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!
Related
Links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2015/02/no-883-evangelist-bjorn-storm-johansen.html
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar