The apostle Matthew records Jesus telling the mother of Zebedee's sons: "He saith unto them, My cup indeed ye shall drink: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand, is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared of my Father" (Matthew 20:23).
It's hard for me to imagine Almighty God qua the Son telling someone that this divine prerogative is not mine to give, but those who believe Christ is God enfleshed have tried to explain these words by recourse to the kenosis (self-emptying) of the Lord.
"The Lord makes answer to His disciples in His character of servant; though whatever is prepared by the Father is also prepared by the Son, for He and the Father are one" (Augustine of Hippo).
Augustine undoubtedly has John 10:30 in mind when explaining Matthew 20:23, but that text needs to be examined grammatically and carefully. I also wonder what are the scriptural grounds--besides John 10:30--for claiming that what is prepared by the Father is also prepared by the Son. Christ differentiated between the Father's prerogative and his own in texts that include Matthew 25:34 and Acts 1:6-7. Compare Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32.
It's amazing isn't it, they throw a fit at the idea of JEHOVAH using his omnipotence to ensure genuine free moral agency . But have no problem with the mental somersaults involved in accepting "the kenosis"
ReplyDeleteOh yes, most "explanations" for why Jesus can't do a particular act in the NT depend on the kenosis
ReplyDeleteThey conflate describing with explaining and explaining with explaining away.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Matthew%2020:23
ReplyDeleteNot only the 'kenosis', but the Incarnation, i.e. the taking of the human nature, the double nature, the hypostatic unity is the key. How can a man be God? Only by the divine persone also taking the human nature, as if dressing in a human body and soul; while, of course, remaining who he has always been; God, the only-begotten, eternal, divine Son of the Father. This dual nature is expressed by the term "God-man", or in other words: "The Word made flesh."
But the JWs refer to that Jesus himself say, "The Father is greater than I am". Of course he did, because as a man, he was unquestionably lesser than the Father. The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity. As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.
There would only be a contradiction if in Jesus the divine and human properties were fused into one nature, and thus mutually corrupted each other. But this is not the case. On the contrary: Jesus remained fully God and at the same time fully human. In his human nature, he was small and weak, but in his divine nature, he was infinite and omnipotent. In his human nature, he became like us in every respect, except for sin; in his divine nature, however, he is always above us. In his human nature, he was born, grew, learned, got tired, hungry, thirsty, cried, sweated, suffered, died, rose; in his divine nature, he was eternal changelessness. All this did not cause any contradiction or split in him, but rather, they complemented each other wonderfully.
Let me recommend the following articles to your attention:
* https://justpaste.it/cmnk1
* https://docdro.id/1UdIzcC
* https://docdro.id/iSD7hLH
* https://ia600304.us.archive.org/19/items/TheJehovahsWitnessesAndJesusChrist/Jehovahs_Witnesses_and_Jesus_Christ_Metzger.pdf
*
Another square circle.
ReplyDeleteDear Nincsnevem,
ReplyDeleteYour post is a little long on assertions but short on evidentiary proof. For Trinitarians, the kenosis and Incarnation go hand in hand. As Oxford Reference states, kenosis is "Greek for 'self-emptying' and used by Paul in Phil. 2: 7 for Jesus' renunciation of the state of glory with the Father in order to share human life and death."
You act like you comprehend the Incarnation or that the doctrine itself presents no difficulties for Trinitarians. That is hardly the case and one insuperable difficulty is explaining how God became human. According to traditional Catholic theology, God is supposed to be immutable and impassible. It's not easy to explain how an immutable and impassible deity "become" human or "assumed" humanity. Go ahead and act like it is but honest Trinitarians admit it's by no means easy. Furthermore, the idea is not biblical.
Dear Mr. Foster,
ReplyDeleteOf course, the Catholic understanding of "kenosis" is not the same as the Protestant understanding called "kenotic doctrine". The Catholic understanding of the Incarnation does not mean that any change took place in God.
God would undergo change by incarnation if he were to become human in such a way as to cease to remain God; or if, in the sense of the Protestant doctrine of kenosis, he were to renounce some of his divine attributes; or if he were to incorporate humanity into his nature, i.e., his divine sphere of life (monophysitism). According to Catholic truth, however, the incarnation consists in God incorporating a full humanity into the unity of his person, thereby enabling a true, full human life, but not blending this sphere of life with his own divine life-sphere. In the incarnation, therefore, God indeed enters into a new relationship with a creature; however, this is real only on the part of the creature, as are the relations between God and the creature in general (creation of the world, its preservation, governance). God, from eternity, has efficaciously decreed the incarnation with all its aspects; when this then occurs at the eternally predetermined time, there is no change in God, just as there is no change in him due to creation or the preservation of the world. "The property of a relation is that it can be newly attributed to someone without that someone changing; thus, someone can become a right-hand neighbor without changing their position, simply by someone else changing their position to end up on their left." (Thom III 16, 6 ad 2.)
According to the Catholic concept, in the incarnation, Divinity remains entirely what it was before the union. Becoming human is a new relation between God and a human; however, this is real only on the part of the human. The humanity of Christ indeed participates in an unparalleled increase in existence (gratia unionis); but not the Divinity. For God, by virtue of His infinite perfection, is the fullness of all existence and the source of all created existence; thus, whatever reality exists in the human Christ, it is His conception and realization, and thus supremely exists in Him from eternity. Just as creation does not imply an increase in perfection for God, so does the hypostatic union. The incarnation does not mar the simplicity of God. For God does not enter into personal unity as a part, nor does He receive completion or perfection from the whole created by the incarnation. In Christ, the relation between divinity and humanity (considered from the point of view of existential aspects, which are the only ones in question here) is precisely the relationship between Creator and creature. Just as God's simplicity is not marred by creating the world and maintaining a constant inner connection with it, so His simplicity is not obscured by entering into personal unity with a human nature.
"The Catholic doctrine does not claim that the Son was Changed by the incarnation" well ,before the incarnation he had one nature and afterward he simultaneously possessed two mutually exclusive natures
DeleteRomans ch.1:22,23ESV"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things." Paul is saying that is foolish to even suppose that JEHOVAH Would outwardly resemble a mortal man.
How much more so then to claim that he is literally a mortal man.
"God would undergo change by incarnation if he were to become human in such a way as to cease to remain God; "
DeleteGod would also under go change if he became a creature the categories of Creator and creature are mutually exclusive.
Hosea ch.11:9ESV"I will not execute my burning anger;
I will not again destroy Ephraim;
for I am God and not a man,
the Holy One in your midst,
and I will not come in wrath.c"
Unless this is not meant to be understood as a permanent and unchangeable in carries no force.
1Kings ch.18:27KJV"27And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked."
The notion that JEHOVAH Can ever be subject to human frailties is nothing but grist mockery
Sophistry masquerading as sophistication.
God, as the creator, is not distant from His creatures; for in Him we live, move, and have our being. Every creature is entirely the conception of God and a reflection of His perfection, and therefore carries that secret seal by which it is most intimately related to God, by which it can grasp Him and elevate it to the fullest possible communion with God that is compatible with the idea of the creature. This is the supernatural susceptibility (potentia obedientialis), which also makes possible the hypostatic union.
ReplyDeleteA common objection is that the humanity of Christ is a created reality. However, the act of creation is precisely aimed at giving existence to a creature. Therefore, the humanity of Christ is created, that is, it exists with human existence. The solution to this is that the fact of creation is not strictly directed at the existence of the creature, but at the existing creature, where it remains undetermined whether the existence of the existing creature is also created with its reality, or is transplanted onto an already existing fact of existence. The latter is the case with the humanity of Jesus Christ; so it would be more precise to say not that the humanity of Christ is created, but that it is created according to the holy humanity of the eternal Word (Billot).
Another common objection to the Catholic understanding of the Incarnation is that if the humanity of Christ participates in the existence of the Son of God, then the finite creature participates in the infinite divine existence; and this is impossible. On the other hand, the fact of existence is not a content-based existence, but a metaphysical fact that holds and unifies content-based existence. If God includes a creature in this bond of existence, this does not mean at all that he shares anything of his divine content with it. Because of our imperfect knowledge of the nature of God, of course, we cannot see how this is possible. But through analogies drawn from the works of God, we can get close to understanding it: a) If God can give existence to beings outside of his own sphere of existence through creation, in the form of relative, created existence, why couldn't he also give existence to a being within his own sphere of existence? (Cf. Thom III 3, 1 ad 2.) After all, every being depends on God essentially and constantly in its existence; and the mode of existence of Christ's humanity merely represents the highest degree and intimacy of this dependency. b) If God can keep beings in existence with his power, as he does in the creation and preservation of the world, why couldn't he also do so with his essence, with his own subsistence, or with the power by which he keeps himself in existence? c) If the subsistence of the Son of God is powerful enough to give existence and reality to the infinite divine nature, why should we deny him the power to give existence and reality to a finite nature? Indeed, finite subsistence is incapable of this. In the finite being, nature and subsistence form a whole, and the role and power of that being's subsistence is exhausted in maintaining the nature assigned to it; it cannot do anything else. But in God, whose subsistence has infinite power, there can be no such limitation. Therefore, theologians rightly conclude that God could or could still enter into hypostatic unity with other creatures, with any number of created individuals or worlds, either simultaneously or successively, as he pleases (Thom III 3, 7).
It's in vain to deny it: The New Testament itself explicitly teaches Jesus' dual nature, obviously not with doctrinal precision, since the Bible is not a theology textbook, but a "living Word", but in terms of content, yes. On the one hand, it claims that he is 1. Lord and God, and on the other hand, that he is 2. man. If I add this up, it's exactly two piecs of natures. On the one hand, Jesus is called the only-begotten God (John 1:18), and God who was with God the Father in the beginning (John 1:1) - on the other hand, it confesses that He became flesh (John 1:14), similar to us, to destroy the devil through death. So what kind of talk is it when JWs claim that the New Testament does not know anything about a "dual nature"?
ReplyDeleteWhat JWs confidently claim is also not true, namely that there is no biblical evidence that these attributes are to be understood only in terms of His human nature. For the Epistle to the Hebrews neatly summarizes how much His becoming lower can be attributed to His being human (5:7-9):
"_In the days of his flesh_, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he _learned_ obedience through what he suffered, and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"
That is, if He had not become human, He would not have needed to pray to the Father, nor to learn obedience, as He was not forced to do so as the Son. Otherwise: If from the beginning the Son were just a creature, so ontologically inferior to the Father regardless of His Incarnation, why did he only have to "learn" obedience "in the days of his [being] flesh"?
Nincsnevem, I know what official Catholic doctrine states about the Incarnation, but it still does not make sense. You say that God does not change, yet he supposedly assumes humanity (human nature). John 1:14 relates that the Logos "became flesh" or "was made flesh." Unless "God the Son" was eternally human, then a change took place when the Logos assumed humanity. Even one Orthodox thinker bit the bullet and admitted this had to be the case if the Incarnation truly happened. You can paper it over with words. However, the Incarnation as understood by Catholics was not just a Cambridge change.
ReplyDeleteThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states:
ReplyDelete"The Incarnation is an especially knotty problem for DDI's [the doctrine of divine immutability's] Christian friends. In general, these argue that all change it involved occurred in the human nature God the Son assumed rather than in God; God was eternally ready to be incarnate, and eternally had those experiences of the earthly Christ which the Incarnation makes part of his life. Through changes in Mary and the infant she bore, what was eternally in God eventually took place on earth."
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/08/did-logos-change-when-he-became-flesh.html
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem, Hebrews 5:8 does not claim that Christ "only" had to learn obedience in his fleshly days. Nice addition to the text. Well, not really.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"You say that God does not change, yet he supposedly assumes humanity (human nature)."
ReplyDeleteYes, but this inclusion of human nature did not mean a change in the Godhead, since the change, that is, the creation of the man Jesus, did not affect the Godhead, but took place in the created world. The man Jesus was "attached" to the divine Logos, and not the divine Logos was changed to become a man.
Regardless, it is also important to note here that the Incarnation is a mystery, an unprecedented event. The fact that the Holy Scriptures call Jesus both God and man is enough to calculate that it is one piece and then two pieces of nature.
By the way, the Bible is not a theology textbook, it is not a book of dogmatics, it will not declare it like the Chalcedonian Creed. But he teaches in terms of content: that He was God, and that He also became man. These are two different natures, and by definition, different attributes are associated with them. Of course, you can make fun of this, but perhaps how many elements of JW Christology are explicitly stated in the Scriptures? Where does it say that the Father _created_ the Son? How is he Michael? Etc., I could go on and on.
It's like having two baskets and a bunch of apples. Red apples go into one basket, green apples into the other. In the Holy Scriptures, statements ("apples") suggesting Jesus' deity go into one "basket" (referring to his divinity), those referring to his humanity go into the other. Christian theology is precisely about the fact that no "apple" has to be thrown out or distorted, as the NWT does, but only put in the right "basket".
So is it sufficient for you, to prove the existence of those two "baskets", or should I prove it in every single statement that which one does it belong to? Or is say: it's purely logical (for example, Jesus suffered, as God cannot suffer, as human he can, so it's meant according to his humanity), you will shout: "But it's philosophy!"
I recommend to your attention Pope Pius XII's encyclical on the Council of Chalcedon also deals with the problem of the "kenotic" doctrine:
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091951_sempiternus-rex-christus.html
Anyway, I can see how much JWs are averse to "philosophical" terminology, which makes the dialogue difficult, since in such cases they never look at the content behind the given doctrine, but instead get stuck on the "philosophical" origin of the given concepts (which I don't see the justification for at all). In this regard, I quote the encyclical 'Humani generis':
ReplyDelete"Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority [Magisterium] of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we also know that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the century es to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them."
So the emphasis was not on the terms used in the formulation of the doctrines and the "philosophical" system behind them, but on the content of the doctrines. For example, Schillebeeckx emphasizes that it is not possible to contrast the "Hellenistic" thinking model of Patristics with the "Biblical" thinking model, and in fact, language-structural studies show a close kinship between the two models. Therefore, the Chalcedonian dogma accurately expressed biblical thoughts in its own time.
oh no another trinitarian...
ReplyDeleteThe "oneness" here is flawed - Jesus said it was his Fathers decision not his.. it should be more evident that's its the "oneness" via the first person pronoun not another person
I can find in no dictionary where the word used in Phil 2:7 means anything other than swapping one thing for another.
Goodspeed and Moffats translations confirm this - so if any trinitarian would like to debate as too the meaning of the word, they will have to contend with 2 of the greatest NT scholars in american history according to Robert M Bowman Jr (& others including but not limited too Dr white, Greg Stafford, and I believe even Rolf)
One needs to find a place in the NT where the 2 nature doctrine is explicitly stated - I find none, words that are used to "describe it" imply a giving up or a "trade off" rather than "gaining"
"cannot change" - doesn't mean what trinitarians think it does as evidenced by other scriptures in the NT, Humans "do not change" that can be taken in many senses.
Also please note the NWT's footnote
ReplyDelete*** nwtsty John Study Notes—Chapter 1 ***
resided: Lit., “tented.” Some have taken the statement that the Word ‘resided, or tented, among us’ to mean that Jesus was, not a true human, but an incarnation. However, Peter used the related noun that is rendered “tabernacle,” or “tent,” when he spoke of his own fleshly body as a temporary dwelling place. (2Pe 1:13; ftn.) Though Peter knew that his death was near and that his resurrection would be in the spirit, not in the flesh, he was not indicating that he was an incarnation.—2Pe 1:13-15; see also 1Co 15:35-38, 42-44; 1Jo 3:2.
"Anonymous"
ReplyDeleteNow forget the "Trinity" for a bit, let's stick to Niceanism
Indeed, the immutability of God is explicitly taught in the Bible: Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102:25-27, James 1:17
This follows from logic anyway, we could know this attribute of God even if the Bible did not exist. It already follows from the first argument for God: the "unmoved mover", which is the best argument for the existence of God.
The God and Father of Jesus is the most high God
DeleteActs ch.3:13KJV"The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. "
i.e JEHOVAH
John ch.8:54KJV"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me of whom ye say, that he is your God: "(the God of you.)
I.e JEHOVAH
"One needs to find a place in the NT where the 2 nature doctrine is explicitly stated" - Look for the places in the NT where it is stated that "Jesus is Michael", "Jesus is a creature", "only the Father is YHWH", "Jesus ceased to be a man", and other WTS Christological conceptions. It's a bit of a double standard that although the burden of proof would be on you, you would expect us to have the Chalcedonian definition in an explicitly formulated form in THE, but your Christology is only a sloppy explanation. And all this while you argue that your doctrines are "clearly" and "simply" in the Bible.
ReplyDeleteA place where it is clearly stated that Jesus is a creature
DeleteColossians ch.1:15,NIV"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. "
Prototokos is always a member of the set of which he is prototokos
Colossians ch.1:18NIV"And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. " Nobody denies that his being firstborn from the dead means he is numbered among the resurrected.
Even though all the dead are resurrected "dia" him
1Corinthians ch.15:21NIV"For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. "
"Jesus is Michael" - 1 Thes 4:16, see all other occurrences of this idiom
ReplyDelete""Jesus is a creature" - well that's sort of implied, in many places + the question really comes if Jesus wasn't Gods first creation, who was?
"only the Father is YHWH" - 1 corin 8:6, John 17:5 (Where is "only true" used where someone means to include themselves, the passive verb used in Christs role for creation not the active etc)
"Jesus ceased to be a man" - you can deal with Goodspeed and Moffat on that one, see my above post
I have found this thread of comments and the one within the previous blog post fascinating, and a catalyst for further research on both sides of the issues presented, whether Witness or Catholic.
ReplyDeleteI care not to contribute on the specifics of the debates (predeterminism, the immutability of God, Trinitarianism etc...), but do have a few rhetorical questions as an interested but rather concerned observer.
How does 2 Timothy 2:14 affect the consciences of each individual here?
Nincsnevem, you are very well versed in Catholic dogma and teachings. Where did your knack for it come from? Would you say that the average layman or woman within Catholicism could defend the faith to the same extent, or at all? Do they even believe the things you are so resolute and so eloquently argue about?
How do verses such as 1 Corinthians 1:10, Ephesians 4:3, Philippians 2:2, 1 Peter 3:8 regarding unity of mind/thinking play into the Catholic faith system? Could I speak to each individual Catholic and get similar reasoning from each one?
As for Edgar, Servant, and anonymous, perhaps I could invite you to review what you hope to achieve in long extended back and forths like this. Do you see a benefit? Perhaps there are readers to this blog that the conversation is harming. (2 Tim 2:14, 1 Tim 6:4.)
My two penneth.
Hi Terence, thanks for your questions. Firstly, let me say that I have pulled back from the back and forth with Nincsnevem because I've had my way, numerous comments have been made on both sides and my time is better spent in other endeavors.
DeleteI concur with the scriptures cited and will just say I think they must be read in context, but I really prefer to discuss/dialogue rather than debate. Like many Witnesses, I feel a need to defend truth and refute error (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5). However, I admit that we have to be careful how that task is done.
I will close by saying that it might sound like a debate about words and maybe the conversation has gone there, but I believe Nincnevem has made claims about Greek and Hebrew words that need to be corrected.
I will stop here for now, Terence and do appreciate your input and questions.
On the point about potential spiritual harm, to be honest, one runs the risk of potential harm just by operating this kind of blog. However, the general impression I've got from most readers is that the blog has helped to bolster their faith.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I really don't want to debate issues or words: I would much rather analyze texts, focus on history/grammar and share ideas.
Thanks Edgar,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that the scriptures I've cited are not within this exact context, but I feel the principles therein might still guide the conversation a little.
Keep up the good work.
TK.
You're welcome, Terence, and I agree that principles can be applied from those verses.
DeleteOne person on earth, who really likes when I do something besides blog is my wife 😁
Take care.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI don't think you know the Catholic interpretation of the Incarnation, then you wouldn't make such a claim, don't confuse us with the Gnostic Docetists.
""Jesus is Michael" - 1 Thes 4:16, see all other occurrences of this idiom" - Where does it say that Jesus is Michael? It' forced that I can only marvel at anyone who falls for it. It does not say that the voice of Michael is Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying the arrival of Jesus. 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 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).
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 New Testament never calls Jesus an angel (cf. Hebrews 1:5), let alone Michael.
"""Jesus is a creature" - well that's sort of implied, in many places" - Nowhere is this stated, but it is stated that he was born/brought forth, that he was already in the beginning, even before the worlds/ages were created. The Bible never calls the Son a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis)
"the question really comes if Jesus wasn't Gods first creation, who was?" - Like "the heavens and the earth"? The Scriptures do not specify who specifically, but why should it?
""only the Father is YHWH" - 1 corin 8:6, John 17:5" - I don't see YHWH here. The Father is indeed the only true God, which is not the same as the JWs read it, ie. that "only the Father is true God alone". The apostle Paul also uses this wording in 1 Cor 8:6. This is therefore not opposed to the deity of Jesus, but to the false deities. In the same way, the fact that Jesus is the only Lord does not mean that only Jesus is truly Lord alone, opposed to the Father. This is the answer of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae I, q.31, a.4) too, that it's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense.
""Jesus ceased to be a man" - you can deal with Goodspeed and Moffat" - Indicate what you are saying specifically, because I have given you the entire early Christian literature. On the other hand, 1 Timothy 2:5 is particularly problematic for the WTS theology, since they believe that Jesus ceased to be human when he died, and that his resurrection actually means recreation, restoration to be an angel.
"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"
So if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator. Let's say that in the case of JWs, he is not mediator for the rank-and-file members (only for the "anointed" class, thus the inner party), to whom the majority of members belong based on the two-class salvation regime invented in 1935.
Galatians ch.1:1ESV"Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—"
DeleteNot through a man but through a man?
Hebrews ch.5:7NASB"In the days of [c]His humanity, [d]He offered up both prayers and pleas with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him [e]from death, and He [f]was heard because of His devout behavior."
Doesn't the phrase "in the days of his humanity" suggest these days are in the past.
Hebrews ch.2:9NIV" But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, .." Actually we don't see Jesus temporarily made lower than angels because if the humanity that rendered him lower than angels is permanent then so is his lowered status.
John ch.5:22,27 mentions no judging of Satan what does state is that JEHOVAH has delegated authority to his Servant so this authority is not innate as would be the case with the Most High God. But derivative indicating the subordination of the Son to his God and Father.
DeleteDear Terence,
ReplyDeleteI found the discussion with the other guy in the other group quite tiring, as it's hard to have a dialogue with someone who only works in output mode and doesn't actually respond to my objections. For example, he often confuses predestination with determinism, which is a completely different concept.
By the way, I am not a priest, of course the science of theology is open to anyone interested. The beautiful thing about the Catholic faith is that even the less educated inquirer can find answers suitable to his level, and at the same time, answers to the highest level of philosophical and theological inquiries can also be found.
I'm not saying that an average layman would be at that level, but why should he be? We do not train "publishers" where the goal is to prepare each believer to polemicize, see 1 Corinthians 12:27-31. Another issue is that the preparation of the JW is only good for exposing a person raised in a post-Christian secular age with a few "one-line" Bible recitations, who only knows the teachings of his nominal church superficially. (I don't even feel this method is fair.) Apologetics is a separate genre that is not for everyone. By the way, I am a "civilian" lawyer, and after all, this is not a very different genre than arguing in court. What is missing is a neutral moderator like the judge in the courtroom :)
The verses you quoted, which are about unity, are you funny, because for 500 years Protestants have criticized the Catholic Church for being too uniform and dogmatic, and the JWs are telling us now that they are too lax? This unity does not mean uniformity.
It is precisely a fact that in the Catholic Church everything that is not defined as "de fide" dogma is subject to free debate, so what is actually stated here is not what must be confessed, but what is forbidden to deny.
For example, if a Catholic theologian were to write a publication that the instrument of Jesus' execution was not in the shape of a cross, he would not be harassed, since this is not a question of faith, not a dogma.
It is attributed to Augistine: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
@Nincsnevem you claimed that predestination is distinct from determinism.Here is Merriam Webster on determinism: "a theory or doctrine that acts of the will (see WILL entry 2 sense 4a), occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws
Deleteb
: a belief in PREDESTINATION"
If every act and thought was pre- destined from eternity then determinism is inevitable.
@servant, there are kinds of determinism that are not equivalent to predestination but to your point, there is a kind of determinism labeled "theological determinism." So it is the case that predestination may be a form of determinism.
ReplyDeleteIf the predestination is finite then it can be claimed that it might be the product of a choice or choices made in time. But if the predestination is from eternity to eternity an encompasses every thought act and event. Well that is determinism or at the very least not meaningfully distinguishable from determinism.
ReplyDeleteDear "aservantofJehovah",
ReplyDeleteIf you're Mr. Foster's magic weapon to get me out of here, I'll tell you, you're on the right track. I think your debating method does not benefit your denomination, because instead of persuasion, it is mostly meant to make people's heads hurt and lose their interest in dialogue. Your discussion style reminds me of this article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080726042120/http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/dwjw.htm
Instead of focusing on at least one topic, you get involved in more and more issues, and you don't even bother to read my post carefully, you don't look at the links provided.
Predestination and determinism are two different concepts, no matter how hard you try to conflate them. In any case, predestination is a difficult theological topic, you have deliberately taken the discourse on God's eternity and inherent omniscience in that direction. In order to understand the Catholic concept of predestination at all, you should delve into the basics of grace, some church history (cf. Pelagianism), etc. If you want to delve into it, here is a book about it: https://docdro.id/KDFs0eO
In short, the word "predestination" means quite a different thing in profane usage than it does in theology. Some people imagine the development of a person's earthly destiny, achievement, state of health, marital and other circumstances as fate, and call this inescapable and unchangeable destiny predestination. Dogmatics does not deal with such a profane belief in fate.
In theology, the broadest sense of the term predestination refers to God's universal salvific will, that is, the "voluntas Dei salvifica antecedens et conditionata" guiding each individual and the whole world towards ultimate glorification. The Bible seems to use this word in this sense twice (Acts 4:28, 1 Cor 2:7). However, generally, the Bible uses predestination to refer not to a calling, but to a selection, and for this reason, most scholars take it in the narrowest sense: God has known from eternity those who will indeed be saved, and he wills their salvation; Scripture often contrasts these "chosen" with the "called" (see Mt 22:14). Accordingly, predestination is identical with the "voluntas Dei salvifica consequens et absoluta", only slightly more in that it includes foreknowledge as well as will.
The best biblical evidence for this is found in Chapter 8 of the Letter to the Romans. For there we find such expressions as: those he knew beforehand – he predestined – he called – he justified – he also glorified (29-30). Also significant is what Saint Paul writes to the Ephesians: in Christ, the Father chose us before the creation of the world. Out of love, he chose us in advance to be children of God through Jesus Christ, to receive forgiveness of sins, and at the end of time, when everything is glorified in Christ, we too will receive our inheritance (Eph 1:3-11). Jesus does not use the word predestination, but when speaking of the Last Judgement, he mentions a kingdom "prepared for you since the foundation of the world" (Mt 25:34). In the Acts of the Apostles, there are also mentions of those "who were appointed to eternal life" (13:48). A similar thought can be found in the First Letter of Peter (1 Pet 1:20).
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
ReplyDeleteColossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as the firstborn of all creation, and the immediate continuation explains this clearly, when it adds: FOR by him all things were created. Since the whole section is about the supremacy of Jesus, it cannot even arise that it is about the confession of Jesus' createdness.
The "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir, a lordly titl in biblical context:
“The first-born son’s privileges and responsibilities are known as his `birthright’ (bekorah).” – New Bible Dictionary, 1982, p. 378.
This is even supported by what the WTS wrote, open it up: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483
"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)"
So even on the basis of your publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation. He is _the_ Firstborn, thus the Lord / ruler of the whole creation.
He is the Firstborn of the whole creation BECAUSE in Him all things were created. He is heir of all things, and inherits the throne of his ancestor David.
OT usage is instructive. David is called first-born in Ps 89:27, not because he was the literal first child of Jesse (for he was the youngest), but in the sense of his ascendancy to the kingship of Israel. Likewise, Jr 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the first-born, whereas Manasseh was chronologically first (Gn 41:50-52). The nation Israel is called my first-born son by God (Ex 4:22). The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning firstborn of all creation.
John Chyrsostom also wrote a long dissertation on this theme in his 3rd Homily on Colossians: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.iv.iv.iii.html
The phrase "something of something" does not at all mean "belonging to a category" in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context.
ReplyDeleteIt is not difficult to understand what the "Firstborn of the whole creation" means. It is enough to see what the title "Firstborn" title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.
"Firstborn" means "preeminence", "supremacy", "distinguished heir", "ruler", nothing more, nothing less. Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation, it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one in relation of the whole creation.
What kind of relationship this "Firstborn" has with "the whole creation" mentioned after it, well, that it is a part of it, does not follow at all from the linguistic meaning of this term, nor from a narrower or broader context. Once "Firstborn" is a lordly title, and "the whole creation" (which by definition is subject to this ruling Firstborn - also according to the WTS) mentioned mentioned after, then it is much more reasonable that this person enjoys the status of the "Firstborn" over "the whole creation" rather than being classified as a part of it. The whole context is a passage glorifying the Son, it is completely foreign if you rewrite the second half of Col 1:15 to say that he is "the first created being", then it would become completely meaningless. Is he "the first created being, BECAUSE all [other things was created in him"? What?
The funniest thing is that this is the standard interpretation of these words ("the firstborn of all creation"), that this means that the Son is "the Firstborn", therefore the Lord, the Ruler of the whole creation, otherwise it is completely compatible with the theology of the Watchtower too, but they still cannot admit it, they have to stick to it until they break the nails, because they NEED this "one-liner" "proof" text, if the Scriptures do not declare the Son to be a creature anywhere.
Check this: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/general-apologetics/prototokos-firstborn-its-meaning-and-usage-in-the-new-testament/
Dear "aservantofJehovah",
ReplyDeleteThe chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly distinguishes the Son from "all the angels" ("For to which of the angels did God ever say...?" "Are not all angels ministering spirits ...?"), the NWT must have forgotten to insert their favorite word "other" here as well ;-)
No one claimed said that the Son's Incarnation meant that what was spirit until then became flesh. It's no what was spirit, converted into flesh, but the Person, i.e who existed as spirit from eternety made flesh, it was not the spirit that became flesh, but the divine person took on human nature alongside his divine nature. This is the principle of hypostatic unity, the person unites the two natures.
Another dogma is that the personal union (hypostatic union) never ceases, it lasts forever. The Nicene Creed, in opposition to the Origenists, quoted the words of the angelic greeting "of his kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:33). The church fathers also referred to other scriptural locations: "But he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever" (Heb 7:24). "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb 13:8).
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)
I keep asking you that, if Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel, then who is now the mediator (in prayers, etc.) that, according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?
Also read:
* https://www.4jehovah.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-spirit-body/
* https://truediscipleship.com/was-jesus-raised-as-a-spirit/
By the way, Satan was a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14, cf. Isaiah 14:12), and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan. The fact that the cherubim are above the angels and archangels is also clear from the Scriptures, but this has always been the teaching of Judaism and Christianity about the angelic hierarchy. Considering 2 Peter 2:11, this gives a good justification for Jude 9. Jesus, on the other hand, pronounced a clear judgment on Satan (Jn 16:11; cf. Jn 5:22, 27; 1 Jn 3:8; Col 2:15).
Next your trash talking of the great prince.
DeleteYou claimed"By the way, Satan was a cherub (Ezekiel 28:14, cf. Isaiah 14:12), and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan."
Revelation ch.12:7-9NIV"And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. "
Here is Michael as field Commander of JEHOVAH'S heavenly army. daring to Judge and punish Satan and his entire army.
He was Just waiting to be assigned due authority by the Cheif Judge the Lord JEHOVAH
Note at Daniel ch.12:1 he is not called a great prince but THE Great Prince.
Joshua ch.5:14ASV"And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of JEHOVAH am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? "
Daniel ch.10:21KJV"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is NONE that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your( plural) prince."
Michael is called the prince of Daniel's people the only one Gabriel trusted for help against the armies of Satan.
Just to address the attempt to create the impression that the brothers conjured these ideas out of thin air
Part of Matthew Henry's commentary on the great prince.
"...Michael shall stand up in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews, when he sees that their power is gone, Deu. 32:3. 6. Christ is that great prince, for he is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5...."
Let's start with hebrews Hebrews ch.1:3,4 KJV"...when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; 4Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they..."
ReplyDeleteSo after dying for our sins he WAS MADE better than the angels by his God with respect to the title he bestowed upon him.
And at Hebrews 2:9 it shows that he became lower than the angels in order to make this atonement possible, a thing that would be impossible For JEHOVAH ,if we are to take the bible's plain declaration re:his immutability seriously Malachi 3:6
The fact that he was made better the angels in a certain respect does not preclude his being an angel in some respect
E.g the angel at exodus 23:21 is claimed to be the pre-incarnate Christ by many commentators
Note also that Christ is distinguished from the prophets at
Hebrews ch.1:1,2 yet he is a prophet
Acts ch.3:22NIV"For Moses said, ‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you"
So yet another example of being argumentative in lieu of making an argument
Ephesians 4:4 easily disproves the two-class salvation invented by Rutherford in 1935, since there is only "one hope".
ReplyDelete"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 human 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.
Next your inscrutable word salad:
ReplyDelete"No one claimed said that the Son's Incarnation meant that what was spirit until then became flesh. It's no what was spirit, converted into flesh, but the Person, i.e who existed as spirit from eternety made flesh, "
The best that I can extract from this muddle is that the one who was spirit became flesh but he remained spirit because that is what the church teaches. Apparently God almighty cannot create a square circle until Nincsnevem needs him to.
The scriptures on the other hand make it quite clear that the Logos became fully human in the commonly accepted sense of that term i.e not simultaneously superhuman.
Hebrews ch.2:9KJV"But we see Jesus, who was made a little LOWER than the angels... "
The apostles understood the signs and wonders that accompanied his earthly ministry to be evidence of JEHOVAH'S favour not of any "hypostatic union"
Acts ch.10:38NIV"how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because GOD WAS WITH HIM."(And not because he was God)
Now if it was necessary for the salvation of these converts that they believe that Jesus was in fact in some sense almighty God and that he be worshiped as such why don't we find such a declaration in the book of acts.
And where is the ruckus about this claimed high divinity of a man.
Why do we hear about quarrelling over pecadillos like circumcision and the mosaic laws dietary prescriptions and not the claim that some carpenter from an out of the way backwater who was executed as a common criminal is in fact almighty God and ought to be worshiped as such.
Next the meaning of Christ resurrection:
ReplyDeleteYou claimed "John 2:19-22 clearly means the resurrection of Jesus' body to life, not his re-creation as a spirit."
John ch.2:19-22NIV"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."
The resurrection does not involve re:animating a dead body but recreating a destroyed Soul any body that that soul was raised up in would be that soul's body. It need not incorporate any of the substance from the remains of its former body.
"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do NOT plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God GIVES IT A BODY as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. "
Further Paul states 1Corinthians ch.15:44,45NIV"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being(psyche)” f ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit."
The first Adam became (not received) a living soul in a physical body one innately visible and tangible to physical lifeforms
The last Adam BECAME was made a Spirit with a spiritual body one innately invisible and intangible to physical except when the owner desires otherwise. The resurrection is a creative act
Acts ch.13:33KJV"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I BEGOTTEN thee."
The last Adam became JEHOVAH'S son on the day of his resurrection
For the same reason that the first Adam became his son on the day of his creation see Luke ch.3:38
Next Jesus dares to judge:
ReplyDeleteYou claimed"Jesus, on the other hand, pronounced a clear judgment on Satan (Jn 16:11; cf. Jn 5:22, 27; 1 Jn 3:8; Col 2:15)."
John ch.16:7-11NIV"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned."
So it is the advocate from the Father in effect the Father himself who has condemned Satan. So like Michael Jesus defers to his God when it comes to Judging the great enemy
Jude 9 NASB"But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him an abusive judgment, but said, “The LORD rebuke you!”
So it was Michael's fear of JEHOVAH Not any imaginary subordination to the prince of darkness that restrained him
Colossians ch.2:14,15NASB"having canceled the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15When He had [n]disarmed the rulers and authorities, He Made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through [o]Him."
So nothing to do with condemning Satan but rather with his fulfilling of the Law . Which disarmed the religious leaders the victory was not in his own strength but through his God JEHOVAH.
Colossians ch.2:12 NASB"Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. "
1John ch.3:7,8NASB"Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil [c]has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. "
Christ was sent by his God and Father to liberate us from sin. So again the pronouncing of the Father Judgment which is what Michael did btw
Dear "aservantofJehovah",
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, you did not accept my criticism regarding your method of discussion. This solution is good for tiring the other person, but not for convincing or at least making them think. It is not possible to communicate in such "output only" mode that you just keep zealously pushing and pushing, like a prayer mill.
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.
Regarding your your continuous mentioning of the name "Jehovah", I recommend you read chapter 14 here, from page 489 (or 493 according to the pdf)
https://shorturl.at/dmnBJ or https://tinyurl.com/37hyph6b
We never said that Jesus was "superhuman", instead: "if anyone says that the Son of God, who just as he is truly God, so also is true man except in sin alone, did not possess something belonging to human nature or did not possess something belonging to the Godhead, he should be judged wicked and hostile to the Catholic and apostolic Church." (see: https://tinyurl.com/2p9rmrfs )
The fact that the name YHWH refers to the person of the Father in a given place does not exclude that it also refers to the Son in other cases. This is called attribution, or appropriation. Therefore, the typical NT terminology e.g. "the God and Jesus" does not exclude that the Son is also truly God. The New Testament uses many such terms, e.g. "the God" usually refers to the Father, "the Lord" to the Son, and "the Spirit" to the Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 8:6 is good example for this. Of course, the Father is also "the Lord", the Father is also spirit, and the Son is also "the God", he is also a spirit (as God), and so on.
According to Christian theology, the divine name YHWH refers to the Godhead, the Trinity as a whole, so when we say that "Jesus is truly God", we also confess that Son is (also) YHWH God, since there are no other gods than the "one God ", which was revealed in the Old Testament under the divine name YHWH. Check this: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/jehovahs-witnesses/is-jesus-yahweh/
...
Moreover, even the term "the Father" does not always mean the first person of the Trinity, that is, God the Father, since the entire Godhead is "our Father", not just the person of the Father, from whom the Son/Logos was born/begotten. The Scriptures also call the Son Father (e.g. Isaiah 9:6). The name "Father" is given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psalm 103:13; Jeremiah 31:9; Malachi 1:6; Malachi 2:10; Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative "Son" is used, Luke 10:22; Luke 22:42; John 1:18; John 3:35; John 5:19-23, John 5:26, John 5:30, John 5:36; Hebrews 1:5; 2 Peter 1:17, etc.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, it must also be taken into account that the Son is the messianic king not as God, but as a man, so the statements about his anointing, appointment, elevation, etc. do not refer to his divinity, but to his humanity, and of course Jesus as a man is not God, and therefore not YHWH. Although he received the title "The Lord" as a human also, but by this his human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory. So YHWH God can speak about the man Jesus from an aspect from which he is really not YHWH God, but a man as the messianic king.
With his incarnation, Jesus took on human nature, in addition to the divine nature he already possessed from eternity. He picked it up and won't put it down. In relation to his human nature, all that can be said about him is that of all humans: creature, mortal, inferior to God. This does not detract from His Deity.
Acts 10:38: Here Peter preaches to the Jewish common people, even less dogmatic precision can or should be expected. The context of the text, the specific cultural context, the specificity of the genre, etc., must always be taken into account for the exegesis of the given passages of scripture. Of course, as a human being, he was not capable of performing miracles either, only if he received the power to do so from God. From these words of Peter you have cited, it cannot be concluded that according to Peter's faith and teaching, Jesus was only a man. After all, he already declared that Jesus is the Lord of all, and below he says that Jesus is the judge of the living and the dead (verse 42) and that through the name of Jesus, everyone will be forgiven of their sins. So Peter is talking about the activity of Jesus as a man here.
Otherwise, why would Peter have to give a theological lecture to the avarage Jewish audience, who primarily had to emphasize that Jesus is the prophesied Jewish messiah? And according to Christian theology, Jesus is the Messianic King anyway according to his human nature.
The incarnation of the one true God and the revelation of the Trinity, despite the strong desire for Emmanuel, was an unusually great thing for the strict monotheistic Jews, who have thought of God in unreachable transcendence since the Babylonian captivity. The wisdom that "gently arranges everything" did not allow the great day of the secret to reach midday immediately upon sunrise, to dazzle and frighten with its brightness, but the dawn rays filtering through the clouds of restraint had to accustom souls and gradually educate them to accept the whole content of the mystery of Triune nature of the One God.
You wrote:
ReplyDelete"The resurrection does not involve re:animating a dead body but recreating a destroyed Soul"
Instead, according to the biblical text, Jesus said:
* "...he had spoken of was his body..."
* “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have”
Q.E.D. I still encourage you to read it:
* https://www.4jehovah.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-spirit-body/
* https://truediscipleship.com/was-jesus-raised-as-a-spirit/
The "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44) does not mean the spiritual form of the angels, but the transformed, glorified real body. Angels do not have such a "spiritual body", they are simply spirits.
Since Michael is not literally a "chief prince", but an archangel, the fact that he is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13) means that he is one of the archangels, so there are more archangels, as even the Jewish tradition claimed before the time of Christ. According to the Christian tradition, there are seven archangels, mentioned in Revelation 8:2 who "stand before God, and to them were given seven trumpets.". These sevent important angels mentioned in 16:1, additionally Revelation 4 and Revelation 5 mention "seven spirits", who are the "seven lamps of fire [that] were burning before the throne". Actually the Seraphim are the most powerful spirit creatures, then Cherubim, the archangels and simple angels have less authority then those (cf. Eph 1:21; Col 1:16; 2:10) Christ is not one of the angels, but the head of all of them (Colossians 2:10, where Paul probably ranged the Archangels amongst the Principalities [Archa]) to which he refers in Romans 8:38 [angels and principalities], Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 3:10, Colossians 1:6; Colossians 2:10; Colossians 2:15), Christ will return surrounded by hosts of angels; comp. 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; Matthew 24:30 f., Matthew 25:31; Mark 8:38; Mark 13:26 f.; Luke 9:26. The following verse also proves that Jesus cannot be Michael, who is an angel:
"For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking." (Hebrews 2:5)
It is clearly seen from Revelation 12 that the woman's offspring, whom God takes up to heaven, and Archangel Michael are two separate persons. Similarly, in Jude 1, it is clear that Jesus Christ "the only Lord" (= the only Son of God), and "Michael the archangel" (= a very distinguished spiritual creature of God) are not the same. Archangel Michael is just an angel, a "ministering spirit", Jesus is not (Heb 1:5, 2:5). Michael is one of the chief princes (Dan 10:13), Jesus is the only authority (1Tim 6:15, Rev 17:14). Is 9:5 cf. 10:21, Neh 9:32, Jer 32:18, Deut 10:17, because the "mighty God" is YHWH God's title. Jesus himself laid down and took up his life (Jn 10:17-18), he also rebuilt the temple of his body (Jn 2:19-22). Jesus did indeed speak of the reconstruction of his own body (Jn 2:21), for he had the power to lay down and take up his life (Jn 10:17-18). Jesus, the Son, is not an angel. In Him the First and Last, the only God (Is 44:6, Rev 1:8, 22:13) died and rose again (Rev 1:17-18, 2:8). Therefore, every knee bows before Him (Is 45:23, Phil 2:10), and that is why there is no other savior (Is 43:11, Acts 4:12).
@nincsnevem Next:our hope
ReplyDeleteYou claimed"Ephesians 4:4 easily disproves the two-class salvation invented by Rutherford in 1935, since there is only "one hope".
Ephesians ch.4:4-6ESV"There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. "
Of course there is nothing in this verse that proves or disproves an earthly paradise for the vast majority of humanity. It's not the location or the surroundings that make a paradise it's the company joyful fellowship with JEHOVAH and his saints.
After all sin began in heaven
Paul says that those he was writing were CALLED to a single hope by whom by the one Lord i.e the Risen Christ those who live and died prior to Christ ascension certainly can't respond to this call because they are incapable of hearing.
Those who passed on without a witness can't hear this call
Romans ch.10:14NIV"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"
Of course if there was some kind of post mortem evangel to departed spirits none of this would be an issue. Spirit beings would not need faith they would see these spiritual realities first hand.
But Paul's urgency suggest that if the living aren't reached in this life with the gospel and if they don't put faith in it. They have no share in these promises i.e heaven.
John ch.3:5 NIV "Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God UNLESS they are born of water(Baptism) and the Spirit."
That would appear to rule out the dead.
Luke ch.16:16NIV"“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached(Not to spirit beings), and everyone is forcing their way into it."
Matthew ch.11:11NIV"Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. "
This is clearly not refering to anyone's present status but their prospects Jesus himself was not at that time literally in the kingdom
The ancient worthies represented by John had no prospect of a place in the heavenly paradise.
Hebrews ch.11:39,40NIV"These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, since God had planned something BETTER for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."
So by JEHOVAH'S design the vast majority of mankind have no prospect for entry into the heavenly kingdom. This is only a conundrum for those emotionally invested in the false heaven/eternal conscious torment binary. The bible does not recognise any such binary.
Let's go back to the begining
Genesis ch.2:8,9ASV"And JEHOVAH God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9And out of the ground made JEHOVAH God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the TREE OF LIFE also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
Note there was no tree of death in this garden so death and the death dealing were not part of JEHOVAH'S purpose for man.
The tree of life was a symbol of the permanent physical perfection man was meant to enjoy.
Genesis ch.3:22,23ASV"And JEHOVAH God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever-therefore JEHOVAH God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. "
The restoration of the earthly paradise i.e the human perfection epitomised both Adams has always been a key component JEHOVAH'S agenda
Acts ch.3:21NIV"Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to RESTORE everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."
To be continued.
The Watchtower also refers to the fact that Michael is called "the archangel" in Jude 9, which they believe indicates that there is only one such angel. There would only be one commander with the same logic, namely Lysias, because in Acts 24:22 we read: "hotan Lysias _HO chiliarchos_ katabē diagnōsomai ta kath' hymas".
ReplyDeleteMichael" means "Who is like God?" - not "Who is as God" (Russell incorrectly translated it this way). The fact that Michael is a prominent angel, and as the "commander-in-chief" of the divine angelic hosts has a special place, is clear from every biblical passage where his name appears, but nowhere as the identical person to Christ. Jesus is much more above Michael and all angels (cf. Heb 1 etc.; see above).
For example, in Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7-12, when the battle between Michael and Satan is mentioned, Michael acts here with Christ's full authority and commission, but not as Christ. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that Christ does not fight alone against Satan and the demonic powers, but in the company of his angels - and among them, the first place is Michael, the archangel, whose voice will sound along with God's trumpet at Christ's return (1Thess 4:16; cf. Mt 24:30 par; 2Thess 1:7). Michael's voice only resounds loudly at the time of the world's judgment. However, during the resurrection of the dead, only the voice of Christ, the Son of God, will be heard.
The fact that Michael leads the angelic armies, with the same logic, Yahweh would also be an archangel, since it is written: he is Yahweh of Hosts. With your logic, God would also be an archangel, because the Scriptures also call angels God's angels, and the president would be the same as the chief of staff, because both are at the head of the army.
"The Watchtower also refers to the fact that Michael is called "the archangel" in Jude 9, which they believe indicates that there is only one such angel."
DeleteHe is not called an archangel he is called THE archangel the definite article suggest singularity so he would be the only archangel in whatever context that he is THE archangel There is NO Occurrence of the word archangel in the plural form in bible ,there is no mention of any other archangel in the bible.
At revelation 12:7-12 he is at the very least shown to be the unique archangel.
So your claim that there are other archangels is a claim from silence.
"For example, in Daniel 12:1 and Revelation 12:7-12, when the battle between Michael and Satan is mentioned, Michael acts here with Christ's full authority and commission, but not as Christ"
DeleteArguing in a circle here aren't we? Michael isn't Christ because Michael isn't Christ?"
"The fact that Michael leads the angelic armies, with the same logic, Yahweh would also be an archangel, "
DeleteActually the full argument is that Michael and Christ are each depicted as a high ranking SERVANT of JEHOVAH who Commands the entire army of JEHOVAH and it is not meant to be taken as conclusive in and of itself it is a column it's not the wall
Exodus 23:20, 21
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition)
20 “I am sending an angel ahead of you+ to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared.+ 21 Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions,+ because my NAME is in him."
Daniel ch.10:21KJV"But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is NONE that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael YOUR(plural) prince."
Michael is the prince of Daniel's(and hence JEHOVAH'S) people.
Gabriel says that his help in safeguarding the interest of JEHOVAH'S servants on earth was Michael ALONE.
@Nincsnevem you claimed that Genesis 5:24 proves that the human body can be taken into heaven
ReplyDeleteGenesis ch.5:24NIV"Enoch walked with God, and he was NOT,c for God took him."
Compare revelation ch.17:8NASB"“The beast that you saw was, and is NOT, and is about to come up out of the ABYSS and [h]go to destruction.... "
Romans ch.10:7ESV"or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)."
Hebrews ch.11:5NIV"By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not EXPERIENCE death..."
After completing a list of ancient worthies that included Enoch Paul writes: Hebrews ch.11:13NIV"All these people were still living by faith when they died..."
Since 1935, WTS theology has been unique in the world in promoting "two kinds of hope", something that has never been claimed by any Christian.
ReplyDeleteActually the believers have one common hope (Ephesians 4:3-6); the faith of the apostles and the believers holds equal value (2 Peter 1:1). Matthew 24:45-51, together with chapters 24 and 25, urges watchfulness and stewardship, not predicting events of the 20th century. The 144,000 mentioned in Revelation 7 and 14 cannot represent all anointed ones called over the past 2000 years, as they are portrayed as a unified group experiencing the beginning of the "great tribulation." The "great multitude" of Revelation 7 also comes out of the future "great tribulation," and the current Witnesses cannot be part of them (Revelation 7:13-14). Luke 12:32 refers not to the small number of apostles but to their situation (Fear not...! Luke 12:22, 25, 29). The "kingdom" here does not refer to a physical location (heaven) but to a state of heart (Romans 14:17-18, Luke 12:31). In John 10:16, Jesus already had other sheep in the 1st century, meaning non-Jewish peoples, and they won't come after 1935 (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24; cf. Matthew 28:19, Ephesians 2:14).
In God's kingdom, there is no distinction between first and second class. Those who believe are received as children of God (John 1:12-13), God's sons (Galatians 3:26, 4:6, Romans 8:15-16), born of God (1 John 5:1, John 3:1-8), having received the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39), sealed by the Spirit as a guarantee (Ephesians 1:13-14, 2 Corinthians 1:22), baptized into one body by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:12-13), and Christ dwells in them (Ephesians 3:17). They become the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).
In the Bible, the word "earth" does not refer to this globe, but rather to the promised land, the earthly messianic kingdom, and its continuation in heaven (cf. Psalm 37:11). In Scripture, the expression "heaven and earth" means everything that exists, the entire creation. The prophets often symbolically refer to the land or kingdom as a substitute for heaven. Originally (in the Old Testament), the term "earth" denoted the people of Israel living in the Promised Land. Later, its meaning changed to "inherit the earth," signifying "to be happy and live happily." In Jesus' time, "inheritance of the earth" gained a broader sense: the "earth" represented God's coming Kingdom at the end of times. The kingdom of the heavens, is nothing other than the place of perfect happiness, the fulfilled state of God's kingdom. Therefore, this term expresses the final salvation, where people partake in God's life through Christ.
Christ's ascension to heaven did not mean detachment from this world, but rather, it revealed and presented the possibility of cosmic glorification. Our salvation and happiness lie in participating in His glory. Heaven is not a place outside of events where humans can reach, but rather, it is being in union with Christ, participating in His glory, something that He merited for Himself through His earthly deeds and made available to us.
Heaven cannot be understood as a separate place or a completely different state, but rather as the communion of people with God. Thus, when we speak of a "higher" world, it should not be taken literally but understood according to the order of existence.
Tthe righteous of the Old Testament will also be members of God's kingdom, the heavenly kingdom, e.g. Job 19:25-27, Matthew 8:11-12, Luke 13:28-29, Galatians 3, Hebrews 11:13-16. In Matthew 11:11 Jesus is speaking in the present tense. He is not speaking of John the Baptist's final position.
Let me recommend the following articles to your attention:
* https://justpaste.it/arng4
* https://docdro.id/okyE4TI
* https://tinyurl.com/37hyph6b from page 464 (or 468 according to the pdf)
* https://docdro.id/pglKJIx
@nincsnevem You claimed that revelation 11:12 proves that a flesh and blood body can enter the spirit realm.
ReplyDeleteRevelation ch.11:11,12 NIV "But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood up on their feet, and great fear fell on those who saw them. "Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here!” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies WATCHED them."
So are you claiming that the book of revelation is to be understood literally? See revelation ch.1:1 and this represents some kind of third resurrection? is a literal understanding of revelation 11 the position of the church? Is heaven in the clouds?
If we understand Revelation 11 as a symbolic vision, it does not seem that we can base any conclusions about the nature of the resurrection bodies of those destined for the heavenly paradise on same.
"He is not called an archangel he is called THE archangel"
ReplyDeleteIn Jude 9 yes, but not in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.
"the definite article suggest singularity so he would be the only archangel"
So Lysias is the only commander ever, isn't he? According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular?
"There is NO Occurrence of the word archangel in the plural form in bible ,there is no mention of any other archangel in the bible."
Daniel 10:13 clearly proves that there are more angels with the same rank like Michael. In Hebrew (mîḵā’êl ’aḥaḏ haśśārîm hārišōnîm) there is clearly a plural, Michael is just one of them, so there are more angels at the SAME rank as him, so there are more archangels, and the Jewish tradition has always believed so. Of course in the Hebew Bible they don't call them "archangels", since it's a Greek word! In Judaism, the highest ranking angels such as Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Uriel, who are usually referred to as archangels in English, are given the title of śārīm (Hebrew: שָׂרִים, sing. שָׂר, śār), meaning "princes".
So there is no proper Hebrew word for "archangel", in Judaism they use the term "princes" (sharim), even in the Hebrew translation of the New Testament they can only paraphrase/circumscribe it as: מִיכָאֵל, שַׂר הַמַּלְאָכִים (mîk̲āʾēl, śar hammalʾāk̲îm), that is, Michael, the speaker/minister of the angels. Both "arch" and "angel" are Greek words, you can't find them in the Hebrew Bible, in Judaism the archangels are called "princes" (sharim).The Scriptures refer to the "seven angels" or "seven spirits" who stand before the throne of the Lord, these are the chief princes (sharim), archangels in Greek.
An archangel is not fundamentally/substantially different from an angel, since an archangel is also an angel, just as an archbishop is a bishop too. The "arch-" prefix does not denote a difference in nature, but the priority of the task/mission, so it is a question of respect here, not of two separate "angel species". An archangel is still an angel too, thus a "ministering spirit". Hebrews 2:5 proves that an angel cannot be the Messianic King, as the ruler.
The scene described in Jude 9 about the dispute over the corpse of Moses, by definition, is dated to the time immediately after the death of Moses, by definition long BEFORE the Incarnation of Jesus. So, at the time of Moses' death, Michael had no authority condemn Satan. And Jesus only at his incarnation was made "lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:7)
"He is not called an archangel he is called THE archangel"
DeleteIn Jude 9 yes, but not in 1 Thessalonians 4:16.,"
1Thessalonians ch.4:16NIV"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. "
So Michael is not mentioned at Thessalonians ch.4:16 and the loud command that rouses dead is from the Lord Jesus it is compared in this translation to THE archangel. In as much as Jesus is speaking with the voice of an/the archangel a logical conclusion is that he is an/the archangel
Revelation ch.1:10NIV"On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,"
Whether this archangel is also Michael is the issue.
This tendency to argue by unfounded assertion does it ever work
"and Jesus only at his incarnation was made "lower than the angels"
DeleteBut if the incarnation is forever more does that not mean that he is lower than the angels forever more ?
I thought Almighty God was immutable how can he ever be lower than any creation?"angel cannot be the Messianic King, as the ruler."
Yet Daniel calls Michael your(plural) prince
Daniel ch.10:21NIV"but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. (No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince."
Exodus ch.23:20NIV"Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him. "
Joshua ch.5:14:15NIV"And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of JEHOVAH am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15And the prince of JEHOVAH'S host said unto Joshua, Put off thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so."
See: https://www.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/otsaints.html
ReplyDeleteActs 2:29-36 shows the difference between Jesus and King David: Jesus ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of God the Father, but David did not, because he is not the Messiah, but just a human ancestor - however, this does not mean that he has no heavenly hope.
Mt 11:11 compares the believers of the old and new covenants through the example of John the Baptist.
Both places emphasize the fullness of grace that came into the world through Jesus, which the believers of the old covenant could only wait for (cf. Jn 1:14; 3:1 and beyond; Mt 13:17; Lk 2:25 and beyond). Since this grace appeared in Jesus, and a new era of salvation history has begun.
However, this in no way means that there is no way to heaven for John the Baptist, David, and the other righteous men of the old covenant. The grace they awaited with the advent of the Messiah rather has a retroactive effect, since God looks at their faith. Hebrews chapters 11-12, which the WTS would put into battle to dispute the heavenly hope of the patriarchs, is the strongest evidence for the heavenly hope of the faithful of the old covenant and its real basis. Heb 11:16 says,
„But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.”
This city is undoubtedly the same as that which was intended for the believers of the new covenant: “the heavenly Jerusalem” (Heb 12:22; Rev 21). So the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets have the same heavenly hope as those of the New Testament. If Heb11:39 says that "these...did not receive the promise”, this in no way refers to the delay in the fulfillment of the heavenly hope by God, but to the mystery of the perfecting of the congregation, the living organism, which consists of the members of the old and the new covenant.
The followers of the old and new covenants stand side by side. The promise has not yet been fulfilled for the men of the Old Covenant - but this does not mean that God's promises have ceased. Only with the formation of the church will God's people be complete. With the fulfillment of the congregation, every promise given to the Old Testament witnesses will be fulfilled, including the many earthly promises given to Israel, the realization of which is still pending.
The developments of the end times are subject to earthly and heavenly promises, but the JWs make the mistake of ranking these according to their subject matter. In other words: according to many evangelical exegetes, the various prophecies of the Old Testament - for example, "the nations that come to Zion," "the wolf who lives with the lamb," "the lion who eats straw," "swords into plowshares" and similar ones (cf. Is 2:2-4; 11:6-9; 65:17-25; Mic 4:1-5 etc.) - refer to the mysterious millennium mentioned in Rev 20:1-6, which has often been abused throughout the history of the church and the world. The promises of "new heaven and new earth" are valid for eternity (the latter is not just "purified," but truly recreated, where heaven and earth permeate each other, surpassing all human imagination.
"Acts 2:29-36 shows the difference between Jesus and King David: Jesus ascended to heaven and sat at the right hand of God the Father, but David did not, because he is not the Messiah, but just a human ancestor - however, this does not mean that he has no heavenly hope."
DeleteJohn ch.1:11-13NIV"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God."
John ch.3:5 NIV"Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. "
There is ONLY one way into heaven according to scripture hear and put faith in the gospel . There is NO Post mortem evangel.
The people of Noah's time and place received a witness from JEHOVAH'S Prophet and rejected it why would they of all people be rated worthy of a post mortem evangel
Matthew ch.11:23NIV"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day."
In view of our Lords words above you would think he would select a people who had not received a comparable witness to those of Noah's time and place for any post mortem evangel.
Why bother to preach if one believes in this kind of quasi universalism.
Romans ch.10:14NIV"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"
"Heb 11:16 says,
Delete„But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.”
Galatians ch.4:28-30NIV"28Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the sla woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”
Romans ch.3:20NIV"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin."
Luke ch.16:16NIV"“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing their way into it." Those literally dead cannot hear and put faith in this preaching .
John ch.3:31 NIV"The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all."
The patriarchs harboured no heavenly hope that was a new thing.
Of course there is no literal moon sized golden city being prepared in the sky it is a symbol of JEHOVAH rulership so rather thanly put faith in human princes ruling from their earthly seats of Government. The patriarchs looked forward to government of JEHOVAH from heaven this government will have earth representatives so there is no need for JEHOVAH or his Messiah to literally come to this earth
Psalms ch.45:16NIV"Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth."
For another example of JEHOVAH'S Figuratively descending
Exodus 3:8KJV"And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, ..."
So it is the government of God from heaven over the earth that the ancient servants of JEHOVAH look for
Romans ch.4:13NIV"It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith."
Hebrews ch.11:39,40 NIV"These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised, 40since God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect."
If they inherit heaven without sharing in the sufferings of Jesus then obviously they are the ones who came out better.
Than those for whom such a course is mandated.
The JWs’ predictions for the millennium and eternity take on a very plastic, almost material form. Above all, they prescribe the division into "two classes" until eternity, which is untenable from a biblical-theological point of view. Although Rev 20:4 talks about the army of Christ's martyrs ruling with him during the millennium, there is no mention of such division into “classes” for eternity, especially not in the case of division.
ReplyDeleteThe "two-class" teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses - purely formally - somewhat recalls the dispensationalist theologians (thinking in terms of orders of salvation, such as Darby and Scofield). Of course, in these divisions (in addition to further distinction) they essentially differentiate between Israel (the Jewish Christians, but partly also national Israel) and the church (the Gentile Christians), and according to some dispensationalists, they will be distributed into new heaven and new earth - as units separated forever. From this kind of breakdown into several groups (not classes), which for a long time was the "sine qua non" of dispensationalism, they have increasingly distanced themselves in recent decades. Although Israel and the church are still considered different peoples who received different promises and assignments, this division ends at the latest in eternity. The "two-group" or even "two-class" system, however constructed, is untenable in eternity."
"no mention of such division into “classes” for eternity, especially not in the case of division."
DeleteRevelation ch22:5NIV"There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever."
"You claimed that revelation 11:12 proves that a flesh and blood body can enter the spirit realm."
ReplyDeleteNope. "Flesh and blood" is a term for the corruptible body, but the transformed, incorruptible "spiritual body" enters to heaven. The JW explanation confuses the term "spiritual body" with angels and God being pure spirit who have no body whatsoever. The transformed or resurrected body of the saved is a real physical body, but it is spiritual, it has already been transformed and glorified.
Check these:
* https://shorturl.at/kyXY2
* https://justpaste.it/b6haa
* https://shorturl.at/rMRX1
Nope. "Flesh and blood" is a term for the corruptible body, but the transformed,
DeleteSo The two Adams had corruptible bodies? If so this Corruptibility has nothing to do with sin
And if human flesh is inherently mortal/corruptible then it stands to reason that the spiritual body consists of something other than human flesh and blood
The human cannot inherit the superhuman. Also its overall design would need to change contrivances like arms and legs sensory organs dependent on physical stimuli and a stomach for processing material food ,excretory organs and sex organs would all become redundant in the spirit world.
"But if the incarnation is forever more does that not mean that he is lower than the angels forever more ?"
ReplyDeleteNope, since after his resurrection he was exalted and glorified, and according to his human nature he also received the title "the Lord", and thus as a man he is no longer below the angels.
"Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things." (Catechism of St. Pius X)
This is what Philippians 2:9, among others, is about, and which is mistranslated in the NWT.
"I thought Almighty God was immutable, how can he ever be lower than any creation?"
So that the Son did not change in terms of his Deity, because the human nature was attached to his person (rather than to his Deity). This is what the hypostatic unity is about: "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation". If there had been confusion, we could say that there would have been a change within the Godhead, however, this view was considered heresy, look up what Eutychianism was.
The Catholic interpretation of "kenosis" rejects that this would have caused a change within the Godhead.
"angel cannot be the Messianic King, as the ruler."
Yes, that is what Hebrews 2:5 says. Jesus is therefore the Messiah King according to his human nature.
"Yet Daniel calls Michael your(plural) prince"
Michael, who was the angelic Prince of Israel as guardian angel, is not the same as the Messianic King, who needs to be a man, not an angel. I recommend that you focus on Dan 10:13, which proves that there are several spirit creatures of the same rank as Michael.
So that the Son did not change in terms of his Deity, because the human nature was attached to his person (rather than to his Deity). This is what the hypostatic unity is about: "two natures
DeleteBut he because he was above the angels before the incarnation then below them for a time and then arbitrarily above them again despite the incarnation then course he died none this could happen I take it apart from a finite contrivance so you are merel asserting on the face of incontrovertible evidence to contrary that there was no change where there was an infinite amount of change
Nope, since after his resurrection he was exalted and glorified, and according to his human nature he also received the title "the Lord", and thus as a man he is no longer below the angels.
DeleteWell then the incarnation cannot be invoked as a cause of his subordination after his glorification
Revelation ch.3:12 NIV"The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my GOD. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my GOD, and the name of the city of my GOD, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my GOD out of heaven, and my own new name. "
Michael, who was the angelic Prince of Israel as guardian angel, is not the same as the Messianic King, who needs to be a man, not an angel. I recommend that you focus on Dan 10:13,
DeleteIf God can make himself a man surely he can make an angel a man so this objection is a non sequitur.
Revelation ch.21:17NASB"And he measured its wall, [n]144 cubits, by human [o]measurements, which are also angelic measurements."
The change from mono-nature to dual nature of God would be an infinite change where as the change from superhuman to human would be a finite change
1Kings ch.8:27NIV"“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the [k]highest heaven CANNOT contain You, how much less this house which I have built! "
No creation can limit JEHOVAH
JEHOVAH cannot self limit because then he would not be immutable as per the dictionary definition.
Malachi ch.3:6ASV"For I, JEHOVAH, change not; therefore ye, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed."
You quote the words of Jesus in John 3:5, in front of Nicodemus, in which he declared the necessity of baptism as a means. This is a valid argument, but I find it a little strange that this is being invoked by a member of a denomination that denies the existence of all kinds of sacraments.
ReplyDeleteThe Nicene Creed states that "we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins". This refers to Mark 1:4, which is mistranslated in the NWT: "baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins." In the 1984 edition, it was at least enclosed in curly brackets, in the 2013 edition it is no longer there. But the point is that in the JW denomination, baptism is not a sacrament, but only a symbol.
Returning to Jesus's words to Nicodemus, it must be established when Christ instituted baptism. Materially, when he himself was baptized. Formally, when he gave it form after his resurrection. Effectively, when he suffered; for from there, it drew its strength. And finally, when he pronounced its necessity and usefulness.
This is important because it is the answer to how the Old Testament righteous can be saved, if we clarify from when baptism is obligatory? Since the necessity of baptism is stated by universal law, and every law ONLY becomes obligatory after its proclamation (lex non promulgata non obligat), the question is: from when has the law of baptism been proclaimed? This question has considerable practical significance because, according to the Council of Trent, justification does not take place after the proclamation of the gospel without baptism or its desire; i.e., if the gospel is proclaimed, the law of the sacrament of baptism takes the place of the sacrament of nature. Now it is certain that the Savior proclaimed the law of baptism immediately before his Ascension. Hence, it was not necessary for the apostles to be baptized (Paul was certainly baptized (Act 9:18), as he was called afterward; Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathan, and John participated in the baptism of John the Baptist; the rest did not; perhaps the washing of the feet replaced it). Furthermore, it is a quite general and probable opinion that the law of baptism could not be considered as proclaimed to the whole world even after the first Pentecost, but the proclamation fell at different times for different peoples. Is it already completed? The majority opinion, with Suarez, holds that this happened centuries ago for all nations. A respectable minority opinion, which the Church has never prohibited, holds that there are still peoples, or rather areas, where the proclamation has not yet been made; indeed, where the gospel is quite widespread, negative unbelievers, for whom the sacrament of nature is still valid, are still possible.
Nevertheless, there are two alternatives to baptism with water. These are the so-called baptism of desire and baptism of blood.
(to be continued)
No one claimed that baptism by water and spirit is an absolute necessity for eternal life
DeleteNote when asked directly he did not mention any new birth.
Luke ch.10:25-28NIV" On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ c ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ d ”
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
It is not necessary to go to go heaven to get eternal life.
Baptism of desire consists of an act of love and perfect contrition for sins, which includes at least a hidden desire for baptism. Hidden means that for those who do not know about the existence of baptism, this desire does not have to be expressly present. For these, sincere intention to do all that God requires from them is sufficient. Therefore, if they knew about the necessity of baptism, they would do it. In an act of supernatural love, one can receive the forgiveness of sins and sanctifying grace even before baptism, because love for God and the state of mortal sin cannot coexist in the soul. These contradict each other, as mortal sin turns away from God, while love binds to Him. Therefore, Jesus says about Mary Magdalene: "Her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47), and St. John: "Everyone who loves is born of God." (1 Jn 4:7)
ReplyDeleteThe Acts of the Apostles present an example of baptism of desire with the story of the Gentile centurion Cornelius. For there we read that Cornelius was a righteous man, and he served God faithfully as best he could. When St. Peter preached about him, the Holy Spirit descended upon him and his whole family, even though they had not yet been baptized. (Acts 10:44-48) Another example of baptism of desire is the case of Valentinian, the Roman Emperor. He was murdered in 392 before his baptism. Despite this, St. Ambrose gave him a church burial, as he was convinced that the emperor had already received God's grace because of his desire for baptism.
The existence of baptism of desire is also the reason why the baptism of adults can be delayed until the candidates are well-prepared and find time for a proper celebration (the classic baptismal time is Easter). Baptism of desire naturally cannot apply to small children, which is why they should be baptized as soon as possible.
The other substitute for baptism with water is baptism of blood. This is received by those who suffer martyrdom for their Christian faith or in defense of a Christian virtue, as the Lord said, "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Mt 10:39) The Roman Martyrology reports many saints who only received baptism of blood, because when they converted and professed themselves as Christians after witnessing the martyrdom of Christians, they were immediately captured and executed. Baptism of blood can also be received by minor children if they are killed for Christ or for their Christian faith. Such were the Bethlehem infants whom Herod had killed, and whose feast the Church celebrates on December 28.
However, neither baptism of desire nor baptism of blood have the sacramental character of baptism. These are rather expressions of the desire for baptism, rather than of the actual baptism itself.
No one claimed that the unbaptised are in line for eternal torture. As you know we don't believe that. Those who died unbaptised are not necessarily without hope but water baptism is an absolute necessity for those entering the heavenly kingdom
DeleteJohn ch.3:5NIV"Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. "
Sola Scriptura
The necessity of baptism is not so fatal that it cannot be replaced by something else in case of need; thus baptism of desire, baptismus flaminis (from the verb flare = spirare; probably in reference to Mt 3:11). This is contrition arising from perfect love, which includes the desire to receive baptism. The Council of Trent explicitly teaches that "AFTERE the proclamation of the Gospel, justification cannot occur without the bath of rebirth or its desire."
ReplyDeleteAlready the Old Testament does not deny anyone the path to salvation who sincerely seeks God, who approaches him in faith and hope, and who gives himself up to him without reservation. Israel, and even Nineveh, find salvation through repentance, almsgiving, and active love. (Is 1:58, Joel 2:12, Ps 51) "If the wicked repent of all the sins they have committed and keep all my commandments, live in right and justice, they will live and not die." "I love those who love me." (Ez 18:21; Prov 8:17) The New Testament maintains this position: "Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life? Love the Lord your God with all your heart... Do this and you will live". (Lk 10:25-7) The thief on the right, Mary Magdalene, was saved; Cornelius also received the Holy Spirit before baptism. The Savior generally declares: "Whoever knows my commandments and keeps them, he loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him." (Jn 14,21; cf. 1 Jn 4,7.)
Baptism of desire consists of an act of love and perfect contrition for sins, which includes at least a hidden desire for baptism. Hidden means that for those who do not know about the existence of baptism, this desire does not have to be expressly present. For these, sincere intention to do all that God requires from them is sufficient. Therefore, if they knew about the necessity of baptism, they would do it. In an act of supernatural love, one can receive the forgiveness of sins and sanctifying grace even before baptism, because love for God and the state of mortal sin cannot coexist in the soul. These contradict each other, as mortal sin turns away from God, while love binds to Him. Therefore, Jesus says about Mary Magdalene: "Her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much" (Lk 7:47), and St. John: "Everyone who loves is born of God." (1 Jn 4:7)
The Acts of the Apostles present an example of baptism of desire with the story of the Gentile centurion Cornelius. For there we read that Cornelius was a righteous man, and he served God faithfully as best he could. When Peter preached about him, the Holy Spirit descended upon him and his whole family, even though they had not yet been baptized. (Acts 10:44-48) Another example of baptism of desire is the case of Valentinian, the Roman Emperor. He was murdered in 392 before his baptism. Despite this, St. Ambrose gave him a church burial, as he was convinced that the emperor had already received God's grace because of his desire for baptism.
The existence of baptism of desire is also the reason why the baptism of adults can be delayed until the candidates are well-prepared and find time for a proper celebration (the classic baptismal time is Easter).
The other substitute for baptism with water is baptism of blood. This is received by those who suffer martyrdom for their Christian faith or in defense of a Christian virtue, as the Lord said, "Whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." (Mt 10:39)
However, neither baptism of desire nor baptism of blood have the sacramental character of baptism. These are rather expressions of the desire for baptism, rather than of the actual baptism itself.
Cornelius got baptised
DeleteActs ch.10:47NIV"“Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.”
we don't recognise the right of any human council to over rule the plain teaching of scripture
No one claimed that missing baptism is necessarily fatal
Delete5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. "
Jesus does not say one must be born again to be saved
He said one must be reborn to enter heaven
Note when asked directly about the matter Jesus does not mention the new birth
Luke ch.10:25-28NIV" On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27He answered, “ ‘Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’ c ; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ d ”
28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you WILL LIVE.”
Nothing about the new birth
It is not necessary to go to heaven to receive eternal life.
"Michael is not mentioned at Thessalonians ch.4:16"
ReplyDeleteThis is true, regardless of this, the Catholic understanding is that the archangel mentioned here is actually Michael, but this is not the same as "the Lord".
"and the loud command that rouses dead is from the Lord Jesus it is compared in this translation to THE archangel."
It does not say that the voice of Michael is Jesus's voice, not even compare them, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying the arrival of Jesus. The Lord Jesus indeed can also descend "with the voice of (an) archangel" in such a way that He is not the archangel himself, but simply accompanied by the voice of an archangel. If the president enters the hall "with the sound of the orchestra", is the president the orchestra?
Let's not even talk about the fact that the same possessive structure appears in the sequel as the Greek original of the words "with the trumpet of God". Therefore, your logic would lead you to the point where you would also admit, arguing consistently: since Jesus will descend with the trumpet of God, he is God.
Michael's voice only resounds loudly at the time of the world's judgment. However, during the resurrection of the dead, only the voice of Christ, the Son of God, will be heard. It is solely Christ's - not Michael the Archangel's - power to bring the dead back to life (John 5:25.28k).
Let's not even talk about the fact that, according to JWs, Jesus is not only identical with Michael, but also with Abaddon, "angel of the abyss". Yet ALL Christians, even the Watchtower and Russel originally said that Abaddon is the Satan. See Charles Taze Russell: Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 7, p. 159, 1917 edition. The identification of Abaddon with Jesus first appears in the Watchtower of December 1, 1961.
Let's not even talk about the fact that the same possessive structure appears in the sequel as the Greek original of the words "with the trumpet of God". Therefore, your logic would lead you to the point where you would also admit, arguing consistently: since Jesus will descend with the trumpet of God, he is God.
DeleteNot really ,it is permissible for a subordinate to represent a superior
But not the other way around
Exodus ch.20:18,19NIV"When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance 19and said to Moses, “Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die.”
Of course JEHOVAH did not come down on the mountain this was a angel of God speaking with the voice of God by divine permission
Acts ch.7:38NIV"He was in the assembly in the wilderness, with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our ancestors; and he received living words to pass on to us."
But for the Master to speak the voice of a servant would be derogatory .
1Thessalonians ch.4:16,17NIV"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud COMMAND, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. "
You say this loud command the timbre of which is compared to an unnamed archangel is not the Lord's yet it awakens the dead.
It does seem unlikely that the Lord would delegate something like that to a subordinate.
John ch.5:28,29
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAt nincsnevem Luke ch.1:32 NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"
ReplyDeleteThus the God and Father of Jesus is the Most High God i.e JEHOVAH.
By definition Most High means having no peers and in the case of JEHOVAH Having no approximates
Returning to the concept of God's omniscience and "foreknowledge", the key is that free will is not an absolute thing that even God cannot foresee. We can speak of "possibility" only from a human perspective because, from a divine perspective, there is only certainty, as God knows everything and cannot err.
ReplyDeleteI can illustrate the matter by saying that from a human perspective, you drive a car that moves according to your control. From a divine perspective, under the route you have taken, there's a fixed track (akin to railway tracks) which coincides with the path you would otherwise follow. This may indeed seem unusual from a human perspective, but modern theoretical physics also produces similar peculiarities, which, although we find strange, are nonetheless true, see, for example, the general and special theories of relativity. Therefore, it's about the fact that with our finite human minds, we cannot imagine how our will can be both free AND infallibly foreknown by God - but that does not mean we should set aside one truth at the expense of the other, but only recognize the limits of our knowledge and accept this.
The Watchtower says that God does not know everything in advance, only what He wants to know - this solution is faulty for several reasons, including that it would mean God deliberately did not want to know certain things in advance, but then how did He know which problems it would be better not to know in advance?
So, regarding your questions about "could God have known..." etc., the answer, of course, is that yes, God COULD have done many things, but since He did not want a world order in which humans do not sin and there is no redemption, He did not create such a world. It's therefore more interesting for us to deal with this rather than theoretical possibilities.
Returning to the concept of God's omniscience and "foreknowledge", the key is that free will is not an absolute thing that even God cannot foresee. We can speak of "possibility" only from a human perspective because, from a divine perspective, there is only certainty, as God knows everything and cannot err.
DeleteNot really if JEHOVAH creates a possibility then it must actually be possible or he has erred.
So if JEHOVAH can only Create free moral agency that is such in name only then he is clearly not omnipotent there can be NO logical reconciliation between free moral agency and determinism a square circle would be height of logical consistency by comparison.
There is no clash with omniscience here because JEHOVAH has full knowledge of the ACTUAL possibilities that he has created and has prepared a contingency for each one he is never wrong footed or caught off guard or any such thing once a part of the future becomes predetermined JEHOVAH is instantly aware before anyone else is but as to which parts of the future are pre-determined or undetermined are entirely up to him.
So, regarding your questionbout "could God have known..." etc., the answer, of course, is that yes, God COULD have done many things, but since He did not want a world order in which humans do not sin and there is no redemption, He did not create such a world. "
DeleteIn other words JEHOVAH Knowingly demanded the impossible of man and charged man's inability to accomplish the impossible as wrongdoing to man
I am grateful that JEHOVAH'SVersion of Justice is nothing like Christendom's version of Justice
Which results in billions of intelligent creatures eternally suffering for failing to accomplish the impossible.
What about Satan is he going to suffer eternally for failing to accomplish the impossible.
The Watchtower states that God is not omniscient, nor is He timeless according to their teachings. Because if His vision of events that appear as future events to created beings qualifies as FOREsight, then it seems that God exists in tandem with the timeline of created beings, just as a movie viewer sees the frames in time. Therefore, God is not all-knowing, but has the ability to foresee. It's almost as if I have a future magic ball that tells me the future, but I don't know the future from the ground up, I have to look into my magic ball, so God doesn't know the future either, but he has to focus on "well, let's see what WILL happen in 1753". Therefore, God - if he wants - can look up anything on the divine "Google", but he does not currently know everything.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Watchtower, this is necessary because if God knew things in advance, there would be no free will. Let's now disregard the fact that this is nonsense, because there will still be free will, just not in such a naively imagined absolute sense, but in a relative way from the divine viewpoint. However, the Watchtower, at least in theory, stands on the grounds of the Bible, and they can't explain everything away as they did with Revelation 1:7, so they have to know that God has a salvation plan, a prepared script, into which the human history will ultimately fit. According to them, God already ceased to "respect this 'absolute' free will of man" because He dared to look into the magic globe and check whether things will indeed happen as foreseen?
So, the question still stands: if God doesn't foresee certain things because He doesn't want to foresee (since then He allegedly would not "respect" the "free will"), then how did He know which things are better not to know? So, we are back where we started.
When we talk about divine omniscience and the divine plan of salvation, we must necessarily view things "from above", i.e., from the divine perspective, which is, of course, impossible to fully adopt. If God is absolutely holy, then He can only want evil (and indeed He does, because nothing happens without God's "consenting" will) to bring forth a greater good from it, not for itself.
The divine perspective is that JEHOVAH created free moral agency If the free moral agency is not free moral agency from JEHOVAH'S Perspective then it is not free moral agency PERIOD
DeleteChristendom's theologians are always trying to create square circles despite acknowledging that JEHOVAH himself cannot do so
Either determinism is true or free moral agency is true they are mutually exclusive categories if determinism is true then it is unjust to charge men and angels with wrongdoing and subject them to eternal torture for failing to accomplish the impossible.
Augustine used the term FELIX CULPA in reference to the original sin. Look up this term. It roughly means "fortunate sin". But if we think deeply, Paul the Apostle doesn't phrase it very differently in Romans 5:20: "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more". This initially sounds shocking, as from a human perspective the tragedy of the fall cuts to the quick, originating all that is wrong in this world. But all this evil, no matter how extraordinarily severe we feel it, can only be finite evil - not to mention that sin, evil, is never an independent principle in the dualistic sense, but a lack of being, a flaw. With this great, but still finite evil, God confronts infinite goodness, which He wants to bring to His chosen ones through a "winding" and obviously very painful path, from a human viewpoint. It's like when a parent tells their child: you'll get cotton candy after you've endured the roller coaster.
ReplyDeleteOr another example: imagine an extremely winding, serpentine road, which is moreover of, say, Albanian or Moldovan quality. A small child sits next to the father, and at the end of the road they ask the boy: "were you scared?". The right answer: "I wasn't scared, because my father was driving!" Somehow, we should also be able to view all the evil that we have to go through in order to finally rest on His bosom. Of course, we are incapable of doing this on our own, this can only be achieved by divine grace.
God indeed wanted man to eat from the tree, because what God does not want (at least in a permissive sense) does not happen: this is the essence of omnipotence. He wanted it, but didn't desire it. Wanting and desiring are not the same, even criminal law distinguishes between them. God's commands always express His desire, but His will manifests in the events that ultimately occur. For example, I don't desire to pay taxes, but in some sense, I do want to, because I end up doing it. It is the same with God: He doesn't desire evil, doesn't rejoice in it, but He wants it, because if He didn't, it wouldn't exist. He wants it because it fits into a complex divine salvation plan that is intended to unfold over time, which includes evil, which - I say it again - He doesn't desire but approves, because still this plan, this story of salvation, is the most optimal.
doesn't desire evil, doesn't rejoice in it, but He wants it, because if He didn't, it wouldn't exist.
DeleteWhat he wants is liberty because it is the necessary(though not sufficient) ground of every other virtue. If determinism is true then logically there is neither vice nor virtue because sin/wrongdoing presupposes ACTUAL Free moral agency not an imaginary version of it charging a person with sin for failing to heed an impossible command is an injustice well beneath JEHOVAH'S Dignity.
For the above paragraph, some conceptual clarification is necessary. What I call desire here can also be called "will" in human terms, but it is actually only His predestining will that is truly a will, His desire, or proclaimed will is more of a call, command, or expectation, which resigns itself to sometimes not being fulfilled. But "God's will cannot fail" (at all, not just "temporarily"), so a scenario where the original parents do not sin was never God's (true) will. To a certain extent, God also wants sinful things; in the sense that we usually mention it in connection with predestination. Because God can want in a contributing way what He does not want morally. Murder is like this. God obviously does not want sin, but "contributes" in the specific crime, since He does not stop the murderer, He doesn't drop the murder weapon back into primeval chaos, but maintains both through continuous creation. Because God participates in all acts of free will. That's why the murdered martyr can say before his death: "Thy will be done."
ReplyDeleteTherefore, my statement that "God did not desire the fall of man" merely means that He did not morally approve, did not "rejoice" in it (this is also anthropomorphism), did not have a positive attitude towards it, or the human sufferings that this fact caused for humanity as a whole. But He wanted it, and this will, which covers the entire story of salvation into a single infallible "script", is the only, true will, within which there is no assumption, but only certainty. We can only talk about "possibilities" from a purely human perspective, not considering God's being and attributes. In human terms, there is always a chance to convert, but if we just assume that God sees our actions and decisions infallibly (in advance), the term "possible" loses its meaning. In this approach, there is only certainty, although obviously only for God. Predestination tries to emphasize the viewpoint according to God, which doesn't deny, just relativizes the human viewpoint.
So, God cannot be "blamed" for the sin in the sense that He should be "faulted" for it because God is holy and
* what He wants is right
* in this case, He didn't perform the evil personally (which would essentially be impossible), but foresaw and planned it as
* part of a larger, infinite good-oriented salvation plan.
Therefore, my statement that "God did not desire the fall of man" merely means that He did not morally approve,
DeleteIf determinism is true there is no morality to speak of because morality
Presupposes the existence of ACTUAL free moral agency a charge of wrongdoing can only be made where their is an possiblity of obedience where obedience is impossible no charge disobedience is permissible
I know what you teach, but in the New Testament, "inheriting eternal life", "be saved", "entering the kingdom of God" all mean the same thing, against which there is only one alternative: eternal death, eternal damnation. If you were to interpret John 3:5 as "he who is not baptized cannot enter the kingdom of God", it would actually mean to the Old Testament righteous that they cannot be saved.
ReplyDeleteI then said that this commandment does not apply to the righteous of the Old Testament, since this condition is not retroactive, the righteous of the Old Testament did not have to be baptized in order to enter the kingdom of God and be saved. Anyway, I mentioned that baptism is not an absolutely exclusive way of rebirth: "Everyone who loves has been born of God" (1 Jn 4:7). The Holy Spirit also descended on Cornelius, even though he was not yet baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
And if baptism is only necessary for an inner, narrow privileged group of believers, then why do you baptize the members of the "earthly" class?
Especially since the New Testament openly teaches that the Old Testament righteous will also be in the kingdom of heaven
* "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 8:11)
* "when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God" (Luke 13:28)
* "But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:16)
Furthermore, the 144,000 in Revelation are members of the Jewish people, Israel, who are in heaven, not the JW "anointed" "class".
1 Thess 4:16 does not claim that the voice of the archangel accompanying the Lord's descent is the same as the voice of the Lord, nor that the voice of the archangel will raise the dead.
ReplyDeleteActs 7:38 - here "angel" does not necessarily mean literally an angel, the Greek word 'angelos' means a messenger in its general sense.
Freedom of will does not require that the free decision be unknown to God, since the human point of view and the divine point of view are not the same at all, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9. If you rebel against this, read the 9th chapter of the letter to the Romans several times in a row. I have said many times that determinism, belief in fate and predestination are not the same, you have received a link to a book that discusses the issue as thoroughly as possible.
It is a mistake to believe that before the fall, people's way of life was the same as it will be in the promised paradise (that is, the heaven descending to earth). Man, as a living being with a body, is mortal by nature, even if his soul is incorruptible. Of course, the first pair of humans were free from the compulsion of death before they fell into sin. However, freedom from the compulsion of death is not exactly the same as immortality. So the first man could have died even without sin if he found himself in a situation incompatible with life (e.g. drowning, falling from too high, having his head cut off). He would therefore have had the option of a violent death. This follows from his physical nature. Freedom from the compulsion of death means that natural death (aging) and disease would have been unknown to man (and probably the entire living world). Augustine makes a precise distinction when he defines the gift of human immortality: in his original state, man is "able not to die" (posse non mori). P.S. true immortality, that is, that someone is "not able to die" (non posse mori), it exists only in God. The putting on of an incorruptible body presupposes some kind of transformation; if not death and resurrection, then at least transformation, as 1 Cor 16:50-54 speaks of. In other words, Adam would have had to change, even if he had remained sinless. In other words, God originally intended man to have a supernatural (by this I do not mean that he is immaterial) role, and after a suitable time man would have left the natural world in such a way that he would not have had to fight his bitter death and his body would not have seen deterioration. However, for God, falling into sin was not an unexpected event, it was "calculated" into the divine plan of redemption and salvation. See: Eph 1:4, 1 Peter 1:20. Such a "what if" type of questioning makes no sense from the perspective of God and the Bible: we can only talk about "possibilities" from a purely human perspective, not considering God's being and attributes. God sees our actions and decisions infallibly (in advance), the word "may" already loses its meaning. After all, in this approach there is only certainty, although obviously only for God.
ReplyDeleteRead this: https://oodegr.com/english/ag_grafi/pd/genesis/adam1.htm Was Adam created perfect?
"If God can make himself a man" - The Deity of the Son did not turn into a man, he did not put down his Deity to become a man, but he took on humanity IN ADDITION to his Deity, by uniting the human nature with his person, his hypostasis.
ReplyDelete"surely he can make an angel a man so this objection is a non sequitur." - But according to you, Jesus was only human for a while, he was an angel before and after his earthly existence. On the contrary, the messianic Davidic king, whose "kingdom will never end" (Luke 1:33), must be human. Hebrews 2:5 also says this.
"The change from mono-nature to dual nature of God" - You still don't understand, the Godhead did not become dual-natured by uniting the Son's person with human nature.
Hosea 11:9 - Look up the meaning of anthropomorphism and anthropopathisms in any theological dictionary.
"The notion that JEHOVAH Can ever be subject to human frailties is nothing but grist mockery" - Jesus did not become "subject to human frailties" according to his divine nature, etc.
In connection with 1 Corinthians 15:35-54, I uploaded a text here for you, read it: https://justpaste.it/avwxj
ReplyDeleteThe "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44) is not the opposite of the real human body, but is contrasted with the corruptible, mortal, sinful human body, as we have seen, Jesus' "spiritual body" did not rule out having "flesh and bones" either (Luke 24:39). You deviate very far from the quoted 1 Cor 15:50, because it speaks of "flesh and blood" and perishability - but the resurrected (or changed) body is already allowed by the apostle to inherit the kingdom of God, and he does not even say it is perishable.
Revelation 22:5 - This does not prove two "classes" of any kind. And that they could only rule over another "class" of humans is a purely arbitrary assumption, since neither Adam nor Eve needed human subjects to do this. But it is written that we will judge angels, and that they are ministering spirits: so what is the need to fantasize about man ruling over man, especially in the church, in which this is declared forbidden?
Ephesians 1:9-10 - In reality, this verse is not about two "classes", but about the survivors, and as souls, the people in heaven and the angels, and their dwelling places, are united into one world.
Perhaps the "anointed ones" belong to some other human species that is still able to move out of their bodies and be with the Lord?
The leaders of the WTS must have sweated a lot when they announced that God's "original plan" for the 144,000 is being fulfilled, because those fallen angels are taking the place of those fallen angels in heaven. (You surely didn't know, but I'll tell you: this explanation comes from Augustine, except that he did not apply it to some 144,000, because he correctly believed that it was a symbolic number and represented the saved "fullness" of Israel, not a privileged group with a heavenly hope.) But how can they imagine that this answer can be even approximately correct on their own scale? After all, what kind of fulfillment of the "original plan" is it that some people step out of human destiny and replace angels? Was Adam created as an angel? The answer that they are "necessary for governance" seems very strange in the light of the fact that Adam was appointed to rule by the Lord, while He gave him the earth, they knew that the earthlings are made servants of the "kingdom government", i.e. the "anointed ones" as well. Where is the consistency here?
Adam and Eve did not enjoy "unlimited and inviolable communion" with God. Their fellowship with God was limited and vulnerable for them. One time they saw God, another time they didn't, and they could fall - while after the final judgment, we will see God constantly, and we can't even fall.
The ninth installment of my responses to mr.nevem
ReplyDelete"The "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44) is not the opposite of the real human body, but is contrasted with the corruptible, mortal, sinful human body, as we have seen, Jesus' "spiritual body"had flesh and bones Luke 24:39
Jesus mortal body had no sin so the contrast could have nothing to do with sin if his body had sin it could not serve as a sin offering the contrast is not between what is sinful and what is sinless but what is mortal and what is immortal
Luke ch.24:36-39NIV"While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have
Spirit creatures are invisible so spirit is being used here in the sense of a phantasm that such an invisible spirit creature perhaps a demon might conjure, thus Jesus allowed them to touch his incarnated superhuman form to prove that he was not such a conjuring. So this passage in no way proves your contention the fact that Jesus could not take his sinless flesh and blood into heaven proves that sin is not the issue only the superhuman can enter spirit realm.
There are also legal considerations all sin offerings must be completely consumed for instance whatever was left of the Passover had to be burned
Exodus ch.12:9:10NIV"Do not eat the meat raw or boiled in water, but roast it over a fire—with the head, legs and internal organs. 10Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. "
Thus to conform to this pattern Jesus cannot legally retrieve his human body as that would cancel the atonement.
The wages of sin is eternal death not temporary disembodiment for his atonement to have truly substitutionary value the loss of his human perfection to death must be permanent
One more thing you are not scoring any points with me with your half-truths and distortions against the brothers. You see contrary to your lies I am fully aware of our past I am also aware of the bloodstained and corrupted past and present of your church and not for all the money in the world would I exchange pasts with that cabal of murdering thugs called the Catholic church.
Revelation ch.18:24KJV"And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
I didn't say Jesus was sinful. Traditional theology designates those imperfections of human nature this way, which the Son took upon Himself in the incarnation as the characteristics of earthly pilgrimage, and through which he fully assumed the community of life with us. These weaknesses and imperfections stem from the physical-spiritual nature of man, but they were counterbalanced by extraordinary gifts in the original state of integrity (paradisiacal). These include: the ability to suffer, fatigue, hunger, temptability, aging, death, dissolution. These belong to human nature, they are not contrary to moral sanctity or the presence of grace, rather they provide an opportunity for constant merit. They make it possible for humans to persevere in fulfilling their duty and practicing love, even at the cost of sacrifices. Insofar as they express the vulnerability of earthly life, there is a constant call in them to ask for strength from God and to trust in Him. The Son freely accepted, took on all these in the incarnation, and expressed self-emptying in them (Phil 2:6), while also making them tools of redemption. He expressed that in this strenuous earthly life the life of God's children can be realized. With His resurrection, He proved that He leads our frail life into the state of happiness, and we also have the promise that "He will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:21).
ReplyDeleteJesus took upon Himself and redeemed that human condition which is exposed to physical and spiritual suffering throughout a person's entire life. He became like us in everything, except for sin (Hebrews 2:17). The Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the councils speak of the real suffering of Jesus when they want to convey his merits, and with this, they reject all forms of Docetism, which would attribute only an apparent body to Jesus. Apostle Paul indicates the assumption of real human life by speaking about the "body of sin" (Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 4:4).
The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles talk about both Christ's earthly and resurrected body. Jesus spoke of this body as the temple to be torn down and rebuilt in three days (John 2:21). In the Transfiguration, the divine glory appeared in its radiance. In Paul's letters, Christ's body is the source of salvation through the sacrifice of the cross. Jesus says the same by giving his life for people. By this, he gained for them redemption from death and slavery to the law (Romans 7:4), as well as reconciliation (Colossians 1:22; Ephesians 2:16), sanctification (Hebrews 10:10), liberation from sin, and lead to the true life (1 Peter 2:24). Christ's body, therefore, is the place and instrument of salvation. The body crucified on the cross became the body of glory in the resurrection (Philippians 3:21). The identity of the crucified and resurrected body is self-evident for the apostles. The Greek 'soma' is the physical reality of the person.
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 also provides the theology of the resurrection of the dead, in contrast to the pagan-Greek conception. In Greek philosophy, the body was considered the prison of the soul, so death represented liberation for the soul, for which returning to the body would be a new punishment. For the Apostle, however, existence without a body would be "nakedness", that is, not real life, which is why he wishes to put on the glorified body (2 Corinthians 5:2). The resurrection of the dead gives meaning to life, for if we only hope in Christ in this life, then we are more pitiable than all creatures because death destroys everything (1 Corinthians 15:13). Then the apostle's labor would also be in vain. The basis and guarantee of the resurrection of the dead is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus' resurrection: in a theological sense, it is the first resurrection, by which Jesus put on his glorified body, and the humanity he assumed in the incarnation also received the glorious divine life.
The body (Greek: soma) in a broad sense, it means matter; in a strict sense, the material part of the living organism, the part-substance in man that receives and carries the soul (forma substantialis). In the Old Testament, Hebrew does not have a separate word to designate the concept of the body other than 'basar', which first carries the meaning of 'flesh', that is, 'muscle tissue', but it can also refer to the whole person. According to the sons of Israel, the body (= flesh) and the soul are not opposed to each other, but stand side by side as two equivalent elements; both were attributed to emotions and thoughts (Psalm 16:9, 63:2, 84:3). They speak not of the creation of the body, but of man. Only in the later books, influenced by Hellenism, does the body confront the breath of life (Ecclesiastes 12:7) or the soul (Wisdom 8:19, 9:15: "the corruptible body burdens the soul, and the earthly dwelling weighs down the mind that has many thoughts").
ReplyDeleteIn the New Testament, the authors retained the use of the Old Testament, so the body is often identical to the flesh. On the other hand, the body confronts the soul (Matthew 10:28; 1 Thessalonians 5:23), like the mortal with the immortal. In Paul's theology, the body plays an important role; it is the casing of many non-identical members, which God created (1 Corinthians 12:12-24). God must be glorified in the body (6:20; Philippians 1:20), it must become the organ of human life dedicated to God and directed towards God (Romans 6:12-19; cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10). The body is such a concrete reality of human life and is so closely related to human personality that for Paul the human body and the person are equivalent concepts; he even says: "Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you" (1 Corinthians 6:19), furthermore "You are God's temple" and "You are the temple of the living God" (3:17; 2 Corinthians 6:16); on the other hand: "Your bodies are members of Christ" (6:15), and "We are members of his body" (Ephesians 5:30; cf. 1 Corinthians 12:27). Thus Christ's redemption, through which man is freed from the power of death, would not be perfect if it did not extend to the body (Romans 8:18-23). The redemption of the body is realized with the resurrection of the dead (8:11; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Corinthians 4:14, etc.), when the body rises from mortality, weakness and ingloriousness in power and glory to immortality, and the sensual body, which the soul animates, transforms into a pneumatic (i.e., Spirit-filled and directed) spiritual body (15:42.44). Since God created it, the body is not inherently evil; but Paul still sees it as the source and tool of sin (Romans 6:12; 7:18.23.25; 8:13; 13:14; Ephesians 2:3), and so for him, the body is sinful (Romans 6:6; cf. 8:3), condemned to death (7:24), sensual (Colossians 2:11). At the same time, Paul attributes the same kind of body to the Son of God who became man (1:22).
Mindless babbling whom is this meant to convince exactly. An argument is suppose have a structure based commonly held premises/definitions and commonly agreed upon rules of logic etc. I can't detect anything like that in this rant of yours are you trying to be persuasive or are you just here to vent your spleen.
DeleteThe scriptural style of presentation is completely alien to the mythological motif of apotheosis in Eastern religions, i.e., that some privileged people are taken among the gods. But just as foreign is the modern spiritualizing formulation that Jesus has some purely spiritual existence in the afterlife. The apostolic proclamation maintained the biblical image of man, where man is body and soul, and there is no human existence without the unity of the two. The testimony everywhere speaks of Jesus' bodily resurrection, and the appearances had a definite bodily hue. Jesus resurrected with his own human body, and in Him, death and resurrection are inseparable events: death is a transition into resurrection. Jesus' resurrection should be understood as the earthly life played out in time transitioning through death into eternity.
ReplyDeleteThe resurrected body, in the theological sense, is the human body recreated by God at the resurrection. Its identity with the earthly body was given for faith with the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the statements of 1 Corinthians 15, but its designation of properties did not go beyond the parable of the sown seed (1 Corinthians 15:34; cf. Eleusinian mysteries). Theologically, Origen first discussed this. He already talks about the ever-changing materiality and process found in the earthly body, in which the identity of the individual parts does not last for even 2 days, but the form in which the individual is always the same remains. So the identity of the resurrected body must be sought in this form, image (eidos). In addition, he presupposed some kind of spiritual seed (logos spermatikos) in the earthly body, which aims at resurrection. His later disciples exaggerated this concept and entirely spiritualized the resurrection of the body. This explains those church declarations that particularly emphasized material identity. The teaching of the Church manifested in them obliges the identity of the body as such, but not its philosophical interpretation. Thomas Aquinas started from the image of the sown seed, and considered it sufficient for identity to have as much material as from which the human body was formed, and this also presupposed new creation. Durandus based it on the formative power of the soul, and according to him, the resurrected body is identical to the earthly body because it is formed by the same soul. He built his opinion on the Thomistic principle that the spiritual soul is the only essential form of the body, so if this form separates in death, then the body does not remain as an abandoned sheath, but new material forms are created from the capability of the "materia prima", and so the old body changes. Therefore, the identity of the resurrected body is provided exclusively by the presence and formative power of the soul. The corpse has a reference to the original body, but it is not identical with it. Modern science also confesses that the material of our body is generally replaced every 7 years, but the identity remains based on the living soul. However, the liturgical tradition of the Church does not want to leave out the old body from the faith in resurrection in any way. Regarding the properties of the resurrected body, Scripture mentions spiritualization, immortality, incorruptibility (1 Cor 15:44-53), and exemption from suffering (Revelation 7:16; 21:4), lightness, brightness, and integrity (Matthew 28:2; John 20:19; Philippians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 15:43). The body of the damned, on the other hand, rather shows the image of eternal death, so it lacks privileges, but it is also a resurrected body and remains forever. The resurrected body is a real human body, the carrier and expresser of the human person. At the same time, it will also be the bearer of the individuality that the person has made himself with his actions and the help of grace. The characteristics derived from creation will also remain in it (e.g. sex, although it will no longer have reproductive significance).
Unfounded assertions are not evidences one needs to build a case from the ground up you can't start the story in the middle and claim to have made your case.
DeleteThe fact that Jesus "only" wanted to "prove" that he is not "invisible spirit creature perhaps a demon" and "not such a conjuring", etc. only your vision into in the text, Jesus says that he is not a spirit. The "spiritual body" is not the same as the spirit. Angels are nowhere said to have such a "spiritual body", that is for the resurrected-transformed righteous. Jesus always spoke about the resurrection and glorification of his body, and this glorified "spiritual body" could go to heaven.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you call the Catholic Church a "cabal of murdering thugs" is, in addition to being mildly unethical, historically unfounded. If you are open to revising your historical knowledge, let me recommend you some links:
* https://youtu.be/m5siHd1P5zk
* https://tinyurl.com/7k8hudaf
* https://tinyurl.com/53uc3423
* https://tinyurl.com/2sz4ab4s
Delete"The fact that Jesus "only" wanted to "prove" that he is not "invisible spirit creature perhaps a demon" and "not such a conjuring", etc. only your vision into in the text,"
This unhinged rant is based on Mr.Nevem's attempted use of
Luke ch.2:36-39NIV" they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!”irit 37But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
To prove that the resurrected Jesus was human and not superhuman.i
I simply pointed out that if this spirit was visible then what is being refer to is not a spirit being as these tend to be unseen. The account further shows they were afraid of the sight, so obviously they thought they were seeing an apparition of some sort perhaps conjured by a demon which would explain the apprehension
We know that spirit beings can take on fleshly bodies indistinguishable from humans see Luke ch.24:4-6. so Jesus' demonstrating that he was not an apparition would prove nothing about whether he had become a spirit being or not
In support of the claim that Jesus was made a spirit being with corresponding spirit body upon his resurrection
1Corinthians ch.15:45KJV"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
1Corinthians ch.15:47,48KJV"The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
The first Adam is made of dust the second Adam(since his resurrection) is not made of dust i.e no longer human but super human
2Corinthians ch.5:1KJV"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens."
Let us take careful note of the sequence of events there is no remodeling of the earthly house it is DISSOLVED and replaced by a heavenly house not of human origin.
Galatians ch.1:1NIV"Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—"
suggesting that Paul did not consider the risen Christ to be human but superhuman.
If a person is interested in learning about modern day Jehovah's Witnesses history they can check out these books written by actual historians.
ReplyDelete* A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887 https://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-1re47n8q.html
A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887 https://a.co/d/gzRfOcf
......
Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization https://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887-volume-2-culture-and-organization/paperback/product-1wky6pv7.html
Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization https://a.co/d/4INP4r6
"Well then the incarnation cannot be invoked as a cause of his subordination after his glorification"
ReplyDeleteRead more carefully, according to his human nature, his glorification means that "as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things".
So, as a man being, he was raised above all other creatures, but of course, as a man, he will always be ontologically inferior to the Godhead.
“The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
His glorification did not and cannot change this fact.
So a creation is limiting God? 1Kings ch.8:27"“But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built! "
ReplyDeleteNo creation can limit/affect JEHOVAH and of course propaganda from a movement's enemies especially if they have a history of violently persecuting them is always the best way to acquire a balanced evaluation of said movement.
https://engardio.com/knocking
The author was born to JW parents but later decided it wasn't for him, of course I don't agree on all points but it's much more balanced than 99% of what you are likely to find on the net
Dear "servantofJehovah" (1:38 PM),
ReplyDeletewould this be the explanation of Luke 24:39? Well, the disciples (who at that time had not yet received the Holy Spirit, so they were not under inspiration) did not believe that "invisible spirit creature perhaps a demon" and "not such a conjuring", but the text says that they believed, that it was "a spirit", you imagine the rest in the text.
To this Jesus said that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have", so he was not a spirit. He had a "spiritual body", which does not mean that he is a spirit. Precisely according to the apostle Paul, all those who do not deserve the second coming, but are among the righteous, will be resurrected with the same way, and the same kind of body as Jesus. The chosen resurrection of the 144k Jews will be the same as the rest.
"He will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body by the power that enables him also to bring all things into subjection to himself." (Philippians 3:21)
In fact, Jesus' LIFE was the ransom sacrifice, which was fulfilled with his death, for which his earthly body did not have to be destroyed:
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." Luke 23:46
When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit. (John 19:30)
The Greek word translated "It is finished" is 'tetelestai' (τετέλεσται). The verse has also been translated as "It is consummated." On business documents or receipts it has been used to denote "The debt is paid in full".
Even in the apostolic letters, where the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is discussed, there is not a single mention of the fact that this would mean the destruction of Jesus' body and the cessation of being a human. So the sacrifice of Jesus is not the destruction and vaporization of his body, but the offering of his LIFE, which was fulfilled when he died on the cross.
O.K this is pretty much it's own rebuttal
DeleteAnyway, where does the Bible say that either God or the angels have a "spiritual BODY"?
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind we should understand the statement that “the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). As spirit, Jesus also had a body, a body of glory (Phil. 3:21). The “spiritual body” that Christ had when He was raised from death and the spiritual body that we will have at the resurrection is not an immaterial body, but a body that is no longer subject to death and decay (1 Cor. 15:44). Further, when Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), He must mean that that which is mortal, earthly, and perishable cannot inherit God’s kingdom. “Flesh and blood” can simply mean mortal man, as a comparison with Jesus’ words at Matthew 16:17 reveals: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
1 Corinthians 15:45 - “’life-giving spirit’ does not speak of the nature of the resurrection body, but of the divine origin of the resurrection. Jesus’ physical body came back to life only by the power of God (cf. Rom. 1:4). So, Paul is speaking about its spiritual source, not its physical substance as a material body. In summation, the resurrection body is called ‘spiritual’ and ‘life-giving spirit’ because its source is the spiritual realm, not because its substance is immaterial. Christ’s supernatural resurrection body is ‘from heaven,’ as Adam’s natural body was ‘of the earth’ (v. 47). But just as the one from ‘earth’ also has an immaterial soul, even so the One from ‘heaven’ also has a material body.” (When Critics Ask, A Popular Handbook of Bible Difficulties, pp 467-468 [Victor Books, 1992])
"Anyway, where does the Bible say that either God or the angels have a "spiritual BODY?"
ReplyDeleteLuke ch.20:32 they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. "
Suggesting that they and the heavenly angels have similar bodies
1John ch.3:2KJV"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
If we a going to have the same human bodies we've had all our lives we do know what we will look like in the resurrection,John says it is impossible to know the appearance of heavenly resurrection body because it will resemble God's own body that no man has ever seen.
Suggesting that God does have a body though unlike anything in creation.
I can flip the question back at you where in SCRIPTURE does it say the angels don't have bodies or where is it specified that God has no body we know for instance that angels came to the patriarchs in the form of men
Angels are pure spirits; that is, they are not bound to a bodily organism, which would be either a condition or an organ for their existence or activity. The Fourth Lateran Council has dogmatically established that angels are superior spiritual beings compared to humans. They are considered pure spirits in a generally accepted certain view today, as hinted by the Lateran Council when it places angels at a higher level in this hierarchy: matter, matter-spirit unity, spirit. If they were essentially bound to matter, they would not represent a new level in creation but would only replicate the creative idea expressed in human thought in a more refined form.
ReplyDeleteThe Bible consistently calls angels simply spirits, and it wants to describe them as pure spirits in the sense defined above: The Savior himself authentically interpreted the biblical concept of spirit when he appeared to his disciples after his resurrection: "Touch me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39)
It refers to angels as spirits in conscious contrast to humans: "When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person…" (Luke 11:24) "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12; cf. Colossians 1:16, Matthew 8:16, Luke 6:18, 9:39, 10:20, Acts 23:8, Hebrews 1:14, Revelation 1:4) Therefore, when angels appear in a body according to Scripture's presentation (angelophanies), this body is only apparent.
The notion that angels also have bodies, albeit much more subtle and perfect than humans - "spiritual bodies", like the resurrected humans - is entirely erroneous and heretical. These false teachers could only interpret several biblical passages by attributing bodies to angels. Such as: "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." (Psalm 104:4). The correct interpretation of this is that God uses angels to execute His will and reveal His power, especially in the execution of His judgments, like the windstorm and fire.
As pure spirits, angels do not necessarily occupy space, contrary to the belief of some. They can be in one point; indeed, several can be there at once. Since there are no parts outside parts in spiritual beings or repelling forces causing them to exclude each other. Just as many thoughts can fit in one mind at once without hindering and squeezing each other, so many angels can be in one place at the same time. However, when they want to exert activity in the material world, they also have to occupy the space of their activity. According to the testimony of Scripture, they travel long distances, not only to cause changes in the visible world, but also to orient themselves and learn (Cf. Job 1–2, Zechariah 1:6, Matthew 4:11, Mark 13:32, Luke 2:15, 8:27–33, Ephesians 6:22, 2 Peter 2:4); and they are active in only one place at a time (Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 12:8.). The scope of their activity, however, is much greater than that of humans; furthermore, they do not occupy the space where they are in the manner of a body (circumscriptively), but in the manner of a spirit (definitively), insofar as they exert their power there (presence by the contact of virtue).
1corinthians ch.15:40NIV"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another"
DeleteAccording to scripture all persons physical or superphysical possess bodies suited to their respective realms
As pure spirits, angels do not necessarily occupy space, contrary to the belief of some. They can be in one point; indeed, several can be there at once. Since there are no parts outside parts in spiritual beings or repelling forces causing them to exclude each other. Just as many thoughts can fit in one mind at once without hindering and squeezing each other, so many angels can be in one place at the same time. However, when they want to exert activity in the material world, they also have to occupy the space of their activity. According to the testimony of Scripture, they travel long distances, not only to cause changes in the visible world, but also to orient themselves and learn (Cf. Job 1–2, Zechariah 1:6, Matthew 4:11, Mark 13:32, Luke 2:15, 8:27–33, Ephesians 6:22, 2 Peter 2:4); and they are active in only one place at a time (Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 12:8.). The scope of their activity, however, is much greater than that of humans; furthermore, they do not occupy the space where they are in the manner of a body (circumscriptively), but in the manner of a spirit (definitively), insofar as they exert their power there (presence by the contact of virtue).
ReplyDeleteRegarding the relationship of angels to time and change, since they were created in time, the succession of time applies to them and their existence as well. They do not possess all the content of existence at once that they are capable of, but it unfolds in succession in front of their consciousness. The spirituality of angels is not absolute simplicity, like that of God; their existence excludes physical complexity from primordial matter and form, but not metaphysical, potentiality. According to the testimony of revelation, angels often deliberate, consider, change their plans (Cf. Daniel 4:14, 10:13–11:1).
However, in two directions, they are relatively free from change:
a) They are not exposed to substantial change, like humans (death). As spiritual beings, they are naturally immortal (Cf. Luke 20:36;) and not by a supernatural divine gift. Their immortality, naturally, cannot be mentally independent of God; and it is not a self-evident absolute immortality, like that of God.
b) Due to their pure spirituality, the changes of the material world do not affect them as they affect us, who are immersed in the compelling flow of changes through our bodies. Their more lively and powerful spiritual life more easily and reliably presents the past and penetrates the future over a larger area and with greater success. As a result, their lifespan becomes somewhat independent of time; according to the scholastics, their duration is the "aevum," which is situated between time and eternity
More argument by assertion
Delete1corinthians ch.15:40NIV"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another"
All intelligences possess bodies of some kind according to scripture physical intelligences possess physical bodies superphysical intelligences possess superphysical bodies each with its own distinct glory.
Similarly, the Scripture explicitly and decisively teaches the pure spirituality of God, not only in an inductive way, attributing understanding and will to Him, but by presenting God as a sovereign power over matter. Moreover: God is not like humans: He has no body, He is not visible, cannot be represented by an image, He is the father of spirits (Ex 33:20, Deut 4,1–6, Is 31,3, 40:18; Heb 12,9); He is simply a spirit: "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (Jn 4,24; cf. Lc 24,39 2 Cor 3,7 1 Tim 6,16)
ReplyDeleteTherefore, when the Scripture (especially the Old Testament) speaks of God in such strong anthropomorphisms, it does not intend to obscure His pure spirituality, but it takes into account the psychological fact that it is extraordinarily difficult for humans, anchored in the sensual world, to consistently carry through and constantly validate the purely spiritual (imageless) concept of pure spirit, especially for those who are not philosophically trained, and who need images due to the need for visuality. This is also shown by the various names of spirit in different languages: πνεῦμα, breath, spiritus; cf. spirit, wind, חַוּר, Geist (Cf. Job 10:4).
Since the revelation does not teach philosophy, but wants to engender religious life, the Scripture, as the supernatural cosmos of revelation, brings those elements to the foreground that are capable, with their visuality, liveliness, and directness, of triggering life-shaping religious impacts. It is impossible to achieve deeply affecting, action-triggering impacts in the abstract language of philosophy. Here, anthropomorphic presentations are unavoidable and indispensable.
Similarly, the Scripture explicitly and decisively teaches the pure spirituality of God, not only in an inductive way, attributing understanding and will to Him, but by presenting God as a sovereign power over matter. Moreover: God is not like humans: He has no body, He is not visible, cannot be represented by an image, He is the father of spirits (Ex 33:20, Deut 4,1–6, Is 31,3, 40:18; Heb 12,9); He is simply a spirit: "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (Jn 4,24; cf. Lc 24,39 2 Cor 3,7 1 Tim 6,16)
DeleteAll spirit would imply is invisible and intangible to humans there is no implication of incorporeality and corporeality does not imply a humanoid body which of course was designed for the physical world there heavenly bodies
Very distinct from anything in the physical world
1Corithians ch.15:40NIV"There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another"
Spirit beings have bodies
ReplyDeleteNincsnevem:"With this in mind we should understand the statement that “the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). As spirit, Jesus also had a body, a body of glory (Phil. 3:21). The “spiritual body” that Christ had when He was raised from death and the spiritual body that we will have at the resurrection is not an immaterial body, but a body that is no longer subject to death and decay (1 Cor. 15:44)."
All spirit beings have bodies and glorious bodies at that
Your asserting a thing does not demonstrate it to be true a debate/dialog is not a lecture no one here recognise any authority you claim on these issues if you want to persuade anyone you to have to demonstrate from scripture
Nincsnevem:Further, when Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), He must mean that that which is mortal, earthly, and perishable cannot inherit God’s kingdom. “Flesh and blood” can simply mean mortal man, as a comparison with Jesus’ words at Matthew 16:17 reveals: “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”
Flesh and blood pertains to the human even a sinless human like Jesus lower than angels it does not necessarily have anything to do with sin
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/07/against-nincsnevem-xiii.html?m=1
I've asked:
ReplyDelete"Anyway, where does the Bible say that either God or the angels have a "spiritual BODY?"
Since you don't answer directly, I will do it for you: the term "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos") is NOT used in the Bible for angels, since they do not have a "spiritual body", but they are simply pure spirits. So the "spiritual body" is only applied to resurrected humans, never to angels and God, the fact that they are spirits is not said about the resurrected humans, so these are two different concepts.
Then you quote Luke 20:36, but it only says that they will be like angels, in that they cannot die. It claims nothing about identity in nature. Where does the Bible say that the resurrected will practically become angels?
"we do know what we will look like in the resurrection" - We know that it will truly be OUR OWN body (Philippians 3:21, 1 Corinthians 15:38), not something transformed into an angel.
"we do know what we will look like in the resurrection" - We know that it will truly be OUR OWN body (Philippians 3:21, 1 Corinthians 15:38), not something transformed into an angel.
1 John 3:2 also does not say anything about the resurrected ones becoming similar to the spirits in nature, but they will be similar in that we will see God. According to the context of the poem, the text says that the world knows nothing about this unparalleled exaltation of ours, because it knows neither the Father nor the Son. In the last judgment, however, he will see our dignity as sons of God, because we will shine in the same glory as God's and we will see him, no longer as if in a mirror, but face to face, as he is. The condition for this blissful vision of God is that we be holy, because he is also holy, so we avoid sin above all else, because whoever commits sin is of the devil.
"we do know what we will look like in the resurrection" - We know that it will truly be OUR OWN body (Philippians 3:21, 1 Corinthians 15:38), not something transformed into an angel. Why were the wounds of his crucifixion visible on Jesus? (the "marks of the nails", plural, refuting the JW "pillar of torment" theory)
1 John 3:2 also does not say anything about the resurrected ones becoming similar to the spirits in nature, but they will be similar in that we will see God. According to the context of the poem, the text says that the world knows nothing about this unparalleled exaltation of ours, because it knows neither the Father nor the Son. In the last judgment, however, he will see our dignity as sons of God, because we will shine in the same glory as God's and we will see him, no longer as if in a mirror, but face to face, as he is. The condition for this blissful vision of God is that we be holy, because he is also holy, so we avoid sin above all else, because whoever commits sin is of the devil.
In my 7:51 AM comment, I quoted several Bible verses about the fact that God is also pure spirit, so he has no body.
"where in SCRIPTURE does it say the angels don't have bodies" - Among others where Jesus says that the spirits do not have "bones and flesh" (Luke 24:39), but he does, hence He is not a spirit. Also in the places cited above.