Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Sea Breeze

  
  
• 

  PetrW

  @aqwsed12345

  Interesting explanation. However, it seems too complicated to me, and especially in the part of salvation where Christ has to go specifically to preach to still dead people(!) from the past...if I connect your view to the death of Lazarus, for example, then it would be easier to have him preach to him in sheol than to have him crucify the dead...

  I find that very complicated.

  The simpler explanation offered by the text of the Bible, and the grammar that supports it, is that Christ, after dying and being in sheol, was resurrected in the flesh. His body was not found, but he, as a spirit, was given the opportunity (again) to take the material body he had after his death - see the case of Thomas who put his fingers into Jesus... in this spiritual (body) as 1 Peter 3:19 says he then preached to the spirits in prison.
  

  It was fundamental to the early Christians that Jesus died in the flesh and in an absolutely identical body, was resurrected. Paul clearly translates this idea even to the philosophers of his day in Athens. But Jesus was not a fleshly being - he was the firstborn from the dead in a sense that JWs misunderstood - the firstborn in a spiritual body. That is exactly the kind of body, let's say "second" body, that those who participate in the first resurrection will receive. As Jesus says: they will be like the angels who do not marry or give in marriage...

  The question remains, why did he do all this? Jesus' sacrifice is so great that he didn't need to preach to dead people in sheol. They too will be resurrected. Jesus - went to preach to ghosts in prison - repeat: in prison. That is, it was/is the "living" spirits who thus got a "second" chance at their salvation. Only the living, can respond to the living. The dead do nothing...

  Clearly stated:

  1. angels are spirits => 1 Peter 3:18 and 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 identify "spirits" as "angels" before the flood, awaiting judgment
  

  2. the angels who are to be judged are part of the world (κοσμος), and this world, where the angels belong, will be judged by the saints along with Christ according to 1. Cor 6:2
  

  3. Jesus gave his life not only for the good ones, but for the whole world (κοσμος) 1 John 2:2
  

  Conclusion: the sacrifice of Jesus for the whole world, refers to the angels = demons from before the flood, and others, according to Luke 8:31, who are imprisoned in "prison" (abyssos), where in a spiritual body, after His death, and resurrection, Jesus went to preach.
  

  ***
  

  To also respond to the topic of the sheol/hades, then I assume you know the literature or have access to it. I don't think we need to address that.

  However, I have recently been intrigued by the topic of the sheol/hades because of the image in Revelation where the last horseman is said sheol to follow death. However, the so called "second death", has no Hades, even Hades is thrown symbolically into the second death.
  

  I've been wondering, especially in light of the first occurrences of the word sheol in the OT (Gen 37:35 and 44:29-31), where did this idea come from in Jacob? That Jacob "studied" Egyptian ideas about the afterlife is less likely when Josephus reports that the Egyptians avoided contact with the Hebrews... Nor does Jacob himself come across as some ancient sage: he had 4 women on his hands and a bunch of kids with them, who were not exactly the elite of the youth of the day... this is certainly not the climate for academic contemplation✌️😁
  

  I believe that behind the idea of the sheol, is a pretty simple idea, and perhaps already inherited... based on the belief(!) that although man dies, if Almighty God was able to create man, and with him the whole world, there is no problem to bring the dead back to life, and even in the form they had before.
  

  The result of such considerations has resulted - in my opinion - in the form of an abstract concept of sheol, as a fictitious place where the individual in question waits (hopes) for revival, or his friends or friends are "carriers" of such an idea that the individual in question will return one day "from the eternal hunting grounds".
  

  The idea of sheol/hades was not in any way negative, but rather motivated, in my opinion, by the idea of the hope that the one in sheol will - if Yahweh wills - be resurrected.

  If I test this reasoning on another important text - Jesus' statement that the gates of sheol will not prevail against the church - then what Jesus meant, I think, was that even if sheol is filled with the church, sheol/hades will be emptied. Or, to put it another way, whoever is in sheol is only a temporary prisoner of death. Therefore, the sheol/hades has no power over the church. For Christ, according to Rev. 1:18, has "entry codes" from death and sheol...✌️😁
• 

  Vidqun

  Aqwsed, here's a few thoughts to contemplate. No man (human) can see God and survive (Ex. 33:20; Deut. 10:10; John 1:18; 6:46; 1 John 4:12).

  Sign of son of man (spirit is invisible), so a sign is needed: Matt. 24:30
  

  To confirm: “Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Cor. 15:45 ESV)
  

  "and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect," (Heb. 12:23 ESV)
  

  The argumentation of Paul in 1 Cor. 15:37ff. is quite clear. This is figurative language. E.g., "seed" and "body." And as discussed earlier, "son of man" is a self-designated title.

  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 prove 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 passive 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).

  This cannot be the same body that he died with. Jesus had to offer up his original body as sacrifice which he cannot take back (Hebr. 2:17; 9:26; 10:10).
  

  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.

  You are misreading what was said. You left out an important phrase: “in the flesh,” and “in the spirit.” You want it to read “in the flesh” but “by the spirit.” Why?

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

  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."

  
  

  Dictionary definition does not agree with your definition of "fallen man":

  
  

  The material that covers the bones of a human or animal body, flesh lit. 1 Cor 15:39abcd; Hv 3, 10, 4; 3, 12, 1. The pl. (which denotes flesh in the mass. For Mt 16:17; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; and 1 Cor 15:50.

  1. The physical body as functioning entity, body, physical body

  a. as substance and living entity

  b. as something with physical limitations, life here on earth

  c. as instrument of various actions or expressions.

  of human beings in contrast to lit. blood as basic component of an organism, blood

  a. of human beings in contrast to gods: (αἷμα καὶ σάρκας ἔχοντες

  of souls σαρκὶ καὶ αἵμ. βεβαπτισμέναι) Mt 16:17; 1 Cor 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12. See BDAG.

  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.

  See references to "Sons of God" in OT: Job 38:7; Ps. 86:6; cf. Job 1:6. These are angels with the ability to materialize as humans. Lots of Biblical examples of that.
• 

  aqwsed12345

  • Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' Resurrection and the Gospel of John 1.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus' Resurrection and the Gospel of John 2.
    

  In fact, Jesus' LIFE was the ransom sacrifice, which was fulfilled with his death, for which his earthly body did not have to be destroyed:
  

  "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46
  

  When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)
  

  The Greek word translated "It is finished" is 'tetelestai' (τετέλεσται). The verse has also been translated as "It is consummated." On business documents or receipts it has been used to denote "The debt is paid in full".

  Even in the apostolic letters, where the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is discussed, there is not a single mention of the fact that this would mean the destruction of Jesus' body and the cessation of being a human. So the sacrifice of Jesus is not the destruction and vaporization of his body, but the offering of his LIFE, which was fulfilled when he died on the cross. With JW logic, the ransom hasn't been finished on the cross, but only when God vaporized Jesus' body, although the Bible writes nothing about this, neither of its alleged necessity for the completion of the ransom.

  It was the blood of Jesus which was shed for our redemption. In the Old Testament sacrifices which typified Christ it was the blood which was carried into the Holy of Holies, not the body. Likewise it is Jesus' blood which paid the debt for our sins, (Hebrews 9:22).

  Would not the taking back of his life be equally disastrous according to this Watchtower logic? But Jesus said he had power to lay down his life and take it again, (John 10:17-18).

  Where is Jesus' body after the Ascension?

  1 Corinthians 15:45 - "a life-giving spirit" I just need the quote:
  

  Regarding this passage Apologists Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe explain: “’life-giving spirit’ does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the divine origin of the resurrection. Jesus’ physical body came back to life only by the power of God (cf. Rom. 1:4). So, Paul is speaking about its spiritual source, not its physical substance as a material body … In summation, the resurrection body is called ‘spiritual’ and ‘life-giving spirit’ because its source is the spiritual realm, not because its substance is immaterial. Christ’s supernatural resurrection body is ‘from heaven,’ as Adam’s natural body was ‘of the earth’ (v. 47). But just as the one from ‘earth’ also has an immaterial soul, even so the One from ‘heaven’ also has a material body.” (When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, pp 467-468 [Victor Books, 1992])

  The "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44) does not mean the spiritual form of the angels, but the transformed, glorified real body. Angels do not have such a "spiritual body", they are simply spirits.
  "Flesh and blood" is a way of expressing, not the ascension of the body in general, but the perishable, mortal, corruptible one, we all have before the glorified resurrection. The idea that the human body generally could not enter heaven is clearly contradicted by: Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1-13; 2Cor 12:2-4; 1Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5; Rev 11:11-12. "Flesh and blood" is a term for the corruptible body, but the transformed, incorruptible "spiritual body" enters to heaven.The JW explanation confuses the term "spiritual body" with angels and God being pure spirit who have no body whatsoever. Anyway, where does the Bible say that either God or the angels have a "spiritual BODY"? The transformed or resurrected body of the saved is a real physical body, but it is spiritual, it has already been transformed and glorified. The "spiritual body" is not the same as the spirit. Angels are nowhere said to have such a "spiritual body", that is for the resurrected-transformed righteous. Jesus always spoke about the resurrection and glorification of his body, and this glorified "spiritual body" could go to heaven.
  Check these:
  * https://shorturl.at/kyXY2
  * https://justpaste.it/b6haa
  * https://shorturl.at/rMRX1
  Jesus was raised in an imperishable and glorified body. This is what 1Cor 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc.
  Jesus said that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have", so he was not a spirit. He had a "spiritual body", which does not mean that he is a spirit. Precisely according to the apostle Paul, all those who do not deserve the second coming, but are among the righteous, will be resurrected with the same way, and the same kind of body as Jesus. The chosen resurrection of the 144k Jews will be the same as the rest.
  "He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself." (Philippians 3:21)

  "See references to "Sons of God" .." - At most, your references prove that "sons of God" can mean angels, but they do not prove that it also actually means angels in Genesis 6:2.
• 

  EasyPrompt

  aqwsed12345 said:

  
  

  "But some, placing the commas differently than they are commonly in the Greek text, say that a full stop must be put after 'flesh', and thus in the following words, there are the Jews' usual ancient Doxologies referring to God the Father, so this verse means..."

  That reminds me of a song that was popular when I was in school....it sounded like: "comma, comma, comma, comma chameleon..." 🎶🦎😆

  
  

  
  

  Sea Breeze said:

  
  

  "Polycarp...says...Ignatius...says...Justin Martyr..."

  
  

  So, chapter 9 of the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians is complete garbage. He says the resurrection already took place in his day, even though the Bible teaches that the resurrection of the anointed does not take place until after Christ takes the throne in heaven, which didn't happen in the day of Polycarp just like it didn't take place in 1914. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm)

  
  

  From chapter 9: "I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run Philippians 2:16; Galatians 2:2 in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead."

  
  

  Chapter 10 of Polycarp to the Philippians is also ridiculous. He quotes Tobit, which is the type of fable story Paul warned Timothy against listening to...

  
  

  "Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, 1 Peter 2:17 and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” Tobit 4:10, Tobit 12:9 Be all of you subject one to another 1 Peter 5:5 “having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,”1 Peter 2:12 that you may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed! Isaiah 52:5 Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct."

  
  

  Polycarp quotes Ignatius numerous times in his "letter". Ignatius' Epistle to the Ephesians has the same kind of nonsense as what the JW Governing Body teaches about that false FDS doctrine...

  
  

  Chapter 6 of the Epistle of Ignatius: "Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:45 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself."

  
  

  Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians chapter 2 says: "For whenever you are subject to the bishop as unto Jesus Christ, you appear to me to be living not the ordinary life of men, but after the manner of the life of Jesus Christ,[1] Who died for our sakes, that believing in His death you might escape death. It is necessary therefore that you should act, as indeed you do, in nothing without the bishop." Or chapter 7 "That is, he who acts in anything apart from the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons is not pure in conscience."

  
  

  Of chapter 7 of Ignatius to the Philadelphians: "For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop..."

  
  

  I will spare you the rest of Ignatius' nonsense, but if you are in the mood for a read that reminds you of a Watchtower article about obeying the Governing Body you can read it here...(https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm http://earlychristianwritings.com/srawley/trallians.html or just google Ignatius and read his epistles.)

  
  

  Don't even get me started on Justin Martyr. Seriously.

  
  

  From Chapter 5 of the First Apology of Justin Martyr - "And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that “he was introducing new divinities;” and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue."

  
  

  From Chapter 8 of the First Apology of Justin Martyr - "And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years."

  
  

  The "Apostolic Fathers" might be better called the "Apostate Fathers". A lot of what they teach is similar to the false doctrines the GB teaches. The so-called "apostolic fathers" cannot be relied on for anything of substance as regards clarification of the truth.

  
  

  Regardless of how you want to interpret Romans 9:5, the point of what Paul is saying can be found further down in the chapter...

  
  

  "It is as he says also in Ho·seʹa: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not loved, ‘beloved’; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Moreover, Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For Jehovah will make an accounting on the earth, concluding it and cutting it short.” Also, just as Isaiah foretold: “Unless Jehovah of armies had left an offspring to us, we should have become just like Sodʹom, and we should have resembled Go·morʹrah.” What are we to say, then? That people of the nations, although not pursuing righteousness, attained righteousness, the righteousness that results from faith; but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law. For what reason? Because they pursued it, not by faith, but as by works. They stumbled over the “stone of stumbling”; as it is written: “Look! I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, but the one who rests his faith on it will not be disappointed.”

  
  

  There are redeemable Christians to be found in all parts of the world. Having a label of "Christian" or "Jehovah's Witness" or "non-Jehovah's Witness" is not the important thing. There were faithful Christians in the first century who died before they knew that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. There are Christians today who don't know their right hand from their left.

  
  

  "For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God. But it is due to him that you are in union with Christ Jesus, who has become to us wisdom from God, also righteousness and sanctification and release by ransom, so that it may be just as it is written: “The one who boasts, let him boast in Jehovah.”"

  
  

  If someone doesn't have the exact correct idea about God, the ransom is still enough to purchase the life of that one. When Jesus comes, he will make all things clear. And it won't be whether or not we got every little prophecy right or every little grammatical interpretation right that matters. It will be our faith and our love.

  
  

  "Love never fails."

  
  

  Romans 9:14-18...

  
  

  "What are we to say, then? Is there injustice with God? Certainly not! For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whomever I will show mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I will show compassion.” So, then, it depends, not on a person’s desire or on his effort, but on God, who has mercy. For the scripture says to Pharʹaoh: “For this very reason I have let you remain: to show my power in connection with you and to have my name declared in all the earth.” So, then, he has mercy on whomever he wishes, but he lets whomever he wishes become obstinate."

  
  

  Jehovah has assigned Jesus to be the judge. Thank God.

  
  

  Romans 9:5 says: "God, who is over all, be praised forever. Amen."

  
  
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @EasyPrompt

  I didn't see any specific arguments in your post, only the criticism of the church fathers that it doesn't coincide with your professed interpretation of the Bible, so therefore they must be wrong in every instance then too:
  

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

  So you are a non-JW JW?

  The only question is, if all extra-biblical ancient sources were "apostate" (after all, none of them refer to any alleged JW-like primitive Christianity), then where did the ancient JW-like Christians go? Maybe the cat took them away?

  The literature of the ancient church is abundant and diverse, but it does not at all support the conspiracy theory propagated by the Watchtower Society, according to which the Christians of the first centuries believed in what they teach according to their current "light": the "use" of the name Jehovah, Jesus as Michael, the Holy Spirit as "active force," two-group salvation, endtime speculations, 1914, true worship disappearing for 1800 years, "house to house" "preaching", only yearly Eucharist without "partaking", etc ec..

  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... What about Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18? Where does the Bible talk about the 1,800-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the 'ekklesi'a, the second foundation?

  The JW denomination did not exist until the end of the 19th century, and its most distinctive doctrines did not develop until at least the 1930s. So if this is the true Christianity, and supposedly the apostles professed the current "lights" of the WTS, then true Christianity did not exist for 1900 years. What is the explanation for this 1,900 year break? Where was your church before Russell, or rather Rutherford?

  Everyone who has studied early Christian literature, with the exception of some fluctuations, is basically clear that practically all extra-biblical sources, even before the Constantinian shift, refer to exactly the theology, creeds and Christian self-consciousness that are exclusively reminiscent of Catholic/Orthodox Christianity. Those who opposed this early Christian mainline were smaller, heterodox factions (e.g. Gnostics), in which no Protestant or Protestant background (such as the JWs) today sees its predecessor. In the first three hundred years of Christianity, there was no break of such a nature that the contemporary Christian consciousness would have experienced as a substantial change.

  Relevant scriptures: Mt 16:18, Mt 23:2, Jn 14:16, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 2 Tim 2:13, 1 Tim 3:15.

  JWs and various Protestants usually invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his First Epistle to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, SOME will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’.. But this passage of 1 Timothy 4:1 doesn’t imply that the ENTIRE Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that “…SOME will apostatize from the Faith….”, not the entire Church

  The Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which SOME – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (1 Timothy 1:19); “which SOME, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (1 Timothy 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “SOME MEN will appear, who will teach the truth falsified”.

  The Bible says: “They WENT OUT from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their GOING showed that none of them belonged to us.” (1 John 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated.

  See: http://probe.org/scripture-and-tradition-in-the-early-church/

  The WTS uses the terms "apostate" and "nominal" for other Christians, and there is also a terminological difference that they use the term Christianity only for themselves, while they use the term Christendom for others.

  The terms "apostasy", "apostate" are known in Christian tradition and are also used in modern Catholic canon law. They apply to those who specifically left the Christian faith, i.e., converted to a completely different religion, such as Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc.

  Those who did not reject Christianity itself, but adhere to a belief that is officially condemned, contrary to the declared truth, are not referred to as apostates but as heretics.

  So, the word the Watchtower would want to think of when talking about the "great apostasy" would actually be heresy instead of apostasy, but they don't use this, let's consider why:

  1. Because due to the "black legend" anti-Catholic propaganda literature, films, etc., about the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, the public associates a negative connotation with this word, and if they were to use the term heresy frequently, they would appear dogmatic, while they actually want to appear flexible, researching, and seeking outwardly.

  2. Because they specifically consider only themselves to be Christians, everyone else is not only a branch of Christianity that they consider heretical, but actually qualifies as a different religion, just like Islam. However, this is a very harsh claim, as even the "wicked Inquisition" did not consider Christian movements that did not deny the Christian name but denied many Catholic teachings to be apostates.

  They regard Catholics as dogmatic, yet they consider anyone who has been validly baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be a Christian, and only those who explicitly renounce the Christian name despite being baptized are considered apostates.
• 

  EasyPrompt

  Hi aqwsed12345🙂

  
  

  "I didn't see any specific arguments in your post"
  

  
  

  Thank you for the compliment! I try not to come across as argumentative.😃

  
  

  "the criticism of the church fathers that it doesn't coincide with your professed interpretation of the Bible, so therefore they must be wrong in every instance then too"

  
  

  That's nice we agree on something! Yes, the so-called "church fathers" are wrong quite a bit. I wouldn't say in everything like you did, but they definitely cannot be relied upon as "beacons of light and truth" as regards shedding anything of value on the interpretation of the holy scriptures or even of a specific passage of scripture.

  
  

  "So you are a non-JW JW?"
  

  
  

  I don't believe in categorizing people according to manmade labels for the purpose of disregarding either their opinions on everything or their redeem-ability by means of the Christ. The Bible says...

  
  

  "...there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, foreigner, Scythʹi·an, slave, or freeman; but Christ is all things and in all..."

  
  

  ...and also...

  
  

  "...there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. However, not all have this knowledge."

  
  

  But for the sake of a baseline for conversation regarding your inquiry about my "history", I was an evolutionary atheist educated in anthropology and archaeology who became an omniest and then a Jehovah's Witness and I have been presently labelled by the Jehovah's Witness organization as a wicked disfellowshipped apostate deserving of death and mentally diseased, since I obey God as ruler rather than men (meaning I won't listen to the GB when they teach baloney and falsely claim their baloney is from the Bible or when they outright lie and I won't listen to the local elders when they require that I "bow" to them ahead of God).

  
  

  But I identify as a Christian witness of Jehovah God. Thanks for asking.🙂

  
  

  "Maybe the cat took them away?"
  

  
  

  I've never heard that one before. Is that one of the apostolic fathers, too? Or is that Socrates or Plato or something? Oh! I know! The Cat..."It's a Wild World!" 😃 I love that song...

  
  

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jta56wBl7SM

  
  

  
  

  @awqsed12345, I notice you like to talk about Watchtower a lot but you're not quite accurate all the time about what they teach. The current teachings in the elder book and the "Organized to do Jehovah's Will" book read a lot like the Didache and epistles of the so-called "apostolic fathers". Reading the "apostolic fathers" makes me feel like I'm reading something cut-and-pasted from a WT article or another publication of the WTBT$. The more you quote the "apostolic fathers" the more it makes me think you might be what you are falsely accusing me of being - a sympathizer of Watchtower false doctrines at heart, at least in principle. The GB-Pharisee-types today seem to be cut of the same cloth as the "apostolic fathers", men who want to lord it over the flock and have the title and prominence of "fathers" instead of as true brothers in the congregations.

  
  

  "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ."💖
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @Easy Prompt

  I identify as a Christian witness of Jehovah God.

  I'm curious why you wouldn't want to be a witness of the highest name in the Universe - Jesus?

  Phil. 2: 9-10 "a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow"
• 

  EasyPrompt

  I am a witness of Jesus.

  
  

  Jesus is also known as Yehoshua.

  
  

  Yehoshua means "Yahweh is Salvation."

  
  

  Jehovah is another name for Yahweh, Our Father.

  
  

  Jesus said: "For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."

  
  

  Being a witness of Jesus and being a witness of Jehovah are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they are inextricably entwined.

  
  

  "Do you not believe that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me? The things I say to you I do not speak of my own originality, but the Father who remains in union with me is doing his works. Believe me that I am in union with the Father and the Father is in union with me; otherwise, believe because of the works themselves. Most truly I say to you, whoever exercises faith in me will also do the works that I do; and he will do works greater than these, because I am going my way to the Father. Also, whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, so that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son."

  
  

  But that the Father is greater than the Son, even Jesus bore witness when he said:

  
  

  "The Father is greater than I am."

  
  

  I believe him. "Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness...”

  
  

  "Phil. 2: 9-10 "a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow""
  

  It is because I bow to Jesus that I obey his command to glorify the Father in connection with the Son. I believe Jesus' witness, and I believe that everything Jesus said is true.

  
  

  @SeaBreeze, now I am curious, do you not believe Jesus' words that the Father is greater than he is? I am sure you must believe.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @EasyPrompt
  
  Isn't it interesting that no where in the New Testament (which is the ONLY governing textbook for Christians) does it say we are supposed to be witnesses of Jehovah?
  
  A change occured, a new dispensation of the grace of God happened after Calvary:

  Heb. 1 - God, who at various times and in diverse ways spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son

  
  

  @SeaBreeze, now I am curious, do you not believe Jesus' words that the Father is greater than he is? I am sure you must believe.

  Of course. Why would you doubt that?

  I'm curious, how do you reconcile the verse "he is greater than I" with the verse that says that the name of Jesus is above every name?