Jehovah's Witnesses, how do you explain this?

Question

Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to Polycarp in 107 AD, (just before he was martyred) that read in part:

"I pray for your happiness for ever in our God, Jesus Christ ..."

Ignatius of Antioch was appointed Bishop by the Apostle Peter; he was also a disciple of the Apostle John. If he was taught by John that Jesus is God, then why do you insist on following the WBTS's interpretation of John 1:1, instead of John's own understanding of it?

I assure you, there are other VERY early references that say essentially the same thing: that Jesus is God. It's simply untrue that this concept was invented by the Catholic Church, as your organization has taught you.

(To read the entire Epistle, go here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-roberts.html )

Line Dancer, I know you're a JW. Why would you not care that you're possibly dishonoring Jesus?

J.P., you didn't quote the passage. Look at the bottom, second sentence from the end.

Rangedog, Polycarp was ALSO a student of John's. Do you assume John had only one student? And the fact that Polycarp was his student only BOLSTERS my argument -- if Ignatius was wrong, Polycarp would have corrected him. But he never does.

Julia M, the LATER writers (such as Origen) wrote about Catholic doctrine. I'm not talking about these. Ignatius and Polycarp were VERY EARLY CHRISTIANS. By studying what they wrote, we get a wonderful picture of the early Christian Church -- which was NOT Catholic. These writings make one thing very clear: that the early writers believed and were taught that Jesus is God.

Danni, please read my comment to JP. The quote given in his answer is NOT THE CORRECT QUOTE. Read the second sentence from the end. He's quoted from the beginning, I believe. The letter reads exactly as I've quoted it.

2nd comment to Rangedog: you're incorrect about the reason for Polycarp's martyrdom. He was ordered killed by the Roman proconsul and the local Jews -- similar charges as those brought against Jesus. The Trinity had nothing to do with it. Don't believe me? Read a letter from his followers documenting the circumstances of his death:

http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/fathers/ante-nic/polycarp/polmart.htm

Second comment to Julia: You're going off topic, but to address your question, Protestants do not dispute the reference to "flesh" and "blood" in the Last Supper. We just don't believe it was LITERALLY His flesh and LITERALLY His blood. Your quote doesn't support the notion that Ignatius thought this, either. He called the flesh "Jesus Christ" and the blood "incorruptible love" -- so it's obvious to me that he's using symbolism.

Answer 1

I was appalled to read a series of partial quotes of the early church fathers (in the Wt.Soc booklet Should You Believe In The Trinity?) that gave the impression they did NOT believe Jesus was God. Justin Martyr (died circa 165) actually said it was Christ who spoke to Moses, and that "The Father of all has a Son, who is both the Firstborn Word of God and is God." Irenaeus (died circa 200) said of Christ, "He is Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and Only begotten and Incarnate Word.. .The Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were mere man." Tertullian (died circa 230) said "The only man without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God." Hippolytus (died circa 235) said, "Only His Word is from Himself, and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God." Origen (died circa 250) said, "Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God."

Poor JWs. They have been given cobbled quotes by their leaders, yet without sufficient references for them to check the quotes out for themselves. I provide all my references below and all any thinking JW has to do is get hold of them and start reading. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Answer 2

the Person of the Godhead who became a flesh-and-blood human being was "the God of the Old Testament." However, this statement needs some clarification. First, the word God can be used in reference to the Godhead (the Father and the Son together). It can also be used in reference to either Person of the Godhead. Thus, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Family consisting of Father and Son is God. When we say that the Person who later became Jesus Christ was "the God of the Old Testament," we mean that the Member of the God Family (or Godhead) who appeared to and spoke with the ancients was the One who later came in the flesh. Actually, it is correct to say that God the Father was the God of the Old Testament. The Logos, or "Word" (John 1:1), served as His Agent, or Spokesman, who acted on behalf of the Supreme Sovereign. That both were involved in creation is seen in Genesis 1:26 and in John 1:13. Genesis 1:26 states, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." John 1:13 states: "In the beginning was the Word [the Logos], and the Word was with God [the Father], and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made." Thus, both divine Persons participated in creation. Both are "God," though they differ functionally. Notice that Hebrews 1:1 says that God spoke to the prophets "in divers manners." One of the "diverse manners" in which the Father spoke to the prophets was through the One who later came in the flesh. When God sent His Son, the Son spoke to His disciples directly, without the use of prophets.

By the way i am not a JW.

Answer 3

that's important that each and every person is conscious that "new easy" which a word that's only used an exceedingly few circumstances, isn't approximately including to the scriptures. It potential that we understand that some thing that we could have been doing that develop into unscriptural, we are no longer from now on doing. there develop right into a time as quickly as we celebrated holiday journeys that had a pagan foundation. we don't try this from now on. there develop right into a time as quickly as we observed as people who take the lead interior the congregation by a identify, like Pastor. we don't try this anymore, after thinking and meditating approximately scriptures that say that we ought to continually no longer. We as quickly as concept that 1914 develop into going to deliver the top of this technique of issues. we don't anymore., even even though it remains sparkling that that's a scripturally marked 12 months. a number of the adjustments are no longer important. We believe that the Bible is the be attentive to God, and that Jesus Christ is the only begotten first born son of Jehovah. We by no potential believed that any e book that we or all people else has written previous the scriptures is direct revelation from God, no longer from now on. If we set up some thing, that's to deliver us closer to the earliest maximum precise manuscripts of the Bible - by no potential because of the fact some human in our day stated that God advised him that this or that's genuine. So whilst human beings say that we do, they are not telling the fact. that's been this type in our literature and with the aid of the various years that I particularly have been dedicated to Jehovah

Answer 4

John 1:1 - In [the] beginning the Word was,
Greek: the Logos [the Word]

and the Word was with God [Almighty]
Greek: en pros ton The‧on
′
and the Word was a god.
Greek: the‧os instead of ton The‧on

The word Jesus is a god, small "g". This was proven at the dig site that is 700 years older then Ignatius at Megiddo.

One of several inscriptions on the mosaic floor in ancient Greek said the building was dedicated to "the memory of the god Jesus Christ".

Also note...no pagan crosses but two fish. The pagan cross was not adopted into the church until Nicaea.

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/arts/2005/11/07/mosaic372.jpg

Answer 5

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “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.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299

The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”—(1976), Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.

Now to speak to that directly. If a passage can grammatically be translated in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Bible. If a person ignores other portions of the Bible and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular verse, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but his own ideas and perhaps those of another imperfect human.

John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Is the rendering “a god” consistent with the rules of Greek grammar? Some reference books argue strongly that the Greek text must be translated, “The Word was God.” But not all agree. In his article “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Philip B. Harner said that such clauses as the one in John 1:1, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos.” He suggests: “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.’” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 85, 87) Thus, in this text, the fact that the word the·os´ in its second occurrence is without the definite article (ho) and is placed before the verb in the sentence in Greek is significant. Interestingly, translators that insist on rendering John 1:1, “The Word was God,” do not hesitate to use the indefinite article (a, an) in their rendering of other passages where a singular anarthrous predicate noun occurs before the verb. Thus at John 6:70, JB and KJ both refer to Judas Iscariot as “a devil,” and at John 9:17 they describe Jesus as “a prophet.”

John J. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated ‘the word was with the God [= the Father], and the word was a divine being.’”—(Brackets are his. Published with nihil obstat and imprimatur.) (New York, 1965), p. 317.

In harmony with the above, AT reads: “the Word was divine”; Mo, “the Logos was divine”; NTIV, “the word was a god.” In his German translation Ludwig Thimme expresses it in this way: “God of a sort the Word was.” Referring to the Word (who became Jesus Christ) as “a god” is consistent with the use of that term in the rest of the Scriptures. For example, at Psalm 82:1-6 human judges in Israel were referred to as “gods” (Hebrew, ’elo·him´; Greek, the·oi´, at John 10:34) because they were representatives of Jehovah and were to speak his law.

It certainly is true that your Constantine and his group of 'pious' men wanted greatly to fuse pagan worship with Christianity to widen their power base in Rome. So, through this apostate group we were given many false doctrines of men, and not God, the trinity foremost. But you're right that they didn't make it up, pagans have been worshiping triune gods since Babylon.

Answer 6

Point of order: The complete quote --

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Srayrn ans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness. "

Your wording implies he was calling Jesus God, but the wording at the site you give indicates he was drawing a distinction.

As I understand Roman custom, the head of the household was the Master, and the Lord was his most trusted servant or friend (a viceroy, in otherwords). As such, I would interpret this as indicative of refering to Jesus as secondary, not co-primary.

--------

Ah, I see the version you quoted now. Apologies for that. I retract my objection.

--------

On further consideration... I still retract my objection, but consider this document incapable of indicating conclusively his belief in this one matter, because of inconsistencies in reference.

Do you have any other documents from him that indicate his co-primacy beliefs?

Also, I notice here that he never mentions Parakletos. So even if it establishes coprimacy, it fails to provide enough to support asserting he was a Trinitarian.

-----

Danni:

Sola Sciptura is non-Biblical.

Indeed, the Bible would not even exist were it not for men who were not mentioned in the Bible. The canon was not set until nearly three hundred years after Jesus's death, by means of voting... and not one of the votes was unanimous, which calls into question claims of Divine Inspiration.

Like it or not, Christianity cannot escape Tradition.

Answer 7

First it is well documented that the bible doesn’t teach a trinity. Even the Catholic Church is honest enough to say it.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “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.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

Notice: ‘Among the Apostolic Fathers, (this would include John) there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.’

What about ‘Ignatius’? Are his letters authentic? What is the total understanding Ignatius had of Jesus and God the Father?

Ignatius did not say that the Son was equal to God the Father in such ways or in any other. Instead, he showed that the Son is in subjection to the One who is superior, Almighty God.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.9 He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”10 And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”11

Ignatius shows that the Son was not eternal as a person but was created, for he has the Son saying: “The Lord [Almighty God] created Me, the beginning of His ways.”12 Similarly, Ignatius said: “There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’ and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, ‘by whom are all things.’”

“There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which proceeded from silence and in every respect pleased him [God] who sent him. . . . Jesus Christ was subject to the Father.”15

Even though Ignatius may have said ‘God the Word’ Again please be reminded in Greek there isn’t the indirect article nor were there capitalization. This phrase could be translated into English various ways and still be correct.

Example: “god the word”, “god the Word” even “powerful one the Word” or “mighty one the Word” All are correct English translation of Ignatius words.

However, are the 15 letters attributed to Ignatius accepted as authentic? In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, editors Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson state:
“It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age . . . and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries.”

“Of the seven Epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius . . . , we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. . . . Although the shorter form . . . had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity.”

Though we can not fully trust the writings of Ignatius, we can trust what John wrote.

What was happening even during John’s life time?

1 John 2: 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and, just as YOU have heard that antichrist is coming, EVEN NOW (caps / italics added) there have come to be many antichrists;

26 These things I write YOU about those who are trying to mislead YOU.

John tells us that even in his day, there were those teaching wrong things about Jesus. This is in agreement with Paul at: Acts 20:29.

This means we cannot fully trust what 1st and 2nd century ‘Christian’ writers said or didn’t say.

Answer 8

I wasn't aware that Peter "appointed" anyone as a bishop- in fact, he and the other apostles always referred to themselves as "fellow slaves" and as peers, not superiors, of the first century congregations. There were bodies of servants who ministered to the congregations, but there was absolutely NO hierarchy as there is in the Catholic Church.

Interesting . . . . I suppose it's easy for you to rely on a mistranslation of ONE SCRIPTURE and ignore the dozens of others that CLEARLY STATE that Jesus and Jehovah are two separate and UNEQUAL people. Very interesting . . . .

And everyone who can pick up a history book is aware of how the Catholic Church was started (by Constantine, NOT Peter) and how many pagan rituals and beliefs were incorporated.

*NO, the first writings of the TRUE congregations are found in the Bible- not Catholic writings by "wolves in sheep's clothing." It is noted as well that your references are all by people not mentioned in the Bible and that the dates are after the death of the apostles.*

Answer 9

Polycarp was killed in the year 150 because he did not accept the trinity.
I'm pretty sure your info is wrong.

Also it was Polycarp that was a student of a disciple of John.

Your info also dates everything quite earlier.

Answer 10

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was not God, but an angel.
True Christians believe Jesus was God.

Jesus is Almighty God manifest in the flesh.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. John 1:1-3

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:5-7
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:5-7
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15) If you stop here and listen to what you are told this means you could fall trap to this think of jesus is not God. if you keep reading what the bible says after this verse you will not think you will know Jesus is God.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Colossians 1:15-17
Here is the big verse you are missing to Think Jesus was Born and not God: And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Colossians 1:18 This verse tells us that Jesus was firstborn from the dead and Jesus is the beginning.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15) So, this verse just means Jesus is first born of the dead. It proves He was God and was risen from the dead in verse Colossians 1:18

Answer 11

Suzanne

I have found the early church fathers epistles to contain error and unscriptural content. There is a reason they have not been included in the canon of the bible.

However, Your challange to JW's. It is better for you to use scritpures such as Isaiah 12:2 and read it in the Hebrew which doesn't have pesky little is's and has's and such and pretty much says at the very beginning Hinney El Yeshua, translated Behold God Yeshua. It goes on to say Trust in and fear Yah Yahweh my strength and song of praise He becomes Yeshua. Find a Rabbi who can read to you the hebrew and verify what I've just told you.

However this isn't taught much because it goes against most established doctrine. It is a great witnessing tool to our Jewish brethern by the way. They will accuse you of tricking them if they read it outloud to you of proclaiming Yeshua as God. For those of you who will say Yeshua (salvation) is a thing not a person?

Isaiah 62:11 Behold, the Yahweh hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, Yeshua cometh; behold, HIS reward is with HIM, and his work before HIM.

Yeshua is God Yahweh in the flesh come to earth. He is our strength and our song of praise. He brings His reward with Him. He revealed the Father to us. We don't worship a triune God we worship the One God Of Israel who is Yahweh our Yeshua. Once you grasp this concept, it will pop up over and over again in your readings. A really good bible study tool I use. I cross out LORD in my bible and put in the proper Hebrew word Either Yah or Yahweh and I check out the places where the scribes have changed it to Adonai and cross out Lord and put in Yahweh. I also cross out referances to salvation and deliverance and put in the proper hebrew word which in 95% of the time Yeshua.

Sister I appreciate your dedication in seeking the truth. I'm glad your here.