Posts by aqwsed12345

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

Based on Bethlehem's climate, the average temperatures in December are mild because the city lies in a Mediterranean climate zone. The daytime temperatures in December currently range from 12–15 °C (54–59 °F), while nighttime temperatures often drop to 5–7 °C (41–45 °F).

Sheep have thick wool coats that provide excellent insulation against the cold. As a result, sheep can survive even in freezing conditions, provided they have enough food and are kept in sheltered locations protected from wind and precipitation. According to the Bible, the shepherds were out in the open field with their flocks, which does not necessarily rule out the December period, particularly in milder winters. The shepherds could have made fires to keep themselves warm and to protect both themselves and the flock from the cold. Fire-making was a common practice among ancient shepherds, especially at night when the temperatures were cooler and there was a need to ward off predators.

The fire would have provided warmth, making it feasible for the shepherds to sleep under the open sky despite the colder weather. The fire would also have offered protection against wild animals and helped the shepherds stay awake to keep watch over their flocks. Given climatic variations at that time, it is possible that winters were milder than those in modern Bethlehem, making outdoor stays for the shepherds more manageable. If grazing conditions and weather permitted, flocks could even be kept outdoors in winter, particularly if there was no alternative.

Ancient shepherds were far more adapted to the challenges of nature than we might imagine from a modern perspective. Since woolly sheep tolerate cold relatively well, shepherds did not necessarily need to keep them in shelters at all times. Moreover, communal fire-making and proper clothing could have helped them endure colder nights under the open sky. Thus, the shepherds' fire-making habits and the sheep's ability to withstand cold make it plausible that Jesus could have been born in December.

At the time of Jesus's birth (approximately 4 BCE to 6 CE), the Mediterranean region was experiencing the Roman Warm Period, which lasted from around 250 BCE to 400 CE. This period featured milder winters and slightly warmer average temperatures than those of the Middle Ages or the present day. It is believed that the annual average temperatures were somewhat higher than they are today. This would have resulted in milder cold during the winter months and slightly warmer conditions in summer.

In Bethlehem, nighttime temperatures during this period were likely in the range of 5–10 °C (41–50 °F). Due to the characteristics of the Mediterranean climate, the winter months were wetter. Rain or occasional snowfall might have occurred, but sustained freezing temperatures or significant snow accumulation were highly unlikely.

The milder climate could have supported agricultural activities and shepherding. During winter months, the absence of severe frosts could have allowed pastures to remain partially green, enabling animals to be kept outdoors more easily, especially in winters that were not particularly harsh.

Thus, during Christ's birth, Bethlehem's climate may have been slightly milder and warmer than it is today, particularly during the winter months. Consequently, it is conceivable that shepherds were out in the fields with their flocks even in December, especially during a mild winter. However, nighttime cold and precipitation would still have posed challenges, which could have been mitigated by fire-making.

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

The Bible does not specify the exact date of Jesus’ birth, but this absence does not make commemorating His birth unbiblical. The event itself—God becoming incarnate—is profoundly significant to Christianity (John 1:14). Celebrating it on December 25 is a tradition that focuses on this theological truth, not the specific date.

Just because the Bible does not command the annual celebration of Jesus' birth does not mean it forbids it. The Bible also does not explicitly command wedding anniversaries, yet these are widely accepted as meaningful expressions of love. Similarly, celebrating Christmas reflects joy and gratitude for Christ’s incarnation. So while it's true that the Bible does not explicitly command celebrating Jesus' birth, it does not forbid it either. Christianity has a rich tradition of commemorating significant events in salvation history (e.g., the death and resurrection of Christ), even if not directly mandated.

Jesus' death is indeed central to salvation (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However, His birth (the Incarnation) is equally foundational to the Christian faith. Without His coming in the flesh (John 1:14), there would be no death or resurrection to redeem humanity. Celebrating the Incarnation acknowledges God's love in sending His Son as the light of the world (John 3:16; Luke 2:10-14).

In Romans 14:5-6, Paul affirms the freedom to honor certain days as special to the Lord, provided the intention is to glorify God. This principle applies to Christmas, as it is an expression of faith and thanksgiving for Jesus’ birth.

While Jesus celebrated Jewish feasts like Hanukkah (John 10:22), which is not explicitly commanded in the Torah, His participation shows that observing religious traditions is acceptable when they align with God’s purposes. Similarly, Christmas celebrates the Incarnation, a central event in God’s redemptive plan.

Luke 2:8 does not exclude the possibility of Jesus being born in December. Shepherds often tended flocks year-round in mild climates like Bethlehem’s. Historical climate data supports that nighttime temperatures were not prohibitive for outdoor grazing during winter months in the region. The argument about shepherds not being in the fields during winter is speculative. Luke 2:8 simply states they were "keeping watch over their flock by night," which could happen during winter if the region's mild climate allowed. Moreover, John 10:22, which mentions winter, does not conflict with this; it demonstrates the diversity of weather conditions in the region.

Commemorating Jesus' death (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) does not negate the importance of His birth. Without the Incarnation, His sacrificial death and resurrection would not have been possible. Both events are integral to Christian theology and worthy of reflection and celebration.

While non-Christians may participate in secular aspects of Christmas, the Christian celebration focuses on Christ. The claim that celebrating Christmas dishonors Christ confuses worldly commercialization with the theological focus of the holiday. Labeling Christmas as "worldly" dismisses centuries of Christian tradition. The celebration is not about following "the world" but about honoring the Incarnation of Christ. The "worldliness" associated with modern Christmas (e.g., consumerism, Santa Claus) is not inherent to the holiday itself but reflects secular culture. Christians are free to celebrate Christmas in a way that focuses on Christ, free from these distractions.

December 25 was chosen for theological reasons, symbolizing Christ as the "light of the world" during the darkest time of the year. This choice does not depend on pagan origins but on the transformative message of the Gospel, which brings light into darkness (John 1:5).

The claim that Christmas is dishonoring to Jesus because it is not explicitly commanded conflates tradition with Scripture. Mark 7:8 critiques traditions that nullify God’s commandments, not traditions that glorify Him. The Christian tradition of celebrating Jesus' birth is consistent with biblical principles of gratitude, worship, and reflection on God's redemptive plan.

So the celebration of Christmas is a meaningful tradition rooted in Christian theology. It honors the Incarnation, expresses gratitude for God’s love, and invites reflection on Christ’s mission. The absence of a specific command does not diminish its legitimacy; rather, it highlights the freedom Christians have to glorify God through various expressions of worship.

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@KalebOutWest

Indeed, Christmas is NOT the "birthday" of Jesus, but the celebration of his birth, let's make this distinction. The celebration of his birth does not have to coincide with the actual day of his birth, this was the case of the Queen Elizabeth II:

https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/why-did-queen-have-two-birthdays

As we do not know the exact date of Christ’s birth, the date of December 25 for Christmas may have been arbitrary. The Church could have chosen another date on which to celebrate the birth of Christ. One reason December 25 may have been deemed suitable is its proximity to the winter solstice. After that date the days start to become longer, and thus it is at the beginning of a season of light entering the world (cf. John 1:5). The summer solstice—after which the days start to get shorter—falls near June 24, on which the Church celebrates the birth of John the Baptist, who declared of Christ, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

In response to the claim that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday, this is a misconception popularized by American puritan Protestants who were hostile to Catholicism and fabricated the "Sol Invictus" myth. Ancient sources do not support this claim. Unfortunately, contemporary Jesuits, in their defense of the faith, aprioristically argued that this instead proved the legitimacy of Christianity, which - as is well documented - baptized the "seeds of the word" found in paganism. However, this was not the case here. Pagan emperors, following the example of Kim Jong-il and Stalin, attempted to appropriate the already existing Christian festival... unsuccessfully.

The date of Jesus' birth was not "decided upon," but celebrated in Rome as early as the 3rd century, well before the artificially established festival of "Sol Invictus." (This is why the introduction of "Sol Invictus" was unsuccessful, even among pagans.)

The birth date of Mithras is also often cited. This is a fallacy propagated by the "Zeitgeist" movement; original sources should be consulted to understand when and how Mithras was celebrated. This is akin to claiming expertise in wilderness survival and bushcraft based solely on watching the Rambo movies! Additionally, the Hellenized cult of Mithras is later than Christianity. Also, it is a common sense truth in religious studies that formal similarities may either represent completely different meanings or have no genetic relationship between two religions. Furthermore, it is demonstrable that, partly due to chronological reasons, homologous religious phenomena were incorporated into the Mithras cult in competition with Christianity, making it contrived and unviable. It was about as widespread as any modern occult sect.

As for the actual date of Jesus' birth, Gustav Teres attempted to determine this using astronomical methods in his book "The Bible and Astronomy" (2000). The date of celebration is related to the theory of "integral age." According to tradition, prophets (messengers of God) die on the day of their conception or birth. Thus, Jesus, who according to Christian belief is the prototype of the prophets, was crucified on Nisan 14, which was identified with the Greek Artemision 14. In Egypt, this was dated to April 6, 30 AD, and in the West to March 25, 33 AD. (Note: in these two years, the Jewish Passover coincided with the Sabbath.) This led to the erroneous dating of Jesus' birth. Based on the mystique of 33 years, whereas he might have been around 40 years old (even the image on the Shroud of Turin depicts such a man), it is believed he was born around 7 BC, corresponding to the Hellenic acme (prime of life).

Therefore, Christmas did not precisely coincide with the solstice (only Stalin's falsified birthday did), but was determined by adding nine months to the date of his death. This resulted in December 25 in Rome and January 6 in Alexandria, as both places chose different years (30 and 33, respectively) when Jewish Passover and Nisan 14 aligned.

Christian teachings are not fundamentally affected by the exact date of Jesus' birth or the date of the celebration. The pagan festival that can be demonstrably proven is the wheat consecration procession. Today, its significance is mostly as a tourist attraction. However, the inclusive Catholic perspective views paganism not as inherently "ab ovo" evil but as preserving fragments of the original revelation.

Since the Watchtower literature and JW identity rely heavily on Hislop's theory, it is worthwhile to outline this question.

"Paul taught that holiness cannot be mixed with impurity."

The verses cited in this regard only serve as a legitimate argument against syncretism or false irenicism, but not against inculturation.

This double standard is also interesting, since while Christmas etc. JWs refers to the "pagan origin", while in other cases they admitted that it does not matter what the origin of a pagan is, pagan or not pagan, but:

"In such matters, what generally is influential is whether a practice is now linked to false religion." (w92 9/1 pp. 30-31)

"Admittedly, true Christians today are not preoccupied with the roots and possible ancient religious connections of every practice or custom..." (w98 10/15 pp. 30-31)

... but of some, they are :-)

"Even if it were a fact that pagans first used wedding rings, would that rule such out for Christians? Not necessarily. Many of today’s articles of clothing and aspects of life originated in pagan lands. The present time divisions of hours, minutes and seconds are based on an early Babylonian system. Yet, there is no objection to a Christian’s using these time divisions, for one’s doing so does not involve carrying on false religious practices. [...]
Really, the question is not so much whether wedding rings were first used by pagans but whether they were originally used as part of false religious practices and still retain such religious significance." (w72 1/15 pp. 63-64)

"Still, all kinds of objects, designs, and practices have, at some time or place, been given a false interpretation or have been linked with unscriptural teachings. Trees have been worshiped, the heart shape has been viewed as sacred, and incense has been used in pagan ceremonies. Does this mean that a Christian must never use incense, have trees in any decoration, or wear heart-shaped jewelry? That is not a valid conclusion.
A genuine Christian should consider: Would following a custom indicate to others that I have adopted unscriptural beliefs or practices? The time period and location could influence the answer. A custom (or design) might have had a false religious meaning millenniums ago or might have such today in a distant land. But without going into time-consuming investigation, ask yourself: ‘What is the common view where I live?’—Compare 1 Corinthians 10:25-29." (w91 10/15 pp. 30-31)

So why can't the SAME standard be used to judge ALL customs?

By the way, this "pagan orign stuff is bad" ideology ironically tempted Catholicism as well, and it didn't exactly work in the Church's favor:

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

In short: When the Jesuits and the Franciscans began their mission in China, they tried to use the beliefs of the Chinese with the purpose of an apologetic bridge, for example they translated the word "God" as Shàngdì.

The Dominicans said that this was wrong, since Shàngdì was already the name of the supreme deity in the old Chinese pantheon, so it was of "pagan origin", so a term for God that was not yet "contaminated" should be used. They defended themselves by saying that this is essentially the same as by linking it with the "unknown god" as described in Biblical passage of Acts 17:23–31. The Dominicans complained to the Pope, citing that such translation may associate the Christian God to Chinese polytheism.

Unfortunately, the Pope at the time listened to them, and the result was the banning of Christian missions by the emperor. Without this stupid "pagan influence" fallacy, there is a good chance that China would be a Christian country today, and history would be very different.

In the 20th century, the Pope revoked this ban, but Chinese Catholics still call God Tiānzhǔ.

The point is: Inculturation is a legitimate missionary tool, as long as it does not result in an essential compromise in its content of the Christian religion.

By the way, as far as I know, the very first historical source that claims that Christmas falls on December 25th because they wanted to override Sol Invictus is from the 12th century and is attributed to Dionysius bar Salibi. So there is not a single contemporary source that would have claimed something similar, the first speculation about it is almost a thousand years later. In the twelfth century, the Syriac theologian Dionysius Bar-Salibi wrote that December 25 was established in the West as the feast of Christ’s Nativity to coincide with the pagan Roman celebration of the Invincible Sun. He wrote:

"It was a custom of the Pagans to celebrate on the same 25 December the birthday of the Sun, at which they kindled lights in token of festivity. In these solemnities and revelries the Christians also took part. Accordingly when the doctors of the Church perceived that the Christians had a leaning to this festival, they took counsel and resolved that the true Nativity should be solemnised on that day."

This concept became popular in the West particularly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. More recent scholarship has shown that Christmas had been observed for years before Emperor Aurelian established the pagan festival in AD 274.

More recent studies have shown that many of the holiday’s modern trappings do reflect "pagan customs" borrowed much later, as Christianity expanded into northern and western Europe. The Christmas tree, for example, has been linked with late medieval druidic practices. This has only encouraged modern audiences to assume that the date, too, must be pagan.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/how-december-25-became-christmas/

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

The argument that a direct command from Jesus is necessary to justify celebrating His birth overlooks key aspects of Christian worship and the nature of tradition. While the Bible does not explicitly command the celebration of Christ's birth, neither does it forbid it. In Romans 14:5-6, Paul allows believers to esteem certain days as special to honor God. Christmas, like other traditions, can be celebrated as a way to glorify God and reflect on the significance of the Incarnation.

The Bible commands the remembrance of Jesus' death because of its direct role in salvation (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). However, this does not diminish the theological importance of His birth. The Incarnation (John 1:14; Luke 2:10-14) is central to the Gospel, as it represents God taking on human nature to redeem humanity. Celebrating Christmas highlights this aspect of salvation history.

The association of Christmas with "the world" ignores its distinctly Christian origins. Early Christians chose December 25 to celebrate Jesus' birth as an opportunity to proclaim Christ to a pagan society. The fact that non-Christians also celebrate does not invalidate the Christian significance of the holiday. Like Paul in Athens (Acts 17:22-34), Christians can use cultural moments to point to Christ.

Jesus never condemned traditions outright but opposed those that undermined God’s commandments (Mark 7:8). Traditions like Christmas can enrich Christian faith when they focus on Christ. Celebrating Jesus' birth fosters gratitude and joy for God’s redemptive work.

So the absence of a direct biblical command to celebrate Jesus' birth does not make it unbiblical. Christians are free to commemorate the Incarnation in ways that honor God and deepen their faith. The celebration of Christmas, far from being "worldly," is a testimony to Christ’s light entering the darkness of the world (John 8:12).

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

The argument against celebrating Jesus' birth, based on shepherds not being in the fields during winter and the lack of a command for observing His birth, fails on several grounds. The claim that shepherds could not have been in the fields during December misunderstands the historical and agricultural context of first-century Judea. While it’s true that colder months might see less grazing, sheep were often kept outside year-round in milder climates like Bethlehem's, especially near Passover season to ensure lambs for sacrifices. Luke 2:8 describes the shepherds watching their flocks at night, which aligns with practices for protecting sheep from predators or thieves. Weather patterns in Israel do not definitively rule out December grazing.

While 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 commands remembrance of Jesus' death through the Eucharist, this does not imply that observing His birth is wrong. The Bible contains no prohibition against celebrating Christ's incarnation. Luke 2:10-14 depicts the angels proclaiming Jesus’ birth as “good news of great joy for all people,” signaling that it is worthy of celebration. Matthew 2:11 shows the Magi honoring Christ with gifts. While not a formal command, their actions set a precedent for recognizing the significance of His birth.

Paul’s teaching in Romans 14:5-6 permits Christians to esteem certain days as special, provided it is done to honor God. Celebrating Christ’s birth falls under this principle of Christian liberty, focusing on gratitude for God’s incarnation.

The celebration of Christmas highlights the incarnation of Christ—God becoming man (John 1:14)—a foundational event in salvation history. The event’s theological importance is inseparable from His death and resurrection. Commemorating His birth complements, rather than diminishes, the observance of His death.

So the shepherds' presence in the fields does not exclude December as a possibility, and while Scripture does not explicitly command celebrating Jesus’ birth, it does provide theological and historical precedent for doing so. Christians are free to honor His incarnation as a vital part of God’s redemptive plan.

44

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

aqwsed12345

@Duran

You should read these:

The objection here hinges on two main points: (1) there is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus was born on December 25, and (2) there is no biblical command for Christians to observe His birth. Let’s address these points systematically:

The Bible does not specify the exact date of Jesus’ birth. However, this absence does not invalidate the celebration of His birth. The early Church selected December 25 to focus on Christ’s incarnation and counteract pagan festivals by redirecting cultural attention toward Christian worship. The celebration is about honoring the incarnation of Christ (John 1:14), not the precision of the date. Christians honor the significance of His coming into the world regardless of the calendar. While December 25 coincides with some pagan festivals, this was intentionally repurposed by the Church to teach the gospel and emphasize Christ as the true "Light of the World" (John 8:12). Historical decisions, such as this, do not detract from the celebration's Christian meaning today.

JWs argue that there’s no command to observe Christ’s birth, but the Bible sets a precedent for commemorating significant salvific events. The angels themselves celebrated Christ's birth in Luke 2:10-14, declaring it "good news of great joy." The announcement of Jesus' birth involved praise and glorification of God, which mirrors the spirit of modern Christmas observances. The Magi honored Jesus' birth by presenting gifts and worshiping Him (Matthew 2:11). While this is not a direct command, it sets an example of celebrating Christ's arrival. Romans 14:5-6 affirms that Christians have the liberty to observe special days in honor of the Lord.

The argument that Jesus’ death is explicitly commanded to be observed (1 Corinthians 11:23-26) while His birth is not ignores the broader purpose of Christian worship. The Incarnation (celebrated at Christmas) is a necessary precursor to His sacrificial death. Without Jesus’ birth, there would be no death or resurrection to commemorate. The incarnation fulfills Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 7:14, Micah 5:2) and begins the redemptive mission. While Jesus commanded remembrance of His death, this does not exclude celebrating other aspects of His life, including His birth.

While Scripture does not explicitly mention December 25 or command observance of Jesus' birth, Christians commemorate Christmas to reflect on God’s greatest gift: sending His Son for the salvation of the world (John 3:16). The Bible does not command singing hymns or constructing church buildings, yet these are widely accepted as edifying and worshipful. Similarly, celebrating Christ’s birth glorifies God and deepens faith. The essence of Christmas is worshiping Christ, aligning with the angelic announcement and the actions of the Magi. Far from being "pagan," it is a day to proclaim the joy of salvation.

The absence of a specific date in Scripture for Jesus’ birth does not invalidate its celebration. While December 25 is a chosen date, the theological focus is on the incarnation and its significance in salvation history. Christians celebrate Christmas as an act of worship, aligning with biblical themes of praise, joy, and gratitude for the coming of the Savior.

2

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.

in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.

both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".

aqwsed12345

The concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts. In this article, we will explore and compare the Theocratic Warfare doctrine of the Watchtower Society and Taqiyya in Islam. Both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.

1. Theocratic Warfare: The "Rahab Method"

Jehovah’s Witnesses se the concept of "Theocratic Warfare" to justify withholding truth or being misleading when interacting with non-Witnesses if it protects their faith or organization. This doctrine is often called the "Rahab method," referencing the biblical story of Rahab lying to protect Israelite spies (Joshua 2:4-5). The Watchtower Society rationalizes this behavior by asserting that loyalty to God’s purposes outweighs human moral conventions regarding truthfulness.

Features of Theocratic Warfare:

Conditional Truth-Telling: Truth is shared only with those deemed "deserving," such as fellow Witnesses.
Strategic Withholding: Jehovah’s Witnesses may withhold or distort information to outsiders (e.g., during court cases or when questioned about internal practices like disfellowshipping).
Application: This doctrine is most often invoked in legal, medical, or proselytizing contexts where Witnesses feel their religious values or reputation are under threat.

Theocratic Warfare is a doctrine that permits Jehovah’s Witnesses to withhold information, mislead, or even deceive in situations where the truth could harm the organization or its members. It is based on the belief that Jehovah’s people are in a constant state of spiritual warfare with the forces of Satan, represented by the secular world, other religions, and any perceived enemies of the faith.

Key Tenets:

"Truth" Is Conditional: JWs believe that honesty is not an absolute requirement but rather depends on whether the individual they are speaking to has a “right to know.”
Loyalty to the Organization: Protecting the interests of the Watchtower Society is seen as paramount, even if it means withholding the truth or misrepresenting facts.
Biblical Justification: The doctrine draws on biblical examples, such as Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:1–6) and Jesus’ words to “be cautious as serpents” (Matthew 10:16), to validate the use of deception when it serves a "higher purpose."

Practical Applications of Theocratic Warfare

a) Legal Matters:

Jehovah’s Witnesses are known to employ Theocratic Warfare in court cases, particularly those involving child abuse allegations, shunning, or other controversial practices. The organization’s representatives may:

Conceal incriminating evidence.
Avoid providing direct answers to questions.
Claim lack of recollection or understanding when pressed for information that could harm the organization.

Example:

In cases of child sexual abuse, Watchtower elders have been accused of withholding records or failing to report incidents to authorities, citing “ecclesiastical privilege” or claiming that it is a matter to be handled internally.

b) Public Relations:

When engaging with outsiders, JWs may present a sanitized version of their beliefs to avoid alienating potential converts. For example:

Downplaying or denying controversial teachings, such as their stance on shunning or refusal of blood transfusions, until a person has been sufficiently indoctrinated.
Framing their refusal to salute the flag or participate in political activities as a matter of conscience rather than organizational mandate.

c) Evangelism:

In their door-to-door ministry, Witnesses are trained to focus on universal themes like family, morality, or hope for the future, rather than immediately revealing divisive doctrines (e.g., the annihilation of non-JWs at Armageddon).

Theocratic Warfare encourages JWs to employ half-truths or selective disclosure when engaging with outsiders. This is explicitly taught in Watchtower literature and training materials.

Examples:

Avoiding Full Disclosure: If asked about controversial doctrines, JWs are instructed to provide vague or partial answers that deflect attention from the full implications of their beliefs.

For instance, when questioned about disfellowshipping (shunning), they may initially describe it as a “loving arrangement” to help individuals return to the faith, omitting the harsh social isolation it entails.

Deflecting Criticism: When confronted with criticisms of the organization’s history or failed prophecies, JWs are trained to either minimize the issue or redirect the conversation to positive aspects of their faith.

Training Materials:

Watchtower publications have explicitly instructed members that “it is proper to remain silent when speaking the truth would result in harm to Jehovah’s organization.” This concept creates a framework where lying by omission is not only acceptable but encouraged.

The Watchtower Society relies heavily on biblical examples to legitimize Theocratic Warfare:

Rahab’s Deception: Rahab’s lie to protect Israelite spies is often cited as evidence that Jehovah approves of deception when it serves His purposes (Joshua 2:1–6).
Jesus’ Warning to Be Cautious: The verse “be cautious as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matthew 10:16) is interpreted as a call to use shrewdness and discretion in dealing with outsiders.
Abraham and Isaac: The patriarchs’ use of deception in potentially life-threatening situations is also used to underscore the principle that survival and loyalty to God’s cause can override strict adherence to truth.

Theocratic Warfare raises profound ethical questions, particularly when it involves deliberate deception:

Erosion of Trust: By justifying dishonesty, JWs risk alienating outsiders and reinforcing the perception that they are a secretive or manipulative organization.
Moral Relativism: The doctrine creates a double standard where truth-telling is obligatory only among “Jehovah’s people,” undermining universal ethical principles.
Harm to Individuals: In legal and medical contexts, Theocratic Warfare can result in tangible harm, such as the failure to report abuse or the refusal of life-saving medical treatments.

2. Taqiyya: Concealing Beliefs for Protection

In Islam, Taqiyya allows Muslims to conceal their faith or beliefs to protect themselves or their community from harm or persecution. Originating in Shi’a Islam, where followers often faced severe persecution, Taqiyya is permissible in Sunni Islam under extreme circumstances, such as life-threatening situations.

Features of Taqiyya:

Rooted in Survival: It permits lying or concealing faith to avoid harm or death.
Qur’anic Basis: Verses like 3:28 and 16:106 are often cited to support the concept, emphasizing self-preservation over openly expressing faith.
Scope of Use: While primarily defensive, some interpretations expand Taqiyya to strategic deception in conflicts or dealings with perceived enemies.

3. Commonalities Between Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

Strategic Deception:

Both doctrines allow adherents to obscure or misrepresent truth when interacting with outsiders to protect their faith or community:

Theocratic Warfare: Deception is aimed at safeguarding the Watchtower organization and its principles.
Taqiyya: Deception is used to protect the individual or Islamic community from persecution.

Conditional Morality:

In both systems, morality is situational and subservient to religious imperatives:

Jehovah’s Witnesses prioritize loyalty to their organization and God over absolute truthfulness.
Muslims practicing Taqiyya prioritize the preservation of life and faith over honesty.

Religious Defense Mechanisms:

Both practices serve as protective mechanisms for minority groups:

Jehovah’s Witnesses often perceive themselves as a beleaguered minority, justifying Theocratic Warfare against "Satan’s world."
Shi’a Muslims historically practiced Taqiyya in response to persecution by Sunni majorities.

4. Similar Practices in Other Groups

Scientology: Gradual Disclosure

Scientology, like Jehovah's Witnesses, employs a form of strategic withholding. New members are not immediately introduced to its more controversial teachings, such as the story of Xenu and thetans. Instead, they are gradually exposed to these doctrines as they progress through the organization and are more conditioned to accept them.

Parallels: This approach mirrors the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ tendency to downplay controversial doctrines (e.g., disfellowshipping or the 144,000 doctrine) when first engaging with potential converts.
Comparison to Taqiyya: While Scientology’s practice is not explicitly codified as lying, the principle of withholding the "full truth" aligns with the broader concept of situational deception seen in both Taqiyya and Theocratic Warfare.

5. Ethical Concerns

The ethical implications of these practices are significant, especially when viewed through the lens of universal moral standards.

Trust and Transparency:

Deception, even for religious purposes, undermines trust between adherents and outsiders. It creates a perception of bad faith, particularly when those deceived discover the hidden truths later.
For Jehovah’s Witnesses, labeling negative information as "apostate propaganda" prevents members from critically evaluating their own organization, a hallmark of intellectual dishonesty.

Conditional Ethics vs. Universal Morality:

These doctrines challenge the idea of universal morality by allowing exceptions to honesty based on religious expediency.
Critics argue that such practices prioritize organizational or survival goals over individual moral responsibility.

Manipulative Recruitment and Retention:

Gradual disclosure of controversial teachings, as seen in both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientology, can be seen as manipulative, preying on the vulnerability of new recruits.
By the time new members encounter more challenging doctrines, they are often too invested emotionally, socially, or financially to leave.

6. Analogies and Broader Implications

Both Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya highlight how minority or insular groups use deception as a tool to navigate hostile or challenging environments. While the contexts differ—Islam’s early persecution compared to modern Jehovah’s Witness legal challenges—the underlying rationale reflects a prioritization of survival or organizational goals over transparent engagement.

These practices also illustrate a broader psychological principle: gradual acclimatization to controversial beliefs reduces the likelihood of dissent. By withholding "hard truths" until adherents are deeply integrated, groups like Scientology, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others create barriers to exit that rely on sunk costs and conditioned loyalty.

The concept of Taqiyya, originally intended as a protective measure for Muslims facing persecution, has been expanded and exploited by modern jihadists and radical Islamists to justify a range of deceptive practices. While traditional interpretations of Taqiyya emphasize self-preservation, radical groups often reinterpret it as a tool of war and subversion, aligning with their broader ideological objectives. This exploitation raises critical ethical concerns and challenges for counterterrorism and interfaith relations.

7. Historical Context of Taqiyya

Traditionally, Taqiyya has been understood as a defensive mechanism rooted in the Qur’anic verses:

Qur’an 3:28: “Let believers not take disbelievers as allies instead of believers, unless you [believers] take precautions against them in prudence.”

Tafsir interpretations (e.g., by al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir) explain this as permitting outward loyalty to non-Muslims while maintaining internal animosity, especially in situations where Muslims are weak or under threat.
Ibn Kathir’s Commentary: "Whoever fears their [infidels’] evil may protect himself through outward show." This provides doctrinal support for concealing one’s true intentions when vulnerable.

Qur’an 16:106: “Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief, except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith...”

This verse explicitly justifies lying to save one’s life in extreme circumstances.

8. Modern Jihadist Interpretations of Taqiyya

Radical Islamist groups, such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS, have reinterpreted Taqiyya as an offensive strategy rather than a defensive necessity. Their use of the concept is often tied to Muhammad’s declaration that “war is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, B52N269), which legitimizes deception during armed conflict.

Applications by Jihadists:

Infiltration and Espionage:

Example: Ali Mohammad, a key Al-Qaeda operative, exploited Taqiyya to infiltrate the U.S. Army and serve as a double agent for years. His ability to deceive authorities while maintaining allegiance to jihadist causes exemplifies the operational utility of Taqiyya in espionage.

Feigning Moderation:

Radical groups often adopt a façade of moderation when dealing with Western or non-Muslim governments to secure resources, negotiate truces, or gain political legitimacy.
Yasser Arafat explicitly compared his negotiations with Israel to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, where Muhammad entered a temporary truce with the Quraysh only to break it once he regained strength. This use of "peace" as a tactical pause aligns with jihadist interpretations of Taqiyya.

Propaganda:

Jihadist leaders, such as Osama bin Laden, have used Taqiyya to manipulate Western perceptions. Publicly, they cite political grievances (e.g., U.S. foreign policy or the Palestinian issue), but privately, their rhetoric aligns with an uncompromising religious mandate to wage jihad against all non-Muslims until Islam’s dominance is established.
Bin Laden’s Letters: In private communications (e.g., The Al-Qaeda Reader), he reaffirmed that enmity towards non-Muslims is a permanent religious duty, regardless of political grievances.

Recruitment and Fundraising:

Jihadists often disguise their true intentions when engaging with potential recruits or donors. They downplay the violent aspects of their ideology, presenting their cause as defensive or humanitarian to gain support.

9. Radical Expansion of Taqiyya’s Scope

While classical Taqiyya was primarily used by Shi’a Muslims in contexts of persecution, Sunni jihadists have expanded its scope to include active deceit in any context that serves the goals of jihad. This reinterpretation often relies on hadiths and anecdotes from Muhammad’s life that emphasize the legitimacy of deception in warfare:

The Assassination of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf:

Muhammad approved of deception to assassinate Ka’b, a poet who insulted Islam. His follower, Muhammad ibn Maslama, feigned loyalty to Ka’b, lured him into a trap, and killed him. This incident (recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari and other sources) is frequently cited by radicals as evidence that lying to enemies is not only permissible but commendable in the service of Islam.

The Battle of the Trench:

During this conflict, Muhammad advised his follower Naim bin Masud to sow discord among enemy tribes through deceit. This act, sanctioned by the phrase “war is deceit,” underscores the strategic value of duplicity in military contexts.

10. Ethical Concerns and Implications

The radical reinterpretation of Taqiyya raises significant ethical questions, particularly when it is used to justify premeditated deception in non-combat contexts, such as diplomacy, interfaith dialogue, or engagement with civil society.

Moral Relativism:

By prioritizing religious objectives over universal moral principles, jihadist interpretations of Taqiyya create a framework where ends justify means, leading to ethical relativism. This undermines the credibility of any claims to "peaceful" intentions by these groups.

Parallel to Theocratic Warfare:

Similar to how Jehovah’s Witnesses use Theocratic Warfare to justify deception in legal or proselytizing contexts, jihadists exploit Taqiyya as a strategic tool. Both practices raise questions about whether loyalty to religious goals can ever justify deception, especially when it harms outsiders.

So there are striking parallels between Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya in Islam:

Conditional Truth:

Both doctrines allow adherents to withhold or distort the truth when dealing with outsiders perceived as hostile or unworthy of full disclosure.
JWs invoke the “right to know” principle; Taqiyya permits concealment in situations where disclosing the truth could lead to harm or disadvantage.

Religious Justification:

Both practices are rooted in scriptural interpretations that prioritize religious survival and loyalty over universal ethical standards.
Just as Taqiyya draws on Qur’anic verses and hadiths, Theocratic Warfare cites biblical narratives to legitimize deception.

Strategic Concealment:

Both doctrines encourage selective disclosure in evangelism and public relations. For instance, JWs may omit teachings about Armageddon or shunning, just as Taqiyya allows Muslims to downplay controversial aspects of Islamic law when engaging with non-Muslims.

Exploitation by Leadership:

In both cases, the doctrine is often used by organizational leaders to protect institutional interests, sometimes at the expense of individual members.

Conclusion

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya underscore the tension between religious imperatives and universal ethical standards. While both practices are designed to protect adherents, they raise profound questions about the ethics of conditional truthfulness and the impact of deception on interfaith dialogue and social trust.

For religious groups, such practices may serve short-term goals of survival and expansion but risk long-term reputational harm. Transparency and honesty, even when uncomfortable, remain essential for fostering genuine understanding and mutual respect across religious and ideological divides.

Theocratic Warfare, like Taqiyya, exemplifies the ethical challenges that arise when religious doctrines justify deception. While both practices claim to serve higher spiritual purposes, their use often undermines trust, damages relationships, and raises serious moral questions. By prioritizing organizational or doctrinal loyalty over universal ethical principles, these strategies reveal a troubling aspect of religious exclusivity that warrants critical scrutiny.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

The Watchtower Society's interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 relies on several problematic assumptions about the Greek text, context, and theology of the passage. Below is a detailed refutation of their key points, focusing on linguistic, contextual, and theological inaccuracies.

1. The Translation of “All Things” and the Addition of “Other”

JW Claim:

The inclusion of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 is justified because the Greek word panta (all things) can contextually mean "all other things," as shown in various New Testament examples.

Refutation:

While it is true that pas/panta *can* sometimes imply "all kinds of" or "all other," this meaning is determined entirely by context. In Colossians 1:16-17, there is no contextual justification for inserting "other" because the phrase explicitly includes “heavenly and earthly things, visible and invisible,” leaving no room for Christ to be categorized as a part of creation. The text states that "all things" (ta panta) were created through Him (di’ autou) and for Him (eis auton), which positions Christ as the Creator, not part of creation.

Jehovah’s Witnesses assume that Jesus is part of creation and then insert "other" to make the text conform to their theology. This is circular reasoning and unsupported by the Greek text itself. If “other” were truly part of the Greek nuance, why is it absent in virtually all Bible translations aside from the NWT?

Even though the NWT uses brackets around "other" to acknowledge its interpolation, the inclusion reflects theological bias rather than linguistic necessity. Major translations avoid this because the context does not demand it. Greek scholars (e.g., A.T. Robertson, Daniel Wallace) affirm that pas in Colossians 1 refers to the entirety of creation apart from Christ.

2. The Meaning of “Firstborn” (Πρωτότοκος) in Colossians 1:15

JW Claim:

The term "firstborn" (prōtotokos) indicates that Christ is part of creation, as the "first-created being."

Refutation:

The term prōtotokos does not mean "first-created" (prōtoktistos). The absence of prōtoktistos is significant because Paul could have used it if he intended to convey that meaning. Prōtotokos emphasizes preeminence and supremacy, not temporal sequence. This is evident in other biblical usages. Psalm 89:27: David is called the "firstborn," even though he was the youngest son of Jesse. The term signifies rank and authority, not chronology. Exodus 4:22: Israel is called God’s "firstborn," denoting their chosen status among nations, not their literal birth order.

The subsequent verses clarify the meaning of prōtotokos. Verse 16 states, "By Him all things were created," emphasizing Christ's role as Creator. Verse 17 declares, "He is before all things," reinforcing His eternal preexistence and supremacy over creation. The genitive construction ("of all creation") is best understood as a genitive of subordination, meaning Christ is supreme over all creation, not part of it.

3. The Use of “Beginning” (Ἀρχή) in Revelation 3:14

JW Claim:

The term "arche" in Revelation 3:14 means "beginning" in the sense of the first created being, not "source" or "origin."

Refutation:

Arche has a broad semantic range, including "beginning," "origin," "ruler," or "source." Context determines its specific meaning. In Revelation 3:14, "the beginning of God’s creation" (hē archē tēs ktiseōs tou Theou) is better translated as "the source of God’s creation." This interpretation aligns with Colossians 1:16, where Christ is depicted as the Creator.

The consistent New Testament portrayal of Christ as the Creator (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2) contradicts the idea that He is part of creation. Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted in harmony with these texts, making "origin" or "source" the most contextually appropriate meaning.

4. Jesus as Mediator in Creation

JW Claim:

Christ is the "intermediate agent" of creation, while God the Father is the ultimate Creator.

Refutation:

The use of dia (through) with the genitive case does not imply that Christ is merely an intermediary. It often denotes the active agency of a person involved in the action. In Colossians 1:16, the phrase "all things were created through Him" (di’ autou) emphasizes Christ's active role as Creator, not a passive instrument.

While God the Father is the ultimate source of creation (1 Corinthians 8:6), Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were made. This does not diminish Christ’s divinity but underscores the cooperative work of the Trinity in creation.

By relegating Christ to the role of a subordinate or created being, the JW interpretation undermines the biblical witness to His divinity (John 1:1, John 20:28, Philippians 2:6). The New Testament consistently presents Christ as coequal with the Father, sharing in the divine essence.

5. The Role of Context in Interpreting “All Things” (Τὰ Πάντα)

JW Claim:

The phrase ta panta ("all things") in Colossians 1:16-17 can mean "all other things," allowing for Jesus to be included in creation.

Refutation:

Colossians 1:16 explicitly states, "For in Him all things were created…all things have been created through Him and for Him." The repetition of ta panta without qualification strongly supports an all-encompassing meaning, excluding Christ from the category of created things.

John 1:3 reinforces this interpretation: "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." This absolute language excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.

The consistent New Testament witness to Christ as Creator demands that ta panta in Colossians 1:16-17 be understood inclusively, encompassing all created things apart from Christ.

6. Bias in the NWT Translation

JW Claim:

The use of brackets around "other" in the NWT is honest and linguistically justified.

Refutation:

The inclusion of "other" reflects the NWT translators' theological commitment to denying Christ’s divinity. While brackets acknowledge interpolation, the addition is unnecessary and unsupported by the text. No major lexicon or grammar supports the routine addition of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17.

Greek scholars across denominational lines affirm that the text does not imply Christ is part of creation. The NWT’s rendering is a theological imposition, not a linguistic necessity.

Conclusion

The JW interpretation of Colossians 1:15-20 and related passages distorts the plain meaning of the text through unwarranted interpolations and misinterpretations. The broader context of Scripture unequivocally affirms Christ’s role as Creator and His preeminence over all creation. The Watchtower's theological agenda drives their translation choices, resulting in significant deviations from the original Greek meaning and the historical Christian understanding of Christ's divinity and eternal existence.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

Credibility is not determined by personal feelings but by the accuracy, reliability, and proper use of evidence. Mainstream scholarship has been consistently cited across discussions. When disagreements with certain scholarly interpretations arise, they are addressed with alternative academic viewpoints or through logical reasoning. This is standard in academic debates. The accusation of selective citation is itself vague and unsubstantiated. If specific examples of misrepresentation exist, they must be directly addressed with evidence, not generalizations.

If the citations provided are accurate and relevant, their content should be discussed to demonstrate their implications for the argument. A blanket accusation of not reading is unproductive and does not advance the discussion. Assertions of misrepresentation must engage with the specifics of the argument rather than relying on dismissive rhetoric. If the citations are valid, their relevance to the theological and linguistic issues should be debated point by point.

This just proves my point that the plural theoi does not refer to the one true God, so the earliest manuscripts only used the Nomina Sacra when it referred to that. The omission of plural forms in a specific instance (1 Corinthians 8:5) does not invalidate the broader argument regarding nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts. The plural gods in verse 5 are deliberately contrasted with the singular God and Lord in verse 6, where nomina sacra are applied. Nomina sacra were used as theological markers to denote sacred terms. Their absence in certain plural forms does not negate their significance in singular references to Christ and the Father, which emphasize monotheism and the divine status of Jesus. The claim that this omission is “lying” misunderstands the purpose of nomina sacra, which was to highlight central theological points rather than apply uniformly to all instances.

While "ἀρχή" (archē) can have multiple meanings, its specific use in contexts such as John 1:1 and Revelation 3:14 aligns with the notion of "origin" or "source" rather than "firstfruits." The suggestion that “firstfruits” 'negates' first-cause implications is unsupported. Even if "firstfruits" were a plausible translation, it would imply a primacy in rank or origin, consistent with Christ’s role as the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16-17).

The Hebrew term "qanah" (Proverbs 8:22) is context-dependent and can mean "acquire," "possess," or "create." In the context of divine wisdom, "possess" does not imply a temporal beginning but rather denotes ownership or intrinsic association. Early Church Fathers, including Athanasius and Augustine, understood "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 metaphorically, referring to the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, not a literal creation event. The broader context of Proverbs 8 emphasizes wisdom’s preexistence "before the mountains were settled, before the hills" (Proverbs 8:25), which is consistent with Christ’s eternal nature, not a point of origin in time.

The term "aion" in Proverbs 8:23, combined with the phrase "from everlasting" (LXX: πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος), emphasizes timelessness rather than a specific point of origin. This context supports the understanding of Christ’s eternal preexistence. The interpretation of "aion" as merely referring to the beginning of created things imposes a narrow reading that ignores its broader usage to denote eternity in both biblical and extra-biblical literature.

Origen’s concept of the eternal generation of the Son refers to the Son’s relationship to the Father, not the creation of the world. Origen distinguishes between the eternal Logos and the temporal world, explicitly affirming that the Logos is uncreated. The idea of the world being "eternally begotten" in Origen’s writings reflects his speculative philosophy and allegorical interpretation, not a denial of creation’s temporal beginning.

While Genesis 1 after the 2nd verse focuses on the creation of the physical universe, it does not exclude the preexistence of the Logos or Wisdom. John 1:1 explicitly clarifies that "In the beginning was the Word," emphasizing the Logos’s existence before all creation. Proverbs 8:22-30 complements this by portraying Wisdom as present before the foundation of the world, consistent with the Logos’s eternal nature. Omitting this broader scriptural context distorts the interpretation of both passages.

The debate over "qanah" reflects the richness of its semantic range. While it can mean "acquire" or "create," its use in Proverbs 8:22, in the context of divine Wisdom, aligns with "possess" or "bring forth" in a manner that does not imply temporal origination. The interpretation of "qanah" as "create" imposes a temporal framework inconsistent with the broader theological understanding of Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father.