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

[LionHeart777]

So if you just agree that it is plausible that Jesus is Michael but that this does not mean that he is not God or that he was created, perhaps we can put this thread to rest.

I personally don’t think that it’s plausible and I guess I don’t take Melito’s comments as you do. But I will say that it appears to have been plausible to Calvin and that that didn’t “…mean that he is not God or that he was created…” to him.

I apoligize again, i feel I may have been a bit harsh and unkind. I know I have passion on such topics and I believe that you may too.

Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

These were helpful clarifications from the other thread that you started, Dan, on Melito:
(I feel that they are relevant to this thread as well)

" In this case, the words angels and archangel are probably being used in the general sense of messengers and chief-messenger bringing God’s words to mankind, as St. John the Baptist is called an angel (aggelon) in Matthew 11:10, Mark 1:2, and Luke 1:76 and not being used to refer only to those creatures who were created as pure spirits and who sometimes bring God’s words to mankind." Todd Easton (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=373768)

"…As Todd already pointed out, the Greek angelos has a more general meaning, extending beyond the spiritual beings we call angels - in Greek it can and does refer to mere humans, as in John the Baptist’s case (cf. Mark 1:2).

As an aside, perhaps you know about Isaiah 9:6 (‘For unto us a child is born…’). The Greek Septuagint renders the verse thus:

For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us,
Whose government is upon his shoulder:
And his name is called 'Messenger of Great Counsel' (Megalēs Boulēs Angelos),
For I will bring peace upon the rulers,
Peace and health to him.

Ever since the early days (from Justin and Irenaeus), it is traditionally accepted that the title does refer to Jesus (there are even icons showing Christ as the Angel of Great Counsel, complete with wings!*)- but the Fathers understood the term in the ‘functional’ sense; the term angelos is here interpreted to mean that Christ is a ‘Messenger’ of God. There is a huge gap into saying that Christ is an angelos by function and an angelos by nature…" (Patrick 457) ((forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=373768)

These helped me to clarify what is going on in the ECF’s regarding them referring to Christ as Angel while still holding on to the confession that He is God.

If you want we could close this one, however, I would like to add in the evidence that shows that both the ECF’s and the Bible refer to the fact that the Son indeed create the world.

 

[Tomster]

I have read it. This is not a JW position, see my list of scholars like John Calvin and the editors of the Geneva bible for examples.

Well, Dan, if what I presented to you in my previous post is not now the JW position you must admit that it once was. This is just one example of the ever shifting positions of JW tradition. It is just an example of what was true one day is no longer true today. There are other examples of JW traditions that I could cite.

 

[LionHeart777]

I personally don’t think that it’s plausible ‘that Jesus is Michael’] and I guess I don’t take Melito’s comments as you do.

Let me correct myself in light of Catholic teaching…I flat out reject the idea that 'Jesus is Michael.'

As the quotes from the other thread show, describing Jesus as “angel” does not refer to His being…as He is God.

So, I absolutely do not think it plausible that “Jesus is Michael”. "…Hebrews 1:6 says, ‘For example, to which of the angels did he [God] ever say: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father’?’ (New World Translation). The answer to the question is, of course, ‘none.’

Thus, if God never called an angel his Son, then Michael–who is an angel–cannot be the Son. The fact that Michael is an archangel does not change anything, as he is still an angel by nature. An archangel is simply a ‘higher order’ of angel, but an angel nonetheless; ‘arch-’ simply means ‘ruling’ or ‘high ranking.’" (catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jehovahs%20Witness) (accessed 9/ 04/ 09) (Emphasis mine)

(above from the Q & A:
‘Is it true Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Michael the archangel and Jesus are the same person?’)

 

[FCEGM]

Catholics teach that the Son is the Creator along with his Father, do they not? Justin was no Catholic. Justin was more of a Jehovah’s Witness, but again I qualify this: I don’t claim he was and that he taught exactly as we do or that there are not significant differences. I bring up Justin because Catholics claim him as their own.

We do claim St. Justin to be our own, but (unlike you and your organization), we recognize that St. Justin was a Catholic Christian who lived in the 2nd Century, and so before the present theological/intellectual language of Trinitarian doctrine was formalized (which it was in response to the Arian error of the 4th Century). So, from the pov of mere form, Justin does not express himself as a modern Catholic Christian would, because he did not have the benefit of Nicene theological language. However, when it comes to substance, St. Justin is very Catholic in his theological understanding. The reason that you do not see this is because you are trying to use St. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho as a proof text for your religion’s beliefs, rather than reading his dialogue in its correct, historical context. In its historical context, St. Justin is interacting with a professed Jew, and so trying to explain the Divinity of the Son in terms that a die-hard Jewish monotheist can understand and accept.

Now, in doing this, it is true that St. Justin takes certain approaches which would make a later, Nicene (i.e., Trinitarian) Christian a little uncomfortable, since what St. Justin says can be interpreted in an Arian way. However, the error of Arianism (the denial of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father) had not raised its ugly head as yet (and would not for another two centuries), so Arianism and later JW “theology” are not even “on the table” here. What is “on the table” is the early Church’s belief that the Son is God, juxtaposed against the Jewish and equally-Christian belief that there is only One God. Therein lies the key to understanding St. Justin in historical context, as opposed to introducing anachronism and JW embracing of the same. For, St. Justin in no sense implies (as Arians believe) that there is more than one God. If St. Justin had expressed such a belief, his dialogue with Trypho would have come to a sudden and abrupt end, since Trypho would have (quite correctly) cast St. Justin’s faith as a species of pagan-style polytheism, and thereby established that Christianity cannot be reconciled with Mosaic Judaism. However, Trypho never does any such thing, for he sees no reason to do so. Rather, the dialogue continues because (and for the very reason that) St. Justin’s argument is, not that there is more than one God, but that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves recognize that the Oneness of God is, and can be, expressed in a pluralistic sense (i.e., the Church’s organic understanding of the Trinity).

Further, your own (faulty) approach plays directly into this principal, because, above you ask if the Catholic Church teaches that the Son is the Creator along with the Father. You then say that we do. But, it depends on what you mean by “Creator” and in what sense, for, in our Creed, we Catholics identify the Father alone as the Creator:

“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.”

But, we also recognized, in this same Creed, that all things were made in and through the eternal Son:

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ …One in Being with the Father, through Whom all things were made.”

We, of course, here are merely echoing the teaching of John 1:3, which says exactly the same thing:

“Through Him (the Word / the Son) all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”

You accept and recognize John 1:3 – in your own JW way, as has been earlier discussed. You believe that all things were created through the Son in the same way that we Catholics believe that all things were created through the Son (you just don’t comprehend His being consubstantial with the Creator). St. Justin Martyr believed this too, for he never denies John 1:3; just as we Catholics do in our Creed (and elsewhere), St. Justin (a 2nd Century Catholic) merely distinguishes between the Personal role of the Father as Creator and the “collaborative” role of the Son, through Whom all things were made by the Father. Understood (correctly and honestly) in its historical context; that is all we see at play in St. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Your organization typically fails to grasp Catholic doctrine - and all orthodox Christianity’s -due to a limited understanding of history/orthodoxy.

(And isn’t it interesting that Justin writes to Trypho re Genesis 18:2 that is was the Son Who appeared to Moses, while your New World Translation identifies this encounter as between Jehovah and Abraham?)

 

[LionHeart777]

Hi FCEGM,

thanks for chiming in. Trinitarian Theology is understandably maybe a little difficult to those who haven’t studied it a lotrinity is a mystery , no? I was trying to explain how, in a way, both the Son and the Father can, in a way, both be referred to as the Creator. If by Creator one means the Father, than no. But like Scripture and the ECF’s I believe relay, the Son was the Agent active in Creation-who created. In that sense then, he can be called the Creator. Does that make sense and is it orthodox understanding on my part?

or how about my words here?

For example, I believe I read that the Father is like the mind behind it so to speak, whereas the Son brings forth the Will of the Father. I’m not sure where the Holy Spirit fits in there, or whether this is orthodox, or even if it is a correct paraphrase of what I read from my source; it may or may not be orthodox and/or a correct paraphrase.

Anyway, w/ this in mind, I believe that such an idea would account for some of the things that we have been reading about who was the Creator. Think about it like this…God is One. God is a Trinity (I know you disagree.) Therefore in a sense, I believe that as each Person in the Godhead plays a role in creation…perhaps each can validly be said to have been the Creator. So, I think that maybe this is how to understand things like “…who was Creator with the Father…” ((ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.xv.xix.html)
(accessed 9/ 05/ 09)), that we read in Melito.

thanks,

Nick

 

[FCEGM]

Hi FCEGM,

thanks for chiming in. Trinitarian Theology is understandably maybe a little difficult to those who haven’t studied it a lotrinity is a mystery , no? I was trying to explain how, in a way, both the Son and the Father can, in a way, both be referred to as the Creator. If by Creator one means the Father, than no. But like Scripture and the ECF’s I believe relay, the Son was the Agent active in Creation-who created. In that sense then, he can be called the Creator. Does that make sense and is it orthodox understanding on my part?

or how about my words here?

Quote:

For example, I believe I read that the Father is like the mind behind it so to speak, whereas the Son brings forth the Will of the Father. I’m not sure where the Holy Spirit fits in there, or whether this is orthodox, or even if it is a correct paraphrase of what I read from my source; it may or may not be orthodox and/or a correct paraphrase.

You’re doing good, Nick. The Trinity is definitely a mystery. We can say, though, that it is a Mystery which has been revealed by the Father through the Son, with the Holy Spirit assisting us in assenting in faith to this Mystery. Of course, the entirety of that Mystery will never be fully ours to grasp even in the Beatific Vision (may we all be found in that fulfillment of our Hope!)

What you have said above is in line with what theologians refer to as “appropriation”:

A term relating to the doctrine of the Trinity, which affirms that while all three persons are active in all the outward actions of the Trinity it is appropriate to think of those actions as being the particular work of one of the persons. Thus it is appropriate to think of creation as the work of the Father, or redemption as the work of the Son, despite the fact that all three persons are present and active in both these works.

blackwellpublishing.com/mcgrath/Glossary_of_Theological_Terms.pdf

I made mention of this in another thread:

Of course Yahweh is the Father and the Father made all things through the Son, Who Himself, Being God, IS Wisdom, as the Father Is. The Son, Who IS eternally the Image of the Father possesses all the Father’s attributes as He Is One In Being with the Father. In speaking of God’s essential attributes they are sometimes appropriated to a Person ( i.e., Wisdom is an attribute appropriated to the Son) not to show the Person as having an attribute exclusive to that Person, but to manifest the working in salvation history of the Persons. Christ is Wisdom not only because He communicates wisdom to men, but because He Himself IS Wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24-30).

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5654100&postcount=97

God bless you!

 

[Dan_Parker]

We do claim St. Justin to be our own, but (unlike you and your organization), we recognize that St. Justin was a Catholic Christian who lived in the 2nd Century, and so before the present theological/intellectual language of Trinitarian doctrine was formalized (which it was in response to the Arian error of the 4th Century). …

Dan:
If you have been reading these threads then you have seen my links to Justin where he distinguishes between the Father and Son, does not consider the Son to be the Creator and also does not think the Father could have been on earth because he is so much greater than the Son. Even years of fine-tuning arguments and incorporating Greek philosophy can’t transform that into something a modern day Catholic can accept.

FCEGM
The reason that you do not see this is because you are trying to use St. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho as a proof text for your religion’s beliefs, rather than reading his dialogue in its correct, historical context. In its historical context, St. Justin is interacting with a professed Jew, and so trying to explain the Divinity of the Son in terms that a die-hard Jewish monotheist can understand and accept.

Now, in doing this, it is true that St. Justin takes certain approaches which would make a later, Nicene (i.e., Trinitarian) Christian a little uncomfortable, since what St. Justin says can be interpreted in an Arian way.

Dan:
How can you say the Son is not the Creator and the Father is so much greater than the Son that he could not have been on the earth and still be Trinitarian? I have a feeling Justin would object to your theology as much as I do.

FCEGM
However, the error of Arianism (the denial of the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father) had not raised its ugly head as yet (and would not for another two centuries), so Arianism and later JW “theology” are not even “on the table” here.
**
Dan:**
Really? Justin touched on that when he said that the Father could not have been on the earth because he was so much greater than the Son. The Son could enter space and time but the Father could not. That prevents them from being the same being, particularly before the incarnation.

FCEGM
What is “on the table” is the early Church’s belief that the Son is God, juxtaposed against the Jewish and equally-Christian belief that there is only One God. Therein lies the key to understanding St. Justin in historical context, as opposed to introducing anachronism and JW embracing of the same. For, St. Justin in no sense implies (as Arians believe) that there is more than one God.

Dan:
Just in case you are not aware, JWs don’t believe all that Arian taught. If you take Arian to mean an absolute monotheism, then yes we are. Jehovah’s Witnesses are MonoPersonalTheists and Catholics are PolyPersonalTheists. We don’t teach there is more than one God. The Son is the representative of God and thus the word elohim/QEOS could properly be used of him. If that word can be used of Moses (Ex 7:1) it can certainly be used of the LOGOS to an even higher degree without believing a second God. And we do consider that only the Father is the Creator just as evidently did Justin.

One of the ways 2nd century apologists could call Jesus God in spite of their believing he had a beginning is their view that the Son was “in” God until he was brought forth as a personal being before the creation of the world. That way he can be “God” and “eternal” but not as a person. That is called the two-stage generation of the Son. I know that is not acceptable to a post-Nicene Trinitarian no matter how the language is nuanced.

FCEGM
If St. Justin had expressed such a belief, his dialogue with Trypho would have come to a sudden and abrupt end, since Trypho would have (quite correctly) cast St. Justin’s faith as a species of pagan-style polytheism, and thereby established that Christianity cannot be reconciled with Mosaic Judaism. However, Trypho never does any such thing, for he sees no reason to do so. Rather, the dialogue continues because (and for the very reason that) St. Justin’s argument is, not that there is more than one God, but that the Hebrew Scriptures themselves recognize that the Oneness of God is, and can be, expressed in a pluralistic sense (i.e., the Church’s organic understanding of the Trinity).

Dan:
I have heard nonsensical arguments about elohim being a plurality but we know that the Hebrew language uses that as an intensive plural. After all Moses in Ex 7:1 was not El or Eloah but Elohim.

FCEGM
Further, your own (faulty) approach plays directly into this principal, because, above you ask if the Catholic Church teaches that the Son is the Creator along with the Father. You then say that we do. But, it depends on what you mean by “Creator” and in what sense, for, in our Creed, we Catholics identify the Father alone as the Creator:

**Dan:
Justin did not consider the Son to be a co-creator either. **

 

[Dan_Parker]

FCEGM
“We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.”

But, we also recognized, in this same Creed, that all things were made in and through the eternal Son:

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ …One in Being with the Father, through Whom all things were made.”

We, of course, here are merely echoing the teaching of John 1:3, which says exactly the same thing:

Dan:
JWs teach that the Father created all things through the Son by means of the holy spirit as well, but we don’t see any bible writer teach that they are the SAME being.

FCEGM
“Through Him (the Word / the Son) all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.”

You accept and recognize John 1:3 – in your own JW way, as has been earlier discussed. You believe that all things were created through the Son in the same way that we Catholics believe that all things were created through the Son (you just don’t comprehend His being consubstantial with the Creator). St. Justin Martyr believed this too, for he never denies John 1:3;

Dan:
An argument from silence? Can I do that too and will you accept it? LOL. I don’t deny John 1:3 either. By the way, did you know that the punctuation as you quote it with the “was made that has been made” was not quoted by the Early Fathers, even Athanasius. They all put a full stop after GEGONEN so that the text reads like the NRSV:

NRS John 1:3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. hO GEGONEN What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

The reason they could quote it that way is because they had a very different view the way the Son was generated as the LOGOS than modern day theologians.

The first person I know of who quotes it like you was Adamantius in 300. I am not aware that Justin ever quotes this passage and yet you claim he accepted it. Would you mind showing me where he quoted it? The reason is that in my UBS4 critical edition is lists the Fathers and how they quoted this verse and he is not listed.

FCEGM
just as we Catholics do in our Creed (and elsewhere), St. Justin (a 2nd Century Catholic) merely distinguishes between the Personal role of the Father as Creator and the “collaborative” role of the Son, through Whom all things were made by the Father. Understood (correctly and honestly) in its historical context; that is all we see at play in St. Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Your organization typically fails to grasp Catholic doctrine - and all orthodox Christianity’s -due to a limited understanding of history/orthodoxy.

Dan:
I agree the Father made all things through the Son because that is what bible writers teach. I don’t consider them to be the same being, and that is something bible writers do not teach. Look at my post from the link in my signature on monotheism and you will see that bible writers always identified the one God as the Father and never as anyone else.

FCEGM
(And isn’t it interesting that Justin writes to Trypho re Genesis 18:2 that is was the Son Who appeared to Moses, while your New World Translation identifies this encounter as between Jehovah and Abraham?)

Dan:
The LXX account of this says that they were three angels. We know from Scripture that God employed angels who spoke in his name.

 

[zerinus]

This post was in another thread and since it has not been addressed and is a bit of a departure from the original thread, I am placing it here. I am interested in how Catholics view the biblical monotheism I presented in this post.

Originally Posted by Danno2281

**
Dan:**
Actually, the question is not whether or not more than one person has been given the title of god is not debatable. Moses was called elohim (Ex 7:1) and there are other examples as well. Since others can have the title of god in a limited way the question arises as to how bible writers express the concept of monotheism.

Monotheism comes from the Greek word MONO (one or only) and QEOS (God). When bible writers establish and articulate the concept of monotheism they frequently modify the word God with hEIS (one) or MONOS (only).

Do a search of all examples in Scripture where this is done and you will find that in many cases not only is the basic concept of monotheism established, but in the very same verse that one God is identified.

Here are some of them:

• NAB Malachi 2:10 )Have we not all the one Father? Has not the one God created us? Why then do we break faith with each other, violating the covenant of our fathers?

•  NAB **1 Corinthians 8:6** yet for us there is **one God, the Father**, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.

•  NAB **Ephesians 4:6 ****one God and Father** of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

•  NAB **1 Timothy 2:5** For there is **one God**. There is also **one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus**, himself human [context mandates the one God is the Father]

•  NAB John 5:43 I came in the name of **my Father,** but you do not accept me; yet if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. 44 How can you believe, when you accept praise from one another and do not seek the praise that comes from **the only God**?

•  NAB Jude 1:25 to **the only God**, our savior, **through Jesus Christ our Lord** be glory, majesty, power, and authority from ages past, now, and for ages to come. Amen. [the one God distinguished from Jesus]

•  NAB John 17:3 Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, **the only true God**, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ. [Jesus praying to his Father]

When bible writers articulate the concept of monotheism they also at the same time frequently identify the Father as that one God.

That is the monotheism of the bible writers and what they teach in context.

Dan

I agree that the Father is depicted in the Bible as the supreme Deity of heaven; but that is not the real sticky bit for JW theology. Where JW theology comes unstuck is when we consider the identity of Jesus Christ vis-à-vis Jehovah, which I have already discussed in this post in my blog. The Bible unmistakably identifies Jesus with Jehovah.

Over on the non-Catholic religions board Randy Carson has started an interesting thread addressed to JWs which you can read here. It raises some interesting question. I had never read the NWT, so I wasn’t aware that it interjects the word Jehovah in those passages. That actually poses a lot more theological complications for the JWs. A careful study of those passages will reveal that nearly all of them in fact refer to Jesus Christ! When I get more time I will write a longer article on that and post it somewhere.

 

[Dan_Parker]

I agree that the Father is depicted in the Bible as the supreme Deity of heaven; but that is not the real sticky bit for JW theology. Where JW theology comes unstuck is when we consider the identity of Jesus Christ vis-à-vis Jehovah, which I have already discussed in this post in my blog. The Bible unmistakably identifies Jesus with Jehovah.

Over on the non-Catholic religions board Randy Carson has started an interesting thread addressed to JWs which you can read here. It raises some interesting question. I had never read the NWT, so I wasn’t aware that it interjects the word Jehovah in those passages. That actually poses a lot more theological complications for the JWs. A careful study of those passages will reveal that nearly all of them in fact refer to Jesus Christ! When I get more time I will write a longer article on that and post it somewhere.

I have already addressed those points. Do a search on my previous posts. As for an angel coming to earth and speaking the words of Jehovah, compare Acts 7:53 and the first chapter and verses of Leviticus such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 …

 

[zerinus]

I have already addressed those points. Do a search on my previous posts.

I am not aware of any satisfactory replies from you to my Blog comments.

As far as your reply to Randy Carson is concerned, given in post #5 of that thread, I have just given a comprenensive reply to it in post #7.

As for an angel coming to earth and speaking the words of Jehovah, compare Acts 7:53 and the first chapter and verses of Leviticus such as 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 …

Not applicable to either my Blog comments, or to the points that Randy had raised. Again I refer to my reply to you in post #7 of his thread.

 

[Dan_Parker]

zerinus:
I am not aware of any satisfactory replies from you to my Blog comments.

Dan:
I have posted directly to your blog.

 

[zerinus]

zerinus:
I am not aware of any satisfactory replies from you to my Blog comments.

Dan:
I have posted directly to your blog.

Thank you. See the reply I gave in the other thread.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Thank you. See the reply I gave in the other thread.

What other thread?

 

[zerinus]

What other thread?

There is only one other thread on this particular board that I am participating in. I meant that one.

 

[jpaul1953]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny the existence of Hell. We also do not confuse Hell (Greek Hades) with Gehenna. If you believe that Hades and Gehenna are the same thing, which is what you say above (in fiery red!) then what about these Catholic Bibles?

This is spoken about Jesus. Did Jesus suffer in Hellfire when he died? Of course not!

I can discuss this at length with you, but the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades are the place where the dead are. Gehenna is figurative of destruction.

The Catholic Catechism as late as 1891 teaches a fiery hell. In 1994 the Catechism now says that hell’s chief punishment is separation from God.

In 1999 Pope John Paul II made headlines by saying that hell should not be seen as a fiery underworld, but as separation from God.

If you are Catholic, why don’t you follow the latest Catholic teaching on this?

Dan

Dear Dan,

First, I know several JW’s in Brooklyn,NY at the Watchtower offices and I have grown to respect both their belief system (of what I know of it) and their respect for decentcy and moral behavior. That said, I am a Catholic and I love the Catholic Church.

My only point in posting is to say that Gehenna was a place where, I believe, trash was burned and it smelled badly. Jesus’ reference to Gehenna as being hell was to make sure that informed people did not want to go there.

I am hopeful that Pope John Paul II’s description of Hell is correct, because I have many times felt that the ‘grinding and gnashing of teeth’ was occurring because the Hell dweller’s made the wrong choice and will remember it for all eternity. I want to believe that a Hell of this nature is horrible enough punishment when speaking in terms of eternity since all sin has been committed in a terminal sense.

I believe your faith teaches that all who have died after around 1935?, since your faith had 144,000 faithful dead members that have gone to Heaven and do see God, the faithful believers will live on the earth (in Paradise) in harmony with their brothers and sisters and all other life that existed on earth, but will not be able to see God.

I am in no way saying that because your faith believes that the first 144,000 are the only ones permitted to see God that being in Paradise is like being in the Hell that Pope John Paul II speaks of. Paradise is the Earthly Heaven in you eyes and I accept that as an article of your faith. I personally do not believe in this ‘physical type of Heaven’, but it is a beautiful concept.

Respectfully,

jpaul1953

 

[Dan_Parker]

There is only one other thread on this particular board that I am participating in. I meant that one.

I have decided to respond to you on your blog.

 

[Dan_Parker]

jpaul1953
Dear Dan,

First, I know several JW’s in Brooklyn,NY at the Watchtower offices and I have grown to respect both their belief system (of what I know of it) and their respect for decency and moral behavior. That said, I am a Catholic and I love the Catholic Church.

Dan:
Thanks for the kind words. I have had many respectful conversations with Catholics over the years.

jpaul1953
My only point in posting is to say that Gehenna was a place where, I believe, trash was burned and it smelled badly. Jesus’ reference to Gehenna as being hell was to make sure that informed people did not want to go there.

Dan:
That is an interesting slant on the place! However what one finds associated with Gehenna is fire, not odor: There is the fiery Gehenna (Mt 5:22, 18:9; Mr 9:33, 45-47; James 3:6) but noticeably absent is the “smelly Gehenna.”

What happens to something when it is thrown into fire? Jesus used fire in another of his illustrations where the “smell” factor is absent.

NJB John 15:6 Anyone who does not remain in me is thrown away like a branch – and withers; these branches are collected and thrown on the fire and are burnt.

The particular form of the Greek word here is said by Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek lexicon (BDAG): **2. to cause someth. to burn so as to be consumed, burn (up) act. trans. ** They cite parallels that include:NJB Job 15:34 Yes, sterile is the spawn of the sinner, and fire consumes the tents of the venal.

In fact Matthew 10:28 makes the point that what is thrown into fire is destroyed.
NAB Matthew 10:28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

We both agree that Gehenna is not the literal garbage dump outside the gates of Jerusalem and that it is symbolic. Jehovah’s Witnesses see it as symbolic of destruction, and indeed fire is used in Scripture as a symbol of destruction as it consumes what it burns.

Best Regards,

 

[zerinus]

I have decided to respond to you on your blog.

Is that some kind of a trick? My Blog deals with only one serious flaw in JW theology (although perhaps the most important one). JW theology is flawed from top to bottom, and from center to circumference. Most of the stuff we have been discussing on these threads have related to other flawed aspects of JW theology. You cannot reply to all of those by just commenting in my Blog.