Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

136
Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
aqwsed12345

The post accidently opened more times, but this one can be deleted.
136
Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.
aqwsed12345
Due to their apparent theological bias, the Watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that Jesus is also a created being. It is clear that Jehovah's Witnesses try to avoid having to admit that Christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4). Instead, the Society teaches that "Christ was the only one created by God," and that then He "created everything else with Jehovah." (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth From this perspective, Christ is not the Creator God but merely the first created angel - "The greatest angel is Jesus Christ, who is also called Michael." (Watchtower, November 1, 1995, page 8)
Jesus is eternal and the Creator (see Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 3, 10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13). In addition to the above clear references, the Scriptures also state that God alone is the Creator (see Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:28; 44:24; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 2:10).
However, did God actually create only one angel, and then use this angel to create everything "else"? No! God testifies that He Himself created the heavens and the earth, "alone," "by myself." (Isaiah 44:24)
The Scriptures clearly state: "I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me?"
Therefore, the Bible declares that everything was created by the Son, that the Holy Spirit was present at creation (Genesis 1:2), and that the LORD (Jehovah) was "alone" there. This only makes sense if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the one true God.
The idea that a lesser God (demigod) participated in creation, separate from "Jehovah," is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2, 8, as well as the fact that the Father did not create alone but with the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30). Creation is an exclusively divine ability, and no created being can even serve as a means for creation. God is the unique source of creation, as He does not cooperate with any tools, partners, or materials in the work of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. No one and nothing can create as God does. The creative capacity of God is an incommunicable attribute for any creature. To be able to create, that is, to bring existence from nonexistence, one must be God.
If, however, "in Him all things were created," it would necessarily follow that He Himself was also created in Him (through Him), which would be a contradiction. Therefore, the Son is not a created being.
The Watchtower presents several arguments in defense of the insertion of the word "other" in verses 16-17:
- In Luke 13:2, some Bible translations render this word as "the rest," "everyone else." - But here, there is additional information that is not found there. It is written that these people were also Galileans. However, it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Luke 21:29 - It is written that the fig tree also belongs to the category of trees. But it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Philippians 2:21: This is a perfect own goal. Paul logically did not list Timothy, whom he praised, among those who seek not Jesus' interest but their own. The Watchtower's "logic" would demand this in this case as well.
Just because the Watchtower brought some translations where the word "pas" is translated as "everything else" in other places does not automatically justify their method. They need to construct a parallel between the specific Bible passages' message, speech situation, etc., and Colossians 1:16-17. The speech situation was different in those cases because it was stated about the unique entity (opposed to "everybody else", or "all other tings") that they were also Galileans, they were also trees, or it could not be said about Timothy that he was profit-seeking - so the reference is not good. The parallel does not work because the mentioned examples either do not have the factor justifying "everyone else," or it is present but guaranteed by an explicit mention (classification) that is missing from Colossians 1:16-17.
In Greek, there is indeed such a tendency, but the examples brought up are very different from the one in the Colossians letter. Numerous other places say that Peter was also an apostle, that Paul and his companions were imprisoned, that everyone who went to the temple threw something into the collection box, and so on. However, here it is not at all self-evident that the word "other" should be there. We saw that the "firstborn of all creation" in 1:15 could very well be a dignitary name denoting inheritance, and the immediate continuation lists everything created in him, further distancing the verse from the examples intended for parallelism. The verse emphatically repeats at the end that "everything was created through/by him", and the New World Translation is forced to insert the word "other" here and in the next verse. It is therefore difficult to convince anyone that the meaning of "everything else" is unambiguously present in the text.
The predicate "created" can only refer to what was actually created, i.e., the powers and principalities that can be identified with angels, and which are elsewhere (Colossians 2:10) said to be headed by Christ.
The insertion of the word "other" is unjustifiable because it falsifies the Watchtower's concept into the sacred text, which is a source to be quoted later with authority. This is, by the way, the essence of a sectarian interpretation, not the context of the text. That is, they put their conclusions and elaborations into the apostle's mouth. This is what is unacceptable in a Bible translation. Translation is a different genre than biblical explanation, let alone religious debate.
Some amateur Jehovah's Witness apologetics websites (whose enthusiasm earned them a rebuke from Brooklyn, saying that they are not needed, and they will represent and defend "the truth") try to defend this translation, but on very similar grounds.
The argument related to Colossians 1:16 brings up several examples where it is clear that the "others" are of the same type as the one being discussed - such hypothetical gods, trees, names, governments, people, Galileans, and so on. These examples linguistically only demonstrate that if the context is already clear, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted from "all things" in Greek. For example, everyone else also gave to the treasury, and so did the poor widow. Those who were crushed by the tower in Siloam were also Galileans, as were those to whom Jesus compared them. Peter was an apostle, and so were the other apostles. But how it would become clear from the context of Colossians 1:16 that Jesus is also a creature is not clear. It is the Watchtower Society that needs to smuggle this in: precisely with such a biased translation, for which there is no basis in the text. I would like to draw particular attention to Colossians 1:17, which states, "he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist", - not "He became before all other things" etc. As, of course, John 1:1 and 1:3 also state: "In the beginning was the Word", and "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." I am curious when the Watchtower will "rethink" this as a "New Light", of course only "logically": i.e., by inserting an "other" word after "everything" and "nothing" in their translation.
The other loophole is that "everything" does not necessarily mean everything, and is based on the fact that in the said place, the reader is specifically told what "everything" Paul is talking about.
29
Why Not Celebrate Christmas?
by Mum in
1. jw
2. friends
so, jw's don't celebrate christmas or other holidays.

as bill cetnar once said, there are two reasons for everything: the reason they tell you, and the real reason.

they will tell you it's because christmas is "pagan" and can lead to all sorts of licentious conduct (like drinking too much macallan scotch?)..
aqwsed12345

Calculating Christmas
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere; on the contrary, it claims that when it happened, both humans and angels celebrated (Luke 2:13-14,20). It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not forbid it either; rather, it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of the whole people, then heaven opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels praised God in multitude (Luke 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the wise men (Mt 2:10), who also prepared to meet the Messiah by bringing him gifts (Mt 2:11). Whoever understands why humans and angels rejoiced at that time, still has something to celebrate today.
Is it only permissible to celebrate holidays prescribed in the Bible? The Bible does not state such a basic principle. In addition to the annual holidays prescribed for the Jews in the law, they also had occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah).
• Jesus himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) and taught in the Temple during the holiday (John 10:22-3). He never opposed holidays that were not prescribed by the Mosaic law.
• According to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance in someone considering a particular day to be special for some reason compared to another. Therefore, on the one hand, we should not command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, we should not condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the setting up of a tree, considering the Christmas tree as paganism. However, the biblical texts they usually refer to are about completely different things, not about the 17th-century German Christians' christmas tree or the birthday.
• Deut 16:21-22 forbids the mixing of Canaanite fertility festivals with Israelite worship; Canaanites, for example, held ritual orgies under lush green trees (see Jer 2:20, 3:6,13, etc.).
• In Jer 7:18, "gathering wood" was part of the preparation for the pagan festival of the queen of heaven, but the wood was burned to cook.
• In Jer 10:3, tree cutting is about preparing pagan wooden idols, but the tree was cut down, its branches cut off, the trunk carved into a figure, and worshiped as an embodiment of the deity.
It is a fact that Christmas and Easter are associated with a variety of folk customs that differ from country to country, but these customs have never enjoyed the official approval of the Catholic Church - at most they were tolerated, but generally they were intended to be pushed out by sacramentals like the blessing of food, the consecration of water, and others. These customs are treated as folk customs, not religious ceremonies. Where they are considered religious, Christian meanings are often read into them, and admittedly, not without some cleverness.
Priests do not call these "pagan symbols that Christians cannot practice." They are satisfied if they can explain Christian meanings behind the pagan-originated customs or, if that is not possible, recommend Christian customs, symbols, and sacramentals to satisfy the religious (or simply festive) needs of the people. This has always been the Catholics' tool for winning over the masses, knowing that the masses practice their religion not with their minds, but with their eyes, stomachs, gestures, voices, and so on.
The question is whether Christmas or the Easter Bunny is inherently pagan: because if so, Jehovah's Witnesses would indeed have to run out from the world. Neither Jews nor the first Christians went to the theater, read secular literature, or even went to a registrar when they wanted to marry. Similarly, harmless cultural customs have now become the Christmas tree, egg painting, and other mentioned customs: no one is aware of their pagan or manufactured Christian meanings. This does not make them Christian cultural elements - but I did not claim that. Of course, you can proclaim their pagan past as gospel at the doors.
It would only be an obvious un-Christianity (as they say "anti-Christianity") if the Catholics had incorporated these customs into at least its sacramentals.
These customs (egg painting, ham eating, or setting up a Christmas tree) are not pagan because they have completely lost that role and are celebrated in most of the world without any religious aspect, merely as cultural customs. We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. And again: he approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.
We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. But they also knew what I am trying in vain to present to you: that Greek mythology had a manifestation that was no longer associated with religious reverence or idolatry, but still connected to the old on the level of names and words, as culture fades more slowly from people's lives than religion. They used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus Savior, although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones. But you don't know this, otherwise you would almost burst trying to somehow explain these references away while, of course, loudly protesting against Christmas and birthdays.
The Christmas and Easter celebrations currently exist, even though they were initially aimed at overcoming pagan or Jewish opposition, they were placed where they are with Christian purposes and became what they are today. Those who want to derive these holidays purely from paganism commit violence against historical truth: namely, that the church did not simply adopt some pagan holidays, but used them as a springboard (apologetic bridge) for its own purposes. Similar to how Paul used the slogans of the Corinthian libertine party when he supplemented them in response to debates: "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial;" "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food - but the body is not for immorality." The church, in the same spirit, placed Christmas at the time of the solstice, knowing that instead of Baldr or Mithras, it was the physical birth of Christ that brought light into the night. The Christmas tree and other accessories were stolen from paganism, and as long as the glory was not attributed to people (living or dead saints) but to Christ, no mistake was made.
The tune that Jehovah's Witnesses sing against historical Christianity is weak, and false. Sectarianism seeks refuge in tunnel vision and both historical and religious ignorance, unable to refute the essence of historical Christianity (i.e., their theology), and instead picks at periodic, incidental circumstances that have become completely irrelevant by now. We know that this kind of grasping is typical of short-breathed, weak, and unfit sectarian parrots who, unable to respond to what the opponent says, search for a Watchtower slander program that can somehow be squeezed into the level of words, and when the opponent stops speaking, they run it - regardless of whether it refutes anything.
As for their accusation of following false cults, I can easily dismiss it by saying that it's not necessary to have intention of honoring God with a Christmas tree or consecrated willow - but I understand those peoples who brought the beauty and material value they found around them to God as an expression of their heartfelt devotion. Of course, none of these devotional elements were meant to be eternally valid. As these forms have become outdated today (e.g., offering food in churches is no longer customary, as it was in the first centuries), they can now only be considered cultural elements, and the ever-changing Christian consciousness is happy to look for more suitable alternatives. For example, financial support for churches is more common among historical denominations than decorating churches with flowers, or lay-written and performed Christian poetry or song, rather than blessings pronounced on objects.
There could be much more discussion on this topic, but since I did not learn to appreciate what points to Christ or was born of zeal for him in the lives of other denominations all at once, I do not want the JWs to embrace all of this at once either. They seem to feel good in the black-and-white dream world into which their denomination has plunged its members, so I would not be surprised if their response to this arguments was full of reproaches like, "You are wrong to cover your loved ones' graves with fir branches on All Saints' Day or light candles on them, because such things are pagan customs." I could only say, "Why am I wasting my breath?"
In my opinion, ordinary laypeople take this pagan meaning about as seriously as the other one that the Roman Catholics usually associates with them: the Easter egg symbolizes rebirth or resurrection. But Easter is no longer about customs; it's primarily about eating and drinking, with some characteristic dishes. Hardly anyone decorates eggs or recites a charm over a hare nowadays. As for Christians and food: there are some among them with weak consciences who can see some form of idolatry or its remnants even in the widespread Easter feast. But I will not tolerate anyone with a self-righteous elitist mentality, picking and choosing food, sticking their nose in where I am. Because I give thanks for the rabbit and the egg too, if they're on the table, and I don't believe that some dark magic has clung to them just because others were thanking Odin, Freya, or Loki for the same things a thousand and five hundred years ago.
There is indeed a God-given order for Easter, which is described in detail in the Old Testament. But I deny that this exact order must be maintained in the New Testament. Jesus wants his death and resurrection to be celebrated in the church not only during Easter. Therefore, the Church has a biblically justified right to continue celebrating Easter and fill it with the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it is not an individual's duty to sanctify a feast, so they can adapt to the customs widespread among their people if they are not anti-Christian. And those who eat the usual Easter bites mostly do so for non-religious reasons, so they do not worship idols or practice fertility magic.
In my opinion, the "Christian self-awareness" is quite justified in seeking forms according to its own desires, expectations, and "dispositions," since we have not received any instructions for the observance of (Old Testament) feasts in the New Testament, let alone precisely defined frameworks.
It was not the Roman Catholic Church that started changing the feasts, but the Lord Himself. For example, in the apostolic church's customary celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), there was no Easter lamb as a cultic food, but we read about bread and wine. We do not read in the Bible about other feasts ordained by Jesus or about the observance of Old Testament feasts in the pagan-Christian part of the church. That is why the Church at all times has the freedom to dedicate feasts for its use (and interpretation), provided it does not believe it is fulfilling divine instructions. Even Sunday, among the ecclesiastical feasts, does not have Jesus' authority, although we find traces in the Bible that the disciples gathered on this day for the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and to listen to the teachings.
Easter celebrations (and the bitter debate about their timing) existed in the church even before power and wealth tempted it. The Church did not consider the details of the feast to be of eternal validity or reasons for schism. It is worth reading about the case of Pope Victor, the churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus: it still serves as an example for the church today.
Jesus gave no command regarding Easter (Passover), because what He commanded was about the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). There can be no talk of fulfillment in the sense that one feast would fulfill the other. The old Passover, by the way, was not fulfilled by the the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), but by the sacrifice on the cross. You are surely familiar with Paul's words: "Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord."
The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) was not introduced as part of the Passover feast, otherwise they would have had to celebrate Passover every time they took the Eucharist , but we do not read about this in either Acts or the First Corinthians, which contain the most abundant information on this subject. Paul warned the Colossians not about the "matter" of the feasts, but against the efforts of those who wanted to enslave them by "warning" them about the feasts, so he said this in one breath as a warning against the intruders who were waving about food prohibitions. Behold, he calls the feasts themselves shadows, but if he were urging their observance, he certainly would not speak like this.
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere. If it did, it would justify it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate it or not, but those who want to make it mandatory or forbid it for others are being legalistic. It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not prohibit it either, and it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of all the people, and then the heavens opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels were glorifying God in great numbers (Lk 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. The latter even prepared in advance for the encounter with the Messiah and brought gifts to the Son of God (Mt 2:11). Why should we today have less reason to rejoice in the Messiah's birth? Why shouldn't we celebrate it too?
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Only the holidays commanded in the Bible can be celebrated."
Firstly, the Bible does not state such a basic principle; anyone can set such a rule for themselves, but if they expect it from others, they are being legalistic again. Secondly, the positive characters in the Bible had many other occasional and regular celebrations besides the prescribed annual ones, with God's blessing. As for Jesus, for example, he went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), walking in the Temple and teaching (Jn 10:22), and there is no trace in the Gospels that he opposed such a celebration. Thirdly, according to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance to someone considering a particular day different in some respect from another. Therefore, on the one hand, it is not allowed to command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17). Although it is not a sin not to celebrate Christ's birth, it is a sin to condemn others just because they do. Even if they commit some kind of sin in the process, which the Bible calls such, only the specific sins themselves should be condemned.
The word "pagan" (Latin paganus = rural, villager) itself is not in the Bible. The Hebrew goyim and Greek ethnoi, which are often translated as "pagans," simply mean "peoples" or "nations," as opposed to the chosen (Jewish) people, "the People." Secondly, the Bible only forbade "pagan" or simply non-Jewish beliefs and practices if they led to idolatry or immorality. The Bible does not forbid "everything that is not Jewish" because it is not anti-culture but anti-godlessness. Therefore, many things of "pagan origin" are now perfectly neutral, even though they developed in a "pagan" environment and were part of the pagan worldview.
For example, the Jews could keep the Babylonian names of the months. God only wanted to protect them from adopting the Babylonian god and star cult, which required much more than just using the names of the months. Similarly, the Germanic people who converted to Christianity could keep the old Germanic and Roman day names because they naturally assumed that after their conversion, they would no longer offer sacrifices to the Germanic spring goddess Freia on Fridays (Freitag); today's average people don't even think of Freia.
The same principle applies to many things from Babylonian-origin astronomy, Greek-origin geometry, or Roman-origin signet rings to modern Christmas accessories, which are now part of our culture. They still exist, and we use them, but the pagan ideas once associated with them have long been detached. Who is bothered today by the fact that in ancient times, here or there, some magical significance was attributed to an object, custom, or branch of science? What kind of effect could this have on those who do not know about it or, even if they do, do not believe in it?
According to the Bible, we were created into a universe where it is natural, even according to God, to consider certain days and years special (Genesis 1:14). At the end of creation, God rested on the seventh day and commanded the Jews to do the same. Moreover, He gave them a whole series of festivals (Leviticus 23:4), which all nurtured their relationship with God and one another, in the context of festive feasting and rejoicing (Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 2 Chronicles 30:21-23)!
The Bible also reports on occasional national celebrations. For example, when the Jews defeated their enemies, they ate and drank together as a sign of their shared joy, sent gifts to each other, and gave to the poor (Esther 9:19-22). When David recovered the Ark of the Covenant, he gave gifts to the entire nation (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and Solomon held a national celebration on the occasion of the temple's consecration (2 Chronicles 7:1-10).
However, the most common occasional celebration was the family celebration. Given the high child mortality rate at the time, it is understandable that they celebrated weaning (when they stopped breastfeeding, Genesis 21:8), birthdays (Job 1:4), and weddings (Judges 14:10, Matthew 22:2, John 2:1-10) with feasts. A feast was also held when guests arrived (Genesis 18:6-8, 19:3), when covenants and contracts were made (Genesis 26:28-31, 31:46-54), and during harvest (Exodus 23:16, Numbers 28:26), grape harvest (Judges 9:27), and sheep shearing (2 Samuel 13:23).
Finally, it is worth considering that God likens the great blessing reserved for all nations to a magnificent festive banquet (Isaiah 25:6), just as Christ does when he refers to his fellowship with his people upon his return (Matthew 26:29). Thus, regular and occasional celebrations have always been a natural part of life for God and His people.
21
Did Charles Russell know that certain christmas traditions were pagan?
by garyneal in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is a question that has been on my mind lately because i believe it can make an impact on those 'honest hearted' ones who wonder why the watchtower today is so different than the one led by russell and yet russell can still be considered a brother in good standing.. jehovah's witnesses today acknowledge that the watchtower use to celebrate christmas but as they were being led 'out of the darkness' they changed their ways.

i did some research and it is clear in the old zion's watchtower magazines that russell knew that december 25th was not jesus' birthday but instead it was the time of his conception.

in one article, it even stated that jesus was born september 25 (nine months later) while in another article it stated that jesus was born on october 1st.. what's not clear, however, is whether or not old chuck knew that the traditions were pagan.
aqwsed12345

Calculating Christmas
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere; on the contrary, it claims that when it happened, both humans and angels celebrated (Luke 2:13-14,20). It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not forbid it either; rather, it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of the whole people, then heaven opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels praised God in multitude (Luke 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the wise men (Mt 2:10), who also prepared to meet the Messiah by bringing him gifts (Mt 2:11). Whoever understands why humans and angels rejoiced at that time, still has something to celebrate today.
Is it only permissible to celebrate holidays prescribed in the Bible? The Bible does not state such a basic principle. In addition to the annual holidays prescribed for the Jews in the law, they also had occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah).
• Jesus himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) and taught in the Temple during the holiday (John 10:22-3). He never opposed holidays that were not prescribed by the Mosaic law.
• According to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance in someone considering a particular day to be special for some reason compared to another. Therefore, on the one hand, we should not command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, we should not condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the setting up of a tree, considering the Christmas tree as paganism. However, the biblical texts they usually refer to are about completely different things, not about the 17th-century German Christians' christmas tree or the birthday.
• Deut 16:21-22 forbids the mixing of Canaanite fertility festivals with Israelite worship; Canaanites, for example, held ritual orgies under lush green trees (see Jer 2:20, 3:6,13, etc.).
• In Jer 7:18, "gathering wood" was part of the preparation for the pagan festival of the queen of heaven, but the wood was burned to cook.
• In Jer 10:3, tree cutting is about preparing pagan wooden idols, but the tree was cut down, its branches cut off, the trunk carved into a figure, and worshiped as an embodiment of the deity.
It is a fact that Christmas and Easter are associated with a variety of folk customs that differ from country to country, but these customs have never enjoyed the official approval of the Catholic Church - at most they were tolerated, but generally they were intended to be pushed out by sacramentals like the blessing of food, the consecration of water, and others. These customs are treated as folk customs, not religious ceremonies. Where they are considered religious, Christian meanings are often read into them, and admittedly, not without some cleverness.
Priests do not call these "pagan symbols that Christians cannot practice." They are satisfied if they can explain Christian meanings behind the pagan-originated customs or, if that is not possible, recommend Christian customs, symbols, and sacramentals to satisfy the religious (or simply festive) needs of the people. This has always been the Catholics' tool for winning over the masses, knowing that the masses practice their religion not with their minds, but with their eyes, stomachs, gestures, voices, and so on.
The question is whether Christmas or the Easter Bunny is inherently pagan: because if so, Jehovah's Witnesses would indeed have to run out from the world. Neither Jews nor the first Christians went to the theater, read secular literature, or even went to a registrar when they wanted to marry. Similarly, harmless cultural customs have now become the Christmas tree, egg painting, and other mentioned customs: no one is aware of their pagan or manufactured Christian meanings. This does not make them Christian cultural elements - but I did not claim that. Of course, you can proclaim their pagan past as gospel at the doors.
It would only be an obvious un-Christianity (as they say "anti-Christianity") if the Catholics had incorporated these customs into at least its sacramentals.
These customs (egg painting, ham eating, or setting up a Christmas tree) are not pagan because they have completely lost that role and are celebrated in most of the world without any religious aspect, merely as cultural customs. We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. And again: he approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.
We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. But they also knew what I am trying in vain to present to you: that Greek mythology had a manifestation that was no longer associated with religious reverence or idolatry, but still connected to the old on the level of names and words, as culture fades more slowly from people's lives than religion. They used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus Savior, although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones. But you don't know this, otherwise you would almost burst trying to somehow explain these references away while, of course, loudly protesting against Christmas and birthdays.
The Christmas and Easter celebrations currently exist, even though they were initially aimed at overcoming pagan or Jewish opposition, they were placed where they are with Christian purposes and became what they are today. Those who want to derive these holidays purely from paganism commit violence against historical truth: namely, that the church did not simply adopt some pagan holidays, but used them as a springboard (apologetic bridge) for its own purposes. Similar to how Paul used the slogans of the Corinthian libertine party when he supplemented them in response to debates: "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial;" "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food - but the body is not for immorality." The church, in the same spirit, placed Christmas at the time of the solstice, knowing that instead of Baldr or Mithras, it was the physical birth of Christ that brought light into the night. The Christmas tree and other accessories were stolen from paganism, and as long as the glory was not attributed to people (living or dead saints) but to Christ, no mistake was made.
The tune that Jehovah's Witnesses sing against historical Christianity is weak, and false. Sectarianism seeks refuge in tunnel vision and both historical and religious ignorance, unable to refute the essence of historical Christianity (i.e., their theology), and instead picks at periodic, incidental circumstances that have become completely irrelevant by now. We know that this kind of grasping is typical of short-breathed, weak, and unfit sectarian parrots who, unable to respond to what the opponent says, search for a Watchtower slander program that can somehow be squeezed into the level of words, and when the opponent stops speaking, they run it - regardless of whether it refutes anything.
As for their accusation of following false cults, I can easily dismiss it by saying that it's not necessary to have intention of honoring God with a Christmas tree or consecrated willow - but I understand those peoples who brought the beauty and material value they found around them to God as an expression of their heartfelt devotion. Of course, none of these devotional elements were meant to be eternally valid. As these forms have become outdated today (e.g., offering food in churches is no longer customary, as it was in the first centuries), they can now only be considered cultural elements, and the ever-changing Christian consciousness is happy to look for more suitable alternatives. For example, financial support for churches is more common among historical denominations than decorating churches with flowers, or lay-written and performed Christian poetry or song, rather than blessings pronounced on objects.
There could be much more discussion on this topic, but since I did not learn to appreciate what points to Christ or was born of zeal for him in the lives of other denominations all at once, I do not want the JWs to embrace all of this at once either. They seem to feel good in the black-and-white dream world into which their denomination has plunged its members, so I would not be surprised if their response to this arguments was full of reproaches like, "You are wrong to cover your loved ones' graves with fir branches on All Saints' Day or light candles on them, because such things are pagan customs." I could only say, "Why am I wasting my breath?"
In my opinion, ordinary laypeople take this pagan meaning about as seriously as the other one that the Roman Catholics usually associates with them: the Easter egg symbolizes rebirth or resurrection. But Easter is no longer about customs; it's primarily about eating and drinking, with some characteristic dishes. Hardly anyone decorates eggs or recites a charm over a hare nowadays. As for Christians and food: there are some among them with weak consciences who can see some form of idolatry or its remnants even in the widespread Easter feast. But I will not tolerate anyone with a self-righteous elitist mentality, picking and choosing food, sticking their nose in where I am. Because I give thanks for the rabbit and the egg too, if they're on the table, and I don't believe that some dark magic has clung to them just because others were thanking Odin, Freya, or Loki for the same things a thousand and five hundred years ago.
There is indeed a God-given order for Easter, which is described in detail in the Old Testament. But I deny that this exact order must be maintained in the New Testament. Jesus wants his death and resurrection to be celebrated in the church not only during Easter. Therefore, the Church has a biblically justified right to continue celebrating Easter and fill it with the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it is not an individual's duty to sanctify a feast, so they can adapt to the customs widespread among their people if they are not anti-Christian. And those who eat the usual Easter bites mostly do so for non-religious reasons, so they do not worship idols or practice fertility magic.
In my opinion, the "Christian self-awareness" is quite justified in seeking forms according to its own desires, expectations, and "dispositions," since we have not received any instructions for the observance of (Old Testament) feasts in the New Testament, let alone precisely defined frameworks.
It was not the Roman Catholic Church that started changing the feasts, but the Lord Himself. For example, in the apostolic church's customary celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), there was no Easter lamb as a cultic food, but we read about bread and wine. We do not read in the Bible about other feasts ordained by Jesus or about the observance of Old Testament feasts in the pagan-Christian part of the church. That is why the Church at all times has the freedom to dedicate feasts for its use (and interpretation), provided it does not believe it is fulfilling divine instructions. Even Sunday, among the ecclesiastical feasts, does not have Jesus' authority, although we find traces in the Bible that the disciples gathered on this day for the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and to listen to the teachings.
Easter celebrations (and the bitter debate about their timing) existed in the church even before power and wealth tempted it. The Church did not consider the details of the feast to be of eternal validity or reasons for schism. It is worth reading about the case of Pope Victor, the churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus: it still serves as an example for the church today.
Jesus gave no command regarding Easter (Passover), because what He commanded was about the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). There can be no talk of fulfillment in the sense that one feast would fulfill the other. The old Passover, by the way, was not fulfilled by the the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), but by the sacrifice on the cross. You are surely familiar with Paul's words: "Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord."
The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) was not introduced as part of the Passover feast, otherwise they would have had to celebrate Passover every time they took the Eucharist , but we do not read about this in either Acts or the First Corinthians, which contain the most abundant information on this subject. Paul warned the Colossians not about the "matter" of the feasts, but against the efforts of those who wanted to enslave them by "warning" them about the feasts, so he said this in one breath as a warning against the intruders who were waving about food prohibitions. Behold, he calls the feasts themselves shadows, but if he were urging their observance, he certainly would not speak like this.
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere. If it did, it would justify it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate it or not, but those who want to make it mandatory or forbid it for others are being legalistic. It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not prohibit it either, and it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of all the people, and then the heavens opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels were glorifying God in great numbers (Lk 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. The latter even prepared in advance for the encounter with the Messiah and brought gifts to the Son of God (Mt 2:11). Why should we today have less reason to rejoice in the Messiah's birth? Why shouldn't we celebrate it too?
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Only the holidays commanded in the Bible can be celebrated."
Firstly, the Bible does not state such a basic principle; anyone can set such a rule for themselves, but if they expect it from others, they are being legalistic again. Secondly, the positive characters in the Bible had many other occasional and regular celebrations besides the prescribed annual ones, with God's blessing. As for Jesus, for example, he went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), walking in the Temple and teaching (Jn 10:22), and there is no trace in the Gospels that he opposed such a celebration. Thirdly, according to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance to someone considering a particular day different in some respect from another. Therefore, on the one hand, it is not allowed to command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17). Although it is not a sin not to celebrate Christ's birth, it is a sin to condemn others just because they do. Even if they commit some kind of sin in the process, which the Bible calls such, only the specific sins themselves should be condemned.
The word "pagan" (Latin paganus = rural, villager) itself is not in the Bible. The Hebrew goyim and Greek ethnoi, which are often translated as "pagans," simply mean "peoples" or "nations," as opposed to the chosen (Jewish) people, "the People." Secondly, the Bible only forbade "pagan" or simply non-Jewish beliefs and practices if they led to idolatry or immorality. The Bible does not forbid "everything that is not Jewish" because it is not anti-culture but anti-godlessness. Therefore, many things of "pagan origin" are now perfectly neutral, even though they developed in a "pagan" environment and were part of the pagan worldview.
For example, the Jews could keep the Babylonian names of the months. God only wanted to protect them from adopting the Babylonian god and star cult, which required much more than just using the names of the months. Similarly, the Germanic people who converted to Christianity could keep the old Germanic and Roman day names because they naturally assumed that after their conversion, they would no longer offer sacrifices to the Germanic spring goddess Freia on Fridays (Freitag); today's average people don't even think of Freia.
The same principle applies to many things from Babylonian-origin astronomy, Greek-origin geometry, or Roman-origin signet rings to modern Christmas accessories, which are now part of our culture. They still exist, and we use them, but the pagan ideas once associated with them have long been detached. Who is bothered today by the fact that in ancient times, here or there, some magical significance was attributed to an object, custom, or branch of science? What kind of effect could this have on those who do not know about it or, even if they do, do not believe in it?
According to the Bible, we were created into a universe where it is natural, even according to God, to consider certain days and years special (Genesis 1:14). At the end of creation, God rested on the seventh day and commanded the Jews to do the same. Moreover, He gave them a whole series of festivals (Leviticus 23:4), which all nurtured their relationship with God and one another, in the context of festive feasting and rejoicing (Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 2 Chronicles 30:21-23)!
The Bible also reports on occasional national celebrations. For example, when the Jews defeated their enemies, they ate and drank together as a sign of their shared joy, sent gifts to each other, and gave to the poor (Esther 9:19-22). When David recovered the Ark of the Covenant, he gave gifts to the entire nation (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and Solomon held a national celebration on the occasion of the temple's consecration (2 Chronicles 7:1-10).
However, the most common occasional celebration was the family celebration. Given the high child mortality rate at the time, it is understandable that they celebrated weaning (when they stopped breastfeeding, Genesis 21:8), birthdays (Job 1:4), and weddings (Judges 14:10, Matthew 22:2, John 2:1-10) with feasts. A feast was also held when guests arrived (Genesis 18:6-8, 19:3), when covenants and contracts were made (Genesis 26:28-31, 31:46-54), and during harvest (Exodus 23:16, Numbers 28:26), grape harvest (Judges 9:27), and sheep shearing (2 Samuel 13:23).
Finally, it is worth considering that God likens the great blessing reserved for all nations to a magnificent festive banquet (Isaiah 25:6), just as Christ does when he refers to his fellowship with his people upon his return (Matthew 26:29). Thus, regular and occasional celebrations have always been a natural part of life for God and His people.
12
A Christmas tree, and a Word of Appreciation
by Wonderment in
1. jw
2. friends
i am looking right now at my 10 footer christmas tree.

is "wonderment" celebrating christmas?

i am not one of those individuals who dropped the wt agenda years ago to hop on the first bandwagon of worldly attractions to cross my path.
aqwsed12345

Calculating Christmas
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere; on the contrary, it claims that when it happened, both humans and angels celebrated (Luke 2:13-14,20). It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not forbid it either; rather, it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of the whole people, then heaven opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels praised God in multitude (Luke 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the wise men (Mt 2:10), who also prepared to meet the Messiah by bringing him gifts (Mt 2:11). Whoever understands why humans and angels rejoiced at that time, still has something to celebrate today.
Is it only permissible to celebrate holidays prescribed in the Bible? The Bible does not state such a basic principle. In addition to the annual holidays prescribed for the Jews in the law, they also had occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah).
• Jesus himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) and taught in the Temple during the holiday (John 10:22-3). He never opposed holidays that were not prescribed by the Mosaic law.
• According to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance in someone considering a particular day to be special for some reason compared to another. Therefore, on the one hand, we should not command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, we should not condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the setting up of a tree, considering the Christmas tree as paganism. However, the biblical texts they usually refer to are about completely different things, not about the 17th-century German Christians' christmas tree or the birthday.
• Deut 16:21-22 forbids the mixing of Canaanite fertility festivals with Israelite worship; Canaanites, for example, held ritual orgies under lush green trees (see Jer 2:20, 3:6,13, etc.).
• In Jer 7:18, "gathering wood" was part of the preparation for the pagan festival of the queen of heaven, but the wood was burned to cook.
• In Jer 10:3, tree cutting is about preparing pagan wooden idols, but the tree was cut down, its branches cut off, the trunk carved into a figure, and worshiped as an embodiment of the deity.
It is a fact that Christmas and Easter are associated with a variety of folk customs that differ from country to country, but these customs have never enjoyed the official approval of the Catholic Church - at most they were tolerated, but generally they were intended to be pushed out by sacramentals like the blessing of food, the consecration of water, and others. These customs are treated as folk customs, not religious ceremonies. Where they are considered religious, Christian meanings are often read into them, and admittedly, not without some cleverness.
Priests do not call these "pagan symbols that Christians cannot practice." They are satisfied if they can explain Christian meanings behind the pagan-originated customs or, if that is not possible, recommend Christian customs, symbols, and sacramentals to satisfy the religious (or simply festive) needs of the people. This has always been the Catholics' tool for winning over the masses, knowing that the masses practice their religion not with their minds, but with their eyes, stomachs, gestures, voices, and so on.
The question is whether Christmas or the Easter Bunny is inherently pagan: because if so, Jehovah's Witnesses would indeed have to run out from the world. Neither Jews nor the first Christians went to the theater, read secular literature, or even went to a registrar when they wanted to marry. Similarly, harmless cultural customs have now become the Christmas tree, egg painting, and other mentioned customs: no one is aware of their pagan or manufactured Christian meanings. This does not make them Christian cultural elements - but I did not claim that. Of course, you can proclaim their pagan past as gospel at the doors.
It would only be an obvious un-Christianity (as they say "anti-Christianity") if the Catholics had incorporated these customs into at least its sacramentals.
These customs (egg painting, ham eating, or setting up a Christmas tree) are not pagan because they have completely lost that role and are celebrated in most of the world without any religious aspect, merely as cultural customs. We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. And again: he approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.
We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. But they also knew what I am trying in vain to present to you: that Greek mythology had a manifestation that was no longer associated with religious reverence or idolatry, but still connected to the old on the level of names and words, as culture fades more slowly from people's lives than religion. They used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus Savior, although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones. But you don't know this, otherwise you would almost burst trying to somehow explain these references away while, of course, loudly protesting against Christmas and birthdays.
The Christmas and Easter celebrations currently exist, even though they were initially aimed at overcoming pagan or Jewish opposition, they were placed where they are with Christian purposes and became what they are today. Those who want to derive these holidays purely from paganism commit violence against historical truth: namely, that the church did not simply adopt some pagan holidays, but used them as a springboard (apologetic bridge) for its own purposes. Similar to how Paul used the slogans of the Corinthian libertine party when he supplemented them in response to debates: "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial;" "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food - but the body is not for immorality." The church, in the same spirit, placed Christmas at the time of the solstice, knowing that instead of Baldr or Mithras, it was the physical birth of Christ that brought light into the night. The Christmas tree and other accessories were stolen from paganism, and as long as the glory was not attributed to people (living or dead saints) but to Christ, no mistake was made.
The tune that Jehovah's Witnesses sing against historical Christianity is weak, and false. Sectarianism seeks refuge in tunnel vision and both historical and religious ignorance, unable to refute the essence of historical Christianity (i.e., their theology), and instead picks at periodic, incidental circumstances that have become completely irrelevant by now. We know that this kind of grasping is typical of short-breathed, weak, and unfit sectarian parrots who, unable to respond to what the opponent says, search for a Watchtower slander program that can somehow be squeezed into the level of words, and when the opponent stops speaking, they run it - regardless of whether it refutes anything.
As for their accusation of following false cults, I can easily dismiss it by saying that it's not necessary to have intention of honoring God with a Christmas tree or consecrated willow - but I understand those peoples who brought the beauty and material value they found around them to God as an expression of their heartfelt devotion. Of course, none of these devotional elements were meant to be eternally valid. As these forms have become outdated today (e.g., offering food in churches is no longer customary, as it was in the first centuries), they can now only be considered cultural elements, and the ever-changing Christian consciousness is happy to look for more suitable alternatives. For example, financial support for churches is more common among historical denominations than decorating churches with flowers, or lay-written and performed Christian poetry or song, rather than blessings pronounced on objects.
There could be much more discussion on this topic, but since I did not learn to appreciate what points to Christ or was born of zeal for him in the lives of other denominations all at once, I do not want the JWs to embrace all of this at once either. They seem to feel good in the black-and-white dream world into which their denomination has plunged its members, so I would not be surprised if their response to this arguments was full of reproaches like, "You are wrong to cover your loved ones' graves with fir branches on All Saints' Day or light candles on them, because such things are pagan customs." I could only say, "Why am I wasting my breath?"
In my opinion, ordinary laypeople take this pagan meaning about as seriously as the other one that the Roman Catholics usually associates with them: the Easter egg symbolizes rebirth or resurrection. But Easter is no longer about customs; it's primarily about eating and drinking, with some characteristic dishes. Hardly anyone decorates eggs or recites a charm over a hare nowadays. As for Christians and food: there are some among them with weak consciences who can see some form of idolatry or its remnants even in the widespread Easter feast. But I will not tolerate anyone with a self-righteous elitist mentality, picking and choosing food, sticking their nose in where I am. Because I give thanks for the rabbit and the egg too, if they're on the table, and I don't believe that some dark magic has clung to them just because others were thanking Odin, Freya, or Loki for the same things a thousand and five hundred years ago.
There is indeed a God-given order for Easter, which is described in detail in the Old Testament. But I deny that this exact order must be maintained in the New Testament. Jesus wants his death and resurrection to be celebrated in the church not only during Easter. Therefore, the Church has a biblically justified right to continue celebrating Easter and fill it with the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it is not an individual's duty to sanctify a feast, so they can adapt to the customs widespread among their people if they are not anti-Christian. And those who eat the usual Easter bites mostly do so for non-religious reasons, so they do not worship idols or practice fertility magic.
In my opinion, the "Christian self-awareness" is quite justified in seeking forms according to its own desires, expectations, and "dispositions," since we have not received any instructions for the observance of (Old Testament) feasts in the New Testament, let alone precisely defined frameworks.
It was not the Roman Catholic Church that started changing the feasts, but the Lord Himself. For example, in the apostolic church's customary celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), there was no Easter lamb as a cultic food, but we read about bread and wine. We do not read in the Bible about other feasts ordained by Jesus or about the observance of Old Testament feasts in the pagan-Christian part of the church. That is why the Church at all times has the freedom to dedicate feasts for its use (and interpretation), provided it does not believe it is fulfilling divine instructions. Even Sunday, among the ecclesiastical feasts, does not have Jesus' authority, although we find traces in the Bible that the disciples gathered on this day for the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and to listen to the teachings.
Easter celebrations (and the bitter debate about their timing) existed in the church even before power and wealth tempted it. The Church did not consider the details of the feast to be of eternal validity or reasons for schism. It is worth reading about the case of Pope Victor, the churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus: it still serves as an example for the church today.
Jesus gave no command regarding Easter (Passover), because what He commanded was about the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). There can be no talk of fulfillment in the sense that one feast would fulfill the other. The old Passover, by the way, was not fulfilled by the the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), but by the sacrifice on the cross. You are surely familiar with Paul's words: "Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord."
The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) was not introduced as part of the Passover feast, otherwise they would have had to celebrate Passover every time they took the Eucharist , but we do not read about this in either Acts or the First Corinthians, which contain the most abundant information on this subject. Paul warned the Colossians not about the "matter" of the feasts, but against the efforts of those who wanted to enslave them by "warning" them about the feasts, so he said this in one breath as a warning against the intruders who were waving about food prohibitions. Behold, he calls the feasts themselves shadows, but if he were urging their observance, he certainly would not speak like this.
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere. If it did, it would justify it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate it or not, but those who want to make it mandatory or forbid it for others are being legalistic. It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not prohibit it either, and it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of all the people, and then the heavens opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels were glorifying God in great numbers (Lk 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. The latter even prepared in advance for the encounter with the Messiah and brought gifts to the Son of God (Mt 2:11). Why should we today have less reason to rejoice in the Messiah's birth? Why shouldn't we celebrate it too?
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Only the holidays commanded in the Bible can be celebrated."
Firstly, the Bible does not state such a basic principle; anyone can set such a rule for themselves, but if they expect it from others, they are being legalistic again. Secondly, the positive characters in the Bible had many other occasional and regular celebrations besides the prescribed annual ones, with God's blessing. As for Jesus, for example, he went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), walking in the Temple and teaching (Jn 10:22), and there is no trace in the Gospels that he opposed such a celebration. Thirdly, according to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance to someone considering a particular day different in some respect from another. Therefore, on the one hand, it is not allowed to command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17). Although it is not a sin not to celebrate Christ's birth, it is a sin to condemn others just because they do. Even if they commit some kind of sin in the process, which the Bible calls such, only the specific sins themselves should be condemned.
The word "pagan" (Latin paganus = rural, villager) itself is not in the Bible. The Hebrew goyim and Greek ethnoi, which are often translated as "pagans," simply mean "peoples" or "nations," as opposed to the chosen (Jewish) people, "the People." Secondly, the Bible only forbade "pagan" or simply non-Jewish beliefs and practices if they led to idolatry or immorality. The Bible does not forbid "everything that is not Jewish" because it is not anti-culture but anti-godlessness. Therefore, many things of "pagan origin" are now perfectly neutral, even though they developed in a "pagan" environment and were part of the pagan worldview.
For example, the Jews could keep the Babylonian names of the months. God only wanted to protect them from adopting the Babylonian god and star cult, which required much more than just using the names of the months. Similarly, the Germanic people who converted to Christianity could keep the old Germanic and Roman day names because they naturally assumed that after their conversion, they would no longer offer sacrifices to the Germanic spring goddess Freia on Fridays (Freitag); today's average people don't even think of Freia.
The same principle applies to many things from Babylonian-origin astronomy, Greek-origin geometry, or Roman-origin signet rings to modern Christmas accessories, which are now part of our culture. They still exist, and we use them, but the pagan ideas once associated with them have long been detached. Who is bothered today by the fact that in ancient times, here or there, some magical significance was attributed to an object, custom, or branch of science? What kind of effect could this have on those who do not know about it or, even if they do, do not believe in it?
According to the Bible, we were created into a universe where it is natural, even according to God, to consider certain days and years special (Genesis 1:14). At the end of creation, God rested on the seventh day and commanded the Jews to do the same. Moreover, He gave them a whole series of festivals (Leviticus 23:4), which all nurtured their relationship with God and one another, in the context of festive feasting and rejoicing (Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 2 Chronicles 30:21-23)!
The Bible also reports on occasional national celebrations. For example, when the Jews defeated their enemies, they ate and drank together as a sign of their shared joy, sent gifts to each other, and gave to the poor (Esther 9:19-22). When David recovered the Ark of the Covenant, he gave gifts to the entire nation (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and Solomon held a national celebration on the occasion of the temple's consecration (2 Chronicles 7:1-10).
However, the most common occasional celebration was the family celebration. Given the high child mortality rate at the time, it is understandable that they celebrated weaning (when they stopped breastfeeding, Genesis 21:8), birthdays (Job 1:4), and weddings (Judges 14:10, Matthew 22:2, John 2:1-10) with feasts. A feast was also held when guests arrived (Genesis 18:6-8, 19:3), when covenants and contracts were made (Genesis 26:28-31, 31:46-54), and during harvest (Exodus 23:16, Numbers 28:26), grape harvest (Judges 9:27), and sheep shearing (2 Samuel 13:23).
Finally, it is worth considering that God likens the great blessing reserved for all nations to a magnificent festive banquet (Isaiah 25:6), just as Christ does when he refers to his fellowship with his people upon his return (Matthew 26:29). Thus, regular and occasional celebrations have always been a natural part of life for God and His people.
24
Why Jehovah's Witnesses are WRONG about Christmas
by David_Jay in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
as you know (and are probably tired of hearing me repeat), i’m jewish.

yes, i was a jehovah’s witness when i was a teenager and into my 20s, but returned to my roots and now celebrate chanukah when the holiday season comes around each year.. so why am i writing about christmas?

well, that’s because i thought i would share something about how jehovah’s witnesses teach against christmas.
aqwsed12345

Calculating Christmas
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere; on the contrary, it claims that when it happened, both humans and angels celebrated (Luke 2:13-14,20). It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not forbid it either; rather, it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of the whole people, then heaven opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels praised God in multitude (Luke 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the wise men (Mt 2:10), who also prepared to meet the Messiah by bringing him gifts (Mt 2:11). Whoever understands why humans and angels rejoiced at that time, still has something to celebrate today.
Is it only permissible to celebrate holidays prescribed in the Bible? The Bible does not state such a basic principle. In addition to the annual holidays prescribed for the Jews in the law, they also had occasional and regular celebrations (e.g., weddings, Hanukkah).
• Jesus himself actively participated in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11) and went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) and taught in the Temple during the holiday (John 10:22-3). He never opposed holidays that were not prescribed by the Mosaic law.
• According to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance in someone considering a particular day to be special for some reason compared to another. Therefore, on the one hand, we should not command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, we should not condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17).
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible forbids the setting up of a tree, considering the Christmas tree as paganism. However, the biblical texts they usually refer to are about completely different things, not about the 17th-century German Christians' christmas tree or the birthday.
• Deut 16:21-22 forbids the mixing of Canaanite fertility festivals with Israelite worship; Canaanites, for example, held ritual orgies under lush green trees (see Jer 2:20, 3:6,13, etc.).
• In Jer 7:18, "gathering wood" was part of the preparation for the pagan festival of the queen of heaven, but the wood was burned to cook.
• In Jer 10:3, tree cutting is about preparing pagan wooden idols, but the tree was cut down, its branches cut off, the trunk carved into a figure, and worshiped as an embodiment of the deity.
It is a fact that Christmas and Easter are associated with a variety of folk customs that differ from country to country, but these customs have never enjoyed the official approval of the Catholic Church - at most they were tolerated, but generally they were intended to be pushed out by sacramentals like the blessing of food, the consecration of water, and others. These customs are treated as folk customs, not religious ceremonies. Where they are considered religious, Christian meanings are often read into them, and admittedly, not without some cleverness.
Priests do not call these "pagan symbols that Christians cannot practice." They are satisfied if they can explain Christian meanings behind the pagan-originated customs or, if that is not possible, recommend Christian customs, symbols, and sacramentals to satisfy the religious (or simply festive) needs of the people. This has always been the Catholics' tool for winning over the masses, knowing that the masses practice their religion not with their minds, but with their eyes, stomachs, gestures, voices, and so on.
The question is whether Christmas or the Easter Bunny is inherently pagan: because if so, Jehovah's Witnesses would indeed have to run out from the world. Neither Jews nor the first Christians went to the theater, read secular literature, or even went to a registrar when they wanted to marry. Similarly, harmless cultural customs have now become the Christmas tree, egg painting, and other mentioned customs: no one is aware of their pagan or manufactured Christian meanings. This does not make them Christian cultural elements - but I did not claim that. Of course, you can proclaim their pagan past as gospel at the doors.
It would only be an obvious un-Christianity (as they say "anti-Christianity") if the Catholics had incorporated these customs into at least its sacramentals.
These customs (egg painting, ham eating, or setting up a Christmas tree) are not pagan because they have completely lost that role and are celebrated in most of the world without any religious aspect, merely as cultural customs. We know that Paul willingly boarded a ship dedicated to Castor and Pollux, or that a Christian person in the Bible bore the names Fortunatus or Mercurius. But there is even more elaborate: Paul takes his analogy from the Mithraic cult when talking about shedding the old man and putting on the new man. And again: he approvingly quotes a verse ("in Him we live and move and exist") that originally addressed Zeus. He even calls a Cretan poet, Epimenides, a prophet.
We know that these names and motifs come from paganism, and if you were right, Christians should have thrown them away like hot iron. But they also knew what I am trying in vain to present to you: that Greek mythology had a manifestation that was no longer associated with religious reverence or idolatry, but still connected to the old on the level of names and words, as culture fades more slowly from people's lives than religion. They used the pagans' education in this sense, at least, and sometimes lived with their customs and phrases. Thus, they did not hesitate to call Jesus Savior, although Roman emperors and earlier pagan rulers used it as a decorative title. Similarly, the Kyrios, which was applied to Jesus in the first, most concise Christian creeds, was the emperor's title of honor. But Paul spoke of the victor's wreath, which was part of the pagan religious elements woven into the Olympic Games, or the winner's palm, which also symbolized eternity with pagan overtones. But you don't know this, otherwise you would almost burst trying to somehow explain these references away while, of course, loudly protesting against Christmas and birthdays.
The Christmas and Easter celebrations currently exist, even though they were initially aimed at overcoming pagan or Jewish opposition, they were placed where they are with Christian purposes and became what they are today. Those who want to derive these holidays purely from paganism commit violence against historical truth: namely, that the church did not simply adopt some pagan holidays, but used them as a springboard (apologetic bridge) for its own purposes. Similar to how Paul used the slogans of the Corinthian libertine party when he supplemented them in response to debates: "All things are lawful, but not all things are beneficial;" "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food - but the body is not for immorality." The church, in the same spirit, placed Christmas at the time of the solstice, knowing that instead of Baldr or Mithras, it was the physical birth of Christ that brought light into the night. The Christmas tree and other accessories were stolen from paganism, and as long as the glory was not attributed to people (living or dead saints) but to Christ, no mistake was made.
The tune that Jehovah's Witnesses sing against historical Christianity is weak, and false. Sectarianism seeks refuge in tunnel vision and both historical and religious ignorance, unable to refute the essence of historical Christianity (i.e., their theology), and instead picks at periodic, incidental circumstances that have become completely irrelevant by now. We know that this kind of grasping is typical of short-breathed, weak, and unfit sectarian parrots who, unable to respond to what the opponent says, search for a Watchtower slander program that can somehow be squeezed into the level of words, and when the opponent stops speaking, they run it - regardless of whether it refutes anything.
As for their accusation of following false cults, I can easily dismiss it by saying that it's not necessary to have intention of honoring God with a Christmas tree or consecrated willow - but I understand those peoples who brought the beauty and material value they found around them to God as an expression of their heartfelt devotion. Of course, none of these devotional elements were meant to be eternally valid. As these forms have become outdated today (e.g., offering food in churches is no longer customary, as it was in the first centuries), they can now only be considered cultural elements, and the ever-changing Christian consciousness is happy to look for more suitable alternatives. For example, financial support for churches is more common among historical denominations than decorating churches with flowers, or lay-written and performed Christian poetry or song, rather than blessings pronounced on objects.
There could be much more discussion on this topic, but since I did not learn to appreciate what points to Christ or was born of zeal for him in the lives of other denominations all at once, I do not want the JWs to embrace all of this at once either. They seem to feel good in the black-and-white dream world into which their denomination has plunged its members, so I would not be surprised if their response to this arguments was full of reproaches like, "You are wrong to cover your loved ones' graves with fir branches on All Saints' Day or light candles on them, because such things are pagan customs." I could only say, "Why am I wasting my breath?"
In my opinion, ordinary laypeople take this pagan meaning about as seriously as the other one that the Roman Catholics usually associates with them: the Easter egg symbolizes rebirth or resurrection. But Easter is no longer about customs; it's primarily about eating and drinking, with some characteristic dishes. Hardly anyone decorates eggs or recites a charm over a hare nowadays. As for Christians and food: there are some among them with weak consciences who can see some form of idolatry or its remnants even in the widespread Easter feast. But I will not tolerate anyone with a self-righteous elitist mentality, picking and choosing food, sticking their nose in where I am. Because I give thanks for the rabbit and the egg too, if they're on the table, and I don't believe that some dark magic has clung to them just because others were thanking Odin, Freya, or Loki for the same things a thousand and five hundred years ago.
There is indeed a God-given order for Easter, which is described in detail in the Old Testament. But I deny that this exact order must be maintained in the New Testament. Jesus wants his death and resurrection to be celebrated in the church not only during Easter. Therefore, the Church has a biblically justified right to continue celebrating Easter and fill it with the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection. However, it is not an individual's duty to sanctify a feast, so they can adapt to the customs widespread among their people if they are not anti-Christian. And those who eat the usual Easter bites mostly do so for non-religious reasons, so they do not worship idols or practice fertility magic.
In my opinion, the "Christian self-awareness" is quite justified in seeking forms according to its own desires, expectations, and "dispositions," since we have not received any instructions for the observance of (Old Testament) feasts in the New Testament, let alone precisely defined frameworks.
It was not the Roman Catholic Church that started changing the feasts, but the Lord Himself. For example, in the apostolic church's customary celebration of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), there was no Easter lamb as a cultic food, but we read about bread and wine. We do not read in the Bible about other feasts ordained by Jesus or about the observance of Old Testament feasts in the pagan-Christian part of the church. That is why the Church at all times has the freedom to dedicate feasts for its use (and interpretation), provided it does not believe it is fulfilling divine instructions. Even Sunday, among the ecclesiastical feasts, does not have Jesus' authority, although we find traces in the Bible that the disciples gathered on this day for the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) and to listen to the teachings.
Easter celebrations (and the bitter debate about their timing) existed in the church even before power and wealth tempted it. The Church did not consider the details of the feast to be of eternal validity or reasons for schism. It is worth reading about the case of Pope Victor, the churches of Asia Minor, and Irenaeus: it still serves as an example for the church today.
Jesus gave no command regarding Easter (Passover), because what He commanded was about the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). There can be no talk of fulfillment in the sense that one feast would fulfill the other. The old Passover, by the way, was not fulfilled by the the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), but by the sacrifice on the cross. You are surely familiar with Paul's words: "Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord."
The Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) was not introduced as part of the Passover feast, otherwise they would have had to celebrate Passover every time they took the Eucharist , but we do not read about this in either Acts or the First Corinthians, which contain the most abundant information on this subject. Paul warned the Colossians not about the "matter" of the feasts, but against the efforts of those who wanted to enslave them by "warning" them about the feasts, so he said this in one breath as a warning against the intruders who were waving about food prohibitions. Behold, he calls the feasts themselves shadows, but if he were urging their observance, he certainly would not speak like this.
The Bible does not prohibit the celebration of Christ's birthday anywhere. If it did, it would justify it. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they want to celebrate it or not, but those who want to make it mandatory or forbid it for others are being legalistic. It is true that the Bible does not command it, but it does not prohibit it either, and it explicitly describes that there were those who celebrated. The angels proclaimed great joy, which will be the joy of all the people, and then the heavens opened, and the shepherds saw that the angels were glorifying God in great numbers (Lk 2:9-14). Christ's birth brought exceptional joy to the angels, the shepherds, and the magi. The latter even prepared in advance for the encounter with the Messiah and brought gifts to the Son of God (Mt 2:11). Why should we today have less reason to rejoice in the Messiah's birth? Why shouldn't we celebrate it too?
According to Jehovah's Witnesses, "Only the holidays commanded in the Bible can be celebrated."
Firstly, the Bible does not state such a basic principle; anyone can set such a rule for themselves, but if they expect it from others, they are being legalistic again. Secondly, the positive characters in the Bible had many other occasional and regular celebrations besides the prescribed annual ones, with God's blessing. As for Jesus, for example, he went up to Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), walking in the Temple and teaching (Jn 10:22), and there is no trace in the Gospels that he opposed such a celebration. Thirdly, according to the explicit teaching of the New Testament, there is no religious significance to someone considering a particular day different in some respect from another. Therefore, on the one hand, it is not allowed to command others to celebrate any day, and on the other hand, it is not allowed to condemn others if they celebrate something (Rom 14:5-12, Col 2:16-17). Although it is not a sin not to celebrate Christ's birth, it is a sin to condemn others just because they do. Even if they commit some kind of sin in the process, which the Bible calls such, only the specific sins themselves should be condemned.
The word "pagan" (Latin paganus = rural, villager) itself is not in the Bible. The Hebrew goyim and Greek ethnoi, which are often translated as "pagans," simply mean "peoples" or "nations," as opposed to the chosen (Jewish) people, "the People." Secondly, the Bible only forbade "pagan" or simply non-Jewish beliefs and practices if they led to idolatry or immorality. The Bible does not forbid "everything that is not Jewish" because it is not anti-culture but anti-godlessness. Therefore, many things of "pagan origin" are now perfectly neutral, even though they developed in a "pagan" environment and were part of the pagan worldview.
For example, the Jews could keep the Babylonian names of the months. God only wanted to protect them from adopting the Babylonian god and star cult, which required much more than just using the names of the months. Similarly, the Germanic people who converted to Christianity could keep the old Germanic and Roman day names because they naturally assumed that after their conversion, they would no longer offer sacrifices to the Germanic spring goddess Freia on Fridays (Freitag); today's average people don't even think of Freia.
The same principle applies to many things from Babylonian-origin astronomy, Greek-origin geometry, or Roman-origin signet rings to modern Christmas accessories, which are now part of our culture. They still exist, and we use them, but the pagan ideas once associated with them have long been detached. Who is bothered today by the fact that in ancient times, here or there, some magical significance was attributed to an object, custom, or branch of science? What kind of effect could this have on those who do not know about it or, even if they do, do not believe in it?
According to the Bible, we were created into a universe where it is natural, even according to God, to consider certain days and years special (Genesis 1:14). At the end of creation, God rested on the seventh day and commanded the Jews to do the same. Moreover, He gave them a whole series of festivals (Leviticus 23:4), which all nurtured their relationship with God and one another, in the context of festive feasting and rejoicing (Deuteronomy 14:22-29, 2 Chronicles 30:21-23)!
The Bible also reports on occasional national celebrations. For example, when the Jews defeated their enemies, they ate and drank together as a sign of their shared joy, sent gifts to each other, and gave to the poor (Esther 9:19-22). When David recovered the Ark of the Covenant, he gave gifts to the entire nation (2 Samuel 6:17-19), and Solomon held a national celebration on the occasion of the temple's consecration (2 Chronicles 7:1-10).
However, the most common occasional celebration was the family celebration. Given the high child mortality rate at the time, it is understandable that they celebrated weaning (when they stopped breastfeeding, Genesis 21:8), birthdays (Job 1:4), and weddings (Judges 14:10, Matthew 22:2, John 2:1-10) with feasts. A feast was also held when guests arrived (Genesis 18:6-8, 19:3), when covenants and contracts were made (Genesis 26:28-31, 31:46-54), and during harvest (Exodus 23:16, Numbers 28:26), grape harvest (Judges 9:27), and sheep shearing (2 Samuel 13:23).
Finally, it is worth considering that God likens the great blessing reserved for all nations to a magnificent festive banquet (Isaiah 25:6), just as Christ does when he refers to his fellowship with his people upon his return (Matthew 26:29). Thus, regular and occasional celebrations have always been a natural part of life for God and His people.
5
Jesus wasn't ( isn't if inside org ) your mediator and blood of the covenant for 144000
by enoughisenough in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
i found this questions from readers: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989609?fbclid=iwar0cbmrtiyrknsggtnizkwuwfxunlalws6vog87eke_c4marr_drps8nywk....it makes very plain that jesus is only the mediator for the 144000 and while jesus said at matt 26:28 that the new covenant is for forgiveness of sin, the article makes it plain that the new covenant is a legality between god and the 144000. i have some thoughts already on this and i have started a document with this article.

i would like appreciate any rebuttal thoughts you have on the article as well.

this is one thing i have woke up to...the jw will start with a scripture, and then wrap a lot of other scriptures into the article so the rank and file think what great bible scholars and that they aren't that studious and so they swallow the falsehoods hook, line, and sinker.
aqwsed12345

http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/144000/144000-heaven.pdf
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
aqwsed12345

slimboyfat:
Proverbs 8:22 is a well-known mistranslation in the LXX, the correspondent Hebrew verb here (qanah) doesn't mean "create", but "acquire", "buy," "possess", "have" etc. It's well translated by ancient Bible translators like Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Jerome. The Christian in the first centuries were aware of the only the original text can be regarded as inspired, a translation is just a translation, an interpretation, which can be even unintentionally wrong. That's why Jerome hasn't translated the Vulgate from the LXX into Latin, but directly from the Hebrew. Not a big surprise the NWT follows a bad translation. Check:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/8-22.htm
Neither "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" nor "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation" PROVE that the Son is the first created being, since grammatically this is not a necessary, but only a POSSIBLE interpretation of this text, which is clearly excluded by other scriptural statements.
Colossians 1:15: "the firstborn [prōtótokos] of all creation" (literal translation)
If we want to free the passage from the possessive structure, it could be interpreted as: "the firstborn over all creation." The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. The Greek prototokos = firstborn: here it means superiority and eternal preexistence, not the first creation. He is the distinguished heir to everything that has been created. We need to start from the meaning of "universal heir, main heir," who, due to his origin, owns everything that the Father has created.
According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a special position in the family and receives a larger share of the inheritance than the other children. The use of language in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalm 89:27, not because he was literally Jesse's first child (since he was the youngest), but to symbolize the power of Israel's kingdom.David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
David is called "firstborn" in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. The Watchtower understands this with regard to that verse:
„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)
Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, although Manasseh was chronologically the first (Genesis 41:50-52). God called the nation of Israel "my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22). So when Jehovah says, "I will make him my firstborn" (Psalm 89:28), he is actually calling a later-born son (David) the firstborn, meaning not a temporal dignity, but a title indicating dignity. Similarly, when God called Israel as a nation his own firstborn (Exodus 4:22), he obviously did not mean it chronologically, because Isaac's firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Moreover, Israel was Jehovah's firstborn, even though it was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
It is therefore undeniable that the apostle here wants to express the primacy of the firstborn over the creatures. But that Christ is not included among the creatures is evident from the following.
Jewish rabbinical writers called the God (the Father) as Bekorah Shelolam, which means exactly the same as what Paul used here: the firstborn of all creation. By the way, the Father does not need to be called the firstborn over all creation, because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born either but proceeded. However, Jesus still came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The prototokos appears in Hebrews 1:6 as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is depicted as the Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God's glory (and his image) (1:3), the Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Revelations 3:14 "the beginning [arkhé] of God's creation"
The correspondent Greek word here (arkhé) does NOT mean "beginning or beginner in time", but "origin", "source of action", of "first principle". No contemporary Greek-speaking reader would interpret this verse like the JWs do, since arkhé was a well-known term back then.
The arché from which the English word architect (= architect) is derived. According to scholars of the Greek language, its literal meaning is: origin, causation, source, uncreated principle. Therefore, Jesus is the architect, or the Creator of the Universe, as made clear in Col 1:16-17. He was in the beginning (arkhé) with the Father (Jn 1:2; Heb 1:10). He created every creature, and he was before every creature, so He himself could not be a creature (a created entity). In Rev 1:8 (often rendered as Alpha) and 21:6 (cf. Is 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the arcké is applied to the Almighty God, so it is not possible that it means a created being, as claimed by groups like JWs influenced by Arianism. A similar terminology (first and last, Alpha and Omega) also refers to Jesus: Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; 3:14, and 22:13.16. Therefore, both the Father and the Son are fully God.
The "beginning of God's creation" does not mean that he is a creature. For in Him, everything was created, without Him, nothing came into being that has come into being, and He was in the beginning, not in the beginning created. The "arkhé" signifies power, dominion, rule, and principle. We find the meaning of "power" in many places in the New Testament. The beginning (arkhé) is also called powers (e.g., Eph 1:21, Col 2:10), as well as the beginning point in time. Neither usage implies that what is called the beginning is part of what it is the beginning of. On the contrary, we know from elsewhere that everything was created in Him, without Him nothing came into being, etc. Here, it is not a temporal beginning - if you look at the context, it is about Jesus' office and dignity, not his age. According to this, the beginning is of creation, not of the Son.
Here, it rather says that the Son is the origin, cause, (primordial) source, fountainhead, uncreated principle, or beginning of creation because everything was created through the Son, without Him nothing came into being that has come into being; and everything in heaven and on earth was created in Him, everything was created by Him and for Him. He is before everything, and everything is held together in Him.
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
On the other hand, it helps to understand the verse and the meaning of the word "beginning" (αρχη) if you compare it, for example, with how Col 1:18 speaks of Jesus:
"He is the beginning…"
Furthermore:
"I am coming soon, and my reward is with me, to repay everyone for what they have done. I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." (Rev 22:12-13)
The same word "beginning" (αρχη) is used in the Bible for the Father in Rev 21:6, so αρχη obviously does not mean a creature.
It is also worth noting that, just like the concept of Logos, arkhé has its own precedent in Greek philosophy.
Ancient Greek philosophers called the arkhé the primal principle, primal cause, to which they always traced the origin of things, i.e., from which the world is built, i.e., what is the beginning of the world. Thus, the "arkhé" is the principle from which the cosmos originates. The New Testament writers adopted these Greek concepts and filled them with new content: according to Christian teaching, 'the beginning' or 'arkhé' of the created world is the Godhead, which includes the Son as well.
Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Indeed, he declares that he created everything, and without him nothing came into being that came into being It follows logically from all of this that it cannot belong to the created, became things, so it cannot be the "first creature" either. 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 , Psalm 95:5-6). Creation is the work of God alone and directly. Another question is whether God is more than Father: He is also Son, and when God created, then the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit created.
The fact that Christians considered the Son to be God and uncreated long before the Arian controversy can be well supported by contemporary sources, including the writings of the apostolic fathers.
The formulation of John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word..." (as opposed to "became", or "is created", or "came to be", as in John 1:3) was an important reference during the Arian controversy, since Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father. Arius insisted ‘there was when he [the Logos] was not.’ The opponents of the Arianism pointed out that according to John 1:1a the Son "in the beginning" already "was", not became, and consequently is not a creature, and did not come into existence in time, but is eternal like the Father.
In order to condemn Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea formalized the creed, according to which the Son is "begotten from the Father before all ages (æons), Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father". At the same time, the synod anathemized those, who say 'There was a time when He was not;' or 'He was not before he was made;' or 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'.
Can it be considered "late" that this was dogmatized "only" in 325? Well, this just proves that it was simply not an issue before Arius came along. But this reproach is hypocritical on the part of a denomination that did not even exist until the end of the 19th century, and whose basic doctrines were only developed decades later, such as two-class salvation theory only in 1935
92
Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.
aqwsed12345

This discussion is about God did NOT mean what JW interpretation asserts here.
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.

all [other] things have been created through him and for him.

" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
aqwsed12345
Due to their apparent theological bias, the Watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that Jesus is also a created being. It is clear that Jehovah's Witnesses try to avoid having to admit that Christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4). Instead, the Society teaches that "Christ was the only one created by God," and that then He "created everything else with Jehovah." (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth From this perspective, Christ is not the Creator God but merely the first created angel - "The greatest angel is Jesus Christ, who is also called Michael." (Watchtower, November 1, 1995, page 8)
Jesus is eternal and the Creator (see Isaiah 9:6; Micah 5:2; John 1:1, 3, 10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 1:17-18; 22:13). In addition to the above clear references, the Scriptures also state that God alone is the Creator (see Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:28; 44:24; Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 11:12; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 2:10).
However, did God actually create only one angel, and then use this angel to create everything "else"? No! God testifies that He Himself created the heavens and the earth, "alone," "by myself." (Isaiah 44:24)
The Scriptures clearly state: "I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, And I spread out the earth. Who was with me?"
Therefore, the Bible declares that everything was created by the Son, that the Holy Spirit was present at creation (Genesis 1:2), and that the LORD (Jehovah) was "alone" there. This only makes sense if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the one true God.
The idea that a lesser God (demigod) participated in creation, separate from "Jehovah," is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2, 8, as well as the fact that the Father did not create alone but with the Son (John 1:1-4, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30). Creation is an exclusively divine ability, and no created being can even serve as a means for creation. God is the unique source of creation, as He does not cooperate with any tools, partners, or materials in the work of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. No one and nothing can create as God does. The creative capacity of God is an incommunicable attribute for any creature. To be able to create, that is, to bring existence from nonexistence, one must be God.
If, however, "in Him all things were created," it would necessarily follow that He Himself was also created in Him (through Him), which would be a contradiction. Therefore, the Son is not a created being.
The Watchtower presents several arguments in defense of the insertion of the word "other" in verses 16-17:
- In Luke 13:2, some Bible translations render this word as "the rest," "everyone else." - But here, there is additional information that is not found there. It is written that these people were also Galileans. However, it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Luke 21:29 - It is written that the fig tree also belongs to the category of trees. But it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.
- Philippians 2:21: This is a perfect own goal. Paul logically did not list Timothy, whom he praised, among those who seek not Jesus' interest but their own. The Watchtower's "logic" would demand this in this case as well.
Just because the Watchtower brought some translations where the word "pas" is translated as "everything else" in other places does not automatically justify their method. They need to construct a parallel between the specific Bible passages' message, speech situation, etc., and Colossians 1:16-17. The speech situation was different in those cases because it was stated about the unique entity (opposed to "everybody else", or "all other tings") that they were also Galileans, they were also trees, or it could not be said about Timothy that he was profit-seeking - so the reference is not good. The parallel does not work because the mentioned examples either do not have the factor justifying "everyone else," or it is present but guaranteed by an explicit mention (classification) that is missing from Colossians 1:16-17.
In Greek, there is indeed such a tendency, but the examples brought up are very different from the one in the Colossians letter. Numerous other places say that Peter was also an apostle, that Paul and his companions were imprisoned, that everyone who went to the temple threw something into the collection box, and so on. However, here it is not at all self-evident that the word "other" should be there. We saw that the "firstborn of all creation" in 1:15 could very well be a dignitary name denoting inheritance, and the immediate continuation lists everything created in him, further distancing the verse from the examples intended for parallelism. The verse emphatically repeats at the end that "everything was created through/by him", and the New World Translation is forced to insert the word "other" here and in the next verse. It is therefore difficult to convince anyone that the meaning of "everything else" is unambiguously present in the text.
The predicate "created" can only refer to what was actually created, i.e., the powers and principalities that can be identified with angels, and which are elsewhere (Colossians 2:10) said to be headed by Christ.
The insertion of the word "other" is unjustifiable because it falsifies the Watchtower's concept into the sacred text, which is a source to be quoted later with authority. This is, by the way, the essence of a sectarian interpretation, not the context of the text. That is, they put their conclusions and elaborations into the apostle's mouth. This is what is unacceptable in a Bible translation. Translation is a different genre than biblical explanation, let alone religious debate.
Some amateur Jehovah's Witness apologetics websites (whose enthusiasm earned them a rebuke from Brooklyn, saying that they are not needed, and they will represent and defend "the truth") try to defend this translation, but on very similar grounds.
The argument related to Colossians 1:16 brings up several examples where it is clear that the "others" are of the same type as the one being discussed - such hypothetical gods, trees, names, governments, people, Galileans, and so on. These examples linguistically only demonstrate that if the context is already clear, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted from "all things" in Greek. For example, everyone else also gave to the treasury, and so did the poor widow. Those who were crushed by the tower in Siloam were also Galileans, as were those to whom Jesus compared them. Peter was an apostle, and so were the other apostles. But how it would become clear from the context of Colossians 1:16 that Jesus is also a creature is not clear. It is the Watchtower Society that needs to smuggle this in: precisely with such a biased translation, for which there is no basis in the text. I would like to draw particular attention to Colossians 1:17, which states, "he is before all things, and by means of him all things were made to exist", - not "He became before all other things" etc. As, of course, John 1:1 and 1:3 also state: "In the beginning was the Word", and "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." I am curious when the Watchtower will "rethink" this as a "New Light", of course only "logically": i.e., by inserting an "other" word after "everything" and "nothing" in their translation.
The other loophole is that "everything" does not necessarily mean everything, and is based on the fact that in the said place, the reader is specifically told what "everything" Paul is talking about.