Greetings all,
I'm not prohibiting Nincsnevem from ever posting here: he's raised a lot of issues that have been addressed before on this blog or elsewhere and some other issues need to be addressed IMHO. However, I've made a moderator's decision that none of the current discussions now transpiring will be allowed past 12:30 PM EST tomorrow. Those threads will be locked.
It seems to me that enough posts have been allowed on the current diverse subjects. Moderators have to make these decisions and they might not always (probably hardly ever) please everyone. Thanks to all.
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
Moderator's Decision on Nincsnevem Posts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
134 comments:
How about we argue on a separate interface, forum, where the text can be formatted, there is no 4k character limit, etc.? :-)
1) It's highly unlikely for me, Nincsnevem, because I'm past the point in my life where I enjoy debating theology. I'd rather discuss, research, and shepherd, etc.
2) I don't have time for extended debates: this forum even pushes my limits, especially once I go back to the classroom.
3) I've been married to the same woman for 31 years now and want to keep it that way :-)
Got to show her some attention.
Maybe you'll have some takers though.
Come across to my blog I'm much more pugilistic but we stick to bible or I block you.
Dear "aservantofJehovah"
"I'm much more pugilistic"
How about Proverbs 15:1, 2 Tim 2:25, Tit 3:2?
"or I block you."
Hahaha, so should I fight with my hands tied behind my back? Why not discuss it in a neutral forum?
I'm not interested in what any human council has to say on faith and morals
Or exchanging sordid details of our respective churches histories. if you can't let the bible speak for itself you have nothing to say worth hearing.
Btw I'm proposing that we BOTH play by the same rules so I don't see how fairness is an issue.
"There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory." (1 Corinthians 15:40-41)
What does the "heavenly body" mentioned here mean? The text refers to the diversity of creatures on earth and in heaven as evidence of God's infinite power. So the "heavenly bodies" are, as written there: the Sun, the Moon, and the stars, i.e., celestial bodies. Remember back to the very first chapter of the Bible: "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the vault of the sky...'" (Genesis 1:14) According to the old Jewish conception, three things were called heaven: the atmospheric sky and the starry sky, and then the spiritual sky, the dwelling place of blessed souls, God's world. So there's no question of God or angels having a body in any sense. They are pure spirits.
I do not expect you to recognize the decision of the universal councils as an authority, but to avoid a "straw man" argument on your part, it would not hurt to clarify what the Catholic teaching is.
Only comments pertinent to this thread will be approved, and only for a limited time. Thanks all.
I just want to clarify something, before the comments were locked Nincsnevem assumed I was Eastern Orthodox (understandable given the fact that I posted an essay I wrote for a blog called "electic orthodoxy"), I am not Eastern Orthodox though, I'm a Jehovah's Witness.
Sola Scriptura.
How long has the WTS denomination stood on the principle of "sola Scriptura"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura
"Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the interpretation of scripture and codification of doctrines is considered the responsibility of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses."
"Christ Leads His Congregation". Watchtower: 13–16. 15 March 2002.
Any who aren't convinced that GB is allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves are free to keep out unlike the Catholic church there is no infant baptism here. Only those who demonstrate true dedication JEHOVAH'S Cause are allowed to get baptised
The "heavenly" (celestial, epouranios) bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) mentioned in 1 Cor 15:40 are clearly not the alleged "bodies" of God or the angels, but orbs, as the next verse specifically states what understood by this: the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.
For the meaning of σώματα bodies is not limited to animate beings (see 1 Corinthians 15:37, 1 Corinthians 15:38), and "the scoffers who refused to believe in the existence of the future body would hardly have admitted the existence of angelic bodies. To convince them on their own ground, the apostle appeals exclusively to what is seen" (Godet). The sense is, the heavenly bodies, described more specifically in 1 Corinthians 15:41. Philo and the Jewish mystics that the stars are animated, and are to be identified with the O.T. "angels," as by the heathen with their gods. The bodies of the stars, which the apostle, according to the universal ancient conception, seems to have regarded as animate, cf. Job 38:7; Enoch 18:14ff
We read nowhere of angels having bodies, although we read of them assuming visible forms. Chrysostom refers the phrase to the resurrection bodies. This is unquestionably the meaning of ἐπουράνιος in 1 Corinthians 15:48: but here it would seem to be in more strict opposition to ἐπίγειος, that which exists on the earth, since the Apostle refers to the sun, moon, and stars as 'heavenly bodies' in the next verse.
The corresponding Hebrew term for "epouranios" is not used much in the Old Testament for angels, but for the physical heavens, visible heavens, sky, where stars, etc., are Judges 5:20; Genesis 15:5 (J), Deuteronomy 4:19; Genesis 1:14,15,17 (P), hence ׳כּוֺכְבֵי הַשּׁ Genesis 22:17 (JE) = 9t. (usually as countless), ׳(כָּלֿ) צְבָא הַשּׁ Deuteronomy 4:19; Jeremiah 8:2.
though old scholarship Bible hub would disagree with you nincsnevem
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-40.htm
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-48.htm#lexicon
& I prefer any scholarship even trinitarian to the orthodox councils, who go against the bible in many cases (I can point out atleast 3 places the bible disagrees, the bible is the final authority not the stupid councels, Wheres that stated in the bible, that the doctrine of God would develop over controversy's - The gentile times is more explicit) - I would expect the trinity to not have developed over many controversies if its so explicitly stated in scripture.
Just my 2 cents worth
Mr.nevemThe "heavenly" (celestial, epouranios) bodies (σώματα ἐπουράνια) mentioned in 1 Cor 15:40 are clearly not the alleged "bodies" of God or the angels, but orbs, as the next verse specifically states what understood by this: the Sun, the Moon, and the stars.
1Corinthians ch.15:35-38ESV"But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body."
And when Paul compares the corpse to a grain of wheat has he switched to discussing agriculture
There is no switch in topics the entirety of the chapter deals with death and resurrection esp. Christ there are no asides into agriculture or astronomy
After comparing the glory of invisible heavens to glory of visible heavens he reminds what is being discussed
1corinthians ch.15:42ESV"So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. "
So the fleshly body is compared to a seed but the glorious spiritual body is compared the stars angels are called stars see Job 38:4-7
https://pure.uhi.ac.uk/files/3090559/David_Kirk_thesis.pdf
Nincsnevem
On the issue of "sola scriptura," you cited a Wikipedia article, that cited a watchtower article, I recommend that you go and actually READ the watchtower article cited, it says nothing about anyone having an authoritative interpretation or the codification of doctrines.
Recent articles have been explicit on what the actual role of the governing body is with regards to the the congregations of JWs ... they are not authoritative interpretation and/or codification of doctrines.
I suggest if you want to know what a religious community believes, the best thing to do is to ask someone well rooted in that religious community or look at their latest official publications, and if you're gonna rely on Wikipedia, at least check the citations.
Anonymous
Haha, because if Nicene theology "evolved" over centuries, I really just need to throw the ball back in your court, and in how many decades did YOUR theology evolve? First of all, where does the Bible talk about the 1,900-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the ekklesia, the second foundation? How often do your doctrines change?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_doctrine
The Nincsnevem era here is about over. I'm not phased by his criticisms but if anyone keeps crossing lines here, they can find another place to play.
Well you certainly can't be accused of a rush to judgment.
I like to give people chances: maybe it's a flaw in my personality and despite me allowing ample time for Nincsnevem to post tomes in the comment box section, he will probably accuse me of favoring monologues rather than dialogues.
Be that as it may, the latest offense involves quoting from confidential JW material. While I know the info is out there on the net, I will not allow confidential material to be posted here. He should know it, but it's not the first time that lines have been crossed.
I herebey apologize, Mr. Foster, I didn't mean to overstep your boundaries.
Our doctrine about the nature of JEHOVAH and his Son and the bible's morals and our relationship to this world have been very constant. An evolving understanding of bible prophecy is only to be expected
Daniel ch.12:4ESV"But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”"
The essentials of our religion are those doctrines that deal with our sanctification our relationship with JEHOVAH and our separateness from the present civilisation. These have remained quite constant.
I accept your apology, Nincsnevem. That is big of you and I really appreciate it.
Admittedly, I don't have a long list of rules for this blog and that may cause some confusion. I know some forums allow more latitude when it comes to what's said or quoted. But as a spiritual shepherd, I feel an obligation to be firm in certain areas. Again, thank you.
aservantofJehovah
Daniel 12:4 is not a prophecy about the evolving doctrines of a denomination would be created in the 19th century, but on the one hand, the book of Daniel basically refers to Antiochus' persecution, and on the other hand, in a biblical context, "the last time", the messianic era itself, which is the last era in order, and therefore last, because there will be no more periods, no third covenant, it also does not apply to the 20th century.
Matthew ch.24:15NIV"“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—" Well after Antiochus
You will also notice that a lot of the imagery in the book of revelation is borrowed from the book of Daniel.
So our Lord begs to differ.
Daniel 12:4 is not a prophecy about the Daniel 12:4 is not a prophecy about the evolving doctrines of a denomination would be created in the 19th century, but on the one hand, the book of Daniel basically refers to Antiochus' persecution, and on the other hand, in a biblical context, "the last time", the messianic era itself, which is the last era in order, and therefore last, because there will be no more periods, no third covenant, it also does not apply to the 20th century. doctrines of a denomination would be created in the 19th century, but on the one hand, the book of Daniel basically refers to Antiochus' persecution, and on the other hand, in a biblical context, "the last time", the messianic era itself, which is the last era in order, and therefore last, because there will be no more periods, no third covenant, it also does not apply to the 20th century.
This of course is the opinion of men who refuse to let the bible speak for itself let us instead here from a real expert on the subject
Matthew ch.24:15NIV"“So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet DANIEL—let the reader understand—"
This of course is well after Antiochus the book of revelation written long after the Fall of the temple borrows a lot of its imagery from the book of Daniel
Revelation ch.13:2NIV"beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. "
Compare Daniel Chapter 7:1-8:
Daniel ch.12:8-10NIV"I heard, but I did not understand. So I asked, “My lord, what will the outcome of all this be?”
9He replied, “Go your way, Daniel, because the words are rolled up and sealed until the time of the end. 10Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand"
Amen and Amen
Regarding Matthew 24:15, this refers back to Daniel 9:27, thus the New Testament scripture indeed references the prophecy in question from the book of Daniel, but not in relation to the coming of Jesus Christ, but rather in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. The signs of the destruction of Jerusalem will be the abomination of desolation (Matthew, Mark) and the beginning of the city's siege (Luke). The abomination of desolation or horror, atrocity, is a phrase borrowed from the book of the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12:11.), which essentially means a detestable, horrific destruction; in Daniel it directly denotes the altar and idol of Jupiter, which King Antiochus set up in the Jerusalem temple. (Macc. I. 1:57.) Here, Christ undoubtedly means the desecration committed by the Jewish fanatics (zealots) and their allies, the Idumeans, prior to the siege of Jerusalem, when they turned not only the city but also the temple into a battleground and a scene of murders. (Winter of AD 67-68.) If you see the atrocities being committed in Jerusalem, the holy city, and on the temple, as foretold by the prophet Daniel - then etc. See v. 16. These horrors are the city's siege by pagan enemies, the erection of Roman eagles and idols, and other devastations carried out in the temple by the Jews themselves during the siege. According to some, this is the evangelist's remark, which served to alert the Christians of that time that these horrific events were already beginning to happen.
Daniel 12:7 - The desecration of the Jerusalem temple under Antiochus Epiphanes lasted three and a half years. However, the general word for time indicates that God did not want to reveal more precisely the duration of the tyranny of the great enemy appearing at the end of the world. When the destruction of the power of the holy people ends, all this will be fulfilled: when Antiochus Epiphanes believed he had permanently destroyed the Jewish religion, the Maccabean freedom fight broke out, and he was suddenly hit by the deserved divine punishment.
Daniel 12:8 - Daniel does not inquire about further events, but about the more detailed quality of the already announced, wonderful things. Some consider the former more likely; however, this does not match Daniel's confession of his ignorance, as we don't really want to know something new until we understand what has already been communicated.
Daniel 12:9 - The angel only tells Daniel as much about the future as he and the chosen people needed to know to look to the future with confidence. It is enough to know that God will not forsake his chosen ones, and the cause of righteousness will ultimately prevail. Until the pre-determined time, according to the Hebrew: "until the end of time" (or: "until the time of the end"). The conclusion of the speeches and the sealing of the book means that the prophecy should not be made public for a while, as it refers to the distant future. (See 7:28.) Until the appointed time: until these things will be fulfilled in God's appointed time. Many will study it, and its teachings will be great: many will read this book and derive comfort from it in times of distress. See 1 Macc. 2:59. 60.
Daniel 12:10 - They will be purified: in the fire of suffering. None of the wicked will understand (i.e., these speeches): this prophecy does not keep them from evil. The wise will understand: the righteous (v. 3) will draw strength and perseverance from Daniel's visions for the days of misery.
Some source regarding the JW interpretation of the Book of Daniel:
* https://justpaste.it/9l2lb
* https://justpaste.it/bsc8h
Those who keep doing evil are not wise
https://justpaste.it/aaxun Resurrection, Body, Judgment
What could "the increase in knowledge" (Dan 12:4) have meant for Daniel? According to the context, Daniel had to seal his own book until the end times. This meant that his visions were about the future, and he himself could not understand what he was writing at the time. The text continues: "many will inquire" / "many will wander", literally: "many will go here and there", but "knowledge will increase" / "knowledge will grow". The Hebrew word rabah (רָבָה) here means quantitative growth or increase. So Daniel was not thinking of a deeper understanding of the existing biblical writings, but of new revelations, and thus an increase in the number of biblical books.
The WT Society interprets Daniel's prophecy as having been fulfilled in the past 140 years of the Bible Researchers and Jehovah's Witnesses movement, and in the Society's publications. If Daniel only prophesied that his own book would be understood more deeply in the distant future, then the Society can only refer to this verse in relation to its calculations about the date 1914. But if Daniel was talking about the increase in knowledge, isn't it more likely that the prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century, when the collection of Hebrew Writings was supplemented by twenty-seven New Testament Greek Writings?
Dear Mr Foster,
on the relationship between Christianity and philosophy, I recommend to your attention G.K. Chesterton's book on Thomas Aquinas.
Dear Nincsnevem, thanks. I have read some Chesterton but I've read Aquinas too and other medieval historians. I've took courses where we read Aquinas and I've taught about Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, etc.
One of my favorite authors is Etienne Gilson.
"where does the Bible talk about the 1,900-year gap and the necessity of re-establishing the ecclesia, the second foundation? How often do your doctrines change?"
funny you don't answer the question just throw it back... interesting
I never said about doctrines changing, improvement in understanding is a basic human concept - its the controversy part I have a problem with, seems suspicious.
If the trinity is so clear, there should have been no controversy about it and why did it only come into effect in the 4th century? (yes I know what you'll say about JW - However there's one slight flaw in that claim)
The Jehovah's witnesses doctrine didn't arise over controversies - the trinitarians made it controversial, they fail in many places however as talented people have pointed out.
On this very blog infact it is mentioned numerous times (paraphrasing)how trinitarian "go against" the lexical meanings to words - and when other examples are cited they fail.
(Greg Stafford and many others proved this)
second, the bible talks about "gentile times" or whatever - a lot of prophesy has no given time frame in the bible. could be a few days to a few decades. There are many things the bible doesn't specify
It should also be noted Gods own nation fell into idolatry proving that even Gods own people could turn on him and not worship him and we know from the bible that there were other G/gods at the time - granted it wasn't for as long but do I need to cite the time period of the prophesying of things vs it coming true with no time period ever mentioned? well I don't because you can look yourself.
(I'm sure someone will elaborate more for me)
Should also be worth noting if I think you are implying What I think are correctly - Its not unthinkable the "true" religion would disappear Why? (read above for starters) look at today and history, How many controversies and lies are told throughout about history? How many different points of view are there to history? Things get muddled and screwed about with - It is therefore not unthinkable for something to just disappear, things are still being discovered from centuries ago, Why? because they disappeared.
Look at Gods name in the NT it disappeared completely, yet there is so much emphasis on it in the OT - Its interesting to note the name is said to endure "forever" on many occasions - seems odd to place such emphasis and then just stop using the name...
Iv seen many people say it has no place in the NT.. really that wasn't Jesus opinion
I grant that the word "name" can mean authority however there is no need to sanctify Gods "being" or "authority" as that has already been "sanctified" and remains so
I would find it interesting where the doctrine is stated in scripture as many scholars and encyclopaedia's say the doctrine wasn't in any of the bibles writers head (Catholics admit this themselves, in their own encyclopaedia - multiple times)
Here is just a one:
"The word itself does not occur in the Bible...The explicit formula was thus formulated in the post-biblical period, although the early stages of its development can be seen in the NT. Attempts to trace the origin still earlier (to the OT literature) cannot be supported by historical-critical scholarship, and these attempts must be understood as retrospective interpretations of this earlier corpus of Scripture in the light of later theological developments." The Harper Collins Study Bible Dictionary
here is the rest:
(https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2017/11/great-quotes-about-trinity-doctrine.html)
"So Daniel was not thinking of a deeper understanding of the existing biblical writings, but of new revelations, and thus an increase in the number of biblical books." It seems odd to me than no new testament writing or intertestamental writing makes any claim the claim that it is fulfilling this claim.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/07/how-does-knowledge-increase.html?m=1
I've read Aquinas, Scotus, Anselm, I do think philosophy is indispensible for theology (not Christianity, one need'nt know philosophy to be a good Christian, and sometimes focusing on theology and philosophy is a detriment to being a good Christian: which is self-giving love and proclematin of the kingdom), that being said, I don't think Aquinas and the Scholastics are the end all be all of philosophy, I've learned just as much, and found just as much useful, in Hegel and Schelling, Kant, Phenomenology, Marx, Analytic philosophy, Russian sophiology, etc, as I have found in the medeival Christian tradition. That being said, some contemporary Thomists are extremely good theistic apologists.
Dear Roman,
I also do not think that all Christians should be philosophers, but I see neo-scholastic Thomism as the pinnacle of Christian philosophy, which was able to bring revelation and common sense into harmony the most.
That's why I like to read and draw from Catholic philosophy and theology books published before the Second Vatican Council.
You wrote that being a Christian "is self-giving love and proclamation of the kingdom". I don't quite agree, since the most important thing for individual Christians as individuals is their salvation, that is, grace and justification. Evangelization is not a command given to every single Christian, not everyone is called to it by God, cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31.
Dear Anonymous,
it is often enough to reject the suggestion, as it points out the inconsistency. If JW refers to the fact that the Son's consubstantiality with the Father was "only" dogmatized in 325, then the only thing that can really be said is when were your distinctive basic teachings determined by this force? For example, no one professed such a two-class salvation doctrine before 1935. But of course, you have to rewrite the end-time calculation chronology (of which nothing ever came true) every 5-10 years. In light of this, it is really interesting to have fun with the 325. Furthermore, I also note that the canon of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament had not been defined until then, the present canon list was first listed by the "evil trinitarian" Athanasios.
Otherwise, the criticism is wrong that there was no change or break in the faith of the Church in the 4th century, read: http://probe.org/scripture-and-tradition-in-the-early-church/
The WTS interpretation connects the term "time of the Gentiles" with the "seven times" mentioned in Daniel's book (which has no basis), in this regard I recommend this to you: https://justpaste.it/aod71
But even from a JW point of view, this would not explain the 1,900-year "apostasy", since the "times of the Gentiles" lasted even during the time of the apostles!
So, in short: where is the promise or prophecy in the New Testament that after the death of the apostles, the true Church will disappear for nearly two thousand years?
"Gods name in the NT it disappeared completely" - Unfortunately, this is a conspiracy theory without any evidence.
"yet there is so much emphasis on it in the OT" - This is where the WTS biblical interpretation makes a big mistake, which does not take into account the systematic difference between the OT and the NT, a new theological environment, and interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament, not the other way around, as it should be.
"it has no place in the NT.. really that wasn't Jesus opinion" - Because it has no role, where did Jesus speak about the name YHWH, which the Jews knew anyway?
For WTS's quotes about the Trinity, I suggest you look them up:
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-jw-anti-trinity-booklet-master-index-quotes.htm
I think the problem with anyone in Christendom that they don't understand about Jehovah Witnesses is we don't accept the changes made outside of the bible as inspired of God.
No matter their explanation no 1st century Christian believed in the Trinity there is no known proof for that.
Plus what Pauls says at Galatians 1: 7-9 applies If anyone is declaring to you good news about the Christ beyond what has already been said by the apostles let him be accursed. No Apostle taught the trinity. The Trinity is a teaching about the Christ beyond what was taught. It doesn't matter what the reason for the teaching is. So Jehovah's people do not except it.
The understanding of prophecy is not to be placed in the same category as the comprehension of the nature of the one God . The bible shows that prophecy will be gradually understood in the end times.
And for the record brother Russel understood that vast majority of humanity would spend eternity in human perfection. As distinct from the superhuman perfection expected by the anointed.
Romans ch.10:9NIV"because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. " Without a public confession the one God raised his Son from the dead and made him Lord there is no salvation
Romans ch.10:10NIV"For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. "
1Corinthians ch.12:28-31ESV"28And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
And I will show you a still more excellent way." How exactly does this falsify the bible's command that every true Christian must be a preacher of JEHOVAH'S kingdom to unbelievers?
Dear Philip Fletcher,
of course, the early Christians did not have an exact crystallized theology or dogmatic textbook, but if we look at the earliest extra-biblical sources, the facts are that the early Christians
- Jesus was recognized as a real God, not as Michael the Archangel
- they did not count the end of the "time of the Gentiles" (just like the apostles), although I don't think they would have heard of the book of Daniel
- not a single one mentions any kind of two-class doctrine of salvation
... and I could list more and more facts, the bottom line is that the distinctive teachings of the WTS simply have no trace in early Christian literature.
So if you were saying that the first century Christians professed today's JW theology, then this is only possible if the so-called "apostate" Christians managed to commit the perfect crime and wipe out the "original" Christians without a trace and take over their place. And that sounds exactly like a silly conspiracy theory.
The doctrine of the Trinity is simply a summary of the belief found in Scripture that there is one God and three persons that can be said to be the truly God, not a philosophy or a new teaching, let alone a new gospel.
Dear servant of Jehovah,
according to the usage of the New Testament, the "last times" began already in the first century, not in the 20th century, since it means the messianic era. In any case, the phrase "the last times" should not be used to infer the proximity of the second coming of Jesus - on a human scale - simply because it is the "last" time, because it is the last in a row, so there will be no more eras, third covenants, and the like.
It would also be worth talking about the fact that Jesus' parousia, which according to the Bible "every eye will see" (Revelation 1:7), is explained by the Watchtower as being "perceived by some spiritually", in fact they did not perceive it either in 1914. In fact, until 1930, the teaching of the Watchtower was that the "invisible parousia" of Jesus took place in 1874, so in 1914 even the leaders of the Watchtower did not "understand spiritually" that in 1914 Jesus "came invisibly" in the meantime.
So the parousia of Jesus, which according to the Scriptures "every eye will see", was actually not "seen" even by the main leaders of the supposedly true religion for 16 years.
The latter is also funny because the WTS book 'Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!', the "seven trumpets" in the book of Revelation mean the seven Watchtower congresses held in the 1920s (which no one remembers), where Rutherford kept mentioning dates (1799, 1874, 1878) that have been in effect for a long time placed outside. So, the "words of the seven trumpets" of the Book of Revelations really only mean a speech heard by a handful of people, which even according to the later representatives of the same religion, is considered an untrue statement.
Say 'Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand!' I cannot imagine that a reasonable, serious person who reads the news in passing can seriously believe this interpretation. They present events that are not even considered significant from the point of view of their own denomination as world news events. Could a convention held in the 1920s with a few thousand people really be the trumpet blast in Revelation 8? Because they spoke out against "false Christianity", which was "exposed" as a result?
Historical Christianity was obviously not, for example, persecuted by the Communists, but Rutherfurd's "fiery words" caused the big blow... so you can really only laugh at that.
At least they would have nominated a congress that is still significant from the point of view of their own denomination, e.g. In 1935, when the principle of two-class redemption was announced. As far as I know, this book was published in the first 10-15 years of the last 40 years. It was studied 5-6 times at the church level, and since the teaching changed, some sentences and chapters of the book had to be pasted with a different text printed on paper that could be pasted and fit in, so that the old text would not "confuse" the students or the reader.
Regarding 1914, I would like to note that you know of only one Watchtower prediction that came true? I mean exactly that, exactly as it was outlined?
That 'Christ is not seen, but he is present,' could already have been said by Christians in the 1st century, not just since 1914. Jesus promised his disciples: 'I am with you every day until the end of the world' (Mt 28:20 Ecumenical), and accordingly 'worked with them, confirming the preaching with signs following' (Mk 16:20).
The fact that 'Christ ascended to his heavenly throne' happened already in the 1st century, there was no need to wait until 1914 for this! According to Mark 'Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God' (Mk 16:19). Also according to Apostle Paul, God 'raised [Christ] from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality and power, and might, and dominion...' (Eph 1:20-21). The author of the letter to the Hebrews was also aware that 'we do not yet see all things put under him.' (Hebrews 2:8).
Russell, Rutherford and the Society resorted to the old Adventist method: 'the date was good, but something else happened!' But imagine that I predict to you: 'Tomorrow at 5 pm, the postman will deliver a package to your house, in which someone has sent a wonderful gift!' Of course, nothing happens the next day, only the neighbor asks you to return his lawnmower! Imagine that when we meet a week later and you ask about that package, I make excuses like this: 'Oh, I think you misunderstood, or surely the postman stole the package - but something happened, didn't it?
And they didn't just say the year, they said the exact date, they didn't say a year (1914) in general, but October 1, 1914! On October 1, however, nothing happened, since the World War broke out on July 28. The fact that the outbreak of the World War in July 1914 fell on the same year as the Russel prediction in October is only due to the fact that the Pope marked January 1 as the anniversary day in the 16th century. If e.g. the New Year would be on September 1st, then it wouldn't even fall in a year :) According to the Jewish calendar, October 1st and 28th of 1914 do not even fall in the same year!
Dear Nincsnevem,
Philip might choose to reply, but either way, there's a few things I'd like to say. You've thrown a lot of "mud on the wall" as usual and maybe you're weren't looking for an answer but thought you prevailed. However . . .
It's far from factual that the Primitive ecclesia considered Jesus to be a real God. There are about eight or so texts that scholars debate as to their significance or meaning for Christology, and questions remain as to whether Jesus was thought to be God or a god. Try to wish it away or claim "fact" via fiat, but the situation is not set in stone.
Witnesses don't claim that the first-century Christians counted the Gentile times. Nice strawman.
Moreover, try reading Witness literature; we don't believe that the first-century congregation posited our soteriology respecting two classes nor did they have to, in order for Witnesses to be correct about two groups with two eternal destinations.
Did you also know that the Shepherd of Hermas possibly makes an equation between Jesus and Michael? I'm not claiming that's a "fact," but some works have written about this potential equation.
Again, I urge you to read JW literature, not just synopses of it: we do not teach that the first-century congregation perfectly mirrored current JW teaching. See Proverbs 4:18.
You claim that the Trinity is a summary of what's in the NT. Well, please show me where the holy spirit/Holy Spirit is ever called theos in the NT.
With regard to 1914: : "We are not prophesying; we are merely giving our surmises . . . We do not even aver that there is no mistake in our interpretation of prophecy and our calculations of chronology. We have merely laid these before you, leaving it for each to exercise his own faith or doubt in respect to them"
January 1908 watchtower
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/07/on-false-prophets-and-false-accusers.html?m=1
Dear Nincsnevem,
Witnesses make a distinction between the parousia of Christ (Matthew 24:3) and his erchomai (Matthew 24:30)--Revelation 1:7 evidently applies to the former event. So, we believe that every eye will see his erchomai, but what does it mean for all to "see" in this case? See John 14:19.
About the homoousia argument.
The fact that no held the proto-trinitarian position in the first three centuries of Christianity is not proof that it is false ... Of course some doctrines (i.e. interpretations of prophecy, the two groups etc etc) are theological constructions based on interpretation of scripture AS scripture (i.e. not historical exegesis), this is of course necessary, there never was just one set of beliefs in Christianity, nor was there just one set of doctrines, there was disagreement and development all the way through, although somethings were foundational.
The argument is against the claim the the trinity is the CLEAR and obvious teaching of scripture and that those who deny it are denying what the fist Christians proclaimed.
Again, I have no problem with people like David Bentley Hart who acknowledge the history of the doctrine but then argue for it on theological grounds, I think that's honest and fair and against that one would have to argue for one's own position, but the fact that a theological belief was rare in the ancient world does not make it false, in and of itself, but if one is arguing that a theological belief was widespread when it was rare then that argument is fasle.
When it comes to salvation, I don't think our salvation is dependent on cognitive assent to a theological claim.
Salvation is done already in Christ, we are already saved from death sin and satan, the only thing that secures that salvation is our response to the grace, or to put it another way, the only thing that can remove us from that salvation is us wanting to be removed.
But what being a Christian means, is following Christ, which means self-giving love (mutual aid), and the declaration of the kingdom; that's what congregations did and do. I don't see being a Christian as holding to certain subjective beliefs, I see it as a way of life.
To put it in Catholic terms, give me a Dorthy Day over a Thomas Aquinas any day :).
BTW, I actually like many of the theologians leading up to Vatican 2: Balthazaar, Rahner, BLondell, etc. I haven't read any of the neo-scholastics, but Scotus has actually had a significant impact on my thinking, I would go so far as to say that his "God as First Principle" is one of the best works of natural theology ever made.
You really gonna argue with a guy with a PH.D? on theology? atleast make scholarly contributions and debate linguistics.. actaul linguistics not trinitarian linguistics as Ihave seen someone do for ktizo and an "arian" sense (Get over yourself)
"where is the promise or prophecy in the New Testament that after the death of the apostles, the true Church will disappear for nearly two thousand years?"
1) why does it have to be in the NT? the prophecy for the messiah was in the OT yet fullfilled in the NT... your point is void
2) look at my previous answer
"Unfortunately, this is a conspiracy theory without any evidence." -
Lets take it from the opposite end then the OT emphasises the name and says it would endure forever.
Jesus bought a new covenent not a new religion, else why cite the OT?
We have a form of the name embeded in a word in Rev - Jesus' own name - psalms 110:1 cited many times (I find it difficult to believe that the original quotations didnt use the name)
Why is something that "enduring" forever no longer used by Christianity? (The misinterpretted law is no excuse) even in their own bibles in the Hebrew when it is blatently there.
"and interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old Testament, not the other way around, as it should be." - why not in light of each other?
"For WTS's quotes about the Trinity, I suggest you look them up"
Ill read their actaul litrature thank you - not whatever this abomination is.
(thats actaully spreading misinformation)
"Because it has no role, where did Jesus speak about the name YHWH, which the Jews knew anyway?" -
1) you can claim what you like, how about proving it.
then how do you account for "santifying Gods name"? (cant be his being or authority as for reasons mentioned above)
if you mean "didn't" - thats answered in the NT anyways
if you mean "did" (as is written) to make it endure forever? to name just one good reason
yes it really has no role in the NT when in atleast one place (maybe more) we are told to "call on the name of [divine name]" (unless you want to dispute scholars who say its a quote from Joel)
nope no role at all - name of God is never acknowledged in the NT... rubbish
"Could a convention held in the 1920s with a few thousand people really be the trumpet blast in Revelation 8?" - could a man born out of a place where nothing good comes of (apparently) really be the messiah?
I can ask the same question of alot of things.
could the councels who caused so controversies really be inspired? I doubt that..
"Regarding 1914, I would like to note that you know of only one Watchtower prediction that came true" - they never claimed to get it directly from God himself, so it doesnt matter how many predictions they make - doesnt make them false prophets or anything worse than christendom
as Benjamin Kedar kopfstein pointed out Christendom hehaves no better than the witnesses in some cases. (paraphrase)
Edgar: I know what scripture will be thrown at you - Have fun.
"nor did they have to, in order for Witnesses to be correct about two groups with two eternal destinations." - its obviously 2 groups as one is said to be on earth forever and one in heaven.. the classes are defined in Rev where only the 144,000 can learn the new song.
Dear Mr Foster,
I do not intend to throw mud at all, and I have probably already sufficiently demonstrated that I am well acquainted with your doctrines and your publications.
I checked separately that the Shepherd of Hermas did not say a single word that Jesus was the same as Michael. By the way, the JWs took this teaching from the Adventists, but at the same time they are Trinitarians. There were some Protestant theologians who saw in Michael a type of Jesus, but this was not an actual identification, claiming that Jesus was not a real God but an archangel.
The earliest extrabiblical literature is clear that Jesus was considered God, and that is how the public thought of them, see e.g. Alexamenos graffito.
I don't know what a small-letter god is like, I think that according to the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", such a small god-demigod cannot be interpreted in Christianity. The terminology of Psalm 82, much cited by JWs, is clearly not used in the NT. Another example is that they want to interpret the NT in the light of the OT, and not the other way around, as it should be.
If we take the divinity of the Father as 100%, then what percentage of divinity does the Son possess then? 70? 80? Doesn't the Son possess the fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead (theotes) according to the Scriptures?
For example, Isaiah 44:24 denies that a lesser God apart from Jehovah is also involved in creation. Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8. and the fact that the Father did not create alone, but the Son (Jn 1:1-4, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30) too, and creation is only a divine ability, and even a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation.
This statement is surprising, that you actually admitted that in the apostolic age Christians did not believe in the two-class doctrine of salvation. Can you indicate in which Watchtower publication this was acknowledged?
JWs stands on the ground of Restorationism, that is, it lives from the idea that there was an ancient, pure Christianity, but then it died out in the rapid pace. But Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18 that not even the gates of the 'hades' can gain strength on the 'ekklesia', doesn't that rule it out?
Surely Proverbs 4:18 is about the doctrinal changes of the 'ekklesia', and not about the growing wisdom of the true man, i.e. the individual?
Regarding the deity of the Holy Spirit, see: Acts 5:3-4, 16:6-10, 1 Cor 12:4-6. The Holy Spirit cannot simply be the same as God's force/power, since He also has power himself, cf. Luke 4:14, Romans 15:13,19, 1 Corinthians 2:4. What it means? The power of God's power? Furthermore, it is clear that the Holy Spirit and the power of God are not the same, cf. Lk 1:35, Acts 10:38, 1 Thess 1:5, Zechariah 4:6.
The 'parousia' and Jesus' sitting at the right hand of the Father and occupying the messianic throne are not the same thing. The latter already happened in the apostolic age, i.e. after Jesus' ascension, see: Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 7:55-56, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22.
I think the statement in John 14:19 should not be understood as flattening the promise of Jesus' visible coming, but should be understood in the light of the latter. So this "see me no more" actually means no more until the day of judgment. Especially since the JWs used to understand that the Greek 'kosmos' does not necessarily mean the whole world in an absolute sense, but the given human society.
The Bible uses various expressions for the advent of Jesus, but they all mean the same thing:
* horaó - to see, behold, watch, look (Mt 24:15.30, Mk 13:26, Lk 21:27, Jn 1:39.51, Heb 9:27, 1Jn 3:2). In Revelation 1:7, "every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of Him" clearly refers to physical sight, not "insight." To Greek ears, horaó could only refer to physical sight. The addition ("every eye will see") is a Hebraic phrase, which only reinforces the meaning of physical sight. In Hebrew, the verb usually translated as "see" (rá'áh) means to experience, to feel, or to perceive (e.g., doesn't see life or death). However, if the eye is also mentioned next to the verb, then the expression "every eye will see" refers to physical sight.
* fainó - to appear, become visible (Mt 24:27.30, Mk 16:9, Lk 9:8). According to Mt 24, Jesus' return will be like lightning, which can be seen from one end of the sky to the other (i.e., visible everywhere). The "Sign of the Son of Man" possessive structure has two possible interpretations: "a certain sign of the Son of Man" or "the Son of Man as a sign." The second interpretation is more logical because Jesus returns personally and visibly.
* epiphaneia - appearance, manifestation (1Tim 6:14, 2Tim 4:1, Tit 2:13)
* apokalypsis - revelation, disclosure, becoming visible, observable (1Cor 1:7, 2Thess 1:7)
* parozsia - presence, attendance, coming, visit, appearance (1Cor 15:23, 1Thess 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, 2Thess 2:1,8); Jesus's first "presence" was a perceptible, visible presence, and the second will be the same.
Hello Blogger Nincsnevem,
I have been reading your comments intently.
Can you please address this one fundamental point concerning the term "God" and its usage in the first century and beyond?
Sure, we have the demigods of antiquity from the Greeks and the Romans, but this does not address the Imperial cult and it usage of "God" in the first century.
Please excuse, but for speed I am quoting Wikipedia -
"When the news of his final victory, at the battle of Munda, reached Rome, the Parilia, the games commemorating the founding of the city, were to be held the next day; they were rededicated to Caesar, as if he were founder. Statues were set up to "Caesar's Liberty", and to Caesar himself, as "unconquered god."[37] He was accorded a house at public expense which was built like a temple; his image was paraded with those of the gods;[38] his portrait was put on the coins (the first time a living man had appeared on Roman coinage). Early in 44 BC, he was called parens patriae (father of the country);[39] legal oaths were taken by his Genius; his birthday was made a public festival; the month Quinctilis was renamed July, in his honor (as June was named for Juno). At last a special priest, a flamen, was ordained for him; the first was to be Mark Antony, Caesar's adjutant, then consul. To be served by a flamen would rank Caesar not only as divine, but as an equal of Quirinus, Jupiter, and Mars. In Cicero's hostile account, the living Caesar's honours in Rome were already and unambiguously those of a full-blown god (deus).[40]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_imperial_cult
So please note that that we have first century rulers called "God" and also "Lord" ("Cesar is lord").
Rulers may have been seen as Demigods in the past but by this point in time they got an upgrade strait to "God". By the time of Nero this was no mere feign. He demanded worship.
I can look up more later, but I found these comments interesting from Mark Haukaas, "Indeed, He Is Coming With the Clouds," page 180. See especially the last two sentences:
oJra¿w is used often in the Jesus movement Scriptures to refer to seeing God or Jesus at the cosmic parousia. oJra¿w is used broadly as an eschatological term. For example, oJra¿w is used to refer to the ecclesial parousia in Heb 9:28; 12:14; and 1 John 3:2. The word is also used to refer to the cosmic parousia (Matt 24:30). Therefore, oJra¿w is better viewed as an eschatologically significant word. The view of Rev 1:7 in which every person around the world sees the descent of the small human figure of Jesus in clouds to earth is untenable. This view is a biblicist understanding of this verse that does not accord with the meaning of oJra¿w.
I checked BDAG Greek-English Lexicon and other sources. While many understand ὁράω like Nincsnevem does, this fact does not rule out a figurative understanding for the verb, especially in light of John's wording that the ones who pierced Christ will see him as well. Will they too be on earth?
But if one considers the semantic range for ὁράω, it becomes plain that the vision delineated in Rev. 1:7 need not be literal. Compare Matthew 5:3; 9:30; 26:64; Rev. 11:19; 22:4.
Dear aservantofJehovah,
"We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, *** They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. **** But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble."
("Can it be Delayed Until 1914?", Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894.)
There is an interesting contradiction between the fact that if the prediction does not come true, then the explenation "we did not say that we were inspired" but otherwise they claim that the "faithful and discreet slave" is a prophet class, which the "holy spirit " leads But what kind of spirit-led prophet is he who is not inspired? Furthermore, if a JW dared to dispute the current "lights", could he refer to it before the judicial committee, that since the WTS also said that this is not an inspired interpretation, ergo it should not be taken for granted?
Dear Roman,
I was not talking about a dogmatically developed trinitology, but about whether Jesus was considered a real God or an archangel. Born or created? Is the Holy Spirit a creature or a force? Well, this can be checked quite easily from early Christian extra-biblical sources.
Of course, they did not have a theology developed with doctrinal precision, but not only about the Trinity, but not about anything, since there was not even a fixed NT canon in the first century! The letters of the apostle Paul began to be collected and copied in the second century.
By the way, I feel it is hypocritical that while arguing against the Trinity, WTS publications always begin as follows:
1. The term "Trinity" is not in the Bible - Really not, who said it was? The same can be said about a significant portion of WTS theological jargon.
2. It is not clearly stated in the Bible that "one God in three persons" etc. Yes, but it does not say that the Son is a creature and the Holy Spirit is a force.
In fact, I will go further: NONE of the distinctive views of the WTS are explicitly in the Bible, they all require INTERPRETATION - they themselves do not deny this when we emphasize the need for "spiritual food". It also follows that without the publications of WTS, no one would think of e.g. just reading the Bible. 1914, or the two-class doctrine.
Dear Nincsnevem:
To be clear, I'm not saying that the Shepherd of Hermas does teach that Jesus = Michael but some scholars have suggested that possible identification. Please see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/01/cardinal-jean-danielou-on.html
I don't have time to go into it now, but I'm familiar with the Alexamenos graffito.
The NT fulfills the OT: that is how Jehovah's Witnesses understand the relationship between the two testaments. We are not trying to privilege the OT above the NT or any similar move but all of the prophets (even OT) bear witness to Christ. To understand the Witness belief about Christ as "a deity/god," think of the angels whom the OT calls "elohim" or gods, mighty ones.
You ask: Doesn't the Son possess the fullness (pleroma) of the Godhead (theotes) according to the Scriptures?
Who elevated the Christ to possess the fullness of theotes? Whose good pleasure was it for the Son to be in that position? And what about Christians who share in the divine nature? 2 Peter 1:4
You continue: For example, Isaiah 44:24 denies that a lesser God apart from Jehovah is also involved in creation. Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8. and the fact that the Father did not create alone, but the Son (Jn 1:1-4, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30) too,
Isaiah 44:24 must be read in context: it does not prevent an angel from sharing in the creative works of God. The context is about rival deities of the nations and that Hebrew word translated "alone" does not necessarily rule out YHWH having a helper in creation. See also Proverbs 8:22-31. I think Irenaeus of Lyons likewise posited that the angels shared in the creation of all things. But I'm going from memory there.
You assert that a creature cannot be made an instrument of creation. That's an opinion, not an ironclad fact.
"This statement is surprising, that you actually admitted that in the apostolic age Christians did not believe in the two-class doctrine of salvation. Can you indicate in which Watchtower publication this was acknowledged?"
I can supply some info for you, but this belief has been discussed in plenty of our journals. This does not mean that we are saying the idea is unbiblical, but the question is whether the early Christians taught two classes or two hopes.
You keep insisting that JWs believe Christianity died out, then was restored. I'm not sure that the best way to understand our position. Did Christianity completely die out? Is that what JWs teach?
The holy spirit i never called "God" in Scripture. Not even Acts 5:3-4 supports your point. Read Karl Rahner, who acknowledged this datum though he was a staunch Trinitarian.
Dear Anonymous,
so someone who doesn't have a PhD in theology can't even have a discourse with him? Hmm, well, a researcher knows best that scientific methodology doesn't work like that. WTS is unlikely to reject this argument. By the way, if you are interested, I have a doctorate, although not in theology.
I asked this:
"where is the promise or prophecy in the New Testament that after the death of the apostles, the true Church will disappear for nearly two thousand years?"
You answered this:
"why does it have to be in the NT?"
Because the statements about the NT 'ekklesia' should be in the NT, all those in the OT that refer to the 'qahal' of Israel cannot be transferred one by one to the NT 'ekklesia', the permanent allegorizing and typology of the WTS is anything but a certain principle of Scripture interpretation.
"the prophecy for the messiah was in the OT yet fulfilled in the NT" - That is true, but what will be the fate of the NT 'ekklesia', well, shouldn't the NT say something about that?
In the first place, why did the apostles found churches, if true Christianity was destined to disappear in a few decades for almost two thousand years. Why didn't the apostles write that everyone should wait for 1914, because what we are doing now is irrelevant anyway.
""Unfortunately, this is a conspiracy theory without any evidence." -
Let's take it from the opposite end then the OT emphasizes the name and says it would endure forever."
Ad 1. The fact that the Tetragrammaton no longer has a role in the theological environment of the NT, it still endures.
Ad 2. You remain "forever", well, you used to emphasize that when Micah 5:2 uses the term "olawm" for the origin of the Son, it does not necessarily mean absolute eternity. And indeed the Scriptures also say that the old covenant also applies "forever", but it doesn't.
In fact, Christianity is a very qualitatively new religion compared to the Israel of the OT. I did not say that the OT could not be quoted, but it must be taken into account that the center of Christian revelation is Christ, and everything is interpreted through this. So we do not interpret the NT in the light of the OT, but vice versa.
Since it is undeniable that the YHWH name does not appear in the existing manuscripts of the New Testament, apart from the four Hallelujahs*, but only the transcription of Kyrios (Lord), what prevents us from keeping these in the translations of the New Testament? The fact that the New Testament writers (following the Septuagint) grecianized the names of Jeremiah and Jesus, why wouldn't we accept their grecianization of the YHWH name into "Kyrios" as well? And it can't be argued against this that "apostate copyists left out the YHWH name from the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament", because 1. there is no evidence for this, 2. why couldn't anyone say that "then let's also restore the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in the New Testament to Hebrew!"?
* According to this, those "apostate copyists" were not vigilant enough to weed this out as well. These four examples actually weaken the JW's case, because while it preserves the name 'Yah' in the New Testament in a liturgical formula, it's not a pervasive use. So the copyists could not have been led by superstition or pagan prejudice, as JWs are prone to presume.
"psalms 110:1 cited many times (I find it difficult to believe that the original quotations didn't use the name)" - The fact that it is "difficult" for you to believe is also the fact that there is no concrete evidence to support this . For example, Origen and Jerome report that they know the name YHWH in the Old Testament, but neither they (nor anyone else) have seen an NT manuscript containing it. However, the oldest biblical manuscripts were kept in the library of Caesarea Maritima (until the Muslims destroyed it in the 7th century).
Nincsnevem,
Regarding your question about the two hopes, please see https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993014
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1964442?q=progressive&p=par
"then how do you account for "sanctifying Gods name"?" - This clearly means that God himself should be sanctified, it has nothing to do with the Tetragrammaton. The term "onoma" (="name") denotes the person, e.g. Acts 1:15: "the number of names" = "the number of people". First of all: why does the Lord's Prayer begin with "Our Father" instead of "Our Jehovah?".
In the same way, "calling on the name of God" does not mean pronouncing a chord, but calling on God himself. With such power cannot the mutes be saved?
"ould the counsels who caused so controversies really be inspired? I doubt that.." - 1. The COUNCILS (pay attention to the spelling) did not cause controversies, but ended them. 2. No one said they were "inspired" but that they were infallible, the two are not the same.
"they never claimed to get it directly from God himself, so it doesnt matter how many predictions they make" - This is good, so they can say whatever they want, and as long as the current "light" is in force, they can disfellowship their members for denying them, but they don't have to to take responsibility for the statements because they did not say they came from God.
"doesnt make them false prophets" - In fact, you can read the definition of a "false prophet" in the Bible: Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
"Christendom has no better than the witnesses in some cases." - This is also a joke, so you are good because we are also bad. Ever heard of the "te quoque" argument?
"its obviously 2 groups as one is said to be on earth forever and one in heaven" - In fact, the NT never speaks of "two classes", the present earth will be consumed by fire, and the new heaven, the heavenly Jerusalem, will descend to earth and it will not exclude JW's earthly class, but the wicked.
I recommend these links:
* https://jpst.it/3j5g9
* https://shorturl.at/axJR2
* https://docdro.id/v8YgOqs
Dear Mr. Foster.
According to the traditional interpretation of Revelation 1:7, "those who pierced him and all peoples on earth" means that the Jews (= those who pierced him) and Gentiles (= all the peoples of the earth) will see him.
Dear Mr. Foster,
Proverbs 4:18 "light of dawn" marks the path of the righteous man as he becomes more and more obedient to God's commandments and the way he lives a virtuous life. There is no reason to claim that this passage deals with a growing understanding of Bible prophecy.
Would Orthodox Christians really be in the dark because they today hold the same beliefs that they held centuries ago? Are we in darkness because we miss the "new light" from God? Is this what Proverbs 4:18 really means?
Not at all! Jesus Christ is "the true light that gives light to all kinds of people." (John 1:9) Those who come to Christ are in light. What greater light could there be elsewhere? The context of Proverbs 4:18 contrasts the path of light (the enlightened) with the "path of the wicked." (verse 14) “And the way of the wicked is like darkness; they do not know what they are constantly stumbling over.” (verse 19) This does not mean that the righteous will stumble in the wrong direction until they receive "new light" that will set them straight.
Dear Mr. Foster,
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002178
"No matter what the particular means employed for the transmission of the messages, all parts of the Scriptures would be of the same quality, all of them being inspired, or “God-breathed.”"
In other words, they declare that the OT has the "same authority" as the NT, well this is hermeneutically nonsense. They mix up the entirely correct statement that all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16) with the false conclusion that therefore all parts are equally valuable, of equal weight. This viewpoint results in neglecting the history of salvation, as well as deviating from Christ as the center of Scripture towards primarily eschatological side tracks. Just as stones are extracted from a quarry, revelations are drawn from the most diverse places in the Bible and - mostly without regard to context and the circumstances of origin - are freely combined. That's why they hardly make a distinction between the Old and New Testaments, between promise and fulfillment, in fact, they reject the terms Old and New Testament, replacing them with "Hebrew Scriptures" and "Christian Greek Scriptures". This gives rise to interpretive absurdities, that they want to flatten the concrete words of the apostle with excerpted quotes from the book of Psalms.
"think of the angels whom the OT calls "elohim" or gods, mighty ones" - And how clear was this usage even in the time of the Old Testament, especially the New Testament? How do we know that the Son is only "theos" in this sense?
The New Testament was not only a new order of salvation, but was embodied in another civilization, the Hellenic world, where Psalm 82 was hardly known. In Greek, many terms would have been suitable for denoting a lesser category of divinity instead of "theos". I note that Jesus' divinity is not only acknowledged by referring to the fact that he is called "theos", but attributes to him that can only characterize the true God. Col 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes), not just some kind of demigod, lesser god ("a god") "quality".
Between theotes and theIotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousios and homoIousios. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first in Colossians 2:9. Just like in 2 Peter 1:4: "theias koinōnoi physeōs". So it is correct to translate this as "divine nature", and theotes should have been 'deity', the WTS bias is obvious.
The 'theotes' used in Colossians 2:9 comes from the term 'theos' (=God), the "-tes" is the same adjectival suffix as -(i)ty,- ship in English. So 'theotes' means 'godship', 'being of god', 'deity', 'goodhead'. And 'theIotes' comes from the term 'theIos', which means divine, godlike. The resulting 'theiotes' is therefore godlikeness, likeness to God. But this is not the only argument, but that the apostle Paul speaks not only of some kind of divinity, godlikenesss, but of "the fullness (pleroma) of the the deity", so that the Son did not only have some semi-divine nature, but the same divine reality as in the Father, moreover completely, since the The Father begot the Son from himself, from his own hypostasis (cf. Hebrews 1:3).
(to be continued)
In addition to the fact that the Nicene Christology also affirms that the Son received both his existence and divinity from the Father (however, not in time and not in an accidental way, which can be peeled off from him, in an ontologically inferior way), the 1:19 cited here by the Watchtower, the Greek text has no trace of it being an accidental will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai". This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do.
Isaiah 44:24 excludes not only non-existent false gods, but everything and everyone else's participation in creation. Howerer JWs reinterpret the words, the meaning of birth/begetting would be "direct creation" and from creation to "indirect creation." But the passages I quoted prove that there is no such thing as "indirect creation" in the Scriptures, which God would do through a creature! There is a kind of creation that God does "alone," "by himself", "with his own hands", he is not "helped" by some demigod or angel in any way!
So there is only one kind of creation, the "direct" creation. Therefore, if the Son participates (and not "just" "participates", cf. Hebrews 1:10) in creation, it is only possible if it happens WITHIN the one Godhead. In comparison, the birth/begetting of the Son is something qualitatively different, which has nothing to do with creation.
By the way, not only the Scriptures but also logic excludes the possibility of a creature contributing to creation anyhow.
"You keep insisting that JWs believe Christianity died out, then was restored. I'm not sure that's the best way to understand our position." - Well, if they didn't die out, then where were the JW-like Christians in 738 or 1142?
The creation of the world is an exclusive divine activity. God is the one principle of everything, the creator of everything. This is denied by the Gnostics and all kinds of other dualists, who place a world-creating demiurge between the absolutely supreme and holy God and the completely evil matter, who then, as a creature, carries out creative activity.
The Church Fathers first proclaimed the Christian truth against the Gnostic demiurge (Iren. II 1-3; IV 21, 1). However, their main argument against the Arians was: The Word (whom they call a creature) created the world, therefore it must be God; a creature cannot create (Athanas. Ctra Arian. II 21 24; Nyssen. Eunom. II (M 45, 512c); Cyril. Al. C. Iulian. II.). Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1).
No existing or possible created being can possess creative power, not even in a supernatural way. For the creative activity presupposes infinite power. Because a) it creates something against nothing, which is separated from nothing by an infinite distance; bridging this infinite distance demands infinite power. b) Creation is directed towards being itself, the most universal reality, without any limitation from determinations and pre-existing matter; therefore, it is essentially unlimited power: whoever can create something can create anything at will. However, finite creatures cannot accept infinite capacity as a determinant of existence or as an accessory: the extent of the receiving subject sets a limit to the content of being that can be accepted; an infinite ocean cannot be poured into a finite container.
Moreover, a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation. Because
a) the task of the instrument is to prepare the material for the acceptance of the activity of the principal cause. But creation does not aim at existing matter; therefore, there is no exercise area (materia circa quam) for its operation. Most importantly,
b) the instrumental causes must receive motion from the principal cause and transmit it to the matter, which must be shaped according to the intention of the principal cause. However, a finite creature, as such, is incapable of taking up and carrying the creative activity with infinite content, just as a stone or log is incapable of being the substantial carrier of spiritual activity, even in a supernatural way.
This won't be the first time I disagree with Karl Rahner and it won't be the last :)
If the Father created by actually doing it through an "agent", who is not one God with him, then he did not create "alone". If I build my house through an "agent", then I did not build my house "alone". And the Scripture itself uses the analogy of building a house for creation: Hebrews 3:4.
Genesis 1:26 - God does not speak to the angels, but it is either a plural of majesty (as 'Elohim' is also plural), or to the Son, who is not "of the angels". Augustine vigorously opposed Philo's explanation that at the beginning of Scripture (Gen 1:20-26) God would have called on the angels to be his helpers in creation (August. Gen. ad litt. IX 15, 26 - 28 Civ. Dei XII 24; Trin. III 8, 13; cf. already Iren. I 22, 1; II 2, 4; IV 20, 1). Even the WTS didn't claim this either. Nowhere do we find angels involved in any type of creation. According to the Bible, angels are created beings, not co-creators with God. The psalmist wrote:
"Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts . . . Let them praise the Lord for He commanded and they were created" (Psalm 148:2,5).
Genesis 1:26 has a possible Trinitarian interpretation, since the one to whom he first spoke (the Son) is God as well as the Father - since it is written that in the image of God, and the expression "in our image" extends the deity to the addressed. The Bible specifically states that only YHWH God created, thereby excluding all things other than YHWH from participating in creation. Thus, if the Son is said to be the creator, then we must place him within God, not outside. If the mason was helped by an assistant to build, then it can no longer be said of the mason that he alone built the house. And that's exactly what we're talking about here. Only God created, yet there are several persons, so these persons must be placed within the one God, otherwise it would be a self-contradiction.
Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly distinguishes the Son from "all the angels" (v14: "Are not all angels ministering spirits ...?"), so He can't be one of them, but superior to all of them.
Dear Nincsnevem,
I disagree with nearly everything you've written, but I checked on Irenaeus and he did not believe that angels were co-creators, so I stand corrected on that point. However, Paul Blowers does make some points about Origen of Alexandria and the spirit of God. He writes (Drama of the Divine Economy, page 287):
These criticisms are hard fully to sustain since Origen expressly refers to the Spirit as an hypostasis alongside the Father and the Son,193 and defends the Spirit’s hypostatic identity from critics who referred to the Spirit purely as an “activity” (K æª ØÆ) of God.194
To be sure, there are significant interpretive hurdles if the a priori theological assumption is that a created Spirit could never authentically have aided in the divine work of creating and sustaining the world. Desiring to elevate the Holy Spirit above creatures, Origen identifies the Spirit as the preeminent “creature” of the Father “through the Logos,”195 and, while elsewhere he calls the Spirit “uncreated” on a par with the Father and the Son, it is likely by the corrective pen of his Latin translator Rufinus.196 In the earlier, apocalyptic text of the Ascension of Isaiah (early second century), the Holy Spirit is regularly designated an exalted “angel” and, though worthy of worship, is placed in a patently subordinate position to Christ as well as to the Father.197 Ultimately, however, we must look past the relative subordinationism in pre-Nicene treatments of the Spirit if we are to engage the positive contributions of second- and third-century theologians to the exegesis of the Bible’s complex and richly evocative language of the workings of the Holy Spirit, including the Spirit’s activity in creation.
So many errors to correct, so little time:
Some persons divide the Bible up into two “Testaments,” and claim that the “Old Testament” is not of equal value with the “New Testament.” But this is not so, for it is all one Bible. Also, by “testament” is meant a covenant and there are more covenants than just two in the Bible. It is preferable, therefore, to speak of the two parts of the Bible as the “Hebrew Scriptures” and the “Greek Scriptures,” as these were the original languages in which most of the Bible was written. The Hebrew Scriptures are an essential background for fully understanding the Greek Scriptures, and the Greek Scriptures are an extension of the Hebrew Scriptures, showing their fulfillment. Each one of the sixty-six “little books” makes its contribution toward rounding out our understanding of the purpose of mankind’s Creator.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101976002?q=hebrew+bible+equal&p=par
If Witnesses treat the OT and NT exactly the same, then why aren't we offering animal sacrifices, going to a Jewish temple (rebuilt), and sticking to the Decalogue? It's quite ridiculous to insist that we do not differentiate promise from fulfillment. We treat the OT and NT with equal authortity insofar as both testaments are inspired or have their origin in the breath of God.
Hi Edgar,
Thank you for letting me respond to what is stated by Mr. Nincsnevem.
Actually the apostles clearly explained who Jesus was, and is. Paul clearly explains he had a prehuman existence, that he came to earth to die for all of us as a ransom, that he was raised back to life, that he appeared before more than 500 followers, that he returned
to his father in heaven. The 1st Century Christians had a clear biblical understanding as to who Jesus was, it is crystal clear. I am amazed that you insult the apostles by saying they did not clearly identify who Jesus is. Again to the Corinthians at chapter 11 not to accept another teaching about the Christ because they wanted to accept something not explained by Paul, again he warned against it.
1.The earliest extra biblical sources don't all agree with what you said about Jesus.
But really you are missing my point, so I will say it again. Jehovah's Witnesses believe what the 1st century Christian believe when it comes to Jesus, there is no 1 of 3 person of God as a teaching among 1st century Christians. They don't loose out on salvation because of it. And neither will JW's.
You seem to think that the church was okay to go beyond the things written in the bible. The bible the word of God is closed at 66 books. No extra teaching of "Good News" about God and his son Christ Jesus is acceptable. What Paul said stands. He never taught a trinity of God. No one in the 1st Century believed in a trinity of God. There is no proof for it in any 1st Century writings and as for the apostasy, that begins at the start of the removal of the restraint as Paul said. After the last of the apostles died and the canon of the bible is finished. That is from the second century onward to the time of the end.
2.If it's not in the bible it is not from God.
Dear Mr Foster,
furthermore, I claim that you attribute too much importance to certain isolated statements of Origen. You can read The Fifth Ecumenical Council's anathemas against Origen, you won't find anything you expect. All in all, Origen was indeed a trinitarian, so some confused speculation should not be given importance:
"And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: "Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."(3) For who else was "He which is to come" than Christ? And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father , that the Savior is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also cared omnipotent." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)
"Saving baptism was not completed except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 2)
See also Check also: De Principiis IV.27, I.6, II.2.2, II.4.3, and also:
https://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/origens_christology.htm
Athanasius specifically reproached the Arians for not being able to refer to any church fathers.
The distinction between the Old Testament and the New Testament is indeed legitimate, even justified. Your terminology ("Hebrew" or "Greek Scriptures") makes it seem as if there is only a difference in the language of the text, although this is not true. There is a qualitative difference between the two, and we interpret the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. The apostle Paul himself said that the Old Testament statement was "veiled". And as the WTS publication quote above shows, it is clear that JWs give "equal authority" to the two. This is why they want to flatten the completely unambiguous statements of the apostles with quotations taken from the Old Testament, particularly from the wisdom literature, and the book of Psalms. However, this is exaggerative nonsense, there are different genres in the Bible, and the literary genre of the given book must also be taken into account. For a Christian, the New Testament is a new order of salvation and is qualitatively superior to the OT. This is problematic even if you are not really keepers of the Mosaic Law, but remember that your denomination developed from Sabbath-keeping Adventists, so this approach is not foreign.
Dear Philip Fletcher,
The apostle Paul not only taught in his letters about Jesus that he "had a prehuman existence", but also that he existed in the form of God (no one ever claimed this about angels) and used the term THEOS for the Son completely freely, all this to the congregations made of gentiles freshly converted from paganism in letters written without making it clear that this particular THEOS really only means archangel. Moreover, if we also attribute the letter to the Hebrews to the apostle Paul, then it becomes clear already in the first chapter that the Son cannot be an angel.
I never said that the Church "went beyond" the Bible, but probably your denomination also preaches as doctrines that are not explicitly in the Bible, but were formed by reading several passages of the Bible together, through INTERPRETATION.
It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1800 years...
"so someone who doesn't have a PhD in theology can't even have a discourse with him?" - I said about debating linguistics verses theology.Nothing more.
" I have a doctorate" -then you would know debating lingustics is better than debating theology.
"Because the statements about the NT 'ekklesia' should be in the NT" - why? prophecys about future times should also be in the NT but they are also in the OT.. How something "should" be vs How it "is" are 2 totally seperate things.. and if Jesus' statements cant be connected back the OT then nothing in the NT can.
"the OT that refer to the 'qahal' of Israel cannot be transferred one by one to the NT 'ekklesia'" - this is an opinion, you havent proved it
"The fact that the Tetragrammaton no longer has a role in the theological environment of the NT, it still endures." - How can it endure if it has no role in the theological environment? it would by definition die out therefore not endure.
you claim it had not role but fail to prove otherwise, your only evidence is the model prayer (flawed argument) and the fact that it is not presently in NT manuscripts - yet We have ones like Greg Stafford (Who I know some witnesses) dont like admitting he did an excellent peace of scholarship when it came to the divine name in the NT.
you should also see: Lev 22:32, Isaiah 5:16, Ezekiel 36:23
Constables notes in the NET bible states:
The clause “hallowed be your name” means “may everyone regard your name as holy” (cf. Lev. 22:32; Ps. 79:9; 111:9; Isa. 29:23). God’s name is essentially the sum of His attributes, and effectively it is His reputation among people. [he cites the same verses]
Modern scholarship is in disagreement with your position
"2. why couldn't anyone say that "then let's also restore the names of Jeremiah and Jesus in the New Testament to Hebrew!"?" - because its a different case, you have a doctorate (or so you claim)
So heres a question for you, Do you know anything ahout translation? if so you would soon realise your answer.
- Tell me the Greek translation for the divine name
- Jesus and Jerimiah (Greek forms of the names) are the NT, so no need to restore them.
"The fact that it is "difficult" for you to believe is also the fact that there is no concrete evidence to support this ." - shall we just point out 1 Corinthians 2:16 - you will have to convince me (& stafford) that the writiers would not have seen a contridiction in this scripture if the name wasnt present originally. because "christ" was not originally present (going by my own research and staffords book)
1 Corinthians 2:16 A is a quote (IMO paraphrase) from Isaiah 40:13 Where the name is present (obviosuly would be translated kurios)
Why wouldnt Jesus' closest followers when quoting the OT write the name in the quotes? give me one solid (scholarly) reason.
"that God himself should be sanctified" - God is already santified though... his name (Jehovah, YHWH or whatever) has been slandered..
"The term "onoma" (="name") denotes the person" - really? modern and early scholarship would disagree this is the only definiton to the word..
"You remain "forever", well, you used to emphasize that when Micah 5:2 uses the term "olawm" for the origin of the Son, it does not necessarily mean absolute eternity. And indeed the Scriptures also say that the old covenant also applies "forever", but it doesn't."
- once again slightly different, I have never made such an argument to you. I dont even know you, though Iv seen people make similar arguments (who are certainly not you).
you should read scholarly material to see what the difference is.
Its obvious that the Sons origin is not from eternity due to Rev 3:14 and Johns usage of words, even the BDAG concedes on this fact
Its also funny John doesnt just use the words he had at his disposale to designate the trinitarian meaning.. hE could of jus used the accusative like he did in 1:5
Why are trinitarian bibles linking Prov 8:30 with Rev 3:14 if the son is the origin (or source) of creation? proving rightly he has a starting point
Why is the passive verb used of the son and not "ek" (unlike 1 Corin 8:6)?
" did not cause controversies, but ended them." - did they? I can cite multiple sources that state otherwise. and take this statement in its context please.
(I really dont care about spelling)
e.g They never said Prov 8 didnt apply to Jesus, just the word ktizo was under inspection - Im guessing you say this doesnt represent or refer to Jesus at all, welp
"why does the Lord's Prayer begin with "Our Father" instead of "Our Jehovah?"" - because "our Jehovah" makes no sense... and the clause on names would eliminate almost any confusion
"Deuteronomy 18:20-22" - states
"But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded"
"If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
"
Tell me where has the WT said they spoke something in Gods name? they never did the one time they used the word prophet they had it in " " meaning it doesnt literally mean what the word says - english idoim
"so they can say whatever they want, and as long as the current "light" is in force, they can disfellowship their members for denying them, but they don't have to to take responsibility for the statements because they did not say they came from God."
- Where did you learn this? this has never been a thing - They dont disfellowship just because somoene disagrees with them, I know this because I know acouple of witnesses who are iffy on a couple of things openly.
maybe actaully get credible sources before slandering an organisation please (so far all your soures are A] not credible and B] obviously malicious and manupalative)
Who said they dont have to take responsibilty for their statements? not me, they just arent false prophets as alot of people have proven and even then wouldnt make all of Jehovahs people false prophets either
"In fact, the NT never speaks of "two classes"," - explain away the 144,000 being the only ones who can learn the new song then.. clearly 2 seperate groups.. no the NT doesnt say explictly "two seperate groups" but nor does it define the trinity explicitly rather implying it in multple places (according to trinitarians) The implication is there based on locational comments (Some on earth others in heaven) and the classes people are put into.
add on:
"It is still not clear where in the New Testament it is prophesied that as soon as the apostles die, the ekklesia can close the curtain, see you in 1800 years..."
you claim to be having "a discourse" with Edgar, he has cited multiple places the Watchtowers position, others have provided reasons why this would be perfectly viable. - you can say its not valid frankly multiple things you state are in conflict with modern scholarship so I take your word for almost nothing.
Why would they set up the church before 1914? use a braincell, you apparently have a qualification, your smart - work it out, its childs play.
Moses is called Theos
Exodus ch.7:1KJV"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a God to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. "
The God and Father of Jesus is a distinct God according to scripture and not merely a distinct person a clear falsification of the Nicene creed.
John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
There is no claim that there would be no individuals that JEHOVAH Would Judge worthy of his kingdom for 1800 years following the death of the apostles but that these minority wheat would be in between a majority of weeds.
Matthew ch.13:25-30
Note the concealing of the minority by the majority is to continue until the harvest i.e the endtimes and then a separation by the angels precedes an execution of judgment. The late 1800s is when the separating began.
BTW angels are called Gods in scripture
Psalms ch.8:5 "morphe," does not necessarily imply identical nature
Isaiah ch.44:13NIV"The carpenter measures with a line
and makes an outline with a marker;
he roughs it out with chisels
and marks it with compasses.
He shapes it in human form(Morphe),
human form(morphe) in all its glory,
that it may dwell in a shrine."
Dear Anonymous,
""the statements about the NT 'ekklesia' should be in the NT" - why? prophecies about future times should also be in the NT but they are also in the OT." - The prophecies of the OT are directed to the Incarnation of Christ and the redemption of humanity. The preparation of the Old Testament was aimed at the preparation of Christ's redemption. But which Old Testament prophecy foretells the 1,800-year gap for the ekklesia?
""the OT that refer to the 'qahal' of Israel cannot be transferred one by one to the NT 'ekklesia'" - this is an opinion, you havent proved it" - The basic principle of hermeneutics is that typology cannot explain everything, because a slippery terrain. Let me list how many and how many absurd conclusions it would lead to if we were to look for the New Testament equivalent of every Old Testament statement? In the course of church history, allegorizing explainers have reached quite interesting results.
""The fact that the Tetragrammaton no longer has a role in the theological environment of the NT, it still endures." - How can it endure if it has no role in the theological environment?" - YHWH did not die out because we don't use it in the NT, it is painted on many churches, it appears in theology books, catechisms, but it has no current relevance.
It was also prophesied about the Old Testament, repeatedly, that it would remain forever; and yet gave way to the new. The Hebrew word ‘olahm’, translated ‘forever’ clearly doesn’t always mean literal future infinity—although in some places it can have that sense. It is used in places to describe the past; events of a long time ago, but not events that happened an ‘infinitely long time’ ago. It describes the time of a previous generation;[Deut. 32:7] [Job 22:15] to the time just before the exile of Judah;[Is. 58:12] [61:4] [Mic. 7:14] [Mal. 3:4] to the time of the Exodus [1 Sam. 27:8] [Is. 51:9] [63:9] to the time just before the flood.[Gen. 6:4]
"your only evidence is the model prayer" - No, but the testimony of all existing New Testament manuscripts and all early Christian sources.
The Watchtower emphasizes that God's word is intact, the available copies and manuscripts are authentic and reliable. This is what they assert, see the links above! Then, when it comes to the alleged "erasing" of "Jehovah" from the New Testament, are these very same manuscripts no longer reliable? Since there is no evidence for this theory (only speculation), this is both a conspiracy theory and undermines the credibility of the New Testament: if the text was falsified in this respect, how do we know that it was only in this respect?
The WTS quotes Kurt Aland, obviously agreeing with it: "the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero".
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200270810
On the one hand, they emphasize here that the text of the Holy Scriptures has survived authentically, without falsification, we can trust the surviving manuscripts, but at the same time they spread the conspiracy theory that ALL the manuscripts regarding the alleged "Jehovah" in the New Testament have been falsified.
The "hallowed be thy name" part of the Lord's Prayer has nothing to do with "using" the name YHWH.
" In the First Petition: Hallowed be Thy Name, we ask that God may be known, loved, honored and served by the whole world and by ourselves in particular. [...] We first of all ask that the Name of God may be sanctified, because the glory of God should be closer to our hearts than all other goods and interests." (Catechism of St. Pius X)
The "model prayer" is of course just a WTS jargon word, it has a nice traditional name too: Lord's Prayer or Our Father. Interestingly, they do not insist on the "usual", "established", "accepted" form, as they throw around these magic words in defense of the erroneous "Jehovah" form.
The meaning of "hallowed be thy name" is: 'let your infinite majesty and perfection be recognized everywhere' (cf. Is 29:23; 48:11; Ez 36:23; 39:7; cf. Lk 1:49).
The word "to sanctify" is not in the optative, but in the imperative mood, and it does not ask man, but God for something. Literally translated: "Let thy name be made holy" by God, i.e. let God make it holy among people, so that finally His royal rule may come, and His will may be done on earth as it is in heaven (Mt 6:9-10). In the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:9, Lk 11:2) this request: "Hallowed be thy name" means: the strong and omnipotent, the gracious and loving Heavenly Father, in a personally and also humanly understandable way, should take into his hands the straightening out of this inexplicably mixed up, headless, and unbridled world.
Jesus did not start the prayer with "Jehovah", so "your name" here is not meant to encourage some JW-like emphasis on Jehovah, because the word "name" is to be understood as "person" or "being" itself, as the New Testament testifies.
In the New Testament, the name (onoma) means the same as the person; in English, the meaning of the word person is: an individual being with individual features, self, existence. The Hebrew and Greek languages, not having a word corresponding to the English "person", express the concept denoted by the word person with the word name. Therefore, for example, when Psalm 75:8 says, "We honor you, God: your name is near," it means: thank you for being personally close to us. Or in Psalm 116:4: "I called upon the name of the Lord for help" means: I appealed to the Lord, I took my case directly before His person, I appealed to Him. Or in Psalm 118:26: "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (Mt 21:9, Mk 11:9, Lk 19:38, Jn 12:13, Mt 23:39, Lk 13:35) this means: blessed is he who comes with a commission from the Lord, as His representative. In Acts 1:15, however, the literal translation is: "There were many names there, about one hundred and twenty"; meaning: "There were about one hundred and twenty people gathered there". (So here again the name means the same as: person or man.) In Acts 3:16, this sentence: "This man was healed by the name of Jesus" means: Jesus healed him personally. In Mt 28:19, however, the 'eis to onoma' expression can be translated as: to his name, or: in his name, or: by his name, each of its meanings is essentially this: through baptism, the child is brought into direct contact with the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Acts 4:11-12 says: "…this Jesus has become the cornerstone, and no one else can be saved by him; for there is no other name given under heaven by which we could be saved"; this means: Apart from Christ Jesus, there is no other person who could save humanity. In the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:9, Lk 11:2) this request: "Hallowed be Thy name" means: the strong and omnipotent, the gracious and loving Heavenly Father, in a way that is personally and also humanly comprehensible, should take into His hands the straightening out of this inexplicably mixed up, headless, and unbridled world. - This is how the word "name" should be understood in the New Testament in 228 places.
The names of Jeremiah and the other Old Testament people are not "nomina sacra", so there is no obstacle to change the form there. Furthermore, there is a biblical precedent for the transliteration of other biblical names (including that of Jesus): his original Hebrew/Aramaic name (Yeshua) was already transliterated into Greek by the apostolic writers of the New Testament: Iesous. So the name of Jesus is legitimately transliterated to "Jesus" in English, but the Hebrew name YHWH was never Greekized, etc., so it should not be transliterated that way.
"Why wouldn't Jesus' closest followers when quoting the OT write the name in the quotes?" - Because in this regard, they did not dispute the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the name, they did not protest against it, since it has no significance in the changed theological climate of the NT. Furthermore: the name Jehovah appears 237 times in the "Christian Greek Scriptures" of the NWT, of which 82 are quotes from the Old Testament that contain YHWH, but the other 155 cases were chosen completely arbitrarily.
"its obvious that the Sons origin is not from eternity due to Rev 3:14" - No, because "arche" in Greek thinking is not understood in the sense of "the first in line", "beginner in the time", but primordial principle, source, etc.
Applying Proverbs 8 as a typology to Jesus is not a litral identification, so it cannot be used to support doctrine. A more accurate translation of 'qanani' is 'ektesato me', as rendered by Philo, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.
"Why is the passive verb used of the son" - It's not a problem, the Trinitarian formula used in early Christian doxologies spread quite early; the coordinate form (glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit) is no later in origin than the subordinate (glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit). Such doxologies often conclude the authentic martyrdom acts of the 2nd century (See e.g., Acta Polycarpi 14, 3), in which we also read that the martyrs confessed the Trinity in front of their tormentors. A significant illumination of the practice of believers is the beginning of a hymn from the 2nd or 3rd century: "At sunset, at the sight of the evening star, we chant a hymn to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". (Routh Reliqu. sacr. III 1846 p. 515.)
"" did not cause controversies, but ended them." - did they? I can cite multiple sources that state otherwise. and take this statement in its context please." - Yes, the Council of Constantinople ended the Arian crisis, at least in the core areas of the Roman Empire, where it caused serious ecclesiastical and social problems.
"(I really don't care about spelling)" - I think you should, should I quote the WTS publications, why is it important to make a good impression during the "preaching service"? Good spelling is a basic element of a good impression and education, especially if it is confusing, it is not acceptable.
""why does the Lord's Prayer begin with "Our Father" instead of "Our Jehovah?"" - because "our Jehovah" makes no sense..." - What an excuse, then it could still be "Dear Jehovah, our Father ", etc., right? The point is that Jesus nowhere speaks of the name YHWH, Jesus used the name Father. Jesus never said that he came to make known the name Yahweh or Jehovah among people. He was sent only to the house of Israel, they already knew this name. The name he proclaimed was the Father. God has many names, Yahweh is just one of them. The Father is indeed a name. You too were baptized in this name, and every genus/ fatherhood (patria) in heaven and on earth takes its name from this name.
"Tell me where has the WT said they spoke something in Gods name?" - For example here:
"We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we change them if we would, *** They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours. **** But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of the trouble."
("Can it be Delayed Until 1914?", Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894.)
"They dont disfellowship just because somoene disagrees with them" - The owner of the blog forbade me to mark what constitutes grounds for disfellowshipping within the JW denomination, the point is, but: I know of cases where people were excommunicated because of the denial of 1975 or 1914. So, as long as the current "light" is in effect, you cannot refer to the judicial committee that "but since the WTS itself said that this is not an inspired interpretation!".
"Who said they don't have to take responsibility for their statements?" - They never said "sorry, we screwed up", but covertly told that the membership had "overheated" expectations. But why did they have? On their own?
""In fact, the NT never speaks of "two classes", - explain away the 144,000 being" - Read at Revelation 22:15, who will be left out of the new heavenly Jerusalem descended to earth, well, not some kind of secondary salvation class. They received three links on the criticism of the two-class doctrine of salvation, which analyzes the key passages cited by JW.
"no the NT doesn't say explicitly "two seperate groups" but nor does it define the trinity explicitly rather implying it in multiple places (according to trinitarians)" - Indeed, but then it should not be argued that if it is not explicit, then it cannot be in it, in terms of content, after all, your distinctive teachings are not in it either, but can only be put together with FDS interpretation.
"Why would they set up the church before 1914?" - Because according to the New Testament the 'ekklesia' was established on Pentecost of 33 AD, not in the 19th or 20th century. Well, where did it go? Did the cat take it away?
Dear servant of Jehovah,
"Moses is called Theos" - Nope, Moses was called "elohim" at most, which is a word with a much more general meaning (ca. mighty one) than "theos" in Greek, which means the proper gods. The New Testament does not adopt this usage
The Septuagint begs to differ according to strong's Elohim and Theos have the same range of meaning.
At John ch.10:34 Jesus references h
Psalms 82:6 the word theos is used for Elohim in fact any time N.T Quoted the O.T Elohim is rendered theos
Strong's on Theos :the supreme Divinity, God, godly.
Of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with ho) the supreme Divinity; figuratively, a magistrate; by Hebraism, very -- X exceeding, God, god(-ly, -ward)."
Strong's on Elohim:
elohim: God, god
Returning to the question of Jesus' visible return, according to the Scriptures, Jesus will return in a way that will be seen from the east to the west, and every eye will see him, and so on. There is nothing to be done about this: either you accept it or reject it. But it's not worth and not honest to "explain" it exactly into its opposite.
The clouds do not refer to invisibility, but to the fact that Jesus comes from heaven, as he went into heaven. Then, he was taken up from their sight by clouds, and upon his return, he will become visible from behind the clouds to all eyes. Jesus himself said this, as did the angel to the disciples staring into the sky.
The banal objection is how everyone in Africa and Australia could see him. Because if it is written about his return that it is visible from east to west, like a lightning bolt, then solutions must be found for how this is possible, and not to seize opportune excuses that it is not possible. And since there is television and the internet, behold, this is not impossible either. He is invisibly with the believers until the end of the world. Before his ascension, he promised exactly this, so it does not bring anything to your table if you place his invisible return in 1914.
The JWs refer to the words of John 9:41, which do not refer to seeing with literal eyes. But here, it is not about seeing Jesus, and not with such words as there: every eye will see him, like a lightning bolt can be seen, etc.
Who are those who pierced him? The WTS refers to the fact that at Jesus' execution, there were literally Roman soldiers. However, they have long been dead, but we know that those who agreed with his execution were also counted among Jesus' piercers (Acts 2:36).
Can it really be said of someone that they have come or are present if they are not visible? But no one said that those who are not visible are not present. This is a contrived objection, a sort of evasion from the weight of the specific scripture being examined. Because there it is about Jesus being present visibly.
In connection with 1914, the key question is whether the date can be calculated from the Bible. To determine this, we relied on the Society's explanation related to the book of Daniel (Chapter 4), but the principle described here also applies to any other calculation published in any other publication. Of course, in any calculation and logical conclusion, we must take into account what we have written many times, namely that the rule of Zedekiah did not end in 607 BC, but in 587 BC.
In the dream, there were 7 times, not seven years (probably fulfilled in 7 months for Nebuchadnezzar). If we wanted to determine how many days this possible 7 years lasted, we would encounter great difficulties. According to which calendar should we calculate the 7 years? There was a year in the Jewish calendar which had not 12 but 13 months. Should we consider this or not (this 13th month was inserted 7 times in 19 years)? Therefore, the 7 years could not exactly be 2520 days according to the Jewish lunar calendar either.
Even if we get the 2,520 days (which we take for 7 years), it is still questionable on what basis we could consider this 2520 years. The Bible never says that prophecies should be calculated in this way. Regardless of this, there is no biblical reference that would authorize us to do this.
So we pointed out the mistake in calculating the 7 times at 3 points: the starting point, the 7 years is not 2,520 days and the days cannot be converted into years. The teachings of Jesus, Paul, and Peter also confirm that they knew nothing about any 7 times.
When Jesus was asked about his return and the signs of the last days, he did not talk about that some 7 times had to pass before it, nor did he mention the currently ending time of the pagans. When he talked about the trampling of Jerusalem, he did not speak in the present tense. Even according to the New World Translation, Luke 21:24 is described as a future event:
"And they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
So Jesus said this in 33 AD when according to the Watchtower Society the seven times were already well underway. When the disciples ask Jesus about his return in the 1st chapter of Acts, he did not talk about the 7 times that had to pass, though to the disciples' question then this would have been a straight answer:
"Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"
Jesus did not say this:
"Don't you know that the seven times have to pass first?!"
Instead:
"It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority"
Paul's teaching often touched on the timing of the Lord's return, but he never talked about the mysterious seven times. For example, at the beginning of the 5th chapter of Thessalonians. Paul did not write that there is still some left from the 7 times, but that the day comes like a thief in the night. The arrival of the night thief, however, cannot be calculated.
Peter also wrote about the day of the Lord in his second letter, which some doubted its coming. Peter did not remind his brothers to be patient with the 7 times, but with God's love. He also mentions that the day (the Day of the Lord) comes like a thief.
These are just picked examples that the Bible never talked about the 7 times related to the Day of the Lord, even though it would have been a good tool in the hands of Jesus, Paul, or Peter in the first century to urge the young Christian congregation to be cool and considerate. If the inspired ones did not know about the 7 times, then how does the non-inspired Governing Body know about it?
Pliny the Younger (c. 61 – c. 113), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".
Tacitus wrote about during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism. I note that the latter proves that the early Christians believed in the deity of Jesus and also in his real presence in the Eucharist.
Alexamenos graffito: "Alexamenos worships [his] God", this also disproves the JW's "tortur stake" idea.
aservantofJehovah
It it should be noted that while in the Old Testament this usage of the word "gods" (elohim) does occur, in the New Testament it does not, there are only two categories of "THEOS": 1. the one true God, and 2. the false gods of the pagans (possibly Satan, as "the god of this world ").
In John 10 Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they can be called gods (in a certain sense), then how much more the only begotten Son then? So it's clearly in the text He is God in a superior sense than the judges were called "gods" in the Psalm. In what sense namely then? He does not explain here exactly, but he makes it clear that it is not just in the same sense, but in a higher, superior sense. "Argumentum a fortiori" arguments are regularly used in Jewish law under the name kal va-chomer, literally "mild and severe", the mild case being the one we know about, while trying to infer about the more severe case. The Jews understood this and that's why they wanted to stone him "again" (v39).
JWs refer to this, but Luke does not claim in Acts 28:6 that Paul was actually "a god", but only reports that, based on his miracles, the people believed that he was like a (pagan false) god. So, yes, "theos" here still does not justify a true, but inferior (demigod-archangel) category of divinity claimed by the Watchtower, and it is not because of the latter that it is written there with a lowercase letter. There are two kinds of "THEOS" in the New Testament, 1. the one true God, 2. the false gods of the pagans, and Satan. Paul was only thought to belong to the 2nd category.
But you claim that there is a third category, some kind of demigod-minor-god-archangel. Well, this alleged third category is not based on the verse you quoted, because Paul was actually classified in the 2nd category by the pagan people.
Having a lesser god is also forbidden by the commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
If saying "gods" means nothing special, why don't you call the members of the GB such?
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-scholarly-information-on-ancient.html
As for the NT, compare 2 Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15, where Christ is called the image of the invisible God. Angels are called "the sons of God" in the OT as well.
At John 10:34 Jesus is referencing Psalm 82:6 showing that using the expression Gods in that sense was still legitimate
Also the apostle Paul applies Theos to the angels Hebrews 2:7
The Jews understood nothing they falsely charged him with breaking the Sabbath John ch.5,:18 just as they falsely charged him with claiming equality with God the both charges were equally false
Admitting that JEHOVAH Has authority to make his servant a God if he chooses To is not a violation because like all words the word theos has a semantic range. And why are you bring up acts 28:6 as a smokescreen that is very dishonest
And please stop putting words in my mouth In my mouth I only claim what strong's does that Theos can apply to to a divinely appointed and empowered ruler. Jesus is not superlative he has a God above him John ch.20:17hence he is not JEHOVAH who is superlative having no equals
Psalms ch.83:18KJV"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."
No one said that saying Gods is nothing special only that JEHOVAH has the prerogative of making god's and lords of which ever servant he wishes no one can make himself a God or a Lord or be made such by other than JEHOVAH.
Psalms ch.82:6ESV"I(JEHOVAH) said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;" So these are not self made Gods. The only legitimate self made Lord and God is JEHOVAH he is distinguished from all other Gods by being supreme having neither equals nor superiors in any sense this is not true of even the Trinitarian Jesus who is servant and worshiper of his Father and co equal with the Holy Spirit.
For Elohim (in the plural) "just meaning mighty one" - please state your sources for this assertion?
Dear aservantofJehovah,
János only recalls a dialogue that took place in a non-Greek language, where Jesus does not claim that his divinity is no more than is customary in the Old Testament usage of words. The idea is not that Jesus could only refer to Himself as "GOD" in the same way that the Psalm referred to judges as "elohim". The essence of the pericope is to point out the inconsistency of His accusers, by indicating there existed an Old Testament usage that called human judges "elohim", so if they could be so called, _then how much more_ appropriately He (who is indeed the [only begotten] Son of God) should be called. He begins like this: "If even those...". Thus, His reference was a kind of apologetic bridge, somewhat like how Apostle Paul spoke to the Greeks about their "unknown god".
You claim that in John10:31-38 Jesus denies the Jews interpretation. But does he? A careful reading will reveal that Jesus' response is much subtler than this. He first of all points out that his works are good, which of course implies that the doer is good and worthy of no punishment such as the Jews want to inflict. In response to their charge that Jesus is blaspheming by making himself out to be equal with God (they may have been thinking that Jesus was setting himself up as a rival God) Jesus does not give a straightforward "no, your wrong, I wasn't saying anything of the kind, I just meant that God was my Father because he created me a few thousand years ago". Instead he gives an answer that is designed to make them think about what his equality with (yet distinction from) the Father might mean. He argues from the lesser to the greater. IF the scripture can call mere humans "gods" (Theoi in Greek and elohim in Hebrew) THEN what about the one who has an absolutely unique relationship with the Father, a relationship best designated by the term son? By the way there has been a great deal of discussion in the history of interpretation on exactly what elohim meant in Ps 82:6. It is obviously a highly metaphorical application, but its precise nuance does not affect the point Jesus is making.
The Father has set him apart and sent him into the world to perform has saving office. In fact, the Father dwells in the Son and the Son in the Father. Again, Jesus gets back to the fundamental equality that was suggested by the context above. And once again the Jews get the point and seek to kill him, for any mere man claiming equality with God is blaspheming, and must receive the death penalty. While sonship in itself does not necessarily imply equality, the language used of Jesus' sonship here and elsewhere strongly suggests a uniqueness and an equality that exists only between these two.
Read these:
* https://www3.nd.edu/~jneyrey1/Gods.html
* https://answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jn10-34-36.html
By the way, the NT does not call the apostles or the angels "theos" anywhere, so it cannot be said that the NT calls the persons representing God "theos", so it cannot be said that in the New Testament this that's all it would mean.
Nincsnevem:"Tacitus wrote about during the Eucharist rituals Christians ate the body and drank the blood of their God, interpreting the ritual as cannibalism. I note that the latter proves that the early Christians believed in the deity of Jesus and also in his real presence in the Eucharist."
It's always a good Idea to base ones impression of of a villified minority on the claims of their persecutors
There is enough reference point around John 10:30: the audience immediately understood that Jesus did not merely claim a moral or volitional unity between Him and the Father, but more: unity in divinity. They said, "you, being a man, make yourself God." And the Lord did not start explaining that He was only talking about the alignment of their purposes, but in His characteristic rabbinic (see: kal va-chomer) response, He even added a challenge: "Is it not written in your Law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), say ye of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?!" - In other words, He used the authority of Scripture against them, silenced them, and affirmed His claim to deity.
If perhaps Jesus proclaimed His own deity more reservedly than the apostles who followed in His footsteps, this can be explained by His self-emptying, as well as by the fact that He came to make the Father known, and testified more by His actions and teaching than by Himself. But Jesus did proclaim His own deity, for example where He was accused of "making Himself God while being a man," and He did not protest, but justified His action with an Old Testament reference, all the while emphasizing that His designation as God is of a much higher order than those to whom the Word spoke, and therefore they appear as "gods."
There is indeed a significant difference between the deity of the so-called gods and the common nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and I am indeed not willing to make this man a god in the latter sense. There are scripture passages where the Word calls man a god or gods: "I have made you a god to Pharaoh, and Aaron will be your prophet," "Ye are gods," "The Lord judges among the gods." In these places, there is certainly no talk of possessing the same nature, but rather of some kind of assumed dignity. This can also be seen in the way that elsewhere Yahweh deems the foreign gods as nothing compared to Himself: they did not create the world, they are not rocks, and so on. Similarly, he also calls the "gods" he judges mortal and rebukes them in the psalm. The concept of deity that I base here necessarily includes the attribute of being worthy of worship, just as it does of being the creator. However, in this sense, man is not God (and never will be), while the Son is (and has always been).
So, neither with this nor with Paul's expression of "so-called gods" have you succeeded in establishing a category of "small deity" prepared for Jesus, or even if we assume a category of "real, but not fully god" small deity, it would not automatically follow from this fact that Jesus would belong to this category.
A JW once referred to me that even Satan is referred to as "theos" in the NT. But you don't claim that all we know about Jesus and Satan is "well, both are called theos, so neither is the real God and that's fine". Does the scripture make such claims about Satan as it does about Jesus? That He was from the beginning, that He is the only begotten of the Father, that He received all power, that He is omniscient, etc? This fact alone proves that Jesus is not just a "theos" in the same way as Satan. Indeed, it is true that being a "theos" does not necessarily mean being the real God, but when it's not just claimed that he is THEOS, but a number of other statements are made about Him, attributes are stated about Him, which can only characterize the Almighty God, from these two facts combined it certainly does follow that He is "identical" (not in an equivalence sense, but in a predicate sense) with the one, true, omnipotent God.
Furthermore, the original Greek text, and Greek copies prior to the 7th-8th centuries, did not differentiate between uppercase and lowercase letters, as they used exclusively uppercase letters. This by default proves that the Son is just as much and in the same sense GOD as the Father - unless Jesus is a false god. The original biblical language texts did not use upper and lower case distinction. Anyone who has read even the original copy from the hands of the inspired writer would have seen that the same title and the same initials are used for the Son and the Father: KYRIOS and THEOS. The Bible does not know about minor gods and demigods, there are two categories: a true God and the imagined, false gods of the pagans. Is Jesus a true or false GOD?
It's not about us making uppercase letters, but rather that this minor god category does not exist, and anyone who read an original copy of the Greek New Testament in antiquity would not have even considered such a distinction. So, the accusation of distortion is on the Watchtower, which introduced this artificial distinction, of which the Apostle John had absolutely no idea.
Of course, in the thinking of the Arians, the reader must always think of the Father when they see the word "GOD", but when the Bible calls the Son the same (see Jn 1:1.18, 20:28 etc.), they believe it must immediately be considered in a relativized sense as a "title" (?).
The statement "you are gods" comes from Psalm 82, but it does not talk about "born gods", but about earthly judges who bore the name of God for this function only. They judge falsely, do not understand, walk in darkness, and ultimately die. So these are not gods, but people. When Jesus referred to this passage, he only claimed that it was not unprecedented to call a man a god, so he could not even be stoned for this reason. But he did not claim that his divinity was the same as that of the judges poetically addressed as "gods" in the psalm. The Father and the Son are NOT just "one in intention and thought", but the Father and the Son have one and the same divine reality, nature.
So, just because the judges were referred to as "gods" in a certain sense in one place in the Old Testament, Jesus is not limited to such titular divinity, because in John 10:36 he forms a higher right to divinity than theirs. For to them only the word of God was spoken, whereas He was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world.
The meaning of the Hebrew 'elohim' is only "gods" if the verb following it is also plural (with a few exceptions for pagan gods), but if the verb is singular, its meaning is "the Deity" (because Hebrew forms abstract nouns with the plural form of the noun).
Psalm 82:1.6 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as ordinary people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Psalm 82: if God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so).
Nincsnevem:These are just picked examples that the Bible never talked about the 7 times related to the Day of the Lord, even though it would have been a good tool in the hands of Jesus, Paul, or Peter"
Actually it would have been absolutely no use to the first century church. That is why the angel said these prophecies were to be sealed until the time of the end Daniel ch.12:4-10
By the way, if you are as pugilistic as you claim, why did you disable the option to reply on your blog, dear aservantofJehovah?
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2023/07/on-false-prophets-and-false-accusers.html?m=1
Nincsnevem:Furthermore, the original Greek text, and Greek copies prior to the 7th-8th centuries, did not differentiate between uppercase and lowercase letters, as they used exclusively uppercase letters. This by default proves that the Son is just as much and in the same sense GOD as the Father - unless Jesus is a false god.
No only in the twisted logic of Trinitarians' JEHOVAH is supreme, any God who is not supreme is not JEHOVAH.
It's besic logic.the Father is a God in his own
Right which falsifies the Nicene creed the members of the trinity can be distinct persons but not distinct Hods
"Psalm 82:1.6 mocks the judges who were "gods" (mighty ones), but because they became unfaithful, they die as ordinary people. In John 10:34-36, Jesus refers back to Psalm 82: if God mockingly called the judges "gods", how much more true is it for Him (who is truly so)."
No it warns the Judges that the one who made them Gods has the power to revoke his appointment.Jesus is also God at JEHOVAH'S pleasure JEHOVAH is God at his own(and no one else's pleasure) pleasure.
Nincsnevem:Of course, in the thinking of the Arians, the reader must always think of the Father when they see the word "GOD",
AservantofJEHOVAH:The Father is called Ho Theos meaning that he is a distinct God and not merely a distinct person according to trintitarians."
Strong's also indicates that the unqualified ho Theos refers to the supreme divinity only the God and Father of Jesus is ever referred to by the unqualified ho Theos in the N.T
I did not you just can't reply anonymously.
Under who can comment I chose the "users with Google accounts" option.
If you are going to be coming across to my blog to take cheap shots at me be a man about it . Don't do it anonymously.
https://biblehub.com/bdb/430.htm
Elohim
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/god/what-elohim-teaches-about-god.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2020/01/genesis-35-and-elohim-nabre.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2020/01/elohim-anchor-bible-dictionary.html
Let it go nevem we've got high ground.
Dear aservantofJehovah,
I cannot comment to your blog, it gives an error:
"Unable to sign in to comment. Please check your browser configurations to allow sign-in. Learn more.
To leave a comment, click the button below to sign in with Google."
Only persons who have Google accounts and are signed in to them can comment.
Another article I would recommend for learning more about El/Elohim is McKenzie, John L. “THE APPELLATIVE USE OF EL AND ELOHIM.” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1948): 170–81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43720025.
aservantofJehovah, I have a Google Account, as you can see, I comment with it here too, but it won't let me on yours, so reset your settings.
Is it possible for onoma to function as a stand-in for a person? Yes, but like other Greek signifiers, this usage does not exhaust its range of meaning. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/12/onoma-in-philippians-29-11-moulton.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-69b-c-betz-and-divine-name.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2016/11/onoma-may-s.html
Dear Nincsnevem:
1) I can provide loads of documentation that proves JWs are not the only group to call Matthew 6:9ff, the "model prayer." It's fittingly called the MP since Jesus was teaching his disciples how to pray: it's a paradigm or exemplary prayer that shows us proper subjects for approaching God. But I have no problem with the other names for the prayer.
2) I think you'll have a difficult time proving that Matthew 6:9 has nothing to do with the Tetragrammaton: I've shown that onoma does not just function as a stand-in for the person.
3) Jesus urged prayer to the Father, not to the Trinity. YHWH is identified as Father in the OT--not as Son and Holy Spirit.
You need to be signed in before you come to the site the button is a waste of time
Dear Mr. Foster,
1) I have only heard this term "model prayer" from JWs, but I do not dispute that it is possible that others have used this term. I believe it comes down to the fact that according to JWs this is just a "model" that shows "HOW" to pray, but they assume "a priori" that you can't pray THIS, because repetitive prayer is allegedly forbidden. That is why Matthew 6:7 is also mistranslated in the NWT. However here, Jesus is not prohibiting the practice of repetitive prayer, nor does He want to prohibit praying "in front of people" (cf. Mt 6:5), nor does He want us to pray only behind closed doors (Mt 6:6). Jesus rejects the pagan, not the Jewish, practice of prayer, as the pagans repeated empty and magical formulas, believing that they would exhaust the gods (cf. 1 Kings 18:26; Acts 19:34). The Catholic Church also rejects such magical prayers. Jesus - and also the Catholics - emphasize personal, intimate prayer.
Psalm 118 - "His mercy endures forever." is repeated 5 times.
Psalm 136 - After every line of the psalm (26 times) it is said that "His mercy endures forever."
Psalm 150 - The call "Praise Him" is repeated 10 times.
Mt 26:44 - Jesus repeated the same prayer three times.
Lk 18:1 - "He also told them a parable that they should always pray and not lose heart."
Lk 18:7 - "And will not God bring about justice for His chosen ones, who cry out to Him day and night?"
Lk 18:13-14 - The justified tax collector prayed in the Temple, beating his chest, saying: "God, have mercy on me, a sinner!"
Acts 10:2 - "He was devout and God-fearing... he prayed to God constantly."
Rom 1:9-10 - "I remember you always in my prayers, and constantly plead that I may be able, by God's will, to come to you at last."
1 Thess 5:17 - "Pray without ceasing."
Rev 4:8 - "Day and night they never stop saying: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come!""
2) It is really not difficult for me to prove that "hallowed be your name" does not mean the "use" of the divine name YHWH. No one has ever interpreted the first petition of the Lord's Prayer in this way. We don't see the sanctification of the name of Jesus in the mention ("use") of the name of Jesus, but rather in his sanctification, his calling to help, and his exaltation. About the "usage", suffice it to say that, according to the above, Jesus did not force the "usage" of YHWH, and the apostles wrote Kurios instead of him in their Greek writings.
3) "Our Father" does not mean here only the Father of the Logos, since the faithful are in a Father-child relationship with the entire Godhead. In Catholic theology, the entire Trinity is "the Father" for the people, not just the first person of the Trinity, from whom the Son was born. When we are not talking about "the Father" and "the Son" within the Trinity, about their relation to each other within the Godhead, but generally in the relation between God and creatures, then the whole Trinity is the Father. For example, Isaiah 9:6 also calls Jesus Father. In this sense, "Father" is not necessarily a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God. Cf. http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2010/07/trinity-is-our-father.html
Dear Nincsnevem,
I believe in being fair to my interlocutors, even where we part ways. After all, how would you feel if someone accused you of believing something as a Catholic that you did not believe? Well, that's how I feel with a lot of what you've said since your inception here. Now you might not mean to distort JW teaching but it comes across that way.
Here's one example: You say we cannot prayer the Pater Noster: that is simply untrue. Just check out the WT articles about prayer. I pray for the sanctification of God's name and the coming of his kingdom all the time, and I pray for my daily bread, etc. Moreover, there are times when we supplicate Jehovah about important/vital matters and these prayers are certainly offered more than once. For instance, what about praying that Jehovah watch over someone in his/her sickbed (Psalm 41:1-3). The JW way of praying is more diverse than you realize, and we know those verses you cited well. You misunderstand our position on prayer. That we call it a model prayer does not mean that we can't pray what's in it.
See https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004681
Have you ever noticed that Luke's version of the prayer is not worded exactly the same as Matthew's account?
Oher links where it's called the model prayer:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/model-prayer
https://bible.org/seriespage/3-paternoster-model-prayer-matthew-69-15
https://www.danielakin.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Matthew-6.9-15-The-Lord-Prayer-Manuscript-kh.pdf
Dear Mr. Foster,
if a statement of mine turns out to be wrong, I am ready to correct it. I did not claim that there is an "official" doctrine laid down by the WTS that it is forbidden to pray the Lord's Prayer, but do they do it? I have had several JW debaters refer to what they believe is Matthew 6:7 forbidding praying with the same words. Well, in the NWT indeed, the original text does not refer to this. It has also been said many times that the repetitive prayer of Catholics is "in vain", because the Lord's Prayer is only a model, and it is not meant to be prayed, but should be prayed in one's own words. As far as I know, in the Kingdom Hall they don't pray it, only with their own words.
Of course, this is not a JW characteristic, usually in Protestant / evangelical circles the pre-written, "made up" fixed prayers are generally despised, because according to them these are not real prayers, not our own thoughts, just memorized, empty words. Well, many times they really can be, although this can be said for the phrases and sentences that occur again and again, which after a while permeate even the "spontaneous" prayer. I think everyone knows exactly what I mean, and we even know about each other who uses which words to pray, with an almost comical accuracy. In addition, interestingly, in the case of our sung prayers (so-called glorification), we have no problem with the texts being written in advance, but "sing the Lord a new song". We do not view the book of Psalms with suspicion either, even though they were also bound prayers said and/or sung on an individual and community level. In Protestant circles, the Lord's Prayer is perhaps the only fixed prayer text that is tolerated in evangelical circles, but only if it is rarely used.
Let me recommend to your attention Richard Rohr's books on prayer, including contemplative prayer.
If it was JEHOVAH'S will that it be understood that the incessant repetition of memorised verses composed by others Is acceptable as prayer. Why isn't there a single recorded instance of this style of prayer in the holy scriptures?
Matthew ch.15:28NIV"“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me." A prayer is not an incantation the speech or script have no power in or of themselves it is the heartfelt sentiment(the Logos) being communicated that is the prayer.
Post a Comment