by Adonai438 24 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Barry
The gnostics, ebionites, and paulists were just some of the different jesus groups of the first few centuries. Modern christians have the roman central govt to thank for their way of worship and the contents of the bible. Once rome adopted one particular jesus strain, it outlawed the rest, either forcing them to intigrate or be expunged.
SS
Saint Satan,
The reason I mention Irenaeus is because he knew Polycarp Bishop of smyna who in turn knew the Apostale John.
Also there is evidence from the creeds that were originaly baptismal formila, from the middle of the second century we have the very first baptisimal formila as follows , I believe in the father , lord of all ,
and in Jesus Christ [ our Saviour],
and in the Holy Spirit [ the paraclete],
and in the holy church,
and in the forgiveness of sins.
I would ask you , What does this look like , it looks to me like the start of the developement of the Nicien Creed. In fact during these early centuries there was hundreds of creeds all having this same patern Father, son , holy spirit and two of the articals we find in the nicein creed at the end.
In fact the Nicene Creed was taken from a baptisimal formila, The creed of Caesarea. the extra wording in the Nicene Creed was because of the Arian contraversity that was raging at the time.
Barry
Do you recieve the Holy Sprit when you accept Jesus into your heart?
plm
HI Rev Bll--- I will be e-mailing you soon with what we discussed earlier but briefly:
The Bible does in fact equate the Holy Spirit with God himself.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is more than a 'force' but a real spiritual being with a will, a voice, actions and words.
Now the next step is, is he God? It is good to demand proof of this and I will send whoever needs elaboration on it an e-mail with it if they are interested. In Acts 5 it calls the Holy Spirit God.
"You have lied to the Holy Spirit......You have not lied to men but to God".
Also, all over the new Testament it has the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (OT scripture) that calls the speaker God, JEhovah, Almighty, etc... :
Acts 28:25-27
"They disagreed among themselves and began to leave when Paul had made this final statement: 'The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
"Go to this people and say,
You will be ever hearing but never understanding; You will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them"" (quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10 vision of God on his throne speaking)
also see another example out of many in
Hebrews 3:7-19---"So as the Holy Spirit says:Today if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion, during the time of testing in the desert,
Where your forefathers tested and tried me and for forty years saw what I did. That is why I was angry with that generation, and I said, 'their hearts are always going astray, and they have not known my ways.' I declared on oath in my anger, 'They shall never enter my rest' .............And whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not those who disobeyed?....."
And plum:
Yes, I do believe that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers--including myself -- as shown in 1 Corinthians 6:19
(also look at 2 Corinthians 6:16 for reference -- Temple of the Holy Spirit<-->Temple of the Living God)
Gotta go for now--- !
One reason our faith should be based on scripture alone is that it was very easy to give an "orthodox" [at the time] slant to writings in an age when everything was copied by hand. There is evidence that even scripture was altered ("The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture - The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament" by Bart D.Ehrman [OUP,1993] gives many examples), but this was the exception in view of the reverence in which it was held and the dire warnings in the Bible about alteration.
Nevertheless, we have to be guided by what we have and the extant writings of the early Christians do show their beliefs were far from the subequent definitions of who and what God is. Let it first be said that the Bible describes Jesus as God, most notably at John 1:1, and this has not been contended by the early Christians, the Arian movement of the fourth century, or JWs today. What is in dispute is whether he is the same as God the Father, and a related dispute is whether he was God while he was man. The trinity doctrine includes the teaching that "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God." So with this in mind, let us consider the writings of the second century to which you refer. By the third century, the philosophical schools of Plato and Philo were in full swing and both Tertullian (within his lifetime) and Origen were declared heretics so although their beliefs were far from the Athanasian Creed I would not give them the same weight as earlier Christian writers.
Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.This was, in fact, not Polycarp but Marcion quoting Polycarp in his 'Martyrdom'. At the beginning of this prayer he says : "O Lord God Almighty, Father of your blessed and beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have been given knowledge of yourself..." and concludes it as you relate.
"O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).
Justin Martyr (100-165). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.
"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).
This discussion of the baptism ceremony by Justin is simply a reflection of Matthew 28 and does not suggest anything beyond that.
In contrast, in chapter 12 of his First Apology he speaks of "that Word no other than who, after God the Father, we know to be the most noble and just prince".
In chapter 16 "And he [Jesus] thus persuaded us to worship God alone, and no other...and when one came to him and said, 'Good Master,' he answered, 'there is none good but God alone,' who made all things. Hence we render worship to God alone...".
In chapter 32 "The Son or Logos is, 'the first power after God the Father and Sovereign Lord'".
Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.As previously noted it should come as no surprise that Jesus is described as God, the issue simply being whether he is one and the same or subordinate to God the Father.
"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)
Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)
Again, it is no surprise that Jesus is described as God but would be if he were equated with his Father. On the contrary, in this passage he distinguishes between Jesus and his Father just as Paul does in his letter to the Philippians where he says that "every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father", or "to the will of the invisible Father".
Further, in chapter 22 of this book against the Valentinians he specifies the one rule of faith, namely that "there is one God Almighty who created all things by His Word...He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as we shall show."
The facts are that none of the early Christian writers taught that Jesus was the same as his Father, and it is only in the fourth century that the Athanasian schism asserted they were the same substance. That, of course, is another age and far from the simplicity of the time of Christ.
Earnest
"Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandernatch!" - Rev. Charles Dodgson
Howdy Earnest,
I don't have time to go over all your statements (i'd like to, maby later we can talk about it) but your last line sent up a "JW red flag." I'd like to make a quick comment. hopefully it wont be too rushed.
The facts are that none of the early Christian writers taught that Jesus was the same as his Father, and it is only in the fourth century that the Athanasian schism asserted they were the same substance. That, of course, is another age and far from the simplicity of the time of Christ.None of the contemporary Christians taught that Jesus was the "same" as his Father. this is not a Trinitarian teaching at all. Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father, not the Father but one with the Father.
and it is only in the fourth century that the Athanasian schism asserted they were the same substance.that is true, there is no need to assert the authority given by the Christ until someone makes an assertion that differs form Jesse's' (John 18:5)
That, of course, is another age
far from the simplicity of the time of Christin Jesse's' time it was simple?
Barry
I don't have a problem w primitive forms of the nicene creed. I was stating that there were a multitude of christian/semi-christian/jesus groups in the first few centuries. As we know, one of them became the roman state religion. Maybe it was the most popular, least esoteric, as they would need something that would work for the common man/woman. Also, this whole field was in constant foment. Cultic leaders (false prophets) came and went like the weather. The old jewish system was theologically bankrupt and crumbling. Jews were scrambling to find meaning and order, so new groups proliferated.
SS
Willy_Think is correct
Maybe a discussion of what the trinity belief says is a ggod thread to start-- The Watchtower misrepresents it in their attempts to disprove it. The trinity does not assert that the Father, Jesus and the Holy spirit are the same people, persons, etc... They are separate persons but one in being and essence. They are one God. Sounds difficult to comprehend but that alone does not rule it out-- just not understanding the HOW doesn't make it wrong. The belief come from taking what the bible says about Yahweh all together.
In the Polycarp and Justin Martyr quotes the point was not entirely the trinity but that they believed that Jesus is eternal (contrary to JWs) and that the Holy Spirit is a person/spirit -- more than an active force. These help further establish the ground work in the trinity.
What do you guys think? Do you not think that if the earliest Christians wrote and believed such things it makes it more likely to be true?
Adonai,
The Holy Spirit is a spirit. A spirit is not a being, but a force, negative or positive. This one is God's Spirit. The NT uses a different kind of wording than the OT. The OT clearly shows that it's God's Spirit. It can fill people etc. My sect/denomination (the Christadelphians) view unlike most other in the world, the OT as just as important and true as the NT.
The NT also seem to backup that Satan and his demons (the illnesses in the Gospels, compare to Isa 53) exists as beings while the OT doesn't back that up (nor do orthodox Jews believe that), let alone the nature of sin and God counting men accountable for sin.
But of cause the Holy Spirit carry out God's will and therefore it's 'him'. It's not a matter of quoting NT verses, it's a matter of common sense and interpretation that keep track with the whole Word. That's why the apostolic letters never list the trinity in their thanks to the deity.
God Bless
Btw, I look forward to some good email correspondance.
Hi rev
Christians too believe that the OT is just as important as the NT. The OT is very interesting in these matters too. Note also that the Holy Spirit's role in the OT is different than his role in the NT so we do not ignore either OT or NT in the discussion of who he is. A spirit i.e. the Holy Spirit can be (and is ;) ) an actual being-- is this not what basiclly everyone believes the Father is? A spirit?
Satan and his demons are real entities as well. And Satan is certainly refered to in the OT and even spoken to directly. I can site places like Genesis, Isaiah, Zecharaiah, etc... on satan but have the distinct impression that you believe those are only personifications and not literal stories. I urge anyone reading the Bible to take all it's passages literally unless the passage says otherwise-- as it does in many places explain when it is figurtive or symbolic. We may be getting caught up in trying to express it with words like being, person, spirit etc... but the Holy Spirit is 'alive' and well and real.
You know, I think I'm going to go work on that email now instead of jabber on here Bye for now!
