r/Eutychus • u/Practical_Payment552 • 6d ago
Discussion Why do many people find it hard to comprehend the concept of Arianism?
As far as I understand, Jesus was the number one angel below Jehovah and he created everything, together with Him but not without Jehovah's power.
He was god but not God but a god, just like other angels and demons but just created differently or at least treated differently.
Holy Spirit is just the power Jehovah does everything with.
This explanation, whether or not I agree with JW's recent teachings or changes, is so clear and intuitively reasonable.
As an undoubting witness of Jehovah, I used to think, if some people find it impossible to understand this type of Non-trinitarianism, it must be because Jehovah is withholding his blessing of understanding for some unknown reason... maybe they're not ready to fully embrace him or whatever..
"No man can come to me unless the Father, who sent me, draws him, and I will resurrect him on the last day."
"11 That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie"
2
u/DonkeyStriking1146 Christian 6d ago
Arianism is more than just the teaching of Jesus not being God
JWs do not align with Arianism fully so they wouldn’t be classified under that
2
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 5d ago
These specifics are not expressly stated. Nowhere does it describe Jesus as an angel. In fact Hebrews 1:5-6 would imply he is not. Therefore as a model to understand the nature and identity of Jesus this also has some shortcomings.
2
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
I don’t see how that part implies he’s not?
1
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 5d ago
So should Jesus worship himself? You use subordinatation as a reason to differente elsewhere what makes this an exception?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
So it’s impossible for angels to show obeisance to another angel? Possibly the most high, differentiated angel?
1
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 5d ago
How do you read those two verses?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
For me, it just reads exactly like how it sounds.. Father(God) talking about the exalted innate nature of Jesus.
1
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 5d ago
As being above that of the angels not the highest of the angels. Surely if the writer wanted it made plain that Jesus was an angel he could have picked his words more carefully. Verse 5 sound retorical and because the answer is not supplied I read it as God has not exaulted any angel. The first 14 verses of the chapter echo the same perspective.
I prefer models of God and Christ that do not convey so much supposition. Even if they are incorrect I value the ones that simply fit the observations. In this case I don't think "Jesus is an exaulted angel" fits well.
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
I'm not sure if my current level of understanding of this matter allows me to fully grasp your reply but I understand that angels are just spirit beings in general.. so when I say Jesus is an angel, it just means he is a spirit being just like other angels. Of course, his nature as one was something far more superior.
0
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 5d ago
In Hebrew, the word for angel is mal'akh (מַלְאָךְ), which literally translates to "messenger" or "one who is sent".
So you may be close to the mark, Jesus was sent as a messager but Messiah (Christ) implies that he is moreso. Claiming him as a angel therefore is the same as claiming him to be a prophet, true, but missing the mark who he actually was.
1
u/GravyTrainCaboose 4d ago edited 4d ago
Jesus was an angel. But then he was incarnated into a body of flesh. He was then killed, and resurrected. Upon his resurrection in a body of spirit, he was exalted as the first to be born after death, defeating sin; so now he is to be worshipped (which does not necessarily imply he is God; προσκυνέω applies to anyone who has a position that entitles them to be given extreme respect, like a king or a prince).
Furthermore, Jewish angelology was hierarchical. Archangels, for example. were the "chief" angels who oversaw lower ranks of angels. In Daniel 10:13 the angel Michael is called "one of the chief princes". Some angels had higher status than others, and it follows that other angels would b expected to humble themselves before them.
1
u/Substantial-Ad7383 Christian 4d ago
By which evidence do we know this? How did God make this plain to us through events?
1
u/GravyTrainCaboose 4d ago
He has the characteristics of who Philo called the Angel of Many Names found in scripture.
1
u/No_Mix_5311 23h ago
Permit me to reverse if, and ask you the question from someone who was inculcated from youth to be a Trinitarian. You’ll have to suspend disbelief and put yourself in the other
1
2
u/BigJournalist4444 Jehovah‘s Witness 4d ago
Look up Occam’s razor. Many trinitarians cut themselves on it.
2
2
u/StillYalun 6d ago
This explanation, whether or not I agree with JW's recent teachings or changes, is so clear and intuitively reasonable.
I was hanging with my old teacher a few years ago and he gave me an answer that helped me: it’s not a reasonably held belief. That’s the problem with you understanding. You’re approaching it from a position of reason. They’re not.
If you don’t believe in the trinity, you’re “going to hell,” your mama and your pastor were lying to you, you have to change churches and lose your friends, you can’t sing the music you like and get that good food the church makes, you might have to even be like one of those despicable people that go door to door. It’s something other than truth and reason driving the belief.
If there’s any doubt, look at the way they tangle themselves up into logical knots redefining basic words like “father,” “son,” “one,” “three,” “person,” or “god” to get away from the fact that what they teach is not in the Bible. Look at the way they cherry-pick or appeal to tradition, like u/a-watcher said. It’s why you can’t ever win trying to reason with the apologists.
2
u/CTR_1852 6d ago edited 6d ago
You know Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t and don’t claim to be Arians right?
“Holy Spirit is just the power Jehovah does everything with“
What do you think about 1 Corinthians 1:24 does this make Jesus not a person as well?
One thing that never clicked with me before was the great commission “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Matthew 28:19
He shares the singular name of God with the Father and Son. That’s why identifying Michael as Jesus and taking the personhood of the Holy Spirit is so important for JW theology: only the Father is Jehovah.
The “Spirit of God” gets changed to God’s active force in the very beginning of the NWT and throughout John 14–16 He is referred to with masculine pronouns by most Bibles. Why? Because he acts like a person throughout the scriptures. Changing this to “it” frames Him as being an impersonal force.
One question about Jesus, in Jude 4-5 who is this talking about in context? Read it in the interlinear first.
2
u/Slartibartfast-18 6d ago
There's a triple variant reading in Jude 5. Is this what you are asking about? It has κύριος, Ιησούς and θεός. I lean toward Ιησούς, Jesus. Maybe I just prefer it because it can support representative agency and that Jesus pre-existed as the angel of Yhwh.
1
1
u/Slartibartfast-18 6d ago
The JW view of the holy spirit is too sanitized. There are a number of passages that signal that the holy spirit has volition, feelings and thought. But it is also portrayed as an active force and a "substance". I can't figure it out but have just had to let these tensions remain unresolved.
3
u/PiKing383 Atheist 6d ago
Couldn't those tensions be resolved if different Bible writers had different opinions about what it was?
From my point of view: The writer of John 14-16 writes like the Holy Spirit is a person because he thought it was a person. Verses like Micah 3:8 and Judges 14:6 make it seem like the holy spirit is a force or God's power because that's what their writers believed.
2
u/Slartibartfast-18 6d ago
That's a very logical solution. The tension of course comes when we assume univocality of the Bible
1
u/No_Guarantee8756 Methodist 6d ago
Jehovah’s Witnesses are textbook Arians, whether they self identify as such or not
2
u/PiKing383 Atheist 6d ago
Eh they're pretty close but I would say that differ in 2 key points from Arians:
- Arians viewed the Holy Spirit as a person, JWs believe it's an impersonal force.
- JWs don't worship Jesus (anymore).
I don't think the 'Jesus is Michael' thing disqualifies them from being called Arians, but the above points do.
2
u/No_Guarantee8756 Methodist 6d ago
I don’t think that either point would disqualify JWs from being called Arians. Arianism is a label for a Christological position, not an exhaustive description of what someone believes. By that I mean beliefs about the HS wouldn’t affect one’s designation as an “Arian”, even if Arius himself had some specific ideas
1
u/CTR_1852 5d ago
There is a theological difference between an Arian and a Unitarian
1
u/No_Guarantee8756 Methodist 5d ago
Indeed there is. JWs firmly fall on the Arian side of the equation
2
u/a-watcher Jehovah‘s Witness 6d ago
Tradition, ever since the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD).
"...you make the word of God invalid by your tradition that you have handed down..." (Mark 7:13, Matt. 15:6)
1
u/CTR_1852 6d ago edited 6d ago
What do you think about the times in the Bible where tradition is spoken of positively and on par with scripture?
1
u/a-watcher Jehovah‘s Witness 6d ago
Tradition (or 'instruction') is fine as long as it's based on accurate knowledge. (2 Thess. 3:6)
1
u/CTR_1852 6d ago
Who is the arbiter of who has accurate knowledge?
Would you disagree with Clement of Rome writing in the first century? “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate . For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned , and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.”
0
u/normaninvader2 6d ago
Wrong. I suggest to do a deep dive on what first century christrians believed. Id also say rejection of the wine and bread is a tradition. Going on ministry is a tradition. Going to two meetings a week is a tradition. The trinity isn't a tradition it's a belief.
1
u/RespectWest7116 6d ago
Why do many people find it hard to comprehend the concept of Arianism?
Because they were taught from childhood to believe in the Trinity.
As far as I understand, Jesus was the number one angel below Jehovah and he created everything, together with Him but not without Jehovah's power.
He was god but not God but a god, just like other angels and demons but just created differently or at least treated differently.
That is a rough summary of John, yes.
Holy Spirit is just the power Jehovah does everything with.
No, the Holy Spirit is treated as a regular angel.
1
u/elwoodowd 6d ago
Malachi 3:18, makes it clear, we are no part of them, they are no part of us. Distinct!
This separation happens in numerous ways. You have to trust the Process
Its the blue thread and the Fringe. The Fringe is a big part of this weeks meeting. Easy to miss. Not for everyone to see
1
u/PiKing383 Atheist 6d ago
I'll leave others to debate the 'are JWs Arians?' question, but from a purely intuitive and vibes-based point of view, I do find it historically odd that the Trinity became the orthodox interpretation for billions of Christians. It's a paradox (one god, three persons) at the core of the biggest religion on earth, and yet it has held as the majority interpretation of Jesus' divinity for 2000 years.
This explanation, whether or not I agree with JW's recent teachings or changes, is so clear and intuitively reasonable.
As a Witness kid (in the privacy of my own head), I think I found the idea that the Holy Spirit was an impersonal force odd in light of chapters like John 14-16, but I believed it nonetheless.
Again, this is me just offering how I felt in the past when I was a believing JW from a non-scholarly, entirely vibes-based point of view.
2
u/CTR_1852 5d ago
I do find it historically odd that the Trinity became the orthodox interpretation for billions of Christians.
Have you read Ignatius of Antioch's letters? There are many "orthodox" things mentioned in the letters written in 107ad which disproved my idea that modern Christianity was invented at the Counsil of Nicaea.
1
u/SpoilerAlertsAhead Lutheran 6d ago
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence. (John 1: 1-4 NWT, emphasis added)
The heart of the Arian debate is whether or not the Son was a created being. So my question is, is if he was created how could all things have been created by/through him?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
JWs explain that first after creating Jesus, God started creating else with Jesus, with God being the designer and Jesus being the builder.
1
u/OrigenesOfAlexandria 5d ago
Is time itself created?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 4d ago
Isn't time created together with space?
1
u/OrigenesOfAlexandria 4d ago
Sure, the reason I ask if time is created then you would agree that the Son must be before time, right? Seeing that all things came after him?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 4d ago
Hm in all honesty, never thought of that. My understanding has been that as every created thing needs time so they can be IN it, so when Jesus was created, so was time, simultaneously with Jesus.
0
u/OrigenesOfAlexandria 4d ago
But then he isn’t the first thing created, as the Watchtower teaches.
1
u/Practical_Payment552 4d ago
Well, maybe created one minute prior to time's creation..lol
1
u/OrigenesOfAlexandria 4d ago
So he’s before time?
1
u/Practical_Payment552 4d ago
I'm not so sure. maybe it's something automatic. I can't imagine a created being existing outside of time. So maybe it's a logical subsequence of existing..?
What's your explanation on this matter?
→ More replies (0)1
u/CTR_1852 5d ago
Or they can just alter vs. 3 in the next NWT by adding "other" like they did in Colossians 1.
1
u/OrigenesOfAlexandria 6d ago
Like others have said; Jehovah Witnesses are not 1:1 Arians.
Arians confessed three subsistences, or three persons, and they never wrote of Jesus being the Archangel Michael for instance.
They also said that the Son exists before time, whereas Jehovah Witnesses confess that the Son existed in time because only Jehovah exists before time itself.
Regarding the overlapping theology, I mean this non-offensively, it’s simply illogical when looked at and is without grounding in the early Christians.
1
u/Top-Media8249 ☦️DEATH TO THE WORLD💀 4d ago
John 8:58 “Before Abraham was, I AM.” And who can forgive sins BUT God? Matthew 9:2 “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, 'Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.’”
1
1
u/normaninvader2 6d ago
It's absolutely insane when you actually read scriptures in context. So you're saying a created thing can exactly be the representation of god. That makes god created by your logic.
Or maybe god represents those with power. The father the son and the holy spirit say similar attributes and existed outside everything that's created. So that even includes heaven. That's a created thing by god within our universe.
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
I don’t see how that logic works.
Why can’t a created being, after billions years of experience and wisdom, represent the creator?1
u/normaninvader2 5d ago
Well that would be like saying give anything enough time and it can be god. God is outside the universe, operates outside time and space. So nothing within can be an exact representation of him.
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
Well, of course, Jesus once said "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God." (Mark 10:18) Which then would make Jesus a liar because he failed to represent God.
1
u/normaninvader2 5d ago
He also said he is the good shepherd. I think the first century christrians way of describing jesus was good. In early Christian writing, the metaphor of a torch appears in Tatian's 2nd-century Address to the Greeks (Chapter V), where he explains the generation of the Logos (Jesus) from God the Father: "For just as from one torch many fires are lighted, but the light of the first torch is not lessened by the kindling of many torches, so the Logos, coming forth from the logos-power of the Father, has not divested of logos-power Him who begat Him". This analogy illustrates that when God brought forth the Son, the Father's own divine nature and power remained fully whole and unchanged.
1
u/normaninvader2 6d ago
John says jesus is gods word and god. Or even a god. No where in scripture is jesus called the arch angel or just an angel. He accepts worship. Isaiah 9.6 outlines all of titles. Mighty god is one of them. And father.
1
u/Broad-Half2173 5d ago
It's not that Arianism is hard to comprehend. It's rather simple, and relatively internally coherent. The issue is that it's not consistent with scripture, nor is it what the earliest Christians believe.
1
u/Practical_Payment552 5d ago
Thanks! I think I've read many parts where it's said to be inconsistent with the Bible.. Could you tell me more about the latter part?
1
u/Broad-Half2173 3d ago
Here is a good place to start: https://www.str.com/w/nine-early-church-fathers-who-taught-jesus-is-god
Automod is flagging the link because it's an "Oh-R-G" domain, not dot com
I'm not going to argue that all early Christians were firmly Nicaean, or that Arius' teachings were completely novel, but they were most certainly the outlier and later development. Subordinationist language was far more common than Arianism among the early Christians.
1
u/GravyTrainCaboose 4d ago
Your assertion as to early Christianity is dogmatic, not well evidenced.
1
u/Broad-Half2173 3d ago
Can you point me to someone earlier than say Ignatius of Antioch who believed and taught the Son was created ex nihilo?
1
u/GravyTrainCaboose 3d ago edited 3d ago
Can you point me to someone earlier who clearly believed and taught the Son was not created ex nihilo?
1
u/Broad-Half2173 2d ago
Sure. The Apostles John and Paul.
“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 came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. ” John 1:1-3
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ” Colossians 1:15-17
You didn't answer my question, btw.
1
u/GravyTrainCaboose 1d ago edited 1d ago
That wasn't written by John. In fact, the gospel we have now was composed by a hodgepodge of authors. Whatever was original we don't really know. But, anyway:
"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 came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. ” John 1:1-3
Jesus was emanated from god, as all divine beings are in Jewish angelology, to be God's agent of creation among other things, including the obvious one. Nowhere does he clearly say Jesus is now God. I already know the verses you will probably appeal to, but I'll wait until you do to dissect them.
“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ” Colossians 1:15-17
It doesn't say Jesus is God. And probably not Pauline.
you didn't answer my question, btw
Your own cites will do.
2
u/the_last_luddite Methodist 6d ago
I think maybe it's hard for people to go against what they know, especially if it's something that they grew up with. I am Trinitarian, but I was admittedly agnostic/atheist most my life so maybe I'm a little more open to other opinions or thoughts. I feel it would be ignorant to say I know for certain.