onsdag 25. februar 2015

No. 884: Evangelist Bjorn Storm Johansen with new attacks on me, "You are certainly not fresh, this does not understand a blasphemous evil heresies like you, who feed off of hanging out others."



No. 884:
Evangelist Bjorn Storm Johansen with new attacks on me, "You are certainly not fresh, this does not understand a blasphemous evil heresies like you, who feed off of hanging out others."

I took this up now, and everything is not in chronological order for the simple reason that this has been happening for sure in two years, and there is too much if I should bring everything.
And it had been far too time consuming and explained the background, content and everything else. But I only collect comments or preaching. And considering it up to God's word!

Image of Arius who was persecuted when he claimed the biblical doctrine of faith in one God, no more Gods.




Bjorn Storm Johansen is deceived, bewildered and adhere not to sound doctrine by asserting that God is triune, he is certainly not. Trinity does not stem from either Judaism or Acts learn and teaching. And far less Jesus who called God his Father. The whole Trinity is a lashing and tubes from the Catholic Church or rather. From the church as the Emperor Constantine the Great founded on the 300's e. £.
He was not buried in Rome in Italy, but died and was buried in the Apostle Church in Constantinople, Turkey. The church was then united between east and west, not like today where it is two or threefold. With the Roman Catholic West, North really the Lutheran and the Anglican Church. South the Coptic Church and to the west the Orthodox Church.

It was by the formation of a government official church doctrine of the Trinity came to the simple reason, to distance themselves most in from Jewish beliefs and teachings which they considered to be the biggest threat.

Here something from what I've written about how and why the Trinity came to if we do not find any basis for such beliefs and teachings in the Bible, God's word.

Arius and Arianism!

The first major schism in the church came with the priest Arius and the so-called Arianism. Arius came in the year 311 to Alexandria in Egypt after studying theology. He was a cultured and erudite man, easy to mingle and it is said he was fascinated by both priests and women. He wrote happily down his theological thoughts in verse form and he wrote small songs to the vulgar. Approximately 318 arose a disagreement in a during a disputation about trini ity problem. Basically not denied Arius the Trinity that the Son and the Spirit was being equally Father, but he believed that the Spirit was lower than the Son and the Son lower than the Father. This was otherwise entirely consistent with both the Gospels and the early Christian tradition. Arius believed there was only one God. He believed that Jesus was more of a demigod to rain.
Church accused thus Arius to be a lustful and stingy man, a cheat and a truth enemy. He was thoroughly vilified by church with malicious rumors and outright lies. However got Arianism many followers. In the Byzantine Empire was the controversy surrounding Arianism immensely popular, even among ordinary people. Arius poem singer who defended his view. Gategutter and squares wives whistled and sang reportedly thrilled Arius last hits the streets. One of Arius powerful opponents eventually became bishop of Alexandria, and later his successor, Athanasius.

Emperor Constantine wrote personal letters to Arius and the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, not to argue about theological minutiae. Sending Male Caesar letter was the Spanish bishop Hosius of Cordoba. He was supposed to be neutral, but was unable to keep up and soon took position against Arius. Hosius led a synod winter 324/25, and here was naturally Arius and his allies condemned and excommunicated. It was, however, only a few of the 56 bishops at this meeting that whatsoever was able to follow the theological discussion. Exiled Arius traveled to Asia.

Because Arianism gradually gained a foothold and spread got one the first major division in the church. Christianity was no longer a unity of religion. Constantine therefore called together a synod in the city Nicaea in Asia Minor (Black Sea) summer year 325 to recover the device. Here met bishops from all over the Christian world, but most was from the Orient. Of the 300 bishops of the first synod, was significant enough only seven foreigners. When the Aryans creed was read, the paper was snatched out of the hands of the talker before he was finished and energetic torn. Not surprisingly was Arianism condemned as heresy.
It was further decided that Christ was divine and consubstantial with the Father. The Nicene Creed states Trinity of the Father and the Son are being equal, "homousios". One concept that otherwise is not one iota about the Bible, and neither Jesus nor Paul knew evidently not a trinity doctrine.

The most important for the politician Constantine, was to maintain peaceful relations within the church, and keep the church as a unifying force in the empire. A split church he had very little benefit. He probably was not any great keen theological questions. He agreed with the majority, nodded and smiled, praised Arius and also supported to a certain extent Arius counterpart for balance. Thus, it was Constantine who came up with the notion of "being like" homousi and gave thus a new church dogma; the Nicene Creed of the Trinity, the Father, the Son and the somewhat hazy theological construction of the Holy Spirit.

Trosformularet Nikea there were only two bishops outside Arius himself who refused to sign. These were banned, excommunicated and banished. The arienske strife reached actually completely into the imperial inner corridors. Constantine own sister and his sister took party for Arius. In late autumn the year 327 summoned Constantine to another synod in Nicaea and here they were exiled and banished bishops taken into favor. Again it was the emperor who dictated decisions. One of Arius main opponents, bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, however, refused to rehabilitate Arius, and give him his ecclesiastical office back.

Finally, a synod in Jerusalem in 336, was excommunication of Arius revoked and he could again return home. However, he never see their home again, he died on the street in Constantinople under mysterious circumstances. Church Teacher Bishop of Alexandria Athanasius told otherwise its own flowery version of Arius death to devoutly listening and enthusiastic Catholics. He meant to know how Arius was overpowered by a sudden nausea, and how he under cruel tortures lost both rectum, liver and its kjetterhjerte before he shriveled and fell into the sewer with a splash. Bishop Athanasius falsified other things, including letters which apparently should be from Constantine Arius, where Arius including being called gallows bird, liar, a fool, a halvdyr and a shamelessly and useless man.

The controversy surrounding Arianism wavy further from synod to synod. At the Synod of Sardica (today Sofia) in 342 came for the first time to fracture between east and west church. A breach that initiated the development towards the final breakthrough year in 1054 between the Roman Catholic and the Greek Orthodox Church.

In 1553 recapitulate Spaniard Michael Servetus (sp. Michael Servetus) all the crucial arguments against the Trinity in his scripture "Christianity restoration". The 27 October of the same year, he was consequently burned alive in Geneva initiative of Calvin. Servet, who was a doctor and theologian, was actually the first discovered bloodstream.

The dogma of the Trinity has created brouhaha inside the church up until today. Opponents of this dogma are currently under the Christian direction called unitarierne. At the second general (ecumenical) Synod of 381 were the Trinity adopted as rikslov. At this meeting, the Orthodox Catholic state church founded. All other Christian influences were now refused to call themselves Christians.
Arianism is a theological doctrine which has background from the Alexandrian priest Arius' teachings. Arius lived approximately 260-336.

According Arianism is the Son (Jesus Christ) a created being, the first and highest of all created beings, but he is not divine. There have been a time when the Son of God was not yet, is a short slogan form of millenarian organism centerpiece on Christology area. Father (God) has created the Son of nowhere and later than at dawn. Although the Son is the Father's most complete works are the disparate, and the Son of God is called the Son only in the same sense as the people called God's people. Likewise, the Holy Spirit of the Father's second most perfect creation. Father is thus alone the greatest, and Trinity term can not be applied about God.

Arianism had occasionally widespread, but was condemned by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria in the year 319 and then at the Council of Nicaea in 325. In Nicaea, it was determined that the Son of God has the same deity as Father. Arians was rejected and excluded.

Emperor Constantine the Great abolished the condemnation already in 327. Emperor Constantius II did arian organism Christology to a dogma in the Roman state religion. But Bishop Alexander and his successor Athanasius refused to resume Arius in the Church. After many decades of embittered strife between Arius 'and Athanasius' followers ("The Arian controversy"), was condemned Arianism again during the First Council of Constantinople in 381.

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea laid the groundwork for the so-called Nicene Creed, which for most Christian denominations than today is the foremost of the early church symbols, ie common dogmatic definition of Christian faith. The form of confession used in our time, the adjusted version that was made by the Council of Constantinople; the Nicene-konstantinopelitanske creed.

As Wulfila, Goths first bishop, understood itself as a supporter of Arianism, got Arianism large spread among the Germanic peoples, and they held long stuck on this doctrine. At the Synod of Toledo 589 confessed the Germanic visigoterfolket to Catholic doctrine, but among langobarderne lived Arianism on to the 700's.

This is written by a condemning these God men and women, but there is so much here to retrieve that I also take this. There is little substance of them, almost exclusively by the opponent of sound doctrine of God:
"JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TO LEARN ABOUT THE PERSON JESUS ​​CHRIST"

Confession of Jesus Christ as God and full equality with God the Father has always been one of the central characteristics of Christianity.

A "wake-up" AV Arianism A bit of historical orientation must come first. In principle, Jehovah's Witnesses teach about Jesus Christ a resumption of arainsk heresy from 400 ek. Arius (who lived from about 280 to 336 ek ek) and his followers (called Arians), taught that the Son, as they also called "Logos" ("word"), had a beginning, that the term "born" when it was applied to the Son origin, meant to "create" and that consequently the Son was not of the same substance as the Father, but was a creature that had been brought into its existence by the Father. Arians taught that there was a time when God was alone and was not yet a "Father". Arius continued to ascribe Christ a subordinate, secondary, created divinity. He argued that such titles as "God" or "Son of God", when it was applied to Christ only had perceived as a politeness designation: "Although he is called God," wrote Arius, "he is no true God He has only made partakers of grace .... He is called God in name only. " So far, the teachings of the Arians and Witnesses about the person of Jesus Christ identical. You should be aware that there are also differences between the Arians and the Watchtower teaches. Among the differences include the following: Arius and Arians taught that Christ, the person who created God used to create the world, with time acquired the form of man, but also a human body without any rational minded soul. Thus Arius disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses argued that Jesus, who was a created angel, became a human and simultaneously stopped being an angel while he was on earth. Arius argued that Christ continued to be "Logos" during his stay on earth yet assumed a human form. "Logos" thus took the place of the human soul in the creature as this union resulted. Thus rejected Arius that there was some discontinuity between Christ 'pre-human and human stage, which is implicit in Jehovah's Witnesses teach about Christ. Furthermore refused not Arius that the Holy Spirit was a person. On the other hand he believed that the Holy Spirit was completely different kind of person than Christ. Later Arians developed this idea to mean that the Holy Spirit was the grandest of the creatures Christ made the Father's command. So although Arian denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, so he denied not His personality, so Jehovah's Witnesses do. But with regard to the fundamental questions about the Son with the Father, Jehovah's Witnesses included the same position as Arian Son is not equal to the Father, but it was created at a given time. As known rejected Nicaea (325 ek) this doctrine. The Nicene creed, formulated by this Council, and widely accepted by Christians today, says this about the divinity of Christ:

"We believe ..... at one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, came forth from the Father," expired "in the sense that he is a part of the divine Father."

Specifically geared towards Arians declaration was concluded,
"But with regard to those who say there was something before he was created, and that He was created out of nothing, or who claim that the Son of God is of a different type substance, or is subject to changes or alternations - so rejected this off the Catholic (ie universal) church. "

When Jehovah's Witnesses in the way accept significant parts of Arian theology, they have simultaneously separated from the historical Christianity. Since Watchtower teachings of Christ in its essence is Arian, it may be interesting to read from Atanesius (295-373 ek), arian organism main opponent, which in practice clearly rejects the Jehovah Witness learn about the person of Jesus Christ: "Those who call these men (Aryans) for Christians commit a great and serious mistake. Have not they studied the Scriptures, do they understand what Christianity is all about, and do they understand what the Christian faith means. " He adds that the calling Arians for Christians is in line with calling Caiaphas for a Christian or to argue that Judas is still one of the twelve apostles. Furthermore says Antanasius that although Arians uses scriptural language, and often quoting from Scripture, their learning basic unbiblical - a statement which also applies to current Jehovah's Witnesses. Another place he accuses Arians to commit the same mistake as the Jews who crucified Christ, since these also refused to believe that Jesus was a true God, and accused him of blasphemy when he made himself equal with God (Jn. 5:18). As expected, we find that many of the scriptures that the Aryans used in his argument also used by Jehovah's Witnesses today, such as: Prov. 8:22, Koll.1 15, Joh. 2:28 p.m., Mark 13: 32, etc. Atanesius uses large space to argue against the Aryans interpretation of these Bible places. Although today Bible interpreters do not follow Atansesius throughout his argument, much of what he says relevant to us when it comes to examine how Jehovah's Witnesses misinterpret these and other Bible verses. As regards Joh. 1: 3, which tells us that without word (ie Christ) is nothing created, so ask Atanesius following: "If everything is created through" word ", as may well not" word "itself be created (otherwise well John have said roughly the following: "Everything except the word itself, is created through the Word." On the contrary, he repeats the point: "Without Him nothing came into being that is," to make it clear that Christ is the creator) .And further: "For if Christ had only been a part of creation, and so became a man, so men would remain there always had been: Separated from God. "But this would not take place (our future blessing in glory) if word had been created. For against a creature would Devil, who himself also was a creature, continue the game forever. And man, who was between these two creatures would always be in danger of dying, and not have someone who could unite them with God and set them free from fear forever. " Atanasius think that is: If Christ was only created so Arians argue, what guarantee do we have that He really defeated the Devil (who is also a creature) and give us a real union with God ?. How can an ordinary creature liberate ourselves from the influence of another creature? The same severe criticism can be directed against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Critique of scriptural interpretation TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

We will now look at how the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret some of the key verses that reviews the person of Jesus Christ. Let us not forget that Jehovah's Witnesses even claim that they solely being led by God's Word and not by people's opinions. Let us examine whether their claim that Jesus Christ was only a creature confirms this.

1) The Old Testament: Let's go back to the Bible word that Jehovah Witnesses themselves use to advocate their views: Prov: 8.22. In their book, "What religion has done for mankind?" is this passage quoted in "Moffatt translation": "The Eternal created me first in his creation, first of all works in the old days". Prior to this quote made following comment: "In the book of Proverbs he refers (Jehovah only-born son) as wisdom and draws attention that he was created by the Heavenly Father." It is worth noting that the ancient Aryans also used this verse to argue for his views on Christ, in that they used the "Septuagint" (the oldest Greek translation of the Old Testament): "The Lord created (ktizo) me .. ... "Arians spent so much room to argue his view that Atanasius used correspondingly much room to argue their views. Although Ordspr.8.22 the time was central to the debate about the person of Christ, are today most Bible interpreters to be Eninges that what was the purpose of the author of Proverbs, was not to provide a description of the origin of the creation of the second person in three consensus, but rather to emphasize the value of "wisdom" of the believers in the their daily lives. To achieve this, select the author to give wisdom a "poetic personification." Through this personified wisdom stated the following: "Jehovah created me in the beginning, before his previous, old work". The point here is that wisdom is older than it created, and therefore deserves to be followed by everyone. Using Proverbs: 8.22 as a reason to reject the Son eternal existence (which the Bible clearly shows otherwise), is therefore totally unfair. Isaiah 9.6 counted among Christians as one of the clearest testimonials divinity of Christ. In "New world-translation" states the following: For a child has been born to us, a son is given us, and ruler stick is placed on his shoulders. And his name shall be: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. "Although Jehovah's Witnesses accept this passage is a prophecy of the coming Messiah. Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses accept the verse clearly says by claiming the following:" He ( Jesus Christ) is a "mighty god" but not the Almighty God, Jehovah (Jes.9: 6). But the fact is that the Hebrew phrase that translates to "Mighty God" ("'eel gibboor") is also used in Jes.10 21 where "New World sleep pledging" writes: "A remnant will return, a remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God "From verse 20 it is clear that the" Mighty God "as it is said that Jacob shall return to is no other Lord Holy (ie Jehovah). But exactly the same Hebrew term ("'eel gibboor") used in Jes.10 21 as in Isaiah: 9.6. If "'eel gibboor" in Jes.10: 21 means "Jehovah", how is it in Isa. 9: 6 mean something less than "Jehovah"? In this context we should also be aware that the Hebrew word "'eel" in Isaiah usually refers to Jehovah. Where this is not the case (44: 10,15,17, 45:20, 46.6) is used to describe idols produced by human hands (and out of context, one can easily see what suits). But no claim that Isaiah in Isaiah: 9.6 believed that the coming Messiah was an idol! One should also be aware that the term "'eel gibboor" also in the Old Testament in general is usually a reference to Jehovah (5.Mos.10 17, Jer.32: 18, Neh.9: 32). Our conclusion must therefore be that the Jehovah's Witnesses have not listened to what scripture itself says, but that they have misinterpreted the Bible at this point because they have preconceived opinions about the person of Jesus Christ.

2) The New Testament: Its probably best known Bible verse in the NT Jehovah's Witnesses refer to is John 1: 1., which in their translation of 1961 by "New World Translation" reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." Notice that the word "God" first written in uppercase, and then with small letter, and that the word second time coming a an indefinite article ("a"). Translations want to give the impression that "the Word" (Jesus Christ) is not "God" with "a god" - different from God Jehovah and subordinate in divinity. As an argument against this we primarily notice that the Jehovah's Witnesses thus occupies a polytheistic position by assuming that the next God Jehovah is a lesser god. This assumption is, however, the antithesis to what Scripture says otherwise eg in 5.Mos.4: 35: "The Lord is God, and no other" and in 1.Kor.8: 4: "We know that there is no idol in the world and no God but one. " How then can the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Jesus Christ is "a god"? Certainly the New Testament speaks of gods over Jehovah but then solely in the sense of false gods. So, for example. in Ap.gj.28: 6 uses the term "god" (Theon) as the suspicious-summer residents in Malta thought Paul was, after they had seen that the worm does not hurt Paul. And Gal.4: 8 Paul says, "When you do not know God, you were slaves to the gods (Theosis) which in reality are not gods (Theosis)." Want Watchtower theologians to learn that Jesus Christ is God in one of these two alternative meanings? For the only time the New Testament talks about gods (Theosis) in other meanings than Jehovah is when talking about false gods or idols. By calling Jesus Christ "a god" therefore makes the Jehovah's Witnesses guilty of idolatry and polytheism (multi-guderi)! In an appendix on page 773-77 in their "New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures" (released in the US in 1951) explains the Watchtower writer why they have rendered Joh.1.1 as they have done. They make it "clear" that when the Greek word "theos" (the Greek word for "God") first comes in this verse, then printed with a specific article ("pros ton Theon"). When printing a second time, printed without specific article ("kai theos een ho logos"). The authors advocate the translation "and the Word was a god" in the following way: "Accurate translators recognize that when a noun is constructed with a specific article, it refers to an identity, personality, while a noun constructed without a specific article refers to a property of an person. " This rule does, however, Jehovah's Witnesses in their "New World Translation". Eg .: In the chapter where Joh. 1.1 stands, occurring word "theos" at least four other times without specific article and where it is translated by "God" and not "a god." Eg. in Joh.1.6 says the "New World Translation": "There stood up a man sent as a representative of God, his name was John." Since the Greek has "para Theou" ("God"), ie no definite article, then, Jehovah's Witnesses, to be consistent with his observation of the function of the particular item will, translate this with "sent by a god." Nevertheless translates here "theos" with "God." Similarly, in verse 12 translated "tekna Theou" with "children of God" and in verse 13 corresponding "born .... of God." Why not "children of god" and "born of a god"? And in verse 18, "No man has seen God" ("a god?"). This would prove clearly that Jehovah's Witnesses do not really believe in his own rule. They are bound to be inconsistent that John 1: 1 should fit into their theology and their own preconceptions! This confirms the well itself. On s.774 in their aforementioned appendix commenting the following about John 1: 1: "There is a meaningless assertion to claim that the verse should be translated" and the Word was God. "This means of course that the" Word "is and is with God. This is unreasonable. For how can the word be and be with God while ?. Mao, it turns out that the basis for their doctrine is not scriptural authority but their own rationalist, non-Trinitarian theology. What they say is the following: " We refuse to accept that the Bible we can not explain logically and understand with our mind. "Another example showing that Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow this rule, is a parallel passage in Joh.19: 21 where it says the following:" Please do not King of the Jews ("The King of Jews"), but that he said, I am King of the Jews (A king of Jews). "The structure here is completely parallel to John 1: 1. Because the text is the first time specific article, others time indefinite article, but both "New World Translation" and other Bible translations translator both expressions in specific shape (because the context so requires). Had Jehovah Witnesses followed its own rule, they should have translated the last paragraph as follows: "I am a king of the Jews" (or "King of the Jews"). Why they are inconsistent against his rule must be explained by the traditional translation of Joh.19 21 does not create any inconvenience to their own theology (it's okay that Jesus is "only" King of the Jews). Another, equally rough example of how Jehovah's Witnesses cheat on Bible translation exists in Colossians 1: 15-17, Jehovah's Witnesses four times joined to the word "other". Since this word "other" is not in the text, it must mean that the translators have added this word for Jesus to be put on a par with other creatures (eg .: "all other things have been created through him and for him" v. 16). Here it is worth noting that the 1961 translation of "New World Translation" has put a bracket around "other" with the following justification: Although it really is not in the text must be added in the translation to clarify what is actually meant (in follow the Jehovah's Witnesses!). Other Bible verses where the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own grammatical and attitudinal "twists" are:

1) Fil.2: 6 where it is claimed that Christ never claimed to be equal with God, and therefore neither can be it!

2) Tit.3: 13 and 2. Pet.1: 1 with the phrase: "Our God and Savior Jesus Christ." Here they break the rule that "when the word" and "(" docked ") connects two nouns of the same type and the particular item will" our "precedes the first noun and not repeated after the other (as in" our God and our Savior "), referring the last noun always the person together as the first noun refers to".


Skriv inn en tekst eller en nettadresse, eller oversett et dokument.
3) John 14: 28 where it apparently looks to Jesus is subordinate God, while in reality verse describes a temporary state Jesus is while he is on earth.

3) Christ as the Son of God: The latest publication that Jehovah's Witnesses have given out and where they present their views on the person of Jesus Christ, is a 64-page book published in 1962 under the title: "" word "- Who is He? According Johannes ". Although much found in this publication has been said earlier, it contains nevertheless some new, interesting moments: The author argues that the title "Son of God" attributed Christ by John the Baptist, Nathanael, Apostle John, Martha and Jews affirm that Christ was not the second part of the three-consensus, but rather a person subordinate God the Father. As evidence of this, referring to the discussion between the Jews and Jesus in Joh.10 where Jews are going to stone Jesus. Although Jesus here says "I and the Father are one" as the author says that Jesus is not meant to be like God, but rather "lower" than God. Although the Old Testament reviewing certain judges as "gods" (see Joh.10: 35 and Psalm 82: 6), it is said that Jesus only did claim to be a son of God. Consequently the Jews wrong when they claimed that Jesus expressed blasphemy. As counterargument must be said the following: According Joh.5: 18 tried Jews to kill Jesus "because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his father and made himself equal with God." It is revealed here that Jews perceived the phrase "Son of God" as Jehovah's Witnesses do (subordinate). Jews were the terms "like God" and "Son of God" synonyms. Therefore, it was so provocative to the Jews that Jesus called himself the Son of God. This becomes even clearer when we compare Joh.10 33 and Joh.10 36. in the first verse reads: "The Jews replied:" For some good deed stones we do not, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man makes to God "." In the second verse says: "Why do you say to him that God has sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blaspheme because I said, 'I am the Son of God?" We see from these two verses that Christ called himself even for "Son of God" of the Jews was interpreted as He claimed to be equal to the Father. When Jesus was tried before Caiaphas he was asked: "By the living God I command you to tell us: Are you the Messiah, the Son of God" ? (Matt.26: 63). After Jesus had given an affirmative answer to this question, says the chief priest: "He has blasphemed (ie Blasphemy). What should we of witnesses? "(V.65). It was evident that the high priest considered the expression" son of God "as" full equality with the Father, "and with his affirmative answer mean high priest Jesus pronounces an untruth (since there is only one God). If there had been such that Jesus had intended that the chief priest and scribes would perceive it that way, he would surely have corrected such an opinion (or: what comes the be Jesus intends to bring them deceived (lust for power?)? And should such be the case, it would not be tantamount a lie?). Having been tried before Caiaphas, Jesus meets Pilate. The Jews say when (Joh.19: 7): "We have a law, and by law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. "Again, it is quite clear that the Jews understood the phrase" Son of God "as" full equality with God. "Is it reasonable that the current Jehovah's Witnesses have a better understanding than Jews at that time, scribes and High Priest of what Jesus meant when he claimed to be "Son of God"?

4) Jesus rightfully object of worship: What do Jehovah's Witnesses with what is perhaps the clearest direct confirmation in the New Testament that Jesus is God, namely Tomas' words of the risen Jesus - "My Lord and my God"? Four pages of "the" Word "- who is he? According Johannes" used to interpret this section. But before we go into to comment on this, so let's see what the rest of the New Testament says about Christ as a legitimate object of worship. The Greek word "proskuneoo" is usually translated by "worship" and found 59 times in the New Testament. Some places it is an expression of reverence from one human to another "superior" human, eg. Matt. 6:26 p.m. ("The relentless with server"). And Joh.Åp.3: 9 is used to describe the honor church in Philadelphia would get from those who belonged to the synagogue of Satan. The word "proskuneoo" used imdilertid far more often to describe the worship of God. Eg. it is used in the following locations: Matt.4: 10, Luk 4: 8, Joh.4: 21-24, 1.Kor.14 25, Joh.Åp.4: 10, 7:11, 14: 7, 19: 4 19:10, 22: 9. Christ himself gives a clear confirmation that worship (meaning "religious high esteem") only to be given to God. For when the devil asks Jesus to throw himself down to worship ("proskuneoo") him, Jesus answers: "The Lord your God shall you worship and him only shalt thou serve" (Matt.4: 10) (It is also worth more the following: Matt.4 10 is a quote from the Old Testament, but there is not used the word "only". ao: Jesus provides a further clarification of what Jehovah says in the Old Testament!). On the basis of these words of Jesus should therefore be clear that if Jesus is not identical with Jehovah, he can not allow himself worship of humans. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not the same as Jehovah. We should therefore expect to find a prohibition against worshiping Christ (or finding a clarification in the same direction). Tver accept! Something such a prohibition is not, however encouraged it to it! In terms of denial we also see that worship of people out of Jehovah and Christ specifically prohibited. Just now we saw how Jesus refused to worship the devil. In Revelation book we see that to worship "the beast" - a apokolyptisk symbol of anti-Christian earthly forces - is considered a clear rebellion against God with eternal torment that rightfully punishment (14: 9-11). On three different occasions in the New Testament offered worship to people who reject this. When Cornelius falls down to worship Peter, Peter denies to be honored in this way by saying: "I am also a human being" (Ap.gj.10: 25-26). When the Apostle John falls down to worship the one who speaks to him in Revelation says the person: "Do not do it! I am a servant together with you and your brothers who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!" (7:10 p.m.). And when John again falls down to worship (22: 9), this time for the feet of the angel who had shown him what he had seen, the angel says: "Do not do it! I am a servant together with you and your brothers prophets and those who keep the words in this book. God shalt worship ". In these last two paragraphs it is emphasized that John must not worship any creature, but only God. What about Jesus Christ? Is there any indication in the New Testament that Christ refused people to worship him, such example. Peter did? Did Christ ever to someone: "Do not worship me, because I'm just a creature. Worship is not me, only God"? There are no indications of this. On the contrary, there are a number of places where people worshiped Jesus. On some occasions, it is confirmed that it is an expression of true faith, but by none of these sections will worship forbidden! Let's look at some of these paragraphs. The leper mentioned in Matt.8 2 worshiped Jesus. A synagogue (Jaris) worship Jesus in Matt.9: 18. After Jesus walked on water and had the wind died down so it is said that the disciples worshiped him (Matt.14: 33). The Canaanite woman worshiped Jesus by saying, "Lord, help me!" (Matt.15: 25). The blind-born man who had been told that Jesus was the Son of Man, said: "Lord, I believe" - ​​"And he worshiped him" (Joh.9: 35 and 9:38). After Jesus' resurrection tells us that women who ran from the empty tomb and the disciples at Galilee mountains worshiped him (Matt.28: 9 and 28:17). In all these occasions used the same word used for the worship of God, "Proskuneoo". At all occasions allow Jesus willingly let themselves worship, and by no occasion he refuses people such adoration. And anyway; this is the sames Jesus says to Satan, "You shall worship (" proskuneoo ") the Lord your God, and Him only shall you worship" (Matt.4: 10). And the same New Testament that clearly forbids the worship of creatures - even by a creature among the angels - both allows and encourages worship of Jesus. Is not that a clear enough evidence of the divinity of Jesus? To this enough Jehovah Witness say: The reverence that was shown towards Jesus of these different individuals was just the kind of respect you show to a creature of a higher order, and does not mean that Jesus is God. What shall we say to this objection? It is true enough that "proskuneoo" as used in the New Testament, not always have to mean the worship of God. As we have seen, it is used occasionally as an attitude of respect toward another creature. However, with regard to Matt. 4:10, it should out of context is hardly any doubt that "proskuneoo" here is an expression of religious highest consideration in the sense of "worship" and that it is only God who should worshiped, and the studying the aforementioned Bible locations will see that the same is true there. Furthermore, we note that the Watchtower claims that Jesus, while he was on earth, was only human in the same way as Adam. Then Peter said to Cornelius that he should not worship him (Ap.gj.10-25-26), so Peter gave as a reason to reject worship: "I am also a human being." Here translator "Nyverdensoversettelse" "proskuneoo" with "awe / deference." If it was now important for Peter to reject the kind of respect because he was only a man, by what right could Jesus Christ, which according to the Jehovah's Witnesses was only human, receive a similar awe / deference from people without reprimand them? After Jesus' resurrection, he was, according to. Jehovah's Witnesses, one Spiritual creature, higher in status than he had been on earth, but still only a creature. The life he now lives is not a life as a divine person, with a human nature, but a life that an exalted angel, called Michael. In Revelation 22: 9 states, however, that angels will not be worshiped, only God. If Jesus ago was just an angel (albeit one that is superior to the other angels), how could he then while he was on earth accept worship ("proskuneoo") from people without reprimand them? Or: Why reject angel worship, but not Jesus? All these sections where Jesus is worshiped climaxing with Thomas' worship of Jesus in Joh.20 28. When Thomas saw Jesus weeks after he had expressed his doubts about the resurrection of Jesus, he said to him: "My Lord and my God." If Jesus was not God, he would have rebuked Thomas. Instead he expresses appreciation, by saying: "Because you have seen me, you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (V.29). Should not this be a perfect proof of the divinity of Jesus? What Jehovah's Witnesses about this verse? One answer is that Thomas first addressed to Jesus, and then lift your eyes and turn to God. But this says nothing in verse. Moreover preceded Thomas' "eruption" with: "Then said Thomas to him," (for the record: "To him" stands in the original text but is omitted in the new Bible translation). In "" word "- Who is he? According Johannes" accept the Jehovah's Witnesses that Thomas actually said all this to Jesus. But, they say, if Thomas believed that Jesus was the only true God, then Jesus would certainly have reprimanded him. So since Jesus did not rebuke him, then it must mean that it was not what Thomas meant. What did that case Thomas when he said, "My God"? Yes, he believed that Jesus was the Son of God (8:31 p.m.), which according. Jehovah must be understood to mean that Jesus was not part of some divine three unity. This is, however, in my opinion, just a bold attempt to circumvent it actually stands in Joh.20 28. My arguments are as follows: 1) What else can the phrase "my God" mean other than "my true God"? Thomas, who was Jewish, was a clear monotheist, who will never enter into any form of worship other than Jehovah. When he said "my God" he could not have meant anything other than "my one true God." 2) The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses perception of the term "Son of God" is erroneous, is already proven. Therefore there is no contrast (and hence the need for theological "distortions") when Thomas on the one hand calls Jesus "my God" and the later statement that "These (signs) have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (Joh.20: 31). Jehovah's Witnesses denial of divinity of Jesus Christ must be rejected by all true believers as false doctrine, because it touches the very core of the biblical message. To quote Atanasius: "Jesus I know that my Redeemer can not be anything less than God! "

APPENDIX A (KT): Jehovah's Witnesses sometimes uses a clever technique to get it to look as if the words of Scripture agrees with their perceptions. They are based on key Bible verses that ordinary Christians have "misunderstood" and that it is important for them, from the standpoint they have already taken, "to omforklare". They do when the reader aware that the relevant Greek word elsewhere in Scripture has another meaning, ie get a different translation. Instead of letting the connection determine the impact that fit, they say that the alternative interpretation / translation also applies in the relevant scripture, without regard to context. In addition, they can also refer to the interpretation that involves what they perceive as a "sensible" theology. Here are two examples: 1) In most Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament states that "theos" sometimes translated as "God", other times with "a god" but both times with the same meaning (and the relationship gets determine which language is most naturally). Here "choose" However Jehovah Witness systematically translate "theos" in John 1: 1 with "a god" but later in John 1 with "god" without context indicates such exchange. 2) "Proskuneoo" translates both "worship" (the most common in the New Testament), and the "reverence". In all sections that could indicate that Jesus was worshiped as a God elected systematic interpretation "that reverence", albeit with a strange exception Hebr.1: 6, where they actually write the angels to worship Jesus! Even, however, claims Witnesses to follow this principle: "To every key word in the New Testament we have attributed this word one opinion, and we stick to the opinion, as long as the context allows us this." ("New World Translation, 1951 , p.9).

APPENDIX B (KT): Whoever exclusively will relate to the literal interpretation, and not see things in context, can certainly say the following: "But Jesus said the never" I am Jehovah "or equivalent. Had he been God he had well said it. " Jesus himself has an answer to this: "Witnesses I about myself, my witness is not valid" (Joh.5: 31). Anyone can claim the anything about themselves. But due "Incapacity" has only matter what others say. Moreover, we see in the New Testament that Jesus first and foremost wants people through a process to be aware of who Jesus really is. See eg. Peter who first until finally realized that Jesus was God. Another example is the woman at the well who first calls Jesus "Lord" (as a polite indictment) (Joh.4: 11), later "prophet" (Joh.4: 19), even later for "Messiah" with question marks (Joh.4: 29) and until finally gets convinced others that he "really is the world's savior" (Joh.4: 42). This is also an important element of "the Holy Spirit revelation." The truth about Jesus is, as we have seen, in a way "Tucked away" in Scripture, you do not get the answer "Jesus is like God" straight ahead. Whoever just want a short answer, but that really does not have any personal interest in Jesus, never get a satisfactory answer. But whoever seeks the person of Jesus will find Him, and in addition also, through the Holy Spirit, make obvious who Jesus really is. "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Kor.12: 3). Finally: Could it be that Joh.5: 39-40, which was a judgment of the scribes, too, is a judgment of the Watchtower, ie those behind the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses ?: "You search the Scriptures, because ye think ye have eternal life in them - and just the witnesses about me! But you will not come to me to have eternal life."
Here comes something very good:
The doctrine of the Trinity and the nature of Christ was the most contentious points in the early church (70-476) The majority of the Christians believed that Jesus had two natures, one divine and one human. The priest Arius (256-336) of Alexandria believed that Jesus was human, the ultimate God had created, but that he was not God.

Arius believed that Jesus soul (logos) was the first God created and that this was incarnated in the body of Jesus of Nazareth. This view made it possible for Arius stating that: "There was a time Jesus was not." Church had concluded that Jesus was from the "before time and space" is not created by God because he was God. Arguments for this they found, among other things through the text in John 1. 1-18. *

* 1) In the beginning was the Word (logos). Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2) He was in the beginning with God. 3) All things were made by him; without him nothing was made that has been added. 14) And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. 18) No one has ever seen God, but the only begotten, who is God and who is in the bosom, he has shown us who he is.

These differences were in the year 318 the start of what could be called the Arian controversy. Arius was thrown out of the church by the bishop, but he had many followers and started his own church. The controversy was about to tear the Eastern Churches in pieces and it was contrary to what plans the Emperor Constantine had with the church.

- Emperor therefore asked the bishops to gather in Ancyra in 324 to a general synod, called a council, where they would settle their disputes. The majority of the bishops were not interested in any compromise with Arius. Synod were moved to Nicaea so the emperor himself could have direct control in the power of his presence.

Athanasius (born 296; died May 2, 373) report on Nikeamøtet give us insight into what happened: Quote: "First, add the editorial committee presented draft that simply gets Bible verse, but is clearly anti-Arian. It expresses the Church's ancient beliefs expressed with biblical text. Words and phrases also recalls confession from Antiokiamøtet year.

There are bishops Alexander and Hosaus as sore behind this. Arians pleaded agree! They found namely that the wording that was presented could easily be interpreted to apply to their view of Christ as created. Then the editorial committee compelled to sharpen credo - creed.

They did by going back to a short text of the kind that was used in dåpssymboler, ie Baptist formula, for example. as in the so-called Symbolum Roman, but clarifies the addition as linguistically not taken their vocabulary from the Bible. "

Additional about Arius:
The first major schism in the church came with the priest Arius and the so-called Arianism. Arius came in the year 311 to Alexandria in Egypt after studying theology. He was a cultured and erudite man, easy to mingle and it is said he was fascinated by both priests and women. He wrote happily down his theological thoughts in verse form and he wrote small songs to the vulgar. Approximately 318 arose a disagreement in a during a disputation about trini ity problem. Basically not denied Arius the Trinity that the Son and the Spirit was being equally Father, but he believed that the Spirit was lower than the Son and the Son lower than the Father. This was otherwise entirely consistent with both the Gospels and the early Christian tradition. Arius believed there was only one God. He believed that Jesus was more of a demigod to rain.

Church accused thus Arius to be a lustful and stingy man, a cheat and a truth enemy. He was thoroughly vilified by church with malicious rumors and outright lies. However got Arianism many followers. In the Byzantine Empire was the controversy surrounding Arianism immensely popular, even among ordinary people. Arius poem singer who defended his view. Gategutter and squares wives whistled and sang reportedly thrilled Arius last hits the streets. One of Arius powerful opponents eventually became bishop of Alexandria, and later his successor, Athanasius.

Emperor Constantine wrote personal letters to Arius and the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, not to argue about theological minutiae. Sending Male Caesar letter was the Spanish bishop Hosius of Cordoba. He was supposed to be neutral, but was unable to keep up and soon took position against Arius. Hosius led a synod winter 324/25, and here was naturally Arius and his allies condemned and excommunicated. It was, however, only a few of the 56 bishops at this meeting that whatsoever was able to follow the theological discussion. Exiled Arius traveled to Asia.

Because Arianism gradually gained a foothold and spread got one the first major division in the church. Christianity was no longer a unity of religion. Constantine therefore called together a synod in the city Nicaea in Asia Minor (Black Sea) summer year 325 to recover the device. Here met bishops from all over the Christian world, but most was from the Orient. Of the 300 bishops of the first synod, was significant enough only seven foreigners. When the Aryans creed was read, the paper was snatched out of the hands of the talker before he was finished and energetic torn. Not surprisingly was Arianism condemned as heresy.
It was further decided that Christ was divine and consubstantial with the Father. The Nicene Creed states Trinity of the Father and the Son are being equal, "homousios". One concept that otherwise is not one iota about the Bible, and neither Jesus nor Paul knew evidently not a trinity.

Final Comment:

I hang certainly not out anyone. But I have looked at what God's word says, and measure all up against this. That there are some preachers who get punished, it is something they should be able to withstand. I take for me that said only what God's word says, and considers human life and learn up against the word of God!


Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar