"None of these claims are supported by scripture."
Of course they are. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.
Additionally, the Scriptures do not merely ascribe to the Son some kind of cooperation in the creation, but also teach that he is creator of all creatures (which according to them he does not belong to), and creation is only a divine ability. Angels can perform miracles to a certain degree, but they cannot create, that is the exclusive ability of God.
Since the Scriptures clearly state that YHWH God "alone" created the world, at the same time the New Testament states in many places that the Son is also the creator, two possibilities remain:
- Scripture contradicts itself
- YHWH God is not merely the Father, but also the Son.
"The prepositional phrase ἐν αὐτῷ does not read "by him" but "in him.""
Who said it's not? In Colossians 1:16 there is "en autō" indeed, but what does it prove? The Son's role in the creation is described in many ways, in John 1:3 we read "di autou", which means "through him". Also: 1 Corinthians 8:6, and more explicitly Hebrews 1:10.
"Additionally, Paul uses the metaphor of a son's relationship to his father. He is the image of God. The word translated image derives from the impress of a master die on a coin."
Yep, Colossians 1:15 describes the Son as the image (eikon) of God the Father. Also Hebrews 1:2 "the exact expression (kharakter) of His substance (hypostasis)". These words express a meaning like exact impression, exact representation, "mirror-like representation", etc. Also according to Philippians 2:9, in Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity/deity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not just the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it. Thus the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."
"Christ is not the original, but the 'spitting image' of God. He is begotten - called elsewhere the 'only begotten' son. The very word implies an origin."
You are knocking on open doors, the Nicene teaching on the Son never stated that the Son is not from the Father. On the contrary: the Son is generated from the Father, but not made, not by creation, but - as the Scripture says - begotten, born, and "before" the creation of the aions. The Son received his being and deity from the Father, who communicated his entire essence to him. Or according to the Athanasian creed:
"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."
"And we have an origin attached to him in Malachi and in 1 John. John describes Jesus as ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, that is "from the beginning"
It's self goal: The expression, "from the beginning", here is equivalent with in the beginning (John 1:1) and therefore to mean from the beginning of time, or rather, from eternity.
"and Malachi describes Jesus as having an origin. Five / two reads according to the AV " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The Hebrew from which "goings forth" is derived implies an origin."
Ad 1: It's not Malachi, but Micah 5:2.
Ad 2: Just to repeat, the Nicene Christology never denied the Son is unbegotten, without having the orign from the Father. The point is: this generation of him from the Father is NEVER called creation, but "begotten", "born." The Scripture makes a clear distinction between the two.
Ad 3: It's self goal: It's says the Son's origns are from ancient times, from the eternety/everlasting [ūmōwṣā’ōṯāw miqqeḏem mîmê ‘ōwlām].
"No matter what slant one puts on "firstborn" - whether we take it to me 'principal one" or literally 'first of all' it is still "of creation." Jesus is classed with creation. He is the agent of the creator. [..] Paul says there is only one, Jesus who is God's first work, his firstborn, who is "of creation."
Paul never said Jesus is God's "first work".
"Firstborn" is the title of the Son, used in the many times, and doesn't mean "first something in order", but implies a pre-eminent position, main heir, ruler, etc. Prōtotokos does not mean "first created" but "firstborn". The first half of the word "first" here does not mean first in order, but roughly like in the English word "Prime Minister", "prime" does not mean the first ever minister. And the second half of the word says the same thing as the Nicene Christology: born. In the contemporary context, prōtotokos here is a title, a dignified name, roughly meaning "distinguished, pre-eminent heir".
The text does not place the "firstborn" in the group of the creatures by using the genitive. Let's see the next thought, "pasēs ktiseōs" is in the genitive case, which in English we connect with "of". WTS interprets it approximately as "among", thus "firstborn among the creatures'', even though in the case when Paul expressly wanted to include the firstborn in that group, instead of using the genitive case, he specifically put it this way, like in Romans 8:29 where he calls the Son "the firstborn among many brothers" (en pollois adelphois).
In summary, the correct meaning of "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" here is not that he is the first created being, but rather that he is "distinguished, pre-eminent heir (ruler) of the whole creation", thus "over the whole creation." This interpretation corresponds to the linguistic and cultural context of the time and the biblical context also.
"You misstate Watchtower belief. You craft straw man arguments."
Say one example.
"You seek to diminish Slim's arguments by insulting his sources rather than refuting the actual point."
If you read back, I looked up the specifically indicated sources of each one (Origen, Justin). Instead of looking at my sources and thinking about it, or giving me some kind of appreciable response, slimboyfat just thew another secondary quote at home, mainly from people who are not relevant authorities in theology, let alone in the history of the church or the history of dogma.
I did not attack the person of his sources, but the method he used.
This is a typical WTS propanda tactic, well known to any apologist who has researched the cited sources of WTS publications. A very good example, the opinion of the scientists who allegedly "praise" the NWT, who were asked if they really consider the NWT a good example of translating the Bible? And practically all of them pointed out that no, they only praised it in terms of one or some few element, they are fully aware that it is a tendentious mistranslation in terms of the theologically relevant biblical passages.
Slimboyfat did the same thing, he started throwing all kinds of quotes that, well, even this and this scientist said the same thing. Of course, what was left out of the quote was what this scientist specifically based his opinion on, or if so, I was able to find out in 5 minutes that that did not support that opinion.
WTS can effectively make people who are not familiar with scientific methodology believe that there is a scientific consensus behind their position, although this is not true, the best example of this is the Howard hypothesis for the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament, which is just a completely baseless assumption, or better said: a conspiracy theory.
It is not a big deal to collect quotes from books where someone gives an opinion that the Church has "corrupted" in its theology and practice after the turn of Constantine, however, if we ask the question properly, it turns out that it is unfounded in the given question.
In it's specific issue, the lesson is clear: Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). There is not even a single early Christian source exists before Arius, that specifically and explicitly states that the Son is "the first created being" and that "the Son is the Archangel".
So the claim that the Christology of pre-Nicaea Christianity was like that of today's WTS is also a conspiracy theory, along with the alleged "great apostasy" as a whole.
"An example is your comment on John Locke whose "Reasonableness of Christianity" is a classic."
I did not say that John Locke is not a significant person in general, but he is not relevant at all in theology, especially church history.
"The issue here is what the Scriptures actually say..."
I somewhat agree, with the addition that, in addition to the Scriptures, what the earliest Christian sources report on is also important. Assuming that the Church founded by Jesus is led by the Holy Spirit, and knowing that there was no canonized New Testament Bible in the apostolic age, as we know it today, by definition the creed and theology of the early Christians are also the result of the oral teachings of the apostles.
"...not what the vain philosophies of speculative writers have said."
Yes, I'm well aware of this JW technique, when you can't deal with my argument, you quickly throw in this alibi excuse, this stupid thought-terminating cliché that "it's philosophy!" and "this is just human reasoning and speculation!". Which actually means nothing more than the the argument presented is too sophisticated for them to understand, or cannot refute, and if it's too high-level, it obviously can't be true. The sect is truly the apotheosis of poor quality, the cult of ignorance.
Also, because your WTS denominational doctrine is so deeply rooted in your mind that, like a computer virus, for the sake of its own "health", prevent the "antivirus program" that threatens it, from starting. Thus, the extremely deep level of indoctrination repeated day by day, as well as the stubborn attitude of "I'm just holding on despite all" cons, prevents correct objective comparison and meaningful reflection.
