Attribution: http://jesuscreatedu.files.wordpress.com
If one were even modestly aware of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their teachings, they would know that they are modern day Arians; in part meaning they teach that Jesus was created. The Arians were started by Arius (AD 250–336) and he taught that Christ didn’t always exist, but was created by God. [1] It was the rise of this heresy that led to the First Council of Nicaea in 325; to formally reject this teaching and strengthen the Christian position of the Trinity. The Watchtower in the past has asserted that this council was to actually formulate the Trinity [2], but this assertion is unwarranted. Without invoking the Bible (citing it in this case will lead to a strong game of “Bible Ping Pong), one can look into the early church writings from the late first century and early second century, to see a healthy milieu of Trinitarianism affirmation.
Why The Watchtower Says Jesus Was Created
(New World Translation) Colossians 1:15-16 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
This scripture above is the most common one that they will use in support of their belief that Jesus was created. They assert that “Jesus Christ is shown to be “the firstborn of all creation” as well as “the firstborn from the dead”—not merely most distinguished in relation to those created or those resurrected but the first one actually created and the first raised from the dead to endless life. (Col 1:15, 18; Re 1:5; 3:14)“. [3] They’re trying to make the claim that the word “firstborn” actually means “first created”. The Greek word used here for firstborn is “prototokos”, which in this context means “preeminent”. While firstborn can mean “born first” in the literal sense, we also see that in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, that even though Manasseh was born first, Ephraim was called the firstborn due to God’s covenant of promise. [4] In reality, If Paul wanted to convey in this passage that Jesus was literally “created first”, he would’ve used the precise Greek word “protoktistos” (founded or created first) for that instead of prototokos. [5] The fact remains that Jesus created all things that were made [6] and was not part of creation itself.
Don’t Sweat The Small Stuff
Some may also point out the bracketed “other” that was added to verse sixteen of Colossians chapter one. The informed Jehovah’s Witness will rebut, saying that other Bibles also insert words which were not in the original text either. Bibles such as the King James use italics instead of brackets. On a side not, some of their bracketed words have been edited -with the brackets taken off entirely- in various editions of their own Bible, the New World Translation. They have a valid point with the inserted words, but the difference here, is that they are changing the meaning of the text rather than clarifying it. It’s my opinion that one shouldn’t make too big of a deal about this, but stay on point with what the word firstborn actually means in this passage. That’s where the meat is.
(New World Translation) Proverbs 8:22-23 “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.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses also love to bring up the above passage and apply wisdom to Jesus in support of their belief that he was created. Of course they miss the obvious that in verse one of the chapter, wisdom is spoken of as a “she”. Interestingly enough, they render wisdom as an “it” (New World Translation) instead but in chapter seven they indeed render wisdom as a “she” and “sister”. It’s this typical inconsistency that I expect from the Watchtower.
_____________________
Endnotes
1. Arianism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
2. 1989 Watchtower March 1st pg. 5
3. 1988 Insight On The Scriptures pg. 836
4. http://www.thebereancall.org/node/6168
5. PROTOTOKOS (“Firstborn”): http://www.caic.org.au/jws/theology/col1_15.htm
6. (King James Version) John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
About the Author:
A. M. "Marc" Hempe is the founder of Razor Swift. He enjoys long sunny days with his beautiful wife in Los Angeles California. Some of his hobbies include: reading, writing, drumming, working out, learning what makes people tick and watching sports. He's happy to discuss the deeper things of life and tackle issues that make others uncomfortable. He maintains that jumping off the waterfall of truth is preferable than wading in a tide pool of lies. Marc is also the host of the apologetics radio show The Razor Swift
Razor Swift – who has written 4 posts on Taber's Truths Christian Living Magazine.
• 
• 
• 
Hi again Razor Swift,
Days later…and still no answer or concession. Are you just going on blind faith that Johnny can ‘show me why I’m wrong and missing the context’…if only he wanted to? Somehow I’m thinking this point on the actual meaning of ‘firstborn’ in Colossians 1:15 isn’t going to make it into the book you’re writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses–and really, similarly devastating points can (and have been) made elsewhere that books like yours always seem to ‘overlook.’
Truth should be the ultimate goal, and the resounding silence in regards to my very specific challenge to your argument above speaks volumes about the pursuit of that goal here. So continue to post and publish every kind of dirt and distortion you can dig up in your efforts against a people, but you’ll always know that right here, when the focus was on what the Bible actually says in this one spot, truth was trumped by the real pursuit motivating you.
Disagree? Prove me wrong.
Hi again Razor Swift,
Days later…and still no answer or concession. Are you just going on blind faith that Johnny can ‘show me why I’m wrong and missing the context’…if only he wanted to? Somehow I’m thinking this point on the actual meaning of ‘firstborn’ in Colossians 1:15 isn’t going to make it into the book you’re writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses–and really, similarly devastating points can (and have been) made elsewhere that books like yours always seem to ‘overlook.’
Truth should be the ultimate goal, and the resounding silence in regards to my very specific challenge to your argument above speaks volumes about the pursuit of that goal here. So continue to post and publish every kind of dirt and distortion you can dig up in your efforts against a people, but you’ll always know that right here, when the focus was on what the Bible actually says in this one spot, truth was trumped by the real pursuit motivating you.
Disagree? Prove me wrong.
From the article above:
It’s too bad that this advice hasn’t been followed here. It would seem that the actual meaning of ‘firstborn’ is secondary to the need to preserve the Trinity doctrine by all means necessary.
So many red herrings have been thrown up, but the fact remains, given the scriptural definition of ‘firstborn’, if Jesus is ‘the firstborn of creation’, he is the foremost member of creation. I thank you for the opportunity to prove this conclusively.
TJ,
I’ll wait for Johnny -who has been busy the past few days- to show you why you’re wrong, and missing the context. Go take your victory lap in the meantime…
I hope you’re right that he will respond, RS. All that needs to be done is to show me a scriptural example of where a ‘firstborn’ is excluded from his/its related group.
If this cannot be done, will you concede that the Bible teaches that Jesus is himself a part of creation? Or will you ignore this and simply continue on with your next attack?
By the way, if you or Johnny Dee have any responses to and/or discussions with atheists available on your blog, I’d appreciate reading through them. Thanks!
Off the top of my head TJ, the only comments we have had by atheists have been drive by’s where they made a derogatory comment then never returned. I had to edit the comment to clean up the language but left the comment intact otherwise. This is one example. http://taberstruths.com/america-becoming-intolerant-towards-religion/
Thanks Duke; that’s pretty much what I was looking for and was expecting.
From the article above:
It’s too bad that this advice hasn’t been followed here. It would seem that the actual meaning of ‘firstborn’ is secondary to the need to preserve the Trinity doctrine by all means necessary.
So many red herrings have been thrown up, but the fact remains, given the scriptural definition of ‘firstborn’, if Jesus is ‘the firstborn of creation’, he is the foremost member of creation. I thank you for the opportunity to prove this conclusively.
TJ,
I’ll wait for Johnny -who has been busy the past few days- to show you why you’re wrong, and missing the context. Go take your victory lap in the meantime…
I hope you’re right that he will respond, RS. All that needs to be done is to show me a scriptural example of where a ‘firstborn’ is excluded from his/its related group.
If this cannot be done, will you concede that the Bible teaches that Jesus is himself a part of creation? Or will you ignore this and simply continue on with your next attack?
By the way, if you or Johnny Dee have any responses to and/or discussions with atheists available on your blog, I’d appreciate reading through them. Thanks!
Off the top of my head TJ, the only comments we have had by atheists have been drive by’s where they made a derogatory comment then never returned. I had to edit the comment to clean up the language but left the comment intact otherwise. This is one example. http://taberstruths.com/america-becoming-intolerant-towards-religion/
Thanks Duke; that’s pretty much what I was looking for and was expecting.
Thank you everyone for the comments!
Thank you everyone for the comments!
You’re right, I did brush aside my protocol to engage you on off topics, thank you for calling me out on that. I apologize. God bless you.
You’re right, I did brush aside my protocol to engage you on off topics, thank you for calling me out on that. I apologize. God bless you.
If you remember, and I’ll help you to do so, from the beginning I sent you to my contact page which says I reserve in depth discussions for audio. (Which this has been one) Your constant refusal to do so -giving mere lip service for such- and choice of anonymity has given me pause for concern. This is why I’m paying attention to you. The person is part of the argument, and if you as an individual can’t respect my protocol for engagement, then we/you should stop now.
You are the one schooled in Greek, is it only inclusive? What’s the consensus among scholars? (examples?) This argument seems to be your meat and potatoes yet strangely enough Trinitarian scholars, native Greek speakers, and ECF’s such as Origen and Clement had no such issue with using it. Why is that? I guess they were just that biased.
Hi again RS,
Seeing as how I don’t currently have a microphone set up on my computer, so I’m not exactly thrilled with your protocol. It’s just interesting that you seemed to have no problem brushing aside your protocol to engage in very long, off-topic posts, but when it comes to the subject of the article above, suddenly everything has to be on your special terms.
That’s a rather snarky non-answer. I’ve provided my evidence in lengthy detail, RS. You can see firsthand how the Trinitarian scholars’ argument plays out by following Johnny’s posts. You keep bringing “native Greek speakers” into your posts as if they’re some kind of exceptional authority on the Greek language spoken 2,000 years ago. One simply has to read Shakespeare in English, which is only some 500 years old, to see how much language changes over time.
Finally, you appeal to the early church fathers. Again, I’ve already stated that Clement used ‘firstborn’ and ‘first-created’ as synonymous titles in reference to Jesus. These men were subordinationists, and so they’re not even ‘biased’ to your view of things.
It would seem that my challenge to produce another exclusive ‘firstborn’ over some group will go unanswered. That being the case, most of your argument in the above article completely collapses.
If you remember, and I’ll help you to do so, from the beginning I sent you to my contact page which says I reserve in depth discussions for audio. (Which this has been one) Your constant refusal to do so -giving mere lip service for such- and choice of anonymity has given me pause for concern. This is why I’m paying attention to you. The person is part of the argument, and if you as an individual can’t respect my protocol for engagement, then we/you should stop now.
You are the one schooled in Greek, is it only inclusive? What’s the consensus among scholars? (examples?) This argument seems to be your meat and potatoes yet strangely enough Trinitarian scholars, native Greek speakers, and ECF’s such as Origen and Clement had no such issue with using it. Why is that? I guess they were just that biased.
Hi again RS,
Seeing as how I don’t currently have a microphone set up on my computer, so I’m not exactly thrilled with your protocol. It’s just interesting that you seemed to have no problem brushing aside your protocol to engage in very long, off-topic posts, but when it comes to the subject of the article above, suddenly everything has to be on your special terms.
That’s a rather snarky non-answer. I’ve provided my evidence in lengthy detail, RS. You can see firsthand how the Trinitarian scholars’ argument plays out by following Johnny’s posts. You keep bringing “native Greek speakers” into your posts as if they’re some kind of exceptional authority on the Greek language spoken 2,000 years ago. One simply has to read Shakespeare in English, which is only some 500 years old, to see how much language changes over time.
Finally, you appeal to the early church fathers. Again, I’ve already stated that Clement used ‘firstborn’ and ‘first-created’ as synonymous titles in reference to Jesus. These men were subordinationists, and so they’re not even ‘biased’ to your view of things.
It would seem that my challenge to produce another exclusive ‘firstborn’ over some group will go unanswered. That being the case, most of your argument in the above article completely collapses.
TJ,
Let me know when you’re ready to shuck off that cloak of anonymity you’ve enjoyed on the various websites which you frequent; including this one. Your handlers at Bethel might not be happy, but what are you hiding? Maybe it’s time to move out? When are we going to talk audibly? You know where to find me.
That’s cute ^ but not the reality ; especially after the honeymoon is over. The lack of love in the organization is actually a common denominator why so many JW’s leave in the first place. Often it’s not because of doctrine, or wanting to go sin etc but this. I have met so many undercover JW’s -that disagree with various doctrines, rules, regulations etc- who have to suppress their opinions, just to keep from being d’fed (and shunned) so they can still be in contact with their family and friends. It’s sad that people who were baptized as children -due to peer pressure of family and friends; what they were “expected” to do- have to live this way. Only because they no longer believe the religion that they were raised in. This JW love, is conditional. It’s free to join, but expensive to leave.
Hello RS,
I’ve been in many discussions like this, and the thing I notice over and over again is that when people run out of places to go on the topic at hand, they tend to shift the attention to the person rather than the argument.
Is there a reason that you will not answer whether or not your view “firstborn” as an inclusive term?
Thank you.
It seems you have the ability to edit your posts, so I’ll address what you added.
Yet again, put you in the first century and you’d fit right in with the critics of the ‘overbearing’ apostles:
“I [John] wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words.” (3 John 9-10)
Imagine that, the apostle John the ‘tyrant.’ And don’t even get me started on Peter and Paul. You’d have quite the tirades to write against them and their ‘unloving’ ways.
Here is the truly self-sacrificing type of love I’m talking about that is unique (this is just one example). Speaking of the Witnesses’ uncompromising stand for scriptural principle in Germany during WWII:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses can rightfully claim to have resisted the ‘wicked.’ In a literal sense they have fulfilled their own claim of being true followers of Jesus Christ, while the two large churches in Germany, as they openly admit, failed terribly. Six decades later it is now time to show them respect in the name of Christianity. Without the example of this steadfast Christian group under the oppression of the National Socialist dictatorship, we would–after Auschwitz and the Holocaust–have to doubt whether it is at all possible to fulfill the Christian teachings of Jesus.” — “Spiritual Resistance of Christian Conviction in Nazi Germany”, Journal of Church and State, 1999, p. 322.
TJ,
Let me know when you’re ready to shuck off that cloak of anonymity you’ve enjoyed on the various websites which you frequent; including this one. Your handlers at Bethel might not be happy, but what are you hiding? Maybe it’s time to move out? When are we going to talk audibly? You know where to find me.
That’s cute ^ but not the reality ; especially after the honeymoon is over. The lack of love in the organization is actually a common denominator why so many JW’s leave in the first place. Often it’s not because of doctrine, or wanting to go sin etc but this. I have met so many undercover JW’s -that disagree with various doctrines, rules, regulations etc- who have to suppress their opinions, just to keep from being d’fed (and shunned) so they can still be in contact with their family and friends. It’s sad that people who were baptized as children -due to peer pressure of family and friends; what they were “expected” to do- have to live this way. Only because they no longer believe the religion that they were raised in. This JW love, is conditional. It’s free to join, but expensive to leave.
Hello RS,
I’ve been in many discussions like this, and the thing I notice over and over again is that when people run out of places to go on the topic at hand, they tend to shift the attention to the person rather than the argument.
Is there a reason that you will not answer whether or not your view “firstborn” as an inclusive term?
Thank you.
It seems you have the ability to edit your posts, so I’ll address what you added.
Yet again, put you in the first century and you’d fit right in with the critics of the ‘overbearing’ apostles:
“I [John] wrote something to the congregation, but Diotrephes, who likes to have the first place among them, does not receive anything from us with respect. That is why, if I come, I will call to remembrance his works which he goes on doing, chattering about us with wicked words.” (3 John 9-10)
Imagine that, the apostle John the ‘tyrant.’ And don’t even get me started on Peter and Paul. You’d have quite the tirades to write against them and their ‘unloving’ ways.
Here is the truly self-sacrificing type of love I’m talking about that is unique (this is just one example). Speaking of the Witnesses’ uncompromising stand for scriptural principle in Germany during WWII:
“Jehovah’s Witnesses can rightfully claim to have resisted the ‘wicked.’ In a literal sense they have fulfilled their own claim of being true followers of Jesus Christ, while the two large churches in Germany, as they openly admit, failed terribly. Six decades later it is now time to show them respect in the name of Christianity. Without the example of this steadfast Christian group under the oppression of the National Socialist dictatorship, we would–after Auschwitz and the Holocaust–have to doubt whether it is at all possible to fulfill the Christian teachings of Jesus.” — “Spiritual Resistance of Christian Conviction in Nazi Germany”, Journal of Church and State, 1999, p. 322.
Really? So as long as one thinks that what they’re prophesying/predicting is based on some bizarre chronology in scripture (or a verse etc), then it’s ok to fire out dates huh? (That’s what the Mormons have done too and I have heard JW’s rail on them for doing such) Where is that permitted in scripture again? I wonder why your GB are so quiet about this stuff and sweep it under the rug, if in fact, such date setting is ok, and an excusable practice. Why do they condemn the rank and file for holding onto such dates that THEY, the FDS, promulgated? Your standards are quite low, but I already expected that. So if dates from the Watchtower such as 1915, 1918, 1925 etc weren’t “original” to them, then where in scripture are we to find such dates? I know the scriptures that were cited, but where do the actual dates come from?
Here’s the difference: I don’t get disfellowshipped from the Weather Channel if I disagree with the weatherman’s interpretation or scientific prediction -based on instruments of the natural world, not the inspired supernatural text of the Bible, just checking- (or if I strictly oppose it) nor have I been taught to view him as “anointed” -by holy spirit- or a part of “God’s channel”. I am not told to listen to him like I would the voice of God. He does not have angels giving him such instruction. That is a great albeit misguided analogy of yours.
I do recall saying that the WBTS does indeed employ double speak. I’m aware of the lawyer language that they’ve used on such predictions. We do know however that the Witnesses were told to “Stay Alive Til 75″. Now why was that?
To be honest with you, I got the heading from looking at the picture of the magazine, I didn’t use the CD library on this one.
I didn’t see the quotes that you speak of. That’s what happened.
Here’s the issue TJ. The Society has claimed that they are the ones that are preaching and prophesying from house to house and from city to city. (1976 Holy Spirit pg. 150) Notice that they do make a distinction -and made a clarification 4 years after this 1972 Watchtower. Again, where in scripture is there a reference of uninspired true prophets of Jehovah? Can one claim to be a true prophet of Jehovah (Biblically speaking) yet maintain no substance/grounds of inspiration?
So in addition to the Society saying that they: were chosen as Jehovah’s channel in 1919, have gotten special messages from angels, speak in the name of Jehovah, are prophets, don’t express mans opinion in the Watchtower; the Society has also claimed that they have foreknowledge. Consider:
Truly the Society as directed by God’s holy spirit merits our deepest respect and whole hearted obedience. Yes, the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II… -1960 The Watchtower July 15th pg. 444.
Lemme guess, you’re going to say that they can have foreknowledge -via the Holy Spirit- and at the same time are not claiming inspiration? What are the laws of non contradiction again? The circular reasoning of “listen to us because we’re chosen by God to speak for him, but we don’t have “special knowledge” is amusing to watch JW’s like yourself defend, well, at least try to anyways. BTW, I noticed that you didn’t touch my information about them lying and their purposeful misquoting of the various references that I cited. (red herring right? I know.) Even as slick as you are, it was a wise choice to leave that slop in the trough rather than getting yourself dirty with it. You’re already defending a blood guilty organization that pathologically lies to its members. (and protects pedophiles) I would hate to see you follow suit. Don’t worry about responding to this info, because I know, it’s boring but I’m still having a good time despite the drag.
That’s probably my last post, the wife is giving me the “look”. When do you want to talk on Skype or in my chatroom?
Hello Razor Swift,
I took the time to respond to the majority of your off-topic post, and I can’t help but notice that you didn’t respond to my one question to you that is actually on topic? It seems Johnny has run out of material.
Criticize it all you’d like, there’s still a difference. Over and over, when Witness publications attempt to interpret prophecy, it is shown where it is based in the Bible. Could it be mistaken? Of course, and this is admitted. But you are simply disingenuous when you try to equate this with actually prophesying a direct revelation from God.
So wait, you do understand the concept of interpretive prediction? Then we’ve made progress.
As to your disfellowshipping analogy, perhaps a more apt analogy would be getting fired from the Weather Channel (I don’t believe it’s an organization that disfellowships). And instead of getting fired for merely doubting the prediction quietly, you become belligerent and actively work to undermine your bosses. Perhaps you even run in front of the cameras to voice your disagreement. Then yes, you most certainly would be fired. Perhaps then you could start a blog about the ‘false prophets’ at the Weather Channel.
This is true irony! I didn’t listen to the entire talk that you linked to, but I assume the speaker says something that went against the straightforward direction that appeared in the 1966 Watchtower, which said, “don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.”
So now if an individual speaker was specific and went further than he should have against what was printed in the Watchtower, this is “double speak” in your estimation. This is just after you criticized Witnesses for persecuting the poor soul that dares to disagree! Remember your ‘can’t get disfellowshipped from the Weather Channel’ distinction?
This reveals your own, subtle double speak. Because you’ve already judged them, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If an individual goes off the official line, to you it’s proof of how ‘the Watchtower’ is lying about its ‘real beliefs.’ If a person is restricted from going off the official line, to you it’s proof of how ‘the Watchtower’ forces people to accept its ‘bogus’ interpretations. I’m guessing you employ both of these criticisms freely and often, probably not even realizing the conflict in your ‘righteous indignation.’
So take just one position, RS. Should baptized Witnesses be allowed to freely disagree with the congregation or not? Are you both for it and against it?
It’s just more double-standard irony, RS. At the bottom of the very post in which you yourself misquote a Watchtower article, you actually have links accusing ‘the Watchtower’ of misquoting sources. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
This is why the quotation marks–the ones you didn’t see–are so important! They were using the term “prophet” in a different, more limited way than it’s used in scripture. But that doesn’t fit the narrative you’re trying to establish here, does it? Pretending that the quotation marks don’t exist and/or don’t mean anything is neither candid nor convincing.
The context again shows that they are speaking of being guided by God’s spirit in discerning the end-time prophecies found within the Bible. Specifically, they made the determination of what the outcome of WWII would be by what’s found in the book of Revelation, the same book that repeats the saying, “Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.”
So yes, the Bible says that the spirit has a role in relaying these scriptural prophecies to the congregation in a way that can be understood at the proper time. Similarly, the book of Daniel, which is referenced in the sentences following your quote, plainly says of its prophecies, “these words are closed and sealed till the time of the end.” If you want exploit these scriptural truths as an opportunity to call others false prophets for daring to attempt to understand them by prayerfully seeking the help of God’s spirit to do so, then that’s between you and God.
The part I find amusing is that we could warp you right into the first century and you could throw the very same criticisms at the apostolic-led congregation. The apostles actually did claim inspiration at times, and yet they still made mistakes. You would’ve had a field day with that material.
The problem with your type of hyper-criticism is that you put an effective standard of infallibility up and attempt to show how they’ve fallen short. Jesus didn’t say to look for the perfect congregation. It doesn’t exist on earth. He said that you’d identify his people by the love among them, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have displayed such love.
Yes, I’m very aware of your mud-like accusations of everything under the sun that you can (and do) throw in the hopes that some of it sticks, but we know that Jesus was treated no different and he even said that his true disciples would be accused of all sorts of things. In fact, he said the world would hate them. So if your church is relatively well-accepted in the world, that should be a pretty good indication that something’s majorly wrong with it.
Really? So as long as one thinks that what they’re prophesying/predicting is based on some bizarre chronology in scripture (or a verse etc), then it’s ok to fire out dates huh? (That’s what the Mormons have done too and I have heard JW’s rail on them for doing such) Where is that permitted in scripture again? I wonder why your GB are so quiet about this stuff and sweep it under the rug, if in fact, such date setting is ok, and an excusable practice. Why do they condemn the rank and file for holding onto such dates that THEY, the FDS, promulgated? Your standards are quite low, but I already expected that. So if dates from the Watchtower such as 1915, 1918, 1925 etc weren’t “original” to them, then where in scripture are we to find such dates? I know the scriptures that were cited, but where do the actual dates come from?
Here’s the difference: I don’t get disfellowshipped from the Weather Channel if I disagree with the weatherman’s interpretation or scientific prediction -based on instruments of the natural world, not the inspired supernatural text of the Bible, just checking- (or if I strictly oppose it) nor have I been taught to view him as “anointed” -by holy spirit- or a part of “God’s channel”. I am not told to listen to him like I would the voice of God. He does not have angels giving him such instruction. That is a great albeit misguided analogy of yours.
I do recall saying that the WBTS does indeed employ double speak. I’m aware of the lawyer language that they’ve used on such predictions. We do know however that the Witnesses were told to “Stay Alive Til 75″. Now why was that?
To be honest with you, I got the heading from looking at the picture of the magazine, I didn’t use the CD library on this one.
I didn’t see the quotes that you speak of. That’s what happened.
Here’s the issue TJ. The Society has claimed that they are the ones that are preaching and prophesying from house to house and from city to city. (1976 Holy Spirit pg. 150) Notice that they do make a distinction -and made a clarification 4 years after this 1972 Watchtower. Again, where in scripture is there a reference of uninspired true prophets of Jehovah? Can one claim to be a true prophet of Jehovah (Biblically speaking) yet maintain no substance/grounds of inspiration?
So in addition to the Society saying that they: were chosen as Jehovah’s channel in 1919, have gotten special messages from angels, speak in the name of Jehovah, are prophets, don’t express mans opinion in the Watchtower; the Society has also claimed that they have foreknowledge. Consider:
Truly the Society as directed by God’s holy spirit merits our deepest respect and whole hearted obedience. Yes, the “faithful and discreet slave” guided by Jehovah’s unerring spirit made known that the democracies would win World War II… -1960 The Watchtower July 15th pg. 444.
Lemme guess, you’re going to say that they can have foreknowledge -via the Holy Spirit- and at the same time are not claiming inspiration? What are the laws of non contradiction again? The circular reasoning of “listen to us because we’re chosen by God to speak for him, but we don’t have “special knowledge” is amusing to watch JW’s like yourself defend, well, at least try to anyways. BTW, I noticed that you didn’t touch my information about them lying and their purposeful misquoting of the various references that I cited. (red herring right? I know.) Even as slick as you are, it was a wise choice to leave that slop in the trough rather than getting yourself dirty with it. You’re already defending a blood guilty organization that pathologically lies to its members. (and protects pedophiles) I would hate to see you follow suit. Don’t worry about responding to this info, because I know, it’s boring but I’m still having a good time despite the drag.
That’s probably my last post, the wife is giving me the “look”. When do you want to talk on Skype or in my chatroom?
Hello Razor Swift,
I took the time to respond to the majority of your off-topic post, and I can’t help but notice that you didn’t respond to my one question to you that is actually on topic? It seems Johnny has run out of material.
Criticize it all you’d like, there’s still a difference. Over and over, when Witness publications attempt to interpret prophecy, it is shown where it is based in the Bible. Could it be mistaken? Of course, and this is admitted. But you are simply disingenuous when you try to equate this with actually prophesying a direct revelation from God.
So wait, you do understand the concept of interpretive prediction? Then we’ve made progress.
As to your disfellowshipping analogy, perhaps a more apt analogy would be getting fired from the Weather Channel (I don’t believe it’s an organization that disfellowships). And instead of getting fired for merely doubting the prediction quietly, you become belligerent and actively work to undermine your bosses. Perhaps you even run in front of the cameras to voice your disagreement. Then yes, you most certainly would be fired. Perhaps then you could start a blog about the ‘false prophets’ at the Weather Channel.
This is true irony! I didn’t listen to the entire talk that you linked to, but I assume the speaker says something that went against the straightforward direction that appeared in the 1966 Watchtower, which said, “don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975.”
So now if an individual speaker was specific and went further than he should have against what was printed in the Watchtower, this is “double speak” in your estimation. This is just after you criticized Witnesses for persecuting the poor soul that dares to disagree! Remember your ‘can’t get disfellowshipped from the Weather Channel’ distinction?
This reveals your own, subtle double speak. Because you’ve already judged them, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If an individual goes off the official line, to you it’s proof of how ‘the Watchtower’ is lying about its ‘real beliefs.’ If a person is restricted from going off the official line, to you it’s proof of how ‘the Watchtower’ forces people to accept its ‘bogus’ interpretations. I’m guessing you employ both of these criticisms freely and often, probably not even realizing the conflict in your ‘righteous indignation.’
So take just one position, RS. Should baptized Witnesses be allowed to freely disagree with the congregation or not? Are you both for it and against it?
It’s just more double-standard irony, RS. At the bottom of the very post in which you yourself misquote a Watchtower article, you actually have links accusing ‘the Watchtower’ of misquoting sources. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
This is why the quotation marks–the ones you didn’t see–are so important! They were using the term “prophet” in a different, more limited way than it’s used in scripture. But that doesn’t fit the narrative you’re trying to establish here, does it? Pretending that the quotation marks don’t exist and/or don’t mean anything is neither candid nor convincing.
The context again shows that they are speaking of being guided by God’s spirit in discerning the end-time prophecies found within the Bible. Specifically, they made the determination of what the outcome of WWII would be by what’s found in the book of Revelation, the same book that repeats the saying, “Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations.”
So yes, the Bible says that the spirit has a role in relaying these scriptural prophecies to the congregation in a way that can be understood at the proper time. Similarly, the book of Daniel, which is referenced in the sentences following your quote, plainly says of its prophecies, “these words are closed and sealed till the time of the end.” If you want exploit these scriptural truths as an opportunity to call others false prophets for daring to attempt to understand them by prayerfully seeking the help of God’s spirit to do so, then that’s between you and God.
The part I find amusing is that we could warp you right into the first century and you could throw the very same criticisms at the apostolic-led congregation. The apostles actually did claim inspiration at times, and yet they still made mistakes. You would’ve had a field day with that material.
The problem with your type of hyper-criticism is that you put an effective standard of infallibility up and attempt to show how they’ve fallen short. Jesus didn’t say to look for the perfect congregation. It doesn’t exist on earth. He said that you’d identify his people by the love among them, and Jehovah’s Witnesses have displayed such love.
Yes, I’m very aware of your mud-like accusations of everything under the sun that you can (and do) throw in the hopes that some of it sticks, but we know that Jesus was treated no different and he even said that his true disciples would be accused of all sorts of things. In fact, he said the world would hate them. So if your church is relatively well-accepted in the world, that should be a pretty good indication that something’s majorly wrong with it.
Hello,
If we could take 1874 CE as an example, what opposers of JW’s do not know, realize or are simply ignorant of, is the fact that, the reason why 1974 CE was chosen was because of the biblical chronology set up (and accepted by all in the biblical field of those days) by the Rev. Christopher Bowen (England)in the 18th century CE!
It was not until many decades later, that scholars realised that Bowen was out by at least 100 years and that two transcription errors (1 Chron and the book of Acts) found in the KJV bible were responsible for the inaccurate chronology!
What is also overlooked is the fact, that the early “Bible Students” (JW’s) had come out of Christendom and had to learn to unlearn and of course with that background it was inevitable that they would make mistakes, but they were still pretty young and did not have the benefit of hindsight and knowledge as we modern JW’s have today, they were the pioneers not us!
As the bible alludes to, just as a body without life is dead, so too faith without works is also dead, what I mean by this is, if a man wishes to be perfect, then the man has to keep his mouth shut, but it is better to speak and make mistakes and learn from them and be spiritually alive, than to keep silent and make no mistakes at all and learn from nothing and from what I have seen, Christendom makes no mistakes, as She does not speak, perhaps that is why her membership is dwindling fast, people mrealising how compromising She is!
It is easy to pull what opposers have, from their web sites (CARM etc)but they give a distorted view and half truths, even resorting to outright liesat times, hoping to catch the enwairy and untutored off guard, who may not be aware of everything that is going on and that is sad indeed!
I have done many papers over several years, on several topics, covering most objections from opposers!
The word Christian rolls of the tongue of many, and many say they are, just because they think they are, but they do not do what they think they are!
I was a Catholic for over 20 years and I thank Jehovah for allowing some JW to knock on my door and whoever gets through this system into what God has planned will go through with all their imperfections and mistakes, as the already saved do not need a physician, such as Christendom etc!
Just one little point before I go and that is the bible talks about “…one faith one Lord…” what many do not realise, is that, by the end of the 4th century CE there were at least 150 professing Christian sects, all claiming to have orthodox views, today in the 21st century CE over 40,000 such professing Christians sects exist; there can only be one truth, even though members are imperfect; so you must ask yourselfwhich of the more than 40,000 sects represent true biblical Christianity and keeps itself without spot from the world!
Regards,
Andrew
Hello,
If we could take 1874 CE as an example, what opposers of JW’s do not know, realize or are simply ignorant of, is the fact that, the reason why 1974 CE was chosen was because of the biblical chronology set up (and accepted by all in the biblical field of those days) by the Rev. Christopher Bowen (England)in the 18th century CE!
It was not until many decades later, that scholars realised that Bowen was out by at least 100 years and that two transcription errors (1 Chron and the book of Acts) found in the KJV bible were responsible for the inaccurate chronology!
What is also overlooked is the fact, that the early “Bible Students” (JW’s) had come out of Christendom and had to learn to unlearn and of course with that background it was inevitable that they would make mistakes, but they were still pretty young and did not have the benefit of hindsight and knowledge as we modern JW’s have today, they were the pioneers not us!
As the bible alludes to, just as a body without life is dead, so too faith without works is also dead, what I mean by this is, if a man wishes to be perfect, then the man has to keep his mouth shut, but it is better to speak and make mistakes and learn from them and be spiritually alive, than to keep silent and make no mistakes at all and learn from nothing and from what I have seen, Christendom makes no mistakes, as She does not speak, perhaps that is why her membership is dwindling fast, people mrealising how compromising She is!
It is easy to pull what opposers have, from their web sites (CARM etc)but they give a distorted view and half truths, even resorting to outright liesat times, hoping to catch the enwairy and untutored off guard, who may not be aware of everything that is going on and that is sad indeed!
I have done many papers over several years, on several topics, covering most objections from opposers!
The word Christian rolls of the tongue of many, and many say they are, just because they think they are, but they do not do what they think they are!
I was a Catholic for over 20 years and I thank Jehovah for allowing some JW to knock on my door and whoever gets through this system into what God has planned will go through with all their imperfections and mistakes, as the already saved do not need a physician, such as Christendom etc!
Just one little point before I go and that is the bible talks about “…one faith one Lord…” what many do not realise, is that, by the end of the 4th century CE there were at least 150 professing Christian sects, all claiming to have orthodox views, today in the 21st century CE over 40,000 such professing Christians sects exist; there can only be one truth, even though members are imperfect; so you must ask yourselfwhich of the more than 40,000 sects represent true biblical Christianity and keeps itself without spot from the world!
Regards,
Andrew
I will say TJ for someone who says that the witnesses are NOT Arians you side with sources that claim that Arianism was authentically represented by the traditions of the church. Albeit both sources are Unitarians who teach Jesus was just a mere man. And both sources are used by your WT publications “Should You believe in the Trinity?” brochure though they would disagree with their Christological views. The fact is the Russellite origins of the Watchtower society not only embraced it’s Arian heritage but the founder believed Arius was one of the 7 messengers of Revelation with himself being the 7th Laodicean messenger. Even though some of those messengers believed in the Trinity according to Charles taze Russell “St. Paul” was the first, then “St. John”, then Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther, and finally, Russell Himself as is engraved on a stone Pyramid memorial erected about 15 feet from his gravesite. I know ive been there! As to the popularity of Arianism there is no such doubt that it was popular amongst the masses but as for the church traditions siding with its position anyone who does a reading of the early Church fathers will find while some of its language obscure to Nicene Christianity definitely foreign to Unitarian Christology and Arianism. Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ‘worship” Jesus or claim to do so nor do they say prayers TO Jesus which are found in abundance in the early writers and even Origen who was a subordinationist teaches Christ as eternal for to declare him less he says would be an impious act to the Father which would indicate that there was a time when he was not Father nor had wisdom nor word inherent within Him. The god and that is a deliberate small g god of the Arians and Unitarians would make the Father a mindless, mute and deny him parenthood by their assertions. The Jewish deuteros declare Wisdom to be an eternal characersitic of the Father and more can be expounded by a good reading of JP Holding’s study Jesus: God’s Wisdom at tektonics.org.
In Him that is Him who is Ha Olamn -eternal wisdom and word,
Agustin “Gusdaberean” Astacio
Hi Agustin,
I’m aware of the teachings as found in The Studies in the Scriptures, Socinians’ beliefs, etc. There are many things taught by Arius, Wulfilla, Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Socinius, Servetus, Milton, Newton, Whiston, Emlyn, Grew, Storrs, Russell, etc, that I both agree and disagree with. But I’d never submit to being named after any of them. Arius had accepted much of Greek philosophy into his theology just as Athanasius had. Like Tertullian, I ask, ‘What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?’
Thanks.
I will say TJ for someone who says that the witnesses are NOT Arians you side with sources that claim that Arianism was authentically represented by the traditions of the church. Albeit both sources are Unitarians who teach Jesus was just a mere man. And both sources are used by your WT publications “Should You believe in the Trinity?” brochure though they would disagree with their Christological views. The fact is the Russellite origins of the Watchtower society not only embraced it’s Arian heritage but the founder believed Arius was one of the 7 messengers of Revelation with himself being the 7th Laodicean messenger. Even though some of those messengers believed in the Trinity according to Charles taze Russell “St. Paul” was the first, then “St. John”, then Arius, Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther, and finally, Russell Himself as is engraved on a stone Pyramid memorial erected about 15 feet from his gravesite. I know ive been there! As to the popularity of Arianism there is no such doubt that it was popular amongst the masses but as for the church traditions siding with its position anyone who does a reading of the early Church fathers will find while some of its language obscure to Nicene Christianity definitely foreign to Unitarian Christology and Arianism. Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses do not ‘worship” Jesus or claim to do so nor do they say prayers TO Jesus which are found in abundance in the early writers and even Origen who was a subordinationist teaches Christ as eternal for to declare him less he says would be an impious act to the Father which would indicate that there was a time when he was not Father nor had wisdom nor word inherent within Him. The god and that is a deliberate small g god of the Arians and Unitarians would make the Father a mindless, mute and deny him parenthood by their assertions. The Jewish deuteros declare Wisdom to be an eternal characersitic of the Father and more can be expounded by a good reading of JP Holding’s study Jesus: God’s Wisdom at tektonics.org.
In Him that is Him who is Ha Olamn -eternal wisdom and word,
Agustin “Gusdaberean” Astacio
Hi Agustin,
I’m aware of the teachings as found in The Studies in the Scriptures, Socinians’ beliefs, etc. There are many things taught by Arius, Wulfilla, Waldo, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Socinius, Servetus, Milton, Newton, Whiston, Emlyn, Grew, Storrs, Russell, etc, that I both agree and disagree with. But I’d never submit to being named after any of them. Arius had accepted much of Greek philosophy into his theology just as Athanasius had. Like Tertullian, I ask, ‘What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?’
Thanks.
Myself, I just have a hard time giving any credence to a publication that has falsely prophesied the return of Christ as much as the Watchtower has.
1897 “Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874,” (Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 621).
1899 “…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced,” (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).
1916 “The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ’s Reign, began in 1873,” (The Time Is at Hand, forward, p. ii).
1918 “Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection,” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89).
1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914,” (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).
1923 “Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge,” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).
1925 “The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year,” (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p. 3).
1925 “It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work,” (Watchtower, Sept., 1925, p. 262).
1926 “Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything,” (Watchtower, p. 232).
1931 “There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah’s faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time…and they also learned to quit fixing dates,” (Vindication, p. 338).
1941 “Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord’s provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon,” (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288).
1968 “True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world’, even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The ‘end’ did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God’s truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them,” (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968).
1968 “Why are you looking forward to 1975?” (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494).
Hi Duke,
Thanks for your contribution. I can certainly understand your concern, so I have two questions for you.
First, have you actually read any of these publications that you’ve quoted, or at least read the context of the quotations? Or is this simply a list that you’ve pulled from elsewhere?
Second, let’s say that the leadership of the worldwide congregation, for a time, misinterpreted Jesus’ words and put an effective time limit on Christ’s return, even teaching this to the congregation. Later on, they corrected the mistake. In your view, does this invalidate their claim to being Christ’s true disciples and prove them to be false prophets?
Hi TJ, Thanks for responding.
It has been 30 years since I did any serious study of the Watchtower or Awake Magazine. I have read both magazines and at least some of the instances listed in the list in my earlier years. Some are no longer available to the general public and are matters of historical record. To be quite candid, I am not a student of the history or every doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So yes, I did grab the list from another publication that is well respected in Christendom. It is from the Christian Apologetics and Resource Ministry. http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-their-many-false-prophecies.
To answer your other question. In a situation like this, if there had been many false prophecies made concerning the return of Christ by leadership in any Evangelical Christian denomination, it would become a matter of the spiritual discipline process. The leadership would be confronted, removed from office, and asked to publicly repent. If this did not happen then they would be removed from fellowship until such time as they chose to repent. It would be highly unlikely that they would be allowed back into a position of leadership but it would be possible if they showed true remorse for their actions and worked to repair the damage that they had done. They wouldn’t just go on as if nothing had ever happened.
Since as I said, I am not a student of the happenings of the Jehovah’s witnesses, I do not know if they applied this process to those that made those false prophecies thus I cannot really answer your second question other than to say that until there was a thorough house cleaning of all those involved and the doctrinal errors that brought about the false prophecies, then the invalidation of the ministry stays in effect.
Hello Duke. I appreciate the kind and candid response.
And that’s fine, but you just have to realize that you’re only reading what has been hand-picked for you, void of all context and possible surrounding cautionary statements. I mean, we’ve all seen political ads with ‘gotcha’ quotes, right? I’ve even seen these quotes altered in the past and presented to me as evidence.
Alternatively, I could post many such quotes that balance these out by showing conclusively that such statements were not prophecies, but merely the attempted interpretation of biblical prophecies by self-admitted fallible, though sincere, men. For example:
“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.” — Zion ‘s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 December 1896.
“Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.” — Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), pp. 61-62.
“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.” — “Name and Purpose of the Watchtower,” The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, pp. 262-263.
I could go on and on with such quotes. Witnesses understand the difference between interpretations, which are subject to revision, and actual prophecies, which are not. It is usually those with an agenda against Jehovah’s Witnesses that try to gloss over that important distinction and make them one and the same.
We do happen to have a scriptural example of what was likely such an event. Note that this is the apostle John, in his very old age, reflecting back on what had happened in the first-century congregation:
“Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved [John] following them…When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!’ So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’” (John 21:20-23)
So here we a likely scenario where a belief spread out, starting with Peter and the other apostles that were present, that Jesus would return before the apostle John died, putting a time limit upon his return. Can you imagine the excitement among the brethren as John got along in years? ‘Jesus must be returning soon!’
It was all based upon, not a claimed inspired prophecy by those men, but merely a temporary misinterpretation of Jesus’ words. John wrote this shortly before he passed on, and so once and for all he corrected the misunderstanding by giving the proper meaning of Jesus’ words.
If all that indeed did take place, can’t you imagine the opposing forces, both within the congregation and without, using this as proof that Peter and John were “false prophets”?
I will let others who are more versed in the ways and doctrines of the witnesses continue this with you TJ. However you did miss what I said. I said that I had seen part of the awakes and watchtowers that were on that list. First hand knowledge. You were so quick to jump to your already formulated argument that you failed to see that. Was that training that they gave you at Bethel?
Finally I have no clue where you get the idea that the apostles thought the return of Christ would come before the death of John. They were expectant but nowhere is that doctrine taught.
Finally, it is obvious by your lack of reference to any discipline given to the leadership that made these erroneous claims, that there was no consequences of their false prophecies. Thus my initial statement remains. I have a hard time giving credence to anything that the watchtower or Awake or the leadership of the Jehovah’s witnesses teaches.
Hello Duke,
I have to say, I’m slightly disappointed in the tone of your response. Can you tell me which magazines you read from your list of quotes above?
If you did read those magazines carefully you would have seen the difference I spoke of, i.e. an interpretation versus a prophecy. But it seems you’re not willing to even admit to any distinction between the two. To you, an interpretation is a prophecy and a prophecy is an interpretation. This simply is not the reality of the way Witnesses themselves view these beliefs.
As I said, John didn’t go into details, but it’s a very likely scenario for what he does say in passing at John 21:20-23. Evidently, it was a popular belief among the first-century congregation that John would never die because Jesus would return before that. This was based upon a misinterpretation of what Jesus told Peter. Ignore it if you wish, I’m just pointing it out to you.
TJ,
Notice I have refused to do Bible “ping pong” with you, I have my reasons why I choose not to. But I do want to address the issues of the Watchtower false prophecies. I’ll try to keep this short -let me know when would be a good day for you to come in my chatroom, I can open it just for you- but there are some major problems with your reasoning/rebuttals on this matter. First, the WBTS has a storied history of having the right hand not knowing *or caring* what the left hand is doing. They have learned the art of double speak (and double think) which would make Orwell proud. Let me preface the fact that though I’m going to start “quote mining”, I DO own ALL of these publications (I have hand picked these myself) and understand the context. The WT CD library is also in my possession. (Emphasis of quotes are mine)
As we’ll read from the quote below, the Society’s own admission is that false predictions equal false prophesies. Consider:
“True, there have been those in time past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date…Yet, nothing happened. The “end” did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying.” -1968 Awake! October 8th pg. 23
Question: Has the Watchtower made predictions? Yes. Were the predictions specific dates? Yes. TJ, based on the above, would you concede that the Society has been guilty of false prophecy? If not, why? (Give examples of what false prophecy is if your answer is no)
There’s an interesting thing that happens when the Society mentions their past predictions, the pronoun used is “they” or “their” and not “our” or “we” etc. (I could cite numbers of cases like this) This is lacking humility for not taking responsibility. They make the predictions and then after such predictions don’t come to pass, they blame their own members for believing/following them! Now you’ve cited publications where they say they’re not inspired, but again, they double speak. Here are just a few publications where they do claim inspiration:
1. The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man’s opinion is expressed in the Watchtower. -1931 The Watchtower November 1st pg. 327
2. These angels are invisible to human eyes and are there to carry out the orders of the Lord. No doubt they first hear the instruction which the Lord issues to his remnant and then these invisible messengers pass such instruction on to the remnant. -1931 Vindication Book 3 pg. 250
3. For nearly 60 years now the Jeremiah class have faithfully spoken forth Jehovah’s Word…Unlike the clergy class, those of the Jeremiah class have been sent by Jehovah to speak in his name. -1979 The Watchtower September 1st pg. 29
Question: Did the Society claim to be chosen in 1919? Yes. And have been doing what since that year according to the above publication? Speaking in the name of Jehovah.
The Society has also claimed to be a prophet:
“They Shall Know That A Prophet Was Among Them” This prophet was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known as the Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses…Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing tho prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? -1972 The Watchtower April 1st pg. 197
Question: Does the Bible record that there are true uninspired prophets? No. A prophet of Jehovah by nature/function is inspired according to scripture. The record of the Watchtower’s predictions does show them to be false prophets. (Read 1972 Paradise Restored To Mankind By Theocracy pg. 353 where Jehovah will put to shame “self-assuming prophets” by not fulfilling the predictions of such false prophets)
In softer language, while making the same point in the mind of a Witness, the Society has said:
1. The Governing Body publishes spiritually encouraging literature in many languages. This spiritual food is based on God’s Word. Thus, what is taught is not from men but from Jehovah.—Isa. 54:13. -2010 The Watchtower August 15th pg 15
2. It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision. -1957 The Watchtower June 15th pg. 370
I would like to conclude with the fact that, even more than just bad hermeneutics, the Watchtower has incessantly lied to its adherents; including misquoting various sources, even their own! This is not what I call sincere. Here are some examples of the many that I could cite:
1. The Watchtower Misquotes It’s Own Charter!
2. The Watchtower Lied About 1914
3. The Watchtower Misquotes The Ante Nicene Fathers
Hello Razor Swift and thanks for your participation.
To be honest, I find it strange that you haven’t engaged much in the conversation having to do with the actual topic here, but then jump in on one of the unrelated tangents. I’m sure you do have your reasons.
Could you at least tell me if you concede that “firstborn” is an inclusive term?
You, like Duke, continue to leave out the crucial distinction here. Whether you call it a “prediction” or “prophesy” is just semantics. The real question is what is meant by that word? Do they claim their prediction to be an original, directly-inspired one, or rather an attempted interpretation of a prophecy found in the inspired scriptures?
I mean really, even the weatherman ‘predicts’ the weather, yet do you devote yourself to proclaiming him a ‘false prophet’ when it doesn’t rain? I’ve seen 100% chance of rain predicted…and not a drop.
By continuing to gloss over the basis of the prediction as if it doesn’t mean anything, you will forever be setting up your strawman to knock down. For example, you quote an Awake! from 1968 in an attempt to set up the justification to condemn Jehovah’s Witnesses in their own words. But it’s yet another apples-to-oranges comparison (which is common here) because this isn’t the type of ‘prediction’ being spoken of. Just two years before this, appearing in The Watchtower, you find statements such as the one below, that somehow always manages to be left out of posts like yours:
“‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.” — Watchtower, 10/15/66, p. 631.
That to you is ironclad, inspired prophesy?
The rest of your post is simply attempting to make your thesis fit, regardless of the intended meaning. I won’t go through them all, as even the few quotes I provided in a post above give enough perspective to deflate your argument, but I’ll go to the most cliche one that is always thrown out there in this discussion to easily show the type of tactics being employed:
That sure is some damning evidence, isn’t it…if it just weren’t for those pesky little quotation marks around the word “prophet”. Funny, I don’t see them around that word when you use it just above that…I wonder why they’re there? One of your brothers-in-arms found them so irritating, he took it upon himself to simply remove them wherever they occurred and then send me the quote. I notice you only removed them from the first instance of the word in the article (yes, that is an altered quote you just produced). It should’ve been a relatively simple copy-and-paste from your WT CD; what happened?
The twisting of words and careful editing of quotes reveals your tactics to be no better or nobler than your average, run-of-the-mill negative political ad (I’m imagining you reading your narrative in that cynical, scary voice now). If you really do own this magazine and have read the entire article, then you should know better, not only in getting the quote correct but also by not hiding the context.
If I say I’m going to “surf” (quotation marks) the web, does that mean I have to drive to the beach with board in hand? Obviously not; by using the quotation marks it shows that I’m invoking only one aspect of actual surfing. I mean it only in a quasi sense. What in the context besides the quotation marks shows that the office of “prophet” is only meant is a relative, quasi sense? It states before this:
“A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives. In ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers. While these men foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities. People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?”
Attention is brought to the Bible, rather than the direct, divine inspiration that was received by the prophets of old. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach and believe that God no longer provides such inspiration, but that he communicates to his people through the Bible. By proclaiming the message they get from that source, they are acting as modern “prophets” (notice the quotation marks).
To illustrate this further let’s read the part that you edited out of your quote above:
“This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning.”
They are “prophets” in the sense that they too are “proclaiming a warning”, not from direct inspiration, but from their reading and understanding of the Bible.
Yet again, there’s more that you left out:
“Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?
“During the World War I period this group, the International Bible Students, was very active in preaching the good news of God’s kingdom…”
The record cited in support of being “prophets” was, not actual prophesying, but the preaching of the kingdom. The rest of the article mirrors this. By presenting an altered quote and leaving out pertinent contextual factors, can you honestly say that your representation of this article here is not misleading?
To me, this is a boring subject because you are simply trying to attach a narrative to Jehovah’s Witnesses that doesn’t fit, just like a politician trying define his or her opponent. It doesn’t matter if it’s the true picture, just so long as you get others to believe it. I have always viewed what you would label prophecies as interpretations of scriptural prophecies.
Myself, I just have a hard time giving any credence to a publication that has falsely prophesied the return of Christ as much as the Watchtower has.
1897 “Our Lord, the appointed King, is now present, since October 1874,” (Studies in the Scriptures, vol. 4, p. 621).
1899 “…the ‘battle of the great day of God Almighty’ (Revelation 16:14), which will end in A.D. 1914 with the complete overthrow of earth’s present rulership, is already commenced,” (The Time Is at Hand, 1908 edition, p. 101).
1916 “The Bible chronology herein presented shows that the six great 1000 year days beginning with Adam are ended, and that the great 7th Day, the 1000 years of Christ’s Reign, began in 1873,” (The Time Is at Hand, forward, p. ii).
1918 “Therefore we may confidently expect that 1925 will mark the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the faithful prophets of old, particularly those named by the Apostle in Hebrews 11, to the condition of human perfection,” (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, p. 89).
1922 “The date 1925 is even more distinctly indicated by the Scriptures than 1914,” (Watchtower, Sept. 1, 1922, p. 262).
1923 “Our thought is, that 1925 is definitely settled by the Scriptures. As to Noah, the Christian now has much more upon which to base his faith than Noah had upon which to base his faith in a coming deluge,” (Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1923, p. 106).
1925 “The year 1925 is here. With great expectation Christians have looked forward to this year. Many have confidently expected that all members of the body of Christ will be changed to heavenly glory during this year. This may be accomplished. It may not be. In his own due time God will accomplish his purposes concerning his people. Christians should not be so deeply concerned about what may transpire this year,” (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1925, p. 3).
1925 “It is to be expected that Satan will try to inject into the minds of the consecrated, the thought that 1925 should see an end to the work,” (Watchtower, Sept., 1925, p. 262).
1926 “Some anticipated that the work would end in 1925, but the Lord did not state so. The difficulty was that the friends inflated their imaginations beyond reason; and that when their imaginations burst asunder, they were inclined to throw away everything,” (Watchtower, p. 232).
1931 “There was a measure of disappointment on the part of Jehovah’s faithful ones on earth concerning the years 1917, 1918, and 1925, which disappointment lasted for a time…and they also learned to quit fixing dates,” (Vindication, p. 338).
1941 “Receiving the gift, the marching children clasped it to them, not a toy or plaything for idle pleasure, but the Lord’s provided instrument for most effective work in the remaining months before Armageddon,” (Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1941, p. 288).
1968 “True, there have been those in times past who predicted an ‘end to the world’, even announcing a specific date. Yet nothing happened. The ‘end’ did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing?.. Missing from such people were God’s truths and evidence that he was using and guiding them,” (Awake, Oct. 8, 1968).
1968 “Why are you looking forward to 1975?” (Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494).
Hi Duke,
Thanks for your contribution. I can certainly understand your concern, so I have two questions for you.
First, have you actually read any of these publications that you’ve quoted, or at least read the context of the quotations? Or is this simply a list that you’ve pulled from elsewhere?
Second, let’s say that the leadership of the worldwide congregation, for a time, misinterpreted Jesus’ words and put an effective time limit on Christ’s return, even teaching this to the congregation. Later on, they corrected the mistake. In your view, does this invalidate their claim to being Christ’s true disciples and prove them to be false prophets?
Hi TJ, Thanks for responding.
It has been 30 years since I did any serious study of the Watchtower or Awake Magazine. I have read both magazines and at least some of the instances listed in the list in my earlier years. Some are no longer available to the general public and are matters of historical record. To be quite candid, I am not a student of the history or every doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. So yes, I did grab the list from another publication that is well respected in Christendom. It is from the Christian Apologetics and Resource Ministry. http://carm.org/jehovahs-witnesses-and-their-many-false-prophecies.
To answer your other question. In a situation like this, if there had been many false prophecies made concerning the return of Christ by leadership in any Evangelical Christian denomination, it would become a matter of the spiritual discipline process. The leadership would be confronted, removed from office, and asked to publicly repent. If this did not happen then they would be removed from fellowship until such time as they chose to repent. It would be highly unlikely that they would be allowed back into a position of leadership but it would be possible if they showed true remorse for their actions and worked to repair the damage that they had done. They wouldn’t just go on as if nothing had ever happened.
Since as I said, I am not a student of the happenings of the Jehovah’s witnesses, I do not know if they applied this process to those that made those false prophecies thus I cannot really answer your second question other than to say that until there was a thorough house cleaning of all those involved and the doctrinal errors that brought about the false prophecies, then the invalidation of the ministry stays in effect.
Hello Duke. I appreciate the kind and candid response.
And that’s fine, but you just have to realize that you’re only reading what has been hand-picked for you, void of all context and possible surrounding cautionary statements. I mean, we’ve all seen political ads with ‘gotcha’ quotes, right? I’ve even seen these quotes altered in the past and presented to me as evidence.
Alternatively, I could post many such quotes that balance these out by showing conclusively that such statements were not prophecies, but merely the attempted interpretation of biblical prophecies by self-admitted fallible, though sincere, men. For example:
“Nor would we have our writings reverenced or regarded as infallible, or on a par with the holy Scriptures. The most we claim or have ever claimed for our teachings is that they are what we believe to be harmonious interpretations of the divine Word, in harmony with the spirit of the truth. And we still urge, as in the past, that each reader study the subjects we present in the light of the Scriptures, proving all things by the Scriptures, accepting what they see to be thus approved, and rejecting all else. It is to this end, to enable the student to trace the subject in the divinely inspired Record, that we so freely intersperse both quotations and citations of the Scriptures upon which to build.” — Zion ‘s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, 15 December 1896.
“Many students have made the grievous mistake of thinking that God has inspired men to interpret prophecy. The holy prophets of the Old Testament were inspired by Jehovah to write as his power moved upon them. The writers of the New Testament were clothed with certain power and authority to write as the Lord directed them. However, since the days of the apostles no man on earth has been inspired to write prophecy, nor has any man been inspired to interpret prophecy.” — Prophecy (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1929), pp. 61-62.
“The Watchtower does not claim to be inspired in its utterances, nor is it dogmatic. It invites careful and critical examination of its contents in the light of the Scriptures.” — “Name and Purpose of the Watchtower,” The Watchtower, 15 August 1950, pp. 262-263.
I could go on and on with such quotes. Witnesses understand the difference between interpretations, which are subject to revision, and actual prophecies, which are not. It is usually those with an agenda against Jehovah’s Witnesses that try to gloss over that important distinction and make them one and the same.
We do happen to have a scriptural example of what was likely such an event. Note that this is the apostle John, in his very old age, reflecting back on what had happened in the first-century congregation:
“Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved [John] following them…When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about this man?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!’ So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’” (John 21:20-23)
So here we a likely scenario where a belief spread out, starting with Peter and the other apostles that were present, that Jesus would return before the apostle John died, putting a time limit upon his return. Can you imagine the excitement among the brethren as John got along in years? ‘Jesus must be returning soon!’
It was all based upon, not a claimed inspired prophecy by those men, but merely a temporary misinterpretation of Jesus’ words. John wrote this shortly before he passed on, and so once and for all he corrected the misunderstanding by giving the proper meaning of Jesus’ words.
If all that indeed did take place, can’t you imagine the opposing forces, both within the congregation and without, using this as proof that Peter and John were “false prophets”?
I will let others who are more versed in the ways and doctrines of the witnesses continue this with you TJ. However you did miss what I said. I said that I had seen part of the awakes and watchtowers that were on that list. First hand knowledge. You were so quick to jump to your already formulated argument that you failed to see that. Was that training that they gave you at Bethel?
Finally I have no clue where you get the idea that the apostles thought the return of Christ would come before the death of John. They were expectant but nowhere is that doctrine taught.
Finally, it is obvious by your lack of reference to any discipline given to the leadership that made these erroneous claims, that there was no consequences of their false prophecies. Thus my initial statement remains. I have a hard time giving credence to anything that the watchtower or Awake or the leadership of the Jehovah’s witnesses teaches.
Hello Duke,
I have to say, I’m slightly disappointed in the tone of your response. Can you tell me which magazines you read from your list of quotes above?
If you did read those magazines carefully you would have seen the difference I spoke of, i.e. an interpretation versus a prophecy. But it seems you’re not willing to even admit to any distinction between the two. To you, an interpretation is a prophecy and a prophecy is an interpretation. This simply is not the reality of the way Witnesses themselves view these beliefs.
As I said, John didn’t go into details, but it’s a very likely scenario for what he does say in passing at John 21:20-23. Evidently, it was a popular belief among the first-century congregation that John would never die because Jesus would return before that. This was based upon a misinterpretation of what Jesus told Peter. Ignore it if you wish, I’m just pointing it out to you.
TJ,
Notice I have refused to do Bible “ping pong” with you, I have my reasons why I choose not to. But I do want to address the issues of the Watchtower false prophecies. I’ll try to keep this short -let me know when would be a good day for you to come in my chatroom, I can open it just for you- but there are some major problems with your reasoning/rebuttals on this matter. First, the WBTS has a storied history of having the right hand not knowing *or caring* what the left hand is doing. They have learned the art of double speak (and double think) which would make Orwell proud. Let me preface the fact that though I’m going to start “quote mining”, I DO own ALL of these publications (I have hand picked these myself) and understand the context. The WT CD library is also in my possession. (Emphasis of quotes are mine)
As we’ll read from the quote below, the Society’s own admission is that false predictions equal false prophesies. Consider:
“True, there have been those in time past who predicted an “end to the world,” even announcing a specific date…Yet, nothing happened. The “end” did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying.” -1968 Awake! October 8th pg. 23
Question: Has the Watchtower made predictions? Yes. Were the predictions specific dates? Yes. TJ, based on the above, would you concede that the Society has been guilty of false prophecy? If not, why? (Give examples of what false prophecy is if your answer is no)
There’s an interesting thing that happens when the Society mentions their past predictions, the pronoun used is “they” or “their” and not “our” or “we” etc. (I could cite numbers of cases like this) This is lacking humility for not taking responsibility. They make the predictions and then after such predictions don’t come to pass, they blame their own members for believing/following them! Now you’ve cited publications where they say they’re not inspired, but again, they double speak. Here are just a few publications where they do claim inspiration:
1. The Watchtower is not the instrument of any man or any set of men, nor is it published according to the whims of men. No man’s opinion is expressed in the Watchtower. -1931 The Watchtower November 1st pg. 327
2. These angels are invisible to human eyes and are there to carry out the orders of the Lord. No doubt they first hear the instruction which the Lord issues to his remnant and then these invisible messengers pass such instruction on to the remnant. -1931 Vindication Book 3 pg. 250
3. For nearly 60 years now the Jeremiah class have faithfully spoken forth Jehovah’s Word…Unlike the clergy class, those of the Jeremiah class have been sent by Jehovah to speak in his name. -1979 The Watchtower September 1st pg. 29
Question: Did the Society claim to be chosen in 1919? Yes. And have been doing what since that year according to the above publication? Speaking in the name of Jehovah.
The Society has also claimed to be a prophet:
“They Shall Know That A Prophet Was Among Them” This prophet was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known as the Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses…Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing tho prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show? -1972 The Watchtower April 1st pg. 197
Question: Does the Bible record that there are true uninspired prophets? No. A prophet of Jehovah by nature/function is inspired according to scripture. The record of the Watchtower’s predictions does show them to be false prophets. (Read 1972 Paradise Restored To Mankind By Theocracy pg. 353 where Jehovah will put to shame “self-assuming prophets” by not fulfilling the predictions of such false prophets)
In softer language, while making the same point in the mind of a Witness, the Society has said:
1. The Governing Body publishes spiritually encouraging literature in many languages. This spiritual food is based on God’s Word. Thus, what is taught is not from men but from Jehovah.—Isa. 54:13. -2010 The Watchtower August 15th pg 15
2. It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision. -1957 The Watchtower June 15th pg. 370
I would like to conclude with the fact that, even more than just bad hermeneutics, the Watchtower has incessantly lied to its adherents; including misquoting various sources, even their own! This is not what I call sincere. Here are some examples of the many that I could cite:
1. The Watchtower Misquotes It’s Own Charter!
2. The Watchtower Lied About 1914
3. The Watchtower Misquotes The Ante Nicene Fathers
Hello Razor Swift and thanks for your participation.
To be honest, I find it strange that you haven’t engaged much in the conversation having to do with the actual topic here, but then jump in on one of the unrelated tangents. I’m sure you do have your reasons.
Could you at least tell me if you concede that “firstborn” is an inclusive term?
You, like Duke, continue to leave out the crucial distinction here. Whether you call it a “prediction” or “prophesy” is just semantics. The real question is what is meant by that word? Do they claim their prediction to be an original, directly-inspired one, or rather an attempted interpretation of a prophecy found in the inspired scriptures?
I mean really, even the weatherman ‘predicts’ the weather, yet do you devote yourself to proclaiming him a ‘false prophet’ when it doesn’t rain? I’ve seen 100% chance of rain predicted…and not a drop.
By continuing to gloss over the basis of the prediction as if it doesn’t mean anything, you will forever be setting up your strawman to knock down. For example, you quote an Awake! from 1968 in an attempt to set up the justification to condemn Jehovah’s Witnesses in their own words. But it’s yet another apples-to-oranges comparison (which is common here) because this isn’t the type of ‘prediction’ being spoken of. Just two years before this, appearing in The Watchtower, you find statements such as the one below, that somehow always manages to be left out of posts like yours:
“‘What about the year 1975? What is it going to mean, dear friends?’ asked Brother Franz. ‘Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished, with Satan bound, by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. Does it mean that the attack of Gog of Magog is going to be made on Jehovah’s witnesses to wipe them out, then Gog himself will be put out of action? It could. But we are not saying. All things are possible with God. But we are not saying. And don’t any of you be specific in saying anything that is going to happen between now and 1975. But the big point of it all is this, dear friends: Time is short. Time is running out, no question about that.” — Watchtower, 10/15/66, p. 631.
That to you is ironclad, inspired prophesy?
The rest of your post is simply attempting to make your thesis fit, regardless of the intended meaning. I won’t go through them all, as even the few quotes I provided in a post above give enough perspective to deflate your argument, but I’ll go to the most cliche one that is always thrown out there in this discussion to easily show the type of tactics being employed:
That sure is some damning evidence, isn’t it…if it just weren’t for those pesky little quotation marks around the word “prophet”. Funny, I don’t see them around that word when you use it just above that…I wonder why they’re there? One of your brothers-in-arms found them so irritating, he took it upon himself to simply remove them wherever they occurred and then send me the quote. I notice you only removed them from the first instance of the word in the article (yes, that is an altered quote you just produced). It should’ve been a relatively simple copy-and-paste from your WT CD; what happened?
The twisting of words and careful editing of quotes reveals your tactics to be no better or nobler than your average, run-of-the-mill negative political ad (I’m imagining you reading your narrative in that cynical, scary voice now). If you really do own this magazine and have read the entire article, then you should know better, not only in getting the quote correct but also by not hiding the context.
If I say I’m going to “surf” (quotation marks) the web, does that mean I have to drive to the beach with board in hand? Obviously not; by using the quotation marks it shows that I’m invoking only one aspect of actual surfing. I mean it only in a quasi sense. What in the context besides the quotation marks shows that the office of “prophet” is only meant is a relative, quasi sense? It states before this:
“A third way of coming to know Jehovah God is through his representatives. In ancient times he sent prophets as his special messengers. While these men foretold things to come, they also served the people by telling them of God’s will for them at that time, often also warning them of dangers and calamities. People today can view the creative works. They have at hand the Bible, but it is little read or understood. So, does Jehovah have a prophet to help them, to warn them of dangers and to declare things to come?”
Attention is brought to the Bible, rather than the direct, divine inspiration that was received by the prophets of old. Jehovah’s Witnesses teach and believe that God no longer provides such inspiration, but that he communicates to his people through the Bible. By proclaiming the message they get from that source, they are acting as modern “prophets” (notice the quotation marks).
To illustrate this further let’s read the part that you edited out of your quote above:
“This “prophet” was not one man, but was a body of men and women. It was the small group of footstep followers of Jesus Christ, known at that time as International Bible Students. Today they are known as Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. They are still proclaiming a warning.”
They are “prophets” in the sense that they too are “proclaiming a warning”, not from direct inspiration, but from their reading and understanding of the Bible.
Yet again, there’s more that you left out:
“Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a “prophet” of God. It is another thing to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?
“During the World War I period this group, the International Bible Students, was very active in preaching the good news of God’s kingdom…”
The record cited in support of being “prophets” was, not actual prophesying, but the preaching of the kingdom. The rest of the article mirrors this. By presenting an altered quote and leaving out pertinent contextual factors, can you honestly say that your representation of this article here is not misleading?
To me, this is a boring subject because you are simply trying to attach a narrative to Jehovah’s Witnesses that doesn’t fit, just like a politician trying define his or her opponent. It doesn’t matter if it’s the true picture, just so long as you get others to believe it. I have always viewed what you would label prophecies as interpretations of scriptural prophecies.
The Greek prototokos in Col 1:15 does not necessarily speak to chronology. The same word, prototokos, is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 89:27 to refer to King David as the “firstborn” of the earthly kings. Clearly, David is not the firstborn of earthly kings in a chronological sense. The title, prototokos, is given to him to indicate a place of preeminence. That this is the intended meaning of Col. 1:15 is indicated by a number of factors. First, Paul uses the prepositional phrase, en auto (“in him”), to speak of Christ’s role in creating the world in verse 16. If Paul meant to convey the chronological sense, he would have used the prepositional phrase, meta auton ["after him"], to communicate the sense of chronology. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a highly esteemed source on Biblical Greek explains, “The description of Christ as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως in Col 1:15 obviously finds in the ὅτι clause of v. 16 it more precise basis and explanation: Christ is the Mediator at creation to whom all creatures without exception owe their creation” (vol 6, page 878). (By the way, the whole entry in the TDNT on πρωτότοκος is a brilliant exposition on why the Greek text requires interpreting πρωτότοκος to confer a place of position rather than chronology to Jesus in Col. 1.)
Second, notice in Col. 1:17 that it records that Jesus makes [Greek: synesteken, meaning to put together, to assemble, to bring into existence] the universe exist. This also reinforces that the message being communicated is Jesus’s position–he is the Creator/Sustainer of this world. The passage is not trying to tell us about Jesus’s chronological standing compared to the rest of the universe.
As we continue in the passage, we find prototokos used again in verse 18. Strangely, the Jehovah Witness, “T” (above), makes the following point:
I think this really backfires against the JW interpretation of the passage. Notice that the passage explains that Jesus is firstborn form the dead so that “he might become the one who is first in all things.” This makes it clear, once again, this has nothing to do with chronology. The sense of being “first” has to do with title, authority, preeminence, or position. To press that verse 18 is about temporal ordering, would be very far fetched. The chronological reading would go like this: Jesus had to be the temporally first one raised from the dead so that he could become the temporally first one over everything. This reading is made more difficult by the fact that the word for “first” is proteuon, which conveys first in rank, not necessarily first in time.
Lastly, there is nothing in this use of prototokos that implies Jesus is part of the set of created things. In fact, since verse 16 is saying that Jesus is the one who makes the created world, then, it obviously makes no sense to include him among one of the members of the created world. Something cannot be both a member of the created world and the creator of all created things.
There is a lot more to be said about “T”‘s misuse and misunderstanding of Greek and Hebrew. His comments about the gender of nouns is misleading at best, and it probably reflects he doesn’t know the original languages and is regurgitating something he read published by the Watchtower.
Thanks for your response, Johnny. You can call me TJ. I’ll put your comments in italics and respond below.
“The Greek prototokos in Col 1:15 does not necessarily speak to chronology.”
I didn’t say that it necessarily did. You seemed to have missed the thrust of my argument. Let’s take your example:
“The same word, prototokos, is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 89:27 to refer to King David as the ‘firstborn’ of the earthly kings. Clearly, David is not the firstborn of earthly kings in a chronological sense.”
True, but doesn’t David necessarily have to be an earthly king in order to be ‘the firstborn of the earthly kings’? Again, this shows that the Greek word prototokos is intrinsically inclusive, which is an aspect you are actually trying to omit when it comes to Colossians 1:15. Just as David had to be a king in order to be the firstborn of the kings, Jesus would have to be a creature in order to be the firstborn of creation. And since he was used as God’s instrument in creating all things, this would make it necessary for him to be the first creature temporally as well.
To see the problem with the way you’re trying to shoehorn your interpretation into this passage, replace ‘preeminent’ with ‘foremost’. Both refer to position, but would you be comfortable with Jesus being called ‘the foremost [one] of all creation’? You probably have a natural aversion to it because it stresses that inclusive factor that is present everywhere the word prototokos is used in the Bible. You want Jesus to be completely separate from all creation, over and above it, but that meaning simply doesn’t square with how the term firstborn is used everywhere else!
With regards to my citing how Paul uses the term in verse 18, you said:
“Notice that the passage explains that Jesus is firstborn form the dead so that ‘he might become the one who is first in all things.’ This makes it clear, once again, this has nothing to do with chronology.”
I really couldn’t disagree more. Jesus literally was the very first one raised from death to eternal life, was he not? He was subsequently given the authority to resurrect others in the same manner, so he very certainly was the first one temporally resurrected from the dead to everlasting life. He was indeed “the beginning” of the general resurrection for mankind that is to follow. Paul elsewhere calls upon the imagery of the harvest season, referring to Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits” from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:20) The firstfruits of a harvest are literally the first in terms of time. You are trying to throw out this temporal aspect when these simple, immovable facts are against you. Jesus was ‘first in all things’ both in terms of time and position.
“Lastly, there is nothing in this use of prototokos that implies Jesus is part of the set of created things.”
I’ve shown above, using your own cited example from Psalms, that this is not the case. Find me an example of a firstborn of some group that is excluded from said group. This would be your apples-to-apples comparison of how you’re attempting to interpret Colossians 1:15.
“In fact, since verse 16 is saying that Jesus is the one who makes the created world, then, it obviously makes no sense to include him among one of the members of the created world.”
The flaw in this reasoning is easily discernible elsewhere. In fact, you don’t even notice how you interpret scriptures elsewhere differently because they aren’t all that important to your theology.
For example, take Ephesians 1:21, which says that Jesus Christ is seated “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named.” Did you notice your shift in thinking?
Here you’re not going to read that and then deduce backwards that since Christ is stationed above all powers and even every name that “it obviously makes no sense” that Christ can have power or a name! Of course he does, and you recognize this without even thinking about it. Use this same natural reasoning in Colossians 1 and there’s no problem with Jesus himself being the foremost member of creation.
“There is a lot more to be said about “T”‘s misuse and misunderstanding of Greek and Hebrew. His comments about the gender of nouns is misleading at best, and it probably reflects he doesn’t know the original languages and is regurgitating something he read published by the Watchtower.”
Please back up your accusation that I’m being misleading with evidence. Everything I stated with regard to grammatical gender is true. The fact that you even attempt to field a guess at the training of someone you know absolutely nothing about seems to indicate that you judge arguments based upon the conclusions rather than the substance.
Thank you again very much for your response.
Let me begin by saying that I am completely unmoved by any of TJ’s suggestions because I am familiar with NT Greek grammar and vocabulary. I minored in biblical languages as an undergraduate at a small liberal arts university, and I even spent a year as a TA for the Greek classes, running a couple sections of the language labs. Once again, my suspicion is that TJ is only familiar with Greek grammar and language as taught by some Watchtower publication. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate him making some of his education better known.
Rather than chase every rabbit trail, let me try to make this exchange more productive by focusing on a few key points. First, TJ is arguing that prototokos is an intrinsically inclusive concept:
This is wrongheaded for, at least, two reasons. First, the concept is not necessarily inclusive. The idea that one could have a place of preeminence among a class of things, does not necessitate that the one in the place of preeminence must be a member of the class of things over which it stands. The title of prototokos in this context indicates one who has ruling authority or is foremost in hierarchy. The concept has nothing to do with being a member of the same class of things. That David was an earthly king is an accidental feature of holding the position of being foremost over all earthly kings. God could have appointed me (a person of no royal accolades) to be the prototokos of earthly kings–being an earthly king is not a necessary feature of being the prototokos of earthly kings! Likewise, being a part of the creation is not a necessary condition for being the protokos of all creation. If you are getting hung up on the genitive, “of creation” in vs. 15, then once again you probably aren’t familiar with Greek grammar and the various uses of the genitive. Col. 1:15 is a classic example of the “genitive of reference”, which (if spelled out more elaborately) could be translated, “He is … the firstborn with reference to all creation.” Nothing here requires or even remotely implies that Jesus is part of creation.
But why do I and virtually all scholars of Greek grammar translate the text this way? Is it really because we’re all corrupted by the orthodox Christian tradition? No, it is because the text requires this interpretation. Here’s the second reason. Most importantly, as I previously mentioned, is Col. 1:16, which indicates Jesus is the one who has created all of creation. You can’t be part of creation, if you are responsible for making all of creation (this would require that one create oneself, which is logically impossible). Identifying Jesus as part of creation is utterly untenable because verse 16 states He created all of creation. This makes it absolutely clear in this context that Jesus is not being referred to as a created thing. The interpretive “shoehorning” is taking place by the one who is ignoring the plain meaning of verse 16. To read something else into the text at this point is to hold on to a doctrine in the face of a logical contradiction. Because verse 16 makes it impossible to identify Jesus as part of creation, it explains why Greek scholars are in virtual unanimous agreement about the Greek grammar in verse 15 (such as taking the genitive in verse 15 to be the genitive of reference as opposed to some other use of the genitive). Notice that the list of created things is comprehensive: things in heaven or earth, things visible or invisible. There’s no wiggle room to think Paul doesn’t intend to communicate what the text plainly says: Jesus is the creator of all things. This consideration takes the JW attempt to identify Jesus as part of creation off the table entirely.
But am I being inconsistent? TJ puts forward the following potential inconsistency:
Of course, I don’t think this passage implies Jesus has no power or name, but that is not what the Greek text of Eph. 1:21 implies nor would it be inconsistent given what I’ve said about Col. 1:15 to do so. After all, there is nothing in the context of Eph. 1:21 that makes it impossible for Jesus to have a name or authority. To the contrary, Eph. 1:21 directly attributes to Jesus a name and power–that’s just what it means to have the name above all other names and a power above all other powers. What is misleading is to suppose that there is anything in the Greek grammar or words of Col. 1:15-18 that implies Jesus is the preeminent created thing among created things. To the contrary, Col. 1:16 makes that reading nonsensical. What is odd is to think that the Greek word meanings and grammar of Eph. 1:21 have any similarity to the grammar and interpretive issues of Col. 1:15. Once again, I’m inclined to think TJ isn’t familiar with any Greek grammar and vocabulary outside of what some publication from the Watchtower has told him.
Hi Johnny; thanks again for your response.
My point last time was that appeals to credentials are meaningless. The substance of an argument is what’s important. Keep in mind this passage:
“Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on [Jesus]? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.” (John 7:47-49)
How do you view the Pharisees’ appeal to credentials?
You are exactly wrong, Johnny. The foremost one of any class must, by definition, be a part of the class. How many graduations have you attended where the valedictorian wasn’t a part of the graduating class? This is simple stuff. If they are not a part of the group, they cannot be the foremost.
As I said last time, prove me wrong. If your inclusive firstborn example from Psalms was just an accident, show me a scriptural example of a ‘firstborn’ of some group that isn’t himself/itself a member of that group.
Well hold on here, what does the text actually say? “For by him were all things created.” Obviously then, Jesus isn’t a thing…right? After all, he created all things. Or perhaps you’re being slightly too strict with the language.
Given the exact same logic you employ at Colossians 1:16, the fact that Jesus is above all power and every name, he cannot possibly have power or a name. Remember what you wrote just above this? You said:
Well then, there’s no wiggle room to think Paul doesn’t intend to communicate what the text plainly says: Jesus is above all powers and every name…
…or are you making an ‘obvious’ exception here but not there? I’m just asking you to be consistent.
If you feel the need to continue with such judgments, go for it. But I’ve really discussed very little of Greek grammar here. The points above are common logic. And the little grammar I did discuss, regarding gender, I asked you to provide evidence that I was being misleading, and you haven’t. Post your resume if you feel the need to, but I’m still going to challenge the substance of your arguments.
TJ, your insistence to claim to understand the grammatical and linguistic implications of Col. 1:15, while having no understanding of Biblical Greek is unfortunately on display in your most recent response. I am not asking for your credentials because I am looking for some appeal to authority. What I am wanting to know is whether you have any first-hand understanding of the Greek words and grammar that are relevant to this discussion, or if you are parroting a response from some other source. I speak from my first-hand knowledge and life-long experience of studying the Greek New Testament. If I go to someone to assess the funny noise in my car, I want to be sure that the person’s analysis is backed up with the relevant training, knowledge, and experience. Do you have any training, knowledge, or experience with ancient Greek words and grammar relevant to Col. 1:15, or are you regurgitating some WT publication that you trust?
The only way you can begin to claim that the Greek concept of prototokos as it is used in Col. 1:15 is relevantly like the concept of being a valedictorian is if you have done the relevant word studies and understand the grammatical constructions of the original language. I have done these things, and so it is your apparently uninformed opinion against my informed one. I have given my reasons that are based on the Greek words and grammar in Col. 1 for my opinion on this matter. On what basis do you make your claim that prototokos is an essentially inclusive concept? If you are going to dig in your heels and keep asserting this claim without justifying reasons, I’ll assume you have none besides some Watchtower publication says so. Continuing to assert something is so, doesn’t make it so.
TJ insists that the grammatical constructions and Greek words in the Col. 1:15 passage are similar to Eph. 1:21. Can you cite some aspects of the grammar or the word meanings in the original language that should indicate this is so? I think you are simply relying on the English readings of these passages. But aside from no grammatical or word choice similarities, there is a huge reason to think the Col. 1:15 is not inclusive (Jesus is not part of creation) and Eph. 1:21 is inclusive. Pay attention. Col. 1:16 claims Jesus created all things (notice too that the list is exhaustive—you can’t seriously think Paul doesn’t mean to communicate Jesus created everything!), and since it is impossible to create oneself, it follows that the context makes it crystal clear that Jesus cannot be included among the created things. Whereas in Eph. 1:21, we have a good reason to think the attributions of name and power are intended to be inclusive concepts, namely that the passage directly attributes to Jesus the possession of a name and power. There is no exception to a rule being played here. The grammar and the words are different and therefore the interpretations are different.
Please do not reply to this if you are simply going to insist that you have the right understanding of Greek words and grammar that you don’t understand. Likewise, don’t claim two passages require the same interpretation when you have no similarities in grammar or word choice to support your position. It looks like you either don’t know what you are talking about or that you are making it up. You want to engage with the substance of the arguments, but you cannot do this if you have no clue what you are talking about.
Hi again Johnny.
Excellent, now rather than continuing to tell me about it, please demonstrate it.
Here’s the difference. I have shown in every example here, even the ones handpicked by yourself and Razor Sharp, that the “firstborn” is partitive, or inclusive. So I have actual facts on my side, even in the face of your ‘informed opinion’.
I’ve asked you twice now, show me a scriptural example of some ‘firstborn’ that is not inclusive! Need me to present even more proof? Here’s just a few (I could literally go through each one in the Bible):
“These were their descendants: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam…” (1 Chronicles 1:29)
Nebaioth was Ishmael’s firstborn son because he was one of his sons.
“As it is also written in the Law, we will bring the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, of our herds and of our flocks to the house of our God, to the priests ministering there.” (Nehemiah 10:36)
The firstborn of sons was a son. The firstborn of cattle was cattle. The firstborn of the herd was a part of the herd. The firstborn of the flock was a part of the flock.
“You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts.” (Deuteronomy 12:17)
The firstborn of the herds and flocks were a part of the herds and flocks.
“Set apart for the Lord your God every firstborn male of your herds and flocks. Do not put the firstborn of your cows to work, and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep.” (Deuteronomy 15:19)
The firstborn of the cows was a cow. The firstborn of the sheep was a sheep. This is how the term is used everywhere, both in literal and figurative usage!
Just on the fact that this is how the term is used everywhere else in the Bible. You have not given even one example of some firstborn that is not a member of the group in which he is firstborn.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to anyone reading this that you cannot do it, Johnny. That being the case, it is obvious that you are interpreting “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 differently than every other instance of it found in the Bible. Your interpretation of firstborn is special pleading.
As you demonstrated, it’s all contained in the…”all”. In Colossians, you insist that the “all” necessarily excludes Jesus. In Ephesians, you do a 180 on your interpretation and say that “all” really means “all other” and Jesus should be included, though as the foremost member.
The simple fact is, “all” (from variations of the Greek pas) often includes implied exceptions. The apostle Paul himself explicitly points this out in his own interpretation of a verse:
“For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:27)
Other examples:
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs…” (Luke 11:42; NIV)
“Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?’” (Luke 13:2; NIV)
You are ‘building your house upon sand’ by insisting that “all” in Colossians 1:16 necessarily excludes Jesus from creation. It could mean “all other” just as it is understood elsewhere by other translators and even by you yourself in your paraphrase of Ephesians 1:21! Again you said:
“Eph. 1:21 directly attributes to Jesus a name and power–that’s just what it means to have the name above all other names and a power above all other powers.”
Now, you can continue with the ad hominem distractions if you’d like, but I’d be pleasantly surprised if you, like Razor Sharp above, conceded to at least some of these points. Hubris is an enemy to intellectual–and spiritual–honesty.
By the way, this is worth mentioning:
I agree wholeheartedly, and if you apply this very same logic to Colossians 1:15-18, you’ve made my point beautifully. Thank you.
The Greek word πρωτότοκος is a word that has various meanings and uses, which are determined by the grammatical constructions and context in which it is used. In many cases, the word means quite literally the first-born or progeny of humans, animals, and plants. Thus, you will find many examples of the word being used to convey exactly that, which in these cases necessitates that the πρωτότοκος is of the same kind of thing as its source (typically, its mother). In the Septuagint, πρωτότοκος is most often used in this sense. Attempting to use this meaning of the word to tell you about the other meanings of the word is wrongheaded (that’s why they are different meanings, after all.) All of TJ’s examples fall under this use, and therefore, say nothing about the meaning of πρωτότοκος as it is used in other contexts, such as Col. 1:15.
What other meanings are there for πρωτότοκος? It can also convey a sense of hierarchy, preeminence, or importance. This use is like being given a title or a place of importance. This is the sense that it must have in a number of passages where chronological priority and being the literal offspring are not being conveyed. The Septuagint’s translation of Ex. 4:22 uses πρωτότοκος to refer to Israel in this sense as God’s “firstborn,” but Israel was not literally born from God, nor does it imply Israel is the first nation in time. Rather, Israel stands in a special place of importance. As I previously mentioned, Psalm 89:27 refer to David in this sense as the first-born of kings, and TJ recognizes this as well.
In which sense is Col. 1:15 being used? It is obviously being used in the metaphorical sense of Christ having a place of preeminence over all creation. Why read it this way? Because as the following verse makes clear, he is the one who has made all creation. Paul continues to describe that Christ made all created things: things in heaven, things on earth, things visible, things invisible. There is no doubt that Paul is trying to communicate unequivocally that Jesus created every created thing. I’m not sure how he could make this point clearer. Since it is impossible to create oneself and Jesus has created every created thing, it must follow that Jesus is not a created thing. The metaphorical application of πρωτότοκος to Jesus, therefore, is substantiated by the context not to convey that Jesus is a member of created things.
If I give you an example where πρωτότοκος does not refer to the same kind of thing as the members of things it is the first-born of, will you recognize that the hubris in this discussion is between your shoulders? If nothing else, will you please stop grandstanding with these kinds of challenges? Eusebius writes in book 4, chapter 14, “ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ σατανᾶ.” In this passage Eusebius records a funny exchange between Polycarp and Marcion. After Marcion tries to identify with the Christians by greeting Polycarp with, “I acknowledge us,” Polycarp responds by saying, “I acknowledge the first-born [yes, the accusative form of πρωτότοκος] of Satan.” Is Marcion the same kind of thing as Satan? (No, Marcion is a human.) Does πρωτότοκος, therefore, always require an inclusive meaning? (No, Col. 1:15 doesn’t require it, and this passage doesn’t require it.) Since your whole argument hinges on their being no instances of πρωτότοκος where the first-born is not the same kind of thing as what it is first-born of, and I have just produced such an instance, do you have enough intellectual honesty to admit your argument isn’t as strong as you once thought it was?
Please, don’t keep embarrassing yourself like this. You are too nice of a guy, and I don’t like making a dramatic point about your mistakes. As you are losing the argument in this thread you are also losing your pleasant demeanor. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that you simply are not well-enough informed to speak to issues about the meaning of ancient Greek words and how to apply them in a given context. It is a skill that takes years of study and practice.
Hello Johnny and thanks for the continued responses.
Again, I agree with this, but it’s always in the sense of the foremost one of the group. Even your examples of figurative uses of the word continue to bear this out. Let’s get to them.
Apologies, I missed a closing tag.
The Greek prototokos in Col 1:15 does not necessarily speak to chronology. The same word, prototokos, is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 89:27 to refer to King David as the “firstborn” of the earthly kings. Clearly, David is not the firstborn of earthly kings in a chronological sense. The title, prototokos, is given to him to indicate a place of preeminence. That this is the intended meaning of Col. 1:15 is indicated by a number of factors. First, Paul uses the prepositional phrase, en auto (“in him”), to speak of Christ’s role in creating the world in verse 16. If Paul meant to convey the chronological sense, he would have used the prepositional phrase, meta auton ["after him"], to communicate the sense of chronology. As the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, a highly esteemed source on Biblical Greek explains, “The description of Christ as πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως in Col 1:15 obviously finds in the ὅτι clause of v. 16 it more precise basis and explanation: Christ is the Mediator at creation to whom all creatures without exception owe their creation” (vol 6, page 878). (By the way, the whole entry in the TDNT on πρωτότοκος is a brilliant exposition on why the Greek text requires interpreting πρωτότοκος to confer a place of position rather than chronology to Jesus in Col. 1.)
Second, notice in Col. 1:17 that it records that Jesus makes [Greek: synesteken, meaning to put together, to assemble, to bring into existence] the universe exist. This also reinforces that the message being communicated is Jesus’s position–he is the Creator/Sustainer of this world. The passage is not trying to tell us about Jesus’s chronological standing compared to the rest of the universe.
As we continue in the passage, we find prototokos used again in verse 18. Strangely, the Jehovah Witness, “T” (above), makes the following point:
I think this really backfires against the JW interpretation of the passage. Notice that the passage explains that Jesus is firstborn form the dead so that “he might become the one who is first in all things.” This makes it clear, once again, this has nothing to do with chronology. The sense of being “first” has to do with title, authority, preeminence, or position. To press that verse 18 is about temporal ordering, would be very far fetched. The chronological reading would go like this: Jesus had to be the temporally first one raised from the dead so that he could become the temporally first one over everything. This reading is made more difficult by the fact that the word for “first” is proteuon, which conveys first in rank, not necessarily first in time.
Lastly, there is nothing in this use of prototokos that implies Jesus is part of the set of created things. In fact, since verse 16 is saying that Jesus is the one who makes the created world, then, it obviously makes no sense to include him among one of the members of the created world. Something cannot be both a member of the created world and the creator of all created things.
There is a lot more to be said about “T”‘s misuse and misunderstanding of Greek and Hebrew. His comments about the gender of nouns is misleading at best, and it probably reflects he doesn’t know the original languages and is regurgitating something he read published by the Watchtower.
Thanks for your response, Johnny. You can call me TJ. I’ll put your comments in italics and respond below.
“The Greek prototokos in Col 1:15 does not necessarily speak to chronology.”
I didn’t say that it necessarily did. You seemed to have missed the thrust of my argument. Let’s take your example:
“The same word, prototokos, is used in the Septuagint in Psalm 89:27 to refer to King David as the ‘firstborn’ of the earthly kings. Clearly, David is not the firstborn of earthly kings in a chronological sense.”
True, but doesn’t David necessarily have to be an earthly king in order to be ‘the firstborn of the earthly kings’? Again, this shows that the Greek word prototokos is intrinsically inclusive, which is an aspect you are actually trying to omit when it comes to Colossians 1:15. Just as David had to be a king in order to be the firstborn of the kings, Jesus would have to be a creature in order to be the firstborn of creation. And since he was used as God’s instrument in creating all things, this would make it necessary for him to be the first creature temporally as well.
To see the problem with the way you’re trying to shoehorn your interpretation into this passage, replace ‘preeminent’ with ‘foremost’. Both refer to position, but would you be comfortable with Jesus being called ‘the foremost [one] of all creation’? You probably have a natural aversion to it because it stresses that inclusive factor that is present everywhere the word prototokos is used in the Bible. You want Jesus to be completely separate from all creation, over and above it, but that meaning simply doesn’t square with how the term firstborn is used everywhere else!
With regards to my citing how Paul uses the term in verse 18, you said:
“Notice that the passage explains that Jesus is firstborn form the dead so that ‘he might become the one who is first in all things.’ This makes it clear, once again, this has nothing to do with chronology.”
I really couldn’t disagree more. Jesus literally was the very first one raised from death to eternal life, was he not? He was subsequently given the authority to resurrect others in the same manner, so he very certainly was the first one temporally resurrected from the dead to everlasting life. He was indeed “the beginning” of the general resurrection for mankind that is to follow. Paul elsewhere calls upon the imagery of the harvest season, referring to Christ’s resurrection as the “firstfruits” from the dead. (1 Cor. 15:20) The firstfruits of a harvest are literally the first in terms of time. You are trying to throw out this temporal aspect when these simple, immovable facts are against you. Jesus was ‘first in all things’ both in terms of time and position.
“Lastly, there is nothing in this use of prototokos that implies Jesus is part of the set of created things.”
I’ve shown above, using your own cited example from Psalms, that this is not the case. Find me an example of a firstborn of some group that is excluded from said group. This would be your apples-to-apples comparison of how you’re attempting to interpret Colossians 1:15.
“In fact, since verse 16 is saying that Jesus is the one who makes the created world, then, it obviously makes no sense to include him among one of the members of the created world.”
The flaw in this reasoning is easily discernible elsewhere. In fact, you don’t even notice how you interpret scriptures elsewhere differently because they aren’t all that important to your theology.
For example, take Ephesians 1:21, which says that Jesus Christ is seated “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named.” Did you notice your shift in thinking?
Here you’re not going to read that and then deduce backwards that since Christ is stationed above all powers and even every name that “it obviously makes no sense” that Christ can have power or a name! Of course he does, and you recognize this without even thinking about it. Use this same natural reasoning in Colossians 1 and there’s no problem with Jesus himself being the foremost member of creation.
“There is a lot more to be said about “T”‘s misuse and misunderstanding of Greek and Hebrew. His comments about the gender of nouns is misleading at best, and it probably reflects he doesn’t know the original languages and is regurgitating something he read published by the Watchtower.”
Please back up your accusation that I’m being misleading with evidence. Everything I stated with regard to grammatical gender is true. The fact that you even attempt to field a guess at the training of someone you know absolutely nothing about seems to indicate that you judge arguments based upon the conclusions rather than the substance.
Thank you again very much for your response.
Let me begin by saying that I am completely unmoved by any of TJ’s suggestions because I am familiar with NT Greek grammar and vocabulary. I minored in biblical languages as an undergraduate at a small liberal arts university, and I even spent a year as a TA for the Greek classes, running a couple sections of the language labs. Once again, my suspicion is that TJ is only familiar with Greek grammar and language as taught by some Watchtower publication. If I am wrong about this, I would appreciate him making some of his education better known.
Rather than chase every rabbit trail, let me try to make this exchange more productive by focusing on a few key points. First, TJ is arguing that prototokos is an intrinsically inclusive concept:
This is wrongheaded for, at least, two reasons. First, the concept is not necessarily inclusive. The idea that one could have a place of preeminence among a class of things, does not necessitate that the one in the place of preeminence must be a member of the class of things over which it stands. The title of prototokos in this context indicates one who has ruling authority or is foremost in hierarchy. The concept has nothing to do with being a member of the same class of things. That David was an earthly king is an accidental feature of holding the position of being foremost over all earthly kings. God could have appointed me (a person of no royal accolades) to be the prototokos of earthly kings–being an earthly king is not a necessary feature of being the prototokos of earthly kings! Likewise, being a part of the creation is not a necessary condition for being the protokos of all creation. If you are getting hung up on the genitive, “of creation” in vs. 15, then once again you probably aren’t familiar with Greek grammar and the various uses of the genitive. Col. 1:15 is a classic example of the “genitive of reference”, which (if spelled out more elaborately) could be translated, “He is … the firstborn with reference to all creation.” Nothing here requires or even remotely implies that Jesus is part of creation.
But why do I and virtually all scholars of Greek grammar translate the text this way? Is it really because we’re all corrupted by the orthodox Christian tradition? No, it is because the text requires this interpretation. Here’s the second reason. Most importantly, as I previously mentioned, is Col. 1:16, which indicates Jesus is the one who has created all of creation. You can’t be part of creation, if you are responsible for making all of creation (this would require that one create oneself, which is logically impossible). Identifying Jesus as part of creation is utterly untenable because verse 16 states He created all of creation. This makes it absolutely clear in this context that Jesus is not being referred to as a created thing. The interpretive “shoehorning” is taking place by the one who is ignoring the plain meaning of verse 16. To read something else into the text at this point is to hold on to a doctrine in the face of a logical contradiction. Because verse 16 makes it impossible to identify Jesus as part of creation, it explains why Greek scholars are in virtual unanimous agreement about the Greek grammar in verse 15 (such as taking the genitive in verse 15 to be the genitive of reference as opposed to some other use of the genitive). Notice that the list of created things is comprehensive: things in heaven or earth, things visible or invisible. There’s no wiggle room to think Paul doesn’t intend to communicate what the text plainly says: Jesus is the creator of all things. This consideration takes the JW attempt to identify Jesus as part of creation off the table entirely.
But am I being inconsistent? TJ puts forward the following potential inconsistency:
Of course, I don’t think this passage implies Jesus has no power or name, but that is not what the Greek text of Eph. 1:21 implies nor would it be inconsistent given what I’ve said about Col. 1:15 to do so. After all, there is nothing in the context of Eph. 1:21 that makes it impossible for Jesus to have a name or authority. To the contrary, Eph. 1:21 directly attributes to Jesus a name and power–that’s just what it means to have the name above all other names and a power above all other powers. What is misleading is to suppose that there is anything in the Greek grammar or words of Col. 1:15-18 that implies Jesus is the preeminent created thing among created things. To the contrary, Col. 1:16 makes that reading nonsensical. What is odd is to think that the Greek word meanings and grammar of Eph. 1:21 have any similarity to the grammar and interpretive issues of Col. 1:15. Once again, I’m inclined to think TJ isn’t familiar with any Greek grammar and vocabulary outside of what some publication from the Watchtower has told him.
Hi Johnny; thanks again for your response.
My point last time was that appeals to credentials are meaningless. The substance of an argument is what’s important. Keep in mind this passage:
“Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on [Jesus]? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.” (John 7:47-49)
How do you view the Pharisees’ appeal to credentials?
You are exactly wrong, Johnny. The foremost one of any class must, by definition, be a part of the class. How many graduations have you attended where the valedictorian wasn’t a part of the graduating class? This is simple stuff. If they are not a part of the group, they cannot be the foremost.
As I said last time, prove me wrong. If your inclusive firstborn example from Psalms was just an accident, show me a scriptural example of a ‘firstborn’ of some group that isn’t himself/itself a member of that group.
Well hold on here, what does the text actually say? “For by him were all things created.” Obviously then, Jesus isn’t a thing…right? After all, he created all things. Or perhaps you’re being slightly too strict with the language.
Given the exact same logic you employ at Colossians 1:16, the fact that Jesus is above all power and every name, he cannot possibly have power or a name. Remember what you wrote just above this? You said:
Well then, there’s no wiggle room to think Paul doesn’t intend to communicate what the text plainly says: Jesus is above all powers and every name…
…or are you making an ‘obvious’ exception here but not there? I’m just asking you to be consistent.
If you feel the need to continue with such judgments, go for it. But I’ve really discussed very little of Greek grammar here. The points above are common logic. And the little grammar I did discuss, regarding gender, I asked you to provide evidence that I was being misleading, and you haven’t. Post your resume if you feel the need to, but I’m still going to challenge the substance of your arguments.
TJ, your insistence to claim to understand the grammatical and linguistic implications of Col. 1:15, while having no understanding of Biblical Greek is unfortunately on display in your most recent response. I am not asking for your credentials because I am looking for some appeal to authority. What I am wanting to know is whether you have any first-hand understanding of the Greek words and grammar that are relevant to this discussion, or if you are parroting a response from some other source. I speak from my first-hand knowledge and life-long experience of studying the Greek New Testament. If I go to someone to assess the funny noise in my car, I want to be sure that the person’s analysis is backed up with the relevant training, knowledge, and experience. Do you have any training, knowledge, or experience with ancient Greek words and grammar relevant to Col. 1:15, or are you regurgitating some WT publication that you trust?
The only way you can begin to claim that the Greek concept of prototokos as it is used in Col. 1:15 is relevantly like the concept of being a valedictorian is if you have done the relevant word studies and understand the grammatical constructions of the original language. I have done these things, and so it is your apparently uninformed opinion against my informed one. I have given my reasons that are based on the Greek words and grammar in Col. 1 for my opinion on this matter. On what basis do you make your claim that prototokos is an essentially inclusive concept? If you are going to dig in your heels and keep asserting this claim without justifying reasons, I’ll assume you have none besides some Watchtower publication says so. Continuing to assert something is so, doesn’t make it so.
TJ insists that the grammatical constructions and Greek words in the Col. 1:15 passage are similar to Eph. 1:21. Can you cite some aspects of the grammar or the word meanings in the original language that should indicate this is so? I think you are simply relying on the English readings of these passages. But aside from no grammatical or word choice similarities, there is a huge reason to think the Col. 1:15 is not inclusive (Jesus is not part of creation) and Eph. 1:21 is inclusive. Pay attention. Col. 1:16 claims Jesus created all things (notice too that the list is exhaustive—you can’t seriously think Paul doesn’t mean to communicate Jesus created everything!), and since it is impossible to create oneself, it follows that the context makes it crystal clear that Jesus cannot be included among the created things. Whereas in Eph. 1:21, we have a good reason to think the attributions of name and power are intended to be inclusive concepts, namely that the passage directly attributes to Jesus the possession of a name and power. There is no exception to a rule being played here. The grammar and the words are different and therefore the interpretations are different.
Please do not reply to this if you are simply going to insist that you have the right understanding of Greek words and grammar that you don’t understand. Likewise, don’t claim two passages require the same interpretation when you have no similarities in grammar or word choice to support your position. It looks like you either don’t know what you are talking about or that you are making it up. You want to engage with the substance of the arguments, but you cannot do this if you have no clue what you are talking about.
Hi again Johnny.
Excellent, now rather than continuing to tell me about it, please demonstrate it.
Here’s the difference. I have shown in every example here, even the ones handpicked by yourself and Razor Sharp, that the “firstborn” is partitive, or inclusive. So I have actual facts on my side, even in the face of your ‘informed opinion’.
I’ve asked you twice now, show me a scriptural example of some ‘firstborn’ that is not inclusive! Need me to present even more proof? Here’s just a few (I could literally go through each one in the Bible):
“These were their descendants: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam…” (1 Chronicles 1:29)
Nebaioth was Ishmael’s firstborn son because he was one of his sons.
“As it is also written in the Law, we will bring the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, of our herds and of our flocks to the house of our God, to the priests ministering there.” (Nehemiah 10:36)
The firstborn of sons was a son. The firstborn of cattle was cattle. The firstborn of the herd was a part of the herd. The firstborn of the flock was a part of the flock.
“You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and olive oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts.” (Deuteronomy 12:17)
The firstborn of the herds and flocks were a part of the herds and flocks.
“Set apart for the Lord your God every firstborn male of your herds and flocks. Do not put the firstborn of your cows to work, and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep.” (Deuteronomy 15:19)
The firstborn of the cows was a cow. The firstborn of the sheep was a sheep. This is how the term is used everywhere, both in literal and figurative usage!
Just on the fact that this is how the term is used everywhere else in the Bible. You have not given even one example of some firstborn that is not a member of the group in which he is firstborn.
It’s becoming increasingly clear to anyone reading this that you cannot do it, Johnny. That being the case, it is obvious that you are interpreting “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 differently than every other instance of it found in the Bible. Your interpretation of firstborn is special pleading.
As you demonstrated, it’s all contained in the…”all”. In Colossians, you insist that the “all” necessarily excludes Jesus. In Ephesians, you do a 180 on your interpretation and say that “all” really means “all other” and Jesus should be included, though as the foremost member.
The simple fact is, “all” (from variations of the Greek pas) often includes implied exceptions. The apostle Paul himself explicitly points this out in his own interpretation of a verse:
“For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.” (1 Corinthians 15:27)
Other examples:
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs…” (Luke 11:42; NIV)
“Jesus answered, ‘Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?’” (Luke 13:2; NIV)
You are ‘building your house upon sand’ by insisting that “all” in Colossians 1:16 necessarily excludes Jesus from creation. It could mean “all other” just as it is understood elsewhere by other translators and even by you yourself in your paraphrase of Ephesians 1:21! Again you said:
“Eph. 1:21 directly attributes to Jesus a name and power–that’s just what it means to have the name above all other names and a power above all other powers.”
Now, you can continue with the ad hominem distractions if you’d like, but I’d be pleasantly surprised if you, like Razor Sharp above, conceded to at least some of these points. Hubris is an enemy to intellectual–and spiritual–honesty.
By the way, this is worth mentioning:
I agree wholeheartedly, and if you apply this very same logic to Colossians 1:15-18, you’ve made my point beautifully. Thank you.
The Greek word πρωτότοκος is a word that has various meanings and uses, which are determined by the grammatical constructions and context in which it is used. In many cases, the word means quite literally the first-born or progeny of humans, animals, and plants. Thus, you will find many examples of the word being used to convey exactly that, which in these cases necessitates that the πρωτότοκος is of the same kind of thing as its source (typically, its mother). In the Septuagint, πρωτότοκος is most often used in this sense. Attempting to use this meaning of the word to tell you about the other meanings of the word is wrongheaded (that’s why they are different meanings, after all.) All of TJ’s examples fall under this use, and therefore, say nothing about the meaning of πρωτότοκος as it is used in other contexts, such as Col. 1:15.
What other meanings are there for πρωτότοκος? It can also convey a sense of hierarchy, preeminence, or importance. This use is like being given a title or a place of importance. This is the sense that it must have in a number of passages where chronological priority and being the literal offspring are not being conveyed. The Septuagint’s translation of Ex. 4:22 uses πρωτότοκος to refer to Israel in this sense as God’s “firstborn,” but Israel was not literally born from God, nor does it imply Israel is the first nation in time. Rather, Israel stands in a special place of importance. As I previously mentioned, Psalm 89:27 refer to David in this sense as the first-born of kings, and TJ recognizes this as well.
In which sense is Col. 1:15 being used? It is obviously being used in the metaphorical sense of Christ having a place of preeminence over all creation. Why read it this way? Because as the following verse makes clear, he is the one who has made all creation. Paul continues to describe that Christ made all created things: things in heaven, things on earth, things visible, things invisible. There is no doubt that Paul is trying to communicate unequivocally that Jesus created every created thing. I’m not sure how he could make this point clearer. Since it is impossible to create oneself and Jesus has created every created thing, it must follow that Jesus is not a created thing. The metaphorical application of πρωτότοκος to Jesus, therefore, is substantiated by the context not to convey that Jesus is a member of created things.
If I give you an example where πρωτότοκος does not refer to the same kind of thing as the members of things it is the first-born of, will you recognize that the hubris in this discussion is between your shoulders? If nothing else, will you please stop grandstanding with these kinds of challenges? Eusebius writes in book 4, chapter 14, “ἐπιγινώσκω τὸν πρωτότοκον τοῦ σατανᾶ.” In this passage Eusebius records a funny exchange between Polycarp and Marcion. After Marcion tries to identify with the Christians by greeting Polycarp with, “I acknowledge us,” Polycarp responds by saying, “I acknowledge the first-born [yes, the accusative form of πρωτότοκος] of Satan.” Is Marcion the same kind of thing as Satan? (No, Marcion is a human.) Does πρωτότοκος, therefore, always require an inclusive meaning? (No, Col. 1:15 doesn’t require it, and this passage doesn’t require it.) Since your whole argument hinges on their being no instances of πρωτότοκος where the first-born is not the same kind of thing as what it is first-born of, and I have just produced such an instance, do you have enough intellectual honesty to admit your argument isn’t as strong as you once thought it was?
Please, don’t keep embarrassing yourself like this. You are too nice of a guy, and I don’t like making a dramatic point about your mistakes. As you are losing the argument in this thread you are also losing your pleasant demeanor. There’s nothing wrong with admitting that you simply are not well-enough informed to speak to issues about the meaning of ancient Greek words and how to apply them in a given context. It is a skill that takes years of study and practice.
Hello Johnny and thanks for the continued responses.
Again, I agree with this, but it’s always in the sense of the foremost one of the group. Even your examples of figurative uses of the word continue to bear this out. Let’s get to them.
Apologies, I missed a closing tag.
This article contains relatively common objections to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs, but such objections don’t hold up well to scrutiny. The appeal to church history, for example, is revisionist:
“We will simply add in this place, that the Arians constantly appealed to tradition as in their favor, and asserted that they held the ancient doctrine. This assertion must not be taken in the most rigid sense; though, to a certain extent, it was true. The Arians could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embarrassing to their opponents. On some points, as the supremacy of the Father and his priority of existence, tradition was clearly in their favor; and they could say with truth that they held the old faith.” — The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1860, p. 191.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 certainly did not end the matter:
“The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title ‘ecumenical,’ that one seems to qualify, but its result–the adoption of an Arian creed–was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the ‘ecumenical’ label but virtually disappeared from official Church history.” — When Jesus Became God, Richard Rubenstein, 1999, p. 75.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves Arians not only because of objections to certain beliefs held by Arius and his followers, but also because of the appalling behavior displayed by both sides in what was truly a political dispute. Witnesses believe that that State-endorsed Church as a whole was steeped in the depths of apostasy, apostasy that was foretold by both Jesus and his apostles.
In regards to Colossians 1:15, the author goes on to say, “The Greek word used here for firstborn is ‘prototokos’, which in this context means ‘preeminent’.”
Well that definition is certainly a part of ‘firstborn’, but what’s being glossed over is that this word is, by definition, inclusive. The firstborn is the first, in terms of time and/or position, of whatever group he is firstborn (in this case, creation). This should be made obvious by looking at the author’s own example:
“While firstborn can mean ‘born first’ in the literal sense, we also see that in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, that even though Manasseh was born first, Ephraim was called the firstborn due to God’s covenant of promise.”
Still, both Ephraim and Manasseh were a part of the same group, Jacob’s sons. The firstborn could not be someone who was not Jacob’s son! Yet this is precisely how the author is asking his audience to interpret Jesus’ being the firstborn in relation to creation when he concludes that Jesus “was not part of creation itself”. This is akin to him concluding that Ephraim ‘was not part of’ Jacob’s sons, but was still Jacob’s firstborn. Obviously, such a contrived use of that word is found nowhere in scripture and goes against the its intrinsic meaning.
Moreover, the apostle Paul uses ‘firstborn’ again just a few verses later, calling Jesus “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.” (Col. 1:18; KJV) Did not Jesus have to die and be raised up before he could properly be called “the firstborn from the dead”? Would the author seriously argue that this just means that Jesus is preeminent over the dead?
The other rationale given here is that Paul would have used the Greek word protoktistos if he wanted to call Jesus the first creature. While this sounds good on the surface, it’s actually an anachronistic argument. That word was not in popular use at the time Paul penned the epistle. Yet in the following centuries when it was used, it was used to describe Jesus Christ! For example, Clement of Alexandria uses both prototokos and protoktistos of Jesus, yet most readers wouldn’t even realize this because the English translation of that work renders both as “firstborn”. In other words, the terms are used as synonyms.
Lastly, the author’s objections to the use of the passage found in Proverbs 8 is extremely superficial. He says:
“Of course they miss the obvious that in verse one of the chapter, wisdom is spoken of as a ‘she’. Interestingly enough, they render wisdom as an ‘it’ (New World Translation) instead but in chapter seven they indeed render wisdom as a ‘she’ and ‘sister’. It’s this typical inconsistency that I expect from the Watchtower.”
The gender of pronoun used in the original languages is governed by the gender of the noun for which it’s substituting; so the gender is purely a matter of grammar. The Hebrew word for “wisdom” is feminine, so it’s related pronouns must likewise be feminine. This has no effect on whether or not the passage applies to the Messiah.
Solomon refers to himself as “the congregator” in the book of Ecclesiastes, and this word is feminine. Likewise, the apostle John states that “God is love”, “love” being feminine in Greek. This is not at all unusual.
One has to ask, while the author claims inconsistency on the part of others, is he himself consistent in such criticism by calling out all the many translations that constantly refer to the Holy Spirit as a “he”? After all, the Hebrew word for “spirit” is feminine, making it literally a ‘she’, and the Greek word is neuter, making it an ‘it’. Or is this conversion conveniently overlooked because it happens to agree with the author’s theology?
TJ,
First I would like to thank you for your willingness to go online and discuss Bible issues -which is disobeying the Governing Body, as they don’t approve of online debating- with the various people that come on here; some of which may be considered apostates in your milieu. This shows me that you’re more willing to seek truth than follow the fallible men in Brooklyn, which is refreshing to see of a Jehovah’s Witness. You are a rarity.
You wrote:
Based on the above, I see that you came right out of the gate making assumptions. You charge me with “revising” church history but all I did was mention that the Arian heresy was formally addressed with the Council Of Nicaea. You apparently jumped to the conclusion that I was promoting that this council did “end the matter”, but I was not.
There are a couple of things that I’d like to address here. While my argument of Paul not using “protoktistos” is perhaps not as strong an argument as I thought at the time of this writing, but nevertheless it was in existence at the time of Paul. (I have been informed by a friend who is a native Greek speaker and have also heard scholars mention this) This brings me to my next point, you mention Clement as applying this same word to Jesus. This does two things: it refutes my original argument -which I’m ok with, but would still like to see the context- while at the same time affirming that such language does not undue the Trinitarian position, as he was one. As a ancient native Greek speaker, he understood the language better than both of us. If you would like to talk further, we can talk in my chatroom or Skype. Take care.
Hello Razor Swift and thank you for your response to my critique.
That’s not what I was objecting to. You said in your article above, “It was the rise of this heresy [Arianism] that led to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.” That is revisionism.
The facts support that the early Church Fathers were, by and large, subordinationists, so it’s incorrect to perpetuate the grossly oversimplified idea that early on everyone viewed the Father and Son [and Holy Spirit] as equal and part of a Trinity and then, out of nowhere, a ‘heresy’ arose teaching that the Father was greater than the Son. The quote I provided from Alvan Lamson was to that point.
What really happened was that the Trinity doctrine itself gradually developed over hundreds of years, along a very rocky road, so that that doctrine was what actually ‘arose’. Even Catholics freely admit this:
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” — New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 1967, p. 299.
It was not my intention to imply that you thought this council ended things, but rather to give a little context to the significance of that council in its time for those who do believe that.
As for the rest of your post, I have to say I’m a little taken aback that you’ve actually conceded that there is something to what I’ve presented, even if you don’t find it convincing enough to overturn your position. That’s refreshing.
I’d be happy to engage you further on this passage in Colossians, as well as related ones such as Revelation 3:14. I believe there are many points that you may not be aware of that makes my view much stronger than you realize. Just let me know when your chatroom will be open.
Thanks again.
This article contains relatively common objections to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ beliefs, but such objections don’t hold up well to scrutiny. The appeal to church history, for example, is revisionist:
“We will simply add in this place, that the Arians constantly appealed to tradition as in their favor, and asserted that they held the ancient doctrine. This assertion must not be taken in the most rigid sense; though, to a certain extent, it was true. The Arians could quote passages from the old writers, exceedingly embarrassing to their opponents. On some points, as the supremacy of the Father and his priority of existence, tradition was clearly in their favor; and they could say with truth that they held the old faith.” — The Church of the First Three Centuries, Alvan Lamson, 1860, p. 191.
The Council of Nicaea in 325 certainly did not end the matter:
“The Council of Nicaea, then, was not universal. Nevertheless, it is everywhere considered the first ecumenical (or universal) council of the Catholic Church. Several later gatherings would be more representative of the entire Church; one of them, the joint council of Rimini-Seleucia (359), was attended by more than five hundred bishops from both the East and West. If any meeting deserves the title ‘ecumenical,’ that one seems to qualify, but its result–the adoption of an Arian creed–was later repudiated by the Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the ‘ecumenical’ label but virtually disappeared from official Church history.” — When Jesus Became God, Richard Rubenstein, 1999, p. 75.
Jehovah’s Witnesses do not consider themselves Arians not only because of objections to certain beliefs held by Arius and his followers, but also because of the appalling behavior displayed by both sides in what was truly a political dispute. Witnesses believe that that State-endorsed Church as a whole was steeped in the depths of apostasy, apostasy that was foretold by both Jesus and his apostles.
In regards to Colossians 1:15, the author goes on to say, “The Greek word used here for firstborn is ‘prototokos’, which in this context means ‘preeminent’.”
Well that definition is certainly a part of ‘firstborn’, but what’s being glossed over is that this word is, by definition, inclusive. The firstborn is the first, in terms of time and/or position, of whatever group he is firstborn (in this case, creation). This should be made obvious by looking at the author’s own example:
“While firstborn can mean ‘born first’ in the literal sense, we also see that in the case of Manasseh and Ephraim, that even though Manasseh was born first, Ephraim was called the firstborn due to God’s covenant of promise.”
Still, both Ephraim and Manasseh were a part of the same group, Jacob’s sons. The firstborn could not be someone who was not Jacob’s son! Yet this is precisely how the author is asking his audience to interpret Jesus’ being the firstborn in relation to creation when he concludes that Jesus “was not part of creation itself”. This is akin to him concluding that Ephraim ‘was not part of’ Jacob’s sons, but was still Jacob’s firstborn. Obviously, such a contrived use of that word is found nowhere in scripture and goes against the its intrinsic meaning.
Moreover, the apostle Paul uses ‘firstborn’ again just a few verses later, calling Jesus “the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.” (Col. 1:18; KJV) Did not Jesus have to die and be raised up before he could properly be called “the firstborn from the dead”? Would the author seriously argue that this just means that Jesus is preeminent over the dead?
The other rationale given here is that Paul would have used the Greek word protoktistos if he wanted to call Jesus the first creature. While this sounds good on the surface, it’s actually an anachronistic argument. That word was not in popular use at the time Paul penned the epistle. Yet in the following centuries when it was used, it was used to describe Jesus Christ! For example, Clement of Alexandria uses both prototokos and protoktistos of Jesus, yet most readers wouldn’t even realize this because the English translation of that work renders both as “firstborn”. In other words, the terms are used as synonyms.
Lastly, the author’s objections to the use of the passage found in Proverbs 8 is extremely superficial. He says:
“Of course they miss the obvious that in verse one of the chapter, wisdom is spoken of as a ‘she’. Interestingly enough, they render wisdom as an ‘it’ (New World Translation) instead but in chapter seven they indeed render wisdom as a ‘she’ and ‘sister’. It’s this typical inconsistency that I expect from the Watchtower.”
The gender of pronoun used in the original languages is governed by the gender of the noun for which it’s substituting; so the gender is purely a matter of grammar. The Hebrew word for “wisdom” is feminine, so it’s related pronouns must likewise be feminine. This has no effect on whether or not the passage applies to the Messiah.
Solomon refers to himself as “the congregator” in the book of Ecclesiastes, and this word is feminine. Likewise, the apostle John states that “God is love”, “love” being feminine in Greek. This is not at all unusual.
One has to ask, while the author claims inconsistency on the part of others, is he himself consistent in such criticism by calling out all the many translations that constantly refer to the Holy Spirit as a “he”? After all, the Hebrew word for “spirit” is feminine, making it literally a ‘she’, and the Greek word is neuter, making it an ‘it’. Or is this conversion conveniently overlooked because it happens to agree with the author’s theology?
TJ,
First I would like to thank you for your willingness to go online and discuss Bible issues -which is disobeying the Governing Body, as they don’t approve of online debating- with the various people that come on here; some of which may be considered apostates in your milieu. This shows me that you’re more willing to seek truth than follow the fallible men in Brooklyn, which is refreshing to see of a Jehovah’s Witness. You are a rarity.
You wrote:
Based on the above, I see that you came right out of the gate making assumptions. You charge me with “revising” church history but all I did was mention that the Arian heresy was formally addressed with the Council Of Nicaea. You apparently jumped to the conclusion that I was promoting that this council did “end the matter”, but I was not.
There are a couple of things that I’d like to address here. While my argument of Paul not using “protoktistos” is perhaps not as strong an argument as I thought at the time of this writing, but nevertheless it was in existence at the time of Paul. (I have been informed by a friend who is a native Greek speaker and have also heard scholars mention this) This brings me to my next point, you mention Clement as applying this same word to Jesus. This does two things: it refutes my original argument -which I’m ok with, but would still like to see the context- while at the same time affirming that such language does not undue the Trinitarian position, as he was one. As a ancient native Greek speaker, he understood the language better than both of us. If you would like to talk further, we can talk in my chatroom or Skype. Take care.
Hello Razor Swift and thank you for your response to my critique.
That’s not what I was objecting to. You said in your article above, “It was the rise of this heresy [Arianism] that led to the First Council of Nicaea in 325.” That is revisionism.
The facts support that the early Church Fathers were, by and large, subordinationists, so it’s incorrect to perpetuate the grossly oversimplified idea that early on everyone viewed the Father and Son [and Holy Spirit] as equal and part of a Trinity and then, out of nowhere, a ‘heresy’ arose teaching that the Father was greater than the Son. The quote I provided from Alvan Lamson was to that point.
What really happened was that the Trinity doctrine itself gradually developed over hundreds of years, along a very rocky road, so that that doctrine was what actually ‘arose’. Even Catholics freely admit this:
“The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” — New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 1967, p. 299.
It was not my intention to imply that you thought this council ended things, but rather to give a little context to the significance of that council in its time for those who do believe that.
As for the rest of your post, I have to say I’m a little taken aback that you’ve actually conceded that there is something to what I’ve presented, even if you don’t find it convincing enough to overturn your position. That’s refreshing.
I’d be happy to engage you further on this passage in Colossians, as well as related ones such as Revelation 3:14. I believe there are many points that you may not be aware of that makes my view much stronger than you realize. Just let me know when your chatroom will be open.
Thanks again.
[...] this Razor Swift article in its entirety at Taber’s Truths Rate this:Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLinkedInDiggRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to [...]
[...] this Razor Swift article in its entirety at Taber’s Truths Rate this:Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLinkedInDiggRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to [...]