Just wanted to get your input on these thoughts before I shared it with any JW's. 1. How do you view Jesus? Who and what was/is he? 2. Do you consider him to be THE perfect man? 3. Perfect means to be without fault. 4. What is worship and how do you worship Jehovah? 5. Would it be wrong to worship someone other than Jehovah? 6. Jesus accepted the worship of his followers. He did not tell them it was wrong as he did with other behaviors he thought were against God. Therefore, because he is perfect and without fault, logical people would have to conclude that he is either holy or he is not perfect. You can't have it both ways.
Jesus Perfect Man
by praiseband 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
moggy lover
From the earliest periods of Christian history, theologians have pondered the meaning of Jesus' life. There are adequate texts in the NT to portray Him as sinless, hence perfect. There are however another class of Scripture which ascribe the nature of God to him as well. Merging this dichotomy between the human and divine absorbed much of the time and consideration of early Christians.
In this respect, we must needs place in perspective a fundamental flaw that is endemic to WT "reasoning" on this question. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, after two millennia of history, because it fails to see a fully developed doctrinal statement along 21st century lines on the subject of Christology, the WTS concludes that first cent Christians had no perception of the complexity of Christ's nature.
The WTS fails to see the significance of history and how an idea germinates, first in embryonic form before it is given full expression through debate and counsel. A fully developed understanding of Christology [The study of the nature of Christ] did not explode on the 1st C Christian Church, complete with doctrinal formulations locked into a total theological package.
Working with the statements found in the NT, and drawing conclusions from these statements , the early Christian came to cautious conclusions only through gradual increments. They accepted certain foundational truths and progressed from there along clearly defined and delineated theological lines. All along the way, they never lost sight of the basic concept of monotheism, yet they were becoming increasingly aware that the NT expression of God was more complex than they were aware of. Having first absorbed this idea, they then formulated, through measured progression, a vocabulary to accomodate this understanding.
A great deal of work, and much thought was poured out into the structured formulization of the doctrine of Christology. Also, unlike the tightly controlled and dictatorial system that is the WT structure, the early Christians were a community of free peoples. As a consequence, they thrived on debate, and were, or at least became, skilled practioners in the art of polemics.
Debate and discussion was no proof of disunity, as the WTS in its paranoia forces its followers to believe, rather it was a symptom of a living and flourishing association of believers. We today in hindsight, benefit from this.
For instance, the early Christians evolved the notion of the "Hypostatic union" which provided an explanation for the dichotomous relationship between the divine and human natures of Christ. Paul, at 1Tim 3:16, reveals that the union of these natures in the Person of Christ is a "mystery" [meaning that it can be understood only through revelation, not that it cannot be understood] Though above reason and inexplicable, it is yet not incredible.
The bond that unites the nature of God and the nature of the human in Jesus Christ, is not merely physical, as between mother and the unborn infant, or merely moral, as between parties to an agreement, or even fraternal as between brothers, or federal, as parties in a covenant, but it is wholly personal, a union of the inherent nature of God that was Christs because of His Being, and the acquired nature of the human as a result of the incarnation.
It is because of this that early Christians, and through extension, we, today, understand why Christ permitted worship to be effected to His Person, both from human beings as well as angelic beings.The problem that we have when engaged in a dialogue with followers of the WT movement, is their inability to grasp these features of Christology. Insisting on seeing the Deity in uni-dimensional terms as if God were made in our image, they prefer to ascribe only one nature, the human to the Jesus of the NT. They then press the scriptures depicting the Deity of Christ into a preconceived mould that in effect, empties those texts of any meaning.
Cheers
-
Star Moore
Hey there:
Well, my take on Jesus is:
1. Then and now... I think Jesus was and is a man in the fallen flesh..like us. But never intentionally sinned. Otherwise how could he be tested like we ourselves.. and he would have stood out as very unusual, if he was perfect..
2. I do think God allows us to have a certain amount of worship of reverence to him.. But our main worship should go to God..as he gave Jesus everything he has.
-
greendawn
Jesus is the immediate head of the Christian church and His Father is the indirect head. The apostles called him Lord something that the JWs never do, in fact they de emphasised him to the point that everything revolves about jehovah, when does one hear a dub say Jesus is my Lord, he is the Lord of our church?
In fact they don't even use the word church, they are the organisation of jehovah.
By concession of the Father Jesus can be worshipped as a God but he is still not on the same level as the Father. God subjected everything to him and later he will subject himself to God. -
anewme
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Where I am at today, these words are not an invitation to freedom, but another invitation to slavery.
Sorry Jesus, I dont want to be anyone's follower anymore. Not even yours. I want to have what you had....inner peace and wisdom and the knowledge that I too am a much loved child of God.
Anewme -
Terry
The early critics of Christianity (such as Celsus) gave us an idea of the other side of the coin concerning who/what Jesus was.
Jesus was a Tekton (Greek). Rough equivalent of today's Construction Worker. His father was a carpenter. As a local yokel, it was difficult for neighbors to view him as divine.
Many scribal additions/omissions sought to prop up the doctrinal assertion that Jesus was Divine.
Earliest manuscripts which are considered as close to pristine as feasible describe Jesus as angry and sullen.
The essential problem faced by Christian apologists was in portraying Jesus as somebody to be listened to with the Authority to command doctrine.
This problem was remedied gradually by text-changing, councils, proclamations and orthodoxy.
The portrait of Jesus in scripture began a slow metamorphasis.
The CHURCH needed an emblematic icon equal to God himself so that they could authentically represent their own power as having a source of inestimable greatness.
PAUL , the self-proclaimed apostle, was anti-intellectual and anti-rational minded. He sought to detach learning, knowledge, wisdom and logic from his source authority. The latter-day apologists resorted to a semi-logical argument when all else failed. It was because Paul's proof was lacking that he sought to disable the very need of a logical proof.
Later church fathers turned to Greek Philosophy with its much-respected use of logic to present their case against critics who were tearing them to shreds with various reasonable arguments as to why Jesus could not have been Divine.
A peculiar mixture of a "reasoned-approach" and invoking mysterious spiritual authority pervades the work of Aquinas and Augustine.
The present day portrait of Jesus has little to do with whatever historic figure the person of Jesus originally might have been.
Think of it this way. Imagine the original person of Jesus as a painting on canvas. As time passes various artists add little touches here and there to make the portrait conform to one of their own preference and liking. Layer after layer is added, altered and omitted as suits the predilection of each passing hand. Thousands of years and thousands of changes continue to make the "improved" Jesus more suitable to whatever agenda is current.
Two thousand years pass and you and I look at this "portrait of Jesus" and see WHAT WE ARE LED TO BELIEVE is the true person.
Is it?
It cannot be known.
All we know for sure is this. Whatever group we belong to presents its own version to conform to its own agenda.
A "perfect" man? This can have no meaning considering what materials we have to work with.
-
heathen
I think jesus was the messiah according to the old and new testament . He showed his faithfulness to God under severe trial and was deemed the ransom sacrifice for all of mankind . It was the sin of adam that brought man the imperfect condition we live in but jesus death countered any original sin . It is only by excericising faith in him that people are saved , I think that's a form of worship . I almost agree with what the WTBTS says about the 144k but they forget that the bible is saying they are martyrs , there are people that are chosen to rule with christ for the millenial reign but they have to prove worthy thru severe test as well . I don't believe the once saved always saved assumption that most religions claim . Jesus is not just a childrens story ............
-
praiseband
Thanks for all your input. I enjoy reading the intelligent debates on this website. My reason for using this train of thought was that I have briefly skimmed through the WT book (not 100% certain on the title) Jesus, The Perfect Man. All WT literature takes such a patronizing, simpleton tone of what logical thinking conclusions would be that I was trying to use a pattern of thought that would be familiar to those who choose to witness to me from the JW point of view. Most people, of any belief system, are just common folk who are not as intensely educated or thoughtful as this web crowd seems to be. I needed to know if my chain of logic fit with the same type of logic they would understand. Not necessarily (probably not) accept, but at least the same form. Thanks again!
-
heathen
I needed to know if my chain of logic fit with the same type of logic they would understand.
absolutely not . The WTBTS forbid the thinking for yourself on bible matters . It's their way or you are crussified (which also means to be treated badly) . They even say stuff in their literature like you should be so glad we did all your thinking for you , there is no need for you to do the research we even site sources ( however abscure those are) . They couldn't think their way around a mouse trap ......
-
Narkissos
praiseband,
One thing you might wish to take into account is that the notion of "human perfection" which the WTS applies to Adam, Eve and Jesus, is wholly unscriptural, as well as the corollary notion of "imperfection" applied to the rest of mankind. Nowhere in the Bible (at least in any translation I know) is Adam, Eve or Jesus described as "perfect" from creation/birth (there is the idea of Jesus being made perfect through suffering and death in Hebrews, but it is obviously something entirely different), nor anybody else described as "imperfect".
"Sin" and "sinlessness" is another matter. Those words come from the priestly vocabulary and in their first meaning is close to the concepts of ceremonial uncleanness/cleanness. In prophetic context they are secondarily loaded with a moral sense.
Since Augustine Christians take the notion of original/universal sin for granted. Paul paved the way for Augustine, but apart from that the idea that "every human is a sinner" is exceptional (1 Kings 8:46; Ecclesiastes 7:20). In most cases there is a clear distinction between the "sinners" (aka "wicked") and the "righteous": the latter are not "sinners". The closest match to "morally perfect" in the OT is the Hebrew tam (blameless, faultless) and applies to Job, for instance (which the WT, just like Job's friends, would not recognise as "sinless"). Some NT texts ascribe "sinlessness" to Jesus but one has to wonder what is really meant -- e.g., by which definition of "sin" is Jesus found "sinless". Jesus in the synoptic Gospels doesn't seem to claim "sinlessness" (cf. Mark 10:18//). To Paul the Son of God was sent "in the likelessness of sinful flesh," but it is quite a stretch to conclude, as orthodoxy generally does, that he was really flesh (= human, against docetism) yet sinless. John may suggest sinlessness (8:46), but at the same time insists that Jesus freely transgresses the Jewish Law (his "sinlessness" is not to be assessed by common standards). Hebrews 4:15, on the other hand, affirms Jesus' "sinlessness" under trial -- but to the author this is not equivalent to inherent perfection as I pointed out above (perfection is acquired in 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). As to your other premise, that Jesus "accepted worship," I think it is moot inasmuch as it rests on the translation of proskuneô in the NT. On this issue I think the WT is mostly right (proskuneô doesn't necessarily mean "worship," as its use in the Greek OT shows), in spite of the tendencious inconsistency of the NWT (which translates "worship" when the object is "God," and "pay obeisance to" if the object is Jesus).