"The council of Nicea may with good reason be regarded as signalling a new era of Church history. In fact, it marks the beginning of a close co-operation between the Churches of early Christianity and the Roman empire, which was to bring about unforeseeable consequences for all fields of ecclesiastical life. As far as the more outward aspect is concerned, a structure was fashioned at that time which resembled a good deal that of the civil organization of the empire, out of which the five great patriarchates were to emerge" (Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 101).
This relationship affected "all fields of ecclesiastical life" including the liturgy, kerygma, spirituality and theology (102).
Friday, May 10, 2024
The Council of Nicea Ecclesiastically Changed Things (Studer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
151 comments:
For the record, bishops go back to thhe second century CE. However, Nicea introduced the imperial component to the Church.
https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/gq67k073z?locale=en
They held more power after 325 CE. I'm not sure why you have problems with posting. I have to moderate or else, all kinds of objectionable material would be posted. Sorry but I have no control over Google's operation of the site.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/abs/servant-of-god-divine-favour-and-instrumentality-under-constantine-31825/BC5CDA8B6BB5385038592728F4AD212D#
What Really Happened at Nicea?
https://shorturl.at/vAH19
JWs often suggest as if only a debating minority professed the deity of of the Son at the Council of Nicea, as if Constantine had to convene the council because of them and the issue, as if Constantine opposed the majority opinion, and as if he made the decision. Contrary to this, the fact is that the person of Jesus was just one of several topics of debate, from the celebration of Easter to the issue of readmitting apostates during persecutions, to attitudes towards usury, approximately 20 "canons," or decrees, were formulated. It is also a fact that among the bishops, hardly any were Latin, Western; the majority, like the denier of Jesus' deity Arius, were Greek, Eastern. At the same time, Arius the presbyter had only 17 supporters (!), although Nicomedian Eusebius, a court bishop and the host of the council, the Bishop of Nicaea, Theognis, stood by him. Thus, Arius had more influence on Constantine than his opponents. Constantine's primary goal was religious unity: to have everyone celebrate at the same time and with one creed, hence he encouraged the bishops towards harmony and agreement, and admonished them to put aside their grievances against each other. Many were accusing each other mutually, and many among them had submitted petitions to the emperor the previous day. He then urged them to address the subject for which they had gathered, and ordered that the petitions be burned, adding only this: 'Christ commands that whoever needs forgiveness, should forgive his brother.' Afterwards, he spoke at length about unity and peace, and then allowed them to examine the doctrines more thoroughly with their intellect.
Constantine wanted an agreement for the sake of the empire, to exclude as few bishops as possible (e.g., followers of Arius). Eventually, the council formulated a creed which only five opposed.
According to the JWs, the council "made no mention" of the Holy Spirit, and the council "did not decide" on it. However, this is contradicted by the triple "We believe..." at the end of the Nicene Creed, which proclaims faith and trust in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. "Deciding" was not even necessary, as the subject of debate was the deity of Jesus. The encyclical issued by the council ends with a Trinitarian closing sentence: "Pray for us all, that what we have decided well, may remain firm through the Almighty God, and Our Lord, Jesus Christ with the Holy Spirit, to whom [singular] be the glory forever!"
Constantine did not need to propose "the final formulation of Christ's relation to God" because this was one of the pre-announced topics of the council. Secondly, it was the vocabulary of the doctrine that was the subject of dissatisfaction: due to linguistic differences, Latin and Greek church fathers mutually feared that the other's formulations could be misinterpreted towards tritheism or modalism. Despite this, we know that the key term of the council's creed (consubstantial) was used by the previous generations according to the council fathers: "We knew among the ancients wise and excellent bishops and writers who used the expression 'consubstantial' in relation to the theology of the Father and the Son." From the setting of the JWs, it may seem as if an emperor "decided" also at the Council of Constantinople, as if the doctrine of the Trinity only spread after that, and this would have entailed the persecution of the Arians, and moreover, the important decisions of the intervening councils are not mentioned at all.
However, records indicate that just seven years after the Council of Nicaea (AD 332), influenced by Eusebius of Nicomedia, a court bishop oscillating between Arianism and Trinitarianism, Constantine began to support Arianism again. The next fifty years were practically favorable to the Arians, thus their teachings widely spread. (Arius himself soon faded into the background and died in 336.) The church was practically split into two; Athanasius of Alexandria, a defender of the Trinity, was exiled, against which the western bishops protested at the Council of Sardica in 342 and renewed the Nicene Creed. The Eastern bishops meeting separately tried to avoid the expression "consubstantial" in their creed, using terms like "similar in all respects" and "similar in essence." Constantine's successor, Constantius, also sympathized with Arianism, but at the Council of Rimini in 359, 400 Western bishops reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. The Easterners meeting at the same time in Seleucia, however, continued to deny it. Arian emperors Julian and Valens could not prevent the fragmentation of the Arian party into various factions.
At that time, some Arians proclaimed that the Holy Spirit was a creature of the Son, thus the "grandson" of the Father. Against them, several councils in Rome and Alexandria took action in the 360s. In the West, the Trinitarian Emperor Gratian ruled from 375, and in the East, the also Trinitarian Theodosius. In 381, he convened a council in Constantinople, attended only by Eastern bishops, about 150, while the Western bishops met in Aquileia. The Eastern council was initially left by Macedonius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who regarded the Holy Spirit merely as a creature, and 35 of his companions, thus the influence of Western and Eastern Trinitarians prevailed at the council.
The Creed of Constantinople was a refinement and supplement to the Nicene Creed, hence it is also called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The detailed elaboration of the deity of the Spirit was suitably based on the creedal proposal of the earlier book (Ancoratus) by Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus; however, the most significant role in formulating the entire creed was undoubtedly that of Athanasius. He is rightly attributed with the so-called Athanasian Creed, as it indeed reflects his formulation.
This is a seven hour in depth presentation show that the so called Ante-Nicene Fathers did not believe in the trinity.
https://youtu.be/B0gWe46eEFY?si=73I9cq28qPppH3BT
Do I even bother addressing Nincs misleading claim?
( sorry Edgar just getting sick of the misleading rubbish being spouted)
An amazing admission by a Bible scholar
The biblical theologian Rick Wade mentions in his article “Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church” (www.probe.org/docs/tradition.html) that occasionally, someone will find references to the idea of a “decline” of the Church after the conversion of the emperor Constantine during the 4th century. Some believe that under Constantine, the Church began to slip, into a state religion that became corrupted by power and riches…. This threw a heavy cloak over the whole of ecclesiastic history, up to the era of Reform. Tradition was considered to be an element of a corrupt and institutionalized church. While it is true that the newly-acquired freedom that the Church enjoyed under Constantine had its negative points, it doesn’t mean that the Church “declined” as some say. During all of its history, the Church may have made mistakes in its dealings with secular society and its during its discovering how to appropriately handle the freedom and power that it had acquired, but, the idea that the Church rapidly became corrupt and that the councils (synods) that were convened during his reign were merely the emperor’s pawns, is too naïve a notion. The Church continued to be faithful to its duty of clarifying and spreading the apostolic tradition. “The faith that was confessed and practiced by the ancient churches was not defined by the political intrigues of emperors and the hierarchies of the prelates” Williams said.
“The essential form and structure of the Christian identity was something that the fourth century inherited and continued to expand, through biblical explanation and the liturgical life as expressed in the tradition of the Symbols of the Faith.”
Let’s take a look at what ensued after Constantine’s reign. Williams says: “…The theology that developed after Constantine did not reflect a radically subversive shift in the Holy Bible and apostolic tradition. On the contrary, the most important Symbols of the Faith (Creed) and official dogmatic discussions were the conscious expansion of a precedent Tradition and teaching of the New Testament, in an attempt to formulate the Christian understanding of God and salvation in the light of new challenges. The reason this is important for our study, is that some have allowed this idea (of the Church’s decline towards the end of the Patristic period) to influence them to the point of rejecting the whole of that period. This is wrong. There was good and there was bad for the Church under Constantine’s reign. Nevertheless, the Church continued to develop itself in its understanding of the apostolic Tradition. We should not ignore the ancient church because of unfortunate setbacks.”
[3] D.H.Williams, Retrieving the Tradition, and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants (Eerdmans, 1999).
Is a political power’s favor, proof of apostasy?
Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons etc. often believe that the Church apostatized because Constantine the Great ended the persecutions and swayed the Empire’s favor towards Christians. But does the Holy Bible agree with this?
Let’s take a look at the Persian Emperor Cyrus as an example. The Holy Bible says that God spurred Cyrus’ heart (an idolatrous king!) into rebuilding the destroyed temple of God in Jerusalem, and to even return the sacred vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had stolen from it (Ezra, chapter 1). Was the favor of the idolatrous king towards the Judeans (especially his initiative to rebuild the Temple of God) proof that Israel had apostatized from the truth at the time? The Holy Bible replies with a resounding NO, because God stated the following about the idolatrous king Cyrus: “He is my shepherd, and he will perform all my errands; and I say unto Jerusalem: “You shall be rebuilt” and to the temple: “your foundations shall be planted” (Isaiah 44:28, Translation “PERGAMOS”). So, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that God can use even worldly potentates in order for His will to be done (Proverbs 21:1). The same happened with Constantine the Great: God swayed the favor of the idolatrous Emperor to the benefit of the Christians, using him as His instrument in order to terminate the state’s persecutions of the Church and allow the unhindered spreading of the Gospel throughout the Empire.
Consequently, the assertion of many contemporary movements that the Church apostatized opposes the Holy Bible as well as common logic, because if their assertion is accepted, then the Canon of the New Testament that they hold in their hands loses its validity! In closing, we submit something that the familiar Protestant Hank Hanegraaf said to the Mormons (although the same applies to every religious group that stresses the same argument: “In reply to this teaching (of the church’s apostasy), we should ask the Mormons exactly how would the Church be able to praise God ‘in every generation, for ever and ever’, if – as the Apostle Paul clearly wrote in Ephesians 3:21- it had declined into complete apostasy?” (www.equip.org/free/CP0306.htm).
From the New Testament to the Council of Nicaea
1. The theologians who in our time raise doubts about the divinity of Christ often argue that this dogma cannot have emerged from genuine biblical revelation; its origins are traceable to Hellenism. Deeper historical inquiries show, on the contrary, that the thought pattern of the Greeks was totally alien to this dogma and that they rejected it with the utmost vigor. To the faith of Christians who proclaimed the divinity of Christ, Hellenism opposed its own dogma of the divine transcendence, which it regarded as irreconcilable with the contingency inherent to the human history of Jesus of Nazareth. Greek philosophers experienced the particular difficulty entailed in accepting the notion of a divine incarnation. In the name of their teaching on the godhead, Platonist philosophers regarded this notion as unthinkable. The Stoics, in turn, could not manage to reconcile the Christological dogma with their cosmological doctrine.
2. It was in order to respond to these difficulties that, more or less openly, many Christian theologians borrowed from Hellenism the notion of a secondary god (deuteros theos), or of an intermediate god, or even of a demiurge. Obviously, this was tantamount to clearing the way to the threat of subordinationism. This subordinationism was already latent in some of the Apologists and in Origen. Arius made a formal heresy of it. He maintained that the Son occupies an intermediate position between the Father and the creatures. The Arian heresy offers a good illustration of how the dogma of Christ’s divinity would have looked had it truly emerged from the philosophy of Hellenism and not from God’s own revelation. At the Council of Nicaea in a.d. 325, the Church defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. In so doing, the Church both repudiated the Arian compromise with Hellenism and deeply altered the shape of Greek, especially Platonist and neo-Platonist, metaphysics. In a manner of speaking, it demythicized Hellenism and effected a Christian purification of it. In the act of dismissing the notion of an intermediate being, the Church recognized only two modes of being: uncreated (nonmade) and created.
To be sure, "homoousios", the term used by the Council of Nicaea, is a philosophical and nonbiblical term. It is evident all the same that, ultimately, the Fathers of the Council only intended to express the authentic meaning of the New Testament assertions concerning Christ, and to do this in a way that would be univocal and free from all ambiguity.
In issuing this definition of Christ’s divinity, the Church found support also in the experience of salvation and in man’s divinization in Christ. In turn, the dogmatic definition impressed its own determination and mark on the experience of salvation. There was, then, an in-depth interaction between lived experience and the process whereby theological clarification was achieved.
3. The theological reflections of the Fathers of the Church did not ignore the special problem connected with the divine preexistence of Christ. Note in particular Hippolytus of Rome, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Photinus. Their attempts are bent on presenting the preexistence of Christ not at the level of ontological reality but at that of intentionality: Christ had preexisted in the sense of having been foreseen (kata prognosin).
These presentations of the preexistence of Christ were judged inadequate by the Catholic Church and condemned. Thus the Church gave expression to her own belief in an ontological preexistence of Christ, for which it found support in the Father s eternal generation of the Word. The Church also referred to the clear-cut New Testament affirmations concerning the active role played by the Word of God in the creation of the world. Obviously, someone who does not yet exist, or is only intended to exist, cannot play any such role.
Source: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1979_cristologia_en.html
I don't recall Cyrus taking sides in the Hebrews theological disputes.
Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David,"
John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. "
The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one.
John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. "
According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune.
John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”"
The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune.
Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. "
ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God.
Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, "
Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. "
Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ.
Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service.
Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?"
The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/the-search-for-the-christian-doctrine-of-god/270500
Must read on this topic.
This is the best work on this topic to date.
No one can deny that political considerations and politics influenced the council, (that doesn't mean the emperor chose the outcome or any thing like that), that doesn't make the council's conclusions false, but one must take that into account.
Historically speaking however, prior to Nicaea, and after Nicaea, a large chunk of the Christian world, often the majority, were ontological subordinationists in their Christology, the council was not universally representative, and it wasn't the ONLY council going on.
If one is doing theology from a sola scriptura standpoint one ought to take the council as one would any other contingent event or human document in history, seriously and critically, but not authoritative. If the council IS authoritative then one would have to argue for it and then interpret the council (Eusebius remained an Originist ontological subordinationist while affirming the creed, so even it's interpretation is open to question).
Personally I take the Church Fathers (including those at the councils) seriously, but no one can deny that they were, as all humans are, influenced by their material and ideological conditions and contexts, and post Constantine things changed radically. You'll have a very hard time arguing that "Just War Theory" and the permissibility of Christians to take of arms in the military would have developed without Christianity becoming favored by State power .... To deny that had any influence is just to be historically naive.
Nincsnevem
The "We believe" and then tripartite formula of the Father, Son and Holy spirit, is NOT the trinity insofar as the sense that term came to take in the later fourth century.
That's the baptismal formula, and it's trinitarian only in the original sense of the term, i.e. the economy of creation, salvation, reconciliation. This is the "trinity" that Tertullian, Theophilus, and Origin believed in ... and even I, as a Jehovah's Witness believe in. I.e. that to understand God's work of creation salvation and reconciliation includes understanding God as supreme, who works through his Logos, the mediator, and by his Holy Spirit.
That's NOT the ontological trinity as it was developed by the Cappadocians and Augustine.
Roman
I would raise a question if Augustine believes the trinity as it is now - he terms the logos as wisdom. ( of proverbs 8, something Ninc is wilfully naive on as ninc throws all the wisdom texts in - when one of the church fathers acknowledges 8:22 is special - see 8:12).
Second I think Augustine believed God created through logos - whereas modern day trinitarians say Christ is the creator
I believe that the sources indicate that Emperor Constantine did not intervene in the content of the Council of Nicaea in its final outcome, he probably did not understand the nature of the theological debate, and probably the Roman emperors than sympathized with Arian Christology rather, because if there is an intermediate category of Absolute Deity (that is th Father) and the created world, then maybe they don't have to completely discard the emperor's divinity (divi filius) either.
One thing that is important to the emperor is that there should be peace, and that the security of the empire, which is threatened by external attacks by the barbarians, should not be endangered by an internal schism. That is why he convened the council, so that the Christians, who at that time made up approx. 40-50 percent of the population of the empire, could formulate a formula that can prevent further fighting and divisions.
The early Christians did not prohibit the military service itself either. If, in certain eras, early Christianity still had reservations about military service, it was not about the service itself, but primarily about the mandatory military manifestations of the pagan and idolatrous state religion. An example of this is the case of Saint Maurice of Egypt and the Holy Legion of Thebes. The Christians fulfilled the order of conscription, but when the state wanted to use it illegally, they refused the order.
The Catholic teaching interprets love of neighbor according to the order of love, therefore, it recognizes the legitimacy of legitimate self-defense and self-defense war. The Catholic Church therefore does not in any way profess the principle of absolute pacifism. He condemns unlawful aggression and self-serving cruelty, but he also believes that a mere ceasefire does not mean real peace, because peace can only be the fruit of truth, as Pius XII's memorable papal motto (Opus iustitiae pax) expressed it.
Hey Anonymous.
It's interesting you bring that up. I take the post-Nincene and post-Constantinople theologians who say they believe in the "orthodox" trinity at their word. However, when you say "the trinity as it is now," there is a problem, there IS no trinity as there is no, there are many "trinities," the social trinity of Moltman and as is seen in many analytic theology models, the post-Barthian models, the Catholic "latin" trinity, etc etc.
Augustine (who, mind you, struggled with Greek, and I believe didn't Hebrew at all) took on the overwhelming tradition of associating the Logos with Sophia from Proverbs 8, but may not have recognized the theological implications of that, of course other homoousian theologians received that tradition and tried to argue the implications away.
I would say that the dividing line really is the homoousian doctrine (and secondarily the status of a hypostasis of the Holy Spirit). However one works out the homoousian doctrine, if one affirms it I would say that's good enough to be called an ontological trinitarian, even if how one works it out ends up being incoherent.
Belief is a funny thing, people hold inconsistent beliefs all the time (I'm sure I have many currently), but generally when people say the believe X, we should take them at their word, if they go on to say something inconsistent with X, it doesn't mean they don't believe X, just that they are imperfect and haven't worked out a perfect intellectual system.
When it comes to Augustine, although I disagree with him on SO MUCH, and really believe that on almost every front he had a negative impact on theology (social ethics, dampening the radical ethics of Jesus, his ridiculous Just War theory, his horrific doctrine of predestination and eternal conscious torment, his extreme version of divine simplicity, his bad exegesis of Paul which persisted in the west up until today, etc etc), one cannot help but like the guy, one cannot read the confessions and see someone who truely loved God and Christ and really desired to live in line with what he say as God's will through Christ, and his bad theology was motivated, for the most part, by his desire to know God, although I do think "Just War" theology and his dampening of Jesus's teachings on social justice might be explained in terms of material conditions.
I also prefer early Augustine to late.
Hence the spectacle of mass fratricide that has characterized Christendom's history e.g the obscene spectacle of Slavic "christian" slaughtering Slavic "christian" in Ukraine that is what inevitably happens when the authority of scripture is diluted,one becomes ready prey for Satan.
The Bible is clear Christian must never under any pretext raise hand against fellow Christian,
John ch.13:35,36NIV"“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
Actions speak louder than words.
The mass fratricide that Chracterizes Christendom (protestant,orthodox and Catholic) clearly exposes her as an unchristian fraud.
Dear "aservantofJEHOVAH,"
I believe that your approach to this whole question involves, on one hand, a series of demagogic, sensational phrases ("mass fratricide," "slaughtering," etc.), and on the other hand, a primitive, "cut with an axe" (instead of a scalpel) approach to precision. The assertion that the general commandment of "agape" specifically prohibits armed service itself requires proof.
The Old Testament recognizes both the concept of defensive war and just attack:
"Proclaim this among the nations: Prepare for war! Rouse the warriors! Let all the fighting men draw near and attack." (Joel 4:9)
"When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you." (Deuteronomy 20:10)
The Scriptures consider it a sin if someone does not fight in a just war:
"A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work! A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)
The New Testament does not consider soldiering a sin either:
"Then some soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.'" (Luke 3:14)
If John the Baptist, an inspired prophet of God, had considered war and combat to be sinful in every case, he would have condemned soldiering as well and would have elaborated on this to the soldiers who questioned him.
Christ praised the faith of a soldier and did not ask him to demobilize; rather, he placed salvation within his reach:
"The centurion answered and said, 'Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, "Go," and he goes; and to another, "Come," and he comes; and to my servant, "Do this," and he does it.' When Jesus heard it, He marveled, and said to those who followed, 'Assuredly, I say to you, I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel! And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness.'" (Matthew 8:8)
Here the principle of "lex specialis derogat legi generali" comes into play in relation to 'agape'.
Negative argument: Christ never warned any soldier away from their profession.
The saying of Jesus – "all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52) – is not related to this question. It clearly does not assert that everyone who wields a weapon will die by it, as even experience does not support this. This statement has a dual meaning:
1. Whoever sins in a certain way will suffer in that way (this is the general meaning).
2. Peter, in his zeal, was hindering the plan of redemption (this is the specific meaning). Christ uses this appropriate metaphor to warn Apostle Peter: If he is unwilling to accept that the Savior must suffer, he will suffer for his stubbornness. (Some biblical commentators attribute Peter’s three denials of Christ to this.)
It should also not be overlooked that when the Bible was written, the military and the police had not yet been separated, so the soldiers were actually not only engaged in warfare, but actually performed police (law enforcement) duties as well.
Observance of the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) is the obligation of the leaders of the states, the responsibility of the individual serving in the armed forces is limited only to the observance of the rules of the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello).
@Roman
Firstly, the fact that the Holy Spirit is not identical with God's 'dynamis' was simply not an issue at the Council of Nicaea, because even the Arians did not claim this, nor did the later Pneumatomachi. The need to supplement the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople was not due to pneumatology like those believed by today's Jehovah's Witnesses.
As for what Augustine believed and how he interpreted Ecclesiastes 8:22, you can read it directly: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Proverbs%208:22
By the way, as far as I know, in this respect, he accepted Jerome's translation, who was the greatest Hebraist of his time. The Arian theologians did not know Hebrew either, and in this regard, they relied only on the questionable translation of the Septuagint, even though Philo, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion translated the relevant Hebrew text into Greek more accurately than the LXX.
Of course, there are many nuanced approaches to the Trinity, but what you are trying to suggest with this ("oh, they are all over the place, it's all chaos") is simply misleading. Numerous ancient and medieval theologians wrote about the Trinity; don't just look at Augustine, but also consider Athanasius or Hilary of Poitiers, among others.
This is precisely why I don't like to debate "the Trinity" with Jehovah's Witnesses initially. Instead, we should approach this whole discourse chronologically as it emerged in church history, starting with the Council of Nicaea, not "the Trinity." The Trinity is just the final result, which can only be understood if you are familiar with the basics, just as you cannot jump to advanced mathematics without understanding the fundamental mathematics.
It is also completely misleading to ignore the later conciliar definitions regarding the human nature of the Son (as well as its relation to the divine nature) in relation to the Nicene theological understanding.
Nincsnevem
On the military thing, it is a fact that in the pre-Nicene church opposition to military service was basically unanimous.
https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2020/02/28/the-early-christians-and-the-military/
As far as the trinity is concerned, I agree pneumetology wasn't an issue at Nicea, both sides more or less understood the Holy Spirit in quasi personal ways since they were largely Originists. However I just think they were wrong (including Origen and other Churh fathers who took the Holy Spirit to be an entity distinct from God, I.e. the Father).
The Arians could read Greek, I'm not saying Augustine was wrong because he couldn't read Greek very well, I'm saying where he got things wrong one can understand why given his lack of the linguistic tools.
As Far as the trinity, I mean if you compare the trinity of Bultmann, Barth, Rahner, Swinebourne, and so on, you'll see they are entirely different models.
When it comes to the trinity, I.e. as belived by Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics, I prefer setting the definition as just thr Nicene-Constantinopilean creed, if I'm discussing with someone from a particular standpoint, I'll let them define what they mean by it.
I don't mind discussing the trinity with people, as long as both can be charitable and cordial.
John Ch.18:36NIV"Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”"
The kingdoms of the present age are doomed any attempt to save them is a fool's errand we look to the look the eternal kingdom of JEHOVAH for peace and justice not the princes of the present age,
Psalms Ch.146:3NIV"Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save."
We do not expect that most of those emotionally invested in the present age would heed JEHOVAH'S Counsel to quit trusting in the false Gods of politics and nationalism but so as to not leave ourselves open to any charge of hypocrisy we do our best with JEHOVAH'S Help to make it clear that it is His kingdom and not any of nations and/politicians of the present age in which we have placed our hope.
John Ch.4:20NIV"Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen." This love is the "agape" embody by JEHOVAH and thus precludes the mas slaughter of brother Christians no matter which politician demands it.
Acts Ch.5:29NKJV"But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men."
aservantofJEHOVAH7:35 AM
No it is you who are using the axe on the scriptures not me . The coming of the Messiah introduced a new dispensation. Once Christ was raised from dead what men were in the flesh no longer mattered. The spiritual nation of God was JEHOVAH'S One united people. What men were by natural descent or geography became irrelevant. 2Corinthians Ch.5:16NKJV" Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."
So we no longer have any piece of ground or ethnostate to defend our territory is a spiritual one to be defended exclusively by spiritual weapons. 1Corinthians Ch.10:3NIV"For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds." Our only war is to liberate men's minds from captivity to Satan and their sinful nature we fight with the weapons provided by JEHOVAH and as those trained by him.
Thus we as his true church fulfill his ancient prophecy.
Isaiah Ch.2:2-4ASV"And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of JEHOVAH'S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of JEHOVAH, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of JEHOVAH from Jerusalem.And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Ninc - what’s the pattern for people going to war in the bible ( or killing?)
Did the people go to war of their own will? Or was it Gods?
The only time they broke the commandment “thou shalt not kill” is when it was law or God commanded the action
Your stance is not only unjustafied but completely unfounded
Also Augustine may have accepted Jerome’s translation but even God is called “possessor”, which simply means something one did not have before ( or previously have)
Yes it is only translated created once in the NWT but that is how the church fathers understood it and it is the only time it is translated as such in the LXX aswell - need I say more? Poieo vs ktizo also doesn’t work as they are used interchangeably and I can prove that
The Church rejects extreme pacifism as immoral: achieving peace at any cost, including the death and suffering of the innocent. This contradicts the spirit of both the Old and New Testaments. Early Christians did not forbid military service. If in certain periods early Christianity had reservations about military service, it was not due to weapons but primarily due to the compulsory military manifestations of the pagan and idolatrous state religion. There are also plenty of examples of Christians being soldiers before Constantine, such as the Egyptian Saint Maurice and the Theban Legion. Christians fulfilled their military obligations but refused orders when the state unjustly tried to use them.
In the Scriptures, we do not read that anyone instructed Cornelius to leave the military to become a Christian.
Regarding what a Christian should do if they happen to be a soldier, there is specific guidance in Luke 3:14, which entails adhering to the "jus in bello" (the law of war).
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" in the Ten Commandments is more accurately translated as "You shall not murder" (Lo tirṣaḥ), which does not apply to the lawful, sanctioned taking of life under certain conditions and with specific requirements.
The command to love one’s enemies has nothing to do with military service. If someone participates in an armed conflict as a soldier, it is not because they do not "love" (hate) those they are fighting against. This is evidenced by the respectful burial of enemy soldiers.
For example, Saint Sebastian, one of the greatest and most praised heroes of early Christianity, was a military officer, which means his occupation involved wielding weapons and waging war (in those times, being a soldier meant engaging in war and killing, as war was constant). There is no evidence that Saint Sebastian abandoned his "sinful" occupation when he converted from paganism to Christianity. When a soldier became a follower of Christ in early Christianity, no one thought that conversion meant they had to leave their old occupation, as it was not considered forbidden to kill or even touch a weapon. Saint Sebastian became a martyr of the gospel while still an active centurion. Then there are the 40 Christian soldiers who were willing to suffer martyrdom for their faith but saw no conflict between their military service and their Christianity.
Cornelius the centurion is mentioned in the Scriptures (Acts 10:1-4, 22) as a devout and good man. Since he was a centurion, he undoubtedly had a sword at his side and had to use it, if only when he strapped it on. Considering the times and his age, it is certain that he had participated in battles. There is no indication that the apostles accepted him into the church only on the condition that he "retires" and no longer touches weapons. On the contrary, the Scripture makes it clear that he continued to be a centurion, meaning he performed military service (including killing if necessary), just as he did before his conversion.
Then there is the centurion of Capernaum, the righteous man who said, "Lord, I am not worthy for you to come under my roof" (Matthew 8:8), whose great faith Christ highly praised. There is no indication that Christ, alongside his praise, told him: "But, my son, you must now abandon this vile profession and submit your retirement request today."
Christ did not object to this great, faithful man being an active centurion and had no issue with him continuing to bear a sword.
It is true that when the Apostle Peter drew his sword at the arrest of Jesus, the Master told him to put his sword back in its sheath, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52). However, the simplicity of false biblical interpreters lies in the fact that they do not think but cling to the word (sword) which the Scripture says "kills" (2 Corinthians 3:6).
But, of course, they cling to the letter only when it appears to support their view. Jesus' words to Peter about the sword can indeed be interpreted as you do, but it can also be explained that Jesus only wanted to admonish his disciples and us to be patient, or that he did not allow the use of the sword in this case for his own sake, because he came to earth to die for us.
Now, which of these three interpretations is correct is determined by common sense and comparing it with other relevant places in the Scripture. The examples of Cornelius and the centurion of Capernaum show that it cannot be understood as you now interpret it, because in that case, Christ’s prohibition against the sword and his behavior towards the centurion of Capernaum, as well as the apostles' handling of Cornelius, would contradict each other. But this teaching can be even more decisively refuted from the Bible.
Romans 13:4, for example, says that the ruler "does not bear the sword for no reason." Therefore, weapons (at least for rulers and their officials) are not only allowed to be touched but also constantly carried and used (thus, it is permissible to kill with them if necessary, as the sword is primarily for that purpose). If we never used a sword, we would carry it "for no reason."
Regarding the earthly authority, the letter to the Romans says that it does not bear the sword for no reason. It is clear, therefore, that if Jesus did not allow Peter to use the sword at his arrest, it did not mean that the sword should never and under no circumstances be used or even touched, but only in this specific case did he deem the use of the sword inappropriate and thus prohibited it, not generally and for all time. We have already explained why he prohibited Peter from using it in that particular case.
Moreover, with his prohibition, he naturally also wanted to remind us that a good Christian, especially an apostolic bishop (and the Church’s "Cepha," for Peter was the one who wanted to use the sword in this case), is not there to defend the truth or his freedom with his sword. The raw force, violence, and the accompanying pride and superiority are not fitting for him, but humility, patience, and the weapons of the spirit.
However, this does not mean he prohibited those whose profession and vocation are entirely different from that of priests, who are there to defend virtue and good people from the brutality and armed violence of the wicked, from using their swords if necessary. The great commendation of the centurion of Capernaum and Cornelius in the Scriptures proves that the use of the sword is also a respectable occupation and that such people can be as good Christians as those who fight the same evil with the weapons of the spirit.
In Matthew 10:34, even Christ himself says, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Thus, Jesus not only does not categorically forbid us to touch weapons, but he also suggests that there are cases where he himself gives us the sword and, naturally, to use it.
It is also very clear in the Scriptures what God’s word thinks of war. We read that when John the Baptist began to teach, "the soldiers asked him, 'And what should we do?' He replied, 'Do not extort money and do not accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.'" (Luke 3:14)
So, he did not scold them for being "warriors," nor did he threaten them with damnation if they continued to be, nor did he hint that they should choose a milder occupation. He did not call them to immediately throw away their weapons because they would defile them, and thus they should not even touch them. Instead, he only warned them not to misuse their weapons against civilians, not to extort, and - who would believe it?! - to serve their king cheaply or at least not to ask for a raise.
It is undoubtedly implied in all this that they could continue to be "warriors" and, now as followers of Christ, that John the Baptist, according to Jesus' words, considered this the most natural thing.
Additionally, @aservantofJEHOVAH's caricature and assertion regarding "ethnostates" and "nationalism" is misleading because the nation-state is a distinctive modern invention of the 18th-19th centuries. Before this, the identity of states was based on dynastic loyalty, not some form of "nationalism." Moreover, the Scriptures do not teach that the current structures, i.e., being citizens of a particular state and belonging to a specific ethnic-national group, are irrelevant or null. The Scriptures do not speak in such a pessimistic, condemning way about secular authority. See John 17:15, 19:11, Romans 13:1-7, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, 1 Peter 2:13-14. Why should I accept by default that cooperation between the Church and secular authority is condemned by the Scriptures? The Bible condemns certain actions of specific rulers or state powers, but I have not read anywhere that state power as such and involvement in public affairs are condemned actions. The point is this: our task is not to live according to this world, but to live in this world and influence our surroundings (Matthew 5:13-14, John 17:15, Philippians 2:15). As for our attitude toward power, all authority comes from God (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-14), and—optimally—those who perform administrative duties fulfill a God-given function with God-given talent. In subordination to God, for the common good, people give thanks to God for good governance. (This is not a naive dream; there were times when kings were "by the grace of God" and could be rebuked by simple preachers if they forgot the King of Kings.) Nowadays, many people in leadership positions use their talents and positions not to serve God or their country, but themselves. Although we are also heavenly citizens (Philippians 3:20, Ephesians 2:19), we have a duty to pray for social order and justice, and to fight for it with our way of life (1 Timothy 2:1-2, Titus 3:1-2). If the apostle demanded this attitude during the pagan Roman Empire, then we should have the same attitude in today’s democracies. If our worldly duty and talent call us to administration, and the existing system is not an anti-Christian dictatorship, then we can do our work in God's name and with a clear conscience (Acts 5:29), and we can have a beneficial impact on our world (Romans 16:23).
@Roman
First of all, the idea that the Holy Spirit is not identical to God's 'dynamis' was not invented by Origen. After all, according to Scripture, He Himself has power (Luke 4:14, Romans 15:13, 19, 1 Corinthians 2:4), and He can fill beings with His power (Micah 3:8 cf. Acts 1:8). Secondly, neither the Arians nor the Pneumatomachi claimed anything about the Holy Spirit similar to what the early JWs did. I did not say that the Arians did not know Greek, but that they did not know Hebrew. Origen and Jerome did, of course, but the former was not alive then, and the latter had not yet been born, so during the main period of the Arian controversy, neither side knew that the debate over Proverbs 8:22 might also be based on a linguistic misunderstanding, which the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion completely preclude in this regard.
The context of Matthew 10:34 shows that the sword here has nothing to with carnal warfare. The ended with John nincs, we are now under the law if the kingdom not law of Moses,
Luke Ch.7:28NIV"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” With the death and resurrection of Christ a new dispensation is opened our primary loyalty is to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom and not any of nations of the present age. Our warfare is to be confined to spiritual struggle. The strife mentioned at Matthew 10:34 would certainly not be among fellow believers at the behest of Godless politicians, clearly he is referring to the hatred that they would be subjected to by unbelievers because of the judgment against the present world that they were called to proclaim, Christians were not even to retaliate against unbelievers, to say nothing of indulging in mass fratricide amongst themselves,
Matthew Ch.10:23NIV"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Not rally an army make the persecutors pay,
Roman's Ch.12:20NIV"On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” So even to our persecutors we show kindness how then can anyone think that Christian lifting sword as against brother Christian could be acceptable to the God and Father of Jesus.
A new dispensation began once Christ ascended into heaven our primary loyalty is to JEHOVAH not any of the nations of the present age, the authorities spoken of at Roman's ch.13: were not fellow Christians but worshippers of the Roman emperors and The Roman God Jupiter. So JEHOVAH does not need a Christian prince in order to maintain sufficient order as to permit the execution of our commission, the fact of the matter is that the sword is just as likely to be used to perpetrate injustice in the hands of the princes of the present age whether they claim to be Christian or not, the Christian must avoid the community guilt that would inevitably come from serving as the arm of any of the sovereigns of the present age.
Revelation Ch.18:24NKJV"And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”
Christian neutrality is the biblical position. We do not take sides in the conflicts of the nations. We are exclusively on JEHOVAH'S Side we are never are as Christians to find ourselves slaughtering brother Christians at the behest of the princes of the present age whether they claim to be Christians or not, fratricide us not a fruit to be expected from any tree planted by the God and Father of Jesus Matthew Ch.15:13NKJV"But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted". 1 John Ch.3:11,12NIV"For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. " Slaughtering fellow Christians under any pretext is forbidden the only sword the Christian is permitted to wield is the sword of the spirit
Ninc you have completely ignored my point and gone on a theologically motivated rant… with absolutely no foundation to such a claim…
Where is the exception to what I said in the bible? Unless you can provide an example where Jesus actually said pick up arms and fight rather than figurative speech your claim remains unfounded and unjustified
Also the scriptures you are citing you have conveniently omitted the context to where that was said
You also don’t seem to know what a principle is… a principle uses the core foundation of something to get the point across- it doesn’t cover every model for the future because that’s impossible.. James white uses a similar argument in regards to Isaiah passages - which I’m pretty sure he later conceded on
If Jesus didn’t get behind and support a Roman king or enter their government or whatever, why should we? I have more biblical foundation for this claim than if I wanted to claim the opposite
Thirdly - the antecedent to Holy Spirit is neuter not masculine so can only be called “it”( this is on linguistic foundation not theological)
The other 2 points you are ignoring information previously provided, not sure why but it’s not very sporting of you
https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2020/02/28/the-early-christians-and-the-military/
I agree that Yoder refutes the use of Romans to support the notion that Christians can participate in military service.
Al Kidd once recommended the book referenced below, which supports what you have argued. Cheap paper and glue was used for the original printing of Hornus' excellent contribution to the subject (one copy I had fell apart), but the book has been reprinted by Wipf & Stock, and it looks to me that they didn't skimp on either paper or glue. Highly recommended!
It Is Not Lawful for Me to Fight: Early Christian Attitudes toward War, Violence, and the State, by Jean-Michel Hornus
https://wipfandstock.com/9781606089347/it-is-not-lawful-for-me-to-fight/
@aservantofJEHOVAH
You throw around these slogans ("new dispensation," "carnal warfare," "Christian neutrality") as if they have any intrinsic meaning outside of your denominational jargon. Yet, you have not refuted anything from my arguments above. Nowhere in the New Testament does it declare that Christians 'de facto' cease to be members of the groups to which they ethnically, culturally, and citizenship-wise belong, becoming some kind of Esperanto-ideology-like foreign body in this world. It certainly does not declare that Christians cannot undertake state service (even armed), or that those who do, can only become Christians if they abandon such professions. On the contrary, the New Testament often speaks favorably of soldiers, without saying that these are inherently sinful or rejectable professions.
The Fifth Commandment (or Sixth according to Jewish/Protestant numbering) states, "You shall not murder," which has nothing to do with warfare. The same Scripture also says, "Let the hand of the avenger be the first against him," and "the whole assembly shall stone him to death." Boom. (Help: this counterexample does not bring back the practice of stoning into the church from the Old Testament, but rather vividly refutes your "black-and-white," i.e., crude, one-dimensional, and bullheaded application of "you shall not murder.")
Paul the Apostle interprets "love your neighbor" this way (Romans 12:18): "If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all." The command to "love your enemy" is not even a command but a moral ideal, for the violation of which neither Jesus nor the apostles excluded anyone from the church. Yet you would apply it as law. The command "You shall not kill" did not exclude lawful judicial or military killing even at the time it was given, so it never applied to killing enemy combatants in war. Or can you prove otherwise?
You reject the idea of defensive war. This is a stance, although it is difficult to defend in countries where the majority of the population is Christian. According to this stance, such states would annihilate themselves along with their inhabitants, exposing them to the whims of their enemies.
We know that God Himself distributed the land among the nations (Deuteronomy 32:8: "When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He divided all mankind, He set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel [or rather: of God]"), not by human whim.
When Jesus rebuked Peter, why did He have him put his sword back in its sheath (and not throw it on the rubbish heap)? Moreover, why didn’t He have Peter lay down his sword earlier? This incident proves that Jesus had no objection to Peter carrying a sword for self-defense, and only in this one case did He reject its use, because it would have hindered the crucifixion.
"The authorities spoken of in Romans ch.13 were not fellow Christians but worshippers of the Roman emperors." - Indeed, they were at that time, but where does it follow that in another era they could not be?
"JEHOVAH does not need a Christian prince in order to maintain sufficient order as to permit the execution of our commission." - Indeed, God does not need this, but the issue here was whether it is forbidden for it to be so.
@Anonymous
Why should I have to prove that Jesus took up arms? It is up to you to prove that the New Testament commands or mandates that a Christian cannot undertake armed (military or police) service. Well, you can't do that, so you resort to these general slogans, like "principle" this and that. But the problem is that no such "principle" is stated, which is why, for example, your denomination felt the need to insert "in their relative positions" into Romans 13:1, or to translate "ek tou kosmou" as "not *PART* of the world." By the same logic, one could interpret Christianity to prohibit vegetarianism or abstinence from alcohol, as some have indeed done.
"If Jesus didn’t get behind and support a Roman king or enter their government or whatever, why should we?" - It is not necessary to be so, but the issue was not whether it is "necessary," but whether it is forbidden for Christians to work towards making it so.
@Anonymous
"The antecedent to Holy Spirit is neuter, not masculine, so it can only be called 'it' (this is on linguistic foundation, not theological)."
You are mistaken. Actually masculine pronouns are used in reference to the Holy Spirit despite the fact that "Spirit" (Greek: pneuma) is neuter (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13f, Greek: ekeinos, literally, "that One"). Gender of a word has nothing to do with identity; it has to do with the language. Gender belongs to the language of the word, not to the case of, or the object of, the word. Infants (Luke 1:41,44; 2:16; 18:15) and children (Mark 5:39-41) are also neuter in Greek in exactly the same way the Holy Spirit is neuter gender. "Girl" is a neuter noun in Matthew 9:24, 25; Mark 5:41, 42. Angels are neuter pneuma "IT" spirits in Hebrews 1:14. Demons are neuter pneuma "IT" spirits over 45 times in scripture. The word "Spirit" is feminine in Genesis 1:2: "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." A masculine pronoun ("He," Greek: ekeinos, literal "that One") is applied to the Holy Spirit throughout the New Testament despite the fact that "Spirit" (Greek: pneuma) is neuter. Is God trying to confuse us? Or is God taking special steps to make sure we understand the Holy Spirit is a person? The word spirit is frequently "neuter gender" when it refers to the Father in John 4:24, to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:45, to baby Jesus in Matthew 2:8, 11, 13, 14, 19-21. Such an argument displays a dismal understanding of the Greek language.
It is true that not every command of secular authorities must be obeyed, but warfare is not one of these exceptions. For example, we will not worship idols or oppress the innocent at the command of secular authorities. It is God's will that some people exercise His judging, wrathful, and avenging power on earth with weapons in hand for the benefit of society (Romans 13:3-4). It is difficult to understand why the JWs would want to restrict this godly and holy vocation to unbelievers (even in a predominantly Christian society). Of course, at one time, the JWs denied that this passage referred to secular authorities, but fortunately, they have since retracted this mirage-like misinterpretation.
Armed defense is not tied to the Israeli theocracy, and Paul did not exile Christians from their earthly homeland. Even before Israel, God authorized the lawful use of weapons: God revealed to Noah that whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed, meaning that from Noah's time, the punishment for common crimes was entrusted to human hands. Noah was not Jewish, so the covenant made with him was not made only with Jews. It was not a "theocratic" arrangement, but a very ordinary one. You are groping in the wrong direction when you try to discard the regulation of earthly vengeance under the pretext of the fall of Israel as a "theocratic arrangement." No, according to God's ordinance, the church has not taken the place of the state or society, so the right of secular authority to punish evildoers with the sword remains.
A properly functioning state authority can indeed be seen as God's faithful servant. An improperly functioning one can be seen as a servant of God abusing its authority, to whom, however, what is due must still be given, and to whom resistance is only allowed in matters where we have a clear command from God to the contrary. The earthly, civil order as an ideal (goal) is God's own order on earth (outside the church), for He will punish evil deeds in due time just as the state ideally punishes them. It is another matter that, due to lack of insight or sufficient effort towards the good, the state is not always able to meet this ideal. But this does not make a state without the sword the ideal in the present.
The state will also be held accountable before God for its excesses. But this does not make the authority ordained by God just "a temporarily tolerated" factor that can be conveniently ignored in doctrine even now.
At such times, it is the godly duty of a young person to comply with the draft order. They may follow their direct superior's commands as long as they do not involve clearly sinful actions, such as the oppression of innocent civilians, etc. Whether the war is just or unjust is not the responsibility of the common soldier but of the state leaders, who are accountable to God. After all, God does not intend to establish ultimate justice among people on this earth, but beyond. Regardless of this, God did not deny the right to use weapons. Cornelius, who was a Roman (!) soldier, is noted to have become a Christian and is referred to as a positive example, thus not condemning military service.
If a Christian happens to fight in an attacking army and does not throw away their weapon (i.e., does not desert, etc.) knowing that they are being used for an unjust cause, then Noah whispers this principle in their ear, and the enemy justly cuts them down. The Christian soldier can still choose to discard their weapon if they are to be deployed against someone they do not deem worthy of punishment. And if they live in a state that wages wars of conquest, it is reasonable to assume that they do well not to take up arms.
According to God's ordinance, the church has not taken the place of the state or society, so the right of secular authority to punish evildoers with the sword remains. The responsibility for social peace does not lie with the church, but with secular authority, which operates not according to the norms of the gospel but based on natural law. The establishment of civil order is not entrusted to the church. What Moses' law prescribed for Israel in a civil sense often coincides with the natural enlightenment known and approved by God among the pagans, namely, that evildoers must be punished. And if it is a purely secular crime, the apostle did not object to it but even called it a divine service (diakonia). The church does not replace the state either in reality or in God's plan, so the two cannot be alternatives to each other.
We know well that the moment the danger of idolatry disappeared, the church quickly and without protest accepted the possibility of Christians performing military service. This shows us that if early Christianity had reservations about military service in certain eras, it was not about the weapons but primarily about the compulsory military manifestations of the pagan and idolatrous state religion.
The faith of the early centuries was vividly demonstrated by the quick and decisive response against Monarchianism. This manifested in two forms: official rejection and literary refutations. Pope Victor excommunicated the two Theodoti and Pope Callixtus excommunicated Sabellius, only a few years after their emergence. In literary combat, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Pope Dionysius were the main figures who refuted the heretical doctrines and attempted to theologically elaborate on the mystery of the Trinity.
The theological discussions before the Council of Nicaea primarily sought answers to the questions of what is one and what is three, and how the three persons relate to each other. They clearly saw why the heretical answers were wrong, but when they attempted to provide their own solutions, they did not always express themselves fortunately, often in ways that could be misunderstood. Sometimes, they emphasized the opposite of the criticized heresy so strongly that they themselves ended up holding objectionable, erroneous views.
The latter occurred less frequently. We can read erroneous statements mainly in the writings of Hermas, Justin, and Origen, particularly the claim that the Father is greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit. Influenced by Stoic philosophy, Theophilus, Tatian, and Justin also believed that the Word (Logos) had always existed with the Father (John 1:1), but as an unspoken thought (Logos endiathetos) within the Father, who spoke it out before the creation of the world for the purpose of creation. Thus, the Word received an independent existence, becoming the spoken word (Logos prophorikos).
There are expressions in the mentioned authors that simply aim to convey the order of the Trinitarian processions and missions, but they do so with terms that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. For example: "The Father is the God above all, the Son is in the second place, and the Holy Spirit in the third place"; the Father is "the God" (ho Theos), the Son is "God" (Theos); the Father is God in Himself (Autotheos), the Son is God from God (Theos ek Theou). It also happens that they do not yet distinguish between the internal life of the Trinity and its manifestation in salvation history. Therefore, they claim invisibility for the Father, that the Son became visible at the creation of the world, and the Holy Spirit appeared at the sanctification of the world. When we read such statements, we should understand that the Son embodies the Father’s creative plans (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:2) and thus became perceptible at creation, while the Holy Spirit was most evident to people at the pinnacle of His activity, at the first Pentecost.
Regarding the war itself, it is not difficult to explain why the Church does not categorically declare that all war is always and under all circumstances forbidden. Such a categorical prohibition would mean, in the context of nations, the subjugation of the good and the weak to the wicked and the more powerful. Just as it often happens with individuals that, due to the wickedness of others, they are forced to kill because they cannot otherwise protect their own or their loved ones' lives or property, the same can occur and does occur with human communities, nations, countries, and states.
If one nation attacks another, robs it, or seizes certain territories or natural resources simply because it knows it is stronger or because the other nation's forces are currently tied up elsewhere, or because the attack is a surprise, it is clear that just as an attacked individual has the right to defend themselves, so does an attacked nation. If the Church were to declare that all war is forbidden under all circumstances, then in such cases, defense would also be prohibited. This would be contrary to justice and rights, and even to proper neighborly love. Although the Church permits war only in such cases, it cannot, therefore, declare that all war is forbidden.
Thus, according to the Church's teaching, war is forbidden just as killing is forbidden. However, since killing is not forbidden in a JW manner, but rationally, meaning that the prohibition does not exclude self-defense, and if we defend the innocent against the wicked, then this killing is actually a virtue and merit. In the same way, war is forbidden, but it is also forbidden rationally, meaning that there are cases when it is not forbidden because it is forced upon us, and since the participants in such wars are only defending themselves and risking their lives for their compatriots, participating in such wars can be a good deed and merit.
If the Church were to forbid even defensive war, it would be the same in the context of nations as forbidding defense against attackers and even the carrying of weapons in the context of individuals. Peoples ruled by wicked and unscrupulous leaders, who do not listen to the Church, would still launch looting campaigns just as before, even more so, and only peaceful nations would suffer. They would have to peacefully endure being robbed by those who are unscrupulous.
But why does the Church, the clergy, not declare in times of war which side is right, i.e., which nation’s sons are not sinning by taking up arms? Why doesn’t it say where the truth lies, who the aggressor is, and who is defending themselves, and why does it tolerate the mistaken belief, at least from one side, that both sides are equally justified and that the war is blameless even for the attacking nation?
We answer this question by saying that in most cases, the Church is not competent to make such a definitive statement because only those privy to diplomatic secrets, fully informed of everything, and aware of both sides' motives can determine who is right. The secret documents that shed light on the matter are usually only disclosed afterward, and mostly only become public if they fall into the hands of the opponent. The opponent usually only publishes and promotes what is advantageous to them. Making a decision based on this would also be unjust.
Even if the pope were in a position to make a just statement, it would still not be very meaningful because the government against which his statement would be made would ensure that its subjects do not learn about the papal declaration. Until the discovery of the radio, this was usually perfectly successful. But even Hitler severely punished listening to foreign radio, effectively isolating his subjects from foreign news despite having radios. Under such circumstances, the pope's possible declaration would be of little use and cause much harm, as the government in question would retaliate by persecuting the Church and inciting its citizens against it in the name of the homeland.
In a country where Catholics are only a minority, the government would not hide this papal declaration but use it for propaganda, portraying the pope as a political figure who has betrayed his calling. As history and life abundantly show, it could achieve perfect success in inciting existing hatred against the Catholic Church.
It would present the matter as the pope's ill-will towards the country and its people, and for the Catholic citizens of that state, listening to the pope would be portrayed as treason and serving foreign interests. Otherwise, the whole matter would be simply explained as the "internationalism" of Catholicism.
Despite all these significant disadvantages, the church has sometimes made declarations when war broke out. When Hitler invaded the Netherlands and Belgium in World War II, the pope immediately made an official statement, sending public telegrams to the Belgian king and the Dutch queen, asking for God's blessing on their just wars. Thus, the Church not only did not bless Hitler's war but also made it clear to the whole world without question who was right and who was wrong in this war, who was the innocent defender and who was the guilty aggressor.
And what was the benefit of it all? Did people perhaps listen to him? The German Protestants (two-thirds of the country) cursed the pope and the Catholics for it, reaffirming that their Catholic compatriots had never been true Germans. As for the German Catholics, the German newspapers and radio naturally did not mention a word about these two telegrams. Catholics learned about it only from Protestant and state propaganda campaigns. However, it did not benefit them either, as the faithful and religiously educated Catholic could only conclude that the pope was not infallible in this matter, and thus the matter was settled for them (if not, they would have had to become martyrs; many did). The average Catholic, however, jumped to the ceiling in anger, wondering why the pope was getting involved in politics.
Ninc - if your position is true prove it- why do you make everyone else prove everything? If your position is so clear you should be able to sight a single scripture or article that proves it.
Why should you have to prove it? Because your theologically motivated rants don’t work on me…because they don’t prove anything, they are your opinions not fact
Jesus never picked up arms where does it state he did? He used word pictures to describe arms as an illustration, the one time someone did, he rebuked them..
There is mountains of historical evidence you are on omitting
The antesedent to ekeinos in John is parakaletos not pneuma… see Wallace’s study on the subject
The only time that I am aware a neuter noun takes a different gender antesedent is when the gender is made clear via the context, Wallace bring up another example but again the gender is clear from context.
Did you read that my statement was a language point of view not theological? again I repeat I am of no denomination but agree with the witnesses on the majority of cases ( tho I may study with the witnesses very soon :))
What is clearly forbidden is the mass slaughter of fellow Christians by brother Christians John Ch.13:34,35
It is not so much the way Christendom treats her enemies that exposes her as utterly unchristian(although that is damming enough) but the cruelty with which she treats her friends.
The head of state is the nation's top soldier . Obviously those who have beaten their swords into plowshares cannot harbor ambitions of becoming a soldier in any army of the nations of the present age to say nothing of its top soldier.
Isaiah Ch.2:4ASV"And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
If JEHOVAH is unable to bring peace to his own people how can he be trusted to bring universal peace. Those seeking a token of this coming peace are not going to find it among the hyperpolitical churches of Christendom, they have presented the world with pretty much the inverse of that.
“But the problem is that no such "principle" is stated,” - many principles are not stated in the bible but implied, I could cite about 5
Where does the bible say to be honest with money? It doesn’t it condemns lieing in general… taxes being implied in the comparison of the paying Caesar and paying God scripture
“to translate "ek tou kosmou" as "not *PART* of the world."” - and how would you translate it? It’s not a wrong translation at all, I can cite many bibles that add words to clear the intended meaning - what bible do you use and I’ll point out places where they add words or do not translate it literally
I mean there a handful of passages that you can’t translate literally
This one the very base of Jesus’ argument is his disciples are different from the rest of the world…
Again you just prove you only attack witnesses because you have jumped on a band wagon - what linguistical reason is it a wrong translation?
“abstinence from alcohol” - I mean the bible condemns drunkenness not alcohol in general
Under the mosaic covenant the Hebrews were permitted to fight to defend their geographically bound ethnostate, Jesus and his disciples also observed the mosaic law including regular attendance at services at the temple,are you advocating that example as well, as I have REPEATEDLY pointed out,the resurrection and ascension of Christ to his God and Father's presence marked the beginning of a new dispensation, marked by the abolishing of the national church,and the establishing of international brotherhood of Christian witnesses who were to be heralds of the kingdom that would bring the foretold universal peace mentioned at Isaiah Ch.2:4 and Luke 2:14. At John Ch.13:34,35 Jesus prophesied of the global peace that would distinguish his true followers from the many pretenders mentioned Matthew Ch.7:15-19ASV"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. "
Their was no global evangel in the time of Abraham and the patriarchs .their was no global evangelization prior to Christ ascension and glorification. The theocracy did not begin with the law the patriarchies were theocracies, but they weren't international, believer must never fight believer under any circumstance, so it's not about exile our loyalty to our God JEHOVAH and our brother servants of JEHOVAH is to take priority over any other loyalty.
Matthew Ch.12:47-50ASV"47Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”"
Only in the confused minds of yourself and your ilk nincsnevem, can the command to Christians love one another as Christ loved us leave room for the mass butchery that has Characterized Christendom's history. Christ told us that just as the top theologians of his day could not grasp his sayings and attempted to ridicule him so to the pretend teachers of this time will ridicule us so I'm not surprised that you can't grasp something so obvious.
John Ch.15:20NIV"Remember what I told you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also."
Christendom's dogmas cause brain damage.
John 17:14 - AT Robertson
Verse 14
Not of the world (ουκ εκ του κοσμου). They are "in the world" (εν τω κοσμω, verse John 17:13) still and Christ sends them "into the world" (εις τον κοσμον, verse John 17:18), but they must not be like the world nor get their spirit, standards, and message "out of the world," else they can do the world no good. These verses (John 17:14-19) picture the Master's ideal for believers and go far towards explaining the failure of Christians in winning the world to Christ. Too often the world fails to see the difference or the gain by the change.
So yeah “part of” is not only possible but linguistically justified
Robertson was a trinitarian… in fact I’m surprised he is honest about this verse
And on war and picking up arms
http://www.qhpress.org/texts/dymond.html
Get around this historic evidence… you can’t
The true church is separate from the unbelieving world and is not to meddle in the affairs of unbelievers The unbelievers are to be left alone to order their affairs as they best know how,
The hope is that they would reciprocate and leave us alone .1Peter Ch.4:15NLT"If you suffer, however, it must not be for... prying into other people’s affairs. ", the fact of the matter is that in practice christendom's clergy have always backed the local warlord , my country is always right has been the principle in war time, God judges those outside it is not our responsibility to maintain order among unbelievers 1Corinithians Ch.5:12,13 NIV"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside..." we have no business deciding on the rights and wrongs of the unbelievers' conflicts ,JEHOVAH will pass judgment on the princes of the present age and their enablers in due time our task in the meanwhile is to call men away from these temporal nations to JEHOVAH'S eternal kingdom.
Revelation Ch.13:8NIV"All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. b"
@Anonymous
You need to provide proof because there is a fundamental principle that "affirmanti incumbit probatio" (the burden of proof is on the one who asserts). You are the ones making a bold claim against the millennia-old Christian consensus by stating that the New Testament forbids armed service. We know well that there is no such commandment in it, which is why you cling to these general and vague statements. It is clear that "lo tirṣaḥ" did not prohibit the sanctioned taking of life for Jews, nor did the apostles instruct anyone to abandon military service to become a Christian. Furthermore, both Christ and John the Baptist spoke positively about soldiers. I did not say that Christ used a weapon, which is adequately explained by the fact that it was not His mission, and He was not a soldier but a 'tektōn' (artisan or craftsman). But perhaps no profession should be practiced if Christ did not practice it? By this logic, one should not be a doctor either. Christ did not marry, so is celibacy mandatory for everyone in Christianity?
The grammatical gender has nothing to do with the personhood of the Holy Spirit. For example, in German, "the child" is a neuter noun (das Kind), and whenever you refer to this "child," you must use a neuter pronoun (es = "it"), yet no one would say that the child is not a person.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
I wasn't talking about """mass slaughter""" or """butchery""" being permissible for Christians, but you repeatedly used a "straw man" argument along with intentionally demagogic language. Does every single soldier's or even police officer's duty qualify as ""mass slaughter"""? Let's not be ridiculous. Isaiah 2:4 is not a commandment to be implemented in the present age, but an ideal that pertains to the future. There, the prophet summarizes the first and last phases of the messianic era, where divine peace has already come to earth (John 14:27) in the former, and in the latter, peace will be universal, permeating all external conditions.
"Under the Mosaic covenant, the Hebrews were permitted to fight to defend their geographically bound ethnostate" - The right to take life (within the framework of capital punishment or just, defensive war) is not tied to the Mosaic law but to the Noahic covenant, and this has not been revoked in the New Testament. Furthermore, most state entities before the 18th-19th centuries were not "ethnostates" but multi-ethnic empires, founded on dynastic loyalty, with an identity that was not ethnic-nationalistic. Of course, you only brought up this "ethnostate" concept to label any military profession as some form of chauvinism, as if patriotism couldn't exist without hating other nations.
@Anonymous
"But the problem is that no such 'principle' is stated," - many principles are not stated in the Bible but implied.
Oh yes, "implied", of course. Believe me, numerous Christian interpreters have tried to read into the Bible that the allegd commandments for vegetarianism and abstinence from alcohol are also "implied". Read, I have cited several Bible verses above that make statements about the role of the state or soldiers, as "lex specialis". Even in the hypothetical case that such an alleged "principle" (as "lex generalis") existed, these latter, concrete, and specific statements would apply to this circumstance as "lex specialis".
"It doesn’t it condemns lying in general…"
Oh yes, it does. Compare: Leviticus 19:11, Proverbs 14:5, John 8:44, Acts 5:3, Ephesians 4:29.
"to translate 'ek tou kosmou' as 'not PART of the world.'" - and how would you translate it?"
Simple: "not OF the world." Accordingly, Jesus never said that His followers cannot be "part" of the world! Thus, the Bible does not expect any separatist, anti-social, sectarian spirit from Christians, but only the recognition (and operating in awareness) that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is not like that of earthly kings, but is spiritual and, in that sense, supernatural. Christians, therefore, hold different principles from the non-Christian world in that they follow God's Word; there is no mention of "not PART of the world." Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, meaning it is not earthly, not political, but a spiritual kingdom. This expression does not encourage an anti-social and anti-state attitude but simply keeps in mind that God's kingdom is of supernatural origin, nature, and purpose. While we are also heavenly citizens (Phil 3:20, Eph 2:19), we are obliged to pray for social order and justice and to strive for it with our way of life (1 Tim 2:1-2, Titus 3:1-2). If the apostle demanded this attitude during the pagan Roman Empire, then in today's democracies, our approach cannot be different. If our earthly task and talent call us to administration, and the existing system is not an anti-Christian dictatorship, then we can carry out our duties in the name of God and with a clear conscience (Acts 5:29), having a beneficial impact on our world (Rom 16:23).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_violence
John Helgeland said that most of the early Christians opposed military service *BECAUSE* they refused to practice the Roman religion and they also refused to perform the rituals of the Roman army, *NOT* because they were against killing. Helgeland also stated that there is a diversity of voices in the written literature, as well as evidence of a diversity of practices by Christians.
David Hunter notes that there is evidence that by the 2nd century Christian practices had started to diverge from the theological principles espoused in early Christian literature. Hunter's third point of the "new consensus" is the assertion THAT THE JUST WAR THEORY REFLECTS AT LEAST ONE *PRE-CONSTANTINIAN* VIEW. Finally, to these three points, Kreider added that Christian attitudes towards violence were likely varied in different geographical locations, pointing out that pro-militarist views were stronger in border areas then they were in "heartland" areas which were more strongly aligned with the Empire.
There is little evidence concerning the extent of Christian participation in the military; generalizations are usually *SPECULATION*.
*
Source: Helgeland, John (1979). H. Temporini and W. Haase (ed.). Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Vol. 23. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 724–834.
James Ch.4:4NIV"d]Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. " You commit mass fratricide at the behest of Godless politicians you are now JEHOVAH'S enemy, there is to be nothing arcane or mystical about the individual Christian's or the the global Christian brotherhood's separateness from the present global civilization.
No God's kingdom is above any human kingdom and is entitled to the Christian's primary allegiance.
The Christian is not to to take up arms against his brother under any circumstance or show preference in conflicts between unbelievers. Our preference is to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom there is nothing anti-social about that, alerting our fellow man to the futility of trusting in human institutions to deal with the same issues that are largely of their making and instead put faith in the superior government of JEHOVAH is the most sociable thing one can do for his fellowman
Another point that should be mentioned is that even in those earlier dispensation where JEHOVAH'S Congregation was defined in part by ethnicity and geography it was unacceptable for believers to fight amongst themselves. There is no justification for Christendom's mass fratricide even in the old testament.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The fact that, despite my repeated objections, you are constantly unable to formulate your statements without using emotionally loaded language, demagogic, sensational scare slogans ("mass fratricide"), does not exactly show the strength of your position. Do you think that scholarly studies on the subject, like Helgeland's, are phrased in this manner?
Your knowledge of military history is also quite lacking, as if the only form of warfare were a WW2-style total war, whereas, for example, the wars between medieval Catholic kingdoms more closely resembled large-scale knightly tournaments, where likely more men died from falling off horses than by the sword. I recommend watching this lecture:
James 4:4 does not contradict the specific statements I cited above, not least because the term "world" (kosmos) is used in various senses in the New Testament. For example, according to John 3:16, "God so loved the world," the "world" is the place where God sent His Son (1 John 4:9), the "world," that is, the Savior of all people (4:14 cf. John 3:16). The Epistle of James was written to a fragmented community full of problems and sins, and chapter 4 deals with serious moral offenses. The source of the strife in the community is the selfish desires and envy within its members (4:1-3), as well as pride (4:6) and slandering others (4:11). They did not even realize that they were not only distanced from each other but also from God, and they did not resist the Accuser (4:7-8). In the midst of this argument, James condemns their mentality and behavior: by befriending the world, they are hostile to God.
Secondly, the word "moikhalides," translated archaically as "adulteresses," means "adulterers" [moikheia = adultery]. James might be referring to actual adultery here (cf. "desires that battle within you," "pleasures"), but also in a figurative sense, as something that damages the relationship between Christ and His church. This has biblical precedent, as the term "adultery" [Hebrew naaf = adultery, prostitution] was also used for spiritual unfaithfulness to God. We see many examples of this in the Old Testament (e.g., Deut 31:16-17), in Jesus' opinion of His contemporaries in the Gospels (Matt 12:39, 16:4), and in the apostolic letters because breaking the "betrothal" between Christ and the Church (2 Cor 11:2, Eph 5:31-32, Rev 19:7-8)—whether with a prostitute or spiritually—provokes the Lord's wrath (1 Cor 6:15-20, 10:6-9, Col 3:5-6, Rev 2:14-16).
Thirdly, "world" [kosmos] is a multi-meaning biblical term: the universe, humanity, non-Jewish peoples, the world of our age, people outside the church, etc. Mainly in this latter sense, "the world" (non-Christians) despises believers (1 Cor 4:9), does not know them, and even hates them (1 John 3:1,13) because they hold different values. Therefore, a believer either follows worldly values or God's, but if they are a friend of one, they are an enemy of the other.
"God's kingdom is above any human kingdom and is entitled to the Christian's primary allegiance."
However, no one, especially not me, has claimed otherwise, so emphasizing this is just straw man. But the secular authority's command should only be disobeyed if it explicitly contradicts a moral law, but no such law is stated in Scripture, as you claim.
"the futility of trusting in human institutions"
However, the position I hold does not seek to impose the role of God's kingdom onto secular authority, so your reference to this so-called "futility" is again just a straw man.
@aservantofJEHOVAH 9:09 AM
This comment is also a straw man because I was not talking about warfare WITHIN the Church, but about warfare between secular powers, in whose armies there can be both believers and unbelievers, and in which the procedures to be followed are regulated by "jus in bello."
Although modern war, with its deadly and destructive means, causes terrible losses for both sides, making it seem less suitable for protecting the common good, as it can cause immeasurable damage to human life and other assets, a nation still has the right to wage war if there is no other way to defend its rights and survival. It has the right to self-defense, just as an individual has the right to legitimate self-defense, and a nation can rightly reclaim its violently taken, unjustly oppressed rights if no other means are available.
The initiation and continuation of a war are justified if:
1. The war is decided by the highest state authority. Individuals have the means to enforce their rights through higher authority, but for a nation, the highest governing authority is the last forum that can stand up for the nation's rights, provided that there is no other internationally recognized suitable forum for remedying injustices;
2. There is a serious reason for it, meaning that the common good cannot be ensured or maintained by other means. To start a war, which entails terrible losses for both sides, a very serious reason is necessary, as only this can counterbalance the enormous losses associated with war. Such reasons in an offensive war can be, for example, reclaiming unjustly occupied territories, oppression of the nation's rights, protection of goods necessary for the preservation of life, violation of allied obligations, assistance to the enemy; but the desire for conquest, the pursuit of glory, or even the pretext of spreading culture are not sufficient reasons;
3. The aim of the war is true peace, meaning the protection of the common good, the ensuring of justice, and its service.
Before going to war, every possible means must be taken to find a peaceful solution without bloodshed; therefore, war can only be initiated after the most serious deliberation and advice of responsible and competent factors; there must be moral certainty about the justice of the war, because otherwise, people would be dragged into an unjust war and punished or harmed who may not be guilty. Before the war begins, a final warning (ultimatum) must be issued, specifying the conditions whose rejection will lead to war.
During the war, both sides must respect the provisions of international law for wartime and the requirements of natural law. Otherwise, any lawful means may be used to ensure the achievement of the goal. Those called to arms are free to defend themselves with weapons and to directly take the life of the military enemy, but POWs must not be killed. It is permissible to use tricks against the enemy, to place mines, to mislead the enemy, thereby covering up the army's position and movements; but it is not permissible to kill non-combatants, innocent civilians, especially children and women; nor is it permissible to use tricks or crude means against which human defense is almost impossible, such WMDs, etc.
The captured city or place must not be handed over to the soldiers for looting, private individuals must not be robbed, their belongings must not be taken without adequate compensation.
In itself, war cannot be just from both belligerent sides; but it is possible that, according to their conviction, both sides believe they are waging a just war. The highest governing authority is responsible for the justice of the war; if it assumes responsibility, subjects generally have no reason to doubt the justice of the war and their duties. However, it is not permissible to fight in a clearly unjust war; if withdrawing from the fight would not cause great danger, it is not permissible to use weapons against the opponent unless the fight becomes legitimate self-defense due to the enemy's attack.
No this is not a strawman. It gets to the heart of the issue.The true church is not to be divided by geography,politics or ethnicity. Just because you don't want to talk about the fact that rather than being an example of brotherhood the history of churches of Christendom has been more of a cautionary tale of the inverse does not mean that your churches' failure in this regard is to be ignored, our lord cautioned that false Christians will be known by their rotten fruit, so we cannot simply ignore the fact of your churches' utter failure to exhibit the sign that Christ prophesied would be an identifier of his true church John Ch.13:34,35. In war the first casualty is always the truth ,wisely we leave the judging to JEHOVAH as far as conflicts among unbelievers are concerned he is not going to be deceived by information warfare, believers ought not to be meddlers in the affairs of unbelievers our responsibility is to keep JEHOVAH'S true church holy not vainly attempt to straighten out the affairs of the present civilization.
Ecclesiastes Ch.7:13NIV"Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what he has made crooked?"
Here's the thing war is not the disease it's a symptom of the disease. JEHOVAH'S superior approach does merely mask/manage symptoms it addresses the disease that is why he is able to bless his true church with a global peace that the false gods and their false Christs simply can never replicate
Remember the Crusades?
https://astrofella.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/history-of-christianity-paul-johnson/
@Edgar Foster
Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. By the time the Crusades started, Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the Christian world. The Crusades were a direct response to more than four centuries of Muslim aggression. Fantastic articles:
* https://shorturl.at/GuXAt
* https://t.ly/EnEOw
* https://justpaste.it/fbpvo
The modern perception of the Crusades is also unjust. The Crusades are often portrayed in the public mind as manifestations of Western imperialism, religious bigotry, and fanaticism, as well as material interests cloaked in religious garb. However, this image is a myth.
In the Spring 2011 issue of Intercollegiate Review, Paul F. Crawford debunks four myths about the Crusades. The first myth is that the Crusades were unprovoked attacks on the Muslim world. In reality, by the time of the First Crusade, Islam had been in conflict with Christianity for 450 years.
The second myth is that the Crusaders were only interested in getting rich, and the third is that the religious motivation was merely a facade, with the campaigns actually driven by material gain. This opinion is problematic because the Crusades were very expensive endeavors, with many Crusaders selling much of their belongings to embark on the journey. The mortality rate of the Crusades was also very high; according to one military historian, 75% of the participants in the First Crusade perished. Joining the Crusader armies was voluntary; there was no draft, and it was not mandatory. Everyone was aware at the time, and recruitment speeches even warned, that Crusader knights might face hardship, suffering, and even death.
Crawford's fourth myth is that the Islamic world hates Christians because of the Crusades. In fact, until the 19th century, the Crusades were not a significant topic in the Muslim world. According to the author, Muslims didn't even have a specific word for the Crusades, which were simply seen as one chapter in the many Christian-Muslim conflicts. The Islamic world rediscovered the Crusades after 1899, thanks to the West, where the interpretation of the Crusades as barbaric, aggressive Western attacks on peaceful Muslims appealed to the emerging Arab nationalism and later to extremist Islamism.
The eastern campaigns of the Crusader armies were defensive offensives initiated by Christian Europe (see the speech of Blessed Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont in 1095) (at least the first two certainly were) and they defended Europe. It is unfortunate that in later Crusades, not only religious enthusiasm but also greed and a desire for adventure played a role. Disgraceful events, such as the capture of Byzantium, also occurred (here too it holds that the sins of the Crusades were consequences of human frailty, but this does not mean that the institution itself was unnecessary). The claim that the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre, the protection of Christian pilgrims, the unification of Christianity, and the prevention of Islamic terror were merely propagandistic goals, behind which there were actually economic interests (e.g., the impoverishment of knights due to primogeniture, the Italian cities' desire for commercial monopolies, and the serfs' escape from feudal exploitation) is nothing more than making incidental reasons into the main cause driven by the prejudiced agenda of the "Enlightenment" and as such, is a common fabrication. After all, "crusading" armies existed even before the proclamation of the Crusades (1095). For instance, they defended Spain from the Moors who had penetrated at the Strait of Gibraltar, whom Charles Martel and his armies were only able to repel from the territory of present-day France (732). Without them, today - most likely - all of Europe would be living under Sharia law. But can a war to protect Europeans be considered defensive if it takes place far beyond Europe's borders? The affirmative answer consists of two parts:
1. Any defensive or so-called "just" war can involve cross-border offensives (consider the USA's involvement in Europe [e.g., the Normandy landing] and Asia [e.g., Hiroshima, Nagasaki] during World War II, the Soviet Union's advance in Europe, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Gulf War, the United States' anti-terrorist campaign in Iraq, and the renewed State of Israel's armed conflicts with neighboring states - the note does not intend to sanctify or condemn any of these historical events, as the catechism does not aim to evaluate modern history, but merely to show that the concept of cross-border military action and self-defense can very well coexist in public consciousness). This could also be a preventive strike (the fact that Christianity delivered four decisive blows to Muslim armies on its own territory (Europe) is sufficient evidence that the Muslim world aimed to subjugate Europe, and action could and had to be taken against this even with cross-border means:
* 732: Tours and Poitiers - Islamic aggressor: Abderrhaman — victorious Christian leader: Charles Martel.
* 1456: Siege of Belgrade - Islamic aggressor: Mehmed II - victorious Christian leader: John Hunyadi.
* 1571: Lepanto - Islamic aggressor: Ali Pasha - victorious Christian leader: Don Juan of Austria.
* 1683: Vienna - Islamic aggressor: Kara Mustafa - victorious Christian leader: John Sobieski.
Thus, the Islamic invasion was independent of the Crusaders' activities, as Muslim aggression in the West caused serious military problems for Europe centuries before and after the campaigns.
2. A country and a community are obliged to protect their citizens or members of the community even if they are attacked beyond the country's borders or the community's territories (think about what would happen today if citizens of a major power were massacred en masse in a foreign country based on state-supported ideology simply because they belong to a particular nation). Christian pilgrims were systematically slaughtered or harassed by Muslims for centuries, depending on the prevailing interest. We consider it self-evident and legitimate that any country or nation should defend its interests with armed force. We can appreciate the welfare and existence of a country or nation. However, we deny the same to the Church. By doing so, we are either inconsistent or we do not sufficiently value spiritual matters.
The so-called Children's Crusade (1212) also requires separate discussion, as its evaluation is also questionable. It is true that such a crusade occurred, and it was indeed madness, but it should not be forgotten that it was not organized by the Church but was a spontaneous popular movement. The Church did not support it; on the contrary, several bishops managed to turn back thousands of children from certain death. So it was not approved by the Church and was a spontaneous action. Moreover, in light of research, it was not a children's crusade but rather one of poor, young laborers. The term "Children's Crusade" originated from a mistranslation of the Latin term (pueri) in contemporary chronicles.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"The true church is not to be divided by geography, politics, or ethnicity."
How can it not be divided if in reality and actually by countries? What does the Great Commission say?
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you."
So, the disciples are from various nations, and the apostles were commanded to *teach* them, not to transform them into a nationless and ethnicity-less "Esperanto" amalgam.
"Just because you don't want to talk about..."
It's not that I don't want to talk about it, but rather that
A) Instead of discussing specific biblical statements, you want to lead me into the weeds by analyzing individual wars, which is a matter of military history, not theology.
B) You obviously interpret these specific historical events in a superficial, black-and-white manner, and you describe them with sensationalist demagogic rhetoric.
"...our lord cautioned that false Christians will be known by their rotten fruit"
This is a complete mistake. The phrase "you will know them by their fruits" refers to recognizing false prophets, not false Christians. Read the parable again. This is one of Christ's parables that JWs take completely out of context, applying it in a way that does not validate identifying the true religion based on Donatist-Cathar logic. The "fruit" of false prophets is the failure of their "prophecies."
"We leave the judging to JEHOVAH"
Then why do you turn to secular courts for civil or criminal matters? These are issues that Scripture does not assign to God's judgment in the present age. Until Christ returns, according to Romans 13, these matters fall under the jurisdiction of the state's "sword," by God's will.
"Believers ought not to be meddlers in the affairs of unbelievers"
However, the state and society consist of both believers and unbelievers, so you cannot dismiss these affairs as solely the concerns of unbelievers.
"Our responsibility is to keep JEHOVAH'S true church holy"
Firstly, the view that the Church's holiness is based on the moral nature of its members is a serious heresy (Donatism, Catharism) and blasphemy, as the Church's holiness is based on Christ's sacrifice. Secondly, you still have not proven that it is inherently sinful for a Christian to follow an armed profession.
“the burden of proof is on the one who assert” - you made the claim, not I - yes Jesus spoke positively of soldiers does that mean he liked them?
He also spoke positively of human governments telling us to pay Caesar….
Think about the type of blog you are commenting on. You are the odd one out here
Vague statements - which ones? Cite then please ( burden of proof is on you :))
A principle is not a vague statement, far from. Proverbs is full of them
Where does it say that Christian’s must remain unmarried? - the issue you cite is totally different to the one we disagree on..
the command for military service ( killing others) is far more explicit than remaining unmarried..
“nor did the apostles instruct anyone to abandon military service to become a Christian.” -
a) should be self evident - thou shalt not kill and thou shalt love your enemy
b) what about Paul?
C) the article I cited? That trounces your argument - even the church fathers agree with me.
Why do the apostles need to instruct on everything? Are we that stupid these days we can’t fit the puzzle together?
I never said it defeats the personhood of the Holy Spirit did I ? I argued the antecedent of ekeinos being parakletos not pneuma hagion as you boldly claim.
I could have, but I didn’t ( I have already done that previously and shown you were being misleading)
Oh yes, "implied", of course. Believe me, numerous Christian interpreters have tried to read into the Bible that the allegd commandments for vegetarianism and abstinence from alcohol are also "implied"” - would love to see the arguments for either of those read my last statement on alchohol
The other one is easy to dispute aswell
Yeah they are wrong
For implied words try a Greek handbook
“Oh yes, it does.” - is said it did, did you read my statement?
“Simple: "not OF the world." Accordingly, Jesus never said that His followers cannot be "part" of the world!” - not according to AT Robertson!
Which bible do you use? - let’s see how accurate it is
What does not of this world even mean?
Ek generally denotes apart of something
( remember col 1:15 and the absence of ek making Jesus not part of creation :))
You could also translate it not from among this world ( which I would just replace with “part”)
I trust a Greek expert over you on this subject ( considering your track record)
John Helgeland: Christians and the military
https://archive.org/details/christiansmilita0000helg
Key arguments that challenge view that pre-Constantinian Christians rejected military service on principle.
1. Lack of Consistent Anti-War Sentiment: Some scholars, such as Ryan, argued that early Christians did not condemn participation in warfare because Jesus himself did not explicitly oppose it. Ryan dismissed early pacifist Christians like Tatian, Tertullian, and the Montanists as marginal figures (Ryan, "The Rejection of Military Service by the Early Christians," Theological Studies 12 (1952): 1–32).
2. No Consistent Policy on War: Von Campenhausen argued that the early church had no consistent policy on war and military service. He believed that the Constantinian settlement did not represent a decline in Christian morals because no clear stance had ever been defined (H. von Campenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Church, trans. A. V. Littledale (London, 1968), 160–170).
3. Debates Among Early Church Fathers: The early church fathers were divided on the issue. For example, Origen argued against war in theory but saw it as an academic exercise, not expecting a Christian Roman empire to become a reality. The Third Canon of the Council at Arles, which forbade Christians from deserting the Roman army, indicates that the church eventually decided to engage in worldly affairs (Basil Ep. 188.13).
4. Diverse Views Recognized by Scholars: Scholars like Louis Swift noted that the early Christians’ understanding of evangelical precepts did not show a clear development pattern, resulting in diverse opinions. Constantine's reign marked a turning point, imposing new responsibilities on the church and leading to a reassessment of the role of the empire in salvation history (L. J. Swift, The Early Fathers on War and Military Service (Wilmington, DE, 1983), 158–60).
5. Idolatry, Not Violence, as the Issue: John Helgeland's extensive study found that early Christian objections to military service were more about the idolatry involved in military oaths and rituals than about killing per se. He argued that the pacifist stance was often an artificial construct based on selective reading of sources (J. Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine,” ANRW 2:23.1 (1979): 724–834).
6. Just War Concept: J. T. Johnson noted that as Christians realized the Second Coming was not imminent and that the Roman Empire upheld certain values, the concept of 'just war' developed. This idea, influenced by St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, argued that loving one’s neighbor could include protecting them from aggression, which morally justified Christian participation in combat (J. T. Johnson, “Historical Roots and Sources of the Just War Tradition in Western Culture,” in Just War and Jihad, ed. J. Kelsay and J. T. Johnson (Westport, CO, 1991), 3–30).
7. Evidence of Christian Soldiers: There is substantial evidence of Christians serving in the Roman army, at least by the reign of Marcus Aurelius, suggesting that many Christians reconciled their faith with military service.
@Anonymous
"Which bible do you use? - let’s see how accurate it is"
I use several translations, and among the newer ones, perhaps the NRSVue is one of the best. However, I don't consider any of them definitive on their own, as each contains some translation choices that can be critiqued.
"What does 'not of this world' even mean?"
It means not of worldly origin, not worldly in purpose, not immanent but transcendent. In other words, the kingdom of Jesus Christ is not like that of earthly kings but is spiritual and, in that sense, supernatural. It implies that our ultimate hope should be placed in God. However, this expression says nothing on its own about how Christians should relate to secular society in everyday life, such as in career choices. God's kingdom does not replace the secular state in this world, just as we should not place the same hope in the secular state that we place in God's kingdom.
But as I explained above, the term "world" (kosmos) in the New Testament can have many meanings, it can also refer to the "sinful world", in this sense Christians do not belong here, because they are not from sin, that is why they will be hated and persecuted, this is what he is talking about Jesus at John 17.
"His kingdom, save those who believe in Him, to whom He says, “Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”? And yet He wished them to be in the world: on that very account saying of them to the Father, “I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” Hence also He says not here, “My kingdom is not” in this world; but, “is not of this world.” And when He proved this by saying, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews,” He saith not, “But now is my kingdom not” here, but, “is not from hence.” For His kingdom is here until the end of the world..." (Augustine)
"I trust a Greek expert over you on this subject"
Oh yes, you always keep searching until you find an example that you can cherry-pick. But I would be curious if you asked that expert whether they actually support the JW ideology that the NWT translation seeks to underpin with this translation choice, what would their response be?
The attitudes of early Christians towards military service evolved over nearly four centuries, from the New Testament period to the death of Augustine in 430. This evolution can be broken down into five distinct phases:
1. Early Community Phase: Initially, the Christian community struggled to establish its identity, emerging from its Jewish roots and finding its place in the broader Greco-Roman context. During this time, Christians were a socially and politically insignificant minority.
2. Theological Foundations Phase: From the Apostolic Fathers to Origen in the early third century, significant theologians like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Clement, and Origen laid the theological groundwork. Christians saw themselves as a powerless minority in a hostile world.
3. Period of "Peace" and Testing: This phase spanned from the end of Gallienus's persecution in the mid-third century to the start of Diocletian and Galerius's persecution in the early fourth century. Though called a period of "peace," it was also a time of testing. The empire and the Christian community began to see each other as rivals. Christians started to find roles in public and military life, setting the stage for later confrontations.
4. Constantinian Phase: This phase, associated with Constantine and Eusebius, saw Christianity becoming a significant ally in Constantine's political ambitions. The shift was not seen as the Church „selling its soul” but rather as a natural progression from the previous century's experiences and reflections. Origen’s theory of Christian pacifism influenced this period, leading to cooperation under Constantine.
5. Establishment Phase: Reflected in the careers and writings of Ambrose and Augustine, this phase saw the church assuming a more established role in society. Contrary to the idea that the Church reversed its earlier stances, this phase shows a consistent thread of development adapted to changing sociopolitical situations.
We turn to the courts because we pay taxes and we don't consider it unreasonable to obtain at least some of what our taxes pay for . As for judging between political rivals that is none of our business, let the unbelievers take care of their affairs. Yes if they(those who come out from the nations) are properly taught they will realize that they have a higher allegiance to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom and can no longer take sides in ultimately inconsequential quarrels of the nations. We are to be strikingly separate from the the nations of the present age.
Thessalonians Ch.4:4,5NKJV"that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 5not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;"
2Corinthians Ch.6:17NIV"Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the LORD. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”"
Those have truly become disciples of Christ are to separate themselves from the nations giving their primary allegiance to JEHOVAH Alone. We obey your laws and we pay your taxes that that is enough. Let the unbelievers fight their own wars. The text at Matthew Ch.7 is re: False teachers and the effect that their false teaching produces among their followers especially those claiming to be Christians,2Corinthians Ch.11:14NIV"And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve."
Similarly he declares that JEHOVAH'S Wisdom is validated by its fruits Luke Ch.7:35BSB"But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
Strife,hatred,tolerance for gross sin even among those with teaching authority not fruit befitting God's wisdom. You have not accepted the Bible's clear proof that Christians are to learn war no more thar is your fault not mine,
Isaiah Ch.2:2-4ASV"And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah's house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem.
4And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more" we don't even prepare for armed conflict any more to say nothing the mass fratricide that marks Christe domestic history. Those who show a higher allegiance to the nations than to JEHOVAH(in effect idolatry) will not have their names written in the book of life unless they repent.
Revelation Ch.13:4-8Politics and nationalism are false gods any who have been ensnared in this idolatry need to repent if they hope to get eternal life.
Nincs:Believers ought not to be meddlers in the affairs of unbelievers"
However, the state and society consist of both believers and unbelievers, so you cannot dismiss these affairs as solely the concerns of unbelievers." Yes I can because the nations are temporary but JEHOVAH'S Kingdom is permanent I am not going waste time building on sand I'm going to build on the Rock i.e JEHOVAH my Lord.
1John Ch.2:15-17
The kingdom is new cloth for an entirely new garment not to patch up the present old garment.
Mark Ch.2:21
Ninc - you can call it cherry picking or quote mining or whatever, I don’t really care - you don’t provide any linguistically just reason for your stance only that it doesn’t suit your agenda - I can cite more if I must… I’m also accounting for your track record of misleading claims on certain subjects. ( nomina sacra for starters)
You also ignored the meaning you pinned on ek in col 1:15 and omit it in this instance
Oh and AT Robertson has commented on the NWT and been proven wrong on some of his claims… but he NEVER picked on this verse , because it id a correct translation.
There is more than one way to translate a verse - where is “belonged” (NIV) in the Greek?
If you Belong to something you are being part of it ( whatever sense the case may be)
@Anonymous
"Yes, Jesus spoke positively of soldiers. Does that mean he liked them?"
At the very least, it indicates that he did not consider their profession inherently immoral.
"He also spoke positively of human governments, telling us to pay Caesar…."
And this also suggests that he did not consider secular ("human") government inherently bad, which also implies that there is no moral law stating that under no circumstances should one be involved in state affairs; in this regard, Christians have freedom.
"Vague statements - which ones?"
Pointing to the "lex generalis" ("Lo tirṣaḥ", "love your neighbor") while ignoring the specific statements I quoted above, which specifically refer to state power and those in armed professions.
"A principle is not a vague statement, far from it."
But before making a bold statement about "principle," it's worth clarifying in moral theology whether it's a law/commandment or a moral ideal, such as the Sermon on the Mount, which is the latter. Furthermore, you have not justified this so-called "principle" of "neutrality."
"The command for military service (killing others) is far more explicit."
Much to your disappointment, no such "commandment" is stated, especially not explicitly.
"Should be self-evident."
To that, I can only say: LOL!
"Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt love your enemy."
Regarding the former, I have already shown that 1) it is mistranslated, properly: "thou shalt not murder," not "kill," and 2) it does not include the sanctioned taking of life, such as in capital punishment or military/police use of force. As for the latter, I have shown that it is not a commandment but a moral ideal, which Paul the Apostle authentically interprets in Romans 12:18.
"What about Paul?"
What about him? Where did he say that there is a law or commandment that a Christian cannot be a soldier?
"The article I cited? That trounces your argument - even the church fathers agree with me."
Those are not scholarly studies but typical quote-gathering following a dung beetle method, ignoring the principles of citatology. The studies I referred to above pointed out that the idolatrous-Christian-persecuting Roman state was the historical-social-political context in which early Christianity might have shown some restraint towards military service, not because it was inherently bad, but because under the given circumstances, it endangered the faith.
"Why do the apostles need to instruct on everything?"
Not on everything, but if you make bold statements that Christians are forbidden to do a whole range of things (vote, take state office, become police officers or soldiers), especially because it is inherently wrong, it would be helpful if Scripture referenced this.
"You also ignored the meaning you pinned on ek in Col 1:15."
Your analogy is false. The Greek "ek" means something different in context. It means something different when used concerning a group. For example, "He is the best student from the school" obviously means that he is a member of the group of the students of that school. But if I say, "He did not come from America," I am not implying he cannot be an American citizen, only that he is not of American origin. Christ did not come "from the world," so his origin is not "of the world." He can still be "in the world"; indeed, we know that "the world" is the place where God sent His Son (1 John 4:9), so Christ is indeed "in the world," but His origin is not worldly, it is transcendent.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
It's astonishing how much you ignore the context; this is poor hermeneutics, reducing the Bible to a freely flipped-through collection of quotes.
2 Corinthians 6:17 is not about the relationship with state power; read the previous verse. It is about idolatry, the (spiritual) separation from paganism, not about withdrawing from social or political life.
Isaiah 2:4 is not a commandment to be implemented in the present age but an ideal that pertains to the future. There, the prophet summarizes the first and last phases of the messianic era, where divine peace has already come to earth (John 14:27) in the former, and in the latter, peace will be universal, permeating all external conditions.
"they have a higher allegiance to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom and can no longer take sides in ultimately inconsequential quarrels of the nations."
The first half of the sentence is true, but the conclusion in the second half is false. That God's kingdom is more important and is our ultimate hope does not mean that worldly matters are unimportant, irrelevant, or can be ignored. This is how a Muslim suicide bomber argues: "Oh, it doesn't matter if I die; I will go to paradise with 70 virgins." No, Christianity does not teach such fanaticism. Naturally, God is our ultimate hope, but the here and now (even if secondarily) also matters, and it is right for us to make society better as the "salt of the earth."
"The text at Matthew Ch.7 is re: False teachers and the effect that their false teaching"
Then read Matthew 7:15-20 again. It is not generally about "false teachers" (e.g., heretical Christians) but about false PROPHETS, so this statement of Christ does not support the Donatist-Cathar "logic" of recognizing the true Church. You only mantra the part taken out of context, "By their fruits, you will recognize them," while ignoring and silencing who "them" refers to; well, it's there in verse 15.
"Revelation Ch.13:4-8Politics and nationalism are false gods any who have been ensnared in this idolatry need to repent if they hope to get eternal life."
This passage does not speak about "politics" or "nationalism" (?). The "worship of the dragon" refers to the worship of the evil spirit in paganism; the worship of the beast specifically refers to the worship of «Dea Roma» (the goddess Rome) and the emperors, which dates back to the first Christian century but spread in its full repulsive form in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD in the Roman Empire. The "forty-two months" refer to the entire history of the Church (11:2; 12:6.12), during which the Roman Empire, and later other godless powers, persecuted God's earthly kingdom.
Are you a citizen? Do you pay taxes?
Then you acknowledge the state, and you use state services... ;)
Paul said: "All authority comes from God."
Christians prayed for the emperors to convert. Calvinist supranaturalism, which is of Gnostic origin, holds that the material world is evil - this ultimately denies the incarnation, there is no transubstantiation, no material sacraments, etc. The ruler of the world is Satan, but what do we mean by "world"?
We must also consider that since the Old Testament, Christ has come and his power has been broken. Divine grace shines through the world. The Church performs exorcisms through the sacramentals - house blessings, blessings of universities, etc., thus continuing the work of the incarnation.
Protestant and modern ideologies struggle between the extremes of optimism and pessimism regarding worldly realities. There was the schizophrenic world-hating Calvin, who even banned colorful clothes. Then came the Enlightenment - "everything is fine."
Two extremes...
In the Middle Ages, these Gnostic Bogomil movements were essentially anti-state and by no means necessarily peaceful. But they were also anti-human, as they had a false worldview. And why shouldn’t Christians strive to shape their state's commands until the Last Judgment so that they do not contradict God’s commands, but rather be explicitly Christian?
This is what Christian monarchies were about:
"There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies." (Pope Leo XIII - Immortale Dei)
The early Christians were not in the catacombs because they wanted to be, unlike today's JWs who voluntarily live in a kind of "spiritual catacombs." They were there because the state demanded something (emperor worship) that Christians could not comply with, but as soon as the state stopped demanding this, the Church was ready to accept the offered hand of peace.
The JWs differ from Catholics in that JWs want to live in "catacombs" even if the state does not demand anything that violates Christian ethics and does not persecute them. Catholics only retreat to the catacombs if they have to; otherwise, they seek a balanced relationship with the world.
The sociological essence of sectarianism is a black-and-white worldview: it’s us, the good ones, and the outside world, which is filthy, sinful, and godless. The Catholic perspective is much more nuanced and avoids summary judgment.
The worship of the emperor was forbidden because it demanded Christians abandon monotheism, a core faith foundation. Worshiping anyone other than the one true God implies idolatry. The modern state does not demand "Worship the President as a god!" so this excluding factor is gone.
In the Catholic model, the Roman state forced Christians into catacombs by making improper demands, not because they thought state power or the outside world was bad. When the state ceased such demands, the Church sought cooperation for the common good, aiming for harmony between ‘sacerdotium’ and ‘imperium,’ as per Emperor Justinian's edict to Patriarch Epiphanius.
"Two great gifts among men, which God in his love for humanity has granted from heaven: the priesthood and the imperial dignity. The first serves divine matters, while the second directs human affairs. Both come from the same principle and adorn human life. If the priesthood is blameless and has access to God, and emperors govern justly, the result is harmony, and humanity will enjoy blessings."
This had both good and bad sides, but historical examination should be balanced.
Rejecting a sectarian anti-state view does not mean idolatry. The NT's Christian opposition to the state was a possibility, not a necessity. This interpretation aligns with scripture if not viewed through a Cathar lens, seeing humans as utterly corrupt. Instead, human nature and the world are partly corrupted, giving Satan some influence due to sin.
Paul said: "All authority comes from God." This basis helps evaluate Satan's words, unlike JWs who reverse it. Catholics are aware of that biblical statement of Satan as "god of this world" but interpret it as fallen angels having SOME influence over people due to original sin, not implying God's acknowledgment. This does not mean absolute rule by demons as God limits their power. Thus, I reject world-fleeing, anti-social pessimism. Demons rarely possess people; flaws in political systems are mainly due to human nature's wounded state and inclination to sin, namely CONCUPISCENCE.
The main points are:
* God created the world to be good.
* This goodness has been ONLY PARTIALLY corrupted by sin.
* Because of sin, Satan has SOME influence over people, but not total domination, mitigated by grace.
* State authority is from God, a God-approved institution working for the common good. As long as it does not violate Christians' consciences, the Church should engage in working for the common good with the state.
In the World but not of it? A Serious Distortion of New Testament Theology?
https://oxford-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2007-1-richardson.pdf
https://www.myfaithwalk.org/b-the-solemnity-of-our-lord-jesus-christ-king-of-the-universe-1/2018/11/14/let-the-scriptures-speak
"The longer that I’ve gone on as a New Testament scholar and wrestled with what the early Christians were actually talking about, the more it’s been borne in on me that that distinction is one that we modern Westerners bring to the text rather than finding in the text. Because the great emphasis in the New Testament is that the gospel is not how to escape the world; the gospel is that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Lord of the world. And that his death and Resurrection transform the world, and that transformation can happen to you. You, in turn, can be part of the transforming work. That draws together what we traditionally called evangelism, bringing people to the point where they come to know God in Christ for themselves, with working for God’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. That has always been at the heart of the Lord’s Prayer, and how we’ve managed for years to say the Lord’s Prayer without realizing that Jesus really meant it is very curious. Our Western culture since the 18th century has made a virtue of separating out religion from real life, or faith from politics. When I lecture about this, people will pop up and say, “Surely Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world.” And the answer is no, what Jesus said in John 18 is, “My kingdom is not from this world.” That’s ek tou kosmou toutou. It’s quite clear in the text that Jesus’ kingdom doesn’t start with this world. It isn’t a worldly kingdom, but it is for this world. It’s from somewhere else, but it’s for this world." (N.T. Wright)
I don't see how this supports either your or N.T Wright's point the kingdom is not From the world. That is actually my point the world here would be the present civilisation that we ought not to be friends with and our Lord refused to pray for. John Ch.17:9NIV"I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."
This would be the same world that us passing away 1John ch.2:15-17.
But the world can also refer to humanity itself apart from the present civilisation. Thus would be the world that JEHOVAH Love to such a degree that he permitted the of the one nearest and dearest to him to be sacriced for its sake JohnCh.3:16. The kingdom is an alternative to the present civilization its not a fix, no organisation originated by those who are part of the present civilization is going to be used by the kingdom in its restorative work. The political parties of the present civilization and their religious allies have been rejected by JEHOVAH and his Messiah. The kingdom is separate from them.
But those with the humility to abandon the utterly ineffectual institutions of the present age and turn to JEHOVAH'S True kingdom will indeed experience a full restoration to the divine sonship originally meant for our race and become founders of a new global civilization that will glorify its a maker and ruler JEHOVAH God.
Putting loyalty to any political entity of the present system over the higher allegiance owed to JEHOVAH and our brother servants is a kind of idolatry, when the politicians of the present age demand that we pledge our readiness to fight their wars even though this main entail our puttin our brother servants in mortal danger our answer must be,
Acts Ch.5:29NKJV"But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men."
And the wise sovereign would be pleased with that answer because he would know that this the only global Christian community whose members would NEVER take up arms against him. And he should happy with the fact that our influence in his realm is toward a respect for law and order and duly constituted authority and a love of peace. That is our contribution to the common good.
JEHOVAH'S Policy toward the present political elites is one of managed decline. A bad cop is better than no cop. But the ideal thing would be a society where police and soldiers are unnecessary no human visionary or thought leader would dare make such a promise,yet that is exactly the vision JEHOVAH is holding out for mankind,a civilization which peace and security is founded on a fundamental transformation of its constituents ,first a new man then a new world our lord and savior Jesus Christ the second Adam was the prototype of the new man. The mistake that previous visionaries who may have thought along these lines were guilty of was the naive belief that politics/legislation could effect this transformation. Only the one on one relationship with JEHOVAH that Jesus Christ priesthood makes possible can bring about this transformation.
Jeremiah Ch.31:31ASV"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith JEHOVAH: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: 34and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know JEHOVAH; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith JEHOVAH: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."
This the reason that those in the new covenant Learn war no more
Isaiah Ch.2:2-4. This global peace is his sign to all sincere truthseekers distinguishing JEHOVAH From the many false Gods(including politics and nationalism) that men have taken in his place.
We are Victors(in JEHOVAH'S Strength) never victims if in it weren't for JEHOVAH'S Catholic politicians would have exterminated us a long time ago. That's why we are skeptical about all this talk of "christian" hegemony over unbelievers and other believers, we know where it always ends the violent repression of religious minorities. Where as I can guarantee to our readers that it will never be JW police,or JW magistrates or JW politicians or JW mobs trampling Your God-given rights no catholic,protestant or evangelical can honestly make any such guarantee. And yet we are not fearful,our God JEHOVAH Has repeatedly demonstrated his supremacy over our would be destroyers, we do not doubt for the briefest instance that He will continue to show His invincible power in our behalf.
Isaiah Ch.54:17ASV"No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of JEHOVAH, and their righteousness which is of me, saith JEHOVAH."
It's about forming alliances with those who have not been regenerated that would include political alliances whether you eventually adopt their ways or not.
2Corinthians ch.2:14NIV"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"
We ought to take sides in their rivalries that would be adulterous.
The dragon gave the beasts its power. That is why when you subordinate your allegiance to God to your allegiance to the political elite(the beast) you are in effect bowing to Satan,
Luke Ch.4:5NKJV"[d]Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. "
Would this be a real temptation if what Satan was saying here wasn't true,Satan of course was fully aware of whom he was dealing with and that it would be pointless to lie. Jesus made no accusation of lying.
A prophecy is a command nincs when it concerns the course of servants of JEHOVAH.
Note similarities between this beast and the ones in Daniel ch.7
Reference is clearly a reference to the political powers dominating the civilization JEHOVAH'S Servants find themselves in the midst of but are not loyal to.
As early as the second century, Christians began to participate in the Roman military, police, and government in large numbers, as noted by Daniel Philpott in "The Early Church" at Notre Dame University.
Military service was one way to make a living, and there was a need to defend the borders of the empire against barbarian incursions. As the army's duties expanded to include more police-like activities such as traffic and customs control, firefighting, apprehending criminals and bandits, maintaining peace, quelling street brawls, and performing engineering and construction work for which the Roman army was well-known, this choice became less problematic. This perspective is supported by S.J. Massaro and Thomas A. Shannon in their book "Catholic Perspectives on Peace and War."
The increasing number of soldiers counted among the later martyrs indicates that many Christians served in the military. From about the middle of the second century, Roman army officers were expected to participate in the Imperial Cult and sacrifice to the emperor. During the reign of Diocletian, this obligation was extended to the lower ranks as a test for those suspected of being Christian. To avoid needless blood guilt and the risk of idolatry, Christians were counseled not to enlist but were encouraged to continue praying for the civil authorities, as explained by John Eppstein in "The Catholic Tradition of the Law of Nations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinus_of_Caesarea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcellus_of_Tangier
All this talk about rules of war is just that talk. We all know what happens out in the real world Christendom's clergy apart from a pitiful handful of exceptions ALWAYS Caves to tribalism.
I will once again apologise to Edgar, but my aim is too now call-out Ninc on as many misleading statements as possible
“implies that there is no moral law stating that under no circumstances should one be involved in state affairs; in this regard, Christians have freedom.“ - then why did Jesus not?
Why do the apostles not?
“As for the latter, I have shown that it is not a commandment but a moral ideal, which Paul the Apostle authentically interprets in Romans 12:18.“ - but how do you demonstrate something when you refuse to prove anything and again this is your opinion, no actual evidence.
“Those are not scholarly studies but typical quote-gathering following a dung beetle method,” - you only don’t like this because you can’t find anyone who agrees with you
But I now know you well enough to know you have little interest in honesty you have demonstrated this more than clearly
Actually I have some questions for you regarding some of your abhorrent claims
And why does Tettulian, Origen and Clement all agree with me?
You have demonstrated even if we do provide sufficient evidence you just change the goal posts ..( a possible meaning to a word in a dictionary is apparently “quite mining”)
Please explain to all of us: why you lumped plural nouns in with nomina sacra ( there are no plural) and omitted to mention that more than God were written as such ( such as David )
And why it is used of David and Satan
“it would be helpful if Scripture referenced this.”- would also be helpful if scripture references in 1 passage the trinity, Paul demonstrated he could do this
Or the 2 nature doctrine
I can play this game too.
Nincs:Then read Matthew 7:15-20 again. It is not generally about "false teachers" (e.g., heretical Christians) but about false PROPHETS, s"
Me:the word prophet as you know can be used in several senses,
E.g Luke ch.7:28NIV"I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”"
So on a sense all true Christians are prophets.
Those claiming teaching authority among Christians are in effect claiming a sort of prophethood as they are claiming to teach an inspired message under the promised guidance of God's spirit.
If this claim is false then they are false prophets of a sort.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The quote from N.T. Wright was primarily not directed to you, but to "Anonymous", with whom I was debating the meaning of the phrase "ek tou kosmou", namely that it does not support the "neutrality" interpretation of JW, but simply speaks of the supernatural origin, purpose, and goal of God's kingdom, and says nothing about retreating into a spiritual catacomb or "survival" mode. The NWT renders this as "not PART of the world", whereas "ek" simply means "of" or "from". I criticized this translation, and especially the theology built upon it.
The fact that we have a mission in the world does not mean that we "replace" (?) our trust in God's kingdom with something else; however, something being secondary does not mean it's irrelevant or null and void. No one elevates loyalty to secular authority higher than loyalty to God; you're unnecessarily emphasizing this to me, surely engaging in a "straw man" argument. However, the principle stated in Acts 5:29 would be applicable to military service if you could specifically prove that there is indeed a divine command regarding the refusal of military service, but you haven't proven that, nor can you, since the NT simply does not contain such a statement.
In the present world order, the maintenance of public order and security requires the existence of the state, state officials, and yes, soldiers too. The NT nowhere states that these occupations are inherently morally condemnable, and nowhere does it state a command that Christians cannot practice them, under threat of excommunication. Isaiah 2:2-4 is not a presumed commandment for the NT era, but a prophetic, poetical description of peace AFTER the "parousia", which Christians are not required to achieve BEFORE the "parousia", especially not by rejecting military service by the Christians. But I've said this several times before, and you haven't responded.
Then you delve into the question of religious freedom (I have no idea how this relates now), I can assure you that neither I nor the Catholic Church want to forcibly change your beliefs. The Church's position is that no one should be forced into faith against their will, as stated in canon 1851 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law already: "Ad amplexandam fidem catholicam nemo invitus cogatur". Your talk of "mobs" is hardly a shining example of good speech. Anyway, read "Dignitatis humanae" if you're afraid of that.
Instead of triumphantly quoting Isaiah 54:17, also read the context; it does not apply to modern-day JWs.
When and to what extent the conditions of "bellum iustum" are realized in practice, and to what extent they are not, you hardly have any substantive knowledge, it is enough to talk about the principle itself here, and also: "abusus non tollit usum".
@aservantofJEHOVAH
No matter how hard you try, Matthew 7:15-20 does not justify the identification of the true direction within Christianity as a Donatist-Cathar type, the "prophet" is not the same as the teacher, however, the Catholic Church does not claim to be a "prophet", but teaches dogmatically that 1) with the death of the last apostle, public and binding revelation ceased, there can be no new ones, 2) the time of the "parousia" cannot be calculated from the Scriptures, and there is no speculation about it.
Anyway Christ did not promise that every (or even most) members of His Church would be holy, as the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, and generally the Cathars thought. His Church is a mixed body (corpus permixtum; according to St. Augustine), as indicated in the parable of the weeds, the virgins, the unworthy guest (Mt 13:25.). He predicted in advance that there would be scandals in His kingdom, and even great moral decline, especially before the end of the world (Mt 7:21, 18:17–8, 24:12.); and therefore, He gave the Church the power of forgiveness through bishops and presbyters. Nevertheless, the Church can always be described with the adjective "holy"; because on the one hand, all its members are called and objectively qualified for holiness, and on the other hand, sinners do not achieve even the ordinary level of subjective holiness because they withdraw themselves from the sanctifying influence of the Church. The sower sowed good seed in his field; the weeds are "enemy people" (Mt 13:24–30.).
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"Then why did Jesus not? Why do the apostles not?"
Meaning what? That they did not serve in the Roman army? Firstly, because it was not their calling, for example, Jesus was a 'tekton' (artisan or craftsman), not a soldier, and His primary mission was to proclaim the gospel and offer Himself as a sacrifice. The apostles also had civilian occupations. Secondly, they were Jews, not Roman citizens, and Jews rarely served in the Roman army because their monotheism, observance of the Sabbath, abstinence from pork, and other cultural and religious laws made it difficult for them to fulfill the duties of a Roman soldier. Therefore, for instance, the Jews of Ephesus were exempted from recruitment into the armies of Pompey in 49 BC and again by Dolabella in 43 BC. The latter publicized his decision all over Asia Minor and beyond.
Only after Caracalla’s Constitutio Antoniniana (212), all free men in the empire became Roman citizens.
But perhaps from the fact that Jesus and the apostles were not soldiers in the Roman army, do you infer that the Scriptures suggest that military service is inherently sinful for Christians? That's a very weak argument.
"this is your opinion, no actual evidence."
Oh come on, do JWs treat the Sermon on the Mount as commandments? No Christian does, as it is a moral guideline. In Catholic theology, the evangelical COUNSELS [such as virginity (Mt 19:12), poverty (19:21), obedience (20:27)] are distinguished from the evangelical commandments.
"you only don’t like this because you can’t find anyone who agrees with you"
Oh, but I do, quite the opposite, I have cited several scholars above, check it out: Edward A. Ryan, Hans von Campenhausen, Louis J. Swift, John Helgeland, James Turner Johnson, Daniel Philpott, S.J. Massaro, Thomas A. Shannon, John Eppstein, David Hunter. These researchers have examined the question "a bit" more thoroughly than those tendentious websites that only look for isolated quotes from the Church Fathers, completely ignoring the principles of citation.
"And why does Tertullian, Origen and Clement all agree with me?"
They don't. Just read the Helgeland study here, he systematically addresses these Church Fathers who are often cited abusively: https://archive.org/details/christiansmilita0000helg
Furthermore, the neglect of the socio-historical-political context is also characteristic of this method, for example, many Church Father quotes could be found condemning attendance at the theater, but why? Because the theater at that time was about something else than it is today. Similarly, the condemnation of service in the Roman army by some Church Fathers at that time can plausibly be attributed to the fact that, due to the requirements of the imperial cult (emperor worship), and such a service indeed could not be conscientiously performed.
"would also be helpful if scripture references in 1 passage the trinity, Paul demonstrated he could do this Or the 2 nature doctrine I can play this game too."
You can only play this game with those who believe in "sola Scriptura," but I don't. However, you - theoretically - proclaim that all your principles and doctrines can explicitly be found in the Bible, so I rightly point out that they can not. We, on the other hand, do not claim such, so you cannot demonstrate inconsistency in this.
Hello gentleman, I've let this thread continue for a little while and it's not violating any blog policy. However, I'm going to close this thread around 12:00 am my time on Friday. Best regards.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/05/against-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-ii.html
@aservantofJEHOVAH
It seems you missed that this comment was intended for Anonymous, but I'll respond to your post anyway.
"A practicing Jew would certainly object to the idolatry that serving in the Roman army at the time"
Exactly, this was the real issue, not military service itself! Just as the Jewish residents of the Roman Empire avoided the Roman army for THIS reason, the early Christian Church had similar reservations. However, once this profession no longer involved idolatrous rituals, there would be no objection to it.
"serving in the various armies [...] would be a flagrant violation of the higher allegiance we owe to that kingdom."
However, this is just proof by assertion. You have not demonstrated from the Scriptures that this would indeed be a violation.
"The Christian simply cannot pick up the sword in the service of the Imperial or national ambitions of any prince of the present age."
While an imperialist or chauvinist war cannot be considered a "just war" (and I have not defended such wars!), it is primarily the responsibility of the "higher authorities" to ensure that the decision to go to war meets the "jus ad bellum" requirements. Citizens only have the right to refuse participation in clearly unjust wars. In such cases, it is indeed a moral requirement to "put down the sword." However, you are engaging in a straw man argument here, as I did not defend participation in such unjust conflicts.
Revelation 13:10 does not support your stance. Just before this verse, the persecution of Christians is mentioned (v. 7); the verse is intended to comfort Christians by assuring them that those who imprison or kill them will be punished just as severely as they treated their fellow humans. Christians should believe that all their sufferings will be turned to good by the Lord. The context is about urging patience in the face of Roman persecution, which has no relevance to our debate.
I did not claim that God "needs human help to deal with his enemies the persecutors of his people." By this logic, doctors would also be unnecessary since God "needs no human help to heal diseases."
"The sovereigns of this age demand the highest allegiance even above God."
Oh, really? Where? Perhaps in North Korea or Meiji-era Japan, but I don't know of any modern leaders demanding divine status.
"...this commitment to in effect put the human sovereign in the place of God is the meaning of your pledge. So if you take the pledge of military service with some other intention you are in effect lying."
Oh, so you've elevated yourself to the role of examining hearts and minds to judge how others perceive their service? Make no mistake: I am not a soldier, but I do not believe that those who are have elevated the state to the role of God.
"Your abject biblical illiteracy is showing what does Matthew 19:12,19:22,20:27 have to do with the sermon on the mount."
Where did I claim that these verses are part of the Sermon on the Mount? I cited them as examples of evangelical counsels, which Christ introduces with "If you want to be perfect..." while introducing the commandments like this: "if you want to enter life, keep the commandments." (Mt 19:17)
. . . TO BE CONTINUED . . .
"For future reference the sermon on the Mount starts with the beatitudes at Matthew 5 and ends at Matthew 7."
You don't say? The point here is that the teachings of the Sermon can be divided into general precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation, but obedience to the counsels is only necessary for perfection. The great mass of the population needs only to concern themselves with the precepts; the counsels must be followed by a pious few such as the clergy and monks. This theory was initiated by St. Augustine and later fully developed by St. Thomas Aquinas, though an early version of it is cited in Didache 6:2, "For if you are able to bear the entire yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect; but if you are not able to do this, do what you are able", and reflected in the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19–21). Geoffrey Chaucer also did much to popularize this view among speakers of English with his Canterbury Tales (Wife of Bath's Prologue, v. 117-118).
"we testify that these have proved superior to counsels of the churches of Christendom."
What humility! This boast reminds me of Luke 18:11 and a bit of Donatist-Cathar morality.
"what is objectionable re:Matthew ch.19:12"
My objection is not to the verse itself but to the idea of making evangelical counsels into commandments for the entire Church. This also applies to the Sermon on the Mount.
"It's not a mandate it's wise counsel."
That's what I argued, and this is also true for "turning the other cheek", etc.
"my chosen weapon is ALWAYS the sword of the spirit JEHOVAH'S Word none of these dead philosophers impress me"
Earlier, Anonymous and others referenced the practice of the early Christian church. It is entirely legitimate to cite research on this topic and what can be determined from the sources. In summary, the findings do not support the idea that the Church held the same view on military service as modern JWs up until Constantine's conversion.
"I don't know what could have possessed you..."
With the utmost respect, I ask you to moderate your tone. Instead of accusing me of demonic possession for offering counterarguments, please read: Proverbs 15:1, 2 Timothy 2:25, Titus 3:2.
https://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-history-constantine.htm
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/05/nincs-it-seems-you-missed-that-this.html
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/05/against-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-iv.html
Edgar is it possible for you to link your post regarding “ part of this world” - I can’t remember when it was posted.. but I feel like that addresses Nincs claim
( are you able to shed any light on this?)
Once again I apologise for the aggressive comment previously..
So why didn’t they serve in the Jewish army? ( or equivalent) and if one didn’t exist ( unlikely) why didn’t they have one?
“Oh, but I do, quite the opposite, I have cited several scholars above” - this is a first- am I going to find all relevant information this time? Or in my own research find you are missing big chunks and being misleading again.
And I think you will find the church fathers have been quoted in context..
( as far as I can tell)
Origen is quoted as talking about war..
and the words for kill/ murder mean basically the same, numbers 35:30 - murder is used of someone who “killed” ( not so different after all) is something else you have to contend with.
I still have more.
You didn’t address my question? Interesting -
So you know in codex vat and others, 2 Corin 4:4 instance of theos is nomina sacra?
You know there is a variant where firstborn of the dead omits ek, so does mean the same as Rev 1:5
Why didn’t you mention these at the relevant time?
“You can only play this game with those who believe in "sola Scriptura," but I don't.” - I can play this game with you too, Paul demonstrated he could have described the trinity, he didn’t - why?
I have more to mention
page 53 -54 of this book (Just one of many): https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Love_Your_Enemies/gVSTCudbNd8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Origen+pacifism&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover
though I don't agree with all of it - I know Origen was honest
From your link:When he [Constantius] died at York on 25 July 305 the soldiers proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor. Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; But there was Christian influence in his houselhold since he had a half-sister named Anastasia (anastasis = resurrection). At the crisis of his career in the war of 312 to gain sole power in the West, Constantine invoked the might aid of the Christian God and was not disappointed. His rise to power in 306 AD made it certain that persecution would not affect provinces under his control. [page 122]... "The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe." ... "But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning. It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians....He was not baptized until he lay dying in 337, but this implies no doubt about his Christian belief. It was common at this time (and continued so until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism to the end of one's life, especially if one's duty as an official included torture and execution of criminals. Part of the reason for postponement lay in the seriousness with which the responsibilities of baptism were taken. Constantine favoured Christianity among the many religions of his subjects, but did not make it the official or 'established' religion of the empire." (The Early Church, Chadwick, Henry. p 122,125,127)
@Anonymous
"So why didn’t they serve in the Jewish army (or equivalent), and if one didn’t exist (unlikely), why didn’t they have one?"
During the time of Christ, the subjugated Jews could not have their own regular army. The right to bear arms was practiced by the Roman occupiers, and they maintained only a small temple guard. You can also check this on jw.org: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2020/ancient-jewish-temple-police/
"It was the *only* Jewish armed corps that the Romans permitted."
This was in Jerusalem, in the province of Judea, whereas Christ and his disciples lived in another Roman province, Galilee. Naturally, they could not have carried out their itinerant preaching activities as members of a regular armed force. Do you think they should have served in such a force for the New Testament to "imply" that armed service is not inherently inherently sinful and thus forbidden?
"Origen is quoted as talking about war."
Read Helgeland’s study, which deals with Origen as well. Essentially, Origen himself viewed his opinion as an academic exercise, not as a mandatory commandment, not expecting a Christian Roman empire to become a reality. He only argued that the Christians *should*, but not that they MUST completely abstain from violence, by suggesting that their prayers were more beneficial than physical combat. At the same time, Origen was aware of the evolving relationship between the Christian community and the Roman Empire, and he also regarded his own pacifist arguments as a thought experiment to some extent, only envisioned a
world in which war and the need for force would disappear in proportion to the spread of Christianity. Origen did not expect his stance to become the sole official teaching of the Christian Church but rather outlined an ideal model of Christian behavior.
"and the words for kill/murder mean basically the same"
No: "murder" means intentional and sinful killing of a person, not the taking of life under any circumstances. Sanctioned killing is not considered murder in Jewish interpretation either. The ancient Hebrew texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle.
"Why didn’t you mention these at the relevant time?" - Because it’s not the topic here.
"So you know in codex vat and others, 2 Corin 4:4 instance of theos is nomina sacra?"
There is variability in which words are considered "nomina sacra," and Codex Vaticanus is not the earliest manuscript of 2 Corinthians at all; Papyrus 46 is, although this verse is unfortunately missing from it. The "nomina sacra" are most likely apostolic in origin, but which names were treated as such changed over time by the scribes.
"You know there is a variant where firstborn of the dead omits ek, so does it mean the same as Rev 1:5?"
The existence of such a variant in Colossians 1:18 does not mean that the two are the same. The NA28 does not include this variant in the main text for a reason; it could be a scribal omission or conflation. However, that statement is true about the Son with or without "ek," but nowhere does the NT state that He belongs to the ranks of creatures, while it often states that He was born/begotten of the Father.
"Paul demonstrated he could have described the Trinity, but he didn’t - why?"
He did, by describing the Son as begotten of the Father (not created) and presenting Him not as an archangel but as God. He also spoke of the Holy Spirit as a person. Similarly, one could ask why the Apostle Paul did not write about the Michael-Jesus theory, the two-class salvation doctrine, or why he did not calculate the 1914-parousia himself? He could have done it, right, but he didn't, why?
The identity of the most high God was immediately necessary for salvation. Eschatology to be fulfilled hundreds of years in the future less so.
Let's simplify this thing. JEHOVAH is the MOST HIGH GOD Psalms ch.83:18, Jesus is not the most high God therefore Jesus is not JEHOVAH. The God and Father of Jesus is the MOST HIGH GOD.
The God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the MOST HIGH GOD is not triune.
It is important to note that while it is possible to complain about how "dirty" these Catholics are for being ready to take up military service, I just casually ask, what would the world be like now without Charles Martel, for example? Probably Christianity would not exist in any form today, nor would the Western world, but we would be living under Sharia law, and beheading would be the reward for all those who deviated from Islamic orthodoxy.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"all war involves idolatry"
Come on, idolatry has a specifically defined dictionary definition, which you are now confusing with everything. Idolatry is the worship of a creature as a god, a sin against the first commandment and the virtue of religion, literally the deification of inanimate objects (e.g., celestial bodies, totems), animals, humans (e.g., ancestors). It is the violation of the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me" and "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only." Such practices do not occur in the modern era, except perhaps in North Korea, or during the State Shinto period in Japan; elsewhere, the state or state leaders are not deified. However, it may involve OTHER types of sins in certain cases, but it is not idolatry.
"The hyperpolitical mindset that your church has implanted in you"
I asked you to soften your wording. Politics is not black-and-white, and while often corrupt, it is not sinful in itself. The word "politics" comes from "polis," simply meaning dealing with public affairs, working for the common good. For example, a mayor of a small town engages in political activity, lobbying for money from the central government to renovate the local school, build roads, and so on. Do you think he is an "idolater" for this, as this should be God's task? But then, by this logic, no one should be a doctor, as God can heal the sick without human doctors. However, in the current order, God does not perform such miracles, or only very exceptionally, so this is our task. This is why Catholic preachers say, "Pray as if everything depends on God, but act as if everything depends on you."
"you acknowledge the higher allegiance you owe to God's kingdom" - Believe it or not, I do this.
1 John 4:20 does not contradict my point, there is no "hatred" here, only the order of love (arranged in concentric circles), just read this: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3026.htm
"I will here also recall the principle of the higher allegiance owed to JEHOVAH'S Kingdom which would logically mean that loyalists of that kingdom cannot engage in deadly conflict with each other no matter which politician demands it acts ch.5:29."
This is your free assertion, but Acts 5:29 only applies to that specific situation, and you have not substantiated that armed service is an explicit violation of a commandment. The "principle of the higher allegiance" does not mean that secondary allegiance does not exist or is void, only that in case of conflict, the primary allegiance should be chosen. However, since there is no conflict here, this does not arise.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Come on, only fanatical sects like the Anabaptists interpret the Sermon on the Mount as literal commandments. In reality, no one "turns the other cheek to the one who strikes them," and the reason is that this admonition of our Lord Christ is clearly not to be taken as a literal command but as a principle that expresses the great truth that it is better to peacefully endure personal humiliation or harm, even if it happens repeatedly, than to retaliate and thus give free rein to hatred and perpetual strife.
"The "Boast" would be in the real author of the text, the Lord JEHOVAH"
What you are doing here is exactly what the Pharisee does: "Oh God, I thank you that I am not like those dirty Sunday Christians of Christendom, we are so good." No, the moral state of the members of your denomination is exactly the same as that of similarly structured small churches, like the Nazarenes, Adventists, Amish. There is nothing supernatural, divine, miraculous, or admirable in this, it’s just that the comparison should be made with sociologically similar groups, not with the historical large churches.
"If we've both agreed that the Sermon on the Mount is wise counsel, why would anyone choose the folly of ignoring it."
Finally, we agree on something. I was not arguing that we should ignore it, but that in moral theology, these should be interpreted as guidelines, not literal commandments, and their practical implementation depends on individual circumstances, and at most, we can strive for it. Especially, do not judge the state of others' hearts. For example, Christ also says, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." Christ does not forbid lawful judgment but the judgment in everyday life when we unlovingly call our neighbor's fault evil and deserving of punishment. There are bad deeds, which can be done with good intentions. Who can judge those but God? – The Christian keeps their own faults before their eyes, not those of others; unless they are called to judgment as a leader. Compare: Rom. 14:4–10, 1 Cor. 13.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"Eschatology to be fulfilled hundreds of years in the future less so."
Oh really? Perhaps if the date of the 'parousia' could be calculated from the destruction of Jerusalem by adding 2520 years, the apostles might not have known about this magic formula? Speculating on the date of the 'parousia' and assuming secret messages in the Bible about it is a grave error. They read secret messages into the Bible, especially in the Book of Revelation, from which they either guess the dates or force other mysterious revelations.
The historical background of this is Gnosticism (gnosis - knowledge), which has survived from antiquity to the present day, whose followers proclaimed the additional knowledge of the chosen ones. Gnosticism has always been a parasitic spirituality on Christianity, which is essentially incompatible with it. The Bible is an open and not an encrypted message.
Although it sometimes uses symbols and signs, it does so to provide a deeper understanding of the divine mystery that cannot be put into words, and not so that only the "initiated" can decode its messages.
The time of judgment is uncertain: "Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with...that day will close on you suddenly like a trap. For it will come on all those who live on the face of the whole earth." (Luke 21:34-35). "Then they gathered around him and asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them: 'It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority'" (Acts 1:6-7). "Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly" (1 Thess. 5:1-3). "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father...Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him" (Matt. 24:34-44).
The Scripture is not a secret message but an open call and clear teaching: "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account" (Hebrews 4:12-13).
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The quote is interesting because, in the "Should you believe in the Trinity?" booklet, the WTS references Chadwick in relation to Constantine's Role at Nicaea, suggesting that Chadwick believed Emperor Constantine's conversion was merely a political move. Their quote:
"Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter.
However, the full text states:
"“Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; [page 122] …The conversion of Constantine marks a turning-point in the history of the Church and of Europe. [page 125] …But if his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace, neither was it a cynical act of Machiavellian cunning."
Contrary to the booklet's implication, Chadwick does not share the popular notion that Constantine never became a Christian:
"Although Constantine's coins had long featured the symbol of the sun, from 313 onwards, his letters leave no doubt that he considered himself a Christian whose imperial duty was to maintain a unified church. He was baptized only on his deathbed in 337, but this does not cast doubt on his Christian faith. It was common at that time (and continued until about A.D. 400) to postpone baptism until the end of one's life, especially if one's duties as an official included the torture and execution of criminals."
This baptismal practice is, of course, unbiblical. According to Chadwick, Constantine originally adhered to so-called solar monotheism, the worship of the sun as the sole god. This belief made it theoretically easy to convert to Christianity, centered on Christ as "the light of the world". Nevertheless, his faith was indeed marked by a strange duality, possibly due to political considerations: he built churches, supported the publication of the Bible, and enacted laws protecting children and slaves. Yet, in Byzantium, he erected statues of the Sun God (allegedly with his own features) and Cybele, the mother goddess (with Christian prayer gestures, which outraged pagans).
Please read my link carefully!
Whether Constantine considered himself a Christian or not is not the issue . What the God and Father Jesus would think of his claim is.
The Bible clearly shows that the understanding of prophecy is a gradual pitfall ridden process . The full understanding of a given prophecy is never clear until the time of its actual fulfillment some times not even then.
Daniel Ch.12:9,10NIV"He 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."
In the first century there were misunderstandings of the fulfillment of prophecy but that did not cause the apostles to desist from the diligent study of prophecy in time they were rewarded with.a clearer understanding of same.
We look at their's as the proper example.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"Let's simplify this thing."
This is not simplification but rather a barbaric "hack at the issue with an axe" kind of "precision." The Son is indeed not identical to the Father in person, but this does not mean that He is not "the most high God" or that He is not Yahweh. The Father is never called "the most high God" in contrast to or in opposition to the Son, although the distinction here sufficiently explains that since the Incarnation and the establishment of the hypostatic union, the Son is also a man, and as a man, He is indeed not God.
From the fact that in a given, specific verse, the term "God" denotes one person (indicating the Father), it does not follow that the Godhead consists of only one divine person, as the Unitarians claim. The fact that the usual appropriate designation of the Son is "the Lord" does not mean that the Father is not Lord. We can refer to the Father and the Son as "the God and the Lord," but nothing follows that one or the other is less Lord or God than the other.
Even before the Council of Nicaea, the Greek and Latin Fathers had different starting points in their views of the Trinity, and this difference persisted. The Greeks adhered more closely to the terminology of Scripture, thus in their view, the one God generally means the Father. Alongside Him is the Son, who is begotten of Him, and the Holy Spirit, who is His Spirit and the Spirit of the Son. The Son and the Holy Spirit are also God, but it is evident that if the focus is primarily on the Father, then the equality and unity of the three persons are more challenging to explain. Some use expressions that imply the Son and the Holy Spirit have a subordinate role (in the economy!) to the Father.
The Latin Fathers—especially after St. Augustine—saw unity in the divine essence. According to them, the three persons share this indivisible essence and common nature. In this view, it is easier to assert that all divine activities are common to the three persons because they share one essence; however, it is more difficult to express the distinctiveness of the persons. Under their influence, Western religiosity developed to see 'God' more as the divine essence, the eternal spiritual reality existing in three persons. Although liturgy is still filled with prayers where the word God primarily refers to the Father, who lives and reigns forever with the Son and the Holy Spirit. The liturgy composed by the Greeks worships the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. We could say that this understanding highlights the dynamic inner life of the Trinity, while the Western view reflects more of the inner unity and unchangeability.
The name of the God of the Jews is Yahweh or Jehovah. It is also true that Jesus called the Father God and God his Father. But only for the Society does it logically follow that the formula Jehovah / God = the Father. For believers in the Trinity, the divine name Yahweh or Jehovah does not just designate one person (the Father) but the Godhead itself (theotokos, Col 2:9), within which they identify three persons. The second person is named "the Son" (ho huios), his *human* name is "Jesus," and according to his mission, "Christ." The third person indeed has a name, as the Bible speaks of only one "Holy Spirit," thus often simply "the Spirit" (to pneuma). "Believers in the churches of Christianity" worship the same God by the same name (Jehovah / Yahweh) as Jehovah's Witnesses, only they claim that Jehovah God is more than the Father: He is also the Son and the Holy Spirit.
There can only be one most high God. Anyone not numerically identical to this most high God is not JEHOVAH. There are many Lords there is only one JEHOVAH. The son cannot be the most high God because according to you there are two others equal to him. If there are two others as high as he is logically he cannot be the most high.
Luke Ch.1:32 plainly declares the God and Father of Jesus to be the MOST HIGH logic therefore demands that no one other than the God and Father of Jesus can be JEHOVAH, your attempts to explain away the obvious are blocked by logic at every turn,
If the most high God is triune then no one who is not triune can be the most high God simple logic. Yet at Luke ch.1:32 the (not triune) God and Father of Jesus is plainly declared to be the MOST HIGH. Your incarnation fudge can't save you because the unincarnated spirit is put below the MOST HIGH God and Father of Jesus. The only LOGICAL conclusion is therefore that only the God and Father of Jesus is JEHOVAH the most high.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The topic here isn't whether God eventually accepted Emperor Constantine as a true Christian; this matter is between God and Constantine. It's not a coincidence that the Catholic Church has declared only one person, Judas Iscariot, to be damned, specifically based on John 17:12. In any other case, we neither have the means nor the right to judge how God has judged someone else.
Daniel 12:9-10 does not predict that the leadership of the WTS in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries would solve biblical prophecies in a way that no one had before. The angel simply conveys to Daniel what he and the chosen people needed to know to trust in the future. It's enough to know that God will not abandon His chosen ones and that the righteous cause will ultimately and permanently triumph. The "end of times" or "last days" didn't begin in the 20th century but in the 1st century with the coming of the Messiah. What could "increase of 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 couldn't yet understand what he was writing about. The text continues: "Many shall run to and fro" / "Many will roam", literally: "many will go here and there," but "knowledge shall be increased" / "knowledge will grow" . The Hebrew word used here, rábáh (רָבָה), means a quantitative increase or growth. So, Daniel was not referring to a deeper understanding of existing biblical writings but to new revelations, thus an increase in the number of biblical books. The JWs interprets Daniel's prophecy here as being fulfilled in the past 150 years by the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses movement and in the publications of the WTS. If Daniel only prophesied that his own book would be more deeply understood in the distant future, then the WTS can only refer to this verse concerning their calculations about the date 1914. However, if Daniel spoke of an increase in knowledge, wouldn't it be more likely that the prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century when the collection of Hebrew Scriptures was supplemented by the twenty-seven New Testament Greek Scriptures?
The Son is not another "most high God" compared to the Father, but one God with Him, and the Father is never called God at the expense of the Son. Read my comments as well: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/alone-or-only-how-theyre-construed.html
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vi.xxvii.html
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.xii.ii.v.html
And especially since there is nothing to "understand better" in the Holy Scriptures in the first place, because there is no hidden, hackable secret message that can only be deciphered by a privileged group, this is gnosticism.
https://justpaste.it/2pyo4 Introduction to the Prophets
If the Father is the most high God. Then of course no one else can also be to the most high God. That is my point. There is only one most high God the God and Father of Jesus. If the son is not triune the he cannot be the most high God If the most high God is triune.
The new Testament explains the meaning of the old and it does this by comparing fulfilled prophecy with what is recorded in the old testament. The prophecies in the old testament have not yet all been fulfilled so it is logical to expect that as these prophecies continue to be fulfilled even deeper understandings of Bible prophecy will continue to be had there is nothing mystical about that.
The Bible describes what we should expect from a true Christian Constantine does not fit the bill. And in as much as his own conscience won't permit him to be baptized until the end of his life. He himself seemed aware of this fact.
The bloodstained history of the churches of christendom makes it obvious that they are not reliable guides in this area.
“Because it’s not the topic here.” - I said relevant time… not here
Yet you still failed to mention the other words written as such… why?
And you are being dishonest about dates and how early that manuscript is.. I know you are ( see David Trobish for starters) Acts 28:6?
Also you contradict your own previous statements suddenly nomina sacra is not important? Because it’s in a later manuscript?
If what you claimed previously is still relevant even a scribal change would say something
Not to mention the other words that appear in much earlier manuscripts
( I will literally quote you word for word if I must)
“but nowhere does the NT state that He belongs to the ranks of creatures, while it often states that He was born/begotten of the Father.” - it literally does not matter, the evidence is the evidence whether you accept it or not, the witnesses are correct…
Clement called The Logos “firstcreated”
The church fathers viewed Christ as Wisdom personified who is said to be “created” and “begotten” by YHWH
You can read my previous statements on firstborn and being a descendant of the group ( take special note of: dead, death and any other nationality, of which no subject is the descendant of)
You have Origen saying Christ isn’t the creator ( my point about dia + passive verb is proven( it already was), Greek was Origens mother tongue)
Again as we have all proven things are not as cut and dry as you would like them to be
“The ancient Hebrew texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle.” - So why is “killing” labeled murder? Why not just use the verb for murder?
Not really, and it’s only wars YHWH approves of… which battle does God approve of today? All of them? I highly doubt it. None of them? Highly likely..
( I use war and battle interchangeably)
“He only argued that the Christians *should*, but not that they MUST completely abstain from violence” - really? You spout the poppy to the text I’m reading… an honest man like Origen saying should probably be taken as preferably don’t…
Still doesn’t contend with the other two saying “doesn’t”
“ He also spoke of the Holy Spirit as a person.”- giving something human attribute doesn’t make it a person, you have been disproven on this…
the Michael-Jesus theory - wasn’t a theory in his day… they all knew it
the two-class salvation doctrine - not immediately relevant really
or why he did not calculate the 1914-parousia himself? - wasn’t meant to be explicitly written ( I can play that game aswell :))
“and presenting Him not as an archangel but as God.” - Christ come with only the voice of an ( or the) archangel? Why not Gods voice ( or authority?
Vines dictionary says this is definitely Christs voice.. as ALL occurrences of this idiom are the voice of the subject not a second person
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Surely you don't think you can deliver a checkmate in such a primitive manner? The Father is naturally the only true God, which is not the same as saying "only the Father is the true God" (therefore the Son is not), just as saying "Jesus Christ is our only Lord" does not imply that the Father is not Lord. It's to be understood in syncategorematical, and not in categorematical sense:
https://t.ly/CmbeA
As for who is saved and who is condemned, that is not your place to judge, it is solely God's judgment, and this is what Mt. 7:1-2 is about. Yet, you boldly and recklessly pass judgments about what is in people's hearts and similar matters.
Moreover, baptism erases all sins and debts of punishment before baptism, grants sanctifying grace, and imprints an indelible mark on the soul, making it irrelevant to salvation what Emperor Constantine did before his baptism.
The prophet already anticipated this: "I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean from all your impurities" (Ez. 36:25). The apostle Peter proclaimed this at Pentecost: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 3:38; cf. 22:16). The Apostle draws a sharp distinction between life before and after baptism; through it, we shed the old man; in it, the old man dies with Christ and rises to new life with him (1Cor 6:9–10, Eph 5:26, Col 2:11–15, 3:8, Eph 4:22, Rom 6:3–11). Btw. the NWT mistranslates Mark 1:4 as well.
Naturally, after such definitive teaching from the scripture, the Church Fathers cannot have a different view: "We descend into the water filthy with the stains of sin and rise from it pure".
Baptism imparts sanctifying grace (and its inseparable accompaniment). According to Christ (John 3:5–8), we are born again of the Holy Spirit through baptism. According to the Apostle, God "saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior" (Tit. 3:5–7). In baptism, a person dies to the world in Christ and is reborn in Christ for God; he sheds the old man and puts on the new; he becomes a new creation and is clothed in Christ (Rom 6:3–11, Eph 4:4–5,20, 5:8, Heb 6:4, 10:32, Col 2:11–5, 3:1,10).
The earlier Church Fathers stated this when they spoke of the cleansing and renewing effects of baptism. Justin celebrates baptism as φωτισμός; he says, "the Jews are enlightened by the law, but Christians by the Word of truth and grace"; he mentions the ancient tradition that at Christ's baptism, a great light appeared over the Jordan. The Greek Church Fathers especially liked to emphasize that baptism imparts the Holy Spirit and argued against the Macedonians that if the Holy Spirit is not God, then baptism is not a true rebirth to divine life.
The two main effects of baptism: forgiveness of sins and rebirth, the complete break with the old life and the beginning of a wholly new one, are vividly symbolized by the rites of baptism: immersion in water symbolizes the burial of the old man, and emerging from it the resurrection of the new; baptism as a bath generally symbolizes cleansing and the refreshing encouragement to a new life.
Baptism erases all guilt of sins committed before baptism. This is clearly expressed in Scripture by stating that the baptized person is a completely new man, a new creation, that the old man has entirely died through it; so that according to the Apostle "there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).
This is also the clear word of tradition. According to Tertullian, "with the disappearance of the guilt, the punishment also disappears; thus man is restored to God according to the likeness of him who was once the image of God." Augustine also explicitly states that if someone were to die immediately after baptism, nothing would prevent him from entering heaven.
@Anonymous
"you are being dishonest about dates and how early that manuscript is"
You can look it up yourself: P46 is MUCH older than Vaticanus.
"you contradict your own previous statements suddenly nomina sacra is not important?"
I'm not contradicting myself, I presented it merely as an interesting fact, considering that ancient Greek MSS don’t distinguish between uppercase and lowercase letters, so only the nomen sacrum might indicate that something sacred is being referred to. Help: "sacrum" in Latin means sacred. Wiki:
"It is evident that the use of nomina sacra was an act of reverence rather than a purely practical space-saving device, as they were employed even where well-established abbreviations of far more frequent words such as and were avoided, and the nomen sacrum itself was written with generous spacing. Furthermore, early scribes often distinguished between mundane and sacred occurrences of the same word, e.g. a spirit vs. the Spirit, and applied nomina sacra only to the latter (at times necessarily revealing an exegetical choice), although later scribes would mechanically abbreviate all occurrences."
"Because it’s in a later manuscript?"
You can look it up yourself, even on Wiki, that there was fluctuation in which words and concepts were marked as nomen sacrum and which were not. For example, Μήτηρ only became a "nomen sacrum" in manuscripts AFTER the 4. century. The Vaticanus is likely one of the 50 Bibles of Constantine, which were created by having one person dictate the text and the scribes write based on what they heard, hence the spelling errors, etc. It is quite possible that the scribe marked THEOS as a "nomen sacrum" out of routine, which doesn’t prove that it was a nomen sacrum in that verse in earlier manuscripts.
"“but nowhere does the NT state that He belongs to the ranks of creatures, while it often states that He was born/begotten of the Father.” - it literally doesn’t matter, the evidence is the evidence whether you accept it or not"
What kind of evidence are you talking about? Where does the NT state that the Father created/made the Son or that He is a creature? Nowhere.
"Clement called The Logos “firstcreated”"
Suddenly the CFs are good, but usually they are just "apostates" and „false teachers”, typical "no true Scotsman" argument. But you are mistaken; in the Clementine text, NOT the Son, but Wisdom is called πρωτόκτιστος, but even IF it's true:
* the ambiguous word 'ktizo' doesn’t necessarily mean what you want it to mean
* not every expression that sounds like a heretic proves actual heresy; one part of a sentence cannot be extracted from the work of the given CFs. For example, if Clement openly proclaims that Jesus is God (Fragments, Part I, sec. III; Exhortations 10), then this is relevant
* this doesn’t prove a universal belief; a single witness is not a witness, a biblical rule (Deut 17:6)
So:
1. Clement in Stromata 5 calls Wisdom πρωτόκτιστος
2. According to Clement, Christ is the Wisdom
To draw the conclusion from this by means of a syllogism that, according to Clement, Christ is the first creation of God is rather hasty and even unfounded.
1. πρωτόκτιστος doesn’t necessarily mean "the one who is the first to be created ever." It can also be translated as ancient, first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures. The verb KTIZO itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances. Rather, it emphasizes his unique role in the divine economy of creation and redemption.
2. We've known since Bill Clinton that a lot depends on "what the meaning of the word 'is' is." That "Christ is the wisdom of God," the "is" doesn’t necessarily mean a literal identification, but also application, correspondence, and TYPOLOGICAL identification. So what can be said about the Wisdom cannot automatically be said about Christ at the same time, so it's parallelism.
Show me where a pre-4th century CF explicitly stated that the Son was created/made by the Father, or that He is not God but an (arch)angel. You cannot find such, and that speaks for itself.
"firstborn and being a descendant of the group"
Exactly, Israel's firstborn was born of an Israelite, Pharaoh's firstborn was born of Pharaoh, the livestock's firstborn was born of an animal, and that's precisely why they belong to that group. But it's a self-goal, because the Logos is not a descendant of creatures, but of the Father (Heb 1:5), therefore He belongs to His "group" (category).
"Origen saying Christ isn’t the creator"
Where did Origen say that the Son is NOT the creator? Specify the exact source.
"my point about dia + passive verb is proven"
DIA does not simply denote a passive instrument; it does not exclude active participation, especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it.
"Greek was Origen's mother tongue"
As it was the mother tongue of all the other Eastern Church Fathers, as well as the vast majority of bishops present at the Council of Nicaea.
"So why is “killing” labeled murder? Why not just use the verb for murder?"
You're wrong; Hebrew has distinct terms for these, Rabbi Marc Gellman explains the distinction between "harag" (killing) and "ratzah" (murder) and notes the different moral connotations. "...there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just, and killing an enemy combatant during wartime is one of them."
"and it’s only wars YHWH approves of"
It is not necessary for God to specifically approve a particular war for participation in it to not be forbidden. Do you think the Maccabean war was unjustified? Christ, of course, tried to dissuade the Jews (referring to the Zealots) from rising up against Roman rule because He foresaw the tragedy that would result; it would only trigger a devastating response from the Roman power.
"giving something human attributes doesn’t make it a person"
How do we know that when the Apostle Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person, he is not just using poetic personification? Read: https://t.ly/BoFGS
"the Michael-Jesus theory - wasn’t a theory in his day… they all knew it"
And I should believe this just because you say so? Prove from any source that anyone considered the Son to be Michael. Clearly, you cannot present such evidence.
"the two-class salvation doctrine - not immediately relevant really"
It is relevant in that this primitive game of "why isn't this explicitly stated in the Bible, huh?" can easily be turned back on your side, where it would cause more damage.
"why he did not calculate the 1914-parousia himself? - wasn’t meant to be explicitly written"
So it was written so that it would only be deciphered 2k years later, leading to all sorts of speculations, say more things like this!
"Christ come with only the voice of an (or the) archangel"
What's missing here is that Christ's voice would be that of the archangel, just as a president can enter a room "with the music of an orchestra" without the president being an orchestra.
"Why not God’s voice (or authority)?"
It is also stated in 1Thess. 4:16, "with the trumpet of God."
"Vine's dictionary says this is definitely Christ's voice.."
Even if this is true, it is still nonsense because it does not claim "with HIS archangelic voice," it does not say Christ's voice is the archangel's voice, but rather the sound accompanying His coming.
"ALL occurrences of this idiom are the voice of the subject, not a second person"
The usual "let's make up a dumb ’rule’" method, I can tell you right away that there are countless examples in Greek where this is not true. "John entered the room with Fred's shout."
@nincsnevem In the Bible birth language ALWAYS implies create when used of JEHOVAH .without exception. When ever JEHOVAH acts Dia another the other is never the source of the power or wisdom NEVER if you know of any exceptions I would love to see them and you know me sola scriptura please.
Colossians ch.1:15KJV"5Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: "
Whether literally or figuratively the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set. Thus this statement makes Christ a member of the creation.
Just as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected colossians ch. Revelation Ch.1:5KJV"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood," And it matters not that the scripture says that All were created "dia" the prototokos any more than it days that all are resurrected by the prototokos of the resurrected . To say that a servant of JEHOVAH is speaking with the voice of God is to say that he is not speaking in his own authority power or wisdom but with that which he has received from his lord. Therefore he is definitely a subordinate JEHOVAH is self- sufficient and always acts and speaks solely of his own authority. That is why would NEVER read any where in scripture of JEHOVAH Speaking with God's voice that would be ridiculously unworthy of mention. But the fact that the author felt the need to mention it proves that the Logos is subordinate to the one who gave him leave to speak with such authority
Nincs:πρωτόκτιστος doesn’t necessarily mean "the one who is the first to be created ever." It can also be translated as ancient, first (thus pre-eminent) compared (relative) to creatures. The verb KTIZO itself and the expressions formed from it also have a wide range of nuances. Rather, it emphasizes his unique role in the divine economy of creation and redemption.
Of course this is a figure of speech but in scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION the protokis whether literally or figuratively is ALWAYS a member of the set of which he is prototokos.
Just as at revelation ch.1:5 christ being firstborn from the dead means that he is the first to be resurrected and the greatest of the resurrected because " dia" him all are resurrected. If you can find a single exception sola scriptura I promise to convert to catholicism.
In scripture the prototokos is ALWAYS one of the set of which he is prototokos.
His being the wisdom of God implies subordination. JEHOVAH is not the wisdom of God he is the MOST HIGH God. His wisdom is underived not the product of instruction by a superior unlike Christ's wisdom
John Ch.14:24NIV"Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are NOT MY OWN; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Yes if the God and Father of Jesus is the ONLY true God then only the God and Father of Jesus is THE true God basic logic which trumps your church councils demand it if Joe Biden is the ONLY Elected president of the U.S then only Joe Biden is the elected president of the U.S, now there other presidents in the U.S some of who were elected to there position but they are not in the same category as Joe Biden supersedes them. Similarly JEHOVAH exhausts totally the category of only true God. His representatives the angels psalm 8:5 ,the human princes he raised up are see psalm 82:1-6 are also called elohim but the are in a lower category. Similarly JEHOVAH the Supreme Lord,among his representatives there are those who are called Lord's including Jesus. But JEHOVAH'S Lordship and Godhood are underived unlike Jesus' who was MADE Lord by his Lord
Acts Ch.3:13NIV"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the (only)God of our fathers, has glorified his SERVANT Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. "
So that little trick isn't going to work here.
I am not passing a final judgment but JEHOVAH'S Word does make it clear what kind of practices ought not to be tolerated in his church. in the book of revelation the presbyteries of the churches are sternly rebuked by the real head of church for tolerating those whose manner of life are unbecoming of their profession of discipleship of Christ.
Revelation ch.2:14-16, I don't know what this l
Paul makes it clear that certain practices ought not to accommodated by the church 1Corinthians ch.5:9-11. JEHOVAH Makes his standard known on his word. Constantine himself seem fully aware that baptism ought to mean a dedication of himself to holy service and that he was well short of that standard. And thus refrained from getting baptized so it's not I who am judging the man Constantine himself(his trouble conscience that is)proves to be his own judge.
The act of baptism would only if it is preceded by TRUE repentance.
"In the Bible, birth language ALWAYS implies creation"
No, the New Testament consistently distinguishes between the birth/begetting of the Son and the creation of creatures, and it also states that this occurred before all ages (aions). Therefore, the Nicene Creed includes the phrases, "Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons)" and "begotten, not made." The question remains, why do you insist on this CREATEDNESS when there is already a specific term for the Son's origin from the Father, which is precisely what is NOT stated.
"Whenever JEHOVAH acts Dia another"
It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God.
"the other is never the source of the power or wisdom"
Let me teach you something new that might be surprising: according to Nicene Christology, the Son receives his existence and divinity from the Father. Moreover, the Council of Florence explicitly stated as dogma: "Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." Therefore, it is worth thoroughly researching what you are attempting to refute.
"the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set"
No, "prototokos" belongs to the category or group from which it descend from. Robert Keay, Ph.D. writes:
"...the Watchtower argues that 'the firstborn of' always indicates that the firstborn is part of the named group. That is, the relationship between the two terms involves basic similarity and equality as parts and whole. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. The Watchtower wants the Witness to think that the firstborn of creation must be similar to and part of the creation, hence a created being. Again, this reasoning is seriously flawed. When the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, its flaws are obvious. The phrase 'firstborn of Pharaoh' cannot mean simply that the child is similar to Pharaoh as part of the Pharaoh family. If the firstborn is part of Pharaoh’s family, it is only because Pharaoh is the father of the firstborn. Likewise, the firstborn of an animal is part of that animal group because an animal is the parent of the firstborn. One cannot separate being 'part of' from its actual cause: giving birth, fathering, or mothering. When the Watchtower argument is applied to Jesus as 'firstborn of creation', the fallacy is revealed. The argument becomes absurd. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, according to the Watchtower’s reasoning, then creation is the parent of Jesus; that is, creation gives birth to Jesus. If the Watchtower argument is valid, then Creation truly is 'Mother Earth.' Even the Watchtower would not want to believe this, but the logic of their argument demands it, thus showing its absurdity. Obviously, the phrase 'firstborn of creation' is not being used in the way the Watchtower claims. The phrases 'the firstborn of' that the Witnesses cite are not analogous with Paul’s statement that Jesus is the firstborn of creation. The Apostle does not reason as the Watchtower does. But the reason the Watchtower must resort to a fallacious argument is that they fail to understand the actual usage of the term in the Old Testament. As shown above, the 'birth order' meaning of firstborn fades as the 'birthright' significance takes on greater meaning, culminating in its Messianic connotations. The Watchtower’s attempts to limit the meaning to 'birth order' cannot be justified."
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"as his being prototokos from the dead must mean that he is numbered among the resurrected"
However, Col. 1:18 contains a certain 'ek' preposition, which here means "from," "of," thus "among," and the same role can be filled by "en" in Romans 8:29. Therefore, in these cases, there is an actual inclusion in the given group, which does not occur in Colossians 1:15.
"...in scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION the protokis...."
This certain "protokis" is surely some kind of crowing, but πρωτόκτιστος (correctly: prōtóktistos) is found NOT in the Scripture, but in Clement of Alexandria's work "Stromata," and he does not specifically refer to the Son/Logos, but to Wisdom. Neither Clement (nor any other Church Father) wrote that the Father created/made the Son.
"But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. On the contrary, for example, Dionysius of Alexandria specifically writes in 262 AD (thus LONG before the Council of Nicaea):
"But neither are they less to be condemned who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. [...] Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord."
"If you can find a single exception sola scriptura I promise to convert to Catholicism."
I appreciate the humor, but I think converting to Catholicism is not primarily advisable based on this kind of biblical ping-pong, but rather due to the untenability of the principles of "sola Scriptura," the "Great Apostasy," and "the modern restoration of true Christianity." Incidentally, Jewish rabbinical writers called Yahweh Bekoroh Shel Olam (בכורו של עולם), which practically means the same as what Apostle Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, therefore, this title actually proves his divinity, not his createdness. Read this: https://justpaste.it/cs2gp
"if the God and Father of Jesus is the ONLY true God then only the God and Father of Jesus is THE true God basic logic which trumps your church councils demand"
Okay, then from "there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ" (1Cor. 8:6) it follows that the Father cannot be Lord, congratulations :) Read my comments as well: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/alone-or-only-how-theyre-construed.html
"Jesus' who was MADE Lord by his Lord"
According to his human nature, the Son received the name Lord only upon his resurrection and ascension, but according to his divine nature, he has been Lord from eternity, as John 20:28, Luke 1:43 already refer to him as Lord before this.
"what kind of practices ought not to be tolerated in his church"
Anyone who has not been baptized is not a member of the Church and is not under the jurisdiction of Church discipline. Therefore, the unbaptized Constantine could not have been reprimanded by the Church.
“P46 is MUCH older than Vaticanus.” - and guess what’s in p46 with nomina sacra? Acts 28:6
“NOT the Son, but Wisdom is called πρωτόκτιστος” - both of which Clement believes to be the Logos.. he uses these interchangeably..
Who said they were apostate? I never did, I’ll ask nicely one last time, QUiT lumping me into a group I am not apart of.. I can do the same too you.. it’s dishonest and rather insulting
“the ambiguous word 'ktizo' doesn’t necessarily mean what you want it to mean” - really? Now it’s ambiguous What else could it mean? It’s exclusively used of divine creation in the NT
And interchangeable in the lxx
So you get around Clement by claiming a philosophical meaning to the word? Tho it is used interchangeably with another word that means the same..
“CF explicitly stated that the Son was created/made by the Father” - Origen, and I can if you drop the stupid typology argument and admit Christ is the wisdom of proverbs 8 ( note the use of the personal pronoun in 8:12)
So what can be said of both Christ and Wisdom?
Specifically where the CF believe Wisdom to be Christ
“because the Logos is not a descendant of creatures, but of the Father”- he was raised by the father and not the dead…
And again that variant disproves you..
Doesn’t nessacarily make him God..
how is Rev 1:5 different in meaning?
“Where did Origen say that the Son is NOT the creator? Specify the exact source.” -
“And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: [4680] "At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, through whom' also He made the ages," showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the "through whom" belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Now if, as we have seen, all things were made through Him”
You mean this one, Reverse google search for context. The fact I have isolated this snippet has no bearing on how I quoted it
Origen said “ it was not made by the logos”
“especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it.” - there are parallels to this… we all know that shiliach could come into play along with many other things
And we all know YHWH didn’t lead the Israelites alone..
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/05/against-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-vi.html
Thanks all. This thread is now closed.
Post a Comment