radically new understanding of God, salvation, and the role of Jesus Christ.
Early Christians proclaimed a historical event—the resurrection of Jesus—that grounded their faith in something tangible and verifiable. The resurrection was not a mystical abstraction or a spiritual metaphor but a public event witnessed by many. This focus on the historical Jesus set Christianity apart from other religious movements, including Gnosticism and the various mystery religions of the time.
You mention that the evolution of Christianity from Judaism and other cultural influences was similar to how other faiths evolved over time. While there is truth to the fact that all religions develop within their cultural context, Christianity's foundation in historical revelation makes it distinct. The belief in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God was not the result of gradual mythologization but a conviction rooted in the eyewitness accounts of His life, death, and resurrection.
While the Ascension of Isaiah and other early Christian texts reflect theological development and diverse perspectives, they do not replace or negate the historical core of the Christian faith. The early church’s theological development, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or the understanding of Jesus' dual nature (fully God and fully man), was based on what the earliest Christians believed was revealed through Christ’s life, teachings, and resurrection. These developments were not mere philosophical constructs but an attempt to understand the implications of what they believed had been revealed through Jesus.
Your argument that Christianity initially may have been more of a mystical or spiritual movement before becoming historicized through the Gospel narratives downplays the importance of historical claims in early Christian belief. Christianity's break from Judaism was not simply a conceptual evolution but a radical, historical claim about Jesus' identity as the resurrected Messiah, which redefined Jewish monotheism in light of His divinity.
The Gospels are not just creative adaptations to make Christianity more accessible; they are rooted in the eyewitness testimony of those who knew and followed Jesus. Early Christians did not believe in an abstract Christ who existed only in the spiritual realm—they believed in a real, historical person whose life, death, and resurrection transformed their understanding of God and salvation.
While there are elements of continuity with Jewish and Hellenistic thought, Christianity’s core message—centered on the historical reality of Jesus—represents a dramatic and unique theological development that cannot be reduced to mythologization or mere philosophical adaptation.
60
The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
1. the continuity and visibility of the church.

the true church must be continuous from the apostolic age.

there is no room in christianity for a "gap" or interruption of thousands of years during which true christianity ceased to exist and then was revived in the form of another movement.
aqwsed12345

@LauraLynn
First of all, let me offer you an article:
How Does the Watchtower Organization Differ from the Catholic Church?
Your argument highlights an important concern regarding the role of tradition and apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, drawing parallels between the religious leaders of Jesus' time and the Church today. However, there are several key distinctions that address this issue, especially when comparing the Pharisees' misuse of tradition with the legitimate role of apostolic succession and tradition in the Catholic Church.
It’s important to clarify the nature of apostolic succession in the Catholic Church. Unlike the Pharisees, who distorted the Law of Moses with legalistic traditions that obscured God’s will, apostolic succession is not about adding human traditions that nullify God's commandments. Instead, apostolic succession is about preserving the faithful transmission of the teachings of Jesus Christ as handed down through the apostles, without distortion.
Jesus condemned the Pharisees for creating extra laws and traditions that contradicted the spirit of the Law. However, the apostles received direct teachings from Christ, and the Catholic Church sees itself as the custodian of those teachings, faithfully transmitting them throughout history, without altering their essence.
The difference here is that while the Pharisees built a legalistic system that obscured God’s love and mercy, the Catholic Church, through apostolic succession, is committed to guarding and teaching the core truths of the Gospel as given by Christ Himself.
The Catholic Church doesn’t view tradition as something that contradicts or adds to Scripture, but rather as something that works in harmony with it. The Church teaches that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two sources of divine revelation, both of which originate from Christ and are guided by the Holy Spirit. This understanding is derived from passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where Paul tells the believers to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
The Pharisees, on the other hand, were criticized for traditions that directly contradicted the Word of God, like creating loopholes that allowed people to avoid caring for their parents (Mark 7:10-13). Catholic Tradition, however, never contradicts Scripture; rather, it complements it by providing the interpretive framework handed down from the apostles, which helps believers understand and apply Scripture properly.
When Jesus criticized the religious leaders of His time, He wasn’t condemning the idea of authority or succession itself. In fact, Jesus affirmed the legitimate authority of the scribes and Pharisees when He said, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice” (Matthew 23:2-3). His condemnation was directed at their hypocrisy and failure to live according to the spirit of the law they claimed to represent.
The Catholic Church recognizes the danger of hypocrisy and has always taught that its leaders are not infallible in their personal actions but only when teaching doctrine in union with the Holy Spirit. Apostolic succession, in the Catholic view, is not about power or status; it is about faithfully guarding and passing on the Gospel.
One central misunderstanding is the idea that faith in Christ alone, without any ecclesial or communal dimension, is sufficient. While faith in Christ is essential for salvation, Christ explicitly founded a visible Church on Peter and the apostles to guide His followers (Matthew 16:18). He didn’t leave the interpretation of Scripture and His teachings up to individuals alone. Instead, He gave His apostles authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 18:18) and to teach in His name, promising that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
This visible, structured Church is necessary to prevent division and ensure unity in the faith. Without it, Christianity becomes subject to countless interpretations, leading to confusion and division—as we see in the many different Protestant denominations today. Apostolic succession ensures that the Church remains united in faith and teaching, as Christ intended.
The Catholic Church’s claim to be the "one true church" is rooted not in any self-imposed authority but in its historical continuity with the apostles. This continuity is not something the Church invented to maintain power, but something that goes back to the earliest centuries of Christianity, recognized by early Church Fathers like St. Irenaeus, who wrote extensively on the importance of maintaining apostolic teaching and succession to guard against heresies.
The argument that the Catholic Church’s claims resemble those of Jehovah’s Witnesses is flawed because the Catholic Church’s claims are based on historical and scriptural continuity that has been recognized and upheld throughout Christian history. The claims of Jehovah’s Witnesses, on the other hand, are a relatively modern invention that deviates from both historical Christianity and biblical teaching.
Finally, while the Catholic Church teaches that it is the visible body of Christ on earth, it does not teach that salvation is tied to mere membership in the Church. The Church emphasizes that salvation comes through Christ alone, by His grace, through faith. However, the Church also teaches that Christ uses His Church as the ordinary means of salvation, through the sacraments, teaching, and community life. The Church exists to point people to Christ and to help them live out their faith in communion with Him and with one another.
In conclusion, the Catholic Church’s claim to be the true Church rests on the foundation of apostolic succession, continuity of teaching, and fidelity to Christ’s commands. This is fundamentally different from the claims of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have introduced novel interpretations and have no historical connection to the apostolic faith. The Catholic Church is not substituting Christ for an institution, but rather, it is the instrument Christ Himself established to preserve His teachings and guide His followers throughout history.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your response reflects an interesting perspective, especially in how religious movements evolve over time and borrow from their cultural and theological contexts. However, I think the crux of our disagreement lies in how we understand the origins of Christianity and the nature of its development from Judaism and the surrounding Hellenistic culture.
You argue that Christianity’s break from Judaism was real but not as radical as some might think, comparing it to other movements like Docetism or various heterodoxies. While it’s true that Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism, the break was not simply a result of gradual conceptual development. Instead, it was a theological rupture, centered around the belief in Jesus’ resurrection and His divine identity. This belief, and the accompanying Christological claims, were fundamentally different from what most Jews of the time would have accepted.
For example, the Apostle Paul—himself a Jewish Pharisee—acknowledged that the Christian message of a crucified Messiah was a “stumbling block to the Jews” (1 Corinthians 1:23). This shows that the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ divinity and messianic role was radically new and not merely a continuation of previous Jewish thought.
You mention the Johannine Christians as responding to some of these developments, and indeed, the Gospel of John reflects a high Christology where Jesus is identified with the Logos. However, the idea of the Logos in John is not merely a borrowing from Greek philosophy (as seen in Philo of Alexandria) but a reinterpretation within a distinctly Jewish monotheistic framework. In John 1:1, the Logos is not an intermediary deity or mere personification of divine wisdom; the Logos is God and becomes flesh. This reflects a bold theological move that transforms previous Jewish and Hellenistic ideas in ways neither tradition had fully anticipated.
You suggest that Christianity may have begun as a concept rather than a historical event, which is a perspective often explored by those who see the mythologization of religious figures. However, early Christian belief was deeply rooted in historical claims about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. For the early Christians, Jesus' resurrection was a pivotal, real event that validated His claims to divinity and messianic role. The apostles and early Christians did not merely perceive Jesus as a metaphorical or spiritual figure; they staked their faith on His bodily resurrection, an event they saw as historical fact (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). This belief is what caused Christianity to diverge so significantly from both Judaism and Hellenism.
Comparing this development to how Hinduism may have turned metaphors into literal stories overlooks the unique emphasis that Christianity places on historical revelation. While there are metaphorical elements in Christian teaching, the core of the faith is grounded in historical claims about Jesus’ actions and identity.
You correctly point out that all religions are influenced by their precedents, and Christianity is no exception. However, Christianity’s transformation of previous ideas wasn’t simply an adaptation; it was a revelatory event that dramatically reshaped how Jews and Gentiles alike understood God, salvation, and human history. This transformation involved not just borrowing, but also a radical re-interpretation and even rejection of some previous concepts. The Nicene Creed and later theological developments were not efforts to homogenize for the sake of political power but were responses to real theological challenges and debates within the Christian community, affirming what the church believed had been revealed through Jesus and the apostles.
While there is certainly room for exploring how faith traditions evolve, Christianity, from its earliest days, was centered on Jesus as a historical and divine figure. The transformation from Judaism wasn’t merely a philosophical shift; it was a claim to new revelation, grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@peacefulpete
Your response continues to emphasize the idea that early Christians "transformed" Jewish precedents regarding Wisdom, Logos, and other concepts, suggesting that this transformation happened over the course of a few decades rather than centuries. However, this interpretation still doesn't account for the unique theological leap early Christians made in their understanding of Jesus Christ.
You argue that the transformation of terms like Logos or Wisdom into a "God/Man" happened through a literalization of the Gospel narrative. While it is true that early Christians built upon Jewish concepts, the transformation was not merely a process of making an intermediary into a literal God-man. Rather, it was a radical rethinking of the relationship between God and His creation, inspired by their belief in Jesus’ resurrection and divinity.
John's Gospel is a perfect example. When John speaks of the Logos, he isn’t just using Jewish concepts in a way that would make sense to Jewish converts. He radically expands those ideas, presenting the Logos as not just God’s agent but as fully divine and distinct in personhood: "the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). This theological move is more than just a “literalization” of Jewish thought—it is a revelation-based transformation that involved a new understanding of Jesus as both God and man.
Early Christians saw Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as defining events that revealed something new about God, which goes beyond any Jewish precedent. The language used in the New Testament is contextually influenced by Jewish thought, but the theology—particularly regarding the Incarnation and the Trinity—was fundamentally new.
You suggest that the reuse of Jewish terminology like “Logos” or “Wisdom” implies either intentional continuity or obfuscation. I would argue it implies neither. Early Christians were not simply appropriating Jewish terms to appeal to a Jewish audience. They were reinterpreting these terms in light of their experience of Christ’s divinity.
Terminology doesn’t automatically carry theological equivalence. Just because Christians reused familiar terms doesn’t mean they intended to create a sense of theological continuity with prior Jewish thought. In fact, early Christian writings make it clear that Christians often saw themselves as redefining key concepts—not just reapplying them.
Early Christians were not attempting to confuse their Jewish converts by reusing familiar terms like “Logos.” Instead, they were attempting to explain the new revelation of Christ using language and concepts that their audience could understand, but with radically new theological implications. This was not an obfuscation or a continuation of Jewish thought, but rather a reinterpretation that was intended to express the uniqueness of Christ.
For example Paul’s writings show that early Christians saw the divinity of Christ as a new understanding of God’s revelation. He describes Jesus as the one in whom “the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:19). This is not a subtle use of Jewish precedent but an assertion of Christ’s unique status as God incarnate, an unprecedented idea in Judaism.
You suggest that Christian conversion must have been facilitated through familiarity with prior Jewish concepts, implying that there must have been some theological continuity. However, while familiarity with Jewish concepts may have made Christianity more comprehensible, the decisive factor for early Christian conversion was the belief in the resurrection of Jesus and the experience of the Holy Spirit.
For Jewish converts, the familiarity with terms like Logos or Wisdom may have helped them understand certain aspects of Christian theology. However, it’s the new and radical claims about Jesus—His divinity, incarnation, death, and resurrection—that were central to Christian faith. This wasn’t about continuity with Jewish ideas, but about the revelation of Christ and the fulfillment of messianic promises in ways that transcended Jewish precedent.
Consider how Paul, a devout Jew and Pharisee, comes to this transformative realization in his encounter with the risen Christ. He preaches a Gospel that is distinctly Christian, focusing on the death and resurrection of Jesus as the central events that reshape Jewish expectations about the Messiah and salvation.
Your previous claim still hinges on a Hislopian-like genealogy between Second Temple Judaism and early Christian thought. Yes, there are shared terms and concepts, but it doesn’t follow that early Christian theology is just a continuation or literalization of those ideas. As I’ve mentioned before, similarities do not prove dependence. This is the essence of my critique—assuming that because terms like “Logos” or “Wisdom” exist in both traditions, Christian theology must have stemmed directly from Jewish precedents is an oversimplification.
The development of the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation wasn’t just the natural evolution of Jewish ideas of God’s agency but a profound revelation that redefined those categories. Christian theology takes what was implicit or incomplete in Jewish thought and transforms it in light of Christ’s revelation. This transformation is not the result of borrowing but of revelation.
While it’s true that early Christians used familiar Jewish concepts to communicate their message, the theological content of Christianity went far beyond those Jewish precedents. The idea of Jesus as the Incarnate Word, fully God and fully man, was not a mere literalization of pre-Christian Jewish thought. It was a radical rethinking of how God relates to humanity, which came through the experience of Jesus’ resurrection and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, while there may have been shared terminology, the theology of the New Testament is ultimately a new revelation, not just a reinterpretation of existing Jewish categories.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
While Vermes and Sanders are respected scholars, it is crucial to recognize that their interpretations are part of a broader scholarly debate, not the definitive word on the matter. The notion that Jesus' divinity was a late development, only fully realized in the fourth century, is indeed a popular view in some academic circles, but it is far from universally accepted. Moreover, it is not the only perspective, even outside of Trinitarian scholarship.
The divinity of Christ is not a concept that suddenly emerged in the fourth century. Numerous early Christian writings attest to a high Christology long before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Justin Martyr all display a belief in Christ’s divine status, even if their theological language was not as precise as what later became the formal doctrine of the Trinity.
While you mentioned that some scholars have questioned the authenticity of the Ignatian corpus due to possible later interpolations, it is important to note that the core of Ignatius' writings is widely accepted as genuine. In his authentic letters, Ignatius frequently refers to Jesus as "God" (e.g., in his letter to the Ephesians, chapter 7: "our God, Jesus Christ"). While some argue about later additions, the core belief in the divinity of Christ is present in these early texts.
The Roman governor Pliny the Younger, in his letter to Emperor Trajan around 112 AD, describes Christians singing hymns to Christ "as to a god" (Epistulae 10.96). This demonstrates that the worship of Jesus as divine was a widespread practice in the early second century, well before the fourth century.
Prior to Nicaea, several early Christian creeds, such as the Old Roman Creed, implicitly affirmed Christ’s divinity. These were used in the baptismal rites of early Christians and demonstrate a continuity of belief that long predates the fourth century.
While Vermes and Sanders offer critical perspectives, other scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, Larry Hurtado, and N.T. Wright, argue strongly for the presence of a high Christology from the earliest stages of Christianity. Bauckham’s work, for example, places Jesus within the "divine identity" of God as understood in Second Temple Judaism, indicating that the belief in Jesus’ divinity is not a fourth-century development but part of the earliest Christian faith.
Hurtado’s research on early Christian worship highlights how Jesus was worshiped alongside God in a way that was highly unusual in a strict Jewish monotheistic context. This "binitarian" worship points to an early understanding of Jesus’ divinity that could not have developed gradually over centuries if the Christian communities had been adhering to a purely human Jesus.
Thus, the Council of Nicaea did not invent the divinity of Christ but clarified and formalized what was already believed in the Church. The debates that led to Nicaea arose precisely because many Christians already worshiped Jesus as divine, and they sought to understand how Jesus’ divinity related to the Father in a coherent theological framework. The term "homoousios" (of the same essence) was used to solidify Christ’s divinity in the face of Arian subordinationism, not to introduce a new idea.
152
Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
The idea of "second power" theology or agency (Wisdom, Shekinah, Logos) is indeed a documented theme in early Jewish and Christian literature. These figures, like Wisdom (Sophia) and the Logos (Word), are seen in some Jewish and early Christian texts as expressions of God's presence and activity in the world. However, the argument that these figures were merely agents or personifications of God, rather than distinct persons within the Godhead, requires a closer look at how early Christians interpreted these concepts.
The late Jewish literature sometimes personified the word of God (memra). However, John's terminology bears the greatest similarity to that of the Jewish-Hellenistic Philo of Alexandria, although the content differs significantly. Some see Philo of Alexandria's theological speculations as at least the cradle of the Christian Logos doctrine. Philo, in fact, adopts the Greek philosophical concept of the Logos and uses it to bridge the gap between God and the world. He views the Logos as the mediator of creation, but in his view, it is not a divine person, and the idea of incarnation is absent. Philo, in a Stoic manner, posits semi-personified independent forces within God, sometimes two, sometimes three, five, or even an infinite number; among them is the nous or logos, which he occasionally calls the Son of God and once refers to as a second god. However, Philo's logos is neither God nor a person, but a mediator between God and the world, a tool of creation, similar to the final aeon in Gnostic thought. According to Harnack, John's Logos shares little more than the name with Philo’s Logos. In the case of Philo, the logos is a vague and confused concept—something like an emanation or attribute of God, a tool of creation (demiurge), a mediator between God and the world, but not a distinct person, not incarnate, not a redeemer, not the Messiah. John assumes that his readers had some familiarity with the logos; however, the Christian idea of the Word was neither derived from Jewish theology nor from Greek philosophy, but was received through divine revelation.
The Logos theology in particular, as found in the Gospel of John, does not support a view of the Logos as merely an agent or a created being. John 1:1–3 explicitly states that “the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.” This passage establishes the eternal existence of the Logos (Jesus) with God, and it directly states that the Logos is God. There is no suggestion here of subordination in essence, only a distinction of personhood. The Logos is presented as co-eternal and co-creative with the Father.
It’s important to clarify that subordination in function does not imply subordination in essence. In passages like John 17:3, where Jesus refers to the Father as the “only true God,” the context emphasizes Jesus' role in the economy of salvation, not a lesser divinity. In Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have distinct roles or functions (the Father sends, the Son redeems, the Spirit sanctifies), but they share the same divine nature. This is a cornerstone of Trinitarian theology, which was affirmed long before the fourth century.
The early church fathers, even before Nicaea, affirmed Jesus' full divinity. For example:
- Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) referred to Jesus as "our God". In his letter to the Ephesians, he wrote, “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.”
- Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century) spoke of Jesus as “the Word, who is God” and said that Christians “worship Him” along with the Father.
These examples show that early Christian thinkers, well before the Council of Nicaea, did not subscribe to a purely subordinationist Christology. Instead, they saw Jesus as fully divine, yet distinct in person from the Father.
Slimboyfat references John 10, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 (“I said, you are gods”) to defend Himself against accusations of blasphemy. The argument is made that Jesus is here appealing to the broader use of the term “gods” in a way that supports subordinationist Christology.
However, this passage doesn’t imply that Jesus is simply one among many divine agents. Instead, Jesus is using a lesser-to-greater argument. The context of Psalm 82 refers to human judges or rulers who are metaphorically called “gods” because of their role in executing God’s judgment. Jesus contrasts this with His own identity, which is far superior: He is not merely a human ruler given divine authority but the Son of God, set apart and sent directly by the Father. The Jews understood this as a claim to divinity, as evidenced by their attempt to stone Him for blasphemy (John 10:33). Therefore, rather than denying His divinity, Jesus is reinforcing it in a way that His audience would understand.
In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers to Psalm 82, where human judges are metaphorically called "gods" (elohim) because they were appointed by God to administer justice. The Psalm criticizes these judges for their failure to uphold righteousness. Jesus’ use of this passage does not suggest that He is equating Himself with these human judges. Rather, He is using a kal va-chomer (a fortiori) argument: if mere human judges can be called "gods" in Scripture because of their God-given role, how much more appropriate is it for Him, the one who was sanctified and sent by the Father, to claim a unique divine status as the Son of God?
The use of Psalm 82 is not meant to downplay Jesus’ divinity. Instead, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers: if they accepted that lesser beings (human judges) could be called "gods," how could they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for calling Himself the Son of God, when His relationship with the Father is far greater than that of human judges? The argument strengthens, rather than weakens, His claim to divinity.
The reaction of the Jewish leaders in John 10:31-33—seeking to stone Jesus for blasphemy—shows that they understood His claim as one of divine equality, not as a mere functional or metaphorical title. If Jesus were only claiming a status similar to human judges, there would have been no grounds for the charge of blasphemy.
The attempt to reduce Jesus' divinity to a mere functional or metaphorical role based on John 10:34-36 or Psalm 82 misunderstands both the rhetorical nature of Jesus' argument and the broader context of John’s Gospel. Jesus' use of Psalm 82 does not diminish His divinity; rather, it highlights the inconsistency of His accusers.
In John 20:28, Thomas refers to Jesus as "my Lord and my God" (Greek: ho theos mou). This is a clear and explicit declaration of Jesus’ divine identity, not a metaphorical or functional use of the term "God." Thomas is recognizing Jesus not as a subordinate being or a mere representative of God, but as truly divine. The context of the Gospel of John makes it clear that Thomas’ exclamation is an affirmation of Jesus’ divinity. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is portrayed as having a unique, divine relationship with the Father (John 1:1, John 1:18, John 5:18, John 8:58). The Gospel does not present Jesus as a mere "servant of God" in a metaphorical sense, but as God incarnate.
John 17:3 refers to the Father as "the only true God," but this does not exclude Jesus from being divine. In the context of John’s Gospel, Jesus shares in the Father’s divine nature (John 1:1, "the Word was God"), yet the Father remains the source of all divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one divine essence. Thus, Jesus being called "God" (John 20:28) and the Father being called "the only true God" (John 17:3) are not contradictory but consistent within Trinitarian theology.
By the time of Second Temple Judaism (and certainly in the time of Jesus), Jewish monotheism had become strict and unequivocal. The worship of one God, Yahweh, was a central and defining feature of Jewish faith. While earlier Old Testament texts may use the term "elohim" in a more fluid or metaphorical sense, by the time of the New Testament, such usage had largely ceased. The term "God" (theos) was applied exclusively to Yahweh, with no acknowledgment of other "gods" in any real or divine sense.
The fact that John 1:1 and John 20:28 refer to Jesus as "theos" in a monotheistic Jewish context is significant. It would be unthinkable for a monotheistic Jew like Thomas to call Jesus "God" unless he truly believed in Jesus’ divinity. John’s Gospel is written within this monotheistic framework, making it clear that Jesus is fully divine and shares in the unique identity of the one true God.
Slimboyfat claims that the idea of Jesus being co-equal with God was a later development, solidified at the Council of Nicaea in the fourth century. While it’s true that the Council of Nicaea clarified and formalized the language of the Trinity, the belief in Jesus’ divinity was not an invention of the fourth century.

As mentioned earlier, early Christian writings consistently affirmed Jesus as divine. The purpose of the Council of Nicaea was to address the Arian controversy, which claimed that Jesus was a created being. The council’s declaration that Jesus is “of the same substance” (homoousios) with the Father was not a new doctrine but a defense of what the church had already been teaching against the novel ideas of Arius.

Slimboyfat argues that terms like Wisdom, Glory, and Shekinah were used to refer to the activity of God rather than distinct persons. However, early Christian thought did not equate these concepts with the distinct personhood of the Logos. The Logos (Jesus) is not merely an abstract principle or force but a person who took on flesh (John 1:14). The early Christians did not worship abstract concepts like Glory or Wisdom but worshiped Jesus Christ as a person who is fully divine and fully human.

Slimboyfat points out that Jesus came to do the will of the Father, not His own (John 6:38), implying that this shows Jesus is subordinate. However, the incarnation involved Jesus taking on a human nature and willingly submitting to the Father’s will to accomplish salvation. This functional subordination during His earthly ministry does not imply an eternal subordination in His divine nature. Philippians 2:6-7 makes it clear that Jesus, though “in very nature God”, “did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage” but “emptied Himself” by taking on human nature.

@peacefulpete

I argued that just because two concepts resemble each other, it doesn’t mean one stems from the other. However, your response seems to misunderstand my critique and continues to assert an equivalence between pre-Christian ideas in late Second Temple Judaism and early Christian thought. You argue that this analysis of late Second Temple Judaism isn't “Hislopian” because the context is different—late Second Temple Judaism is the "soil" of Christianity. While it’s true that Christianity emerged from this milieu, simply highlighting conceptual similarities between Jewish and Christian terms, such as Wisdom or Logos, does not automatically establish a genealogical relationship. This is Hislopian in the sense that superficial similarities are presented as evidence of dependency.

The distinction between pre-Christian Jewish uses of "Wisdom" or "Logos" and Christian Christology is crucial. While Second Temple Judaism may use terms like Logos or Wisdom as ways of discussing God’s agency, Christian theology took these terms and expanded on them in unique ways. For example, while Philo of Alexandria uses Logos to speak of a divine mediator, it never approaches the incarnational theology present in John 1:14, where the Logos becomes flesh. Acknowledging shared vocabulary does not justify assuming shared theology. By this you fall into the same trap Hislop does—finding a superficial parallel and assuming influence.

The argument that "Wisdom" or "Logos" was subordinate and distinct from God until the fourth century misunderstands both Jewish and early Christian theology. Yes, pre-Christian Jewish literature sometimes personifies Wisdom and speaks of God’s agency through intermediaries, but early Christians did not merely adopt these categories. They transformed them.

Consider the Logos in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). While there is acknowledgment of the Word’s relationship with God, the text also affirms the full divinity of the Logos. This is a radical departure from Jewish concepts of Wisdom or God’s Glory. The Nicene doctrine didn’t create this idea out of thin air—it codified what early Christians already believed, as evidenced by John’s Gospel. I quote:

II. THE CHRISTOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FIRST COUNCILS
A. 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.
(Source)

To bridge the gap between Greek philosophical concepts and Christian theology, some early Christian theologians borrowed the Greek idea of a "secondary god" (deuteros theos) or a demiurge (an intermediate being between God and creation). This marked a rejection of the Arian compromise with Greek thought and reshaped metaphysical categories in Platonist philosophy. The Church affirmed only two types of beings: uncreated (God) and created (everything else).

Furthermore, figures like Justin Martyr, illustrate that Christian writers in the second century already saw the Logos as divine and distinct from creation, long before the Council of Nicaea. This undermines the claim that the Logos or "second god" (to borrow Philo’s term) only became elevated in the fourth century.

You also claim that emanations of God are “both God himself and subservient to God,” which seems to blur the lines between agency and identity. This view might align with certain Neoplatonist or Gnostic ideas, but it's not representative of classical Christian theology or even Jewish thought.

In Christian doctrine the Son is indeed distinct from the Father, but not in the sense of being subordinate (inferior) in nature. The doctrine of the Trinity clearly affirms the co-equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully divine, yet distinct in their relational roles. The concept of homoousios (of the same essence) emerged precisely to combat ideas that relegated the Son to a subordinate, created being. Early Christian theology, especially by the time of the Nicene Creed, rejected subordinationism. Thus, while earlier Jewish traditions might speak of intermediaries, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity developed a much more nuanced and robust theology of divine agency and unity.

You argue that the Gospels should be seen as theological texts rather than historical documents. While it is true that the Gospels carry theological meaning, this does not negate their historical content. Many scholars, both conservative and critical, acknowledge that the Gospels were written with theological intent but still reflect historical claims about Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection.

Christian doctrine, including the Trinity, is grounded in what Christians believe to be historical revelation. The claim that the Trinity could have had "four or five faces" trivializes the deep theological reflection that went into its formulation. It wasn’t merely a formula for the sake of conceptual neatness; it emerged from grappling with the revelation of God in Christ and the Spirit, within the framework of Jewish monotheism. The Trinity reflects a coherent response to the experience of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as fully divine while maintaining the uniqueness of the one true God.

Finally, you claim that the idea of Jesus being "God" was only elevated in the fourth century. This is demonstrably false. The New Testament itself provides numerous passages where Jesus is ascribed divine status (John 1:1, John 20:28, Colossians 2:9, Titus 2:13, etc.), and early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr describe Jesus in explicitly divine terms, long before Nicaea.

The development at Nicaea was not an invention of new theology, but a formalization of what was already widely believed. The council was convened to address the Arian controversy, which had challenged the full divinity of Jesus. Thus, Nicaea did not "overturn" earlier teaching; it clarified and defended what had been part of Christian orthodoxy from the beginning. The early church’s belief in Christ’s divinity and the doctrine of the Trinity was not a later invention or a mere borrowing from Jewish ideas of Wisdom or Logos. Instead, it was a response to the revelation of God in Christ, affirmed by scripture and the early Christian community.

1. Christ’s Promise to Be with His Church Contradicts the Concept of a Long Apostasy

In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises, “I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” (NWT) This promise is important because it shows that Christ’s presence and guidance would never leave His followers. This assurance directly contradicts the idea that true Christianity disappeared or was in apostasy from the second century until 1919. If Christ promised to remain with His Church "all the days," then there could not have been an 1800-year gap in true Christian practice.

Furthermore, the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 charges the apostles and their successors to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded. This commission would be ongoing throughout history, and Christ's promise guarantees that He would always be present with His Church as it fulfilled this mission.

One of the most fundamental contradictions in this claim is Christ’s explicit promise in Matthew 28:20: “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” This is a direct assurance from Jesus that He would be with His followers continuously—not just until the second century and then absent until 1919. It’s illogical to suggest that true Christianity ceased for centuries, because Christ guaranteed His presence with the Church at all times.

If we accept the idea of a total apostasy for over 1,700 years, it implies that Christ’s promise to be with His Church was either ineffective or untrue. That, however, contradicts the teachings of the Bible itself. Matthew 16:18 reinforces this, where Jesus says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against” His Church. This signifies a Church that withstands every form of opposition throughout history—not one that vanishes until restored in the 20th century.

2. The Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds Does Not Support a Total Apostasy

The parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 speaks of both the wheat (true believers) and the weeds (false Christians) growing together until the time of harvest. Importantly, the parable never suggests that the wheat (the true Church) would disappear or be hidden. Jesus commands His workers to let both the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest. This means that there would always be a presence of true believers even amidst the false ones.

The notion that there were no identifiable true Christians for centuries contradicts this parable, which emphasizes that both groups—faithful and unfaithful—would coexist throughout history. Nowhere does Jesus suggest a 1,700-year absence of true Christians, only to be restored in 1919.

The parable actually points to the coexistence of true believers (the wheat) and false believers (the weeds) throughout history. It does not suggest that the true believers (the wheat) disappear entirely or become undetectable for a period of nearly two millennia.

Instead, Jesus explicitly says that both the wheat and the weeds will grow together until the harvest, which symbolizes the end of the age. Nowhere in the parable does it suggest that the wheat is completely overrun by the weeds, rendering true Christianity extinct. The idea that true Christianity was absent until 1919 is a distortion of the parable’s meaning.

3. The Role of the Church in History and Scripture

The Jehovah's Witness interpretation claims that from the second century onwards, there was a total spiritual captivity until the “cleansing” began in 1914. However, historical evidence, including the writings of the early Church Fathers and the outcomes of Church councils (e.g., the Nicene Creed), show that the core doctrines of Christianity—such as the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and salvation through grace—were consistently upheld, defended, and developed. True Christianity was preserved through many faithful believers, including martyrs, saints, and theologians who contributed to the continuity of Christian doctrine.

Additionally, Ephesians 3:21 says, "To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus to all generations, forever and ever. Amen." This verse reinforces that God’s glory would remain in His Church through all generations, without interruption, indicating a continuity of true Christianity that is incompatible with the claim of a centuries-long apostasy.

4. 1919 as a Date for the “Cleansing” is Arbitrary and Unsupported

The idea that Jesus inspected the spiritual temple between 1914 and 1919, and that true Christianity was restored after this period, is based on speculative interpretations and lacks any clear biblical foundation. There is no biblical prophecy that refers to 1914 or 1919 as significant dates for spiritual restoration or a re-establishment of true Christianity.

The early Christians believed in the imminent return of Christ, but they did not set specific dates for the restoration of the Kingdom. The attempt to fix 1914 or 1919 as prophetic markers is arbitrary and rests on a selective reading of certain Scriptures, such as Malachi 3:1-4 and Matthew 24:45-47, which are taken out of context to fit a particular narrative.

The notion that 1914 marked the establishment of God’s Kingdom and that 1919 was the year true Christianity was restored is not supported by any biblical texts. These dates are based on speculative interpretations rather than explicit prophecies. While Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to link Malachi 3:1-4 and Matthew 24:45-47 to these events, there is no clear or consistent biblical basis for assigning such significance to these years.

The Bible gives no indication that a 1,900-year gap in true worship was prophesied, nor does it suggest that Jesus began an "inspection" of the Church starting in 1914. The early Christian community never saw the need to identify specific years for Christ’s rule in heaven, because they believed in the imminent return of Christ and in the continual presence of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

5. God's People Were Never Captive to "Babylon the Great"

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that “Babylon the Great,” representing "false religion", held all Christians captive from the second century until 1919. However, this view lacks scriptural support and disregards the constant presence of faithful Christians throughout history who resisted doctrinal error. Even during periods of corruption or political interference, there were always reformers, saints, and theologians who defended the faith and upheld true Christian teachings.

Furthermore, the Bible warns against false teachings and apostasy (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1), but it never suggests that all Christians would fall away, leaving no true believers until the 20th century. Jude 3 urges believers to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints,” indicating that the true faith was already fully established in the first century and would continue to be preserved.

The idea that God’s true people were restored in 1919 after a long period of spiritual captivity has no biblical foundation. The Jehovah’s Witnesses base this belief on a selective and allegorical interpretation of Ezekiel 37 and other prophetic passages, but there is no biblical prophecy that specifically points to 1919 as the year of restoration.

The vision in Ezekiel 37 about dry bones coming to life speaks of the restoration of Israel, not a future period of "captivity" and "restoration" for Christianity. Applying this to the period between the second century and 1919 is a misapplication of the text. Historically, many Christian denominations, including the Catholic and Orthodox churches, trace their roots back to the apostles and maintained a continuous presence long before 1919.

Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones pertains directly to the restoration of Israel, not a metaphorical resurrection of Christians after an alleged "apostasy". The context makes it clear that this prophecy addresses the physical and spiritual renewal of the nation of Israel after their captivity in Babylon (Ezekiel 37:11). The vision symbolizes Israel’s return from exile and the promise of their renewal as a people in their own land. It is not connected to a supposed spiritual revival of Christianity in the 20th century.

Jehovah's Witnesses claim that the events of 1919 marked the end of the "spiritual captivity" and the restoration of God’s people. However, there is no scriptural foundation to link the vision in Ezekiel with events in 1919. The interpretation that the bones’ revival represents a spiritual awakening led by Jehovah's Witnesses is entirely speculative and lacks any direct biblical support. This prophecy was fulfilled with the return of the Jewish exiles from Babylon in 537 B.C., and its primary application remains within the historical context of ancient Israel.

Jehovah's Witnesses often draw parallels between the captivity of Israel and the so-called spiritual captivity of the Church from the 2nd century until 1919. Yet, these events are unrelated. The exile of Israel is a specific historical event, while the idea that the Church was in "captivity" to Babylon the Great is not clearly supported in scripture. Furthermore, claiming that this "captivity" ended in 1919 is based on Watchtower doctrine rather than on any biblical prophecy.

6. The Church as a Visible, Ongoing Reality

The New Testament consistently portrays the Church as a visible, ongoing reality. In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul refers to the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." This implies that the Church is not some hidden, invisible entity, but rather a visible community of believers who preserve and proclaim the truth. The idea that there were no true Christians for almost 1800 years contradicts the role of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” throughout history.

Moreover, Jesus promised that the "gates of hell" would not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18). This statement assures us that no force—whether external persecution or internal corruption—would ever fully overcome the Church. The idea that all Christianity fell into apostasy for such an extended period contradicts this promise.

7. Historical Evidence of Christian Continuity

Church history provides ample evidence of continuity in Christian belief and practice. Despite periods of corruption, schism, and heresy, the core doctrines of Christianity were preserved, particularly through the work of Church councils, theologians, and saints. Key doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the authority of Scripture were maintained and clarified over time, showing that the Church has been faithful to the teachings of Christ and the apostles.

If true Christianity had disappeared for centuries, as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then we would expect no records of faithful believers, no preservation of Scripture, and no defense of core doctrines. However, history shows the opposite: a continuous witness to the faith through the writings of Church Fathers, councils, creeds, and the lives of countless saints.

The assertion that there were no true Christians from the second century to 1919 flies in the face of historical evidence. Throughout these centuries, we have extensive records of Christian councils, theological writings, and saints who upheld Christian teachings. The early Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus—all from the second century—wrote extensively about Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the role of the Church. Their writings and the establishment of Christian communities across the Roman Empire indicate the presence of a living, active Christian Church.

Additionally, the Nicene Creed in 325 AD, which affirmed key Christian doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, was a product of this continuing faith. If true Christianity had been lost for centuries, there would be no coherent transmission of these core beliefs, yet these doctrines were faithfully upheld and defended by the Church during that period.

8. Conclusion

The idea that true Christianity disappeared from the second century until 1919 and was only restored through the Jehovah’s Witnesses is not supported by Scripture or history. Jesus promised that His Church would endure, and history bears witness to the faithful preservation of Christian doctrine and practice. The parable of the wheat and weeds does not imply a complete apostasy, and the arbitrary date of 1919 lacks any biblical or historical basis. True Christianity has remained alive and well since Christ founded His Church, and the gates of hell have not, and will not, prevail against it.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ use of Ezekiel 37 to justify their belief in the Great Apostasy and their own role as the restored congregation is an interpretive stretch that disregards the original context of Ezekiel’s prophecy and Christ’s assurance of the Church’s endurance. The idea of a nearly 1800-year gap of true Christianity is not supported by scripture and conflicts with Jesus' promise of His Church’s preservation.

The Jehovah’s Witness interpretation of a total apostasy from the second century until 1919 cannot be reconciled with the promises of Christ, the historical evidence of continuous Christianity, or the parable of the wheat and weeds. True Christianity has never disappeared, and Christ’s presence with His Church has been constant throughout history. The dates of 1914 and 1919 are arbitrary and unsupported by Scripture, and the claim that all Christians were held in spiritual captivity until 1919 contradicts the biblical teaching of the Church as the perpetual and visible body of Christ.