Bible writers teach monotheism and identify the Father as the one God

[LionHeart777]

"'You Roman Catholics,' says the Jehovah’s Witness at the door, 'claim the Bible teaches your doctrines, yet your own theologians deny this.

'A Catholic priest, John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, shows how the Trinity, for instance, is not a Bible doctrine.'"

(http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp)(accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

"The Witnesses also attack another doctrine, the divinity of Christ, using McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible. Reasoning From the Scriptures tries to bolster the Witnesses' translation of John 1:1 ('the Word was a god') with the following quotation from McKenzie's entry on God: 'John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They're willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.'"
(Ibid.)

I believe that this is your beloved McKenzie. This article might be a beneficial read for any Catholic viewing this thread.

"Groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses don't flinch at mistranslating even the Bible itself, so it's not surprising they feel free to misuse the writings of people of faiths other than their own. When dealing with the Witnesses, the best approach is expressed in the words of Jesus: 'Be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves' (Matt. 10:16)."

(ibid.)

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Dan, all I can see that this passage shows is that according to Justin, God the Father never came to earth. Well, of that I plead ignorance. I do know that God the Son came to earth, was crucified under Pontius Pilate to redeem mankind at now sits at the right hand of the Father. I do also know from what I can tell, God Holy Spirit came to earth and does now indwell the elect.

Dan:
How is that possible that you did not see the part that I bolded for your comment? You have not commented on it. Please do.

you must not imagine that the unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place, wherever that is, quick to behold and quick to hear, having neither eyes nor ears, but being of indescribable might; and He sees all things, and knows all things, and none of us escapes His observation; and He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with any one, or be seen by any one, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth

Do you see all the reasons why Justin said the Father could not have been on the earth? At the same time he distinguishes between Father and Son and all these things are true of the Son including not existing before the world was made. From what I have read recently Justin held to the view that the Son was "in" the Father until a point in time when the Father begot him as a person for the purpose of creation. That is two-stage Christology. In this way one can consider the Son to be God and eternal but at the same time support verses like Pr 8:22 where in the Greek LXX he was created before the world for the purpose of being the master worker.



As for Fisher, I don't know who he is. Is he a Bishop? Is he Pope? Is he a Doctor of the Church or an Early Church Father? Is he a Saint? What claim to Apostolic succession does Fisher have? Is he even a Catholic? Is he an Orthodox Christian or Protestant?

Dan:
Fisher is a well known Patristics scholar. I suppose he has as little credibility with you as does and ECF or a Bishop or a Pope I used his reference to show that this was not my interpretation alone but that an expert in the field holds this view.

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

"'You Roman Catholics,' says the Jehovah’s Witness at the door, 'claim the Bible teaches your doctrines, yet your own theologians deny this.

'A Catholic priest, John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, shows how the Trinity, for instance, is not a Bible doctrine.'"

(http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9004fea.asp)(accessed 9/ 03/ 09)

"The Witnesses also attack another doctrine, the divinity of Christ, using McKenzie's Dictionary of the Bible. Reasoning From the Scriptures tries to bolster the Witnesses' translation of John 1:1 ('the Word was a god') with the following quotation from McKenzie's entry on God: 'John 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'"

The Witnesses believe John 1:1 teaches Jesus was a lesser god, but not the Almighty God. They're willing to say Christ was (and is) a divine being, but not the supremely Divine Being. Their citation of McKenzie is an attempt to show how even a Catholic Scripture scholar admits John 1:1 teaches this.'"
(Ibid.)

I believe that this is your beloved McKenzie. This article might be a beneficial read for any Catholic viewing this thread.

"Groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses don't flinch at mistranslating even the Bible itself, so it's not surprising they feel free to misuse the writings of people of faiths other than their own. When dealing with the Witnesses, the best approach is expressed in the words of Jesus: 'Be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves' (Matt. 10:16)."

(ibid.)

Looks like fiction to me

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Dan, I should tell you up front that I am going to be very skeptical of you interpretations of Scripture. I most definitely am not comfortable with someone who holds to the interpretation of John 1:1 that you do giving an exposition of Sacred Scripture.

If you want to believe that St. Justin believed that Jesus was a creature or was not God, that is your prerogative. I don't think you have a good case, especially in light of the fact that he calls Him God.

I don't think you will be able to "hijack" the rest of the ECF's regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

I have already shown you from your own source where Justin calls the Father Creator and distinguishes him from the Son on that basis. In a recent post I explain how some early theologians viewed the Son as being "in" the Father and that he was brought forth as a personal being for the purpose of creation. That explains how they consider him to be "God" and "eternal" but yet had a beginning. I don't have time to hunt down references for this right now. You may find some on your own if you like. This thread is dragging on way longer than its import considering that I don't claim any ECF taught exactly like the Apostles or like Jehovah's Witnesses.

For that matter he does not teach as do modern day Catholics who evidently consider that the Son is the Creator.

Do you recall the link and text I supplied you? Do you agree that Justin does not consider the Son to be the Creator?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01285.htm

Chapter 60. Opinions of the Jews with regard to Him who appeared in the bush

Trypho: We do not perceive this from the passage quoted by you, but [only this], that it was an angel who appeared in the flame of fire, but God who conversed with Moses; so that there were really two persons in company with each other, an angel and God, that appeared in that vision.

Justin: Even if this were so, my friends, that an angel and God were together in the vision seen by Moses, yet, as has already been proved to you by the passages previously quoted, it will not be the Creator of all things that is the God that said to Moses that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, but it will be He who has been proved to you to have appeared to Abraham, ministering to the will of the Maker of all things, and likewise carrying into execution His counsel in the judgment of Sodom; so that, even though it be as you say, that there were two—an angel and God—he who has but the smallest intelligence will not venture to assert that the Maker and Father of all things, having left all supercelestial matters, was visible on a little portion of the earth.

[LionHeart777]

Dan, I'll have to look at all of this, there is quite a bit to interact w/.

quick ? Do you believe that the Patristic evidence is on your side regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ? i.e. that He is in fact God.

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

Dan, I'll have to look at all of this, there is quite a bit to interact w/.

quick ? Do you believe that the Patristic evidence is on your side regarding the Divinity of Jesus Christ? i.e. that He is in fact God.

What I see is that from the 2nd century onward the writings of theologians started to incorporate Greek philosophy and that their doctrine evolved for centuries until the doctrine of the Trinity was fully developed. The closer one gets back to the first century, the more similar their views are to Jehovah's Witnesses and what the Apostles and inspired writers actually wrote in context.

In addition the Patristic writings are not represented by as many manuscripts and have in some cases been tampered with.

Therefore I value the Patristic evidence as historical documents that need to be interpreted properly

[LionHeart777]

I have already shown you from your own source where Justin calls the Father Creator and distinguishes him from the Son on that basis.

If that is so, and I will admit that Justin does seem to call the Father Creator, that doesn't mean that St. Justin doesn't call Christ God, for he clearly does..as does John the Apostle. IMO, it is the JW's who do all sorts of "bobbing and weaving" to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Shall I cite Patristic sources on John 1?

the fact that you brushed off the article I cited regarding JW's misquoting sources (even specifically McKenzie on John 1) gives me pause. The claims made in that tract of how JW's misquote people is very pertinent to the current conversation, as you have already cited him in this thread to bolster you interpretation of John 1.

St. Ignatius was a JW too?

The closer one gets back to the first century, the more similar their views are to Jehovah's Witnesses and what the Apostles and inspired writers actually wrote in context.

Like Jesus being Michael the archangel?
Cite me 1 ECF who holds that view..you accuse the ECF's of invention regarding the Trinity yet you hold such a view of Jesus Christ?

Is it not possible that the ECF's used Greek philosophy as a means to communicate Christianity?

Did not John employ the term Logos? Even Gibbon pointed that out in his "Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire."

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Logos:

"The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions which, under various titles, have exercised a certain influence on Christian theology, and of which it is necessary to say something."

From: (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm) (accessed 09/ 04/ 09.)

[Dan Parker]

[quote=LionHeart777;5655760]If that is so, and I will admit that Justin does seem to call the Father Creator, that doesn't mean that St. Justin doesn't call Christ God, for he clearly does..as does John the Apostle. IMO, it is the JW's who do all sorts of "bobbing and weaving" to disregard the plain meaning of the text. Shall I cite Patristic sources on John 1?

Dan:
I don't claim Justin for my own, you do. If you want to discuss the text, lets do it.

LionHeart777
the fact that you brushed off the article I cited regarding JW's misquoting sources (even specifically McKenzie on John 1) gives me pause. The claims made in that tract of how JW's misquote people is very pertinent to the current conversation, as you have already cited him in this thread to bolster you interpretation of John 1.

Dan:
I brushed it off because it is nothing I have ever experienced and I have been knocking on doors for over 50 years. It does not ring true. Why not address what I explicitly wrote in the article on McKenzie in my signature. I state that I quote McKenzie to support the translation "a god" and not the interpretation. In fact I did not bring up John 1:1, a Catholic brought it up. They indicated that the translation was not correct. I use McKenzie to show it is a valid way to translate the text and at the same time acknowledge he interprets it differently. No JW would ever bring up John 1:1 as a proof-text of our theology. It is a red-herring that is brought up by those who criticize us. That is why your article does not seem realistic. Now, could someone bring up McKenzie AFTER John 1:1 is brought up to them. YES! I have experience that.

LionHeart777
St. Ignatius was a JW too?

Dan:
I don't claim either to be JW. I do see that the earlier one goes back in time to the 2nd century the theologians are closer to our theology that later.

LionHeart777
Like Jesus being Michael the archangel?
Cite me 1 ECF who holds that view..you accuse the ECF's of invention regarding the Trinity yet you hold such a view of Jesus Christ?

Dan:
JWs do believe Jesus and Michael are the same person. However we are not dogmatic on that belief and don't build other doctrines on it. For example we claim this as proof that Jesus was created. As for what ECF's teach, that is not a good criteria, and here is why. Your Church selects the ECF for what they taught and decides if they should be considered Fathers or not. Therefore you stack the deck with that challenge!

As for angel-Christology, it is quite well documented that many theologians of the 2nd century considered Christ to be an angel. The LXX at Isaiah 9:6 calls him the angel of great counsel and even the Fathers quoted that.

So the identification of the Son as an angel is quite secure. Justin considered him to be such, and in the sense of one that ministers to the Creator and not as a theophany.

Why did Justin call him God? And how did he call him God? I would need to see the Greek to answer that completely, but I have recently read that Justin believed, as did others of his time, that the Son was "in" the Father until he was created as a personal being for the creation of the universe. Therefore someone can consider the Son to be God in that sense and also eternal in sense while allowing for him to have a beginning.

[LionHeart777]

As for angel-Christology, it is quite well documented that many theologians of the 2nd century considered Christ to be an angel.

to the exclusion of Him being God?

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

to the exclusion of Him being God?

Remember, the Anti-Nicene Fathers wrote in Greek. JWs do not exclude the LOGOS from being QEOS. That is what is stated in the last clause of John 1:1 and we accept that. The question is how is that to be interpreted, not whether or not it is true.

[LionHeart777]

As for what ECF's teach, that is not a good criteria, and here is why. Your Church selects the ECF for what they taught and decides if they should be considered Fathers or not. Therefore you stack the deck with that challenge!

The ECF's were part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded, as proved by Apostolic succession. It's not like there were a bunch of denominations and Catholics just picked the Christians that agreed w/ their Theology..like Catholicism came later. That is not true as the Catholic Church in the world was established by Christ and the apostles. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John himself. St. Ignatius was a contemporary of the former and St. Polycarp had Ignatius' epistles forwarded on to other Churches or another Church. That is historical fact. All of these people, St. Justin, all the ante-Nicene (and all ECF's) were part of the same organization-which happened to be the Catholic Church. This is before the "Great Schism", as Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic succession of the Eastern and I believe other Orthodox Churches.

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

The ECF's were part of the Church that Jesus Christ himself founded, as proved by Apostolic succession. It's not like there were a bunch of denominations and Catholics just picked the Christians that agreed w/ their Theology..like Catholicism came later. That is not true as the Catholic Church in the world was established by Christ and the apostles. St. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John himself. St. Ignatius was a contemporary of the former and St. Polycarp had Ignatius' epistles forwarded on to other Churches or another Church. That is historical fact. All of these people, St. Justin, all the ante-Nicene (and all ECF's) were part of the same organization-which happened to be the Catholic Church. This is before the "Great Schism", as Catholics acknowledge the Apostolic succession of the Eastern and I believe other Orthodox Churches.

That is easy for you to say now, but during the earlier days there was considerable debate about doctrine such as the nature of God and Christ. For centuries the definition of who was orthodox and who was heretic changed back and forth. Athanasius prevailed, then was exiled. Athanasius came back and Arians were subdued.... back and forth, forth and back... well you get the picture. At the time Origen lived he was highly respected. Now he is considered less than orthodox for some doctrines. This is all documented in the histories. I suggest you read up on them. Eusebius is a good place to start.

[Tomster]

Dan,

One of the most vital questions in the Gospels is, "What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42). Christians have ever replied to that with the unhesitating proclamation of faith, "The Son of the Living God." But not so with Jehovah's witnesses.

Witnesses agree that Christ existed before He was born into this world, but say that He was himself only a creature - the first creature made by God and used as an instrument for the creation of all else. C.T. Russell tells us that he was "Michael the Archangel"! When, millenniums after his creation, this creature became man, his nature was completely changed from angelic and spiritual to material and human. "In obedience to God, he gave up his spiritual being and was born of Mary as a wholly human being." Apparently that was the end of Michael the Archangel, a fact St. John unfortunately forgot when writing his Apocalypse, for he has Michael still existing side by side with the Christ into whom Russell declared him to have been transformed!

But, let us go on. When Christ died on the Cross, according to Witnesses, he was merely a man, and his death was the end of him; completely and absolutely the end. But a "spirit-being" emerged from the tomb, to be come "a" god, not "the" God; which apparently was better that being Michael the Archangel who had existed in the first place.

This doctrine that Christ was three consecutive and independent beings, Michael the Archangel, the man Jesus, and the semi-divine king of the new world, is certainly not Christian doctrine, whatever else it may be. Most intelligent people will rightly estimate it as fantastic nonsense.

And what becomes of the basic fact in the Christian religion - the resurrection of Christ? "If Christ be not risen," says St. Paul, "then your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that he is risen. "The man Christ," you say, "is dead forever." "The Person who died," Russell tells us, "remained dead, and he will never be seen again in his human nature." What became of his body? Russell says no one knows. He suggests that possibly it was dissolved into gases, OR supernaturally removed by God to be preserved until He chooses to produced it as a grand memorial or trophy of Christ's work. But it will be only a material corpse.

But we are told not to worry. If Christ is not risen in the long accepted Christian sense of the word, he was raised a "spirit being," receiving immortality and divinity as a gift from God. It is all very baffling. If the "person who died remained dead," who was the person receiving immortality and divinity? If God created a new being to enjoy those privileges, then that new being wasn't Christ but somebody else! Yet Russel goes on to say that Christ, despite his remaining dead, returned to his disciples after the resurrection in separate "body-appearnces" specially created for each occasion!

At the ascension Russell tells us that Jesus, no longer human was exalted as a "sprit-being" to the divine nature; and that he remains an invisible spirit, having no longer any connection with our human nature. But if "the person who died remained dead," Jesus is not merely no longer human - he is no longer in existence! Russell may have been able to think in such queer ways; but had no right to pretend that he was giving his followers anything like the genuine New Testament doctrine.

[Dan Parker]

Originally Posted by Tomster

Dan,

One of the most vital questions in the Gospels is, "What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?" (Matthew 22:42). Christians have ever replied to that with the unhesitating proclamation of faith, "The Son of the Living God." But not so with Jehovah's witnesses.

Witnesses agree that Christ existed before He was born into this world, but say that He was himself only a creature - the first creature made by God and used as an instrument for the creation of all else. C.T. Russell tells us that he was "Michael the Archangel"! When, millenniums after his creation, this creature became man, his nature was completely changed from angelic and spiritual to material and human. "In obedience to God, he gave up his spiritual being and was born of Mary as a wholly human being." Apparently that was the end of Michael the Archangel, a fact St. John unfortunately forgot when writing his Apocalypse, for he has Michael still existing side by side with the Christ into whom Russell declared him to have been transformed!

But, let us go on. When Christ died on the Cross, according to Witnesses, he was merely a man, and his death was the end of him; completely and absolutely the end. But a "spirit-being" emerged from the tomb, to be come "a" god, not "the" God; which apparently was better that being Michael the Archangel who had existed in the first place.

This doctrine that Christ was three consecutive and independent beings, Michael the Archangel, the man Jesus, and the semi-divine king of the new world, is certainly not Christian doctrine, whatever else it may be. Most intelligent people will rightly estimate it as fantastic nonsense.

And what becomes of the basic fact in the Christian religion - the resurrection of Christ? "If Christ be not risen," says St. Paul, "then your faith is in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:17). The Jehovah's Witnesses deny that he is risen. "The man Christ," you say, "is dead forever." "The Person who died," Russell tells us, "remained dead, and he will never be seen again in his human nature." What became of his body? Russell says no one knows. He suggests that possibly it was dissolved into gases, OR supernaturally removed by God to be preserved until He chooses to produced it as a grand memorial or trophy of Christ's work. But it will be only a material corpse.

But we are told not to worry. If Christ is not risen in the long accepted Christian sense of the word, he was raised a "spirit being," receiving immortality and divinity as a gift from God. It is all very baffling. If the "person who died remained dead," who was the person receiving immortality and divinity? If God created a new being to enjoy those privileges, then that new being wasn't Christ but somebody else! Yet Russel goes on to say that Christ, despite his remaining dead, returned to his disciples after the resurrection in separate "body-appearnces" specially created for each occasion!

At the ascension Russell tells us that Jesus, no longer human was exalted as a "sprit-being" to the divine nature; and that he remains an invisible spirit, having no longer any connection with our human nature. But if "the person who died remained dead," Jesus is not merely no longer human - he is no longer in existence! Russell may have been able to think in such queer ways; but had no right to pretend that he was giving his followers anything like the genuine New Testament doctrine.

Apparently you have a problem understanding how Christ could be the same person before and after his resurrection without his body. Back up a moment and ask yourself what was Christ like before he became flesh? He asked to be glorified with the glory he had in the presence of the Father (John 17:5) before the world began. He did not have a human body then. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that he got what he prayed for.

[Tomster]

Originally Posted by Dan Parker

Apparently you have a problem understanding how Christ could be the same person before and after his resurrection without his body. Back up a moment and ask yourself what was Christ like before he became flesh? He asked to be glorified with the glory he had in the presence of the Father (John 17:5) before the world began. He did not have a human body then. Jehovah's Witnesses teach that he got what he prayed for.

Please, Dan, back up a moment. Jesus could not have been, nor was He ever, Michael the Archangel.

I suggest you really re-read my previous post and think it through. It completely and succinctly refutes the JW position.