Posts by aqwsed12345

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

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 Father is without origin (principium sine principio). The Father that he is not begotten ἀγέν(ν)ητος, has no principle from which he would originate (ἄναρχος, ἀναίτιος).

The Son originates from the Father through generation, through birth/begetting.

According to Scripture

a) the Son is the natural only-begotten Son of the Father in the metaphysical sense of the word (φύσει not θέσει, i.e., by adoption). But the natural son comes from the father through generation.

b) The New Testament formally teaches this when it interprets the Old Testament passages referring to the Son's birth authentically. Thus: "To which angel did he ever say (the Father): You are my son, today I have begotten you?" [Heb 1,5–Ps 2.] "There were no seas yet, and I was already conceived." [Prov 8,24.] Furthermore: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known." [Jn 1,18; cf. 1,1.]

c) The Father is the archetype and source of all fatherhood: "I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom all fatherhood has received its name in heaven and on earth." [Eph 3,14.] Similarly, the Son is the archetype and form of all sonship: "Those whom he knew beforehand, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son so that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." [Rom 8,29 cf. Gal 3,26.] But sonship is characterized by coming through generation. If this were missing in the second divine person, it would be a false or distorted archetype and pattern.

This is also the universal teaching of the Church Fathers before the Council of Nicaea. According to Justin, the Logos is the God begotten by the Father. The apologies of the teaching cast some shadow on their less fortunate attempts to connect the eternal birth of the Word with the creation of the world. In this respect, the Alexandrians and Tertullian are more precise [Justin. I 61 62; Clem. Al. Adumbr. (Μ 9, 734), Origen. in Jer hom. 9, 4; Tertull. Prax 2 8 9; Marc. II 27.].

Later, especially the Greek Fathers defended the eternity of the Son's generation against the Arians (the Arians' main argument was that the begotten is later than the begetter) [Nyssen. Eunom. (M 45, 441 ff.); Basil. Eunom. II 17; cf. Thom I 42, 2.]; as well as the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be forced to beget, so the Son is from the Father's will, i.e., created), which however, differs from blind compulsion as much as it does from the free decision of creation [Nev. Athanas. Ctra Ar. or. 3, 60 ff. cf. 1, 21–28; Nazianz. Or 29, 1.]; and finally, its substantial and spiritual nature (according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with God's absolute simplicity [Athanas. Decret. Nicean. 13; Nyssen. Eunom. IV. (M 45, 617 ff.); Cyrill. A. Thesaur. 6.].

In summary, the Father is considered to be without origin, while the Son originates from the Father through generation, name begetting/birth. This understanding is derived from Scripture and is also the universal teaching of the early Church Fathers before the Council of Nicaea.

The Greek Fathers, in particular, defended the eternity, necessity, and substantial and spiritual nature of the Son's generation against the Arians, who believed that the Son was a created being and not eternal like the Father.

Origen [Origen. Princip. praef.] says (in Rufinus' translation): "The summary of the apostolic preaching is the Father; then the Son, 'who became incarnate and became man, although he was God, and remained as man what he was: God. The Holy Spirit is the companion of the Father and the Son in honor and dignity. From here, it is no longer clear (from the apostolic preaching) whether he is begotten or unbegotten (γεννητὸς; Jerome [Hieron. Epist. 94.] says that Rufinus falsified Origen here, who, according to him, actually raised the question: γενητός, that is, whether the Spirit came into being in time). Therefore, we must determine this from Scripture to the best of our ability."

Since we can read in him more than once such a statement: "In the Holy Trinity, nothing should be called greater or lesser" (Origen. Princip. praef. 3; cf. in Jn 2; In Rom 5, 8, 7, 13.), it is understandable that Pamphilus, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Eusebius defended Origen's Trinitarian doctrine; and Athanasius is obviously right that Origen's dogmatic teaching is correct.

It is certain that his zealous disciple, Gregory Thaumaturgus teaches precisely: "One God, the Father of the living Word... one Lord, one from the only one, God from God... one Holy Spirit, whose existence is from God; a complete Trinity, which is not divided or separated in glory, eternity, and dominion." The great weight of this testimony is that even simple believers knew and used Gregory's exposition of faith by heart, as Gregory of Nyssa testifies about his grandmother, Macrina. Cyprian, in particular, teaches the consubstantiality of the three persons clearly and decisively.

Just a few years after Arius' appearance in 318, the fathers of Nicaea solemnly declared the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and Athanasius could throw it in the faces of the Arians: "We have shown that this view has been handed down from generation to generation among the fathers; but you, new Jews and sons of Caiaphas, which fathers can you refer to?" (Athanas. Decret. Nicaen. 26.)

Indeed, the Arians did not feel the ground of the ancient ecclesiastical teaching under their feet, and therefore resorted to various ambiguous formulations and split into factions. On the other hand, the 4th-century fathers, as one man, took the position of the Nicene Creed, including the Cappadocians.

The creation of the world is an exclusive divine activity. God is the one principle of everything, the creator of everything. This is denied by the Gnostics and all kinds of other dualists, who place a world-creating demiurge between the absolutely supreme and holy God and the completely evil matter, who then, as a creature, carries out creative activity.

Proof. In the Old Testament, God declares: "I am the Lord, the maker of all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself" (Is 44:24). John says of the Word: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (Jn 1:3; cf. Heb 3:4 Ap 4:11. Act 4:11 Rom 11:36).

The Church Fathers first proclaimed the Christian truth against the Gnostic demiurge (Iren. II 1-3; IV 21, 1). However, their main argument against the Arians was: The Word (whom they call a creature) created the world, therefore it must be God; a creature cannot create (Athanas. Ctra Arian. II 21 24; Nyssen. Eunom. II (M 45, 512c); Cyril. Al. C. Iulian. II.). Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1).

No existing or possible created being can possess creative power, not even in a supernatural way. For the creative activity presupposes infinite power. Because a) it creates something against nothing, which is separated from nothing by an infinite distance; bridging this infinite distance demands infinite power. b) Creation is directed towards being itself, the most universal reality, without any limitation from determinations and pre-existing matter; therefore, it is essentially unlimited power: whoever can create something can create anything at will. However, finite creatures cannot accept infinite capacity as a determinant of existence or as an accessory: the extent of the receiving subject sets a limit to the content of being that can be accepted; an infinite ocean cannot be poured into a finite container.

Moreover, a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation. Because a) the task of the instrument is to prepare the material for the acceptance of the activity of the principal cause. But creation does not aim at existing matter; therefore, there is no exercise area (materia circa quam) for its operation. Most importantly, b) the instrumental causes must receive motion from the principal cause and transmit it to the matter, which must be shaped according to the intention of the principal cause. However, a finite creature, as such, is incapable of taking up and carrying the creative activity with infinite content, just as a stone or log is incapable of being the substantial carrier of spiritual activity, even in a supernatural way. Of course, there is no obstacle to a creature being the occasional cause (causa occasionalis) of a creation-like miracle; this, however, only means moral cooperation.

22

"Apostasy"

by Zilgee in

the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.

these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.

we are now following what they decided.

aqwsed12345

The Roman Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ because it alone possesses the mark of apostolicity. Various Christian denominations, by their very formation, have denied both apostolic origin and apostolic continuity; all were born from a departure from the ancient Church and rebellion against the head of the Church. Their motivations and difficulties were diverse, but they have one thing in common: they do not listen to the Church (Ecclesiam non audire).

This is particularly evident in Protestant denominations, whose older representatives wanted to preserve apostolic continuity by arguing that there have always been reformers within the Church who acted as carriers of a parallel Protestant tradition. However, this is directly excluded by the Lord's command; He builds the Church on the rock foundation of Peter, sends His apostles with full authority, and remains with them until the end of the world. Those who listen to them will be saved, and those who do not will be damned. The ancient Church also interpreted His words in this way: those who were not in agreement with the Catholic Church and its head were excluded as not listening to the Church. The rebellion and negativity of heretics and schismatics throughout history are not enough to establish legal succession and continuity; denial is multifaceted and divisive, not constructive but destructive. If there were a line of extraordinary "reformers" alongside the legitimate successors of the apostles, the Church would have two parallel leaderships with no guarantee of harmonious cooperation; this would legalize chaos and division within the Church. Furthermore, where are the "signs" (miracles, prophecies, and shining holiness) that have always been the evident seals of extraordinary divine messengers throughout salvation history? Various Eastern and Greek churches also lack communion with the head of the Church, and therefore the formal element of apostolic continuity, even if they may possess the material aspect of apostolic continuity, such as apostolic foundation, which may be claimed with some validity for some ancient Eastern churches.

All of them have denied the formal principle of apostolicity, the primacy of Saint Peter's successor, which their predecessors still professed; thus, they became different churches. As such (as Eastern Orthodox or Lutheran churches), they were formed centuries after the apostles, and therefore cannot be an apostolic Church. In addition, they explicitly and programmatically separated themselves (especially the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox) from the Roman Church, and therefore deliberately detached themselves from the apostolic body. Since they have formally abandoned the principle and guarantee of apostolicity, it is no wonder that they have also departed from internal apostolicity in principle, especially in apostolic teaching. This is clearly demonstrated by the hesitation of Protestants in the area of teaching, the history of which is the gradual erosion of the Gospel truth down to the denial of Christ. The history of the faith and confession of Eastern churches also provides ample evidence.

On the other hand, the apostolicity of the Catholic Church is self-evident and obvious. The head of the Catholic Church, the Pope, is also the head of the Roman Church, which according to Saint Paul's testimony has an apostolic origin. Moreover, the bishop of Rome, as the head of the Church, is the legal successor of Saint Peter; and the other Catholic church leaders are in legal, doctrinal, and sacramental unity with him; thus, every Catholic church leader is at least an apostolic successor in form. This ensures the apostolic origin and continuity of all, and specifically the apostolicity of teaching. Church history bears witness that the Catholic Church has never compromised apostolic teaching; since the time of the first heresies, it has been its principle not to yield from apostolic tradition. From the very first heretics, the Church confronted them with the Apostolic Creed and the principle of apostolic succession; and it did not waver from this, even if it led to painful sacrifices. The Catholic criterion of apostolicity can be easily and reliably applied. Jesus Christ built his Church on the foundation of St. Peter, the rock; therefore, the true Church of Christ can be found where St. Peter's seat, the rock-foundation, is located. St. Ambrose tells the story of his brother, Satyrus, who, when shipwrecked on an unknown shore, valued the true faith above all else and immediately inquired from the local bishop: is he in unity with the Roman Church? St. Jerome, in the face of Eastern schisms, did the same: "The three-way divided church is tearing me apart. And I cry out: whoever is in unity with St. Peter's seat, that is my man!" St. Augustine calls the Donatists: "Come, brothers, if you want to be grafted into the vine. It pains the human heart to see you cut off like this. Read the bishops, starting from St. Peter's seat, pay close attention to the order of the fathers in which one succeeds the other: this is the rock on which the proud gates of hell shall not prevail." (Ambr. Excess. fratris I 47. Hieron. Epist. 16. August. Ps. c. Donat.)

Proposition: The Church is indefectible. Dogma.

Explanation: The indefectibility of the Church (indefectibilitas) encompasses two aspects: Jesus Christ's Church will endure until the end of time, and this is its constancy, perennitas; moreover, it will remain essentially unchanged in the form that He established, and this is its immutability, immutabilitas. The Church's indefectibility in preserving and proclaiming the revealed truth unchangeably is infallibility. Thus, according to the proposition, the visible Church will always exist on earth; furthermore, the divine element of the Church: the Gospel truth and grace, its instruments: the sacraments and the governing body leading to sanctification, the hierarchy, and its basic organization will always remain the same. However, we should not expect the Church to remain unchanged in incidental matters, such as the Church's fate throughout history, the emergence and disappearance of various non-Christian institutions and movements, the direction of ecclesiastical education, etc. This dogma was denied by those medieval and modern "spiritualists" who expected an eternal Gospel or the age of the Holy Spirit after the age of the Father (Old Testament) and the Son (New Testament), or who proclaimed that after the Petrine (Catholic) and Pauline (Protestant) churches, a Johannine church (without organization and legal character) should follow; such modern sects were the Quakers, Swedenborgians, and Irvingians. Rationalists, including modernists, who drag Christ's Gospel and even more so His Church into the stream of history, also deny the Church's immutability. In opposition to them, the Church has mostly defended the truth expressed in the proposition by condemning erroneous views.

Proof: According to the prophets, the Messiah's kingdom will have no end; God's new covenant, which He makes with humanity, will be eternally valid (2 Samuel 7:12–16; Isaiah 9:6–7, 55:3, 61:8; Jeremiah 31:31–6, 32:40; Daniel 2:44, 7:14; Hosea 2:19; Psalm 71:5–7, 89:36–9; cf. Haggai 2:7, Hebrews 7, 8, Luke 1:32, Hebrews 12:27). The Savior assures that His Church will endure until the end of the world. When sending His disciples out into the world, He assures them, "Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." He builds it on the rock foundation so that "the gates of hell" (death, decay; or more likely, the devil's attacks) cannot prevail against it (Matthew 28:20, 16:18; cf. 7:24, John 14:16). Here, the Savior explicitly speaks only of the Church's survival. But implicitly, He also testifies to its unchangeableness; for He always speaks of His Church; but a Church that essentially deviates from His foundation would no longer be His. The apostles proclaim the Church's indefectibility when they call it the body of Jesus Christ, thus considering it a participant in His excellence. The Church is an "eternal covenant", an "unshakable kingdom", the stronghold and pillar of truth; it is meant to save every person, therefore it must exist as long as there are people (1 Cor 12:12, Eph 1:22, 4:13, Col 1:18; Heb 13:20, 1 Cor 11:26; Heb 12:33, 2 Cor 3:11). However, this essential unchangeability is not stagnation and barrenness, but on the contrary: the Church is the mustard seed growing into a mighty tree, the wheat grain sprouting into a stalk, the leaven permeating the body, the Body of Christ maturing toward adulthood (Mt 13, Jn 12:24; Eph 1:23, 4:12, 1 Cor 12:12). The Church is guided and animated by the Word of Christ, which is spirit and life, and gradually leads the called ones into all truth (Jn 6:63, 16, 1 Pet 1:23).

The Church Fathers were deeply convinced that the founding of the Church falls into the fullness of time; it came in the last hour of the world's day, and therefore will remain until the end of this hour, that is, until the end of the world. They justified Christ's presence in the Church as proof that the Church cannot essentially change. "The Lord Christ received the anointing (the anointing of divinity) on his head so that he might breathe incorruptibility into his Church," says St. Ignatius. This conviction speaks powerfully in St. John's speech before his exile: "Do not be discouraged by the Church! For nothing is stronger than the Church. It is higher than the sky, deeper than the earth; it never grows old!" St. Augustine speaks similarly: "No one can erase God's plan from heaven; no one can erase God's Church from the earth." (Ignat. Eph 17, 1; Chrysost. Hom. de captiv. Eutrop. 6; Hom. ante exil. 1 2; August. Epist. 43, 9, 27; in Ps 101, 2, 8; Ambr. in Ps 40, 30; Athanas. in Ps 88, 38.)

The deeper reason for the Church's unchangeability is that in Jesus Christ, God's unshakable wisdom has given the perfect and definitive revelation, which is realized in and through the Church; its sustaining power is God's providential will, which can ensure the existence of the Church until the end of time (Rom 8:31, Eph 5:25), even amidst continuous attacks from opposing historical forces. However, this comforting great truth cannot give grounds for either the members or, especially, the leaders to slacken in apostolic zeal and vigilance; just as the truth of providence in general cannot be a title for rash confidence or inactivity; even less so, because the survival of the whole Church is indeed guaranteed by Christ's promises, but by no means the survival of the Church among individual nations. History confirms the Savior's words that his kingdom is taken away from lazy, unworthy people and careless shepherds, and given to those who produce worthier fruits.

Difficulties. 1. It was prophesied, repeatedly, that the Old Covenant would last forever; yet it gave way to the New Covenant. – Response. The Old Covenant, according to the clear testimony of Scripture, was of a temporary nature. What was intended for eternal preservation in it, Jesus Christ took up into the New Covenant, and thus it continues to live in the New Covenant. Moreover, believing Israel became the seed of the new Church and the heir of Christ's eternal kingdom (Rom 11,1.29.).

2. Everything under heaven changes, and the common fate of human affairs cannot be avoided by Christ's Church. – Response. This extreme relativism has haunted since Heraclitus. However, serious reflection shows that there is unchanging existence, the unconditional reality, God; and therefore, in principle, it is possible and, as a consequence of Christ's promise, certain that the temporal reflection of this unchangeability, the order of revealed truth and grace, the divine element of the Church, will also essentially remain unchanged. Indeed, from a purely philosophical point of view, one can say: If there were no unchanging element in created existence, there could be no change; for change consists in something remaining and something becoming different: quidquid mutatur, quantum ad aliquid manet, quantum ad aliquid transit.

3. According to critics, Church history testifies that the community which primarily calls itself Christ's Church has gone through profound changes. Two impassable chasms cut through the path of church history: one separates Christ from the apostles, the other separates them from the Catholic Church; and even within these two sections, the Church is essentially different around 30, 60, 90, 130, 190 (Harnack). – Response. It can be shown that all the essential elements of the Church, especially its teachings, which are most attacked by liberal Protestants and modernists, originate from Jesus Christ; therefore, the changes are not essential. This is also confirmed in detail by the present dogmatic discussion, which repeatedly points out how far the propositions of the liberal school are not born of history, but of negative dogmatics.

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

aqwsed12345

The WTS publication "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" emphasizes that this is a parable and nothing more. All thoughts related to the literal place of torment must be excluded. They ask rationally:

"Is it reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat? Is it Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar? Consider this too: Is hell literally within speaking distance of heaven so that an actual conversation could be carried on? Also, if the rich man were in a literal burning lake, how could Abraham send Lazarus to cool his tongue with just a drop of water on the tip of his finger?"

For all these reasons, this cannot be a literal account of events. What, then, did Jesus want to say with this? The Watchtower Society interprets the story allegorically:

"In this illustration the rich man stood for the class of religious leaders who rejected and later killed Jesus."

Some individuals here expand into entire groups of people. They also reinterpret the torment spoken of in the story. It no longer refers to the afterlife (Lk 16:22), but to the fate of religious leaders shortly after the events of Pentecost:

"Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works."

The fact that this explanation is unconvincing is proven, on the one hand, by the fact that the biblical text itself provides no basis for such a purely historical interpretation. On the other hand, the Watchtower Society has provided at least five different explanations for Lk 16:19-31 throughout its history - which we will omit for the sake of brevity. Dietrich Hellmund (1971) speaks in his dissertation of the "persistent, unsolved problem" of Jehovah's Witnesses in connection with the many and varied attempts at explanation. Russell's confession was still the most honest: "Here we find the only place in Scripture that suggests the possibility of thinking, feeling, torment, or joy in Hades or Sheol" (Biblical Studies 5, 1926, p. 361).

As we have seen, Luke 16:19-31 is by no means the only place that confirms this. How should Luke 16:19-31 be interpreted in reality? This is a difficult question in theological research as well. In my opinion, however, some basic statements can still be made.

First of all, it is not entirely clear whether this is really a parable. Compared to Jesus' other parables, there is at least one striking difference: the naming of "Lazarus", which otherwise never occurs in Jesus' parables. Various Church Fathers were therefore of the opinion that this is not a parable, but that Jesus is referring to a real Israeli event. Tertullian writes (De anima 7): "What would the name 'Lazarus' be doing here if it were not a real event? But even if it were a parable that demands faith, it would still be a testimony to the truth." The distinguished biblical scholar Theodor Zahn also points to the naming in connection with Lk 16:19-31, which "stands without parallel in all of Jesus' parables that have come down to us, both in the narrower and broader sense."

Even if the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is indeed an illustration, Jesus never used false or misleading things.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

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

"None of these claims are supported by scripture."

Of course they are. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.

Additionally, the Scriptures do not merely ascribe to the Son some kind of cooperation in the creation, but also teach that he is creator of all creatures (which according to them he does not belong to), and creation is only a divine ability. Angels can perform miracles to a certain degree, but they cannot create, that is the exclusive ability of God.

Since the Scriptures clearly state that YHWH God "alone" created the world, at the same time the New Testament states in many places that the Son is also the creator, two possibilities remain:

Scripture contradicts itself
YHWH God is not merely the Father, but also the Son.

"The prepositional phrase ἐν αὐτῷ does not read "by him" but "in him.""

Who said it's not? In Colossians 1:16 there is "en autō" indeed, but what does it prove? The Son's role in the creation is described in many ways, in John 1:3 we read "di autou", which means "through him". Also: 1 Corinthians 8:6, and more explicitly Hebrews 1:10.

"Additionally, Paul uses the metaphor of a son's relationship to his father. He is the image of God. The word translated image derives from the impress of a master die on a coin."

Yep, Colossians 1:15 describes the Son as the image (eikon) of God the Father. Also Hebrews 1:2 "the exact expression (kharakter) of His substance (hypostasis)". These words express a meaning like exact impression, exact representation, "mirror-like representation", etc. Also according to Philippians 2:9, in Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity/deity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not just the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it. Thus the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."

"Christ is not the original, but the 'spitting image' of God. He is begotten - called elsewhere the 'only begotten' son. The very word implies an origin."

You are knocking on open doors, the Nicene teaching on the Son never stated that the Son is not from the Father. On the contrary: the Son is generated from the Father, but not made, not by creation, but - as the Scripture says - begotten, born, and "before" the creation of the aions. The Son received his being and deity from the Father, who communicated his entire essence to him. Or according to the Athanasian creed:

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

"And we have an origin attached to him in Malachi and in 1 John. John describes Jesus as ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, that is "from the beginning"

It's self goal: The expression, "from the beginning", here is equivalent with in the beginning (John 1:1) and therefore to mean from the beginning of time, or rather, from eternity.

"and Malachi describes Jesus as having an origin. Five / two reads according to the AV " But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." The Hebrew from which "goings forth" is derived implies an origin."

Ad 1: It's not Malachi, but Micah 5:2.

Ad 2: Just to repeat, the Nicene Christology never denied the Son is unbegotten, without having the orign from the Father. The point is: this generation of him from the Father is NEVER called creation, but "begotten", "born." The Scripture makes a clear distinction between the two.

Ad 3: It's self goal: It's says the Son's origns are from ancient times, from the eternety/everlasting [ūmōwṣā’ōṯāw miqqeḏem mîmê ‘ōwlām].

"No matter what slant one puts on "firstborn" - whether we take it to me 'principal one" or literally 'first of all' it is still "of creation." Jesus is classed with creation. He is the agent of the creator. [..] Paul says there is only one, Jesus who is God's first work, his firstborn, who is "of creation."

Paul never said Jesus is God's "first work".

"Firstborn" is the title of the Son, used in the many times, and doesn't mean "first something in order", but implies a pre-eminent position, main heir, ruler, etc. Prōtotokos does not mean "first created" but "firstborn". The first half of the word "first" here does not mean first in order, but roughly like in the English word "Prime Minister", "prime" does not mean the first ever minister. And the second half of the word says the same thing as the Nicene Christology: born. In the contemporary context, prōtotokos here is a title, a dignified name, roughly meaning "distinguished, pre-eminent heir".

The text does not place the "firstborn" in the group of the creatures by using the genitive. Let's see the next thought, "pasēs ktiseōs" is in the genitive case, which in English we connect with "of". WTS interprets it approximately as "among", thus "firstborn among the creatures'', even though in the case when Paul expressly wanted to include the firstborn in that group, instead of using the genitive case, he specifically put it this way, like in Romans 8:29 where he calls the Son "the firstborn among many brothers" (en pollois adelphois).

In summary, the correct meaning of "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" here is not that he is the first created being, but rather that he is "distinguished, pre-eminent heir (ruler) of the whole creation", thus "over the whole creation." This interpretation corresponds to the linguistic and cultural context of the time and the biblical context also.

"You misstate Watchtower belief. You craft straw man arguments."

Say one example.

"You seek to diminish Slim's arguments by insulting his sources rather than refuting the actual point."

If you read back, I looked up the specifically indicated sources of each one (Origen, Justin). Instead of looking at my sources and thinking about it, or giving me some kind of appreciable response, slimboyfat just thew another secondary quote at home, mainly from people who are not relevant authorities in theology, let alone in the history of the church or the history of dogma.

I did not attack the person of his sources, but the method he used.

This is a typical WTS propanda tactic, well known to any apologist who has researched the cited sources of WTS publications. A very good example, the opinion of the scientists who allegedly "praise" the NWT, who were asked if they really consider the NWT a good example of translating the Bible? And practically all of them pointed out that no, they only praised it in terms of one or some few element, they are fully aware that it is a tendentious mistranslation in terms of the theologically relevant biblical passages.

Slimboyfat did the same thing, he started throwing all kinds of quotes that, well, even this and this scientist said the same thing. Of course, what was left out of the quote was what this scientist specifically based his opinion on, or if so, I was able to find out in 5 minutes that that did not support that opinion.

WTS can effectively make people who are not familiar with scientific methodology believe that there is a scientific consensus behind their position, although this is not true, the best example of this is the Howard hypothesis for the alleged removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament, which is just a completely baseless assumption, or better said: a conspiracy theory.

It is not a big deal to collect quotes from books where someone gives an opinion that the Church has "corrupted" in its theology and practice after the turn of Constantine, however, if we ask the question properly, it turns out that it is unfounded in the given question.

In it's specific issue, the lesson is clear: Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). There is not even a single early Christian source exists before Arius, that specifically and explicitly states that the Son is "the first created being" and that "the Son is the Archangel".

So the claim that the Christology of pre-Nicaea Christianity was like that of today's WTS is also a conspiracy theory, along with the alleged "great apostasy" as a whole.

"An example is your comment on John Locke whose "Reasonableness of Christianity" is a classic."

I did not say that John Locke is not a significant person in general, but he is not relevant at all in theology, especially church history.

"The issue here is what the Scriptures actually say..."

I somewhat agree, with the addition that, in addition to the Scriptures, what the earliest Christian sources report on is also important. Assuming that the Church founded by Jesus is led by the Holy Spirit, and knowing that there was no canonized New Testament Bible in the apostolic age, as we know it today, by definition the creed and theology of the early Christians are also the result of the oral teachings of the apostles.

"...not what the vain philosophies of speculative writers have said."

Yes, I'm well aware of this JW technique, when you can't deal with my argument, you quickly throw in this alibi excuse, this stupid thought-terminating cliché that "it's philosophy!" and "this is just human reasoning and speculation!". Which actually means nothing more than the the argument presented is too sophisticated for them to understand, or cannot refute, and if it's too high-level, it obviously can't be true. The sect is truly the apotheosis of poor quality, the cult of ignorance.

Also, because your WTS denominational doctrine is so deeply rooted in your mind that, like a computer virus, for the sake of its own "health", prevent the "antivirus program" that threatens it, from starting. Thus, the extremely deep level of indoctrination repeated day by day, as well as the stubborn attitude of "I'm just holding on despite all" cons, prevents correct objective comparison and meaningful reflection.

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

aqwsed12345

Sheol/hades isn’t hell, gehenna is.

Bible distortion is what NTW does, for example in Psalms 146:4.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

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

I ask you again:

How could "a lesser god" (demigod), or an archangel participate in the creation, if Bible clearly states that no one other than YHWH God completed the creation "alone" - Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2, 8.

It is even conceptually impossible, since only God can create. 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.

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

aqwsed12345

Anony Mous

Deut 32:22, Is 33:11.14, Is 66:24, Dan 12:2, Psalm 21:10, Mt 8,12; Mt 25:41, Mt 25:46, Mt 3,12; Mk 9:43-49, Lk 3,16-17, Lk 13:28, Rom 2,6-9, 2Tess 1:6-9, 2Pt 2:4, Rev 14:11, Rev 20,10.15

Salmond, Stewart (1903). The Christian Doctrine of Immortality.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

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 highlighted words are from Greek philosophy."

It's not an argument, it's just a bluff that you can't give a meaningful answer.

There are many terms known and used in Greek philosophy used in the NT terminology, such as: pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, etc. So the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well, so it's completely justified.

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. Paul 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. Apostles 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.

"By contrast, in biblical language Jesus is, “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1.15), “the beginning of the creation of God” (Rev 3.14)"

Neither text proves what you reads into it. This interpretation is, to put it mildly, improbable, and the other statements of Scripture that the Son was "begotten" and already "was" in the beginning, even though excludes this interpretation, not to mention the countless statements that cannot be applied to creatures. The term firstborn in biblical context doesn't mean "first in order", but pre-eminent heir. In the contemporary context, prōtotokos here is a title, a dignified name, roughly meaning "distinguished, pre-eminent heir". Just as WTS literure can understand it well in other context:

„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)

So if the title "firstborn" actually means "preeminent position", why would "preeminent of all creation" mean the "first creature"?

The fact that "the arche of God's creation" in the given Hellenic cultural-linguistic environment did not mean at all that he was the "first created being", but rather the primordial, elementary principle, active cause, orign, etc. of creation. This was the meaning of the word "arkhe" in the original language, which the English word "beginning" cannot accurately reflect. You can check how many times and senses does the NT uses this word int the Concordance.

“I live because of the Father” (John 6.57)"

That also doesn't refute the Nicene theology, which also holds this: the Son is generated from the Father, but not made, not by creation, but - as the Scripture says - begotten, born, and "before" the creation of the aions.

"“the Lord created me” (Prov 8.22 in the Jewish Publication Society translation, Robert Alter’s translation, the NRSV, and the LXX as quoted and accepted by all the early Christian fathers, including Athanasius)."

Whoever translates it so, whoever "accepts" this, it's still a mistranslation. It's qanah in the Hebrew text, not bara. And only the original language text is inspired, a translation is not. Athanasius did not "accept" this, just didn't addressed the issue, since he wasn't a Hebraist, nor a Bible translator. And still could refute Arianism.

"You have not given any good reason why these scriptures don’t simply mean what they say"

I have: these text doesn't mean what they "mean" in your mind. I've proven that firstborn doesn't mean first created, from WTS publications I could prove this is a title means "pre-eminent", and arkhe also doesn't mean "first in order or time", and "beginner", but the originating, promordial principle. He doesn't have beginning, he is THE beginning, the arkhe himself.

"any reason why Origen did not mean what he said when he called Jesus the “most ancient of all the works of creation”."

I have: you can look up yourself that Origen was clearly Trinitarian, although sometimes with imprecise wording, but professed that the Son is truly God, and begotten of the same substance of the Father. So you are doing a fallcy quoting out of context. Your translation is also misleading, since he doesn't said He was the first created being, but practically that he is older than demiurges. Origen's words do not at all testify to an Arian consensus in Christology before the 4th century. You also received links where this is presented in detail, but then again for your pleasure:

"John Ziesler said that Jesus is distinct from God and subordinate to him."

Who cares what John Ziesler said or thought? What authority does he have? Nicene theology also accepts that Jesus is distinct from God the Father, and again: Self-subordination doesn't imply inferiorness in substance, that's why it's also necessary to distinguish if we are talking about the ontological, or about economical relationship of the Father and the Son. And after Incarnation the Son is also fully human, and as human of course inferior to God.

"How much clearer could he have been? How can you say that I am not quoting him fairly?"

Because you're doing a WTS-style 'quote collection", "quote mining", without any actual research, and you're throwing quotes at me as authorities. I asked you many times to stop it, since it completely against the scientific methodology and annoying as well.

Raymond Franz describes well that the job of many in Bethel is to visit libraries and look for half-sentences that can be taken out of lexicons. I don't care how many quotes you put in front of me to see, "even" Dr. John Smith and Dr. Franz Williams said. This is a misleading WTS propaganda tactic to frame their interpretation as "scientific consensus". There is a good chance that they did not think in the first place what the WTS wants to put into their mouths, that the early Christians professed a WTS Christology. If you asked them that question, you would get some interesting answers. They write cautious opinions, conclusions, and hypotheses without concrete evidence. The point is

Nowhere does the Bible call the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). You more specifically, your secondary sources could not name a single early Christian source that specifically and explicitly states that the Son is "the first created being" and that "the Son is the Archangel".

We can see the opposite countless times in early Christian literature, from which it follows that they professed essentially the same content of faith as what was recorded in the Nicene Creed, so there was no alleged "great apostasy", which Jesus' words in Matthew 16:18 exclude anyway. There was no doctrinal break in the true church, false teaching did not take over. See also Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 2:13.

"It is true that Jehovah’s Witnesses have described Jesus as an angel, but a fair representation of their teaching would acknowledge that they far more often they emphasise that Jesus is unique and superior to the angels because he is the “only begotten Son”."

Yep, but Hebrews 1 clearly proves that the Son is superior to "all the angels", so he cannot be one of them in any sense at all. An archangel is still just an angel, as the archbishop is also a bishop. Maybe the NWT forgot to add the word "other" here. If he cannot be an angel, since he is superior to "all of them", then what is Him? The Scriptures answers clearly: He is Lord, and truly God, not in a sense He is the same (in person) as the God the Father, but in the sense He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis. has the fullness (pleroma) of divinity (theotes, and not theiotes). That's the very same thing, what the Nicene creed contains, when it's says He is homoousios with the Father.

22

"Apostasy"

by Zilgee in

the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.

these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.

we are now following what they decided.

aqwsed12345

I would focus on Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18, which excludes the disappearance of God's church for 1800-1900 years, and the fact is that there is no data to suggest that the theology of the early Christians was even remotely similar to today's JWs By the way, which one is for today's JWs? The current "light"?

In the first place, why did the apostles establish churches, congregations, if true Christianity was destined to disappear in a few decades for almost two thousand years?

Why didn't the apostles write that everyone should wait for 1914, because what we are doing now is irrelevant anyway.

See also Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 2:13.

However, despite all the problems, the Christian church could not cease for 1800-1900 years, because according to Christ, even the forces of hell cannot take over it (Mt 16:18, Jude 24-25, cf. Eph 5:25-32). So who lied: Jesus or the Watchtower? The New Testament also writes about the need for continuous protection of the faith (Jude 3), not about a complete disintegration after the 1st century. 2Thesss 2:3 does not mean "great apostasy" in JW sense, but defection, revolt, departure (without details), and then the Antichrist also appears, who sits in the temple of God, deifies himself, etc. None of this has happened yet.

Check:

This is a false ecclesiastical ideal, a church without history

With the ahistorical view of the church in the Protestant-background separatist communities it is almost dogmatic. The supporters of this view think of the time before the formation of their own communities as if it were not the history of the universal church, but "only the history of the Catholic Church." They see that in the history of "the Church," between the first great century and their movement born in the 19th century, there is only a long pause. By "church," they exclusively mean their own community, and in the pages of church history, they only want to recognize "true Christianity" in those communities or individuals who meet their doctrinal criteria, so their reference has a precedential value. This is the approach, for example, of the 19th-century American restorationist movement-grown "non-denominational" churches, the adventist and new apostolic churches with the identity of the "church of the end times," and the Mormon religion. Although they all see the essence of restoration differently, they all believe that the "original" Christianity of the first century has risen in them.

First of all, however, Christ claimed that he himself is building his church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome, prevail against it (Mt 16:18). Whoever believes that the true Christian church practically ceased to exist for centuries (meaning that the forces did indeed overcome), with this – intentionally or unintentionally – also claims that Jesus did not keep this promise, but lied. His church was not only wounded and ailing for centuries, but had to be exhumed after many centuries.

The glorious and miserable sides of church history, as well as its exemplary but greatly mistaken figures, are as much the property of Protestants as they are of Catholics and Orthodox – and vice versa. Anyone who has never read from ancient and medieval Christian teachers does not know what they are missing, even if they are a fervent Protestant.

Thirdly, this selective filtering of the past has only served to foster denominational arrogance. If all the sins of the past belong to the Catholics, it is easy to distance ourselves from them and thus feel better and superior – but isn't this the Pharisaic logic (cf. Lk 18:9-14)? The past of the church is not there for us to forget or to pick and choose from what we like to identify with, but to learn from every page – just like from the Old Testament or from the good and bad days of our own spiritual life.

The "apostasia" mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 will not occur a few decades after the apostles, but according to Lk 18:8, it will only happen immediately before the second coming of Jesus.

THE ALLEGED “APOSTASY” OF CHRISTENDOM

A recent Watchtower magazine expounds the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ view that orthodox Christianity (“Christendom”) underwent a great apostasy after the death of the apostles: “The death of the apostles removed a restraining influence, allowing a widespread apostasy to develop. (2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8) An organization grew up that unworthily professed to be God’s congregation. It falsely claimed to be the holy nation anointed with God’s spirit to rule with Jesus.” (The Watchtower, 15 June 1992, 19.)

The Witnesses believe that the influx of pagan converts brought in doctrines and concepts from Greek philosophy and religion which were then integrated into the Christian faith, resulting in such “false” teachings as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the immortality of the soul, and eternal punishment in hell. According to the Watchtower Society, Christendom lived in darkness for 18 centuries after this apostasy. Yet they believe there were always individuals who were faithful to divine truth — a truth more fully unveiled when their founder, Charles Russell, began to study the Bible in earnest in the 1870s. To support this view, Watchtower literature regularly cites passages from the church fathers to demonstrate that, even after the apostasy, there were some who believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

In light of this line of argumentation, it is worthwhile to examine the writings of the early church fathers. If indeed such writings reveal that early Christians believed as Jehovah’s Witnesses do today, then surely a reevaluation of orthodox Christian teachings is needed. If these writings fail to support Watchtower claims, however, then one must conclude that Jehovah’s Witnesses represent a new religious tradition of the late 19th century, with no historical connection to apostolic Christianity.

The body of literature of the postapostolic church is substantial, and a full review would be outside of the scope of a limited survey such as this. The most critical period is that prior to the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, because it is historically closest to the apostles.

Did a Great Apostasy Occur?

Was the true faith taught by the apostles lost or corrupted within the first generation after the apostles? If so, then the true faith was not successfully transmitted anywhere in the evangelized world of the first and second centuries — including churches established by the apostles, with leadership appointed personally by them. A “great apostasy” would require an extraordinary event: the simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of Christians throughout the civilized world. Included in this apostasy would be disciples of the apostles themselves, as well as those who witnessed the thousands of martyrs who, just a short time previously, refused to deny Christ, either explicitly or by worshiping pagan gods.

A great apostasy, wherein the doctrines of Greek pagan philosophy replaced apostolic teaching, would most likely have begun in areas where the church was accepting a large number of converts with backgrounds in Greek religion and philosophy, such as Alexandria, Egypt. The prominent western churches established directly by the apostles, such as those in Rome and Antioch, would likely have fallen into heresy more slowly. But the historical facts do not support this (or any other) scenario of a “great apostasy.” Had a great apostasy begun immediately after the death of the apostles, as the Watchtower claims, a mixture of “true Christianity” (i.e., Watchtower–type teachings) and “pagan heresy” (i.e., orthodox Christian teachings) would be discernible in the literature of the early church, which was widespread in its geographical points of origin.

Is it possible that all the writings of the followers of the “true faith” were completely destroyed by the paganized church? Such a view is highly improbable. Many manuscripts have survived from Gnosticism (a widespread religious movement of this period which combined elements of Greek paganism and eastern mystery religions), despite several centuries of concerted attack and condemnation by the church. Yet not a single document exists pointing to a group who believed as the Jehovah’s Witnesses do today.

The absence of such early “Watchtower” literature causes one to doubt the existence of the so-called “faithful and discrete servant class.” After all, the stated purpose of these 144,000 anointed servants in Jehovah’s plan is to provide “meat in due season” — that is, literature that imparts “accurate knowledge” about the Bible. If these early Jehovah’s Witnesses were true to the kingdom gospel, handed down to them by the apostles, they would have written sufficiently to provide the faithful with an understanding of the Scriptures. Keep in mind that the Watchtower Society teaches that the Scriptures cannot be properly understood without such aids. The Watchtower Society, while claiming to use the Bible alone, actually teaches that the Bible cannot be understood without the aid of the “meat in due season,” the literature provided by the Society — its interpretation of Scripture being the only valid one. Yet where is the Watchtower literature of the first and second centuries — or for that matter, of any century prior to the 1870s? Its absence is most telling, and highly damaging to the claim of a general apostasy with just a few of the dedicated faithful surviving.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against a universal early apostasy may be found in the commissioning and empowering of the apostles themselves. If a universal apostasy occurred immediately after the death of the apostles, we would have to judge the apostles as incompetent or negligent evangelists who utterly failed to accomplish Jesus’ commission to make disciples. Such an apostasy would reflect poorly on Jehovah God as well, whose “holy spirit” was unable to preserve His followers for even a single generation.

There is, therefore, no reason to believe that a great apostasy occurred following the death of the apostles, with the resulting loss of the “true” Christian faith for over 1800 years. This conclusion seems undeniable in view of the Great Commission, the power of the Holy Spirit, the absence of literary evidence for an alternative group of believers with a gospel similar to that preached by Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the implausibility of the required simultaneous loss of faith by an entire generation of geographically dispersed Christians.

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

aqwsed12345

Hades isn't "Catholic hell", hades is the underworld which cointained Abraham's bosom (limbus patrum) AND the place of the wicked, thus hell, gehenna in the OT.