Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

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

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

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

Let's see what Paul writes about the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15:
"35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body."
Paul says in contradiction: Yes, but the body rots in the grave, it breaks into countless pieces and is scattered, how can it be that the dead are resurrected? To this, Paul answers: It is foolishness to conclude this because the dissolution of the body after death not only does not hinder its future resurrection but must precede it for the resurrection to occur. It is the same with the burial of bodies as with wheat sowing. Just as it does not sprout, does not revive unless it first begins to rot: so the body must also rot before it revives again. Because there is such a great similarity between the resurrection of bodies and wheat grains, the resting place of the dead, the cemetery, is rightly called God's plowland. Paul answers the raised question with an analogy taken from the order of nature: The seed of a plant also has to rot so that a new plant can spring to life from it. "As he willed" - that is, as determined by the laws of nature. The analogy also indicates that the resurrection will be entirely a fact of God's infinite power and free will. The resurrection of the body is a supernatural transformation. It is not the sown wheat grain that comes forth, but new life sprouts from it. Thus, the human body also perishes, yet the resurrected body emerges. The church professes the identity of the resurrected body with the old one. However, the identity should not be seen in the total of particles. The matter of our body is constantly changing in our earthly life, yet we have the same body. The decisive factor in identity is the union of matter with the soul. Otherwise, God can preserve as much from the old body as is sufficient for the resurrected body to emerge from it like a seed. The seed is not the body, not the plant itself that needs to grow, but only a grain of some crop. So, the soulless corpse is not the same type of body as it will rise. God gives every kind of seed the growing body he wanted to give everyone at creation; similarly (see v. 42) he will resurrect every human body in the way he ordained in his divine decree.
"39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven."
The meaning of verses 39–42 is this: Just as the earthly bodies differ from each other here, and the earthly ones from the heavenly ones (from the sun, etc.), and these are also different from each other: so at the resurrection of the dead the resurrected body will be different from what it was on earth; our body will indeed, and not another, rise transformed, and the resurrected bodies will again be different from each other. How it will transform, and how it will differ, is clear from the following.
The resurrected body is a real material body, yet it differs from the old, mortal and corruptible one. It will no longer be subject to decay, disease, death. It carries the lightness, strength, harmony of the spirit. The body is buried for decay, it rises so that it never rots again, but lasts forever. The apostle only speaks about the bodies of the saved, that's why he calls their bodies glorious. It will reflect the spirituality of the soul and the beauty of grace. The image of the risen Christ will be realized in it, it will bear the dignity of the children of God. In contrast to Adam's inheritance, we receive this heavenly inheritance from Christ.
What does the "heavenly body" mentioned here mean? The text refers to the diversity of creatures on earth and in heaven as evidence of God's infinite power. So the "heavenly bodies" are, as written there: the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, i.e., celestial bodies. Remember back to the very first chapter of the Bible: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the vault of the sky...'" (Genesis 1:14) According to the old Jewish conception, three things were called heaven: the atmospheric sky and the starry sky, and then the spiritual sky, the dwelling place of blessed souls, God's world. So there's no question of God or angels having a body in any sense. They are pure spirits.
The apostle leaves the conclusion to the reader: there will be a difference in the glory of the individual resurrected. The resurrected body has four characteristic properties, in contrast to the buried corpse. Sensual body: a material body; spiritual body: a spiritualized body, with which God will communicate the properties of the pure spirit. The last part of verse 44 suggests that the completion of redemption, the resurrection, will glorify the human body as well, and free it from the shackles of sensuality and materiality. The apostle quotes Gen. 2,7. The Greek term emphatically expresses the sensual nature of the first man. The last Adam is the Lord Jesus, the ancestor of the new, redeemed generation, whose crucifixion is the source of all grace life (hence the life-giving spirit).
The resurrected body is called "spiritual", not as if it would turn into a spirit, but because it will be completely subordinated to the soul, free from all frailty, filth, and everlasting. The spiritual body of the elect will be similar to the body of Jesus Christ after his resurrection, which was a truly visible and tangible body, but at the same time so spiritual that it could suddenly move from place to place and could pass through other bodies as well.
Verse 45. The first man was blessed with a living soul, which God himself breathed into him; Christ's body, the second or last Adam's (47. 49. v. Rom. 5,14.) was endowed with a quickening spirit. Adam's soul or spirit had the property for his body, indeed, to become its life, but it could not maintain its life, but like all other animal bodies, it was necessary for the body to be nourished, and Adam, in his state of innocence, also had an animal body. It was different with Christ. When he had completed his work and was to be glorified, his human soul became a quickening spirit, that is, from then on (in his resurrection and thereafter) it was not only the life of the body, but the basic cause of its life and maintenance, so that his body, free from all natural necessity, depended only on the spirit, which lived from God himself, and partook of his nature.
Verse 46. The sensual, the natural always necessarily precedes the spiritual, the lower degree precedes the higher one. Therefore, the sensual religion of the old covenant necessarily preceded the new covenant religion of the spirit and truth.
Verse 47. "Earthly", therefore mortal. "The second man is from heaven". The second man is Christ. (See v. 45.) Heavenly, because in his human nature he is the only begotten son of God. Just as our ancestor, Adam, was a mortal earthly man, so is the entire human race earthly, mortal; but since we have become members of Christ's mysterious body through redemption, we are already in a certain sense heavenly here on earth, and we carry within us the seed of resurrection and heavenly life.
The first man was formed from the earth (Genesis 1:2,7), and therefore his body is earthly, related to the earth, has to feed itself and maintain itself from the earth, and shares its nature and quality. The second man, Christ, descending from heaven (John 3:13), embodied in a supernatural way in the womb of a sinless virgin, and so far his body was a real human body, as it was formed from the body and blood of the most holy virgin, but at the same time it was heavenly, since this embodiment came from God in a supernatural way. The heavenly properties of his body were already manifested before his resurrection by Christ in his birth, in his glorious transfiguration, his walking on the sea, and his body's communion under the appearance of bread. But only after his completed work were they to be fully manifested, when he was completely expelled from the earthly, and his body became heavenly. The same is true of his human soul. It was receptive to all human influences and feelings, but at the same time it was that quickening spirit. As such, it could rise above all spiritual states, and by its union with God, had the power to become the sole giver of life, the foundation of life for the body, and to take it from itself without supernatural means (Matthew 4:2); but this glorified state of his soul was only to occur permanently after his completed work, and it was then that it was fully manifested and glorified as a quickening spirit.
In our earthly life, we are like mortal Adam; in the resurrection, our bodies will be like the glorified body of the Savior. Just as the heavenly Christ was glorified in body and soul after his resurrection: so his whole spiritual generation will be glorified in body and soul after their resurrection. It should also be noted that just as the heavenly Christ often showed himself before his resurrection as a quickening spirit, who drew the body into the heavenly sphere: so it often happens here that his saints, in their union with God, become in spirit that quickening spirit, which stands high above the common spiritual states, and rules over and glorifies their bodily nature. Every true Christian can also be said to have such a spirit that animates their bodies, insofar as, when they unite with Christ in the Eucharist, the seed of the future, glorious resurrection is sown in their bodies (John 6:55. 8:11).
A completely pure, completely holy life, which provides a guarantee for the resurrection of the glorified body. If we are of one spirit with him, then he will be one body with us. He partook of our nature, let us also partake of his. As the glory of the only begotten Son of God shone forth from him during his time of humiliation, so should his image be reflected in us. We must gradually transform into the same image, from one degree of pure light to another; this is how we will become similar to his glorified body.
"50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”"
"Flesh and blood" represents the current mortal body, which cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, because corruption cannot be incorruptibility at the same time. The "flesh and blood" is the image of the earthly Adam. From this, we can learn that eternal happiness does not consist in sensory pleasures, and that we must die according to the sensory, animalistic life and live according to the spirit of Christ if we want to gain eternal life.
Those who are alive at Christ's coming must also undergo some transformation. They shed the mortal body and put on the new one. Since we cannot enter heaven with our mortal and perishable bodies, which God has intended for us according to our body, it is necessary for the perishable body to rise. However, all this happens suddenly, so they do not partake in the decay of death. The sound of the trumpet and the voice of the angel are traditional apocalyptic expressions for describing the approach of the judging God.
All of us: both the blessed inhabitants of heaven and the damned. Not all of us will change: only the bodies of the saved will be glorified; the body of the damned will be detestable. Precisely because not everyone bears the image of the heavenly, but that of the human Adam, therefore all will rise, but not all will be clothed in a glorious body. The wicked also rise, but not in glory, for this is only promised to the good (v. 48). The wicked rise incorruptibly, but tormented by the pains of punishment (see John 5:29. Mark 9:48.).
Immediately the judge of the world will appear. The trumpet symbolizes the call to all to appear before the judge. The concept of the last trumpet is perhaps taken by Paul from Ex. 19:16 and Matt. 24:31. (See also 1 Thess. 4:15; Rev. 11:15.) Those who are still alive at Christ's second coming, their bodies will change to eternal life without death. (See 1 Thess. 4:16.) The resurrection (or the transformation of those still alive) will take place in an instant. The thought must be completed: so that we can enter God's kingdom in body as well. (v. 50.) All the dead rise in an immortal body, and those who are still alive at that time suddenly transform gloriously (if they are found to be true Christians). The moral resurrection of the righteous after the defeat of paganism is improperly called the first resurrection (Rev. 20:1–6).
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
Hebrews 1 speaks partly of the supremacy which he already possessed from the beginning (meaning his deity), since he is the only one begotten of the Father, and on the other hand of the glory which he received only after his resurrection and ascension, and obviously this is according to his humanity. The two are not sharply separated in the text, for example in verse 10 it is about the creation of the world, it was obviously before those mentioned in the verses 3-4: "made purification of sins", etc. Here the apostle speaks of Christ as man, and tells us that Christ, even as man, by his ascension was exalted above the Angels.
The narrative continues in chapter 2, where it is clarified in verse 9: "for a little while was made lower than the angels", i.e. through incarnation, self-emptying (kenosis). This is obviously to be interpreted in accordance with Philippians 2:6-9, where it says in the 9th verse that his human name (Jesus) also recieved the title: the Lord. Obviously, because the exaltation of Jesus Christ means not only that he returned to the glory in which he already had from the beginning before his incarnation, but also that the human nature of Jesus Christ, which was the instrument of his humility, was also glorified.
By the way, Philippians 2:9 is also distorted by the NWT, since the original text contains the verb hyperypsōsen, which means: to raise above all measure, above all. This expression occurs only here in the New Testament, and it does not express a high degree (comparative), but an excessive high degree: "to the highest place" (Superlative). At the same time, the NWT renders it only as comparative: "to a superior position".
As for the Hebrews 1:9 you mentioned ("your God has anointed you"), it also refers to the humanity of Jesus, since "the anointed one" (chrīstós, māšîaḥ) is the title of Jesus as human. As a human, Jesus was anointed to be king, priest and prophet, and this in no way affects his divinity, positive or negative, which he enjoyed from eternity before his incarnation.
"And in verse 2 it says that God created the worlds ‘through’ his Son. Doesn’t that clearly show that God is the creator, and that his Son is the agent through whom he created?"
Well, this formulation "the agent" is really bogus, both theologically and logically impossible for God to have a secondary "agent" co-creator angel for creation, and Isaiah 44:24 clearly excludes that anyone other than YHWH God participated in the creation of the world in any sense.
"I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens by myself, and I spread out the earth. Who was with me?"
The 10th verse is more concretely speaking to the Son, and that shows the creative role of the Son much more concretely, which is not just a second fiddle. There he specifically applies a Psalm about YHWH to the Son.
"And in verse 6, again, it says that Jesus is God’s ‘firstborn’."
Yep, thus "firstborn" is simply the title of the Son, and shoud be interpreted according to this even in the Colossians 1:15.
"And in verse 3 is says that Jesus is the ‘reflection’ of God’s glory, and the ‘imprint’ of God’s being. How can that mean anything else than Jesus is a perfect reflection of God?"
A creature, and angel would be a very imperfect reflection of God, since God and the angels are separated by an incomparable, infinite difference in quality. As the Nicene Creed states: "Light from Light". Don't forget the read the second part of the verse: the Son is also kharakter of the Father's hypostasys. That's practically the same as homoousios.
The keyword is Jesus' dual (divine and human) natura. Everything is dual in Jesus, except for the person, the hypostasis, hence the hypostatic union. The person is purely divine.
The result of personal unity realized in Christ is the interchangeability of properties (communicatio idiomatum). In Christ, the two natures united in such a way that they did not mix, did not change, but retained all their peculiarities. However, emphasizing this and the singularity of Jesus leads to a new dogma: there is only one person in Christ, namely the divine person, the Word, as it has been since eternity, it assumed human nature, not the other way around.
In Jesus, therefore, the Word fulfills the role of the person, because the duality of nature in Jesus did not result in two persons. (This would be schizophrenia.) The Bible, in fact, attributes both divine and human properties to the same person. The two natures thus exist in one person. This leads to the interchangeability of properties, that is, what I assert about Jesus Christ as God is also true of human Christ, and vice versa, since the ultimate subject of the properties of the two natures is identical.
1. There are four rules in this regard:
2. Divine attributes can be attributed to Jesus as a human, and human attributes can be attributed to Christ as God.
3. It is forbidden to do this with prominent duplication (reduplicative formaliter) (for example, human Christ is omnipresent as a human, or the Word suffered as the Word), or to exchange abstractly named attributes (e.g., the omnipotence lies in the manger).
4. Statements cannot be exclusive or negative (for example, the Son of God did not suffer, or Jesus is only mortal).
5. Exceptions to these rules are what has become customary in liturgical practice or at the level of everyday religiosity understood by everyone (e.g., "Justice was condemned to death.") and thereby understandable to everyone. Therefore, from the teaching of the interchangeability of properties, it follows that the same worship is due to the Son of God as to Jesus the man, and that the humanity of Christ is essentially holy and deserves worship.
By the way, the dual nature raises many such questions:
Has Jesus died or not? After all, God never dies: Jesus, as God is immortal, as man died for sinful humanity.
Did Jesus know the time of his birth when he was an embryo? As an embryo no, as God yes.
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

Paul did not rule out that he had an out-of-body experience "in the third heaven," with God (2Corinthians 12:2-3). He did not identify himself with his body (earthly tent), from which he wanted to "move out" to "move home" to Christ (i.e., to the heavenly house, life form). He hoped that between his physical death (collapsed tent) and his resurrected spiritual body (heavenly house), he would not have to be "naked" (5:3) in a transitional life form, but would live to see the Lord's return and the resurrection. He did not consider death to be a gain because he could sleep, rest, and the first conscious moment after millennia could be Jesus, but because his existing fellowship with the Lord could finally become direct, he could finally be with him (5:6, cf. 1 Corinthians 13:12).
The angels don’t have “spiritual body’, nor a body in any sense. They are pure spirits. The way you want to understand the term "spiritual body" is utterly impossible. Something is either spirit or body. The body is a thing with physical extension, the spirit is not. It's a logical contradiction, like saying "invisible pink" or "fragrant green."
So what does the expression "spiritual body" mean in the Paulinen letters? The body of the resurrected is a real physical body, yet it differs from the old one: It will no longer be subject to decay, illness, death. It carries the lightness, strength, harmony of the spirit. It will reflect the spirituality of the soul and the beauty of grace.
Therefore, the "spiritual body" in relation to the resurrected saved ones does not mean that it would turn into a spirit (that is, essentially immaterial, bodiless), but because it will be completely subordinated to the soul, it is free from every imperfection, filth, and lasts forever. The "spiritual body" of the elect will be similar to the body of Jesus Christ after his resurrection, which was a visibly and tangibly real body, but at the same time so spiritual that it could suddenly move from place to place and penetrate other bodies. The glorified body of the Lord and the saved is delicate due to the power of the spirit, but also tangible due to reality. Sin made our soul desiring, animalistic, natural, without ceasing to be a spirit; and on the other hand, by glorification, our body will become spiritual, supernatural, without ceasing to be a real body.What I meant by getting our own body back is as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54: According to the text, we will get a human body back (to that extent, our own), but a transformed one (to that extent, different).
Thus, the "spiritual body" signifies the transference of the positive attributes of the spiritual soul to the physical body.
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
Ephesians 4:4 easily disproves the two-class salvation invented by Rutherford in 1935, since there is only "one hope".
"Flesh and blood" is a way of expressing, not the ascension of the body in general, but the perishable, mortal, corruptible one, we all have before the glorified resurrection. The idea that the body generally could not enter heaven is clearly contradicted by: Gen 5:24; 2Kings 2:1-13; 2Cor 12:2-4; 1Thess 4:17; Heb 11:5; Rev 11:11-12.
Jesus was raised in an imperishable and glorified body. This is what 1Cor 15:35-45 says when it refers to the body as being sown perishable, but raised imperishable; sown in dishonor and raised in glory; sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body, etc.
This is another good example how bogus the WTS theology is: they build their whole theology on some falsely interpreted and abused "one-liners", like Ecclesiastes 9:5.
John 2:19-22 clearly means the resurrection of Jesus' body to life, not his re-creation as a spirit. And if he rose with his body, he also ascended with it. And this does not merely proves that His real body will be resurrected, but also that also He will do it as well. How else could he say a parable about rebuilding (which cannot be a pasive role) the temple himself?
“Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).
(repeat this sentence, until it gets into your mind)
The fact that angels can take on flesh does not prove that Jesus appeared in this way after his "resurrection" and not in his real body, the resurrection of which he spoke.
I still can't find in the Bible your (or more precisely the WTS') claims:
- Jesus was "created", and used to be angel, on the contrary: He was born/begotten before the creation of the aions, and in the beginning he already was
- The incarnation was "transferring" (???) into human, by dropping his previous nature. On the contrary: John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from
- With his death Jesus "ceased to exist." According to the Apostolic Creed of the 1st century He "descended into the underworld" (hades), within that to Abraham's bosom. Cf. Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:24, Acts 2:31, Eph 4:9, Col 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18-19, 1Peter 4:6.
- "He was resurrected in fleshly form by his Father" - on the contrary: John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18), together with the Father of course, and the Spirit. 1Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). An not merely "in fleshly form", but really resurrecting his body.
- He "surrendered" his humanity, and "dropped" his body, and became only a spirit, an angel again. Again: “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). JW position is somewhat resembles to gnostic docetism, at least after the resurrection.
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

Journeyman
Bashing the terminology of the CCC is not an argument. Of course the ascension to heaven and the "sitting" at right of the Father is to be meant after the resurrection, which is to be meant according to his humanity. According to his divinity there is no change, since God does not change. The key is dual nature, the hypostatic union of Jesus.
Yep, Christ took the human nature, including the body, the flesh. JWs deny it, since according to their theology, Jesus' body is destroyed, ceased to be a human, and his "resurrection" is actually just a re-creation into being Michael again.
The reinterpretation of the resurrection as a re-creation into Michael false and bogus theology, since according to John 2:19-22, it's obviously Jesus' body is actually resurrected, and that's how He has ascended to Heaven. According to the Orthodox-Catholic Christianity the Son took the human nature, the humanity by the Incarnation and will not take it down.
The verses you have cited does not exclude this, because it only excludes the idea that one can enter heaven with our mortal and corruptible bodies. God has prepared heaven for according to the resurrected bodies, which requires that our corruptible bodies be raised. The "flesh and blood" represent our animalistic, mortal, and corruptible nature, our earthly resemblance to Adam. From this, we learn that eternal happiness does not depend on sensual pleasures, and that we must die to our sensual, animalistic life and live according to the spirit of Christ if we want to attain eternal life. Our bodies are earthly, but the Savior will transform and glorify this mortal body with His divine power at the resurrection, conquering everything, even death and hell. This is what the 15th chapter of 1Corinthians is about. Jesus did not ascend to heaven with His mortal and corruptible body, but with His resurrected, glorified body.
Perhaps the "two-class" salvation theory invented by Rutherford in 1935 is confusing you here, check this:
http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/144000/144000-heaven.pdf
But here does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere. Jesus Christ, "who is over all, the eternally blessed God" (Rom 9:5), "through whom everything was made" (Heb 2:10; cf. Jn 1:2-3), in whom "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9), who is "the true God and eternal life" (1Jn 5:20), the "only Lord" (Jude 1:4), "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; cf. Is 44:6), "the Lord of lords and the King of kings" (Rev 17:14) cannot be identified with an angel, with Michael, who is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, cf. Hebrews 1). The Scriptures never call Jesus an angel, let alone Michael.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: Jude's letter establishes the truth that Satan has greater authority than Michael. The apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
The place they refer to (1Thess 4:16) is so forced that I can only marvel at anyone who falls for it. It does not say that it's Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying His arrival. The phrase "His archangelic voice" is not present in 1 Thess 4:16, instead it simply states: "with the voice of the archangel." It continues to say "with the trumpet of God." Therefore, if Jesus, according to this misinterpretation, is an archangel, then the same logic proves His deity.
The "voice of the archangel" does not mean someone's, i.e. Jesus' archangelic voice, but the voice of an archangel. The Greek text is particularly clear, because it contains a possessive structure, not an adjective. On top of that, if someone has an archangelic voice and speaks with it, it should not be written as "with the voice of the archangel," but rather as one word: "with his archangelvoice." Therefore, the phrase "the Lord's voice is the voice of the archangel" is not written anywhere. It's a misinterpretation. Even if we had to rely solely on the Bible, we would know that there are at least two archangels: Michael and Satan. By this illogical conclusion, Jehovah created Himself when He created Michael.
The "Lord" mentioned afterward in the textis obviously not referring to Michael. This downgrading of Christ to an angel is very Jewish in nature, and if they want to proudly wear this badge, I won't stand in their way. At most, I will keep quoting the letter to the Hebrews, which says that Christ is not an angel, because "to which of the angels did He ever say," etc. etc.
We need to specifically address this claim, as it is inseparably linked to the issue of salvation (soteriology). According to the understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses, the archangel Michael went through three levels: Jehovah created him earlier than "all other" creatures, including Satan (first level). At the beginning of our era, he left the realm of spiritual creatures and became the perfect human, Jesus Christ, in order to pay the ransom for Adam's transgression with the sacrifice of his perfect human life (i.e., his body) (second level). After his death as a man on the "stake", Jehovah placed him again as a spiritual creature - at a level higher than before - at the "divine" level, into the heavenly glory, where he received the ability to "materialize" the bodies of the "resurrected" Jesus with the help of Jehovah (third level).
Above all, it becomes apparent how double-faced the image of God by Jehovah's Witnesses is. They claim that God "must" prove (???) His sovereignty in the face of Satan's challenge. Even if they could find a basis for such a notion in Job 1, they should not go so far as to put God on the same level as Satan, as if they were competitors, and God needs to prove Himself stronger than Satan. Such thoughts, even if Jehovah's Witnesses would vehemently deny them, dangerously approach dualism (two usually equal powers fighting for dominance).
This contradicts entirely the omnipotence, uniqueness, and sovereignty of YHWH (see Ex 2:20; Deut 6:4). Such statements by Jehovah's Witnesses about God provide further evidence that they do not know the real, absolute God, but instead construct their own "god" who must fit into the world drama they have planned. This is fully apparent when we look at Christ. Christ is not a creature, but the second person of the divine Trinity. Thus, further elaboration would be unnecessary on whether he is identical with the archangel Michael. However, questions arise in relation to the theology of salvation that necessitate a closer look at the image of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses. Here we see that the dualistic image of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses continues on different levels.
They assert a dualism between Michael and Satan, Jesus and Satan, and - on a different level - between (Michael-)Jesus and Adam. Because they consider Jesus to be only an angelic being, or - temporarily - just a human, such opposition seems legitimate between what are essentially "equal partners" or "contractors". Meanwhile, they ignore that Jesus is not on the same level as angels and people, but is entirely on God's level. His temporary existence as a human should not be misunderstood as him being merely human, but he was at once a true God and a true man. During his earthly work, he did not declare his "angelic being," but his divine form, without losing his divine nature.
Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, devalue Christ. Although they assign a central place to his "ransom" - his sacrifice, they believe this is not sufficient for salvation). Jehovah's Witnesses primarily cite four biblical passages in support of the alleged identity of Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael: Dan 12:1; 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9; and Rev 12:7-12. In each place, the Archangel Michael is mentioned. "Michael" means "who is like God?" - not "he who is like God" (Russell erroneously translated it this way).
The fact that Michael is "one of the" chief angels and, as the "commander" of the divine angel armies, has a special place is evident from every biblical passage where his name appears, but he is never identified as Christ. Jesus, rather, stands above Michael and all angels (see Heb 1 etc.; see above). For example, when Dan 12:1 and Rev 12:7-12 speak of a battle between Michael and Satan, Michael acts here with the full authority and commission of Christ, but not as Christ. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that Christ does not fight Satan and demonic powers alone, but with the company of his angels - and among them, Michael the Archangel holds the first place, whose voice will sound with the trumpet of God at the return of Christ (1 Thess 4:16; cf. Mt 24:30; 2 Thess 1:7). Michael's voice will only resonate loudly at the time of world judgment. However, at the resurrection of the dead, only the voice of Christ, the Son of God, will be heard. Only Christ - not the Archangel Michael - has the power to bring the dead back to life (Jn 5:25,28).
""But by the theory of the trinity, the three are co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, nature, power, action, and will"
It still doesn't mean whenever the Bible talks about one or two of them, it has the mention all three of them everytime. In the Hebrews 1 the topic is the Son's unique relation to the Son, and his absolute superiority to all the angels. The Bible distinguish the Spirit from God's force, even talking about the power/force of the Spirit. So what would that be? Force of the force of God? It's quite ironic that even the Arians of the 4th century denied the personality of the Spirit.
Matthew 11:27 does not deny that the Spirit is omniscient, since it definitely stated elsewhere (for example 1 Corinthians 2:9–12). Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term? “That they may know thee [i.e. the Father], the only true God.” (Jn 17:3); “No one knows the Son but the Father.” (Mt 11:27). All these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures.
Jesus is called "our only Lord" in the NT.
So if calling the Father "only true God" rules out the Son cannot be true God, so the Father can't be Lord.
1Jn 1:2 calls Jesus true God.
The quickest way to demonstrate the JW's erroneous interpretation verses like this, or John 17:3 is to examine Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1Cor 8:6. If the title "One God" for the Father excluded Jesus from deity, then the title "One Lord" would likewise exclude the Father from being Lord. But we know that both of them are Lord. On the other hand, the Father is not only called the "only true God" (John 17:3), but also the "only Savior" (Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4; Jude 25), the "only King" (Zechariah 14:9). If John 17:3 excluded Jesus from being the "true God," then Jesus would also be excluded from being the Savior or the King. In contrast, Jesus is called the "only Teacher" (Matthew 23:8, 10; Matthew 10:24; John 13:13), the "only Master" (Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:1), and the "only Lord" (Jude 4; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Matthew 6:24). If we were to exclude Jesus from being the true God based on John 17:3, then we would also have to exclude the Father from being our Teacher, Master, or Lord.
So the Father is the only true God doesn't mean "only the Father is true God alone" (and the Son is not), because this formulation excludes the false gods from the deity, not the Son.
Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc. Some terms, on the other hand, are not predicated of the Persons by reason of the Essence, but rather by reason of the relation. Examples of this would be: The Father alone is un-begotten; the Son alone is begotten; the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and the Son. Finally, in the case of the second Person, some terms are predicated not by reason of his divinity (either his divine Nature or his divine relations) but on account of his human nature. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son has died; only the Son will come again. Regarding the use of terms like “alone” or “only” or “no one”: Such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but should be piously expounded.
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

Journeyman
„who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV, NKJV); „who, although he existed / was in the form of God, (he) did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (NASB, RSV); „who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited” (NRSV); „who, being in very nature of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV).
The Philippians 2:6 is clearly mistranslated by the Arian Bible translations.
The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".
The NWT rendering of Phil 2:6 is even worse than Wulfila's.
Existing in the morphē of God (has the Bible ever said that about any angel before?), and did not regard as "harpagmos" to BE (einai) equal (isa) with God. What does it mean not regarding/considering something as "harpagmos"? This expression can only be described as something that you cling to at all costs, by force, approx. as Gollum clings to the One Ring "my precious"). So he didn't cling, insist on his equality with God (which he already had), by continuing to stay in the morphē of God, BUT etc.
The beginning of the sentence states that Christ was "in the form of God"; the original term for "form" (morfé) primarily means the exterior, that shape in which someone appears identifiable and recognizable to others; it is no coincidence that several translators interpret it as "existence" or even "nature". The translated word "existed" (hyparkhon) is the participle of the verb hüparkhó (to exist, to subsist, to be in existence) indicating continuous action ("...being" or "...existing").
As for the first disputable detail, the meaning of the negation 'ukh' is "not", and it negates the verb (hegesato). The 'hegesato' is the aorist form of the verb 'hegeomai' (whose role here only indicates past tense), which means to deem, to think, to believe, to regard, to see someone or something as something (Phil 2:3,25, 3:7-8, 2Cor 9:15, 1Tim 1:12, Acts 26:2 etc.). The meaning of 'harpagmos' is robbery, loot, stolen, forcibly acquired thing; it derives from the verb 'harpadzó', which means "to rob" (see Mt 11:12, 12:29, Jn 10:19), or to snatch (Jn 6:15, Acts 8:39, 23:10, Jude 23, Mt 13:19, 1Thess 4:17); from this verb stems the words harpax (predator, robber, plunderer) and harpagé (robbery, desire to rob). 'Harpagmos' is rare in ancient Greek, and it only appears here in the New Testament.
The second clause refers to what the Son did not consider robbery: to 'einai' is a noun derived from the verb eimi (to be). The meaning of 'isa' (dictionary: 'isos') is equal, the same, similar in size etc.; from this stems isotes = equality, identity, fairness. Therefore, Christ did not consider being equal to God as robbery, in other words, being equal to God. The natural translation of the two details: "Being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery" to be "equal to God". It is crucially important that being "equal" to God is continuous, state-like. The Son did not acquire this, as if there was a time when he was not in the form of God. He was originally in this form of existence, so it could not have been an achievable goal for him. He originally "existed in the form of God". The WTS, however, represents it in exactly the opposite way, as if he should not have thought of becoming equal with God, and since he did not do this, he became an example for the Philippians.
Paul does not claim that Christ "did not want to rob" (ukh hegesato harpadzein) what was His from God. Nor does he say that Christ refrained from "being equal to God", from becoming equal to God (see the purpose clause of NWT: "that..."), or "making himself equal to God" (cf. Jn 5:18).
The section preceding Phil 2:6 not only talks about measuring ourselves against others but also about compassion, love, common aspirations and worries, avoiding disputes, humility, and finally in verse 5, that no one should look out for their own benefit only, but everyone should also look out for the benefit of others!
Then comes the elliptical Greek sentence, which every translator has to complete: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus", or more acceptable in the present tense: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [estin] = "as it is in Christ Jesus", or it can be supplemented with a modal auxiliary verb: ho kai en Khristo Iesu [einai dei] = "...as it should be in Christ Jesus".
This needed to be clarified in order to see that, according to Paul's line of thought, the basic attitude of believers in Christ is to place the interests of others above their own. Christ Jesus is cited as an example of this selflessness, who, despite being equal to God in the form of God (the upper pole), took on the form of humans for a time for the sake of humans (the lower pole). The Son almost "emptied himself" (heauton ekenosen), took on a servant's form, became similar to humans, and obeyed even to death. This astonishing, self-sacrificing love is what Paul presented to the Philippians as an example to follow (cf. Mk 10:45). The Society denies that in Christ, God became man. This translation and explanation suggest that Paul takes Jesus' humility before Jehovah as an example of humility. Accordingly, if we should regard others as better than ourselves, then Jesus is the best example of this because he regarded God, that is, Jehovah, as better than himself, and did not want to become God. According to the Bible verse, the Son's pre-incarnation state is described as "being in the form of God", "being equal to God", but he did not cling to this, but took on a human, servant form. Paul makes God, who humbled himself to us in Christ, an example of humility.
The word "harpagmos" in dictionaries does not directly mean robbery, loot, but rather looting, predation. However, it cannot be translated this way, as the meaning of the sentence would change to the opposite (even along the interpretation of the Watchtower): "Jesus did not consider it looting if he wanted to be equal with God." The word also has the meaning of "desirable acquisition," in which the aspect of seizing has completely faded. Therefore, it must be resolved somehow, and definitely by translating the word "harpagmos" with its object: something seized or to be seized, looted, robbed. If any translation does not proceed this way, it will be forced to paraphrase, so it cannot be used as an argument in the present debate.
At this point the NWT also uses a paraphrase: "the idea of trying to be equal to God". The purpose structure is completely missing from the Greek, it was only added by the interpretive effort of the translator. Similarly, the word "although" expressing the opposing aspect is not present in the Greek, although NWT also adds it: "who, although he was existing in God’s form". This translation solution is not falsification in itself, but it definitely unambiguously interprets an ambiguous Greek structure along some ideology. So it cannot be paraded as a "more accurate translation."
However, the New World Translation is also forced into a falsification that those defending it usually don't dare to address: "did not consider that", or "did not concern himself with the [...] thought". However, the meaning of "hegeomai" is not "to think about something", but "to consider / regard something as something". The correctness of this translation is also reflected in the grammatical structure of Phil 2:6, which, in accordance with the general sentence scheme of "hégeomai", contains a double object: "harpagmon" and "to einai isa theo", i.e. "loot" and "being equal with God". This meaning is not reflected by the Watchtower Bible, but it embezzles it.
A lot turns on this, because it becomes clear that the Watchtower Society bends the text with ideological intent, but this time it does not unambiguously interpret ambiguous Greek with interpretive translation, but falsifies unambiguous Greek with it.
It is precisely the context that makes it clear that Paul here presents Jesus as a divine person renouncing his existing possessions, not as someone who does not reach for something that is not his. There is no such thing in this text as the Watchtower ideologue pours in, that Jesus regarded God as more than himself. This is not exegesis, but the killing of the text at issue with sectarian theology.
The continuation ("but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant") states that Jesus did not demonstrate his humiliation by not seizing equality with God, but by not clinging to it. Otherwise, Paul's illustrative example would have lacked even the semblance of aptness. How would the example of Jesus, who does not reach above his own due, justify that we consider others superior to ourselves? To encourage this, Paul had to present a Jesus who does not cling to what is his, but voluntarily renounces it.
Some commentators want to demonstrate a difference between the contents of the following expressions: "being in the form of God," and "equality with God". But this is impossible, because in the continuation Paul contrasts the form of God with the form of a servant, so when Jesus took the form of a servant, he did not merely give up being equal with God, but also the divine form. Since he renounced both, it is obvious that Paul considered the two equal here.
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
Journeyman
Just give correct answer for the rhetorical question given in Hebews 1:
- "For to which of the angels did God ever say.." ?
- “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"?
- "Are they [the angels] not all ministering spirits?"
So if no angels have been said to, and all the angels are ministering spirits, how could be the Son one of them? It say He is superior to all of them, right? WTS seems to have forgotten the add their usual "other" word here.
Your following reasoning fails on the fact, that the Son "sat down" at the right hand of God after his ascension heaven, sot it's according to his humanity, according to which entered to the divine glory He enjoyed according to his divinity from eternity. Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.
So this part "being made" in Hebrews 1:4 words must be closely joined with the last clause of Hebrews 1:3; they speak, not of the glory which was ever His, but of that which became His after He had “made purification of sins".
We must keep far from the concept of 'sonship' any idea taken from human life which suggests that the father exists first, and only after a period of time does the son come into existence, for which reason the father is greater, stronger, wiser, and for a long time the son is someone entirely subordinate to him. Instead, we should consider the significance of 'sonship' in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal relationships, when the entire household saw in the son the alter ego of the father, the inheritor of all his property, and partaker in all his authority. And we can consider the often-occurring phenomenon that the grown son is often indeed a carbon copy of the father. The same facial features, the same movements, the same way of speaking and thinking, as if the father were living his second life in the son. When God the Father, not at a certain point in time, but from eternity to eternity, pours out the life of the Son of Himself, He can view in it, as it were, the mirror image of His own being, and He also projects His faithful copy onto us, so that we may know Him from it. The Son is the same God, but in a different way: in the form of existence of God revealing Himself. The Bible expresses this clearly and aptly when it designates the Son with another name, as the 'Word', which - or rather: who - was 'with God' from eternity, and 'was God'. The Son, therefore, is God living in His utterance, the eternal Word, in which God expresses Himself.
"Although Hebrews 1:2 is explicit that "through the Son he created the universe", which again makes it clear that God directed and guided Jesus in the creative works."
It's not "universe" there, but aions, which includes the time, temporality, so the Son existed before the creation of the time, hence "in the beginning" he was, thus eternal. The text does not say anything about "directing and guiding" the creation, and in the verse 10, the creation is directly attributed to the Son, which is also quoting a Psalm speaking about YHWH.
" in all of those verses in Hebrews 1, no mention of a person called "Holy Spirit". It's all about the relationship between TWO persons. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!"
Or because these text is not about the Holy Spirit, but about the relation of the Father and the Son. If I talk about my father only in a conversation, it means my mother doesn't exist?
The Holy Spirit clearly is not the same as God's force and energy, cf. Zechariah 4,6, Luke 1:35, Acts 10:38, 1Cor 2:4 and 1Thess 1:5.
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

"You mention that the Bible doesn’t use particular words to say Jesus is a creature. There are lots of words the Bible doesn’t use, and if we are talking about Trinitarian dogma the list gets very long indeed."
But here we are only talking about this one special issue: was the Son born (tikto), in other words begotten (gennao), or was he created by the Father (ktizo, poio)? The NT always uses the first two for the Son orign from the Father, and never the latter two. And vice versa: the NT always uses the last two in relation of the creation of the creatures, never the first two. Don't you think that this has a theological significance and indicates that there is a substantive-qualitative difference between the two?
The issue about Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14 I've expresed many times. I don't want to repeat myself, just this part: ironically, the interpretation I gave for these verses, is NOT in conflict with the WTS theology, they also confess that Jehovah possessed wisdom from the beginning, they also confess that the Son is the privileged, pre-eminent heir of the entire, the whole creation, and also the source of creation, so the interpretations presented here would NOT be contrary to their theology. However, they cannot admit this, because then they would lose their "one-liner" "proof texts"...
"While on earth Jesus said “I live because of the Father” (John 6.57) whereas the Father “has life in himself” without anyone else giving it to him."
This is not in contradiction with Nicene theology, which professes that the Son received everything from the Father, including His existence and divinity, not through creation, but through begetting, thereby sharing His entire being and divinity with Him. Additionally, the Father remains in the Son, and the Son in the Father, thereby sharing their divine essence. This is precisely why you should take out a theology book and first of all look at what the Catholic-Orthodox doctrine teaches about the issue, and not shoot at "straw men".
"Micah 5.2 says that Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. God doesn’t have an origin but a creature does."
God the Father does not have orign, but the Son has, not in the sense of being created, that does not exclude to be truly God. Just to repeat, the Nicene Christology never denied the Father is unbegotten, while the Son is begotten, thus having the orign from the Father. The point is: this generation of him from the Father is NEVER called creation, but "begotten", "born." The Scripture makes a clear distinction between the two. Micah 5:2 says the Son's origns are from ancient times, from the eternety/everlasting [ūmōwṣā’ōṯāw miqqeḏem mîmê ‘ōwlām].
"Those are just the scriptures that say Jesus is a creature most directly. "
If those are the vereses, that "say" that the Son is a creature "most direct" way, then your position is quite weak. At the same time, to what extent does the Scriptures affirm the Nicene teaching that the Son was born/begotten?
"There are dozens of others where it’s implied because he is distinguished from God, knows less than God, is less powerful than God, relies on God for everything."
Non-Sabellian, non-modalistic orthodox Christology never equated the Son with the Father as they were the same persons, although those way is speaking is clearly justified since the Incarnation. He is naturally inferior to the Father in his humanity, which does not preclude his being equal in his divinity. It's simple: when Jesus emphasizes these things, it means his humanity, and when he emphasizes other things, it means his divinity. This is the hypostatic union. You don't disprove this theology by pointing to these verses.
"One of the words later Trinitarians insisted didn’t apply to Jesus was poieo “made” yet that is used of Jesus in Heb 3.2."
This is bogus, here it is not about the Son's pre-incarnation orign from the Father. Again, where does the New Testament describe the origin of the Son from the Father with the terms "ktizo" or "poio"? I'll tell you: nowhere.
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
Blotty & slimboyfat
There are a lot of sources discussing the translation of Proverbs 8:22, like
I've found it strange, but this letter of Jerome is not translated to English, so I've done this myself:
“Something similar is also read in Proverbs [in in the Septuagint], of the person of the Wisdom, who is the Christ: »The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled and before all hills, he begets me.« Here, the word »created« should not confuse us, since in the Hebrew text, there is no »created«, which is expressed with BARA, but »possessed«. For it is written: »ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO«, which in our language means: »The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways«. However, there is a great difference between »possession« and »creation«. Possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. But creation is the beginning of a new state of that, which did not exist before.”
Here Jerome basically explains the Psalm 90, and touches on this issue only as an aside. According to the researchers, he learned this interpretation during his stay in Bethlehem, from the Jewish community there.
By the way, none of the schools of thought in the Arian controversy raised the question whether translation of the Septuagint here is correct, since at that time Origen was no longer, and Jerome was not yet alive. The discussion was in Greek and about the nuance of the meaning of the verb "ktizo", which is already extensive in Greek. Check this: http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/christou_crebegot.html
It would have been simpler if they had pointed out that Wisdom here is not the Son himself, but a female allegory that can only be applied to the Son according to the rules of typology, and that according to this even the Old Testament makes a distinction between "qanah" and "bara". By the way, in the Old Testament "bara" is sometimes also translated as "begetting".
"Lots of people in the early church called themselves Trinitarian but do not meet the common modern definition of the word."
No one said that the doctrine itself has not developed over the centuries, this is the development of dogma in the Catholic sense, which does not mean a change in teaching, but a more precise, sophisticated, systematized explanation of the faith professed in essence and content until then. Here the main point is the key phrase: Jesus is true God and begotten, not a creature <- vs -> just a creature, an angel.
For example, the Apostles' Creed already uses the Trinitarian formula, without expanding it, so even the very first Christian creeds without theological explanation spoke of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, mentioning them in one line, but they never spoke of Jehovah, Michael and about the active force. Here, one must start from the fact that there was no alleged "great apostasy", which the WTS is forced to force in order to present the conspiracy theory, that in fact the Christians of the apostolic age professed a WTS-type theology, only "true Christianity" for a couple of decades disappeared without any trace.
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

Blotty
I recommend John 5:23 to your attention
"regarding Hebrews 1:2: not according to some trinitarian scholars Iv read."
You fail to respond, the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.
"your verb "was" argument is laughable.. try a dictionary."
You misunderstood this too, the point was not the word "was" per se, but "in the beginning was..." as opposed to "created in the beginning", etc. For John 1:1a: https://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1_ov1.htm
"your "outside of time" argument is even more laughable and not even worth an actual response."
You can laugh, but according to Christian teaching, time itself, temporality is also a created reality, the Scriptures indicate this with the term "aión" (αἰών), the Son was "born" (tikto), or "begotten" (gennao) from the Father before the creation of the αἰών-s. And if the Son was "already" born of the Father when there were no αἰώνs, then this is equivalent to the fact that there was no such time when he did not exist. That is why John writes that he already was in the beginning. This description is included in the Nicene Creed.
"Begotten and being Born are used as parallels in the NT.. There is no one who is begotten and yet not born"
Precisely, the terminology of the scriptures very much separates the origin of the Son (and the Holy Spirit) from the Father, from the creation of creatures. For the former, he always uses the verbs "gennao", "titko" and expressions formed from them, while for the latter he consistently uses the verbs "ktizo", "poio" and structures formed from them. Well, don't you think this strict terminological distinction is at least interesting?
"Father nor holy spirit are called begotten nor are angels"
Yep, because the Father is not begotten, the Holy Spirit is not begotten, but proceeds from the Father, through the Son, and the angels are created. Only the Son is begotten, that's why only-begotten. Just as the Athanasian creed:
"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."
"How do you beget something without it being born (or created)? the very definition to the word corresponds to the concept of "coming into existance""
Ah, so you would subject to the concept of birth developed for humans (or even the concept of occurrence developed for objects), for the Son, about whom we know was not born from the Father the same ways as humans born. However, you see, you fall into a logical inconsistency with this. Likely continuing an already initiated analogy or searching for a counterexample, I brought up the example of human procreation, but not as a tool for proof, because otherwise, there's a great difference between them. The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation. The birth of the Son is unique and differs not only in terminology but also in essence from that of the creatures. For he is the only begotten Son (and only begotten God), that is, he is unique in terms of sonship and begotten divinity, even when he already has many brothers from the Father. This difference includes non-creatureliness, because the only begotten God cannot be a 'created God' - this expression in itself would be blasphemy.
Indeed, it is written that 'In the beginning was the Word.' And this emphatic statement stands in the place of the Genesis paraphrase that 'In the beginning, God created the Word.' Thus, instead of the time of the Word's birth, we read about him as someone who 'in the beginning' (that is, when time began) already 'was,' that is, existed. This means that his birth did not occur in time. And this is indeed logical, based on the Word, despite your short conception of time resisting it.
Behold: 'Before Abraham was, I am.' (No wonder the JWs also falsify this in their translation.)
If by 'before the beginning' you mean 'outside of time,' then yes - and this is trivially true. If you mean that there was a time when the Son did not yet exist, then you are mistaken, and this is also trivial. Because in this case, the 'beginning' would not have been a beginning, because there would have been a point in time before it. And in this second case, at most it could be in the text that 'In the beginning, the Word was made.' But it doesn't say that. Therefore, the Son was not born in time, but 'was in the beginning.'"
That the Father is the source of divinity, and that he also begot the Son together with his divinity. Therefore, if in the relationship between the Father and the Son God is specifically called the Father, it stems from the fact that the Son did not give his divinity to the Father, but vice versa.
The phrasing "all things were created in Him" excludes Jesus from being a creature. Creation is nothing else but the bringing into existence during time of a thing or being that did not exist before. Thus, if Jesus were a creature, then according to the text he would have had to create himself, which is a conceptual impossibility. (Someone who is created in, by, etc., must precede him in time, so there would have been a moment when Jesus simultaneously existed and did not exist.) So, everything could only be created in him if he himself is not a creature. And in this case, "in Him" does not mean "by His creation," but rather with His cooperation, through His action, etc. Or the worst-case scenario occurs, and you have to interpret "all things" as the JWs mistranslate it in the Bible: "all other things."
Scripture reveals that there was no time when the Son did not exist. The Father is not greater than the Son in divinity, but in fatherhood, for it is written: In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (What kind of divine fullness is there that has something greater or more?) On the other hand, Jesus was a Son, and as such, was inherently obedient to the Father in the work of redemption, thus in the ekonomia (although in His divinity he was equal with Him). Prompted by this obedience, He became human (because He owed it to no one, not even the Father), and as a human, He learned obedience in a new way: as a creature. This is another reason why he could admit that He was less than the Father.
Jesus did not cease to be the same God as the Father, but He set aside the use of His power and glory, humbled Himself, and relied only on the Father. If He had only been some kind of creature, He could have relied on the Father without emptying Himself, and not on Himself. Moreover, if He had been a creature from the beginning, He could have died without self-emptying. However, since He was God and remained God, it was necessary for Him to take on human form and die as a human (as a creature).
According to Paul, the fullness of the divine nature bodily dwelt in Him. Because if there is a creature in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily, that would be a strange creature indeed. (A God who was not always so, but "became" God?) And yet, you can only try to move away from the compelling current of the text by saying that "originally" He was not God (although why not: "The Word was God"). But if He had not been God throughout His existence, but had only been made so after his "creation," then it's your turn to say: on what occasion and at what time did He acquire this fullness of divinity. And what kind of fullness is it that does not extend to every moment of His existence?
"well its not hard to figure considering YHWH is called "Father" numerous times throughout the OT... "
That according to the OT the Father is YHWH is not the same as that exclusively the Father of the NT is Jehovah. Jesus is not the Father, but both Jesus and the Father are Yahweh. Compare e.g. Hebrews 1:10.