Posts by Lord Zagato

4

Anyone heard of this?

by startingover in

jw
friends

.

i was having an in depth discussion on religion with a friend, and he mentioned to me that mormons have the same information given the same day worldwide in their meetings (or whatever they call them) just like the dubs do.

and important, since my loyal dub wife told me in our last discussion that was a big reason why she had the truth, the worldwide unity.. anyone here heard this before?

Lord Zagato

Well, with mass media and especially with e-mail and the Internet, it's not new or surprising. It's certainly not a miracle by a long shot now...

17

They lost 7 bible studies

by caballoSentado in

jw
friends

hi friends, .

i just found out that one of the persons i talked to about the un scandal and .

the wtbs hypocrisy, a very good & loving person, a real christian, has cancelled .

Lord Zagato

It's good to see someone who has finally seen the light. I wonder how JWs will react to this, though?

145

John 1:1 - A "Sacred Secret" Revealed

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i had opportunity yesterday, to peruse the thread entitled, "john 1:1 - good information" and there were some very... ummmm... "intriguing" responses.

some were very close to what is true; others, pure speculation.

Lord Zagato

Forgive me AGuest, but if you looked at the thread, in general I agree with what you posted here and there...well, in general anyway...

145

John 1:1 - A "Sacred Secret" Revealed

by AGuest in

may you all have peace!.

i had opportunity yesterday, to peruse the thread entitled, "john 1:1 - good information" and there were some very... ummmm... "intriguing" responses.

some were very close to what is true; others, pure speculation.

Lord Zagato

Hhmm...well, we're having a lively debate on what you jsut posted early on there...

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

Lord Zagato

The Church did not establish that Jesus is a member of the Godhead until the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. There was no mention of a "triune God" at that time nor at any time earlier. Nothing is said in the earliest post-biblical times of the Spirit as the third person in the Godhead. No formal Trinitarian definition of the Holy Spirit appears until A.D. 381 at the Council of Constantinople.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).
(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)
As you can see, the Trinity is already known even before Nicaea. Nicaea, I will repeat, was convened to affirm this belief over and above Arius' teaching.
And...
The witness of the doxologies is no less striking. The form now universal, "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost," so clearly expresses the Trinitarian dogma that the Arians found it necessary to deny that it had been in use previous to the time of Flavian of Antioch (Philostorgius, "Hist. eccl.", III, xiii). It is true that up to the period of the Arian controversy another form, "Glory to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit," had been more common (cf. I Clement, 58, 59; Justin, "Apol.", I, 67). This latter form is indeed perfectly consistent with Trinitarian belief: it, however, expresses not the coequality of the Three Persons, but their operation in regard to man. We live in the Spirit, and through Him we are made partakers in Christ (Galatians 5:25; Romans 8:9); and it is through Christ, as His members, that we are worthy to offer praise to God (Heb. 13:15). But there are many passages in the ante-Nicene Fathers which show that the form, "Glory be to the Father and to the Son, and to [with] the Holy Spirit," was also in use.
In the narrative of St. Polycarp's martyrdom we read: "With Whom to Thee and the Holy Spirit be glory now and for the ages to come" (Mart. S. Polyc., n.14; cf. n. 22).
Clement of Alexandria bids men "give thanks and praise to the only Father and Son, to the Son and Father with the Holy Spirit" (Paed., III, xii).
St. Hippolytus closes his work against Noetus with the words: "To Him be glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Holy Church now and always for ever and ever. Amen" (Contra Noet., n. 18).
Denis of Alexandria uses almost the same words: "To God the Father and to His Son Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit be honour and glory forever and ever, Amen" (in St. Basil, "De Spiritu Sancto", xxix, n. 72).
St. Basil further tells us that it was an immemorial custom among Christians when they lit the evening lamp to give thanks to God with prayer: Ainoumen Patera kai Gion kai Hagion Pneuma Theou ("We praise the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit of God").
(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)
Clearly the Holy Spirit is already known and defined as part of that Godhead even before Constantinople. Again, the purpose of Church Councils is to affirm teachings already existing over and against those contrary to Scripture. It did not take more than 300 years then to define the Trinity; the affirmations were made because there were people who questioned long-standing teachings as handed down by the Apostles and Scripture.
Moving on...
Jesus said the Jews knew what God is, and yet they have never viewed God as a Trinity.
How could even Jews view Jesus as such when they rejected Him? I would think that would be clear even to you.
I have no idea why you introduced another topic, namely that Jesus addressed God as "my Father" instead of "our Father."
It shows us that He had exclusive use to it then, before as Paul, we have become children of God by adoption through Christ Jesus. This struck the Jews as blasphemy, since His claim as being Son of God in an exclusive sense points Him to be co-eternal with the Father.
you seem to prefer what the so-called "church fathers" had to say instead of what Jesus had to say about himself
The early Church Fathers would naturally have closer insight to this, especially the Apostolic Fathers who were taught by the Apostles themselves, such as St. Polycarp who was the student of the Apostle John. These men have, as the Council of Carthage and other early Councils noted, with them the teachings of Christ and His Apostles, handed down to them, that all might be in the right path.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

Lord Zagato

Perhaps you've also forgotten that you wrote: "The Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as a Jew's Jew." If as Jesus said the Jews knew God and "what" he is, Matthew would have been the one to show what you claim John is showing. Jesus said "we know what we worship" at a time when Jews were saying about him that perhaps he is a prophet. They did not view Jesus as God. They had no concept of a triune God. Yet Jesus said plainly that they knew "what" God is. Where does Matthew show that Jesus corrected them? Where does Matthew show that this new concept - if there was one - was brought home to the Jews? Why is it that in Matthew's Gospel Jesus did not put to good use this so-called "name" that you seem to see in John's Gospel? I'll be looking for your explanations.

The key to this is contained in His words, after the Resurrection: "I ascend to my Father and to your Father" (John, xx, 17). He always spoke of MY Father, never of OUR Father. He said to the disciples: "Thus then shall YOU pray: Our Father", etc. He everywhere draws the clearest possible distinction between the way in which God was His Father and in which He was the Father of all creatures. His expressions clearly prove that He claimed to be of the same nature with God; and His claims to Divine Sonship are contained very clearly in the Synoptic Gospels, though not as frequently as in St. John.

"Did you not know, that I must be about my father's business" (Luke, ii, 49); "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me you, that work iniquity" (Matt., vii, 21-23). "Everyone therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven" (Matt., x, 32). "At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to little ones. Yea, Father; for so hath it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal HIM. Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you" (Matt., xi, 25-30; Luke, x, 21, 22). In the parable of the wicked husbandmen the son is distinguished from all other messengers: "Therefore having yet one son, most dear to him; he also sent him unto them last of all, saying: They will reverence my son. But the husbandmen said one to another: This is the heir; come let us kill him" (Mark, xii, 6). Compare Matt., xxii, 2, "The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son." In Matt., xvii, 25, He states that as Son of God He is free from the temple tax. "David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he then his son?" (Mark, xii, 37). He is Lord of the angels. He shall come "in the clouds of heaven with much power and majesty. And he shall send his angels" (Matt., xxiv, 30, 31). He confessed before Caiphas that he was the Son of the blessed God (Mark, xiv, 61-2). "Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost... and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt., xxviii, 19, 20).

The claims of Jesus Christ, as set forth in the Synoptic Gospels, are so great that Salmon is justified in writing (Introd. to New Test., p. 197): "We deny that they [Christ's utterances in the Fourth Gospel] are at all inconsistent with what is attributed to Him in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the dignity of our Saviour's person, and the duty of adhering to Him, are as strongly stated in the discourses which St. Matthew puts into His mouth as in any later Gospel.... The Synoptic Evangelists all agree in representing Jesus as persisting in this claim [of Supreme Judge] to the end, and finally incurring condemnation for blasphemy from the high-priest and the Jewish Council.... It follows that the claims which the Synoptic Gospels represent our Lord a making for Himself are so high...that, if we accept the Synoptic Gospels as truly representing the character of our Lord's language about Himself, we certainly have no right to reject St. John's account, on the score that he puts too exalted language about Himself into the mouth of our Lord."

And in the use of the Divine Name:

The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. Among the Jews and in the Apostolic Church the Divine name was representative of God. He who had a right to use it was invested with vast authority: for he wielded the supernatural powers of Him whose name he employed. It is incredible that the phrase "in the name" should be here employed, were not all the Persons [Trinity] mentioned equally Divine. Moreover, the use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One Omnipotent God in whom the Apostles believed. Indeed the unity of God is so fundamental a tenet alike of the Hebrew and of the Christian religion, and is affirmed in such countless passages of the Old and New Testaments, that any explanation inconsistent with this doctrine would be altogether inadmissible.

This is in relation to the verse:

The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.

Sources: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

Lord Zagato

The arguments you make for the writings of the "church fathers" are similar to those made my Muslims for the Quran and the Mormons for the Book of Mormon. Claiming those writings to be Scripture doesn't make them so.

Nope, it isn't even a claim--early Christians used these writings and indeed used them as Scripture. Only after the Council of Carthage was the use of non-Canonical literature prohibited in liturgy.

Ironically, you claim validity for the Trinity due to its acceptance by the Church and on the other hand you claim the writings of the "church fathers" are valid as Scripture even though the Church does not accept them as such. So, I think your viewpoint is inconsistent and lacking in credibility here.

For the record, the Church accepts and use these writings and see their validity; they're not just used as Scripture, but that doesn't mean they're invalid.

I'm starting to wonder if you read what I write. I already showed you from John 20:31 that your view of "John's purpose" is not the same as John's own statement.

Now this is funny--how do you make a thesis, for instance? Do you not first make a sythesis of what you want to prove in your first paragraph, then demonstrate it in the body? This is what John did, as he first introduces the Word, and then goes forth and shows us who this Word is.

Again you've ignored what I've written. As many translators show, the word translated as "he" can be translated as "it". So your point becomes mute.

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but even in common English "he" and "it" are two different things. I suppose I can refer you also as "it" then? Again, let us study the verses in question:

In the beginning was the Word,

Now, look at it closely: was John saying, "God spoke a word" Or John could have been more explicit, "In the beginning God said a word (or the word, if you want a little more drama). But no, John introduces it as if a man. This comes in the next lines:

And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John introduces the Word slowly here. First he notes, the Word was with God. Again, was it an utterance? To affirn, he then says it plainly: the Word was God. The point of contention should then be clear when he says,

He was in the beginning with God.

Already here John makes a distinction as to what--or who--the Word is. It is not an "it". No serious Christian in the centuries before Tyndale, if you noticed, has even identified the Word as an "it".

What reason do you have for continuing to deny that God's "word" results in other things instead of always remaining a "word" in his mouth

It would be evident, if you would study the first verses as well as verse 14 that this is plainly not what John had in mind. He shows us the Word isn't just something that is of God's utterance, but that the Word was beside God all the time--a being, as it were, not something God created, but with Him, and yet also Him.

When will you acknowledge that Jesus knew better than trinitarians what the Jews always believed about God?

And since when did you come to know God in His fullness? Are you saying, "Look, I know God--I know everything about Him." The Trinity is a mystery, and this acknowledges the fact that God is much farther from our understanding--or He is not God. The operation of the Trinity is beyond our reason--but that is no surprise, and indeed should not be a surprise for us, since God is beyond us. We know there is a Trinity. We know there is one God in 3 Divine Persons, but how can that be? I think that is what you want to ask, and why you object. But that is no reason to object, since God will never be understood by our reasoning.

In John 9:9, John wasn't attempting to show the blind man as God. This is more clear when one understands that Jesus' crime was blasphemy: was this man charged with blasphemy? If Jesus wasn't making a claim for Divinity, then why was he charged with blasphemy? This was consistent in all the Gospels.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

Lord Zagato

If "I am" was as special to Jesus as it is to modern-day trinitarians, why is there no reference to it in the other Gospels or, for that matter, anywhere else in the New Testament? Isn't it possible, in searching for every vestige of evidence they can find, that trinitarians are reading things into the Scriptures that aren't really there? It seems that way to me.

I AM is very special to the ancient Israelites, or have you forgotten that God spoke to Moses in such a fashion? Why was this not seen in the other Gospels? Why were there not events recorded in the other Gospels, for that matter, but was in John's? Or for that matter again, why was the genealogical line-up different between Matthew and Luke? The thrusts of the Gospel writers are different, and yet one in agreement: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, who is the Second Person. The Gospel of Matthew shows Jesus as a Jew's Jew, while Luke identifies Him with the entire human race, even before the development of races and nations. So too, then, John underscores that Jesus has been with the Father from the start, and goes on to show us that this same Jesus--as he both uses the terms Word and light to Him--is the promised one, the Emmanuel.

43

John 1:1 - Good information

by Dansk in

i came across the following information at this site, where there's a lot more :

http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm

english bible - "and what god was, the word was".

Lord Zagato

Should we rely on the so-called "church fathers" or on the Scriptures themselves? Should it really matter what the "church fathers" believed and taught?
Today the American Constitution is more than 200 years old. Short as it is compared to the Bible, men have been wrangling these 2 centuries over how it ought to be interpreted. A variety of opinions have been published in newspapers and court records. Whose interpretations are correct? Whose interpretations will be viewed as correct 2000 years from the time the Constitution was written?
The same sort of questions can be asked about the Bible. Should we view as authoritative those opinions expressed by the "church fathers" during the 200 years after the Bible was written, or should we go to the Bible itself?
You wrote:
I have gone through the posts here, and not one of you has offered any alternative as to what the Word is, who it might refer to other than Christ. You say some render "Word" as "it": "it" what? Is "it" an animal, a plant, an alien?
Surely you're joking. I wonder how it's possible that we are reading from the same thread. And I'm starting to wonder how many times I'm going to need to repeat what I've written.
Do you know the meaning of the term "word"? Is the term "an animal, a plant, an alien"? If it isn't any of those, why is it so important to you that it be defined as such?
A "word" is a "word." It can be either spoken or written, but either way it is simply a "word."
John 1:1 says that the "word" was in the beginning. Genesis 1:1, 6, 7 shows that God spoke his "word" in the beginning when creation took place. When he spoke his "word," that "word" became something. Please note the following texts:
"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their host." (Ps 33:6)
"The worlds were prepared by the word of God." (Heb 11:3)
"By the word of God the heavens existed long ago." (2 Pe 3:5)
You wrote:
one still has to give account to the Word dwelling amongst us--meaning, the Word living and breathing among men
You will note that it is not the "word" that lived and breathed among men. What the "word" became or produced did that. Apparently you overlooked what I wrote about Abraham becoming a great nation. The nation was not Abraham and Abraham was not the nation. Abraham became or resulted in the nation. In the same way, the "word" and Jesus are not necessarily one and the same. The "word" was "with God and was God" as the very essence of God. But when God spoke that "word," it became something else. It was no longer a "word," just as the heavens and the earth are no longer "words" of God. Just as the "word" spoken by God produced the heavens and the earth, that same "word" produced for Him a Son in the flesh and blood person of Jesus Christ.
That is a biblical concept so simple that no one should naively state that it is "meaningless" or "ambiguous." As stated in Psalm 33:9: "He spoke, and it was done." (Ps 33:9)

As to your first question, the answer is in the affirmative. If one is going to make a case as to what the early Church believed in, and want to make a case that his church now is in consonance with early Christian belief, then it is necessary and indeed helpful to know and read what the early Church Fathers lived and taught. Early Christians regarded their writings in high regard as Scripture, and indeed saw it as Scripture (the letter of Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthians, for instance, was read in all the Christian communities' worship to as late as the early third century). It was only after the Council of Carthage, where the Books of the Bible as we know it today were compiled with decisive finality, that the writings of the early Fathers were not read in churches. But still, up until Protestantism, the writings of the Church Fathers were regarded highly by both East and West. Protestants are only now rediscovering the value of these writings.

Moving on...read again the article concerning the Logos. John never presupposed that the Word only meant the utterance of God; that would render meaningless the rest of his writing. John's purpose is to identify and indeed affirm the Divinity of Christ, and hence his identification of the Word as Christ. That early Christian writers affirm and understood this as to apply to Christ should also be noted--and these writers were the ante-Nicene Fathers. I clarified what "it" stands for, as it is already shown that John does not refer only to God's speaking when Word is used; it has become alive, in John's terms, and that this Word has indeed come among us.

Let us look again at what John wrote, to be clear:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.

Now wait a minute: who was the He if John was only referring to God's spoken word?

And again, we see:

And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.

Again, let us reflect on this passage. The Word became flesh, etc. We've discussed this at length. But what about "we saw His glory, etc."? One will further note at verse 15 John the Baptizer testifying on Jesus' behalf. It is striking that if verses 1-2 were about God's spoken word, then it render meaningless the rest of the chapter, as the flow would be inharmonious. Ditto for verse 14: it would be out of sync if it would mean only God's spoken word. But even a cursory reading of the passage, from 1-14, would not show that the writer went from one thought to another, and indeed when linked to verse 15 onwards, John gives a clear rendering that this Word is not merely God's utterance, but is one of flesh and blood. Furthermore, we see in Revelation 19:

Then I saw the heavens opened, and there was a white horse; its rider was (called) "Faithful and True." He judges and wages war in righteousness. His eyes were (like) a fiery flame, and on his head were many diadems. He had a name inscribed that no one knows except himself. He wore a cloak that had been dipped in blood, and his name was called the Word of God. The armies of heaven followed him, mounted on white horses and wearing clean white linen. Out of his mouth came a sharp sword to strike the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod, and he himself will tread out in the wine press the wine of the fury and wrath of God the almighty. He has a name written on his cloak and on his thigh, "King of kings and Lord of lords."

Bible scholars agree that this is Jesus. So then why does the writer here identify Jesus as "the Word of God" (as well as the other titles, "Faithful and True" and the oft used "King of kings and Lord of lords")?

100

Say goodbye...Armaggedon 15/ 05/ 03

by refiners fire in

jw
friends

ive been looking at an interesting site by a woman who receives transmissions from aliens called the zeta.

apparently the world as we know it will end may 15th when planet nibiru / marduk passes so close to our earth that an apocalypse will occur.

it last passed by when the noachian flood occurred.

Lord Zagato

Lord Zagota, are you related to Xemu in any way?

Who's Xemu?