Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    @ aqwsed12345,

    With the exception of the Roman Catholic Church doctrine on the "real presense" - All excellent references. What you have provided are several examples of testimony from "hostile witnesses" - considered excellent proof in a court of law.

    This further complicates the job of Unitarians:

    1. First, they have to change or cast doubt on verses that state that Jesus is God

    2. Then, they have to change or cast doubt on all the dozens of references from the early church leaders that show their belief that Jesus was God.
    3. Then, they have to change or cast doubt on all the testimonies from hostile withess sources, like the ones you provided.

    We all have the same evidence; but for an unsaved Unitarian it simply provides evidence that those (imaginary) false scribes and redactors are everywhere!

    False scribes and redactors are the rescue device that Unitarians invent to protect their assumptive presupposition at all cost.

  • cofty
    cofty

    How refreshing to see some thoughtful exchange of ideas on the forum.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Sea Breeze

    JWs basically claim that the current belief of the Watchtower (Why exactly the current one? Maybe any kind of "new light" will be announced tomorrow...) is the same as the belief of the early apostolic church ("congregation"), then it is perfectly appropriate to look at extrabiblical sources, whether they suggest this at all. Well, the answer is absolutely not.

    Of course, they can push aside all the church fathers, that they were all "apostates", but then were their "non-apostate" (e.g. JW) church fathers, who are testifying about the alleged Watchtowerite beliefs of the primitive church? Or do you think that this wicked "apostate" church is such a perfect falsifier of history that it was able to completely disappear all traces of the alleged anciente JW-like Christianity together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts? That just sounds like a silly conspiracy theory.

    It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera' ("ivy"), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading it aloud, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate finally replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the theologically fundamental changes in the Bible about the identity of God would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?

    There is no mention in any of the writings of the early Fathers of a great apostasy of the whole Church or any sort of battle for the faith on such a scale. They mention individual heretics and certain heretical movements which began years after the ascension of Christ and the day of Pentecost which grew and spread, but there is no mention of any sort of total apostasy. If it is assumed that the Church Fathers were part of the apostasy then it is likely that the Church Fathers would have mentioned their newly developed doctrine as a contrast in condemnation of the Christians who still stubbornly remained faithful to the older apostolic teachings! But there is no sign in the writings of the Church Fathers of such a controversy, nor are there any other writings which support the notion of a mass apostasy from the true faith. History is totally silent. History mentions other great splits and schisms within the Church (such as the Ebionites, Arianism, the Great Schism between the Orthodox and the Catholics in 1054, and the Protestant Reformation which began in 1517) but about this massive schism there is total silence.

    of course, the early Christians did not have an exact crystallized theology or dogmatic textbook, but if we look at the earliest extra-biblical sources, the facts are that the early Christians

    - Jesus was recognized as a real God, not as Michael the Archangel

    - they did not calculate the end of the "time of the Gentiles" (just like the apostles), although I don't think they would have heard of the book of Daniel

    - not a single one mentions any kind of two-class doctrine of salvation

    ... and I could list more and more facts, the bottom line is that the distinctive teachings of the WTS simply have no trace in early Christian literature.

    So if you were saying that the first century Christians professed today's JW theology, then this is only possible if the so-called "apostate" Christians managed to commit the perfect crime and wipe out the "original" Christians without a trace and take over their place. And that sounds exactly like a silly conspiracy theory.

    Where does the Bible talk about the 1,800-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the 'ekklesia', the second foundation? How often do your doctrines change?It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1,800 years...

    https://www.oodegr.com/english/ekklisia/apostasia2.htm

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Blotty

    "its stated Jesus stopped being "human" after his death"

    Where is it stated? And who is the man mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:5 and Acts 17:31?

  • Vidqun
    Vidqun
    "Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit." (1 Pet. 3:18 NET)

    Spirit beings have the ability to take on a human form (cf. Gen. 19:1; 28:1). This ability was taken away from the disobedient angels (Gen. 6:2; cf. 2 Pet. 2:4). So, your "man" is Jesus Christ. He can take on a human form at any time. And he can also be referred to as a "man" or "son of man" because he did spend time on earth as a man. In addition, blood and flesh cannot inherit the kingdom (1Cor 15:44, 50).

  • PetrW
    PetrW

    @aqwsed12345

    I understand the text in Rev 1:11, where κυριος ο θεος, is designated παντοκρατωρ, as supplementary to the preceding Rev 1:4, where two distinct beings are evidently involved.

    But that does not preclude Jesus from taking upon himself some attributes of the Father's deity, only to the extent that he identifies himself as "the beginning of the Father's creation" (Rev 3:14) ...yes, I'm being provocative with the αρχη της κτισεως του θεου, but I just couldn't get it. Rev 3:14 has been, since the Renaissance non-Trinitarians, one of the most popular texts against the Trinity, despite attempts to challenge the meaning of αρχη in Rev 3:14, so you can understand that I had to as well...✌️😁

    More seriously: regarding Rev 22:13,16 I think we agree again.

    For me personally, one thing is true: I consider the Trinity to be an (interesting) theological construct, but I don't need it for my faith.

    I know there are billions of Christians who do, have, or will profess it, but, I am not one of them.

    I address the uselessness of this theological construct not only by the Bible, but also by a simpler method - Ockham's Razor. For me, the Trinity is about "not necessary mutilation of entities". For me, it is preferable to add nothing to the text of the Bible but not subtract anything.

    Yahweh God created His Son at some time, unknown when, before the creation of everything else, as the first "work of His hands", therefore He is God. And "through him", everything else was created. The Son became flesh, was killed, was resurrected in the flesh, but became spirit (cf. 1 Peter 3:18), and in this spirit body he now dwells. He has been seated on the throne of God, awaiting the time God determines to break the seals...

    So, to me, as I understand the Bible, Jesus was the perfect "embodiment" (both before and after His life on earth) of His Father, Almighty God. If the Son is the perfect image of God, then I will not - after all, who am I😎😁 - deny Christ from speaking of Himself as the Alpha and Omega. But that doesn't cover the fact that Jesus is παντοκρατωρ.

    In Revelation, παντοκρατωρ is always inextricably linked to God (see the concordance to the Greek NT), and Revelation actually ends there: Rev 21:22 is Almighty God together with Christ, the new temple. Two distinct beings, forming a new, symbolic temple.

    To put it another way: if I were to accept the dogma of the Trinity, it would mean unresolvable consequences for me - it's not just the dogma itself (I could somehow handle that), but the consequences of the dogma, especially the conflict with the death of the Triune God, i.e. the Son of God, the Father of God, and the Spirit of God, who are not three Gods but one God, would mean that I would have to declare the Holy Spirit dead, for example. And dead altogether, because the apparent death, or even the frequent death of God, is a grave heresy...

    The Catholic confessors have it easier in that the dogma of the Trinity is defined for them by the Magisterium of the Church as, among other things, an absolute mystery which, even after frequent revelation, cannot be rationally grasped. Therefore, the consequences of the dogma of the Trinity are not so exacerbated for them...

    But I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to believe in the Trinity... Important to conclude: at the same time, I don't think that belief in the Trinity is a ticket to hell, or vice versa, those who don't believe in it are assured of Paradise...

    But the question of salvation, churches and doctrine is another topic.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @Vidqun

    So if "the man Jesus" is the mediator between the faithful and God (e.g. in prayers), does Archangel Michael have to take on a human form for every prayer? What about Hebrews 2:5?

    John 2:19-22 clearly means the resurrection of Jesus' body to life, not his re-creation as a spirit. And if he rose with his body, he also ascended with it. And this does not merely proves that His real body will be resurrected, but also that also He will do it as well. How else could he say a parable about rebuilding (which cannot be a pasive role) the temple himself?

    “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

    (repeat this sentence, until it gets into your mind)

    1 Peter 3:18 - "but made alive in the Spirit." - This does not mean that he became an angel (spirit), but that he was resurrected by the (Holy) Spirit. The preposition "in" is often understood in the sense of "by" (cf. "all things were created in him", Col 1:16) He was raised "in the Spirit", but not "as a spirit." In Romans 8:9 all the believers in Rome are said to be "in the Spirit." Were they spirit creatures? The expression "in the Spirit" simply means "in the power of the [Holy] Spirit." First Peter 3:18 demonstrates that the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead and quickened him.

    "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15:50).

    In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, I uploaded a text here for you, please feel free read it: https://justpaste.it/avwxj

    The expression "flesh and blood" occurs only five times in the New Testament. We must derive our definition of its meaning from these occurrences. Webster's Dictionary is of no use here. Examine the following references and see if the writers are not just as often speaking of "flesh and blood" as being "fallen man" as they are of the physical body. You might try substituting the words "fallen man" in the place of "flesh and blood."

    Matthew 16:13-17, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father who is in heaven." Is this speaking of the physical flesh, or corrupt, sinful man not revealing Christ's identity to Peter?

    Galatians 1:16, "Straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood...." Obviously Paul was not referring to the physical flesh but rather to corrupt and sinful man.

    Ephesians 6:12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...." A case can be made either way in the interpretation of this text. For instance, because Christians do not physically wrestle with their opposition Paul may not be referring to the physical body, but rather we wrestle against sinful corruption of man and the spiritual forces of evil influencing him.

    Hebrews 2:14, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same...." Here the text does refer to the physical flesh because Jesus did not take on Himself a sinful nature.

    I Corinthians 15:50, "...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." Paul is answering the question of what kind of "body" believers will have in the resurrection (vs. 35). It will be a "spiritual body" (vs. 44). A "spiritual body" must be defined by the ONLY example we have of one, the body of Jesus.

    Also read THIS and THIS.

    Genesis 6:2 - here the "sons of God" are not angels, but pious people, men of the tribe of Seth, the Setites, and by "daughters of men" we must mean the daughters of the tribe of Cain. Angels cannot concieve children, as some superstitions believed in the Middle Ages, since they are pure spirits. If, therefore, the angels appear in visible form (angelophaniae) according to the presentation of the Scriptures, this body of theirs is only apparent.

  • PetrW
    PetrW

    @aqwsed 12345 (1. Peter 3,18-20)

    (My comment below on 1 Peter 3:18-20 was written recently, a few months ago, in a debate with Adventists for whom it is important that Jesus was not raised in the Spirit. I didn't understand exactly why this was so important to them, I don't know their theology, but all I understood was that according to them - their interpretation of 1 Peter 3:18-19 - Jesus was supposed to have preached in the time before the flood... I don't want to rewrite Jesus' history, whether he really preached before the flood or not ✌️😁, but my goal was more modest: if a simple reading of the text, almost by itself, can make sense of it...)

    ***

    According to 1. Peter 3:18-20, Jesus is said to have died in the flesh (σαρξ), that is, in that in which he was as a man (John 1:14), thus Peter clearly emphasizes Jesus' "humanity".

    He was σαρξ ("flesh and bone"), which is constitutive of σωμα, which can also be spiritual, in terms of biblical anthropology. Peter's description is thus the ultimate statement concerning the death of a material man - which in turn is fundamental to the further claim that he was resurrected. Peter says that he was made alive (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22) in the spirit, and in this (spiritual body) he went to preach to the spirits in prison.

    The events are linked together and therefore the preaching in prison must have occurred after the resurrection.

    What is "prison" for the spirits? According to Rev. 20:3 and 20:7, "prison" is a figurative place: αβυσσος - (see Luke 8:31 and the plea of the legion of demons).

    According to Rev. 9:1, the key of the abyss is obtained by an angel (perhaps already the one of Rev. 8:10-11), who is then mentioned with a name, as King Abaddon (Rev. 9:11), and releases the apocalyptic locusts from there. Since then, the abyssos is open. After the fall of Satan to the earth, the seven-headed beast also comes out of it (Rev. 11:7).Only in Rev. 20:3 does the abyssos come under the power of Jesus again, and Satan is imprisoned there.

    Simply put: Jesus would be resurrected into a spirit body, at some point - time undetermined - but no later than the writing of 1 Peter 3:18, He would go into the abyss/prison for spirits, and preach there. We do not know the outcome. But since it is clear from Revelation that the abyssos will not be empty, it is clear that some spirits did not respond to Jesus...

    ***

    1 Peter 3:19: "in which...to those spirits...he preached" refers to Jesus' post-resurrection state (πνευματι), i.e., in a spiritual body.

    This is confirmed both by the foundational literature (e.g. Rienecker) and also if you look at the conjunction (εν ω = in which). It is used e.g. by the Septuagint in Num 35:17 (the stone from the hand "in which" someone was killed) or in Gen 7:5 (all flesh "in which" is the spirit of life).

    The NT uses the phrase in the sense of evidence of something abstract in someone (Nathanael, a true Israelite "in whom" there is no guile; John 1:47) or a physical place where someone is (Jesus remains two days in the place "in which" he was; John 11:6; also temporally: at that time (Acts 10:12)).

    Theologically significant, for example, is the statement: there is no (other) name under heaven given among men "in which" we (at all) can be saved (Acts 4:12).

    The εν ω conjunction in 1 Peter 3:19 occurs directly in this form in 1 Peter, apart from 3:19, also in 1:16; 2:12; 3:16, and 4:4.

    The grammatical interpretation seems to be that in πνευματι (in the spirit) Jesus preached as confirmed, and since Peter places it as a resurrection event, so that it can be inferred with a high degree of probability, according to the grammar, that it occurred after Jesus' resurrection and before the writing of 1 Peter 3:18-19.

    Also, theologically, there is nothing to prevent Jesus, after His resurrection, from going into the abyss to preach to the spirits who were imprisoned there. The place (abyssos) exists, Jesus as a spirit, may among spirits, justice and second chances for sinners, all part of God's - I would say - plan to save - if possible - all repentant sinners, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, nationality, citizenship, social origin, age, religion...✌️😁

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    @PetrW

    By the way, it is not Sheol / Hades that is fiery, but Gehenna is. The King James Version caused lasting confusion by translating both Greek words hades and gehenna as “hell.” This is often reflected in older liturgical texts which say that "Christ descended into hell." So Jesus was in Hades, every Christian who knows the Apostles' Creed knows it. While Jesus was dead, the human soul descended into "Hades", within that to Abraham's bosom, also known as “paradise”, also known as "limbus patrum". Acts 2:27 specifically says that Jesus' soul (psyche) went to Hades. Acts 2:27 says Jesus' soul _WAS_ in Hades, and Eph 4:9 says that He descended to it. You only have to read these two verses together and you will get what the Apostles' Creed contains.

    Since the two verses report on the SAME event (what happened to Jesus between his bodily death and his resurrection, and this is what 1 Peter 3:18-19 and 4:6 also talks about), it is therefore simply necessary to read these parts TOGETHER.

    According to this, when Jesus died, while the disciples put his body ('soma') into the tomb ('mnemeion'), but his soul ('psyche') descended to the underworld ('hades'), and within that to the "part" of it, which was called on the one hand "paradise" ('paradeisos', Lk 23:43), on the other hand "Abraham's bosom", and in Latin theological language it was called 'limbus patrum'. And here he proclaimed the gospel to the spirits of the DEAD in "prison" (that is, in sheol) and set them free, that is, as Ephesians 4:8 says "when he ascended, he took many captives" (with him to the heaven), he therefore took the righteous of the Old Testament times to heaven, only then did the closed gates of heaven open.

    1Peter 3:19 - here it is clearly not about (fallen) angels, since 4:6 clearly calls them deads, and the Scriptures always only call people dead. Besides, why would Jesus have preached the GOSPEL to the fallen angels in 'hades'? Furthermore, according to Ephesians 4:8, Jesus took these imprisoned spirits into heaven with him.

    In 1 Peter 3:13-22, Apostle Peter offers consolation in persecution, and to strengthen them in the sufferings of persecution, he points to Christ, who was killed in his body for our sins, but his soul was revived or enjoyed the beatific vision of God due to his personal unity with divinity. At the moment of his death, his sacred soul descended to the souls in prison, or the porch of hell, where there were also the souls of those who did not believe in Noah's call to repentance while the ark was being built, but in the face of impending danger they turned to God. He preached redemption to all of them, which was completed with his death.

    The meaning of verses 19-20 is this: After the death of his body, the soul of Jesus descended to the underworld, not only to the holy patriarchs but also to the unbelievers who, while the ark was being built, did not believe God's threats, but when punishment came upon them, they found salvation in faith and repentance. Christ proclaimed to these righteous forefathers, and to these once unbelievers but later converts, that he had completed the redemption and opened the gates of heaven. Before Christ died, all the souls of the dead, both the good and the bad, went to the underworld. But this was separated in itself (Luke 16:26) so that the righteous went to a place where they awaited the Redeemer, while the wicked were pushed to the place of eternal torment. This is properly called hell, while the former is called the limbo of hell, which also existed in the underworld, but at the same time was a purgatory for the heaven. The underworld (Genesis 4:16,30,33), where all the dead gathered (Job 30:23) before Christ had completed his great work, was indeed a place of prayer for the wicked (Job 26:5.), but for the righteous too, as the limbo of hell, it was not a place of joy, but of silent sorrow (Psalm 30:10. 87:13. Isaiah 38:18. Ecclesiastes 9:10), and in this respect it was not that place where God is exalted and praised, as on earth. Only through Christ did death cease to be sad, because he opened heaven, the place where God is exalted and praised. When the Apostolic Creed says: "descended into hell," this does not mean the actual hell, the place of punishment for the damned, but the underworld, into which Christ descended insofar as he appeared in its part, in the limbo of hell. Apostle Peter calls the limbo a prison because souls were kept there until the coming of Christ. That's why it talks elsewhere (Acts 2:24-25) about the chains of Hades. Under the unbelievers, some understand those who died in unbelief and wickedness, to whom Christ proclaimed repentance to convert them, or at least some of them. According to others, these were irretrievably damned, whose condemnation Christ confirmed. This latter opinion is unlikely, because confirmation of damnation is not preaching, especially not the gospel (good news), as Christ's teaching here is called in 4:6.

    The first opinion cannot be accepted because there is no salvation for those who die in unbelief, i.e., outside the grace of God. However, the Church Fathers and older Bible interpreters, correctly understanding the words of the text and comparing them with the teaching of Scripture in this regard, found a suitable solution. Since, on the one hand, the text only speaks of such unbelievers who were unbelievers at the time when the ark was being built, and it does not exclude that these unbelievers could still repent before their death; on the other hand, because the clear teaching of Scripture stands that the one who dies in unbelief can do nothing more for his salvation, - so we must understand such unbelievers who did not persist in unbelief and sin, like the monstrous rebels at the time of the flood (Job 26:4), but who by repentance and contrition did not physically, but at least spiritually saved their lives. Furthermore, the text says: Christ preached also to those who were once unbelievers, so he preached not only to these unbelievers but also to others, i.e., to all the ancient righteous and saints; because the word "also" cannot refer to people living on earth, because it is not Christ who taught on earth, but Christ who preached in the limbo. The fact that Peter does not mention these righteous here, but only mentions these unbelievers, is particularly explained by the opinion generally held among the Jews at the time, that those who perished in the flood were completely rejected by God, and could not even appear in public life. The baselessness of this opinion could not be better illustrated by Peter than by bringing up from those unfortunate ones who Christ proclaimed the redemption. These are in the best agreement with the context. Since it is said of Christ that he died a violent death bodily for the sins of others, but preserved his spiritual life: so it is quite appropriate to talk about those who died violently bodily for their own sins, but saved their lives spiritually. In addition, they serve as special examples for the peaceful endurance of life's sufferings, to which Peter advises above.

  • Blotty
    Blotty

    "For example, Isaiah 9:6 also calls Jesus Father. In this sense, "Father" is not necessarily a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God."

    - Isaiah 9:6 should not be taken as meaning something to do with "God" its a messianic prophecy, the messiah was never thought to be God himself, that hadn't even crossed Isaiah's mind

    That's a trinitarian interpretation of the text written - They mean Father is a synonym for God the Father (i.e John 1:1 B - by "God" John means God the Father as evidenced later)

    an NET footnote states:
    This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”)... in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit