Jesus/God the same?

Hi, This however is nothing at all like how the Bible was written though. I sincerely doubt that there were as many as 70 authors, but if you can support this claim then that is fine.However, the books of the Bible were not written in isolation of each other, it is well known for example that the authors of matthew and Luke copied Mark.Also, you do know what 'Chronicles' mean, and what the job of the Hebrew Bible's Chronicler was?Brian.

You shouldn't forget that the result has been "edited" pretty severely. Many "gospels" were left out. The whole thing has had lots of time to be tidied up over the earlier centuries as well.

---

Common sense isn't

HI,Yes, I am at a loss as to how a committee can meet and select some books from a large collection and they just happen to have a common theme! How spooky is that?Common sense certainly isn't.Brian.

Hello Stephen,I have taken the liberty of condensing your seven points:1. no private interpretation.
2. assume that someone else has part of the picture,
3. what you say needs to be judged ... by others
4. you need to be willing to ask the voice speaking to you
5. anyone can participate in this prophetic forum.
6. scripture ... should be sought, before action.
7. the wisdom found ought to produce good fruit, love, joy, peace, etc.Now let me paraphrase them. This is what I understand them to mean:1. No one can interpret.
2. It must be a joint discovery.
3. The vision must be dissected.
4. The voice in your head must be quizzed.
5. It has to be democratic.
6. It has to agree with the Bible.
7. It has to smell sweet.Is that it? Wisdom is wise when everyone agrees to it and no one's feelings are hurt?Say it ain't so, Josh.Do you think Elijah's decision to slice up the prophets of Baal had to pass peer revue? How wise is murder? Where's the love, joy and peace in that?But I shouldn't be concerned. I'm just a lowly scholar. I go after facts. Evidence speaks for itself. Little interpretation is needed. I would enjoy sitting with a committee of my peers but I would select them as carefully as the defense selects a jury.Something tells me that the democratic, wisdom seeking committees of your church/temple/mosque/coven/synagogue would not be inclined to include me in their interpretion of "anyone can participate."db

quote:

---

do you ascribe to the JW position stating that Jesus is the first created rather than the Creator?

---

Yes, at Col. 1:15,16, RS: it states "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." What is being stated here is that Jesus as God's firstborn son, was created first and then God used him to create everything. There is also Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him ... 'And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, arkhe] of God's creation."'" once again showing that Jesus was created by God. Jesus' creation by God is also referred to at Proverbs 8:22-31 ""Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. . . . then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day, I being glad before him all the time, being glad at the productive land of his earth, and the things I was fond of were with the sons of men." Plus there are all those scriptures where Jesus is called the son of God which of course means he had a beginning, for to be a son he had to be born or created.

quote:

---

I have seen a greater amount of Orthodox literature that questions JW theology than I have cared to study. . . . While I will admit that some JW teachers such as yourself profess a grand grasp of scriptural interpretation, I cannot believe it.

---

You can hardly expect 'Orthodox literature' to support 'JW theology' now can you? or it wouldn't be
'Orthodox literature' any more. I have seen a number of pieces by former 'orthodox' leaders who became Jehovah's Witnesses, which is what tends to happens when they really look into things. Having checked out some of the 'Orthodox literature that questions JW theology' I have found them using scriptures known to be spurious to support their position, deliberately misinterpreting scriptures when they know that they don't support what they are saying. I have also found out right lies and slander used in such anti-JW literature. JW are not perfect people, they make their mistakes and have had to change their interpretation on some things from time to time, but that is one thing that sets them apart from other religions, they admit their mistakes and correct them. Which is also why the 'Orthodox' doctrinal arguments against them are so much hot air, for if someone did find an error, JW would change to the corrected viewpoint. Which is why it is pointless to have a scriptural debate with JW, they have spent decades molding their religion to the Bible, leaving nothing scriptural to be used against them. Which accounts for the type of counter arguments that are used, it is all they have left.

quote:

---

people free to disagree on scriptural interpretation. It all boils down to what a person believes and why.

---

The Bible interprets itself, by cross referencing many things are explained right in the Bible itself, if something isn't or at least isn't very clearly implied by the context, I see no reason for believing it.

quote:

---

JW teaching says that Jesus was resurrected a wholly spiritual, invisible being.
. . . Invisible? Not likely. Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. And she could see Him.. . . Luke 24:39 . . . "See my hands and feet, that it I myself; touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." NASV Also, later on the beach Jesus asked for something to eat. He was given a piece of broiled fish. Why would a spirit need material food,

---

Can you see the angels? Angels are also invisible spirits, yet we have many accounts of them appearing and speaking with people and even eating food. "Do not forget hospitality, for through it some, unknown to themselves, entertained angels." Hebrews 13:2 Angels are capable of appearing as humans, this is apparently what Christ did in the account you referred to at Luke 24:39, in the parallel account in John it states. John 20:19-26 "although the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: "May YOU have peace." And after he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. . . . Well, eight days later his disciples were again indoors, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and he stood in their midst" If Jesus had been raised up in a human body he would have had to knocked at the door, instead he twice miraculously appeared in the room from out of nowhere which he could not have done as a human being. There are also a number of verses which state that Jesus was raised as a spirit.
"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit "1 Peter 3:18 "It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one. It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. . . . flesh and blood cannot inherit God's kingdom," 1 Corinthians 15:44-50 Now what Paul was saying that Jesus died as a man, but was raised up with a spiritual body and as he pointed out, flesh and blood cannot go to heaven, a resurrection as a spiritual being is necessary.

Iason>>>where is YOUR proof of this forgery? I would think that the evidence to support the scriptural canon and authenticity far outweighs it!

Fortunately the 'tidying up' has not erased evidence of the liberal way in which early compilers canonized divergent accounts. The inherent contradictions testify to the honesty of those early producers and leave little land-mines to discourage those who would attribute god-like qualities to old ink.The greatest problem I see, in connection with the Bible, is the pitiful state of those unfortunate souls who have fallen prey to Bible-thumping charlatans: those blood-sucking minions of a blood-thirsty god who capitalize upon innocent ignorance and simian superstition; all the while advocating an un-American form of government.db

Doctrebill,Your summaries missed the main point. Anyone can play, but they have to play by the rules, the first one of which is, "Get an answer to the question, 'What did the voice of God say to you?'" Presenting wisdom otherwise is like playing basketball without a ball.Then all the other stuff makes sense.Stephen

I haven't read through this thread yet. Just jumping in and noting something.You listed the Nicene Creed here as representing modern Christian orthodoxy. In your next post you referred to it as an answer to Arianism.The Nicene Creed was an answer to Arianism. It does not, however, represent the beliefs of Western Christians, despite the fact that so many churches quote it every week.Note that it says, "We believe in one God, the Father...We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God."This was typical belief until the Athanasian/Arian battles of the later 4th century. The coequal, coeternal, persons of the one God didn't exist at the time of Nicea.Nicea solved the Arian controversy by asserting, "Begotten, not made" and "one in substance with the Father," not by asserting that Jesus was God. Arius believed that God created Jesus ex nihilo (from nothing) as he did everything and everyone else. His bishop, Alexander, and most others believed that Jesus was the Logos of God who was born from God in some unexplainable fashion. Before his birth, he was inside of God as God's Logos, so it is not proper to say "there was a time when the Son was not."So the real issues at Nicea are found in "begotten, not made" and "one in substance with the Father" rather than one in substance with the rest of creation. The Nicene creed really doesn't represent modern orthodoxy. It's strange western churches don't quote the Athanasian creed, which does say what they believe, rather than the Nicene creed. Both halves of your statement are true, but uninformed. It does eloquently define the common early church understanding of the Trinity, which proclaims one God, the Father!If I may quote Tertullian, who is credited with coining the term Trinity (although Triad was used previously by Athenagoras):

quote:

---

If the Father and the Son are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father "God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord."[7] But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."[8] For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam.

---

and...

quote:

---

For before all things God was alone--being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason...I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

---

He goes on to say that when God said, "Let there be light," that is when the Word left him (like many other fathers, he applied "My heart has uttered a good word" to the birth of the Son) and became separate and his Son. But I'll save you quoting all that. The above is from Against Praxeas chapters 13 and 5.

The Arians were very clever in twisting phrases in creedal statements to reflect their own doctrine. The Son being "begotten of the Father" was seen by them as saying that the Son was created from nothing. But to counter their doctrine the phrase "begotten not made" was added to the creed that totally ruled out their position of the Son having a beginning. Another Arian teaching was that the Son was God by grace and name only. The creedal statement "true God of true God" was an affirmation that the Son was really truly God against this Arian position. The most important statement in the creed that affirms "that the Son shares the same being as the Father and is therefore fully divine" was the phrase "of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" (Davis 1987, 61). This statement totally destroyed the Arian view of the Son as an intermediary being between God and Creation.
In case the creed was not enough to end the Arian controversy anathemas were attached directly condemning Arian positions. The Arian denial of the Son's co-eternity with the Father is expressed in the two phrases "there was when the Son of God was not" and "before He was begotten He was not." The Arian belief in the Son being created out of nothing is expressed in the phrase "He came into being from things that are not." The Arian doctrine that the Son being a creature was subject to moral changeability and only remained virtuous by an act of the will is expressed in the phrase "He is mutable or alterable." Finally the Arian position of the Son as subordinate to the Father and not really God is expressed in the phrase "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." With these specific anathemas against them the Arians and their heresy seemed to be finished.
With the Eastern Church using Greek and the Western Church using Latin misunderstandings were bound to arise over theological terminology. Once instance of confusion is the statement "He is of a different hypostasis or substance." The two words in the Eastern Church were seen to be synonymous. In the West hypostasis meant person. So for a Westerner the Council would look as if it was condemning the statement that the Son was a different Person from the Father, which would clearly be erroneous. Only later would the East come to distinguish hypostasis from substance (ousia) as in the West. This instance of confusion "points up the terminological difficulty which continued to bedevil Eastern theology and to confuse the West about the East's position."

These lines remind me of Wisdom (Heb. chokmah) the feminine character of whom the Proverbs say, And Furthermore, She speaks, saying (here from the RSV): She says many other things which sound like quotes from Jesus in the New Testament.I suspect these character traints of Lady Chokmah were subsequently attributed to Jesus and adapted to the Christian liturgy.db

I noticed that what was remarkably lacking from your response was any attention to the fact that the Nicene Creed says, "We believe in one God, the Father...and in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God."My explanations explained why the creed says that. It simply lines up with what all the fathers said prior to Nicea. Your explanations don't explain why the creed says that. Your explanations would make us wonder why the creed doesn't say something different (like "We believe in one God, consisting of the Father, Son, and Spirit").Athenagoras, in AD 177, explained the issue of substance, as did Eusebius of Caesarea in his letter back to Caesaea. Everything God created from nothing was made of matter by definition (even spiritual beings). Whatever God was made of is a different substance than matter. The early church believed that the Son was made from the substance of God (which is whatever "stuff" God is made of), and he wasn't created from matter. Arius believe the Son was created from nothing, and thus was of the same substance as us and the angels.It is for this reason the creed says one substance (homoousios) with the Father, and for the exact same reason it says "true God from true God." It is referring to substance. It is not disagreeing with its own words that "there is one God, the Father."

Well, you don't have to suspect anymore. The Pre-Nicene fathers regularly equated Jesus and Wisdom of the Proverbs. Here, let me get you a couple references:Justin Martyr, c. A.D. 150: "I shall give you another testimony, my friends," said I, "from the Scriptures that God begat before all creatures a certain rational power from himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom..." "The Word of Wisdom, who is himsolf this God begotten of the Father of all things and Word and Wisdom and Power...speaks by Solomon the following: '...The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works...'Justin quotes the whole passage from Prov. 8 there, where Lady Wisdom is speaking, and then quotes most of it again as applying to the Son in ch. 128. (Oh the above is from Dialogue with Trypho 61.)Irenaeus (AD 185) is a little different, saying, "The Word, namely the Son, was always with the Father, and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was present with him anterior to [before] all creation. He declares by Solomon, "God by Wisdom founded the earth and by understanding he established the sky..." and again, "The Lord created me the begginig of his ways in his work. He set me up from everlasting...[he quotes that whole section of Prov 8 here]." There is therefore one God, who by the Word and Wisdom created and arranged all things (Against Heresies IV:20:3,4)Athenagoras (AD 177) also seems to make Wisdom the Holy Spirit: "The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. 'The Lord,' it says, 'made me the beginning of his ways to his works.'"Theophilus (AD 168) sort of ties those together: "God, then, having his own Word internal within his own bowels, begat him, emitting him along with is own Wisdom before all things. He is called Governing Principle, because he rules, and is Lord of all things fashioned by him. He, then, being Spirit of God and Governing Principle and Wisdom and Power of the Highest, came down upon the prophets and through them spake of the creation of the world and all other things...Therefore he speaks thus by Solomon, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there (To Autolycus II:10)."Anyway, I could go on and on, but this is too long already. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom's words there were overtly applied to Jesus (or the Spirit) by the fathers, beginning with the apologists.For those who don't know, although I suspect doctrbill does, gender doesn't work the same in other languages as it does in English. Coffee is masculine in German, while the cup it goes in is feminine, and the young, single lady who holds that cup is neuter. A house is feminine in spanish. Wisdom is feminine in Greek and Hebrew (I'm guessing concerning Hebrew, that it has to be feminine to be referred to the way it is in Proverbs, whil I know it's feminine in Greek), so it's referred to as female. There is not a gender problem in applying Wisdom, even though referred to as feminine, to Jesus, even though he was a male. That's purely a problem to English speakers, no one else.

In ancient semitic religion, goddesses seem to be preferred as icons of creativity. The Greeks followed this traditon with Athena, an inventor of weapons and clever household appliances. Lady Wisdom is probably an artifact from the days of goddess worship.I find it disgusting that some Xians are willing to say that these proverbs are actually about Jesus of Nazareth! But then, the character of Lady Wisdom suggests feminine deity; and that is verbotten! It would, I think, be harmless to say that Lady Wisdom bestowed her attributes upon Jesus. It is quite another thing, to say that Jesus IS that Wisdom of which the proverbs speak. Thus, another goddess is destroyed. I see that as a problem for anyone who embraces the gospel of gender equality.Exclusion of feminine role models from the godhead is a disservice to intelligent young women: girls who may become captains and commanders; and one day hold all our lives in their hands. Excluding goddesses from religion carries an undertone of misogeny. Don't you think?db

Perhaps Jesus was the masculine and the Holy Spirit was the feminine? Did He not refer to the Spirit as the "comforter"? Still...both originate in God and are God.
Also...The Holy Spirit goes "in" to believers...and it states that Jesus is coming back for His Bride. Now...If Jesus is the head and all believers are the body, the masculine and the feminine combine and as is stated, there is no male and female in Heaven....also note Rev 21:1-4: [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-22-2004]