Return of Christ

[savagewind]

I think it'll be a sad day when you die and christ still hasn't returned. Don't forget that, according to the bible, jesus told Cephias that he would return again with the kingdom of god 'very soon' (implying within Cephias' lifetime) and that was 2000 years ago.

I also think it's easy to read into patterns that aren't there.

Jesus did return to Peter in Peter's life time. How else could Peter have written part of "all scripture inspired of God"?

 

[Pegg]

But was there a literal chair under a literal tree? God ruling over the lives of mankind, does not need to entail physical things, like cities, and armies, and governors, and roads, and economies, etc. God can rule over someone's life without need to set up up a building inside your house, or enter your property with a bunch of people to exact taxes from you, or something.

of course he can...and he does.

Im not saying that God is going to set up an earthly kingdom. The kingdom is 'heavenly' and he will rule mankind from heaven.

Jesus does not need a physical throne for his throne is in heaven at the seat of God.

 

[Windwalker]

of course he can...and he does.

Im not saying that God is going to set up an earthly kingdom. The kingdom is 'heavenly' and he will rule mankind from heaven.

Jesus does not need a physical throne for his throne is in heaven at the seat of God.

But you just made it a place. That makes it material. Why can't the Kingdom be everywhere, and nowhere? Why does it have to be a "where"? Isn't the Kingdom "within you"?

 

[james2ko]

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/709-was-christ-originally-created-by-god

I don't post links often, but this is a great article involving Rev 3:14.

There are always two sides to a story. The Christiancourier's material is in quotes:

For example, the prophet Micah declared that though a baby would be born in Bethlehem, nonetheless his existence was “from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2). E.B. Pusey observed that this expression asserts the “eternity” of the Son of God (p. 70). Micah’s prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem (see Mt. 2:5-6).

1. The Hebrew word used for everlasting is "olam". Olam has a variety of definitions:

Brown-Driver-Briggs
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world
1a) ancient time, long time (of past)
1b) (of future)
1b1) for ever, always
1b2) continuous existence, perpetual
1b3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

The context and sentence structure will determine its use. In our passage, "olam" is preceded by the term "yom" [day]. In the OT, the instances where "yom" is used in conjunction with or in close proximity to "olam", implies temporal action (from ancient times or a long time in the past (Psa 21:4; 77:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Amo 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4) not eternity in the past. Young’s Literal Translation renders it:

Mic 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.​

In John’s Gospel record, three times in 1:1 the apostle employs the imperfect tense verb en. “In the beginning was en the Word [Christ, v. 14], and the Word was en with God, and the Word was en God.” The imperfect tense here denotes the “timeless existence” of the Second Person of the Godhead (Bernard, p. 2). Noted Greek scholar A.T. Robertson observed that John’s use of the imperfect form “conveys no idea of origin” for God or for Christ; rather, it reflects “continuous existence” for both of these divine beings (p. 3).

2. This grammar rule applies to all verbs "except" the verb form "to be". Notice the entry in Strong's Tense, Voice, Mood Dictionary:

"The imperfect tense generally represents continual or repeated action. Where the present tense might indicate "they are asking, " the imperfect would indicate "they kept on asking." In the case of the verb "to be, " however, the imperfect tense is used as a general past tense and does not carry the connotation of continual or repeated action."​

Verbs in ancient Greek must take “time and aspect” into consideration before accurately applying a tense. In Joh 1:1, the verb "was" [en] is the past tense in “time” of the verb "to be" so according to the rule, the repeated action or "continual past existence" of the imperfect “aspect” does not apply! It seems Mr Robertson's bias got the best of him. No credible NT Greek Scholar (even Trinitarians) today would impose a "an eternal past existence" to the imperfect tense of the verb "to be".

(2) The term “beginning,” as employed in Revelation 3:14, does not suggest a commencement in time for Jesus Christ. The Greek word that is rendered “beginning” in Revelation 3:14 is arche. The term is employed in various senses in Greek literature. It may refer to the “beginning” of something if there is evidence available that the “something” indeed had a beginning, e.g., in “the beginning of the gospel” (Mk. 1:1). But this certainly does not exhaust the meaning of the expression. Arche can also signify the “first cause,” of a thing, or that by which something “begins to be,” i.e., the originating source (see Thayer, p. 77). Another scholar notes thatarche in Revelation 3:14 is used “of Christ as the uncreated principle, the active cause of creation” (Abbott-Smith, p. 62). Balz and Schneider emphatically state that the term in this text is “not to be understood as … the first of created things” (p. 162).

3. Arche does have several definitions. The context and other supporting passages would determine which to apply. Albert Barnes, noted Protestant Trinitarian Theologian and Scholar, and an advocate of the co-eternal past existence of Christ and the Father, carefully studied every NT passage containing this word and humbly came to conclusion Christ was not referring to Him being the ruler, author, or cause of the world from the beginning :

"The word properly refers to the “commencement” of a thing, not its “authorship...” The word [arche] is not, therefore, found in the sense of authorship, as denoting that one is the beginning of anything in the sense that he [Christ] caused it to have an existence…."​

Although helpful, we do not need Mr. Barnes' opinion because the bible interprets itself. If Christ wanted to impress upon the reader He was only the "ruler" of creation, why didn't He simply utilize the word He used in Mat 20:25 which can only mean "ruler":

" But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers [archon] of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. "​

He also did not use the term He used in Mat 5:32 [poieo-G4160] that would render Him as the “exclusive” cause of creation. Neither did He use the term Paul used in Heb 5:9 [aitios-G159] to suggest He is the author “of the creation of God”.

Additionally, the term “beginning”, as is “firstborn” in Col 1:15, is also in the partitive genitive. This leaves no doubt Christ is truly the first “part” of God’s creation. Both in the NT and Septuagint, wherever the word “arche” is followed by a genitive phrase (“beginning of the ____), that which is called the “arche” is always included as part, the first part, of the category that follows without exception! (Deu 11:12-LXX; Jud 7:19-LXX; Mar 1:1; Jo 2:11; 2 Pet 3:4; Rev 3:14).

The Greek term Christ used for ruler is "archon" which can only mean first in rank or power-chief ruler, magistrate, prince, ruler. If Christ's intention was to impress upon the reader He was only the ruler, author, or cause of His creation in Rev 3:14, He had several different terms at His disposal to do so. Instead He curiously used the term "arche”, which includes the same definition as "archon" but is broader in scope to also mean "the very first or original created Being"!

Some would argue the term “arche” is translated elsewhere as principality (Eph 1:21; Col 1:20) power (Luk 20:20) magistrate( Luk 12:11) How do we know one of these meanings is not represented by arche in Rev 3:14? Firstly, all of the passages referring to authority (principality or power) clearly imply this within the immediate context--- every single time. Yet, there is nothing to suggest any other meaning than that which is principally inherent to the word arche within the context of Rev 3:14.

Second, John always uses the term “arche-G746” as “beginning” and is translated as such all 23 times! (Joh 1:1,2; 2:11; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; 16:4; 1 Joh 1:1; 2:7 (x2), 13, 14, 24 (x2); 3:8, 11; 2 Joh 1:5-6; Rev 1:8; 3:14; 21:6; 22:13). Hence to translate John’s usage of “arche” in Rev 3:14 as something other than “beginning”(ie beginner, ruler, creator,author) would not only be contrary to the textual evidence but also John’s writing style.

 

[james2ko]

Revelation 22:13, Christ refers to himself as the “beginning arche and the endtelos.” If “beginning” suggests that there was a time when Christ did not exist, but that he came into existence as the first being of God’s creation, does “end” indicate that there will be a point at which the Savior will go out of existence? The question hardly needs a response. In Isaiah 48:12 the Lord God described himself as “the first” and “the last.” Did he mean to indicate that there was a time when he did not exist? The very idea is absurd.

4. There is more than one application for the Greek term "beginning" . Again the context has to be examined to arrive at a conclusion. Notice how it’s the last book/chapter of the bible. The passage is a mere idiom summing up Christ's total work . It implies the proclamation that Christ began this age and He will end it. This is confirmed in Isa 41:4

“Who has done such mighty deeds, summoning each new generation from the beginning of time? It is I, the LORD, the First and the Last. I alone am He.”(NLT)​

In this context, it has nothing to do with His lifespan but everything to do with His role as the Creator, Author and Finisher of all things involving His creation (Rev 4:11; Heb 12:2; Php 1:6).

I challenge you to give me one translation or version of the bible that has the word [other] in the context. Witnesse's want to harmonize Proverbs 8:22 with Col 1:15, to make it seem as if Jesus was created and "assisted" God with creation...however, this is added theology and bad presuppositions. This isn't scripture.

5. The term "other" is justified and appropriate translation. It would obviously be a fallacious presupposition to say Christ created Himself.. "All things” [ta panta] clearly does not always include every single thing in its group. Many examples show this term does not necessarily mean “every last thing in the sense of totality” but can imply things of a particular group (Mat 21:22; Mk 4:11; Php 2:21; 3:8; Col 3:8; 2 Co 4:15).

In these passages, some translations add words such as “all the others”, “all these”, “all such things”. For instance take Mat 21:22, would God really give us every single thing we ask of Him? Or is the statement “all things” limited to only those things allowed by God’s will? So we see that “all things” is not all inclusive, but frequently has exclusions. It would certainly not be logical for Christ to create Himself. Thus leading us to conclude, based on scriptural examples, Christ Himself would be excluded from “all things”. And no I'm not, nor was I ever, nor will I ever be a JW. They do have a few things right and this is definitely one of them.

 

[Pegg]

But you just made it a place. That makes it material. Why can't the Kingdom be everywhere, and nowhere? Why does it have to be a "where"? Isn't the Kingdom "within you"?

by saying the 'kingdom is within you', arn't you really saying the kingdom is confined within the mind of man?

Besides, that verse you are using 'the kingdom of God is within you' is not the proper translation. Consider this, when Jesus spoke those words, he directed them to the faithless religious leaders of his day. Was the kingdom of God within their hearts?

Obviously not.

The original text literally means 'among you' ... not 'within you'

Luke 17:21 nor will people say, ‘See here!’ or, ‘There!’ For look! the Kingdom of God is in your midst.”


Other translations render it similarly: TEV and Dy both say “among you,”
KJV in the margin uses 'among you' as an alternative rendering.
New English and Jerusalem Bible both say “in the midst of you,” and the Emphatic Diaglott reads: “God’s royal majesty is among you.”

So the kingdom of God is not within mans heart... it has a location in the heavens and will rule as a real power over all nations.

 

[Windwalker]

by saying the 'kingdom is within you', arn't you really saying the kingdom is confined within the mind of man?

No. "Inside you", does not mean your thoughts and ideas, i.e., "the mind of man". Rather it is referring to the heart, or the spirit and soul of a person. That is not confided to the skin-sack we call our bodies. "The kingdom of God is inside, not outside". That's what Jesus said, and what's more that is a lived realization of many, myself included. It's not "outside you", but within you.

Besides, that verse you are using 'the kingdom of God is within you' is not the proper translation.

It most certainly is the proper translation. Read through this material and the associated links: Interpretation of Luke 17:20-21

Consider this, when Jesus spoke those words, he directed them to the faithless religious leaders of his day. Was the kingdom of God within their hearts?

Obviously not.

You're not seeing the dialog there? He was very deliberately contrasting their expectations and ideas about the kingdom of God was being "out there" somewhere, at some time or place, with the reality of it being "not out there", but "in here". He's saying, "guys, you're looking in the wrong place!". He is criticizing their ignorance in spiritual matters to be looking in exactly the wrong spot, outside themselves. If they were to look within, then they'd find it and quit looking for it outside themselves. By looking outside, they never see the Truth.

The original text literally means 'among you' ... not 'within you'

No it doesn't. The original literally translates inside you.

So the kingdom of God is not within mans heart... it has a location in the heavens and will rule as a real power over all nations.

Which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said, and exactly the opposite of any sort of legitimate spiritual realization. What you said is in fact entirely in the mind. It's an idea about the spiritual, and gets it all wrong. It's not in a "place", it is in "all places and no places". It is "within you". And when you enter into that, it is seen and known everywhere. Heaven is not a place, it is a condition.

I believe the problem is you do not understand where this "within you" is.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think it is becoming clear that God's kingdom is coming to earth soon and many of the biblical signs for the return of Jesus Christ to are in place and others are rapidly continuing to occur. Does anyone else sense the nearness of His return?


For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with His truth. Psalm 96:13


lBirth Pangs - ABC's of Prophecy

That is because Second Coming has already taken place in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908.

The Second Coming essentially had to be symbolic; as Jesus dies a natural and peaceful death in Kashmir, India at the age of about 120 years; and was not to come again, physically and literally as totally wrongly believed by the Christians.

While Jesus was in India; in his absence Paul and the Church invented Trinity whereas Jesus did not believe in it; so Jesus Second Coming is destined to repudiate this evil created by Paul and the Church

Regards

 

[Susanpalli,JW]

Daniel 2:44 “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever.

This prophecy was written about the time of the end. Wouldn't it be logical to conclude that the Kingdom is a form of govenment and that Jesus will rule as King over the whole earth?

 

[Mycroft]

Jesus did return to Peter in Peter's life time. How else could Peter have written part of "all scripture inspired of God"?

He didn't return to Cephias with the kingdom of god by his side, however. Keep trying.

 

[Pegg]

Which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus said, and exactly the opposite of any sort of legitimate spiritual realization. What you said is in fact entirely in the mind. It's an idea about the spiritual, and gets it all wrong. It's not in a "place", it is in "all places and no places". It is "within you". And when you enter into that, it is seen and known everywhere. Heaven is not a place, it is a condition.

I believe the problem is you do not understand where this "within you" is.

I think Jesus was quite clear that the kingdom is not going to be found on earth...ever

John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”


Man is earthly. Therefore the kingdom of God is not a part of anything earthly...its not sourced from 'within' mankind.

And the translation 'the kingdom is within you' is quite a wrong translation.

 

[savagewind]

He didn't return to Cephias with the kingdom of god by his side, however. Keep trying.

Huh? What does "the kingdom of god by his side" mean please?

It is my opinion that the kingdom of God never leaves Jesus' side.
It is the first time I ever heard it.

 

[savagewind]

I think Jesus was quite clear that the kingdom is not going to be found on earth...ever

John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”


Man is earthly. Therefore the kingdom of God is not a part of anything earthly...its not sourced from 'within' mankind.

And the translation 'the kingdom is within you' is quite a wrong translation.

Strong's Greek: 1787. ????? (entos) -- within, among

Matthew 23:26 Adv
GRK: πρῶτον τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ποτηρίου
NAS: clean the inside of the cup
KJV: first that [which is] within the cup
INT: first the inside of the cup
Luke 17:21 Adv
GRK: τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστίν
NAS: the kingdom of God is in your midst.
KJV: of God is within you.
INT: of God in the midst of you is

ἐντός, adverb ((from ἐν, opposed to ἐκτό&#962, within, inside: with the genitive ἐντός ὑμῶν, within you, i. e. in the midst of you, Luke 17:21 (ἐντός αὐτῶν, Xenophon, an. 1, 10, 3 (but see the passage); ἐντός τούτων, Hell. 2, 3, 19; others); others, within you (i. e. in your souls), a meaning which the use of the word permits (ἐντός μου, Psalm 38:4 (); Psalm 108:22 (), etc.; (Hippolytus, ref. haer. 5, 7, 8; Petrus Alexandrinus, epistle can. 5)), but not the context; τό ἐντός, the inside, Matthew 23:26.

 

[james2ko]

Hey i have one more little tidbit for you....(just because i like you )


What do you think Jesus meant by saying this:

John 4:19  The woman said to him: “Sir, I perceive you are a prophet. 20 Our forefathers worshiped in this mountain; but YOU people say that in Jerusalem is the place where persons ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her: “Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father.


What does this mean to you?

I'm sorry I missed this. I stumbled upon it while searching for another post. Here is some commentary from Albert Barnes of which the scriptures concur:

"The old dispensation is about to pass away. The special rites of the Jews are to cease. The worship of God, so long confined to a single place, is soon to be celebrated everywhere, and with as much acceptance in one place as in another. He does not say that there would be no worship of God in that place or in Jerusalem, but that the worship of God would not be “confined” there. He would be worshipped in other places as well as there".​

The main verb "worship" is in the future tense indicating it was an event that was still future from the speakers standpoint, and other scriptures indicate it will not be permanent:

Eze_46:2 The prince shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway from the outside, and stand by the gatepost. The priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings. He shall worship at the threshold of the gate. Then he shall go out, but the gate shall not be shut until evening.
Eze_46:3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the entrance to this gateway before the LORD on the Sabbaths and the New Moons.
Eze_46:9 "But when the people of the land come before the LORD on the appointed feast days, whoever enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate; and whoever enters by way of the south gate shall go out by way of the north gate. He shall not return by way of the gate through which he came, but shall go out through the opposite gate.​

Where do you think this "future" worship will all take place?-----Jerusalem! As the verses in the links below so plainly state. This all contradicts the WT interpretation.

 

[james2ko]

I think Jesus was quite clear that the kingdom is not going to be found on earth...ever

I thought we thoroughly debunked this here and here

John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”


Man is earthly. Therefore the kingdom of God is not a part of anything earthly...its not sourced from 'within' mankind.

And the translation 'the kingdom is within you' is quite a wrong translation.

And as the passages in the above links irrefutably prove, so is the WT's interpretaion that the kingdom will ever be found on the earth, Pegg.

 

[Windwalker]

I think Jesus was quite clear that the kingdom is not going to be found on earth...ever

John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.”


Man is earthly. Therefore the kingdom of God is not a part of anything earthly...its not sourced from 'within' mankind.

"Part of the world" is a metaphor for the cares and concerns of the systems of the world, rather than "setting your mind on things which are above". You are still stuck on location, as if it has a "place".

The cares of the world are a condition of ones conscious being. "I have overcome the world", means that the spirit has become Free and not imprisoned by the world. It doesn't have anything to do with leaving the planet physically! The spiritually liberated are not NASA astronauts.

"My kingdom is not of the world", simply means it's not part of your political systems and it's cares and concerns. He resides over the heart of men, not political systems in some imaginary celestial kingdom.

And the translation 'the kingdom is within you' is quite a wrong translation.

It most certainly is not wrong. It is the correct translation, and the only one that fits the context. Here's spend some time reading this: http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No2/HV12N2Ramelli.pdf

If you say it's wrong, then prove it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All things considered, you've done a great job of responding to the link. Of course, I will take the side that agree with my position

. I am not a scholar of the ancient Greek language, so instead of going back and forth of who is the (or has the) best translators, I have an argument to support my position, which I call the "Argument based on Moral perfection".

This argument is independent of translations, and it supports the Trinitarian view. I won't get in to that right now, unless you ask me too (I dare you). But now, I want to focus on your direct responses to what what I said.

5. The term "other" is justified and appropriate translation.

It isn't really a translation...it is more of a "unjustified rendering". If Paul wanted to say "first creation", he would of said "first creation".

It would obviously be a fallacious presupposition to say Christ created Himself.. "All things” [ta panta] clearly does not always include every single thing in its group.

Right, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Christ was created and the bible says he created "all things", obviously, he himself wouldn't be included in those "things" that were created. If there was any situation where common sense should definitely be used, it is here.

Second, John 1:3 is implying the same thing Col 1:15 is implying, but the word "other" is not placed in to context in that verse. It states:

John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".

Where is the word "other" here? It is the same message. Inconsistent translation. But give it some time, eventually the NWT will catch on too it.

Many examples show this term does not necessarily mean “every last thing in the sense of totality” but can imply things of a particular group (Mat 21:22; Mk 4:11; Php 2:21; 3:8; Col 3:8; 2 Co 4:15).

Just like "many examples show the term {firstborn} does not necessarily mean [first created]", but it can be used to show a certain "preeminence" that a subject is given.

God called Israel his "firstborn" son (Exo 4:22)...which has absolutely nothing to do with Israel being the "first nation created" or anything related to numerial order.

In these passages, some translations add words such as “all the others”, “all these”, “all such things”. For instance take Mat 21:22, would God really give us every single thing we ask of Him?

No, that is why we use common sense, or at least add it as a footnote or something..the problem is once you start adding words to it, or what you THINK it should be...then that would leave everything up in the air and all kind of erraneously and down right deceptive renderings can creep in to it...which is why we should just let the bible speak for itself.

Or is the statement “all things” limited to only those things allowed by God’s will? So we see that “all things” is not all inclusive, but frequently has exclusions. It would certainly not be logical for Christ to create Himself. Thus leading us to conclude, based on scriptural examples, Christ Himself would be excluded from “all things”. And no I'm not, nor was I ever, nor will I ever be a JW. They do have a few things right and this is definitely one of them.

But that is the problem, you will only add the word if you think it deserves to be in there. If, in the verse, the subject was CLEARLY talking about the Father and his creation of all things, do you think that the NWT would of had [other] in the context if the Father was the subject? I don't think so. You will only add it if you think that Jesus himself was created, and he created all [other] things besides himself.

And just for the record, you can't say "Well, you believe that Jesus wasn't created, which is why you don't want it there" (on the flip-side).

That isn't the case at all, I am just saying the author of the book (Paul) didn't have the word in there, so why should the WT add the word in there? Apparently, Paul thought his targeted audience were smart enough to understand what he meant, right?

Let the bible speak for itself.

 

[Pegg]

I'm sorry I missed this. I stumbled upon it while searching for another post. Here is some commentary from Albert Barnes of which the scriptures concur:

"The old dispensation is about to pass away. The special rites of the Jews are to cease. The worship of God, so long confined to a single place, is soon to be celebrated everywhere, and with as much acceptance in one place as in another. He does not say that there would be no worship of God in that place or in Jerusalem, but that the worship of God would not be “confined” there. He would be worshipped in other places as well as there".​

The main verb "worship" is in the future tense indicating it was an event that was still future from the speakers standpoint, and other scriptures indicate it will not be permanent:

Eze_46:2 The prince shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gateway from the outside, and stand by the gatepost. The priests shall prepare his burnt offering and his peace offerings. He shall worship at the threshold of the gate. Then he shall go out, but the gate shall not be shut until evening.
Eze_46:3 Likewise the people of the land shall worship at the entrance to this gateway before the LORD on the Sabbaths and the New Moons.
Eze_46:9 "But when the people of the land come before the LORD on the appointed feast days, whoever enters by way of the north gate to worship shall go out by way of the south gate; and whoever enters by way of the south gate shall go out by way of the north gate. He shall not return by way of the gate through which he came, but shall go out through the opposite gate.​

Where do you think this "future" worship will all take place?-----Jerusalem! As the verses in the links below so plainly state. This all contradicts the WT interpretation.

let me ask you why Jesus would continually call the kingdom, the 'kingdom of the heavens' if it was going to be an earthly kingdom??

Matt 5:20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens

John 14:2 In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU.


The apostles held the view that the kingdom was located 'in heaven' as we can see from their letters:

Colossians 1:5 because of the hope that is being reserved for you in the heavens. You previously heard about this hope through the message of truth of the good news


1 Peter 1:4 to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you,

Matt 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·de′a, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near.”


I think a heavenly kingdom is the most reasonable interpretation here...John the Baptist said it, the apostles said it and Jesus said it. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You can believe its going to be in jerusalem is you like... but i think a heavenly kingdom is much more real and is capable of so much more.

 

[james2ko]

It isn't really a translation...it is more of a "unjustified rendering".

1. It is most definitely a translation. It may have been an unnecessary rendering, but as the broader context suggests, certainly not unjustified.

Right, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if Christ was created and the bible says he created "all things", obviously, he himself wouldn't be included in those "things" that were created. If there was any situation where common sense should definitely be used, it is here.

2. Can't disagree with that.

Second, John 1:3 is implying the same thing Col 1:15 is implying, but the word "other" is not placed in to context in that verse. It states:

John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made".

Where is the word "other" here? It is the same message. Inconsistent translation. But give it some time, eventually the NWT will catch on too it.

3. It is not there because the translators of that version were thinking like you: "Obviously, He Himself wouldn't be included in those "things" that were created" so we will not place another redundant adjective.

Just like "many examples show the term {firstborn} does not necessarily mean [first created]", but it can be used to show a certain "preeminence" that a subject is given. God called Israel his "firstborn" son (Exo 4:22)...which has absolutely nothing to do with Israel being the "first nation created" or anything related to numerial order.

4. Not quite CW. Firstly, the Greek term for firstborn [prototokos] is derived from two Greek words. "Protos" [g4413] which means " foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all)". Interestingly enough, this is the root of our English word "prototype". The second term, "tikto", is defined as: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail. If Paul wanted to engender "preeminence" without the connotation of a birth/creation, he would have used the term he used in Col 1:18 [proteuon]. Instead he uses a term that is used throughout scripture to signify the first of its kind produced/created!

Secondly, even though “firstborn” is used figuratively, it still did not lose its primary meaning of a beginning of something that did not exist before. That passage actually describes the “creation” of a position Israel never had. The Scriptures reveal God “created” a first-of-its-kind relationship with the nation of Israel and was “brought into existence” as God’s first “theocracy”, which gave them pre-eminence over other nations (Deu 7:6; 26:19; Ex 19:6; Isa 43:15; Jer 2:3). So even when prōtotokos is used in a figurative sense, it does not lose its primary connotation of a beginning of existence!

If Paul wanted to say "first creation", he would of said "first creation".

5. Paul did mention Christ was the first created Being in Col 1:15:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn [prototokos] over all creation.​

No, that is why we use common sense, or at least add it as a footnote or something..the problem is once you start adding words to it, or what you THINK it should be...then that would leave everything up in the air and all kind of erraneously and down right deceptive renderings can creep in to it...which is why we should just let the bible speak for itself.

But that is the problem, you will only add the word if you think it deserves to be in there. If, in the verse, the subject was CLEARLY talking about the Father and his creation of all things, do you think that the NWT would of had [other] in the context if the Father was the subject? I don't think so. You will only add it if you think that Jesus himself was created, and he created all [other] things besides himself.

And just for the record, you can't say "Well, you believe that Jesus wasn't created, which is why you don't want it there" (on the flip-side).

That isn't the case at all, I am just saying the author of the book (Paul) didn't have the word in there, so why should the WT add the word in there? Apparently, Paul thought his targeted audience were smart enough to understand what he meant, right?

Let the bible speak for itself.

6. I agree. Even without adding the term "other", common sense tells us Christ did not create Himself. I'm not saying the NWT has the best rendering of that verse, all I'm saying is the added adjective is justified. I remember one of the ESV translators telling us that due to the complexities of translation, a translator "must" add words in order to clarify and make sense of the translated term/phrase. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they do not. In this case, the NWT got it right. Although, the added term [other] is redundant.

All things considered, you've done a great job of responding to the link. Of course, I will take the side that agree with my position

7. Unfortunately, it sounds like you suffer from "Doctrinitis". A debilitating disease that affects the victims spiritual eyes to the point where they cannot see anything else.

I am not a scholar of the ancient Greek language, so instead of going back and forth of who is the (or has the) best translators, I have an argument to support my position, which I call the "Argument based on Moral perfection".

8. You don't have to be in order to understand the original languages. The problem is most Christians do not take the time to study them diligently enough to seek out the truth. I wrote a lengthy study on the topic (my rebuttal to the Christian courier was an excerpt) scouring over every single verse on the topic in its original languages, took me almost a yr to complete and have come to the conclusion the scriptures teach Christ was a created being.

This argument is independent of translations, and it supports the Trinitarian view. I won't get in to that right now, unless you ask me too (I dare you). But now, I want to focus on your direct responses to what what I said.

9. Sounds like to me you want to spread your "doctrinitis". No thanks. I want to stay as spiritually healthy as I can

 

[james2ko]

let me ask you why Jesus would continually call the kingdom, the 'kingdom of the heavens' if it was going to be an earthly kingdom?? Matt 5:20 For I say to you that if your righteousness does not surpass that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens Matt 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Ju·de′a, 2 saying: “Repent, for the Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near

1. "Kingdom of the heavens" is synonymous with the "kingdom of the God". Mar 1:15, which alternately reads "the kingdom of the God", is a parallel to Mat 3:2 who renders it, "the kingdom of the heavens". Matthew's primarily Jewish audience, sensitive to the mere utterance of the term "God", is the difference in verbage. The kingdom of heaven/God represents the government based on God’s laws and precepts emanating from "the God" who inhabits "the heavens", and as so many verses indicate, will be established on the earth:

Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;

Zec_14:4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south. "

Isa_24:23 Then the moon will be disgraced And the sun ashamed; For the LORD of hosts will reign On Mount Zion and in Jerusalem And before His elders, gloriously.

Zec_8:3 "Thus says the LORD: 'I will return to Zion, And dwell in the midst of Jerusalem. Jerusalem shall be called the City of Truth, The Mountain of the LORD of hosts, The Holy Mountain.

Rev 11:15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!"
​

Colossians 1:5 because of the hope that is being reserved for you in the heavens. You previously heard about this hope through the message of truth of the good news

1 Peter 1:4 to an incorruptible and undefiled and unfading inheritance. It is reserved in the heavens for you,

2. Notice the subjects (hope and inheritance) that are being modified by the predicate (reserved). These abstracts are part of the reward being held in reserve in heaven which Christ will deliver when He returns to reign and dwell on the earth:

Isa 40:9-10 O Zion, You who bring good tidings, Get up into the high mountain; O Jerusalem, You who bring good tidings, Lift up your voice with strength, Lift it up, be not afraid; Say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!" 10 Behold, the Lord GOD shall come with a strong hand, And His arm shall rule for Him; Behold, His reward is with Him, And His work before Him.

Rev_22:12 "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me[, to give to every one according to his work.​

John 14:2 In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise, I would have told YOU, because I am going my way to prepare a place for YOU.

3. This passage has to be taken in context with the many that state Christ will come with his reward for the saints and they will all rule on the earth. The New Jerusalem is a massive city (1500 miles in all four directions) which Christ and the righteous saints will inherit. It is currently in heaven and Christ is preparing a place for us to live in that city. But guess where that city will end up?

Rev 21:2-3 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle [habitation] of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.​

God is coming down from heaven to dwell on earth and deliver the city in which a place or habitation is prepared for its righteous inhabitants!

The apostles held the view that the kingdom was located 'in heaven' as we can see from their letters: I think a heavenly kingdom is the most reasonable interpretation here...John the Baptist said it, the apostles said it and Jesus said it. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You can believe its going to be in jerusalem is you like... but i think a heavenly kingdom is much more real and is capable of so much more

4. In order for them to come to your conclusion, they would have to ignore large parts of scriptures that say otherwise.


__________________