Yet Another JW Thread

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Early Christian scholar Origen writes:

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.

Firstly, Origen is not considered an orthodox teacher of the faith. He ...[text shortened]... es actually associate Jesus with the archangel Michael. No reputable scholar ever has.[/b]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i gave you the source, they seem perfectly reasonable to me, and as yet your assertions are really less convincing despite your sensationalistic approach! i dont think the watchtower makes a habit of quoting trinitarians with the exception of Vine!

Originally posted by Conrau K
Sure you did. What is the ANF then? I assume this is an abbreviation but what for? These are not very good references if they are completely unintelligible.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i managed to read them!

i do not know what ANF stands for is seems to be a version of Origens principles, as is documented here

http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Appendix1.htm

i never read them from his work, i read them from a site, which i gave the reference to, which had documented them. i am more interested in the content rather than the abbreviations, if you dont mind!

It stands for the Ante Nicene Fathers!

3. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become wicked. As we may say that the nature of every man admits of his being a sailor, but it does not follow from that, that every man will become so; or, again, it is possible for every one to learn grammar or medicine, but it is not therefore proved that every man is either a physician or a grammarian; so, if we say that there is no nature which may not admit evil, it is not necessarily indicated that it has done so. For, in our view, not even the devil himself was incapable of good; but although capable of admitting good, he did not therefore also desire it, or make any effort after virtue. For, as we are taught by those quotations which we adduced from the prophets, there was once a time when he was good, when he walked in the paradise of God between the cherubim. As he, then, possessed the power either of receiving good or evil, but fell away from a virtuous course, and turned to evil with all the powers of his mind, so also other creatures, as having a capacity for either condition, in the exercise of the freedom of their will, flee from evil, and cleave to good. There is no nature, then, which may not admit of good or evil, except the nature of God— the fountain of all good things— and of Christ; for it is wisdom, and wisdom assuredly cannot admit folly; and it is righteousness, and righteousness will never certainly admit of unrighteousness; and it is the Word, or Reason, which certainly cannot be made irrational; nay, it is also the light, and it is certain that the darkness does not receive the light. In like manner, also, the nature of the Holy Spirit, being holy, does not admit of pollution; for it is holy by nature, or essential being. If there is any other nature which is holy, it possesses this property of being made holy by the reception or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature, but as an accidental quality, for which reason it may be lost, in consequence of being accidental. So also a man may possess an accidental righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away. Even the wisdom which a man has is still accidental, although it be within our own power to become wise, if we devote ourselves to wisdom with the zeal and effort of our life; and if we always pursue the study of it, we may always be participators of wisdom: and that result will follow either in a greater or less degree, according to the desert of our life or the amount of our zeal. For the goodness of God, as is worthy of Him, incites and attracts all to that blissful end, where all pain, and sadness, and sorrow fall away and disappear.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
metaphorical for what dear Noobster? and i thought you were my friend and here you are taking sides with my enemies! fast friend indeed! Please state dear Noobster, in your learned opinion, does the text state that the voice emanates from Christ or not?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Neutral opinion, not learned as i don't really care for scriptural matters. I'm always interested to know that the debate is about, but i normally miss the beginning and can't be bothered to scroll back and find out how it started. This time though i caught the beginning.

The text, in my view, implies that Christ has the voice of an archangel. Not tha ...[text shortened]... st is literally an archangel, then you must surely believe that he is carrying God trumpet?!

Originally posted by Conrau K
I cannot find the reference in Origen's De Principiis. What I did find is this:

[quote]3. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become wick ...[text shortened]... good; the latter may be good or evil. He clearly does not regard Jesus as an angel of any sort.

i return from mount Olympus with the nectar of the Gods, drink this Conrau my good man,

http://books.google.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

yes yes, i know you shall weep, and your teeth shall gnash, but there it is my friend, in black and white, Origens commentary on John, page 321 as promised, let us take a moment to reflect on the import of those words again,

"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power."

what is this? why cant i post my reference here in this crappy text editor? word too long? what is that? there is a reference here to google books, i can mail it to you, but i cannot seem to post it in this text editor, i do not know why.

here is an alternative reference to the same work
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html

Also taken from the same work

The Saviour accordingly became, in a diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that He might either gain all or perfect them; it is clear that to men He became a man, and to the angels an angel. As for His becoming man no believer has any doubt, but as to His becoming an angel, we shall find reason for believing it was so, if we observe carefully the appearances and the words of the angels, in some of which the powers of the angels seem to belong to Him. In several passages angels speak in such a way as to suggest this, as when "the angel of the Lord appeared in a flame of fire. And he said. I am the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob." But Isaiah also says: "His name is called Angel of Great Counsel."

particularly of interest is the phrase, an angel to angels, or in other words, an archangel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html

Conrau where are you? come out to play!

also of interest in this regard

Taken from: Barrington, John Shute Barrington (b.1678-d.1734). "An Essay on the Several Dispensations of God to Mankind, in the Order, in Which they lie in the Bible: or, A Short System of the Religion of Natures and Scripture." London, England: Printed for S. Chandler, at the Cross Keys in the Poultry, 1728), p. 130. oclc: 80772986.

"It was the Word, who made all the great appearances and manifestations of God's will to our first parents, to the patriarchs, and to the Israelitish people. But we must always carry it along with us, that he, that is, the Word, never acted or spoke in his own name, but in the name of the Most High, whom he personated as his angel, acting as his chief minister or messenger, and by his authority, without any authority of his own."

and this

Taken from: Horne, Thomas Hartwell (b.1780-d.1862), M.A., Clergyman of the Church of England. "An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Scriptures." 5th Edition. 4 vols. (London, England: 1825), vol. i [1], regarding Exodus 3:2-6, pp. 550, 551.

".the Lord God never spake or appeared in person, but always by a proxy, nuncius, or messenger, who represented him, and spake in his name and authority. It was this messenger of Jehovah, or angel of Jehovah, who appeared unto Moses, Exod[us] iii [3]. 2, and who is called, in ver[se] 4, Jehovah or Lord (whence it is evident that he was no created human being); and who spake to Moses, in ver[se] 5, saying, "Draw not nigh hither," &c.; "I am the God of Abraham," ver[se] 6; and "I am that I am," ver[se] 14. All which words were pronounced by an angel, but are true, not of the angel, but of God, whom he represented. So a herald reads a proclamation in the king's name and words, as if the king himself were speaking. The word Angel, both in the Greek language and in the Hebrew, signifies a messenger, or nuncius, an ambassador; one who acts and speaks, not in his own name or behalf, but in the name, person, and behalf of him who sends him. Thus the word is frequently rendered in our authorised translation; and if it had always been rendered the messenger of the Lord, instead of the angel of the Lord, the case would have been very plain."

and this

Taken from: Witherington, Ben, III (b.1951-d.?). "John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel." 1st Edition. (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, c1995), p. 140. BS2615.3 .W57 1995 / 95030831.

"The Jewish concept of agency, which involved a legal relationship as much as anything else, can be summed up in the key phrase: "A person's agent is as himself." An agent is a person authorized to perform some specific set of tasks and empowered to speak and act for the one sending the person. The agent [called a "schaliach"] was acting for the sender on occasions when the sender could not or chose not to be personally present. This agent was to be treated as the one sending him or her would have been treated had that one come in person. An affront to the agent was an affront to the sender, a positive response or treatment of the sender. In many ways this was also how ambassadors or envoys were viewed in the ancient world - they were just other kinds of agents."

rather interesting when Christ is viewed in the context of the word, as a messenger or an angel!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Also taken from the same work

The Saviour accordingly became, in a diviner way than Paul, all things to all, that He might either gain all or perfect them; it is clear that to men He became a man, and [b]to the angels an angel. As for His becoming man no believer has any doubt, but as to His becoming an angel, we shall find reason for b n other words, an archangel.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john1.html[/b]

The saying then stands, first, "In the beginning was the Logos;" we are to place that full in our view; but the testimonies we cited from the Proverbs led us to place wisdom first, and to think of wisdom as preceding the Word which announces her. We must observe, then, that the Logos is in the beginning, that is, in wisdom, always. Its being in wisdom, which is called the beginning, does not prevent it from being withGod and from being God, and it is not simply with God, but is in the beginning, in wisdom, with God. For he goes on: "He was in the beginning with God." He might have said, "He was with God;" but as He was in the beginning, so He was with God in the beginning, and "All things were made by Him," being in the beginning, for God made all things, as David tells us, in wisdom. And to let us understand that the Word has His own definite place and sphere as one who has life in Himself (and is a distinct person), we must also speak about powers, not about power. "Thus says the Lord of powers, (A.V. hosts)" we frequently read; there are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers: and of these Christ was the highest and best, and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power. As, then, there are several powers of God, each of them in its own form, and the Saviour is different from these, so also Christ, even if that which is Logos in us is not in respect of form outside of us, will be understood from our discussion up to this point to be the Logos, who has His being in the beginning, in wisdom. This for the present may suffice, on the word: "In the beginning was the Logos."

The Saviour, then, is the first and the last, not that He is not what lies between, but the extremities are named to show that He became all things.

Originally posted by Conrau K
None of these quotes actually suggest that Origen believed Christ to be an angel. In context, the first one reads:

[quote]The saying then stands, first, "In the beginning was the Logos;" we are to place that full in our view; but the testimonies we cited from the Proverbs led us to place wisdom first, and to think of wisdom as preceding the Word which a works of any author and quote them without severely misrepresenting their views.

Originally posted by Rajk999
135.Tell the truth to people who don't need to know or are 'not entitled to it'. See Theocratic Warfare.
136.Tell the truth in court if it damages the interests of the brotherhood or harms a Witness in good standing. This is a matter of conscience and unspoken for obvious reasons. Jehovah's Witnesses want to be honest but the pressure is strong to protect t ...[text shortened]... er rules.

http://thejehovahswitnesses.org/things-jehovahs-witnesses-cant-do.php