Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

73
"Jehovah" In The New Testament.
by LostintheFog1999 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.
aqwsed12345
A shared treasure of Judaism and Christianity, an important element of faith is the name of God; Christians have no particular objection to the name "Jehovah", but they do not insist on it, because it is a theological term.
The Hebrew language originally only recorded consonants, and it was only supplemented with vowel marks in the early Middle Ages. Since when reading the letters YHWH, they always said Adonai ("Lord") instead of Yahweh, the vowels of Adonai were written above and below the consonants YHWH in the Middle Ages (1520, Galatinus). Thus the form "Jahovah", "Jehovah" or "Jehovah" was created, which sounds impossible to Hebrew ears.
This theological term has nevertheless become quite widespread in theological literature, in translations of the Old Testament (!), and in poetry over the centuries.
In Exodus 3:14, "I Am Who I Am" (in Hebrew: ehyeh asher ehyeh), or "I Am" (ehyeh) himself sends Moses to the people. The meaning of the introduction is obvious from the context: God is who He is, and He doesn't have a name in the sense of the pagan gods, who could be invoked and influenced by their names, but He is always with them and will be.
"I Am" is none other than the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, because in verse 15 he continues: "...YHWH, the God of your fathers...". The origin and pronunciation of the word YHWH (approx. Yahweh) is highly debated among experts. The Watchtower has adopted the interpretation that this is the causative form (hifil) of the old, rare version of the verb to be (havah), which would mean: "the Creator"; YHWH in Israeli translations is Adonai ("Lord"), Shaddai ("Almighty").
The Jews were not afraid of "superstitiously" pronouncing the name, but of unnecessary invocation of the Person behind it, reckless, insignificant, aimless, or malicious mention (the "in vain" in Exodus 20:7 refers to this). Understandably, due to their terrifying experiences with God, they avoided the "vain" use of God's name.
The Jews copied the Scripture letter by letter, but certain errors occurred; when the scribes noticed this, they indicated the correct reading with marginal notes, thus distinguishing between the ketib ("written") and the qere ("to be read") text. However, they did not mark God's name with a special qere because they expected everyone to know: if they read YHWH with their eyes, they should say Adonai ("the Lord") with their mouth. Jews still often refer to God simply as "the Name" (ha-Shem).
If Jesus in the synagogue (Luke 4:16-21) had pronounced the Name while reading Isaiah (61:1-2), wouldn't that have caused an outrage among the "superstitious" Jews, wouldn't they have attacked him immediately? Instead, we read that they listened attentively to the reading (4:20), and even initially received his added words positively (4:22).
Indeed, Jesus "did not teach like the scribes", but not merely because he was against the traditions that contradicted the law. Unlike the scribes who referred to the Scripture and to each other, Jesus stated things "as one who had authority", as one who could refer to himself (see at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 7:29). What does this have to do with the use of the Name in the synagogue scene?
The "Lord's Prayer" is a prayer addressed to our Father. If Jesus really wanted to encourage the use of the Name with the Lord's Prayer, why should we call God Father, why doesn't the prayer start like this: "Our Lord...", or like this: "Our Jehovah"?
How could a prayer addressed to God encourage us, people, to consider God's name holy? The word "hallow" is not in the optative but in the imperative mood, and it does not ask something from man, but from God. Translated literally: "let your name be hallowed", i.e., by God, i.e., God should make it holy among people, so that finally his royal rule may come, and his will may be done on earth as it is done in heaven (Mt 6:9-10).
If the use of God's name is really so important, then why do Jehovah's Witnesses address God with a theological hybrid word alien to Hebrew, why not according to the most probable pronunciation (e.g. Yahweh)?
Some fragments from early times of the 3rd-century BC Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint, LXX) that have survived contain the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text.
However, this does not mean that they later left it out because of "superstition", as the substitution of JHVH with Kyrios in later editions was not a translation of JHVH, but of Adonai, thus drawing attention to the correct reading (the kere).
This was obviously not needed for the Jews, but for the pagans who were already reading the LXX.
But the pagans would not have been able to do anything with the four Hebrew letters within the Greek text anyway, they would have misunderstood it, so Kyrios was needed from the outset.
In the era of the emperors, who deified themselves and also had themselves called kyrios, it was a testimony on the part of the Jews that their God was "the Lord" (ho kyrios), and not the emperor.
Jehovah's Witnesses' own Bible translation, the New World Translation, has a very debatable feature: it uses the name Jehovah in the New Testament as well, which they call the Christian Greek Scriptures. Witnesses have a hard time defending this stance, because:
- There is not a single New Testament manuscript left to us that contains the name Jehovah.
- The organization's Wescott-Hort text also does not use the name Jehovah.
- No contemporary work mentions that the name was in the New Testament.
- Even in the works of Christian writers, there is no trace of this.
The topic of the divine name has already produced several studies from the critics. The foundations of the argument are not solid. The Society's argument (as a recent study pointed out) is based on some assumptions. We would like to highlight a few of these.
One assumption is that the Septuagint (LXX) translation quoted by Christians used the divine name. There is insufficient evidence for this. The appendix contains 12 fragments, but these prove: there were LXX versions that included the divine name. However, many other LXX fragments do not use it. When the New Testament writers quote the LXX, they used several versions, not just one. But the JHVH name is indeed in the original Scriptures, so this assumption can be overlooked.
The main question is whether Jesus' disciples used the Name? Not a single Christian writer, not a single early Christian group's surviving writings contain the Name. Why?
The apostles indeed quoted the Old Testament either from the Hebrew text (from memory, or possibly from scrolls in their possession), or according to the first-century, commonly used editions of the Greek LXX.
There is not a single fragment of the Greek New Testament that contains even a single Hebrew letter or the Greek transcription of YHWH.
There is no historical record that such a New Testament text ever existed, or that anyone ever saw anything like it.
Is there any factual basis for the Watchtower's claim that the New Testament authors also inserted the Hebrew JHVH into the Greek text?
If not, why does it present as a fact something for which there is no evidence, and which contradicts the well-known facts?
According to the appendix, some have falsified the New Testament writings. However, this is just a theory, as the Society acknowledges (although a theory cannot be treated as a historical fact...). George Howard invented this theory, but he himself did not dare to declare it as a fact. Why not? Because there is no evidence for it. A step as significant as the editing of the Gospels would have required a joint resolution, a joint conspiracy. There would have been traces of this, the Jewish religious leaders would have attacked immediately. But nothing like this happened.
There is not a single written record within Christianity that the church called upon the copyists or translators of the Scriptures to erase JHVH. Such a decision would have required at least a universal council resolution, would have provoked significant internal resistance, and could not have been carried out secretly.
There is not a single written record outside Christianity either, that would verify or at least indicate something like this, although this could have been a strong argument for the Jews in religious debates.
The Watchtower's claim of Bible forgery is thus only an assumption without proof, i.e., a hypothesis. Nevertheless, they accuse the Christianity of the 2nd and 3rd centuries of capital crime, i.e., Bible forgery, because due to their alleged crime, anyone could have believed until the 20th century, based purely on the Bible, that JHVH was among us in Jesus. It fundamentally questions whether God's revelation was successful and whether His Word has been preserved; this contradicts Jesus, who said that his words will remain forever (see Mt 24:35). They also accuse the writers of 20th century Christian Bible translations, hymn books or creeds of hatred against the Name of God, because they mostly omit the name "Jehovah" that still appears in old translations, and replace it with "Lord".
None of the surviving Greek New Testament copies contain Hebrew letters, and there is no historical trace of the Name being "erased." The Society, therefore, presents unproven assumptions as facts (slander). The name Jehovah appears 237 times in the "Christian Greek Scriptures," of which 82 are quotes from the Old Testament that contain YHWH, but the other 155 cases were chosen completely arbitrarily. If we start from the existing copies and the facts: the New Testament calls the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit both Lord and God.
Isn't it theological bias to present something as a fact for which there is no evidence? Isn't the Watchtower afraid that its claim contradicts even the words of Jesus? Does the Watchtower rightly accuse Christian churches, who do not object to the Name, as they regularly use the "Yahweh" accepted by the Jews, and even the form Jehovah in specialist literature, sermons, some Bible translations and hymn books, and who, not out of resentment against God and his name, but primarily to distance themselves from the teachings of the Watchtower and its separate Bible, were forced to avoid the variant name "Jehovah"?
The written revelation has been preserved by God's providence; through the many hundreds of preserved copies, thousands of fragments, references, and ancient translations, the sacred text could be completely reconstructed except for a few disputed details. The internationally accepted Hebrew and Greek texts: Biblia Hebraica, Novum Testamentum Graece (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart), The Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, New York).
The New Testament writers (except for Luke), who were native Aramaic speakers, did not use the Hebrew letter YHWH, nor did they try to reproduce its Greek phonetics. In quotes from the Old Testament, they always translated YHWH as "the Lord" (kyrios). They referred to Jesus with the same word: "the Lord" (kyrios), and even to the Holy Spirit (e.g. 2Cor 3:17). In the New Testament there is no rule or indication that the kyrios would have a different meaning specifically for YHWH, and another one specifically for Jesus.
Based on the above facts, we only have three possibilities by the method of exclusion:
- if the authors of the New Testament had not paid attention to the fact that the reader could confuse YHWH with Jesus, they would have written with a degree of irresponsibility that would fundamentally question the inspiration and sanctity of their writings;
- if the aim of the authors of the New Testament had been deliberate deception, then we could forget the whole issue
- if the authors of the New Testament wrote consciously and carefully, and had no intention of deceiving others, then based on the facts, it is logical to conclude that they also professed the deity of Jesus.
The WTS presents its own assumption as fact. No one can know what or all that was used in the 1st century. As for Jesus, he knew Hebrew and likely read from the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogues of Palestine, not from the LXX.
According to linguistic research, the Apostles mostly quoted from the Hebrew originals of the Hebrew Scriptures, rarely from the LXX's Old Greek versions, and probably often quoted from memory. The appendix of The Greek New Testament (United Bible Sociates, New York, 4th edition, 1993) lists all Old Testament quotations and allusions, separately marking those taken from the Septuagint with LXX. As I counted, only 62 out of 309 quotes come from the LXX, and only 41 out of about 1200 references. The ratio of quotes and references taken from the Hebrew text and its Greek translation (LXX) is fifteen to one!
Undoubtedly, some copies of the LXX that contained the Name survived even after the 1st century. The WTS itself mentions the 2nd-century (converted to Judaism) Aquila LXX edition, and the 4-5th-century publication by Jerome (Hieronymus), who still saw such copies. However, it is a question why there is not a single fragment or at least a reference to the Tetragrammaton being included in the Christian Greek Scriptures, contrary to the LXX. Why is there no historical data about anyone ever seeing such a thing?
If Jesus had pronounced the Name (the third word of Isaiah 61:1) in the synagogue, the Jews would have immediately reproached him, who, according to the WTS, never uttered the Name out of "superstitious" fear. Instead, they listened to him and only became upset when Jesus claimed that the text he read was being fulfilled right there, in him.
Jesus taught differently from the scribes, not because he freely pronounced the name, but because he taught with authority [exousia] during the Sermon on the Mount. While the rabbis could only refer to the Scripture or to some other famous rabbis, Jesus taught with his own authority: "You have heard that it was said… But I say to you…" (cf. Jn 6:45). Such a sermon ended with Mt 7:28-29.
Jesus' disciples knew God's YHWH name: they knew how to write and pronounce it, as the people could hear it year by year from the mouth of the high priest who presented the sacrifices. Jesus did not make his disciples acquainted with God's name in the sense that he had to betray a sequence of sounds, and there is no biblical data that he would have encouraged them to use the name freely. To "make someone known by name" means to introduce someone personally or to present someone's personality. Thus, Jesus introduced God's essence, personality to his people who had distanced themselves from God (cf. Jn 1:18).
Few Jehovah's Witnesses can look up the Greek base text used, although the Society published it in 1985. Even it does not contain the divine name!!! The Watchtower Society refers to so-called 'J sources'. The problem is that the 'J sources' are all late (1385–1979) translations, not copies made from the Greek text.
The evidence that the organization has brought up over the years in favor of this characteristic of the translation has all been refuted. The July 15, 2001 issue of The Watchtower came up with a new "proof" that quickly turns out to be, to put it mildly, misleading.
The article starting on page 29 deals with Origen. On page 31, there is a picture showing a part of Origen's work Hexapla, with the Greek transcription of YHWH circled. The explanatory text next to the picture says:
"Origen's work titled Hexapla proves that the name of God was used in the Christian Greek Scriptures."
The article no longer makes this claim, only that the Hexapla contains the name of God and this is the proof that the Christians used the name Jehovah.
A research-minded Witness might be satisfied with this and be reassured that something still confirms the Governing Body's position. Is this really the case?
The magazine itself provides the answer on page 30, where it honestly acknowledges what the Hexapla is. It writes, "The Hexapla is a large fifty-volume edition of the Hebrew Scriptures." So, it is an OLD TESTAMENT! Nobody disputes that the name Jehovah has a place in the Old Testament. But the fact that the Old Testament and its translations use the name Jehovah does not prove that it was also in the New Testament. Therefore, the caption on page 31 is highly misleading and does not reflect reality.
The J-sources
What are these so-called J-sources? Several in-house Witnesses asked us. This was partly our fault because we used a designation that the Witnesses do not know. Therefore, we owe an explanation. To prepare a translation, texts are needed on which we base the translation into a given language. These are the sources we use. There are several thousand manuscripts available for the New Testament. These texts had to be distinguished from each other. Therefore, each of these usable source materials received an individual code with a combination of a letter and a number. The earliest material in time, for example, is P52, made in AD 125. Each papyrus manuscript received a P sign. The book mentions the New Testaments translated into Hebrew. The Watchtower Society (but not others!) refers to these with a J letter.
What's wrong with these J-marked sources? The P-marked sources were created between AD 100 and 300 (these are copies of copies made from the original writings and their copies, etc.). The Hebrew alef-marked Codex Sinaiticus is also from the 4th century AD. The A-marked Codex Alexandrinus is from the 5th century AD, etc. What are the J sources? New Testament translated into Hebrew. So these are not copies, but translations, which is a significant difference. Translations are generally less accurate (more distorted) than copies. It is generally not professional to justify a translation process with another translation when talking about deviation from the copies! It's like justifying my wrong action with someone else's wrong action.
Another big mistake is that the copies marked with P, Hebrew alef, A, B, C, and D are fairly early. The time gap between them and the original Writings is between 25 and a few hundred years. The reader may smile at a few hundred years. But do they know how many years are between the translations marked with the letter J and the original Writings? The Society lists 27 such translations. The earliest translation is from 1385 (distance 1287 years), the latest is from 1981 (distance 1883 years); so a few hundred years really is a trifle compared to this.
But why is this important? Because the J sources are the most fundamental from the point of view of the NWT. Only these use the divine name. Not a single copy, only these translations! We think it is understandable how significant this is. The New World Translation reference version lists these translations in detail.
At first glance, it may not be striking, but the age of the so-called "J" sources is of great significance. According to the information found in KIT and NWT,
- the earliest "J" labeled Hebrew translation, "J2" (containing the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew), dates from 1385 AD, thus from the 14th century, the Middle Ages;
- the most frequently quoted Hebrew translation, "J7" (the entire New Testament in Hebrew), is from 1599 AD, on the threshold of the new era;
- the most recent is the 1979 "J22" (also a complete translation).
In contrast, it is a well-known fact that the earliest Greek manuscripts in our possession, which contain the words "kyrios" and "theos", were copied only about 30 years after John wrote the Book of Revelation. The earliest Hebrew translation brought up to substantiate the use of "Jehovah" in the New Testament was thus created at least 1300 years later than the Greek copies! In rendering the text, the Society attributes greater authority to 14th-century and later Hebrew translations than to 2nd-5th century Greek copies. On what basis?The Watchtower Society essentially argues in favor of the NWT by saying that the Tetragrammaton appears in such Hebrew translations that were made from the well-known Greek text which does not even contain the Tetragrammaton! After this, several questions arise:
- The Society does not consider the existing Greek text (Westcott-Hort, 1881), which it also uses, to be intact because, according to its theory, Christians of the 2nd-3rd centuries erased the divine name from it. So, did Jesus and the apostles not tell the truth? (Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:25)
- In the text's translation, the Society attributes greater authority to Hebrew translations from the 14th century and even later than to the Greek copies from the 2nd-5th centuries. On what basis?
- The word "kyrios" ("Lord") appears 714 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 224 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 224 cases and why not in the other 490 cases?
- The word "theos" ("God") appears 1318 times in the Greek text; the NWT replaces this 13 times with "Jehovah". The question is, why did it do this in exactly these 13 cases and why not in the other 1305 cases?
- Although 82 out of the 237 cases involve quotes from Hebrew texts that contained the Tetragrammaton, what justifies the other 155 cases? What does not justify the rest? Do you think the "J" sources can substantiate the replacement of the words "Lord" and "God" with "Jehovah"?
The Society treats Professor Howard's theory similarly to its own as a fact ("historical fact"), or presents it misleadingly as a statement ("used the tetragrammaton"). Howard's theory remained what it was in professional circles: a hypothesis, an unproven assumption. Regarding the Talmudic passage, Howard also only hypothesized, and did not claim that these were Jewish-Christian texts.
This theory of Howard's also remained what it was: a hypothesis. Moreover, Howard at least inaccurately provided the title of the Talmud quotation: "Talmud Shabbat 13,5" simply does not exist. According to Ezra Bick, an Israeli Talmud scholar, the most probable place for the text is Shabbat 116a. The Society claims that the word here "minim" (heretics) refers to Christians, but in reality, we can guess among three possibilities. The "minim" or heretics refers to Jews (according to Bick's opinion), or to Christians (according to the Society), or to Judaizing Christians, who were also considered heretics by the early Christian church (e.g., the Ebionites).
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

slimboyfat
Long, or not too long, these materials are not available on the Internet, although it would probably be more comfortable to simply throw a bunch of links to you like Blotty did, and say: "Go and read, These links totally refute
I think that Raymond Franz showed a very deep love for his uncle and did not speak disrespectfully of him at all ever. He described his experiences about the organizational structure of the Watchtower, which are in line with the statements of other former members who used to work at the WTS headquarters.
From Raymond Franz's description as well, it is clear that the Watchtower does not have any scientific apparatus, there are no members who have a solid knowledge of the biblical languages, they do not conduct independent research, practically only utilize works of theologians whom they label as "false Christians" or - if the interest so requires - of secular-agnostic authors, of course with a lack of respect for the original author (e.g. Howard), the way I call the "dung beetle" method.
The New World Translation has indeed "stimulated debate" (just like the Book of Mormon), but not because of its scientific value, but because of its shameless translation "culture" that subordinates the basic text to JW theological deviations and interests. By the way, JW apologist, like Furuli also criticized the 2013 NWT.
Fred Franz must have known about as much Greek as I, who had studied Koine a bit in a self-taught way, and set about the task with a dictionary. I would have enough modesty to not start to translate the Bible by myself. JWs had previously used such texts as the Emphatic Diaglott - a translation of marginal importance from 1864 (!) based on an antiquated text edited by Griesbach, which Russell chose because he could acquire the rights to it , and this was spread until 1950, and even after that for Greek. They were not led by revolutionism, because then they would have used WH instead. Their rendering of John 1:1c wasn't their own invention, they simply adopted the solution of the Emphatic Diaglot previously used by the WTS in this regard, which was Benjamin Wilson's translation, who was also just an autodidact translator rather than a real Bible scholar. Btw. his Christology was not Arian/JW-like, but denied the preexistence of Jesus. Placing "Jehovah" in the New Testament is completely rejected, even George Howard distanced himself from it.
I have drawn your attention many times to the fact that Origen was a diverse theologian, if he had lived later, he would have become likely a Jesuit, they often used speculations, thought experiments and thought processes that are even confusing. But you can't abuse Origen's theology as an authority to support for your own position by just picking out one quote, without evaluating his work as a whole. The later church also considered his Christology to be orthodox as a whole, and consequently it cannot be said that he professed WTS-like Christology, otherwise he would have been declared a heretic for his Christology. Quoting an author out of context and falsely portraying him to support a position that the author did not actually support, is disrespectful to the author, and it is incompatible with scientific methodology and elementary decency.
The literature of the ancient church is abundant and diverse, but it does not at all support the conspiracy theory propagated by the Watchtower Society, according to which the Christians of the first centuries believed in what they teach according to their current "light": the "use" of the name Jehovah, Jesus as Michael, the Holy Spirit as "active force," two-group salvation, endtime speculations, 1914, true worship disappearing for 1800 years, "preaching" "house to house" "preaching", only yearly Eucharist without "partaking", etc ec..
Catholic theology professes that the Son submits Himself to the Father according to His human nature. The Scripture also teaches that, in a certain sense, the Father also "receives" something from the Son (e.g., Jn 16:15.23). Jesus submitted Himself (hypotasso) to the Father (1Cor 15:28), "so that God may be all in all", but this does not imply (ontological) inferiority, since He also submitted Himself (hypotasso) to Mary and Joseph (Lk 2:51), and Col 3:11 asserts that "Christ is all in all". The Bible verses (such as Jn 17.3; 20.17; 1Cor 11.3 and similar statements in the New Testament) abused by the Jehovah's Witnesses can only be correctly understood from the perspective of the economy of salvation ("status oeconomiae" - the state of salvific orders) and from within the Trinity (the mutual relations of the divine persons). God, the Father, has placed His Son above all creation, "everything has been put under His feet (27 v.). However, this is valid only until the final fulfillment of all things. In the end, the Son hands everything over to the Father, who subjected everything to Him, and He Himself will forever exercise His filial position ("submission"), which He had assumed in relation to the Father even before the foundation of the world, and this self-submission applies to his human nature. Otherwise, He would not be the Son - even if begotten by the Father from eternity, without a beginning - and thus divine in essence. That is, Jesus only differs in His sonship - this is expressed by "begotten by the Father from eternity, without a beginning" -, otherwise, He possesses the same divine essence, power, from eternity, without a beginning. Why would He not submit, if He Himself was born of the Father, thus coming after the Father in terms of origin (not in time, not in dignity, but in logical order)? The relationship between the Father and the Son is based on love, so this self-submission in the economy does not diminish Christ's true divinity, as if He were renouncing some of His dignity.
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

It is no wonder that the Watchtower Society relies on authors when it wants to prove the alleged distortion of Christian teaching in the first centuries, who do not believe in the truth and historical authenticity of the New Testament in the first place, because one can consistently believe in this only if one also rejects the fact that the Church is supernaturally founded reality. If it is, then it could not fall into "great apostasy". And if fell indeed, then there is nothing supernatural in Christianity, and then authors like Bart D. Ehrman are completely right to throw Jesus and the Bible in the trash.
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

I refer to Karl Barth's critique for you regarding the so-called "biblicists", his critique over the methodology and ideology of biblicism is extremely instructive.
The principle of biblicists: the consistent adherence to the principle of scripture. They believe that only the Bible can give the content of theology, and therefore they systematically and exclusively refer their theology to the Bible. They criticize and even despise doctrines and creeds, they want to eliminate all teachings and philosophies and want to give the Bible alone a voice, because only the Bible is certain to be the word of God, everything else is human writing and human book. The Bible is not a dogmatic doctrine divided into paragraphs, but a harmonious "historical whole". Menken calls this inner whole of the Scripture "the system of the Scripture", and Beck calls it its "organism". However, biblicists only appear to adhere consistently to the principle of scripture, because in the Bible they see not the word of God, but the history of salvation. Hofmann wants to describe the story that connects heaven and earth between God and man, and he brings thousands of biblical quotes as evidence for this. Beck, on the other hand, wants to systematically organize God's truth almost scientifically as a given fact. When they want to free themselves from all philosophy, they become prisoners of their own concept, and when they want to eliminate all dogma and teaching, they read their own dogmas into the Scripture. Barth aptly notes that they throw themselves on the Bible with the same arbitrary titanism as their contemporary modern theologians on the phenomena of spiritual life and history, and as these take reason, emotion, or experience as the principle of theology, so do biblicists make the material of the Bible the principle of theology. The fundamental methodological error of biblicism is precisely this arbitrariness, which wants to start church and dogma history anew with an open Bible on its desk. Barth rightly criticizes them for wanting to enforce the principle of scripture of the reformers, but not in their example of obedient respect for the ecclesiastical community, but with complete sovereign freedom, so they do not really listen to the Scripture, they do not allow it to speak to them freely, according to the grace that justifies the sinner, but they dominate it. "The reformist biblicism certainly did not intend to appeal to the Bible in such a sovereign way to get over the relative, but no less serious authority of the church." According to Barth, we cannot start from the present in such an absolutist way, and we cannot claim for ourselves such a "creatio ex nihilo" ("creation [of the theology] out of nothing"). The theologian cannot teach about the Scriptures if he has not first heard it in the church community. The Bible is read by the church and in it the church hears the Word of God. This means that when we read the Bible, we must also hear what the church has so far read and heard from the Bible. Dogmatics working with the method of biblicism can only be a hotbed of sectarian heresies, but never ecclesiastical dogmatics. The dogmatician is obliged to keep in mind the order in which God placed him; he cannot be a spaceless and timeless "monad", he cannot stubbornly and stubbornly stick to the bare written word. According to Barth, the principle of biblicism has weight and truth only if it departs from the neighborhood of other modern titanisms with respect for dogma. Biblicism is right that the church is entirely under the law of Scripture and is only a church insofar as it listens to Scripture. But the dogmatician, as a member of the church, can only reach the hearing of the Word together with the church, not in a vacuum or arbitrarily chosen space, but within the church. Barth requires strictly biblical behavior from the dogmatician, but not in the sense of the material biblicism of the biblicists, because it is not the task of the dogmatician to reproduce the theology or theologies of the Bible, but to perform critical-reflexive work. This is where it differs from exegesis, which is a constant prerequisite and accompaniment of its work (indeed, the correct theological exegesis is the norm of dogmatics!). A great mistake of material biblicism is that it believes it can directly reproduce the Word of God from the words and conceptual material of the Holy Scripture; it forgets that the Word in the Scripture is only presented to us in the shell of human words and no matter how we systematize and analyze the words and thoughts, we have not yet received the Word of God. Barth understands biblical behavior to mean the thinking behavior of the prophets and apostles, which always starts from an absolutely given precondition: the Deus dixit. The prophets and apostles do not refer in a neutral way, they do not philosophize, but always start from this: And God said! They bear witness to this. The true biblicism is not about stacking up biblical quotations, nor about reproducing the theology of the Bible, but about the fact that the form of our thinking is indeed determined by the precondition of the Deus dixit. That at the same time our thinking must also be biblically substantive, is, as we have seen, a crucial requirement of theological objectivity.
Here, biblicism does not merely cover the view that emphasizes the 'Scripture as the fundamental authority'. This is fundamentally a fideistic-fundamentalist direction. Fideism is an anti-rationalist movement, which emphasizes that human reason alone is incapable of metaphysical and religious knowledge. It does not recognize the significance of knowledge through reason and philosophical science for the believer's insight, and even for the possibility of faith in God. According to them, ONLY revelation leads to these.
And this is where we arrive at biblicism, which strives to form the single, solid point of reference for belief from solely reading and interpreting the Scripture. They consider only the Scripture to be the Word of God, and they want to reveal the truth of the Scripture with only one method, denying the necessity of broader exegesis.
And here we reach the greatest absurdity of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious organization, which starts from the idea that essentially there was nothing but 'paganism', 'false Christianity', 'Christendom', 'apostasy' between the first century and Russel. Beyond the arrogant assumption that everyone was foolish for nearly two thousand years, and not a single theologian could correctly read the Bible, this mentality completely conceals a false ideal of the church: the church without history.
This unhistorical view of the church is almost dogmatically encountered in such Protestant-background sectarian communities. The followers of this view think of the period before the formation of their own organization, denomination, and communities as if it were not the history of the universal church, but 'just 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, a break. They only understand 'the Church' to be their own community and in the pages of church history, they only want to recognize 'true Christianity' in those communities or individuals that meet their own doctrinal criteria, so referencing them is of precedent value. This is the approach of the 'non-denominational' churches grown out of the 19th-century American 'restoration' (restorationist) movement, 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 prevail against it (Mt 16:18). Whoever believes that the church practically ceased for centuries (i.e., the forces of hell did triumph after all) – consciously or unconsciously – also claims that Jesus did not keep his promise, but lied. His church was not just injured and languishing over the centuries, but it had to be exhumed after many centuries.
What kind of arrogance does it take for someone to simply open the Bible after two thousand years, and without any kind of pre-qualification, and then poke at some arbitrarily selected Bible verses (such as Ecclesiastes 9:5) and say, "Gotcha! You've all been fools and ignorants until now, but NOW it was ME, who found it!" That's not exegesis, that's BS.
The glorious and miserable sides of church history, its exemplary and greatly erring figures are just as much the Protestants' as the Catholics' and the Orthodox's – and vice versa. Whoever has never read from ancient and medieval Christian teachers does not know what they are missing, even if they are a zealous Protestant.
Third, this selective filtering of the past has only ever served sectarian pride. If all the sins of the past are the Catholics', we can easily distance ourselves from them, and by doing so we can feel more and better – but isn't this the logic of the Pharisees (cf. Lk 18:9-14)? The history of the Church is not there for us to forget or to selectively pick from it what we identify with, but rather to learn from every page - just like from the Old Testament or the good and bad days of our own faith life.
The "great apostasy" only occurs immediately before the appearance of the antichrist; the "man of sin" will be the antichrist, who will deceive people with miracles, and will declare himself as God in the newly rebuilt Temple (see 2Thess 2:1-12). Anyone who claims that the "great apostasy" has already occurred in the Church: they have also lost their authority, read: Mt 16:18; 2Thess 2:3-7.
However, the universal Christian Church could not have ceased for millennia in spite of all problems, because according to Christ, the forces of hell cannot prevail 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 constant defense of faith (Jude 3), not about a complete disintegration and theological breakdown after the 1st century until the 1870s. The original text of 2Thess 2:3 is not "great apostasy", but "falling away" or "defection" (without any further detail), and this is when the Antichrist also appears, who sits in the temple of God, deifying himself etc. None of this has happened yet.
WTS leaders Fred Franz also talked about the church's "Babylonian captivity", but how long did the Babylonian captivity of Israel last? And compared to that, how many years of "nothing" are there between the alleged "pure Christianity" of the first century and the formation of the Watchtower organization?
Although everyone who only has a basic knowledge of church history, patristics, and the history of dogma, is well aware that in the first centuries of Christianity there was no drastic break in the organization of the Church, nor in the teaching. So this legend of the "great apostasy" is just a silly conspiracy theory, which, in addition to being unsupported by either biblical or historical data, apparently only serves to "make room" for the Russelite movement that arose out of nowhere to explain that the depository of the alleged "true religion", the WTS only established at the very end of the 19th century, and why does it have no historical continuity at all with the origins of Christianity.
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.
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.
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

"Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
This writing analyzes the sources of the first 12 pages of the booklet titled Should You Believe in the Trinity?, published by the Watchtower Society. The source analysis does not intend to argue in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, but seeks to answer the question: Does the Society act correctly and truthfully when quoting ancient and modern authorities? Does it deceive its uninformed and unsuspecting readers? Usually, this booklet is handed out by the well-meaning Witnesses to Christians and those who are interested. The goal of the publication is to make the reader reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, this booklet unsettles many Christians for several reasons. Firstly, the average Christian is not prepared for religious debates against the Witnesses. Secondly, unfortunately, they often do not know their own faith well enough. Thirdly, only a few can verify every piece of information because the booklet never provides the exact sources of the quotations.
Of course, the publication also reached historians, theologians, and educated laypeople who - based on their above-average knowledge of their field - raised too many questions. They asked the Society for the exact sources of the quotations, and their research results have long been published. The Society - as it had nothing to answer - chose the policy of silence in this case as well, so the Witnesses know absolutely nothing about these things.
1. Quotations from modern authors
The WTS quotes The Encyclopedia Americana incompletely. The full text is: "Trinitarians hold that, although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many scientific tenets, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended by the human intellect even if it cannot be comprehended." Therefore, the encyclopedia does not share the Society's view that the doctrine is "contrary to normal thinking", but compares it to scientific theorems that may seem paradoxical due to their incomprehensibility, yet are apprehensible and manageable.
Indeed, a detailed exposition of the Trinity was not in official theological use until the 4th century, i.e., it was not a creed sanctioned by councils, but this does not refute that its essence, in simpler terms, was believed and taught even before the councils. The doctrine was only dealt with at the councils of the 4th century because it was fundamentally questioned by so many people that the issue affected the entire church. The WTS quotes the The Illustrated Bible Dictionary one-sidedly, which in the same article states: "Although Scripture does not provide a formulated doctrine of the Trinity, it contains all the elements from which theology has constructed the teaching." Therefore, despite the Society's incomplete quotation, the theological dictionary supports the Christian view and contradicts the Society's position with its expert authority.
The fact that the Trinity itself is not "directly and concretely" mentioned in the Bible does not negate the possibility that, like many other theological terms, the word expresses biblical content (such as theocracy or the concept of the organization for the Watchtower Society).
The Society quotes the Trinitas – A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity incompletely, the the full text is:
"The great African [i.e., Tertullian] fashioned the Latin language of the Trinity, and many of his words and phrases remained permanently in use: the words Trinitas and persona, the formulas 'one substance in three persons,' 'God from God, light from Light.' He uses the word substantia 400 times, as he uses consubstantialis [of the same substance] and consubstantivus, but hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology."
Contrary to the Society's suggestion, not only the writers of the theological encyclopedia, but Tertullian himself also believed in the Trinity ("one substance in three persons", etc.), even if he did not use the word trinitas in his argumentation.
The WTS quotes Edmund Fortman several times; what was said in the first quote only referred to the Old Testament and its authors, and no one disputes his statement, yet on the same page he himself writes: "...it can be said that some of these writings [Old Testament] about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews." Note: Old Testament passages referring to the divinity of the Messiah, according to Christian theology, only became clear in retrospect, with their fulfillment in Jesus.
By paying attention to the quote from the encyclopedia and Fortman, it is clear that they only claim that the authors of the New Testament did not formulate the mystery of God's nature as an explicit doctrine, officially and in detail. Although the WTS's partial quotes may suggest that Fortman does not believe in the Trinity, the complete text is:
"If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Savior, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission, but they present in their own ways the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But they do give us an elemental trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated."
Despite the WTS's partial, one-sided quote, Fortman's intent as an author and his general understanding of the topic contradicts the theology of the WTS.
The term 'Trinity' and the formulated doctrine, of course, are not present in the New Testament. However, the WTS also quotes The New Encyclopaedia Britannica one-sidedly, which states even within the same entry that "the New Testament lays the foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity." The encyclopedia shares the Christian standpoint that the New Testament is the basis of the doctrine. Its scientific authority contradicts the opinion of the WTS.
Referring to The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, the WTS claims that the Bible "lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of equal essence", but the summary by the WTS ("there is no concrete statement") even goes beyond this. Despite the suggestion of the WTS, the authors of this theological dictionary do not assert the lack of the teaching of the Trinity from the New Testament, but only the "developed doctrine of the Trinity" and the term "of the same essence" (homoousios). Note that John 10:30 and 2 Corinthians 3:17 at least assert the inseparability of the persons, if not their identical nature.
The Trinity as a "dogma" or "concept" was of course unknown to Jesus and Paul, just like the artificial term "Jehovah", or the concept of "theocratic organization". The WTS was only able to turn Hopkins' sentence into "confirming" evidence by quoting it incompletely. In the omitted part, there is a whole clause in the original English and the word referring back to it: "The beginning of the teaching of the Trinity already appears in John's [gospel] (ca. 100), but they say nothing about it [i.e., the Trinity]." Thus, Hopkins sees the teaching appearing at least in one of the books of the New Testament, and this contradicts the Society's view.
The Society fails to mention that historians Will Durant and Siegfried Morenz made similar dismissive statements about things that the Society believes in. For example, according to pages 594-595 of Durant's book (Caesar and Christ), "The Apocalypse is Jewish poetry, the fourth gospel is Greek philosophy... John joined the Greek philosophers." The Society's quote from him: "The idea of the divine trinity originated in Egypt" is incomplete, Durant also includes the Last Judgement among Egyptian ideas, and a little lower he declares: "Millennialism originated in Persia" (i.e., the hope of the Millennial Kingdom, a teaching of fundamental importance for Jehovah's Witnesses). Similarly, the Society fails to mention that Morenz considered the monotheism that believes in one God, the creation myth (pages 162-163), Jewish wisdom literature (pages 251-252), and Jesus' parables (page 254) etc. to be of Egyptian, pagan origin. Yet, as he notes (page 255): "To avoid gross misunderstanding, let us emphasize once again that the essence of the Christian Trinity is, of course, biblical." In my opinion, such uncertain, dubious sources can indeed only be used with incomplete citations, the only question is, is it worth it?
"In the foreword to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read..." First of all, the quote is not from Gibbon himself, but from the publisher's foreword (words of Peter Eckler). The Society does not reveal about Gibbon that his church history published in 1881 is anti-Christian in all respects. Gibbon was a deist, and according to this worldview, God has not intervened in the world since creation. The continuation of the Eckler quote (on page 16) also mentions the incarnation, the doctrine of the Son becoming flesh, as a pagan belief. Why does the Society, God's alleged "channel of communication", need to borrow arguments from such an anti-Christ thinker (cf. 1Jn 4:2-3)?
The Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics only mentions some similarities, but does not identify pagan religions as the source of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Even on the same page, we read: "...Christian faith, by uniting the believer in the communion of the Holy Spirit with the divine Word (logos, sermo, ratio) incarnated in the man Jesus Christ, provides a distinctive basis for the Christian teaching of the Trinity." Despite the Society's one-sided quotation, the authors of the encyclopedia do not see the roots of the doctrine of the Trinity in pagan religions, so their authority contradicts the Society's view.
The Society also quotes the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics article incompletely. In the place marked with the ellipsis, we find the following in the English text: "they were not Trinitarians in the strictly ontological reference". The article means by "ontological reference" that the Christian writers of the first centuries did not speak of God primarily in terms of his essence, nature (ontologically) as a Trinity, but considering his salvific activity and appearance in the world (economically). The "economic trinity" is not a variant of trinitarian doctrine, but one of the earliest discovered and proclaimed aspects of the Trinity. The 2nd and 3rd century apostolic fathers and church fathers needed this approach to prove to pagan philosophers and Gnostics that (1) in history (2) the same one God (3) acted and acts among us as creator, redeemer, and sanctifier (not three separate gods). The encyclopedia, in the same article, also notes that "although the doctrine of the Trinity appeared somewhat later in theology, it must have been very early in worship." Despite the Society's incomplete quotation, the authors of the encyclopedia, based on the study of the writers of the first centuries, were convinced of their trinitarian faith, thus their authority contradicts the Society's view.
The Society also quotes early Christian writers who indeed wanted to represent the teaching of the church with their writings. However, what was and still is authoritative from their words is only what is biblical. Secondly, as the previous example showed, if we do not know who they wrote for, against whom, and following what method of argumentation, we misunderstand them.
2. Quotations taken from ancient authors
Of the 2nd-century apologetics, who are closest in time to the New Testament roots, the Society quotes Justin Martyr alone, although contemporaries Aristides, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Melito of Sardis, and Hermias shared Justin's faith. Among the 2nd-century Greek defenders of the faith, Justin belonged to the philosophically educated cultured class, and he primarily tried to convince the (pagan and Jewish) skeptics of this class with the tools of philosophy. With the above quote, the Society twists Justin's words to suggest that this Christian apologist, like the Society, considered Jesus a created, angelic being.
"Now the Word of God is His Son, as we have before said. And He is called [by the Bible, not by Justin!] Angel and Apostle; for He declares whatever we ought to know, and is sent forth to declare whatever is revealed; as our Lord Himself says, “He that heareth Me, heareth Him that sent Me.” From the writings of Moses also this will be manifest; for thus it is written in them, “And the Angel of God spake to Moses, in a flame of fire out of the bush, and said, I am that I am, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, the God of thy fathers; go down into Egypt, and bring forth My people.” And if you wish to learn what follows, you can do so from the same writings; for it is impossible to relate the whole here. But so much is written for the sake of proving that Jesus the Christ is the Son of God and His Apostle, being of old the Word, and appearing sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the likeness of angels; but now, by the will of God, having become man for the human race..."
So Justin here speaks of Jesus as a messenger (Greek: angelos) and emissary (Greek: apostolos), but words describing his activity cannot be used as an ontological definition of his nature (i.e., that he would be an "angelic being" or, by the same logic, an "apostolic being"). The Society thus put its own words into Justin's mouth, who also wrote elsewhere about Christian worship:
"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught."
Justin speaks of the worship and reverence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. However, the mention of angels is indeed strange; perhaps they were included in the list to prove that the heaven in which Christians believe is not "empty", or he was thinking of Hebrews 12:22-24? Justin himself knew that angels should not be worshiped, only God, which is why he quoted Matthew 22:37 in chapter XVI:6. In the same writing, he said: "They accuse us of madness because we place second, after the unchangeable and eternal God, the parent of the universe, as they think, a crucified man, because they do not know the mystery of this..."
The original of the Society's second quote, that Jesus "differs from the God who created everything", cannot be found in any of Justin's works; the statement itself would contradict both Justin and the Bible (cf. Jn 1:3, Col 1:16-17). With the third quote, that Jesus "never did and said anything but what the Creator commanded him", the Society wants to suggest that Jesus was also considered by Justin to be a lower-order creature. Although the source of this quote could not be found either, the Son's obedience to the Father or the Spirit's obedience to the Son simply follows from the different tasks of the divine persons in Trinitarian doctrine, and it proves their perfect harmony in their roles in salvation; therefore, the subordination of the Son and the Spirit does not signify inferiority. Justin considered Jesus to be God become man, as can be read in his work "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew":
"Trypho: "You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing; [namely], that God endured to be born and become man." Justin: "If I undertook to prove this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God. But if you wish to remain for ever so, I would not be injured at all; and for ever retaining the same [opinions] which I had before I met with you, I shall leave you. [...] they agree that some Scriptures which we mention to them, and which expressly prove that Christ was to suffer, to be worshipped, and [to be called] God, and which I have already recited to you, do refer indeed to Christ, but they venture to assert that this man is not Christ. But they [the Jews] admit that He will come to suffer, and to reign, and to be worshipped, and to be God..."
Later Justin also wrote:
"And David predicted that He would be born from the womb before sun and moon, according to the Father's will, and made Him known, being Christ, as mighty God and to be worshipped."
Justin is talking here about the Messiah, who is the "mighty" or "mighty God" mentioned in Isaiah 9:6 (the Jehovah's Witnesses also accept this, but they don't realize that this is also a title of Jehovah, see Isaiah 10:20-21, etc.). Despite the suggestion of the Society, Justin worshipped God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit based on the Bible (although he did not use the word Trinity), and he considered Jesus to be God incarnate. Even if his statement of faith was not always correct (in the eyes of the post-Nicene Council), he was able to die a martyr for it.
Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon, also belongs to the apologists of the 2nd century, but it should be known that the first third of his five-volume work against heresies (from which the Society's quote comes) is a debate with the Gnostics. In this passage, Irenaeus refutes the Gnostic speculation that there would be a demi-god-like "demiurge" besides the one God, who created the material world, and whom the Gnostics identified with the God of the Old Testament (Jehovah). According to Irenaeus' argument, the Church believes "in one God, the Almighty Father, the creator of heaven, earth, and sea and everything in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets about God's decisions". Irenaeus is talking about who the Church believes in, hence he refers to Jesus here as "Christ Jesus, our Lord and God and Savior and King." It's worth noting that the Society does not quote when Irenaeus allegedly "showed" that Jesus is not equal to "the one true and only God", but simply puts their own opinion into Irenaeus' mouth, without quoting the full text. The second fragment ("he is above everyone, and there is no one else besides him") also could not be found. With this incomplete method of quotation, we could also prove from the Bible that "there is no God" (cf. Psalm 14:1)! In any case, Irenaeus clearly expressed his belief about the relationship between the Father and the Son in one of his teaching works:
"Therefore, the Father is Lord and the Son is Lord, and the Father is God and the Son is God, for he who is born of God is God. Thus, by the essence and power of his nature, he appears as one God, and on the other hand, as the administrator of our salvation, he is Son and Father."
About Isaiah 7:14, he wrote:
"The translation of Emmanuel is: God with us, or the prophet expresses a wish like this: May God be with us! Accordingly, the interpretation and manifestation of the good news according to its meaning, because 'Behold - he says - the Virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, him who is God, to be with us.', at the same time he marvels at the thing, announcing the future event, that God will be with us. (...) The same prophet also says: 'A son is born to us, and a child is given to us, and his name is Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.'"
Irenaeus knew only of one Creator, and considered Jesus to be him: "Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who out of his unparalleled love for his creation [understand: the world created by him] descended to be born of a virgin."
All in all, despite the Society's suggestion, Irenaeus considered Jesus to be God incarnate; he did not use the word Trinity, he did not articulate the doctrine "flawlessly", but along with the early Church, he believed in God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Clement of Alexandria, not a very authoritative Church Father regarding the orthodox faith, was often criticized by his contemporaries for his speculations. Bishops Photios and Rufinus accused him of considering the Son to be a "creature." However, Clement never claimed this, the Society simply puts their opinion into Clement's mouth, quoting incompletely from Alvan Lamson's work on church history from page 124 (there will be more about Lamson's book later). Contrary to the Society's claim, Clement refers to Christ as the "eternal Son", and stated that "the Father never existed without the Son", for "the Son is the same God as the Father." Although for Clement "Christ is two: divine and human, and only these two: God and man", both his contemporaries and today's theology consider that he excessively neglected Jesus' human nature, emotional world, perhaps due to his own ascetic ideals, or because he most often spoke of the Son as the Logos, the Word of God, the Wisdom. Clement's image of the Triune God is well illustrated by his exclamation:
"What a wonderful mystery! One is the Father of the universe, one is the Logos of the universe, the Holy Spirit is also one, and everywhere the same!"
Contrary to the Society's claims, Clement believed in Jesus being both God and man, considered the Holy Spirit to be a person, and although he had no word for person, essence, or Trinity, he believed in the unity of the three divine persons.
We have already discussed Tertullian's faith above, at the Society's second claim. The Society's first quote is part of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which professes that the persons are distinct, that the relationship between them is real (e.g., sending, love, dialogue), that the Son was "born" (but not created), and that while fulfilling his messianic role, the Father is "greater" than him. The Society quotes the second quote ("There was a time when the Son did not exist") out of context. In this section, Tertullian elaborates that while the persons are one in essence, they exist as separate persons in relation to each other: "[the Father] could not have been a Father before the Son, nor a judge before sin"; this was not an orthodox view, in fact, Tertullian contradicted himself, as in another writing he professed the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to be "eternal." [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, - Vol..3 (p. 478) Against Hermogenes 3] The Society's third quote ("God was alone when no other beings existed.") comes from another work, and in an accurate translation, it reads: "Before all things, God was alone". The statement can again be misunderstood without context; on the one hand, Tertullian argues against the modalist (according to modalism, God is only one person, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are only three successive appearances of the one God, but they are not real persons) Praxeas, who did not consider the Logos (the Son) eternal, only a temporary, second appearance form of the one-person God. Arguing against him, Tertullian identified the Word (logos) with God's Intelligence (nous) to more easily prove the eternity of the Logos: the eternal God's Intelligence must also be eternal, so God was never alone. Of course, this speculative argument is highly debatable: if the Logos were only God's intelligence, it would not always have been an independent person, and if it had come into existence over time – within God – how could it be eternal and uncreated?
"Therefore, we do not dare to assert boldly that God was not alone even before the creation of the universe, for his intelligence [nous] and his speech [logos] which he made second within himself were in him."
[The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 (p. 600-601) Against Praxeas 5]
Despite the Society's suggestion and Tertullian's occasionally speculative argumentation, the Church Father indeed professed the divinity of Jesus, he is the origin of the "three persons – one essence" formula, so his faith contradicts that of the Society.
Hippolytus actually wrote against another modalist, Noetus, and he also argued that the persons have existed together forever, not just as successive manifestations. The Society only adds its own opinion to Hippolytus' words: "he also created Jesus in this way", and as the usual ellipsis suggests, the quote is incomplete. Here is the missing part: "...with whom no one is coeval. Nothing existed beside Him, but He, although He existed alone, existed in plurality" [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5 (p. 227) Against Noetus 10]. Hippolytus also notes this in the same section: "So whether man wants it or not, he is forced to accept God, the almighty Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who being God became man, to whom the Father subjected everything, except Himself, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are together." Moreover, he refers to Jesus as "Christ, the Almighty". Despite the Society's suggestion and incomplete quotation, Hippolytus both professed the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, so his faith also contradicts that of the Society.
Origen was a highly influential, but controversial and heresy-suspected teacher, who his contemporaries also had a hard time judging clearly. In hindsight, we cannot ignore his speculative thinking (allegorizing Bible interpretation), his gnostic origin belief in the existence of the human soul before physical birth (pre-existence), but especially that he considered the Son and the Holy Spirit inferior to the Father, and denied that it would be permissible to pray to the Son (cf. Acts 7:55-60). So, the Society wanted to build on the authority of Origen, someone they would reject due to his majority of false teachings, and whose theology the church neither considered nor considers authoritative at that time or today.
Why the sources of the quotes are not provided
In the section about the apostolic and church fathers, the Society does not provide the exact source of the quotes either. Robert U. Finnerty, who wrote a separate book about the Watchtower Society's claims regarding the church fathers and the real testimonies of the church fathers, asked the Society for the source of the quotes found in their publication. The Society complied with his request in a letter dated December 13, 1989, but the response letter only included a few photocopied pages from a single ecclesiastical history work published in 1869, from the already mentioned book by Alvan Lamson. The Society quotes this same Lamson at the end of the chapter about the fathers before the Council of Nicea, as a summary (on page 7). Lamson's long title of the volume is already revealing: "The Church of the First Three Centuries, or Notes on the Lives and Opinions of the Early Fathers, with Particular Reference to the Doctrine of the Trinity, Illustrating its Late Origin and Gradual Formation". The author was obviously not impartial. Although the Society mentions that Calvin was a Trinitarian, it is silent about Lamson being a Unitarian (also a denier of the Trinity). As for Lamson's scholarly approach, to judge his sources or handling of sources, it is sufficient to read through the above quotes. The Society tried to convince the Readers that the Christian teachers of the first three centuries were not Trinitarians, based solely on the findings of a few pages of a single Unitarian publication from the past century!
3. The History of the Councils
From the Society's presentation, it seems as if only a debating minority professed the divinity of Jesus, as if Constantine had to convene the council because of them and the topic, as if Constantine opposed the majority opinion, and as if he decided. In contrast, it is a fact that the person of Jesus was just one of the debated topics among others: from the celebration of Easter to the issues of re-acceptance of apostates during the persecutions to the attitude towards usury, about 20 "canons", i.e., provisions were formulated. It is also a fact that there were hardly any Latin, Western bishops among them, the majority, like Arian, who denied the divinity of Jesus, were Greek, Eastern. Arian, however, had only 17 supporters (!), although Eusebius of Nicomedia, the court bishop, and the host of the council, the bishop of Nicaea, Theognis, stood by him. So Arian had more influence on Constantine than his opponents. Constantine's primary goal was religious unity: everyone should celebrate at the same time and with one confession of faith, therefore
"...he encouraged [the bishops] to harmony and agreement, and urged that everyone alike should lay aside the complaint against his neighbour. For the most part, they were accusing each other, and many of them had submitted petitions to the emperor the day before. Then he called on them to turn to the matter for which they had come together, then ordered that the petitions be burned, and only added: 'Christ commands that he who needs forgiveness should forgive his brother.' Then he spoke at length about agreement and peace, and then allowed them to examine the doctrines more deeply with their understanding."
For the sake of the empire, Constantine wanted a compromise that would require excommunication of as few bishops as possible (e.g., followers of Arian). In the end, the council compiled a creed that only five opposed.
According to the Society, the council "made no mention" of the Holy Spirit, and the council "did not decide" about it. However, this is contradicted by the triple "We believe..." at the end of the Nicene Creed, which proclaims faith and trust in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was nothing to "decide" anyway, as the subject of the debate was the divinity of Jesus. The closing sentence of the circular letter issued by the council is Trinitarian: "Pray for all of us, that what we have decided well may remain firm through the almighty God and our Lord Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Spirit, to whom [singular!] is the glory forever!"
The quote taken from the Chadwick book cited by the Society suggests that the author considers Constantine the Great's conversion to have been purely a political move. The full text, however, is:
"But as we cannot interpret his conversion as an inner experience of grace, we should not consider it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning."
Contrary to the Society's suggestion, Chadwick does not share the popular notion that Constantine never became a Christian:
"Even though the symbol of the sun had been engraved on Constantine's coins for a long time, from 313 his letters leave no doubt that he considered himself a Christian, whose duty as a ruler was to maintain a unified church. He was only baptized on his deathbed in 337, but this does not cast doubt on his Christian faith. It was a common practice at that time (and even later, until about AD 400) to postpone baptism until the end of one's life, especially if the person, as an official, was tasked with torturing and executing criminals."
This baptismal practice, of course, is contrary to Scripture. According to Chadwick, Constantine originally adhered to the so-called solar monotheism, the religion of the Sun as the only god. From this faith, it was theoretically easy for him to convert to Christianity, which centers on Christ as the light of the world. However, his faith was indeed characterized by a strange duality – perhaps for political reasons: he built churches and supported Bible publishing, enacted child and slave protection laws, but in Byzantium he erected a statue of the Sun god (allegedly with his own features) and the mother goddess Cybele (but with a Christian praying gesture, which outraged the pagans).
Firstly, Constantine did not need to propose the "final formulation of Christ's relationship to God". as this was one of the pre-announced topics of the council. Secondly, the issue was the vocabulary of the doctrine: the Latin and Greek church fathers, due to linguistic differences, were mutually afraid that someone could misunderstand the other's formulations in a tritheist or modalist direction. Despite this, we know that the key word of the creed (consubstantial) was used by the previous generations according to the fathers of the council: "For we have known among the ancients such wise and excellent bishops and writers who, in connection with the theology of the Father and the Son, used the expression 'consubstantial.'"
From the Society's portrayal, it might seem as if a decision was made by an emperor at the Council of Constantinople as well, as if the doctrine of the Trinity only spread after this, leading to the persecution of the Arians. Moreover, the Society does not mention the important decisions of the intervening councils at all.
However, according to the records, just seven years after the Council of Nicaea (AD 332) – under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, a court bishop vacillating between Arianism and Trinitarianism – Constantine began to support Arianism again. The following fifty years largely favored the Arians, so their teachings spread widely. (Arius himself was quickly pushed into the background and died in 336.) The church practically split into two parts; Athanasius of Alexandria, a defender of the Trinity, was exiled, which was protested by the Western bishops at the Council of Sardica in 342, renewing the Nicene Creed. The Eastern bishops, convening separately, tried to avoid the term "consubstantial" in their creed with the words "similar in all respects" and "similar in essence". Constantine's successor, Constantius, also sympathized with Arianism, but at the Council of Rimini, called by him in 359, 400 Western bishops reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. However, the Easterners, who were meeting separately but simultaneously in Seleucia, continued to deny this. The Arian emperors Julian and Valens could not stop the fragmentation of the Arian party into factions.
Part of the Arians at this time proclaimed that the Holy Spirit was the creation of the Son, thus the "grandson" of the Father. In the 360s, several councils in Rome and Alexandria opposed them. In the West, the Trinitarian Emperor Gratian ruled from 375, and in the East, Theodosius, also a Trinitarian. In 381, he convened a council in Constantinople, but only the Eastern bishops attended, barely 150, while the Westerners were meeting in Aquileia. Macedonius, the Bishop of Constantinople, who considered the Holy Spirit merely a creature, and 35 of his colleagues left the council early, so the influence of the Western and Eastern Trinitarians fully prevailed at the council.
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, as it is known, was a refinement and extension of the Nicene Creed. The detailed explanation of the divinity of the Spirit was based on the creedal proposal of the earlier book (Ancoratus) by Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus; however, in the formulation of the entire creed, the greatest role was undoubtedly played by Athanasius. He is rightly credited with the so-called Athanasian Creed, as it truly reflects his formulation.
4. Parallels in the History of Religion
The Society sees the influence of pagan beliefs from the ancient world appearing in the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly through the doctrine's defender, Athanasius. However, if Athanasius's supposed pagan influence is due to his Alexandrian origin, the same could be said about Arius, who is also from Alexandria. Moreover, he mainly taught in Antioch, one of the contemporary centers of Aristotelian philosophy:
"Arius learned from Aristotle that the difference in name implies the difference in the subject. The apple is not the tree, thus the Father is not the Son. If the distinction between the apple and the tree were not real, both could be given the same name. On the other hand, if the Father and the Son need to be distinguished from each other by name, it is evident that they are not identical. For Arius, this meant that if the Father is God, then the Son cannot be God in the same sense. He could be divine, but his divinity is only partial or derived."
(Gerald Bray: Creeds, Councils and Christ—Did the early Christians misrepresent Jesus?, Rossshire, England, Mentor Books, 1997, p. 106)
Interestingly, Jehovah's Witnesses still argue against the Trinity using Aristotle's logic applicable to the natural world. The early church fathers fought as vehemently against polytheism as against Arianism, as they considered it a variant of polytheism. Surprisingly, contrary to the Society's claims, Arianism was close to Plato's philosophy and Gnostic speculations, not the doctrine of the Trinity. Platonist and Gnostic views cannot tolerate the idea of God becoming human because they don't believe He could be related to the created material world. In their opinion, the "demiurge", a "divine" being created first and standing between God and man, created the material world which they judged to be inherently evil. Against them, the Trinitarians defended the ancient biblical belief that God alone is the Creator (Gen 1:1, Isa 44:24, 45:12 etc. cf. Jn 1:3, Col 1:16-17). It is also no coincidence that the late Roman emperors were more inclined towards Arianism, as they traditionally considered themselves semi-divine, divine. It was much harder for them to accept the doctrine of the Trinity because it clearly separated the one Creator from all other creatures.
5. The Illustration
The Society aims to suggest with the color illustration on page 10 that the doctrine of the Trinity could have evolved from the Egyptian and Hindu triads. However, the question is whether the religiosity behind the Indian (4) and Cambodian (5) triads was not too geographically distant from Christianity to have such a profound influence on it? Similarly, are the Egyptian (1) and Babylonian (2) triads of gods from the 2nd millennium BC not too early and distant examples? The Palmyrene triad (3) is from the 1st century AD, but it depicts three warrior male figures symbolizing the sky and celestial bodies. The Cambodian "Buddhist triune deity" (5) is four-faced, looking in four directions, and it does not depict a "deity", but Buddhas, enlightened humans (Buddhism is an atheistic religion).
As for the religions themselves, although the Egyptian Isis cult was still operating even in the first Christian centuries, could such a secret mystery religion actually influence those Christians who constantly mocked the Greek, Roman, and Anatolian polytheists in their writings? The ancient pagan triads of gods all depict three separate figures because they believed in three (or more) separate gods and the hierarchy of gods. In fact, almost all of them had a female partner, a wife, and a child as well, so they weren't really "triads", but just the chief gods among many.
As for the medieval and modern European three-faced, but one-headed torsos (6, 7, 8, 9), it should be noted that their creators indeed violated the prohibition of depicting God. However, the idea behind the artists' conception could only have been the unique historical thought of the Trinity doctrine (one God in three persons), not the images of pagan gods (groups) that could be depicted much more simply.
Questions
What would the Society say if someone wanted to prove the doctrine of the Trinity with incomplete and one-sided quotes ripped from the Watchtower publications? Would they consider it fair and legitimate, or deliberate deception? Isn't the repeated, deliberately incomplete quoting an abuse of others' authority? Isn't the abuse of others' authority a deliberate deception? Does the Society deserve the readers' pre-allocated trust? Has any of the anonymous authors of the publication ever taken responsibility for the deception? In the end, do you have to believe in the publication titled "Should You Believe in the Trinity?"
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

Let's see, what WTS publications say about that matter, what does the term "firstborn" means according to the Aid To Bible Understanding (1971):
„BIRTHRIGHT. The right that naturally belonged to the father's firstborn son. Under the patriarchal system the oldest son became the head of the family upon the death of the father, with authority over the others as long as they were in the household. He was responsible to care for the members of his father's household. He also succeeded to the father's position in representing the family before Jehovah. The firstborn generally received the father's special blessing. (Gen. 27 :4, 36 ; 48 :9, 17, 18) Moreover, he was entitled to two parts of the father's estate ; that is, he received twice as much as each of his brothers. Under the Mosaic law a man with more than one wife could not take the birthright from the oldest son and give it to the son of a specially loved wife .-Deut. 21 :15-17 .
In patriarchal times the birthright could be transferred by the father to another son for a cause, as in the case of Reuben, who lost his right as firstborn due to fornication with his father's concubine.(1 Chron. 5 :1, 2) The firstborn could sell his birthright to one of his brothers, as did Esau, who despised his birthright and sold it to his brother Jacob in exchange for something to eat. (Gen. 25 :30-34 ; 27 :36 ; Heb. 12 :16) There is no record that Jacob asserted his purchased birthright in getting a double share of Isaac's property (which was movable or personal property, for Isaac owned no land, except the field of Macpelah, in which was a cave for a burial place) . Jacob was interested in the passing on of spiritual things to his family, that is, the promise given to Abraham concerning the seed .-Gen. 28 :3, 4, 12-15 . With respect to the kings of Israel, the birthright seems to have carried with it the right of succession to the throne. (2 Chron . 21 :1-3) However, Jehovah, as Israel's real King and their God, set aside such right when it suited his purposes, as in the example of Solomon .-1 Chron. 28 :5.
Jesus Christ, as the "first-born of all creation," always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed "heir of all things." -Col. 1 :15 ; Heb . 1 :2" (p. 237-238)
Gotcha! So according to the WTS "first-born of all creation" means, that Jesus Christ "has the birthright through which he has been appointed "heir of all things."" What can I say? I can just agree with the "faithful and descreet slave" :-) It's pretty much the very same interpretation I've suggested on this verse myself:
"Colossians 1:15 simply means that He owns, enjoys the position of the Heir, the ruler in relation to the whole of creation. The direct continuation clearly explains this when he adds: because in him all things were created..."
So, according to your boss I'm not wrong about that... :-)
Let's check what the same book writes about "Firstborn":
“From earliest times the firstborn son held an honored position in the family and was the one who succeeded to the headship of the household He inherited a double portion of the father's property. (Deut . 21 :17) Reuben was seated by Joseph at a meal according to his right as firstborn. (Gen . 43 :33) But the Bible does not always honor the firstborn by listing sons according to birth . The first place is often given to the most prominent or faithful of the sons rather than to the firstborn .-Gen. 6 :10 ; 1 Chron. 1 :28 ; compare Genesis 11 :26, 32 ; 12 :4. The firstborn came into considerable prominence at the time that Jehovah delivered his people from slavery in Egypt. [..]
David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah's elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89 :27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah .-Compare Psalm 2 :2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10 :1 ; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be "the first-born of all creation" as well as "the first-born from the dead ." (Col. 1:15, 18 ; Rev. 1:5 ; 3:14) On earth he was the firstborn child of Mary and was presented at the temple in accordance with Jehovah's law. (Luke 2 :7, 22, 23) The apostle Paul speaks of the followers of Jesus Christ who have been enrolled in the heavens as "the congregation of the first-born ."-Heb. 12 :23 . At Job 18 :13 the expression "first-born of death" is used to denote the most deadly of diseases.” (p. 584)
According to another WTS publication God’s Eternal Purpose Now Triumphing for Man’s Good, page 28 we read,
"Our thinking about this here reminds us of what is said in the eighth chapter of the book of Proverbs, where divine wisdom is pictured as a person who talks about himself. Of course, in the original Hebrew text of Proverbs, the word “wisdom” (hhakh·mahʹ) is in the feminine and speaks of itself as a female person. (Proverbs 8:1-4) Of course, divine wisdom does not have any separate existence apart from God. Wisdom always existed in Him and so was not created. For this reason it is interesting to hear how wisdom speaks of herself as a feminine person..."
I can just agree on that, well done, "faithful and discreet slave" ! :-)
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

Dear Blotty,
IMHO it somewhat indicates a lack of respect, that instead of reading what I wrote, based mainly on my own research, and trying to give a substantial answer yourself, you just link to me a bunch of links that your comrades wrote.
Should I link you all the Church documents? When should we start throwing books on each other? Ehh...
Btw, I've tried to initiate debate with these WTS/JW/NWT apologists who run those blog, dissenting comments usually doesn't even pass the censorship, not that a website with such poor design professes to be a particularly serious theologian.
The ones you linked, approx. all use the same well-known WTS "quote collection" method... that just like the dung beetle collects pieces of feces and turns them into a ball, they also cherry pick the quotes from the hands of authors whose general teaching they would not even accept at all. Instead of all kinds of independent research work, they collect half-sentences and sentences that can be quoted, that can be flagged and waved as "can you SEE?! Even him !!!"
For example, he calls up a dictionary, and then boldly underlines the one he finds desirable from the 5-6 meanings listed there, after comes a multitude of exclamation marks. Gotcha! He does not stay on the thinking ground of the Greek text, but looks for the English expression in the dictionary he prefers among the possible meanings of the given Greek word, and starts thinking in English from then on, like "arche is to be translated in English as "beginning", which in English means etc.". Of course, he also throws straw man arguments while contradicting the theology of his own denomination. That's not biblical exegesis. It's BS, sorry.
Anyway, how could "true Christianity" (the supposed JW-like Christianity of the apostolic age) disappear without a trace for 1800 years? Is Jesus' promise worthless? Did the Church of the Apostles become nothing in a few decades? The Spirit could not preserve it? How did church founded by Russel (who was known to be a charlatan, and none of his "predictions" came true) not become "apostate" with the same logic? Is Russel's church then better organized and on a surer foundation than that of the apostles?
But at least one of your "sources" made me laugh:
"Although Watchtower Society (WTS) research and scholarship is usually at least the equal of (and often superior to) that of other sources..."
Raymond Franz had other experience:
"The Society’s vice president, Fred Franz, was acknowledged as the organization’s principal Bible scholar. On a number of occasions I went to his office to inquire about points. To my surprise he frequently directed me to Bible commentaries, saying, “Why don’t you see what Adam Clarke says, or what Cooke says,” or, if the subject primarily related to the Hebrew Scriptures, “what the Soncino commentaries say.”
Our Bethel library contained shelf after shelf after shelf filled with such commentaries. Since they were the product of scholars of other religions, however, I had not given much importance to them and, along with others in the department, felt some hesitancy, even distrust, as to using them. As Karl Klein, a senior member of the Writing Department, sometimes very bluntly expressed it, using these commentaries was “sucking at the tits of Babylon the Great,” the empire of false religion according to the Society’s interpretation of the great harlot of Revelation. I find it hard to believe he meant this as seriously as it sounded, since he made use of the commentaries himself and knew that Fred Franz used them quite frequently.
The more I looked up information in these commentaries, however, the more deeply impressed I was by the firm belief in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures the vast majority expressed. I was impressed even more so by the fact that, though some were written as early as the eighteenth century, the information was generally very worthwhile and accurate. I could not help but compare this with our own publications which, often within a few years, became “out of date” and ceased to be published. It was not that I felt these commentaries to be without error by any means; but the good certainly seemed to outweigh the occasional points I felt to be mistaken.
I began to appreciate more than ever before how vitally important context was in discerning the meaning of any part of Scripture, and that realization seemed to be true of others of the group who were working regularly on the Aid project. We also came to realize the need to let the Bible define its own terms rather than simply taking some previously held view or letting an English dictionary definition control. We began to make greater use of the Hebrew and Greek lexicons in the Bethel library, and concordances that were based on the original language words rather than on English translations.
It was an education and it was also very humbling, for we came to appreciate that our understanding of Scripture was far less than we had thought, that we were not the advanced Bible scholars we thought we were. I personally had been on such a “treadmill” of activity over the previous twenty-five years that, although reading through the Bible several times, I had never been able to do such serious, detailed research into the Scriptures, in fact never felt great need to do so since it was assumed that others were doing it for me. The two courses at Gilead School I had attended were so tightly programmed that they gave little time for meditation, for unhurried investigation and analysis.
Having now both time and access to the extra Bible helps, the lexicons, commentaries, Hebrew and Greek concordances, and so forth, was an aid. But above all it was seeing the need always to let the context guide, always to let the Scriptures themselves control, that made the major difference. There was no overnight change of viewpoint but rather, over a period of years, a gradual deepening of appreciation of the crucial need to let God’s Word speak for itself to the fullest extent possible. I could see why those one-hundred and two-hundred-year-old commentaries in our Bethel library were comparatively timeless in their value. The very fact of their verse-by-verse approach more or less obliged them to stay within the contextual meaning and thereby considerably restricted them from taking excursions into sectarian views or interpretative flights of fancy."
22
"Apostasy"
by Zilgee in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

WHAT IS ALL THANKS TO THE PRIESTS...
"The knights of darkness"
A UNIVERSITY professor took great pleasure in criticizing the priests: "The priests are the vampires of human civilization, the inhibitors of sciences and arts, the highwaymen of progress, the knights of darkness and conservatism" - these were his favorite sayings.
However, there was a decent and highly talented student of his who eventually got tired of the professor's outbursts and one beautiful day paid a visit to him.
- Professor, I would like to ask for your help in dispelling some of my scientific doubts - he said.
- With the greatest pleasure, my young friend. Please, take a seat.
- First of all, I would like to know who preserved the ancient classics for us? How did they not get lost in those perilous times when barbarism inundated the whole cultural world at the beginning of the Middle Ages?
- It's a known fact: the monks copied the classics in their monasteries and thus saved them from destruction.
- What!... the monks?
- Yes, yes; primarily the Benedictines.
- So it was the monks after all? The priests? They saved the ancient codexes for us? That must have been incredibly tiresome work? How many of them could have contracted lung disease from all the library dust! This happened when the princes couldn't even sign their own names, right? What strange times! And even stranger friends, who fancied copying Livy, Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, and - not to forget them - Propertius, Tibullus, Ovid, letter by letter! So it was really the work of the monks, all those carefully written codexes? The letters all look as if they were painted; the initials are real masterpieces! Oh, those priests! But allow me another question, professor! Is it really true that without priests we would not have Columbus or Vasco de Gama? They say that a friar, Fra Mauro, drew that famous map in 1450, which awakened the idea of a round-the-world journey in Columbus.
- It's true, young man - the professor replied, shifting in his seat - although we must not forget that someone else could have drawn that map as well.
- Oh, of course, of course. Why should such a genius idea occur specifically in a priestly head?... Right, one more thing! I read that a Pope introduced Arabic numbers to arithmetic in place of the inconvenient Roman numbers.
- Yes, that's Sylvester II. But someone else would have done that too. However, the intrusive dominance of the popes...
- I also heard something about the first telescope and microscope being invented by a priest. This can't possibly be true? Does all good originate from the priests?
- The fact is true. The aforementioned instruments were invented by the Franciscan Roger Bacon. However, I note that Roger Bacon was a monk of modern spirit, not some cloaked monk lurking in the dark.
- When did Roger Bacon live? He died in 1292, right? Hm, hm, so there were modern priests even back then? One more thing! The first person to teach that the sun stands still and the earth rotates wasn't Galilei, right, professor?
- No, indeed, it was Copernicus.
- Again a priest? Moreover, they say that even this canon wasn't the first one because about a hundred years before him, the bishop of Regensburg, Regiomontanus, taught the same thing.
- It's possible!
– Just a bit more patience, please, professor! Why is it that the era in which sciences, arts, and literature flourished so greatly is referred to as the Golden Age of Pope Leo X?
– Why? Because Pope Leo X was a unique patron of scientists, artists, and writers.
– But how can this be? After all, Pope Leo X was, to my knowledge, a pope.
– Sir, it appears to me that you only came...
– To dispel my doubts, my troubling doubts, professor. I can't label priests as being conservative or ignorant, while these terrible doubts plague me. May I continue my questions, professor? Is it true that the first public schools were founded by John Baptist de la Salle?
– Yes, the French de la Salle? The saint?
– Yes, the priest!
– And that the cause of the deaf was first taken up by the Spanish Pedro de Ponce, followed by l'Epée?
– Indeed, the Spanish de Ponce, then de l'Epée.
– The monk de Ponce and l'Epée, the priest? Curious! Wasn't it enough that the monk Berthold Schwarz invented gunpowder, the monk Guido d'Arezzo the scale, a Bavarian monk from Tegernsee invented stained glass, the Jesuit Cavalieri polychromy, the Jesuit Secchi spectral analysis?
– Sir, if you only came here to annoy me... thunder and lightning!
– Not at all, professor! But it's true, the lightning rod was not actually invented by Franklin, because as early as 1754 a Premonstratensian parish priest, Prokop Divisch, was making lightning rods. I also read this in Kürschner's lexicon.
– Your tongue, it seems, never tires.
– Ad vocem! The greatest language master of our time was Cardinal Mezzofanti, the polyglot, right?
– That did not prevent him from being conservative.
– The most conservative person, however, was undoubtedly Cardinal Mai, the greatest paleographer of the 19th century, who unveiled the secrets of palimpsests to the scientific world.
– All right, all right, young man. Where do you intend to go from here?
– Where? In what direction? I should ask Flavio Gioja, who made the compass usable around 1300. But he was also a priest!
– Oh, oh, you're really fired up!
– Fired up? Well, against that the best thing is a water pump. But the first fire pump was also designed by priests, Cistercians. And the Capuchins of Paris were Paris's firefighters until the 17th century.
– If you weren't chattering so interestingly, I'd throw you out.
– Where to, professor? Perhaps into the airy heights? This reminds me of the airship. The first airship, I believe, was invented by Monk Berthold Gusmae 60 years before Montgolfier, who in 1720 ascended in his airship in front of the entire Portuguese court. Professor, you're cleaning your glasses. This is also an invention of priests! The glasses were invented in the 13th century by the Dominican Alexander Spina. Are you in such a hurry that you're looking at your watch? This is also a priestly invention: the first clock was made by Cassiodorus, the famous church writer; Gerbert, later Pope Sylvester II, improved this invention. The first astronomical clock was made by Abbot Richard of Wallingford in 1316. Am I bothering you, professor? I'm leaving now! The gas lamps are already burning outside. It cannot be unknown to you that the gas flame was discovered by the Jesuits, these spreaders of darkness. They first used gas light in Stonyhorst, England in 1794. The Jesuit Duan founded the first gas company in Preston in 1815. I bid you farewell, professor! Excuse me... Oh, you have a bicycle too? This device was invented by the priest Pianton, who was already riding a bicycle in 1845. Good night! I apologize once again. But you should know, I can't rest until I know the truth...
... A loud door slam ended the conversation.
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

I am not distorting it: if the Son is to be given exactly the same degree of honor as the Father, it directly follows that if the Father is to be worshipped, then the Son is to be worshipped as well. That's logic. And since the First Commandment (“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”) we must not worship anyone else than the True God, then Jesus is truly God.
"The lie that the Trinity teaches is that these honours belong to Jesus by his own right."
You clearly don't know what the Trinity doctrine is: the Nicene theology states that the Son received everything from the Father, including his existence and divinity. It's just your theological bias that only the unbegotten Father can be truly God, even though Jesus clearly taught that "everything" was given to him by the Father, even the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes).
The Bible verses that emphasize the humanity of Jesus do not refute anything from this theology. Nor those where it says that the Son received his being (through begetting, not creation) and divinity from the Father. There is not a single biblical statement that is contrary to this theology, but it was no coincidence that you had to distort plenty of Bible verses, embarrassing to WTS doctrine.
The words of John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:28 are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary: "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and: "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."
The words, "the Son cannot of Himself do anything", do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the Father, since it is immediately added, "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise"; but their meaning is to show that the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says, "The unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself [per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se]."
4
One criticism of the NWT
by Wonderment in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
it's no secret that forum members on this site are well aware that i tend to defend the nwt as a product in more than a few places.

i, unlike some others here, do not view the version as unprofessional.

i feel the translation is quite good.
aqwsed12345

The word "grace" is missing from the translation of the NWT Bible. Instead, it is paraphrased as "undeserved kindness" everywhere.
This phrase clearly shows the rationalistic bent of the WTS doctrine on salvation. There is no supernatural justification, there is no new birth, no sacraments, no adoption as a son (since there is a two-class redemption), just read the publications, develope a WTS-comptable mental attitude, and then you can pet the lion in the "garden", presented in our newspapers. However, as all sinners, we need God's mercy, this is what the word "grace" means: the fact that God is not merciful, only "kind" and "nice", hides this essential aspect.
However, we need not just pleasant stroking from the Judge of our lives but a saving judgment. The JWs growing up with the NWT could not have the appropriate relationship with God. According to the WTS, it is not enough to believe in Jesus for salvation, so the NWT states that "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Romans 10:13). This was based on the belief of the Society that the archangel Michael was merely a "tool" of Jehovah, who obtained atonement for sins in the past, so Witnesses are not so much grateful to him but to Jehovah. They believe in things related to Jesus (what happened in the past), but they do not personally put their trust in Jesus (nor can they pray to him). According to the Society's interpretation, believers do not have faith in God but "exercise faith in him" (John 3:16). This serves the organizational system well, which states that a Witness only has a chance to "be saved" as long as they serve loyally and actively within the organization.
Following the Society's "theocratic" educational program, the NWT states that eternal life does not require someone to know God but rather to "take in knowledge" of Him. In accordance with the Society's rationalistic approach, mature thinking is seen as more of a "mental attitude": Fathers are instructed to raise their children not with discipline and instruction according to the Lord's teaching but with "Jehovah's discipline and mental regulating". For believers, it is not Jesus' sacrificial, humble disposition (motivation) that serves as an example; rather, they must preserve "that mental attitude" within themselves, which was also in Christ (Philippians 2:5). All of this is based on the belief that "born again" is a privilege reserved only for the 144,000 anointed ones, and the other Witnesses cannot be born again or have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the "fruitage of the spirit" is practically the result of human effort: Witnesses are expected to obey biblical commands and the organization's supervision in order to develop a "trained conscience" and a "balanced viewpoint."
All these horrible word creations like "exercise faith," "acquire precise knowledge," "inspired declaration," "in unity," "receive salvation," and "undeserved kindness" is nothing more than empty, pretentious phrases that have no real connection to the original meaning. Paper can endure many things, including these theological monstrosities, but that doesn't make them any less dreadful. Perfect choices? Come on! Why weren't "believe," "know," "spirit," "in him," "be saved," and "grace" good enough for you? The translators couldn't justify these words, perhaps because they didn't like the worn-out established equivalents.