The Deity of Jesus: "The Logos was God"
Comments
-
@Pages "Was he (Jesus) really worshiped, or is the translation faulty?"
@Brother Rando Looking at the two scriptures with Christendom objects is that it is God's Angels whom were told to worship the Messiah which is inaccurate. The Proper Word is Obeisance.
- OBEISANCE This English word (from the same Latin root as “obey” and “obedience”) signifies the act of bowing, kneeling or prostrating the body, or by some other gesture betokening submission or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew sha·hhahʹ and the Greek pro·sky·neʹo in many cases.
Example: "And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?" (Joshua 5:14)
There really is no argument that this is Michael the Great Prince. He's also called the Angel of Great Counsel in Isaiah and Prince of Peace. The word (worship) is incorrect and shows lack of understanding by the translator.
Here is the correct version found among Christendom: And He saith, `No, for I [am] Prince of Jehovah's host; now I have come;' and Joshua falleth on his face to the earth, and doth obeisance, and saith to Him, `What is my Lord speaking unto His servant?' (Joshua 5:14 Youngs Literal Translation)
Whether you call the Prince of Jehovah's Host or Army, Michael, Jesus, or King Abaddon, it's the same person as the Word of God. "In the Beginning was the Word." The feminine noun Beginning doesn't make the subject female but proves that the Word was brought forth as with Labor Pains. (Created)
Joshua when translated means "Jehovah is Salvation" would have never worshipped this Angel nor would this Angel ever accept worship. Satan wanted to find out as soon as possible which son he was dealing with and then tempted him with evil. (Something that cannot be done with God) When Satan found out he was dealing with Michael, he went back to heaven and told the demons that Jesus was the Holy One of God!
God's Angels were informed by the Father to obey his Son and if not, there would be dire consequences, including the demons. “Ha! ⌊Leave us alone⌋, Jesus the Nazarene! Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!” (Luke 4:34)
"Let all the angels of God do obeisance to him; and the reason is, because He has "by inheritance obtained a more excellent Name than they." Wouldn't that include Satan and his demons? None of the angels worshipped him, None of his followers worshipped him. In every case they obeyed and listened to him, whether, angel, demon, or follower.
Angels are given a Name when given an assignment or in being SENT. Michael was given the Name (Jesus) when born of Holy Spirit and manifested in flesh. It's the Word that became flesh.
- So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)
- "God is spirit, and the ones who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
- But an hour is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for indeed the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. (John 4:23)
-
"Looking at the two scriptures with Christendom objects is that it is God's Angels whom were told to worship the Messiah which is inaccurate. The Proper Word is Obeisance.
"OBEISANCE This English word (from the same Latin root as “obey” and “obedience”) signifies the act of bowing, kneeling or prostrating the body, or by some other gesture betokening submission or simply the paying of respect. It adequately translates the Hebrew sha·hhahʹ and the Greek pro·sky·neʹo in many cases."
I apologize, but which two scriptures are being spoken of? I personally made no mention of scripture in my post you are replying to. Perhaps, you are reacting to the founder of the JW movement, C. T. Russell, and his comments; one, that Jesus was, and is, to be worshiped; two, that Michael is not the Son of God making reference to Heb. 1:6.
I'm certain that the word obeisance was well known in Russell's time and to him; and certainly would have used obeisance if that was what he intended to convey as opposed to worship. It is only in more modern times that the governing body has moved away from its roots of theology of its founder.
For example the NWT at least up to 1961 reads worship at Heb. 1:6.
-
@Pages wrote " I apologize, but which two scriptures are being spoken of? I personally made no mention of scripture in my post you are replying to. Perhaps, you are reacting to the founder of the JW movement, C. T. Russell, and his comments; one, that Jesus was, and is, to be worshiped; two, that Michael is not the Son of God making reference to Heb. 1:6."
If you don't know the scriptures, then it's not me that has the problem. Try looking in the mirror at the person you no longer recognize?
To falsely claim that Brother Russell is the founder of the JW movement would be a difficult one to prove since he passed away in 1916 and the Bible Students took on the Name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931. Also, to claim Brother Russell wrote the New World Translation in 1961 is another deflection of truth.
What's interesting is that trinitarians often reject Heb. 1:6 stating that Jesus is not the Firstborn Son of God which means "to be" firstborn" would be an act of something that did not exist prior. They falsely claim Jesus is co-equal and co-eternal unable to show scripture. Well, well, well. What webs we weave.
In the 1940's we bought the rights to re-produce the KJV but the mistakes, pagan dogma, and doctrinal untruths were too much for us to take. Michael the Archangel, with archangel coming from the Greek root word arche' meaning beginning. Beginning Angel (Messenger) as the Word of God. Firstborn of All Creation. "In the Beginning was the Word." However, now I understand your misgivings about rejecting to claim that Jesus to be Firstborn of All Creation and the only begotten god in (John 1:18)
Most translations that are inaccurate are due to the lack of understanding but the removal of begotten god is not an error but a willful deception. It's rather demonic hiding the Word's true identity of a divine being. So one can say that trinitarians deny the Divinity of Christ trying to make him into God (theon) and not the only-begotten god as it is written in Greek. But then again, I have never met a honest trinitarian. If their lips are moving, they are lying.
When you stated that an angel was not worshipped, I referred you to two of them from Christendom that promote angel worship.
- "And he said, Nay; but as prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?" (Joshua 5:14)
- And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith: And let all the angels of God adore him. (Hebrews 1:6)
With that said, the scripture states, "Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1:4)
Trinitarians make the false claim that God was "being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1:4) So God was worse than the angels until he inherited a more excellent name than they? Phooey! The scripture is obvious talking about an angel that was exalted. Therefore if Jesus was God then could he even be exalted by angel because one them gave him a Name to inherit? I think not..
Now about Brother Russell in 1879. He was coming out Christendom. So I don't get your point. Seems to me that you are claiming he was right? Otherwise you wouldn't be making the claim that JW's are in conflict. Well, we are not the only ones using the correct rendering Obeisance.
- And He saith, `No, for I [am] Prince of Jehovah's host; now I have come;' and Joshua falleth on his face to the earth, and doth obeisance, and saith to Him, `What is my Lord speaking unto His servant?' (Joshua 5:14 Youngs Literal Translation)
- and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God;' (Hebrews 1:6 Youngs Literal Translation)
- So based on what your is misgivings are about Jesus being Firstborn. Are you now admitting that this Michael and that Jesus must bow before Michael since he was Firstborn and Created, and that Jesus would be included as all messengers of God?
I know this verse is talking about Michael as Firstborn because Jehovah brings him again. So that is just one of many clues. Then also, he becomes better than the angels because of the Name he inherited. But it goes on, in Philippians he was Given the NAME to the glory of the Father because of the assignment he volunteered to do. Die as a perfect man named Jesus so others can continue living.
Yes... it was Michael that cried out, "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me!" then again it was Michael stating theses things when he was in the FLESH.
- “Why do you call ME good? No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)
- "God is spirit, and the ones who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:24)
- But an hour is coming—and now is here—when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for indeed the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. (John 4:23)
Now I understand why these quotes from Michael in the flesh as Jesus Christ irks trinitarians. Makes a lot more sense then claiming God said these things when he didn't. See how Michael, the godlike one is called the Angel of Great Counsel? Maybe you should take it and obey, the consequences for you and your family are dire if you do not LISTEN to him.
-
"If you don't know the scriptures, then it's not me that has the problem. Try looking in the mirror at the person you no longer recognize?"
I see you've personally reached the meltdown stage of discourse. Must have struck a nerve with C. T. Russell's view brought to light.
"To falsely claim that Brother Russell is the founder of the JW movement would be a difficult one to prove since he passed away in 1916 and the Bible Students took on the Name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931."
Really, do you ever research anything at all regarding the movements history; or read what is provided by JW.org?
From JW.org the following:
"THE modern history of Jehovah’s Witnesses began more than a hundred years ago. In the early 1870’s, a rather inconspicuous Bible study group began in Allegheny, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., which is now a part of Pittsburgh. Charles Taze Russell was the prime mover of the group. In July 1879, the first issue of the magazine Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence appeared."
Russell, founded the Bible Student movement which is indeed the forerunner of the JW movement even keeping the WatchTower publication he started and was editor.
"Also, to claim Brother Russell wrote the New World Translation in 1961 is another deflection of truth."
In what world of yours was the above claimed? A little bit of table-pounding to distract, perhaps. Any fair-minded reading of my post could not come away with the idea that there was an assertion on my part that a long dead person, Russell, wrote? the NWT. Another distraction on your part.
Contrary to your stance on this, worship was not replaced with obeisance in the NWT until the 1970 edition was published.
"In the 1940's we bought the rights to re-produce the KJV but the mistakes, pagan dogma, and doctrinal untruths were too much for us to take."
"Too much to take", on what basis can you state that; it certainly is not based upon the original language of the biblical texts extant – it must surely be motivated and driven by the theological doctrine of the governing body which seemingly has no firsthand knowledge of the original languages. Also, it is interesting that it took 31 years to finally get around to correcting the places where worship is used, don't you think?
"Most translations that are inaccurate are due to the lack of understanding "
And how is it that 4-5 persons on a translation team having no knowledge or ability with the original biblical languages with the exception of one person having slight knowledge and ability in only one of the original languages; how, on the face of it, is that to be considered as superior and less prone to inaccuracy? All they did was to copy the KJV, updating some language and made a few changes to better support their theological tenets. You should explorer reading the book by one of the JW translators – the title was given in an older thread post.
"Trinitarians make the false claim that God was "being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they.""
You consider Charles Taze Russell as a trinitarian? It was his words that I cited. His theological perspective seems very similar to Arius' position.
"Now about Brother Russell in 1879. He was coming out Christendom. So I don't get your point. Seems to me that you are claiming he was right? "
No, I'm providing support for the contention that modern day WT beliefs regarding worship of Jesus, and Michael being the Son of God, are at complete odds with Russell's teaching.
-
"Now about Brother Russell in 1879. He was coming out Christendom. So I don't get your point. Seems to me that you are claiming he was right? "
@Pages wrote: "No I'm providing support for the contention that modern day WT beliefs regarding worship of Jesus, and Michael being the Son of God, are at complete odds with Russell's teaching."
Well then, if Brother Russell wasn't right by your own admission that Jesus was worshipped, then one could easily decipher that the translation of the scripture he cited was wrong.
What 99.99% of religious people do not know, is that the original scriptures that are inspired, are not available, nor have been cited or used since 325 CE. How convenient... trinitarians got their grubby hands on the real scriptures and forged falsified translations.
- We both know that there is no such thing as an inspired translation.
Jehovah's Witnesses took on the daunting task of piecing the fragments of truth together. Further investigations of falsified translations have allowed us to investigate these translations under scrutiny. Providing us the real truth that Jesus was never worshipped. There is no evidence whatsoever that the trinity was worshipped among true Christians or in Judaism. And there is no command to do so.
The Mosaic laws states the opposite.
- There shall be for you no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3)
- We see that gods comes from the Hebrew word elohim.
- To place other gods (elohim) before the True God Jehovah is blasphemy and deserving of death.
- "And he opened his mouth for blasphemies toward God, to blaspheme his name and his dwelling, those who live in heaven." (Revelation 13:6)
Just as John the baptizer was the fore-runner to the Christ. Brother Charles Taze Russell was the fore-runner to the "Faithful and Discreet Slave". This work of revealing scripture goes on despite demonic opposition from Satan and his hordes. As was stated, "And now I tell you, keep away from these men, and leave them alone, because if this plan or this matter is from people, it will be overthrown. But if it is from God, you will not be able to overthrow them, lest you even be found fighting against God.” So they were persuaded by him." (Acts 5:38-39)
-
"Well then, if Brother Russell wasn't right by your own admission that Jesus was worshipped, then one could easily decipher that the translation of the scripture he cited was wrong."
You certainly have a well-honed ability to twist what a person says; or, perhaps it is just general misunderstanding of what is written on the page that then is manifested in your reply.
The no in my previous reply:
- "No, I'm providing support for the contention that modern day WT beliefs regarding worship of Jesus, and Michael being the Son of God, are at complete odds with Russell's teaching."
Has absolutely nothing to do with either my agreeing or disagreeing with Russell's statements. Russell, against the WT view of Jesus, does not regard Michael as the Son of God; nor, did he disapprove of worship being given to Jesus – but, considered it proper to worship Jesus – the two statements I provided from July and November 1879 Watch Tower publication. Are those the WT views at present? If they are the current views of the WT then why are you so adamant to the contrary?
"What 99.99% of religious people do not know, is that the original scriptures that are inspired, are not available, nor have been cited or used since 325 CE. How convenient... trinitarians got their grubby hands on the real scriptures and forged falsified translations."
No christian (well at the 99.99% might as well be 100%) knows that the autographs were inspired and that they are no longer extant; but, what we have are just copies of copies and etc. Am I speaking to someone who has never read any text critical resources, looked at textual transmission, even looked at an apparatus once?
I would be surprised if the autographs lasted as long as the date you give. Not because of grubby hands or evil intents; but, due to the writing materials themself, insects, the handling of them, and how the papyri might be used several times for different purposes, would all contribute to their demise and the need for copies prior to that time.
As to your fanciful fairy tail of, "trinitarians got their grubby hands on the real scriptures and forged falsified translations.", there are so many lines of manuscript transmission, the geographical distance between manuscripts, to render this beyond absurd. The closest historical event that comes somewhat close is when Uthman ca. 644 rounded up almost all of the Quran texts to burn and create one text so that all Quran text would be uniform in text. He didn't fully succeed even though having a smaller geographical area and starting this project 12 years after Muhammad's death ca. 632.
Compared to the NT where writings are dated as early as late 40's and completed before the end of the first century, the large area, slow travel, etc.; and then have roughly 225 years of text transmission to contend with – what you propose is pure fantasy.
-
"Well then, if Brother Russell wasn't right by your own admission that Jesus was worshipped, then one could easily decipher that the translation of the scripture he cited was wrong."
Well @Pages if you didn't contain inaccurate knowledge, you would have no knowledge at all. Your non-answer is simply another rabbit hole.
Compared to the NT where writings are dated as early as late 40's and completed before the end of the first century, the large area, slow travel, etc.; and then have roughly 225 years of text transmission to contend with – what you propose is pure fantasy.
Then where are the Inspired Writings? Where is that First Book of Matthew that he wrote in his Hebrew Native tongue? We only have copies of copies of uninspired translations and transliterations!
In a famous debate with a modalist, Tertullian, the one who coined the verbiage trinity proclaimed that, "Some say that the rendering of Genesis 1:1 should read, "In the beginning, God made for himself a son."
If I could speak to Tertullian, I would ask him, would you like to learn about Jesus Christ pre-human existence, read Proverbs Chapter 8 and show him:
22 “Yahweh created me, the first of his ways,
before his acts ⌊of old⌋.
23 From eternity, I was set up from the first,
from the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth,
when there were no springs of ⌊abounding⌋k water.
25 Before mountains had been shaped,
before hills, I was brought forth.
Now, If I could speak to Brother Russell, I would ask him did you know how the Christians from the Way in the first century baptized followers for Jesus Christ and show him the scripture from Mathew's Hebrew Inspired Writing:
Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name, https://www.brorando.com/post/a-scripture-that-awaits-to-be-seen-in-the-light-matthew-28-19
Tertullian had access to all the Inspired Writings while Brother Russell had No Access to Inspired Writings. So I would also share the following by stating, Dear Brother Russell, here is what we learned that was hidden from the many:
Matthew 28:17
When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted.
Luke 24:52
And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.
Matthew 15:25
But the woman came and did obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, help me!”
Matthew 14:33
Then those in the boat did obeisance to him, saying: “You really are God’s Son.”
John 9:38
He said: “I do put faith in him, Lord.” And he did obeisance to him.
Acts 10:25
As Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell down at his feet, and did obeisance to him.
Matthew 20:20
Then the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee approached him with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.
Matthew 18:26
So the slave fell down and did obeisance to him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay back everything to you.’
Matthew 28:9
And look! Jesus met them and said: “Good day!” They approached and took hold of his feet and did obeisance to him.
Matthew 8:2
And look! a leper came up and did obeisance to him, saying: “Lord, if you just want to, you can make me clean.”
Hebrews 1:6
But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”
Matthew 2:2
saying: “Where is the one born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when we were in the East, and we have come to do obeisance to him.”
Matthew 2:11
And when they went into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and falling down, they did obeisance to him. They also opened their treasures and presented him with gifts—gold and frankincense and myrrh.
Matthew 2:8
When sending them to Bethʹle·hem, he said: “Go make a careful search for the young child, and when you have found him, report back to me so that I too may go and do obeisance to him.”
Matthew 9:18
While he was telling them these things, look! a certain ruler who had approached did obeisance to him, saying: “By now my daughter must be dead, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will come to life.”
-
"Well @Pages if you didn't contain inaccurate knowledge, you would have no knowledge at all. Your non-answer is simply another rabbit hole."
"Contain inaccurate knowledge", interesting turn of phrase. Could be worse, at least I have something according to your assertion. That you find my reply to your response a "non-answer" and "rabbit hole" tells me that there is a unwillingness to acknowledge the truth of my statement regarding C. T. Russell which was the following:
- Has absolutely nothing to do with either my agreeing or disagreeing with Russell's statements. Russell, against the WT view of Jesus, does not regard Michael as the Son of God; nor, did he disapprove of worship being given to Jesus – but, considered it proper to worship Jesus – the two statements I provided from July and November 1879 Watch Tower publication. Are those the WT views at present? If they are the current views of the WT then why are you so adamant to the contrary?
Which by the following remarks made in your same post lead me to question the consistency and coherency of your statement above.
"Now, If I could speak to Brother Russell, I would ask him did you know how the Christians from the Way in the first century baptized followers for Jesus Christ and show him the scripture from Mathew's Hebrew Inspired Writing:"
"Tertullian had access to all the Inspired Writings while Brother Russell had No Access to Inspired Writings. So I would also share the following by stating, Dear Brother Russell, here is what we learned that was hidden from the many:"
Followed by the fifteen scripture references to where the NWT changed worship to obeisance from the published 1970 edition and all following editions of the NWT. Try from 1961 and earlier editions of the NWT.
On what basis is this statement founded that you have personal knowledge that "Tertullian had access to all the Inspired Writings"?
Additionally, what NT letters, or epistles, were addressed to the church at Carthage? Certainly, none of the churches in the NT receiving a directed letter to them would pass along the original – if it was passed on to another church, or congregation, it would have been a copy of the received original. Given that, the probability of Tertullian having an autograph of the four gospels, Acts, Hebrews, or Revelation is quite unlikely; just as it is highly unlikely any other autograph found its way into his possession. Do we have today any extant document of his stating he personally had access to all the known NT autographs?
"We only have copies of copies of uninspired translations and transliterations!"
In that case, why do you believe anything at all in scripture – from your perspective God wasn't able to preserve his word and watched this unfold helplessly. You do recognize that the NWT is also in this global uninspired class of translation you have formed, don't you?
Copies are how the transmission of OT and NT writings were made available to others near and far; do you somehow believe the scrolls used in each and every synagogue outside Jerusalem were not copies.
All translations of the NT into other languages was done from the Greek text available – it is unknown to translate from, i.e., Greek (source) to Syriac (target), and from this Syriac (target) to Latin (target) – it doesn't work in that manner. NT translations are from the (source) Greek text into each and every other individual (target) language; the same principle applies to translation of the OT.
In summary, I completely disagree with your view regarding the transmission of the NT texts for very good reason.
-
@Brother Rando "We only have copies of copies of uninspired translations and transliterations!"
@Pages In that case, why do you believe anything at all in scripture – from your perspective God wasn't able to preserve his word and watched this unfold helplessly. You do recognize that the NWT is also in this global uninspired class of translation you have formed, don't you?
Copies are how the transmission of OT and NT writings were made available to others near and far; do you somehow believe the scrolls used in each and every synagogue outside Jerusalem were not copies.
All translations of the NT into other languages was done from the Greek text available – it is unknown to translate from, i.e., Greek (source) to Syriac (target), and from this Syriac (target) to Latin (target) – it doesn't work in that manner. NT translations are from the (source) Greek text into each and every other individual (target) language; the same principle applies to translation of the OT.
There were many uninspired additions to the Copies such as the Johanneum Comma and it was very late in the season. "Commenting on these words, the famous scholar and prelate B. F. Westcott said, “The words which are interpolated in the common Greek text in this passage offer an instructive illustration of the formation and introduction of a gloss into the apostolic text.”1 So what is the story behind this passage, and how did the science of textual criticism finally show it to be no part of God’s inspired Word, the Holy Bible?" Read more...
However, the first Coptic transliteration was from the Introduction of the Inspired Book of John. It read word for word transliteration.
The Coptic translators rendered John 1:1 in this way (Transliterated):
1. a. Hn te.houeite ne.f.shoop ngi p.shaje
1. b. Auw p.shaje ne.f.shoop n.nahrm p.noute
1. c. Auw ne.u.noute pe p.shaje 1
Literally, the Coptic says:
1. a. In the beginning existed the word
1. b. And the word existed in the presence of the god
1. c. And a god was the word
Christianity may have come early to Egypt. The Bible Book Acts of the Apostles lists Egyptian Jews and proselytes as being present at Pentecost, when 3,000 became Christian believers. (Acts 2:5-11)
The eloquent Christian speaker Apollos was an Alexandrian and his travels may have taken him back to Egypt. (Acts 18:24-28; Titus 3:13)
Coptic translator George Horner notes: “Clement of Alexandria, born about 150 [CE], speaks of the Christians spreading all over the land….The internal character of the Sahidic [version] supplies confirmation of a date earlier than the third century.” Horner favors a date closer to 188 CE as the inception of the Sahidic Coptic version.
With that being said there are trinitarian translators that have removed begotten from scripture. Notice the uneasiness of the falsified translation?
No one has seen God (theon) at any time; the one and only, God (theos), the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him* known. (John 1:18)
No one has seen God (theon) at any time. Yet (theon) is never rendered to Jesus, Same in John 1:1a
Here is the Correct Christian Rendering.
- "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." (John 1:18)
- "I was ⌊beside⌋ him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋," (Proverbs 8:30)
- And now, Father, you glorify me ⌊at your side⌋ with the glory that I had ⌊at your side⌋ before the world existed. (John 17:5)
- Too many scriptures too list.
-
I am very interested in hearing what your response is to this question I asked of you regarding this assertion, "Tertullian had access to all the Inspired Writings", made in your previous post. I'll ask the question again and rephrase it.
- By what circumstance are you privy to having personal first-hand knowledge of Tertullian's collection of literary resources to include "all the Inspired Writings" i.e., the NT autographs?
-
From the second to the fourth century CE, the Church Fathers of Christendom had access to all the Inspired Writings. Matter of fact, some of them were having the Original Inspired Writings copied and re-copied with pagan translation changes.
One of those admissions come from our time: So where did the current liturgy or formula found at Matthew 28:19 come from?
- Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.
Notice the time period.
Brother Rando's Detailed Summary of Matthew 28:19
My findings of Matthew 28:19 in its' current state is that it had been altered and falsified by what the Apostle Paul called the Superfine Apostles in 2 Corinthians and what the Apostle John called antichrists in 1 John in the latter part of the first century. As the Apostles fell asleep in death by 100 CE, the Great Apostasy began.
Matthew 28:19 was one of the first or the first scripture that underwent a corruption by what is called today as the Apostolic Church. Apostates of the first century whom left the teachings of the Apostles. Also known as the Apostolic Fathers of Christendom. These false teachers of the first and second century either knew or claimed to have been influenced by the Twelve Apostles. All the while, being oppossers of the Apostles with smooth words to carry off their prey. It became the foundation of the Catholic Church.
The formula found at Matthew 28:19 sticks out of place using a triune formula for baptism. The problem is that none of the Apostles ever taught such a thing. "Whatever it is that you do in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17)
The wording is the same wording used in the Didache Chapter Seven and Verse One. An apostate teaching that was introduced deceptively by the Superfine Apostles who left Christ.
The Didache falsely claims to be the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Not only did these Apostates reject the Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ, but you will also notice the denial of Baptism by complete water immersion. Also, you will see they have become like the Pharisees adding rules and regulations that the one being baptized is to Fast for one or two days. LOL.... at least they didn't say THREE days!
Reading just a few lines, one can see how heavy handed this Apostate Church was with man-made traditions. Such big fat hypocrites! Can't get baptized unless you Fast for one or two days. Need to use cold water, if not, then warm. Need to use running water, if not, then pour water on the head three times! Jump on one leg and yell fly me to the moon! What a Cult!
Therefore the finding of the current Matthew 28:19 is just as Fake and Spurious as the Apostates who put it there. The Didache is just one of many Apostolic Constitutions that served as the basis for twisting and altering the Bible. It shows the deceptive moral and religious conditions of the third and fourth centuries, not what the Bible really teaches.
This Apocrypha satire should be exposed and dismissed as "the angel flying in midheaven has everlasting good news to declare to those who dwell on the earth, to every nation and tribe and tongue and people." (Rev 14:6)
I look forward to the day to open up the New World Translation with the correct rending, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations in MY Name," (Matthew 28:19)
-
This response below does not answer the direct question I asked.
"From the second to the fourth century CE, the Church Fathers of Christendom had access to all the Inspired Writings. Matter of fact, some of them were having the Original Inspired Writings copied and re-copied with pagan translation changes."
My question, which I will repeat, is:
- By what circumstance are you privy to having personal first-hand knowledge of Tertullian's collection of literary resources to include "all the Inspired Writings" i.e., the NT autographs?
"One of those admissions come from our time: So where did the current liturgy or formula found at Matthew 28:19 come from?"
And
"Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. “The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83."
All this is irrelevant to the question asked of you; additionally, this supposed quote has been shown to spurious and you were informed of that along with the actual context and quote sometime ago when you were posting it numerous times. It is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature.
Though asked to provide this quote as it is presented with full context from the encyclopedia, never once have you complied; because there was no due diligence done on your part to vet that it is truthful.
The rest of your post has nothing to do with the question I asked regarding your special knowledge of Tertullian's library having NT autographs.
-
@Pages wrote It is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature.
Agreed. Trinitarians such as this OP of the subject is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature when writing doctrine that is outside of the Bible stating
"Jesus is God."
And then rejecting his own unbiblical teaching with another unbiblical teaching.
It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
So how is God Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with others? Where in the Bible are these outlandish lies that deny Jesus is "the Christ, the son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16) Nice try but trinitarians are not Christians. They invented and borrowed pagan theology that bans Jesus Christ from its' doctrine.
The evil teachings of the trinity come in three parts: 666
- God has No Name
- The soul is immortal, so Christ is not needed for life.
- Hell is eternal and unescapable so there is No Resurrection.
-
"@Pages wrote It is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature."
"Agreed. Trinitarians such as this OP of the subject is disingenuous and deceitful to keep posting a doctored quote when you have been notified of its nature when writing doctrine that is outside of the Bible stating"
First, can you be more specific as to which quote the OP, @C Mc, provided that you have applied this to?
Second, I'm not the OP so there is nothing to explain, or defend, on my part regarding your disagreement with his writing.
The question I have now asked for the third time is still awaiting an answer regarding the special supernatural knowledge you possess to intimately know what the contents of Tertullian's personal library and what he had access to in Carthage, North Africa, during the latter part of the 2nd century AD, in particular all inspired i.e. autographs of scripture.
I remind you that the definition applied to Inspired Writings by you in your argument concerning textual criticism is the autographs themselves.
Repeated for the third time:
- By what circumstance are you privy to having personal first-hand knowledge of Tertullian's collection of literary resources to include "all the Inspired Writings" i.e., the NT autographs?
-
Show PROOF that this statement below by the OP came from an Inspired NT autograph.
It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
A true trinitarian would reject such non-sense since most trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son. NOT Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
-
"Show PROOF that this statement below by the OP came from an Inspired NT autograph."
@C Mc "It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
As I've already stated in my previous post regarding this if you seek an answer for proof respond to the OP, @C Mc , the person with whom there is disagreement.
"A true trinitarian would reject such non-sense since most trinitarians believe that Jesus is the Son. NOT Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
I believe the lack of understanding of the trinity doctrine is glaring in the above assertion. How would you know a true trinitarian when failing to expound the doctrine correctly yourself?
Anyway, you are welcome to your opinion on this; but, I want to get back to your previous claim and assertion regarding Tertullian and his library and access to autographs, the real and only inspired writings, by your words.
By what circumstance are you privy to having personal first-hand knowledge of Tertullian's collection of literary resources to include "all the Inspired Writings" i.e., the NT autographs?
-
"Show PROOF that this statement below by the OP came from an Inspired NT autograph."
@C Mc writes
"Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
@Pages - you claimed you addressed the OP's error..... if Jesus is God, then HOW is he Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit?
What Inspired NT autograph is he quoting?
-
"you claimed you addressed the OP's error....."
I have neither said, claimed, nor intimated that @C Mc, the OP, is in error – seems to be a complete misreading and misinterpretation of what I have written as well as what he wrote.
I encourage you to address @C Mc and lodge your disagreement with him in a post regarding his statements.
"if Jesus is God, then HOW is he Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit?"
Regarding the above question I will say the following:
Your question assumes a uni-personal God where based on "Jesus is God" would exhaust all there is of God in His Being completely; which, is not at all the trinitarian view. That view is tri-personal where the Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, distinct in person, where neither any one of the persons exhaust all that there is of the Being of God having no remainder.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout scripture designate a particular role given the distinct persons interaction with, and within, the created order in regard to redemption and salvation. For example, the phrase, "redemption accomplished and applied", contains the Father decreeing redemption and sending His Son, the Son then accomplishing this decree, and the Holy Spirit applying this accomplished redemption by the Son to believers.
Additional thoughts relating to this are 1) God is not a proper noun, though in our times it may be almost understood that way; but, Jehovah, or Yahweh, is a proper noun. 2) The term God designates a class of Being – in other words ontological; 3) Jehovah, or Yahweh, on the other hand is a specific and personal name of the one who exists in His Being as God. 4) "Jesus is the human presence of the eternal Son, the second person of the trinity" (R. Bauckham) – or, as I've posted elsewhere, "Jesus is fully human, but not merely human. Also fully divine." (T. V. Morris).
But our discussion started on the historical statements from the November 1879 edition of the ZION'S Watch Tower AND HERALD OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE regarding two worthy items of note: the first being the worship of Jesus being proper; and the second, that Michael is not the Son of God.
At this time I'd also like to present from the 1945 Yearbook of Jehovah Witnesses this statement:
- "and for the public Christian worship of Almighty God and Jesus Christ"
Worship in its full sense is once again applied in context to Jesus. It is clear, that were the intended sense one of honor and respect those words would have been used, or the term obeisance used denoting that sense instead – but, that's not the case. Worship of Jesus existed, and was promoted, by the WT for a little more than half of this movement's current lifetime of roughly 144 years.
I am aware that the governing body changed course on the worship of Jesus mid 1950's; but, how does this change effect the salvation of JW's who did worship Jesus during the late 1800's to mid 1950's and had passed away?
Regarding your "Inspired NT autograph" mantra; I'll suggest the following.
As a reading recommendation this particular resource, available in either Logos or Accordance, might be something to consider for yourself.
Additionally, you still fail to give an answer to the question of how you came to have personal knowledge of Tertullian's library contents as having the NT autographs; something you claimed to possess in this assertion you presented, "Tertullian had access to all the Inspired Writings".
Perhaps, you will now explain more fully as to how you know this, and by what method you came to this knowledge.
-
@Pages - I have neither said, claimed, nor intimated that @C Mc, the OP, is in error – seems to be a complete misreading and misinterpretation of what I have written as well as what he wrote.
Yes, you have. You admitted that he was explaining a quartet.
One, @C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
While @Pages writes The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, and have the same nature, attributes, or essence. But God, Himself, is not claimed in any manner within trinity doctrine as existing alongside the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
So we see by @Pages quote he admits
in regard to actual trinity doctrine, but also by stating there is God who is existing along with the Father, Son, and Spirit – expanding the trinity into a quartet.
Now to worship... the LEB promotes Angel Worship and Human Worship.
And he said, “Neither. I have come now as the commander of Yahweh’s army.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and ⌊he bowed down⌋ and said to him, “What is my lord commanding his servant?” (Joshua 5:14)
So it happened that when Peter entered, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and* worshiped him. (Acts:10:25)
We corrected our stance when the uninspired copies of the trinitarian infested error came to light. Those trinitarians are tricky!
-
Well, it took me awhile to piece together the chronological timeline of interaction on a total of three different threads, this one included, to see the point of view held by yourself below.
- @Pages - I have neither said, claimed, nor intimated that @C Mc, the OP, is in error – seems to be a complete misreading and misinterpretation of what I have written as well as what he wrote.
"Yes, you have. You admitted that he was explaining a quartet."
"One, @C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
- While @Pages writes The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, and have the same nature, attributes, or essence. But God, Himself, is not claimed in any manner within trinity doctrine as existing alongside the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
"So we see by @Pages quote he admits"
- in regard to actual trinity doctrine, but also by stating there is God who is existing along with the Father, Son, and Spirit – expanding the trinity into a quartet.
Along with this from an earlier post on this thread:
"@Pages - you claimed you addressed the OP's error"
Which, in my view, I maintain is an incorrect claim as I have never directly addressed @C Mc in this thread or any other thread regarding this, nor made any claim of having done so – quite the opposite.
I did directly address you initially on this statement of yours in this thread, "It's in coherent for a trinitarian to claim God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.".
Which is not a direct quote of the opening statement found in this thread; but, is instead an assessment of what was written without providing reference.
What has seemingly transpired through all of this is my indirect participation in correcting someone else's use of grammatical syntax poorly chosen.
Regarding the unfortunate wording used in the opening statement of this thread by @C Mc; which, is now the center of discussion in a total of three unrelated threads, the exception being this referred to statement – I want to make the following comments.
The first, grammar, aural or written, is absolutely critical to understanding intent of meaning a particular writer, or speaker, wishes to convey to their reader(s), or listener(s) – and when grammatical syntax goes astray so too does the original intended meaning.
Second, as unfortunate as poor grammatical structure is, it does, without bias, bite everyone from time to time – and within technical theological discussion, which we have here, precision tolerance is tight.
Accordingly, the preposition "with" used in the opening statement, as it is formulated, "Because "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.", will require a rewriting to reflect what the presumed intended meaning was to reflect originally with respect to the deity of Jesus.
Third, nonetheless as it stands, it is incorrect in what it grammatically implies as written in the first post's opening statement – that, Jesus being God exists as a separate entity, alongside with, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in a co-equal, co-eternal state.
I give you credit for catching this.
Now to something else.
"We corrected our stance when the uninspired copies of the trinitarian infested error came to light. Those trinitarians are tricky!"
Historically, that correction of those "uninspired copies" you speak of didn't begin to occur until the mid 1950's while the 1960 NWT edition still utilized worship up until the 1970 NWT edition – roughly 90 plus years for this "infested error" to come to light and be corrected by the WT.
So, naturally some questions follow:
1) Do you maintain that the relied on Wescott-Hort Greek NT used for the base text of the NWT NT to be a theological error-infested document?
2) Do you maintain that prior to the 1970 edition of the NWT no Christian from the first century to the twentieth has had access to scripture without, as you say, "trinitarian infested error"?
3) How did this corrected stance come about?
4) Were inspired copies of scripture found by the NWT editors?
5) If yes to #4 where exactly were these inspired copies of scripture discovered?
One final question I'm curious to know what answer you might give regarding all those previous Jehovah Witnesses who worshiped Jesus under the direction and guidance of the governing body.
Who, for nearly a hundred years worshiped Jesus and then passed away prior to this new corrected stance by the governing body– implying an incorrect and unbiblical worship of Jesus (i.e. sin) – what of their salvation status under current WT theological principles?
-
@Pages - Accordingly, the preposition "with" used in the opening statement, as it is formulated, "Because "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.", will require a rewriting to reflect what the presumed intended meaning was to reflect originally with respect to the deity of Jesus.
Grammatical error? Claiming Jesus is God is not in any trinity doctrine nor is it found in any Bible, but you brush it off as a Grammatical Error? What webs trinitarians weave in denying the Deity of Christ. The to go from bad to worse @C Mc states:
Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
The Deity of Christ completely absent from the trinity doctrine by omission as trinitarians worship the trinity. Messiah is absent.
- For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the antichrist! (2 John 1:7)
"Christians are not trinitarians, and trinitarians are not Christians"
Brother Rando
-
In your response you avoided answering all questions presented to you. I presume that is due to lacking actual credible support for the position held by yourself; else, I'm sure an answer would have been supplied.
I also think that governing body changes to the WT theological stance as having quite important impact upon a Jehovah Witnesses' salvation; certainly, a major change that those who have passed away having embraced and accepted previous theological beliefs under the very guidance of those who control a JW's salvation, as in the case of worshiping Jesus.
There must be an incredible uneasiness with regard to this amongst the Jehovah Witness flock; that, at the whim of the governing body salvation is in jeopardy.
"Grammatical error? Claiming Jesus is God is not in any trinity doctrine nor is it found in any Bible, but you brush it off as a Grammatical Error? What webs trinitarians weave in denying the Deity of Christ. The to go from bad to worse @C Mc states:"
As always, welcome to your opinion.
And, yes, in my mind a hasty grammatical mis-wording error; supported by this example from a much earlier post where @C Mc stated the following:
- "In view of this, God is One (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). I hope this help? CM"
I'm fairly certain there is no difference to be found between @C Mc and myself regarding the trinity when all is articulated properly as witnessed by the above.
"What webs trinitarians weave in denying the Deity of Christ."
"The Deity of Christ completely absent from the trinity doctrine by omission as trinitarians worship the trinity. Messiah is absent."
Isn't Jesus the Son of God, God's Christ, or Messiah, within the existing theological framework that you believe in? All of which are titles used of Jesus in scripture – in my view, you are just playing with semantics here.
But, in reading these two comments of yours above, I find it interesting that you've capitalized Deity both times; and, asserted the sentiment in the one that trinitarians deny the Deity of Christ – thereby asserting Jesus, who is the Christ, is Deity.
In the next, you follow up with "The Deity of Christ completely absent from the trinity doctrine". In this case, as in the first, you have grammatically expressed and assigned Deity – capital D – to the Christ (Jesus).
This isn't the first time you've posted this particular grammatical construct on this forum.
"It's speaking about the Deity of Christ which triniatians reject."
This phrase you use, "the Deity of Christ", seems consistent in its form in each use; thereby, not being attributable to a grammatical error on your part – it is stated with intent to convey that the Christ, who is Jesus, is Deity.
In my view, I believe the following sums up your emphatic assertion stated above – "Jesus is the human presence of the eternal Son, the second person of the trinity" (R. Bauckham); and, "Jesus is fully human, but not merely human. Also fully divine." (T. V. Morris).
-
@Pages - In my view, I believe the following sums up your emphatic assertion stated above – "Jesus is the human presence of the eternal Son, the second person of the trinity" (R. Bauckham); and, "Jesus is fully human, but not merely human. Also fully divine." (T. V. Morris).
This commentary is not part of the Original Inspired Writings. There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek. It's man-made commentary from an anti-christian who denies the Deity of Christ.
Christs absent by omission.Also, trintarinas promote man and angel worship.
- And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him.
- And he said, Nay; but as Prince of the host of Jehovah am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
- Stop dodging and show your trinity doctrine who denies that Jesus is Christ...
-
"This commentary is not part of the Original Inspired Writings."
No commentary on scripture is "part of the Original Inspired Writings."; so what, what is your point?
"There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek."
If, by this, you mean in exact wording I agree; however, the concepts are in place I would argue.
Just as you believe Wisdom is a real and breathing person who is Michael; I ask you where is it explicitly and exactly stated with these words "Wisdom is Michael", even "Michael is Wisdom" – obviously nowhere in scripture – yet you derive that concept from that very same scripture. So, unless you are willing to vacate all your theological beliefs based on this absurd position you put forward; it would be recommended that you thoroughly re-think this through.
"It's man-made commentary from an anti-christian who denies the Deity of Christ. Christ s absent by omission."
Welcome to your opinion on this as always.
"the Deity of Christ"
There it is again.
I am really intrigued by this, as searching the JW.org website for this phrase produced zero results as I might expect.
You haven't denied that this assertion made multiple times by yourself throughout this forum grammatically expresses and assigns Deity to the Christ, who is Jesus; thereby, Jesus, who is the Christ is Deity (God).
-
@Pages Just as you believe Wisdom is a real and breathing person who is Michael; I ask you where is it explicitly and exactly stated with these words "Wisdom is Michael", even "Michael is Wisdom" – obviously nowhere in scripture – yet you derive that concept from that very same scripture. So, unless you are willing to vacate all your theological beliefs based on this absurd position you put forward; it would be recommended that you thoroughly re-think this through.
I never stated Wisdom is a Person. I quoted scripture like "Christ is the Wisdom of God"
- but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24
- But from him you are in Christ Jesus, who became wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 1 Corinthians 1:30
For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,’ (Luke 11:49)
- Jesus said: “I am sending to you prophets and wise men and public instructors.”—Mt 23:34.
-
"I never stated Wisdom is a Person."
Using those exact words, no; but, Pr. 8:22-25 is, in your view, literal and real.
In our previous discussion of this section of text you were adamant that Wisdom, herself, was the first created, brought forth, born, begotten, of God. And that has been consistently the position on this passage you put forward. You have denied that Wisdom is a personification of Jehovah's own attribute; thereby, dismissing the figurative or metaphorical language used in this area of text. Without figurative language being understood as such; then, the very first of Jehovah's creation exhibiting personal characteristics is a real created being – a perspective I disagree with.
I believe the point of what I wrote to you has been missed by the unintended focus of yourself on the example used regarding Wisdom and Michael. And that point being made was in reference to this quote from your post provided below:
"This commentary is not part of the Original Inspired Writings. There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek."
The above was in response to two quotes I used: "Jesus is the human presence of the eternal Son, the second person of the trinity" (R. Bauckham); and, "Jesus is fully human, but not merely human. Also fully divine." (T. V. Morris).
So, I want to point out that no commentary outside of scripture's own commentary on itself is part "of the Original Inspired Writings"; but, on the face of it, this argument is absurd and without merit as commentary is commentary, and scripture is scripture.
In fact, I'm fairly certain, over 90% of what is written in this forum alone is simply commentary on what scripture is thought to reveal on any given subject. In other words, don't you comment on scripture, doesn't the WT comment on scripture, perhaps your next door neighbor also comments on scripture – none of which, apart from scripture citation, is part "of the Original Inspired Writings".
Not to mention, the position maintained by yourself regarding the state of "Original Inspired Writings" i.e. autographs.
As far as this assertion of yours, "There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek.", is also without any merit as it can also be applied to the use of only the original languages, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; for certainly, no English was used in the writing of scripture; therefore, not being original.
The other issues with such a stringent requirement placed on scripture would be 1) which English translation ought to be used to convey the original – but, English isn't the original language of scripture – so then, which manuscript in the original languages ought to be used. 2) That any comment on scripture can be immediately brushed off when that comment doesn't align with one's beliefs without giving any thoughtful consideration to what has been stated.
All in all, following the above demands, "This commentary is not part of the Original Inspired Writings. There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek.", would simply stifle any productive conversation on scripture; and, most unfortunately, render all non-denominational or denominational beliefs and practices invalid – that includes the WT.
Back to my original point I hoped to have understood in my previous post:
My point in that previous exchange was; that many theological concepts are not explicitly spelled out within scripture, nor in exact words that then come to describe it – but those concepts are derived from that same scripture – true in any denomination's faith and practice.
-
@Pages - All in all, following the above demands, "This commentary is not part of the Original Inspired Writings. There is No Such Scripture In Hebrew or Greek.", would simply stifle any productive conversation on scripture; and, most unfortunately, render all non-denominational or denominational beliefs and practices invalid – that includes the WT.
It was also include. the trinity, immortal soul, and eternal hellfire.
render all non-denominational or denominational beliefs and practices invalid
Especially catholic epistles that are not Inspired and all the commentary quoted:
From the mid 16th century Belgic Confession
Trinitarians claim God created himself, was brought forth and begotten, also Firstborn of All Creation.
- What happened to God being eternal?
- Who was the person who died for my sin? God or Christ?
For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time.
For to this end Christ died and came to life again, so that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.
So by your knowledge the man who is weak is being ruined, your brother for whose sake Christ died.
For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
For if your brother is being offended because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died.
For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.
-
Glad you agree.
-
@Pages Glad you agree.
Can you please post and show that your trinity doctrine claiming Christ died ? NOPE, it's an anti-Christian teaching. Billions of trinitarians falsely proclaim God died.
Who was the person who died for my sins? God or Christ?
For, indeed, while we were still weak, Christ died for ungodly men at the appointed time.
For to this end Christ died and came to life again, so that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.
So by your knowledge the man who is weak is being ruined, your brother for whose sake Christ died.
For among the first things I handed on to you was what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
For if your brother is being offended because of food, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died.
For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.
-
"Can you please post and show that your trinity doctrine claiming Christ died? NOPE, it's an anti-Christian teaching. Billions of trinitarians falsely proclaim God died."
Mk. 15:32; Lk. 23:35, 24:26; Acts 5:30, 17:3 26:23; Ro. 1:4, 5:6, 8, 6:3-4, 8-9; 1Co. 1:23, 2:2, 15:3, 12-17, 20.
Jesus, who is the Christ, went to the cross, died, was buried, and was raised on the third day.
I remind you once again that trinitarians understand "Jesus is fully human, but not merely human. Also fully divine." (T. V. Morris); which, by the wording of your questions you seem to have easily forgotten.
So, in this thread you have asserted numerous times "the Deity of Christ", perhaps now is a good time to revisit unanswered questions I previously asked of you regarding this.
Grammatically speaking, by capitalizing D in Deity you give the reader the sense of your stating Christ is God; but, Christ is a title for Jesus – in essence it seems to me that your assertion "the Deity of Christ" in meaning is that Jesus, who is the Christ, is God. I find that most intriguing for a Jehovah Witness to state this in public, not once, but multiple times.
Would you care to comment on this assertion of yours that you have previously sidestepped away from answering? As there is no answer for this "the Deity of Christ" on JW.org – it's not mentioned anywhere I've been able to find – a search for this word combination on that website doesn't return any hits.
