"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

aqwsed12345

"The dichotomy made by Trinitarians between “created” and “begotten”..."

This "dichotomy" is made by the Scriptures, not by "the Trinitarians", since the Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.

Does the New Testament say that the Son was begotten or born of the Father? Yes or no? Say the same of the creatures or not? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Holy Scriptures describe the origin of the Son from the Father, consistently with a different word it uses for the creatures?

gennao, tikto <-> ktizo, poio

the NT exclusively describes the Son’s orgin from the Father by terms derived from ‘gennao’ and ‘tikto’, and openly states that that in the beginning He already was, even the aeons made through him
the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two

It's particularly amusing that one of the most important Watchtower doctrines which they are 'ad nauseam' parroting, namely "the Son is a creature", is NOWHERE explicitly stated in the Bible, although they amusingly claim that all their teachings are "clearly" in the Bible!

The fact that you simply label the concept that time itself is a created reality as "philosophy" (although the New Testament uses many terms used in Greek philosophy, and "aeon" is just such one also), which in WTS terminology has a pejorative meaning (I would rather call it common sense, logical conclusion), doesn't refute it. The Nicene Creed, originally written in Greek, does not use the English word "time" when it says that the Son was born from the Father before all "aeons". The concept of "aeon" naturally includes temporality itself, therefore, when there were no "aeons", there was no time. Or what do you claim? That time is not a created thing? That time has always existed? That time is eternal and has no beginning? Well, you've already undermined your own alleged theism, because for a theistic Christian, only God is not a created reality. The concept of "time" is, by the way, the measure of change. But in the Son, as God, there is no change: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)

They try to escape the obvious biblical difference between creation and begetting, and accuse the Trinitarians of a fallacy in argumentation, as if we're reading the Nicene definition into the biblical word. But what they primarily forget (probably deliberately out of necessity) is that regardless of Nicea, even before Nicea, this difference in usage between begetting (birth) and creation existed, so the Council itself relied on this when formulating this article of faith. But why should one think by default that the begotten is also a creature?

Once a WTS apologist argued to me that "God has neither male nor female reproductive organs, another person can only come from him in one way: through creation." As if God could only beget if he possessed real human reproductive organs! Yet we find it written that Jesus is the imprint of his essence (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou), which means that Scripture not only expresses his origin from the Father with the analogy of begetting, but also with the metaphor of replication.

And again, John 3:6 states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Therefore, the Spirit can also beget, which obviously differs from the Spirit's creative power, because its result is not necessarily a spirit.

If, therefore, WTS apologists want to claim that "the concept of birth contrasted with creation is simply an artificial theological construct, deliberately created to avoid the fact that Jesus indeed has a beginning", then they have to turn against the Bible's use of words. And it doesn't change the fact that in addition to being born again, Scripture sometimes attributes new creation to us, because this can be considered necessary for us, fallen creatures. But there is no valid reason to argue that the birth of the Son (as the only-begotten God) was also a creation.

My WTS apologist debate partner also said that "the Bible simply solemnizes the Son's creation, for he is the first and most excellent creature, the partner of the Father, and his beloved Son." - And they talk about the above distinction as merely a human creation, when it is you who fills the thickest part of your attempted rebuttal with WTS jargon!

In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.

My debate partner also referred to "God does not multiply", yet somehow he has a Son, who according to the Bible is the "only-begotten God." Otherwise, I also don't believe that God "multiplies" because Jesus was not born in time, that is, there was never a time when the Father existed without the Son. This is proven by John 1:1, which states "in the beginning was the Word."

Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as the firstborn of all creation, and the immediate continuation explains this clearly, when it adds: FOR by him all things were created. Revelation 3:14 does not call Jesus a creature, but the beginning (or principle, orign, source, power - because "arche" can also mean this) of God's creation. A satisfying explanation for this is that all things were created in him and for him, all things were made through him, and without him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John 1:3 clearly proves that Jesus is not "made", but in accordance with John 1:1, he always "was". For if Jesus were a creature, this verse would claim about him that he was created with his own cooperation, which unleashes the conceptual monster of "self-creation" on the debater who tries this.

From the fact that Jesus "was" in the world only in the sense (according to John 1:10) that he penetrated into time, you want to conclude that he "could have been" "in the beginning" only in the sense that he started this at some point, that is, he was created. Here the conclusion's lack of foundation is striking, because Barron wants to use a created form of existence (the physical world) as a springboard to prove Jesus' alleged creation, although in John 1:1 no addition indicates where or how Jesus "was in the beginning." The "arche" as a temporal limit is out of the question, because we explicitly read about Jesus that "all things were created by him," even the arche (powers, literally: beginnings). Since Jesus existed even outside the "beginning" described here, there is no longer a way to push the beginning of his existence to a certain point in time, but it is rooted in timelessness.

Stafford and other unofficial WTS apologists probably continuing an already started analogy or looking for a counterexample, I brought up the example of human procreation, but not as a proof, because otherwise there is a big difference between them. The analogy between the two procreations errs in that while man is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but God's creature (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father and as such does not require a separate act of creation.

The WTS apologists - without any biblical proof - claim that there is only one kind of "output" from the Father, and this is creation, and that the fact that the Son's origin from the Father is always described in the New Testament with the words "begotten" and "born" is just a kind of "ceremonial" expression. It is written that he "was in the beginning," while all created things "were created in the beginning" (or after). The Son's birth is unique and different not only in terminology but also in essence from that of the creatures. Because he is the only-begotten Son (and the only-begotten God), that is, in terms of sonship and begotten divinity, he is unique even when he already has many siblings from the Father. This difference includes non-createdness, because the only-begotten God cannot be a "created God" - this expression in itself would be blasphemy.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

Wonderment

While indeed this is the main reason, Trinitarians do not have to explain Jesus' kind of "subordination" exclusively from His humanity: it can exist even if we consider that He is the Son, and the Father is the Father. This does not imply a difference in divinity, but only voluntary (love-related) subordination resulting from the order of origin. Another explanation could be what ancient ecclesiastical authors called "economy of salvation," which they understood as mutual adaptation for the sake of salvation in action and operation. For example, when we read about the Son's incarnation that "He did not consider equality with God something to be used to His own advantage, but emptied Himself," etc., it was not some ontological inferiority that compelled Him, but considerations necessary for the salvation of mankind that moved Him.

It's in vain to deny it: The New Testament itself explicitly teaches Jesus' dual nature. On the one hand, Jesus is called the only-begotten God (John 1:18), and God who was with the Father in the beginning (John 1:1) - on the other hand, it confesses that He became flesh (John 1:14), similar to us, to destroy the devil through death. So what kind of talk is it when JWs claim that the New Testament does not know anything about a "dual nature"? Of course, Trinitarians do not say that "the God of Jesus' human nature is the Father" - but that the God of Jesus, the God-man, is the Father, in terms of his human nature. What they bring up after this is a typical case of "arguing from silence": "Jesus does not say, 'The Father is greater than I am in my human nature'" - and can be easily strengthened with what we find in Philippians 2:5-8:

"though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, assuming human likeness. And being found in appearance as a human, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death — even death on a cross."

Here, the state of being of God is explicitly attributed to Jesus as an existing state, and the word God is without an article just as much as when mentioning equality with God in the next verse. Therefore, it is entirely natural to refer both mentions of "theos" to the same thing. In addition, equality with God appears as something instead of which Jesus became human, so we must imitate this self-sacrificing mindset. But Paul does not emphasize that we should not strive higher than we deserve, but that we should not even seek what is rightfully ours, and consider others superior to ourselves (Philippians 2:3). From this, it is highly probable to take the word "harpagmos" (booty) in the sense of "res rapta" (seized thing), and not what your translation suggests, namely that Jesus did not want to seize equality with God.

Every attempt to render "harpagmos" here with "seizing" or a similar action and argue on this basis that Jesus "did not entertain the idea of usurpation to become equal with God", or as the NWT renders it: "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." is entirely fruitless. The word "hegeomai" does not mean "to consider," but "to regard as." It has a well-defined complement in Greek, which is grammatically expressed with a double accusative. In light of this, the above interpretation would lead here: "Jesus did not regard being equal with God as robbery" - which would grammatically mean exactly the opposite of what JWs want to get out of it: that is, he considered it something that is due to him. This is the basis for Furuli's argument, who wants to exploit that the "-gmos" suffix primarily creates active-minded nouns.

What JWs confidently claim is also not true, namely that there is no biblical evidence that "this is to be understood only in terms of His human nature". For the Epistle to the Hebrews neatly summarizes how much His becoming lower can be attributed to His being human (5,7-9):

"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered, and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"

That is, if He had not become human, He would not have needed to pray to the Father, nor to learn obedience, as He was not forced to do so as the Son. Otherwise: If from the beginning the Son were just a creature, so ontologically inferior to the Father regardless of his incarnation, why did he only have to "learn" obedience "in the days of his [being] flesh"? And Col 2:9 clearly proves that Jesus possessed the fullness (pleroma) of the deity (theotes, and not theitotes), not just some kind of demigod, lesser god ("a god") "quality".

8

Justification

by Sea Breeze in

the..."other sheep...are...not even justified".

- wt 1938 pg.

jw's are internationally famous for rejecting the new covenant "for the forgiveness of sins" (mt.

aqwsed12345

Sea Breeze

Yes, I am. Do you know this?

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Regarding Jude 5, it should be noted that even the JWs teach that the "angel" who brought the Israelites into their promised land (and would not pardon transgression because God's name was in him Exodus 23:20–21) was "God's firstborn Son". They link the prince of the people of Israel mentioned in Daniel 10:21 to the firstborn called "the Son of God".

Of course, he was not known by the name Jesus at that time, but why could Jude not call Him Jesus afterwards, by his Name according to the incarnation? The reading of "Jesus" in Jude 5 does not mean that it suggests that he was already known by the name Jesus already then, but rather simply identifies the "malak Yahweh" of the Old Testament with the later incarnate Son.

Where does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere. Jesus Christ, "who is over all, the eternally blessed God" (Rom 9:5), "through whom everything was made" (Heb 2:10; cf. Jn 1:2-3), in whom "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9), who is "the true God and eternal life" (1Jn 5:20), the "only Lord" (Jude 1:4), "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; cf. Is 44:6), "the Lord of lords and the King of kings" (Rev 17:14) cannot be identified with an angel, with Michael, who is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, cf. Hebrews 1). The New Testament never calls Jesus an angel (cf. Hebrews 1:5), let alone Michael.

The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: Jude's letter establishes the truth that Satan has greater authority than Michael. The apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).

The verse they refer to (1Thess 4:16) is so forced that I can only marvel at anyone who falls for it. It does not say that the voice of Michael is Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying the arrival of Jesus. The phrase "His archangelic voice" is not present in 1 Thess 4:16, instead it simply states: "with the voice of the archangel." It continues to say "with the trumpet of God." Therefore, if Jesus, according to this misinterpretation, is an archangel, then the same logic proves His deity.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

Jesus always called himself the only begotten Son of God, one and equal in dignity with the Father, eternal, omnipotent, the judge of the world, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) He constantly aligns himself with the Father ("Father, Son, Holy Spirit"), though as a man, he calls himself lesser than the Father.

At the Last Supper, in response to Apostle Philip's request to show him the Father, Jesus emphatically replied, "Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me? Philip, whoever has seen me, has seen the Father" (John 14:9). The Jews once wanted to stone him specifically because he called himself God: "We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33). At the solemn request of the high priest to state whether he is the Son of God, Jesus responded with the most decisive yes. When the high priest and the entire Jewish council marked this as blasphemy with scandal, Jesus did not retract his statement. He also accepted the solemn homage from Thomas: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). He would not have left these words uncorrected if he did not know himself to be truly God. He solemnly proclaims that he hears requests directed to the Father (John 14:13). He declares that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58), even lived with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). He forgives sins committed against God by his own power and declares that he will one day be the judge of the whole world.

Someone who speaks of themselves in this way can only be God, or a common charlatan, or a madman. Jesus, however, was truly not a madman, but the wisest man and most brilliant thinker in world history. He was even less of a charlatan and fraud, as his pure moral character excluded even the smallest sin, let alone such grave blasphemy and self-idolatry!

If Jesus proclaimed himself as God and was worshipped as God, there can be only one explanation: that he was indeed God.

The same is confirmed by the wonderful fulfillment of Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus; the truly divine brilliance of his teaching and moral supremacy that far surpasses all human; his many miracles performed in broad daylight before the crowds and also checked by his enemies, especially his own resurrection; the amazing vitality of his creation and Church, which has remained unchanged through the many storms, attacks, persecutions, and intellectual shifts of two thousand years and became the starting point of a new, brilliantly pure moral culture.

But the JWs say that Jesus himself never calls himself God, "only" the Son of God. The two do not exclude each other, John also says at the beginning of his gospel: "The Word was with God." But he also adds; "And the Word was God." (John 1:1.) Jesus is the Son of God because he is one of the three divine persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word "Son of God", especially as Jesus repeatedly uses it: the only begotten Son of God, based on the above, is actually more than the simple "God" word, which could be misunderstood and explained in the sense of pagan polytheism.

In three senses can someone be the "son of God". In the broadest sense, every human being is a child of God, that is, a child of God's creative providence. In a narrower sense, sonship of God is tantamount to possessing supernatural grace, the supernatural rebirth of baptism (John 1:12, Gal 4:6). In the strictest sense, however, the Son of God is the Second Person of the Trinity, who was begotten from the Father from eternity and co-equal with the Father in everything. It was this Son of God who became man in Jesus Christ, which is why we rightly call Jesus the Son of God. This is the Jesus who was crucified for us, died, buried, and on the third day rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father.

How can a man be God? Only by the divine persone also taking the human nature, as if dressing in a human body and soul; while, of course, remaining who he has always been; God, the only-begotten, eternal, divine Son of the Father. This dual nature is expressed by the term "God-man", or in other words: "The Word made flesh."

But didn't Jesus himself say, "The Father is greater than I am?" Of course he did, because as a man, he was unquestionably lesser than the Father. The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity. As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.

There would only be a contradiction if in Jesus the divine and human properties were fused into one nature, and thus mutually corrupted each other. But this is not the case. On the contrary: Jesus remained fully God and at the same time fully human. In his human nature, he was small and weak, but in his divine nature, he was infinite and omnipotent. In his human nature, he became like us in every respect, except for sin; in his divine nature, however, he is always above us. In his human nature, he was born, grew, learned, got tired, hungry, thirsty, cried, sweated, suffered, died, rose; in his divine nature, he was eternal changelessness. All this did not cause any contradiction or split in him, but rather, they complemented each other wonderfully.

The JWs also refer to the fact that Jesus himself says that not even he, the Son of Man, knows the day of the final judgement, only the Father does. That's right: because in his human nature, he could indeed not know this. But he knew as God, and of course under the enlightening influence of his divinity he also knew as a man, but not based on his human knowledge.

But how could Jesus "pray" to the Father, if he, in his essence, was identical with the Father? As a man, he could pray to himself as God; that is, his human soul could glorify the divinity that was closely connected with him but fundamentally different from him. There is no contradiction in this, but rather it is a natural consequence of the two natures.

According to the JWs, the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more than veiled polytheism. This claim, constantly repeated by the Jewish, Unitarian, and Muslim sides, must be deemed a total misconception. Christianity completely excludes polytheism with its basic teaching that the Trinity only applies to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; in other words, there is only one God. The multiplicity of persons in no way contradicts the unity of essence, even though it is true that without revelation we would have no idea that "personal" and "essence" do not always coincide. From the fact that these two coincide in us humans, it does not follow that the two concepts are identical.

But according to them, it is still a contradiction: God is both one and three. It would be a contradiction if we said: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons is no more a contradiction than if I say: three persons and one family, or: a hundred soldiers and one company. We do not identify the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. No conceptual contradiction can be detected in this.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"? Does this "reasonable to assume" and the like, etc., which appear in the Watchtower on this matter, satify the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Because it's a bit ironic to mock which centuries the oldest available manuscripts our position come from, but how old are yours? How come there isn't any? Is that okay?

4

"Jehovah Will Help You Deal With Life’s Uncertainties" - WT Study Edition | April 2023

by aqwsed12345 in

i'm talking about paragraph 15 of this article:.

the title of the study article: "jehovah will help you deal with life’s uncertainties".

accordingly, does it count as an "unexpected difficulty" when it turns out that a prophet's declaration made in the name of god does not come true?

aqwsed12345

I'm talking about paragraph 15 of THIS article:

The title of the study article: "Jehovah Will Help You Deal With Life’s Uncertainties"

Accordingly, does it count as an "unexpected difficulty" when it turns out that a prophet's declaration made in the name of God does not come true? I have encountered the argument that Russell (who died in 1916) was not a prophet. I think anyone who makes predictions in God's name that will only come true in the future is a prophet. If he declares in advance that the given statement did not come from God, he is only making these statements as a bible scholar, then he is not a prophet and not guilty. He cannot mix the results of his own Bible research with the inspiration of God's "holy spirit". I quote:

"During the years leading up to 1914, Jehovah’s people had high expectations. Consider, for example, Brother A. H. Macmillan. Like many at that time, Brother Macmillan thought that he would receive his heavenly reward very soon. In a talk he gave in September 1914, he said: “This is probably the last public address I shall ever deliver.” Of course, that was not his last talk. Brother Macmillan later wrote: “Perhaps some of us had been a bit too hasty in thinking that we were going to heaven right away.”

Let's analyze this statement.

What does "perhaps" mean? Is it not certain that this was the case? Doesn't he know? Or doesn't he remember? How can a Witness start his testimony with the word "perhaps"?
Who are the "some of us"? At that time there was only one "theocratic leader": Russell, who died in 1916. Could it be that in 1914 such lectures could not be given by the most zealous (according to Russell)? Why do they have to be called "some of us"?
What is "high expectation"? Was this some external phenomenon independent of them? They just found themselves in it like in a storm or a flood? Maybe Brother A. H. Macmillan wants to say that they too had to adapt to this "high expectation"? - I think it was exactly the opposite. They whipped up the "mood" to ecstasy, then "harvested" the masses of enthusiastic believers.
Why does Brother Macmillan use such uncertain plurals? Why does he say, "some of us thought"? Why doesn't he phrase it in the way of Jesus, yes-yes, no-no? (Matthew 5:37) Why doesn't he say, "I thought so, along with the others"?
Why doesn't he mention Russell, with whom one could not have a dissenting opinion, because if he had a dissenting opinion, he could not have lectured? Why is he trying to obscure Russell's responsibility?

This Watchtower article is a true example of spiritual conditioning. It demonstrates the art of obfuscating the facts and the desirable (or expected) spiritual attitude when even the Bible doesn't matter, biblical declarations about false prophets aren't important, nothing is important, only loyalty at all costs. More precisely: it's not loyalty that matters, but only the appearance of loyalty. The circle closes, which began with the substitution of biblical expressions like "love", "love each other" with "show love", "demonstrate love". This is such a small difference that perhaps no one notices. And behold, what a butterfly effect is the result. There was an article that said "show interest". It wasn't important to be interested, but to show interest. Don't love, but show love. That's why I think you don't have to be loyal, you have to show loyalty.

34

A New List of the J Versions and Where to Find them

by pizzahut2023 in

hi!i am doing a very long and exhaustive study of the "j" versions, based off the new study edition of the new world translation:https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

this list has about 300 sources, mostly bibles, that the jehovah's witnesses have used to "justify" their insertion of "jehovah" into the new testament.i am doing an excel spreadsheet of where to find digitized copies of these j versions and then some notes on them.. they contain some really interesting renderings, some that would make a jehovah's witness's head spin!for example, in j29:the original aramaic new testament in plain english (an american translation of the aramaic new testament), by glenn david bauscher, seventh edition, australia, 2012which you can find here:.

http://buffaloriverforge.com/peshitta/nt%20peshitta%207th%20ed%20plain%20text%20unnoted.pdfin luke 2:11 it says:.

aqwsed12345

Didache

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

https://www.affinity.org.uk/foundations/issue-75/issue-75-who-led-the-israelites-out-of-egypt/

https://cdn.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Midwinter-Who-Led-Israel-Jude-5.pdf

https://exegeticaltools.com/2017/11/20/yes-jesus-saved-destroyed-israelites/

Although the substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai (ho kyrios, the Lord) was partly a consequence of misunderstanding among the Jews, it was still of no small significance for the spread of the Old Testament revelation that prepared for Christ. It could almost be considered providential that after the Babylonian captivity - when the people of Israel began to interact more frequently with various pagan peoples of the world, and when the synagogues emerging everywhere provided an increasing number of centers for the religion of Israel far beyond the borders of Palestine, around which even the salvation-thirsty pagans gathered and began to familiarize themselves with the revelation - God did not become known to the pagans under the mysterious name of Yahweh, understood only by the Jews, which, as the peculiar name of the God of Israel's covenant, would surely have given them the impression that this was just another national deity.

The name Yahweh -- as Gustaf Dalman correctly states (Studien zur biblischen Theologie: Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte, Berlin, 1889, page 80) -- with which God revealed Himself to Israel and entered into a close relationship with Israel, distinguishing Himself from the gods of other nations, was only appropriate as long as divine revelation moved only within the confines of one nation. However, as soon as the Kingdom of God moved from "the people", "the nation", into the midst of "the peoples", "the nations", the proper name had to be dropped. The true God now had to appear before the peoples under a name that would express in a universally understandable word the relationship of the revealed God to the world, to all the peoples of the world. This name had to contain that what the false gods are only wrongly attributed, He and only He possesses in reality, i.e., divine dignity and power extending over all things, for which He justly demands obedience and submission from all nations of the world. For these indications, the word "Lord", the "Adonai", the "Kyrios" was undeniably the most suitable.

So, as Israel gave way to humanity becoming the subject of God's saving activity, Adonai replaced Yahweh as the head and executor of this action. The God of Israel thus became the Lord before whom the whole world must bow, for He is the Lord of the whole world. As Adonai, the God of Israel was proclaimed to the peoples of the world, and as the Lord of the world, He began His triumphant journey among the peoples, and under this name the peoples of the world have been worshiping Him and pleading to Him for centuries, and will continue to worship and plead to Him for the centuries to come until the end of times.

The substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai is no less noteworthy when we consider that the Old Testament's LORD, Yahweh, who often appears as "the Angel of the LORD", "the Angel of God", and "the Angel of the Gods" respectively, and manifests Himself in various theophanies, is not the Father, but in fact the second person of the divinity, the Son, same in essence with the Father, the pre-Incarnate Word (Logos), but after His Incarnation, He was to appear in the New Testament as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Kyrios Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word Malak in fact simply means the envoy, the messenger (missus, legatus), and later angel, messenger (angelus, nuntius) who is God's delegate, messenger to people. The Angel of the LORD, or the Angel of God in the quoted places does not represent a common, created angel, but an entity infinitely higher than the angels. This "Angel" of the LORD, or the "Angel" of God, although a separate person from the Father, is same in essence with God (Exodus 23:21, the Lord Himself says of him: "my name is in Him", that is, I appear in and through him); divine attributes and operations are attributed to him, and he is even directly called Yahweh, God; those who see him treat him with divine respect and homage, which he accepts from them, and he generally acts as God. This Angel of God, or delegate, messenger to people, as we will see, is none other than the Son, the as yet unincarnated divine Word, the Logos.

He has appeared to Hagar repeatedly in the desert (Gen. 16, 7, and later; 21, 17, and later), who clearly calls the "Angel of the Lord" "Yahweh" and "her God" (16,13); Abraham in Mamre, accompanied by two angels: promises the old Sarah a son, Abraham countless generations and announces the destruction of the Valley of Siddim (Gen. 18 and 19.1; The Angel of the Lord here is repeatedly called "Yahweh" (18, 13. 17, 19. 20. 22. 26, 33.) and His divine omnipotence is attributed to Him (18, 14); then he appears again when he wanted to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Gen. 22, 11 and later; see 22, 16 and later); he appeared to Jacob, fleeing from Esau, in a dream at Bethel, calling Himself Yahweh and renewing the promises made to Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 28); later in Mesopotamia, where he asks him to return to his homeland (Gen. 31:11 and later); then upon returning, in the form of an unknown man wrestling with him at the Jabok river (whom the prophet Hosea calls "the Angel of God" (12:5), who blesses Jacob and changes his name to "Israel" (wrestler with God) (Gen. 32:24 and later); Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2 and later), where he revealed His name, Yahweh, and stated that He is the God of the patriarchs etc; it was this "Angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, led and protected them in the wilderness, gave them the law on Mount Sinai; this is what hovered before the people in the form of a pillar of cloud (Ex. 14:19), which is why it is called "Yahweh's cloud" (Ex. 40:34); He also appeared to Balaam, who arrived on a donkey to curse the Israelites, whom he first invisibly stopped in his path and after being beaten by Balaam, the donkey miraculously spoke in a human voice, becomes visible to Balaam and tells him that he can only speak according to God's command (Num. 22, 22-35); later to the Israelites in Ophrah as the people's guardian angel (Judges 6); to Manoah's barren wife (the future mother of Samson) he promises a son and accepts Manoah's sacrifice (Judges 13). — Since the introduction of the kingdom, He appears less and less frequently, because after the establishment of the kingdom and the prophetic institution, God used his regular tools and substitutes to lead and teach his people; but the operation and mention of "the Angel of the Lord" did not cease. "The Angel of the Lord" was the one who, in the time of King Hezekiah, destroyed 185,000 people in one night in the Assyrian camp besieging Jerusalem in vain; the prophet Isaiah calls this as the liberator of the people "the Angel of the Lord's face" (see Isaiah 63:9), through whom God shows his face, that is, appears to people, therefore in the sense in which the New Testament also calls Christ the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his being" (Heb. 1:3), that is: the manifest image of the unseen Father's divine being. The prophet Ezekiel also saw the Angel of the Lord in his rapture in the form of a man sitting on a royal throne (Ezek. 1:26 and later): the prophet Daniel, however, as the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 3,:49 and later). The "Angel of the Lord" also frequently appears in the visions of the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 3:1 and later; 12:1 and later); the prophet Malachi, however, prophesied to the Jews; "The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire..." (Mal. 3:1). — When the institution of prophecy, having fulfilled its divine calling, ceased with Malachi, the Angel of the Lord completely withdrew, only to appear a few centuries later embodied on earth in the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the Old Testament, the hidden Father is not strictly distinguished from the self-revealing, the one working for the benefit of people, the Son of God, both are called Yahweh (Adonai, Lord). The distinction only occurred in the New Testament, after God, the eternal Word, became human. And only the New Testament shed light on the fact that what the Old Testament often generally says about God or attributes to him, is actually meant to be about the Son of God, the Logos, who was the executor of what the Father God had ordered. The New Testament also reveals that both the Old and the New Testament were written by the same author; the Son of God; the Old Testament as the not yet incarnate Logos, the New Testament as the already incarnate Logos.

For the Father, according to the teaching of the Bible, has never appeared to people, no one has ever seen him; he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man can see; his essence is invisible (1 John 18:6, 46; 1 John 4:12; Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1Tim. 1:17; 6, 16; Ex 33:20; Deut 4:12). Therefore, when the Old Testament speaks of the appearances of God (the theophanies), these cannot be attributed to the Father, for according to the promise we will only see him in the afterlife (Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2-3; Re 2:1, 3, 22:23.), - but to the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Logos. This can already be inferred from the wonderful visions of Ezekiel (1:26-28) and Daniel (7:13-14). The former saw a human figure sitting on a throne, surrounded by light; the latter saw the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven, which obviously refers to the future incarnation of the Logos, the God-man Jesus Christ. But this is clearly written about in the New Testament: John, Paul, Judas Thaddeus, and the Apostle Peter.

John the Evangelist says (12:41) that Isaiah saw (in divine revelation) the glory of Christ (the divine power and nature of the future Messiah and Savior, which manifested in Jesus's teachings and miracles before the Jews). Here John refers to the sublime vision obtained at the time of the prophet's calling, as described in Isa. 6:1—10. The Adonai (Lord, Isa. 6:1) seen in that vision, for whom the Targum uses the expression "the glory of Yahweh", is according to John none other than the revealing Son of God, the divine Word, (the Logos, John 1:1; 12:41), who as from the beginning was the mediator of all divine revelation. In this amazing vision, He appeared as the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His being (Heb. 1:2-3; John 17:24). Isaiah, however, does not explicitly describe Him as the Son of God, but speaks generally of the God of the Old Testament, referring to Him only as "the Lord" (YHWH), since the triune nature of God was not clearly revealed in the Old Testament.

In this vision, the same Adonai also spoke to Isaiah and commanded him (in verses 9 and 10) to prophesy to the Jewish people about their willful disbelief, which fully manifested in Jesus's time when the Jews largely remained unreceptive to his teachings, miracles, and actions. By abusing their free will, they chose not to believe, which led to their complete spiritual blindness and stubbornness.

Paul teaches that during the forty-year journey in the wilderness, Christ was the leader and benefactor of the Israelites, whose blessings followed them at every step. Moreover, the frequent grumblings and rebellions of the Israelites were directed against Christ, who was their guide and companion (1 Cor. 10:4,9). Paul also states that it was Christ who shook the earth at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:26).

According to Jude Thaddeus, Jesus (the Lord) delivered Israel from Egypt and destroyed the unbelievers (Jude 1:5). Some significant manuscripts (like the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and the Vulgate) use 'Lord' instead of 'Jesus', and some textual critics, including Karl Lachmann (died 1851), consider this latter reading to be more authentic. By the way, the "kyrios" read in the Sinai manuscript also refers to Jesus.

Peter says that the prophets spoke through the Spirit of Christ, that is, the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Spirit of the Logos, who prophesied about His suffering and glorification through them (1 Peter 1:11). John, Paul, Jude Thaddeus, and Peter the Apostles used the names "Christ" and "Jesus" proleptically (anticipating), because the Eternal Logos (Word) only bore these names after incarnation as God-man. But they could anticipate, because the god who revealed himself in the Old Testament was the same Son of God who later appeared in Jesus Christ.

Following the significant Church Fathers and writers (like Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Bede, Theophylact, etc.), interpreters of the scripture also relate the words in John 1:10: "He was in the world" to the guidance of humanity by the not yet incarnate Logos. See also Baruch 3:36-38.

The Council of Sirmium (AD 351) excommunicates those who would deny that it was with the Son of God (the Logos) that Jacob wrestled.

The concept of the Church is shown by the so-called improperiums, or reproaches (antiphons and responsories), which are said in the Good Friday liturgy under the veneration of the cross for the ingratitude and infidelity of the Jewish people, because 1. He led the Israelites out of Egypt; 2. He guided them for forty years in the desert and finally led them to the fertile land of Canaan; 3. He struck Egypt with plagues and its firstborn with death for them; 4. He opened the Red Sea before them so that they could cross; 5. He buried Pharaoh's army in its waves; 6. He walked before them in the Pillar of Cloud; 7. He fed them with manna in the desert; 8. He quenched their thirst with living water from the rock; 9. He defeated the kings of Canaan for them; 10. He gave them royal law; 11. He elevated them with His power. The same is shown by the second "O" antiphon of the liturgy of the week before Christmas (Dec. 18): "Oh Adonai (God of the Covenant), Leader of the house of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Mount Sinai, come and redeem us with your mighty arm!"

Based on the Church Fathers, the same is taught and irrefutably proven by modern Catholic theologians, to whom several orthodox Protestants also join.

It was most appropriate that the Son of God, according to God's eternal decree, was meant to be the executor of redemption, prepare the way for redemption, gradually prepare the entire Old Testament for what he wanted to accomplish after his incarnation. The whole relationship of the Old Testament to the New almost demanded that the activity of the Redeemer, who is the center of all history, has not remained unknown since it was first promised (Ex. 3:14), because what God did for the salvation of mankind, He did through His Son (John 1:3). However, due to the great tendency of the Jews to idolatry, this could initially only happen in theophanies (divine manifestations), not in incarnation. Thus, the various theophanies of the Son of God, especially his temporary appearances in seemingly human form, were not only types of the future incarnation of the divine Word but also preparations for his incarnation, divine-human appearance, making man more receptive to the idea of incarnation.

The "Lord" of the Old and New Testaments is therefore one and the same. He whom the nations recognized as the "Lord" at the end of the Old Testament, and whom the whole Old Testament prepared mankind for, in whom the fullness of divinity took bodily form, and through whom we must be saved (Acts 4:12): Jesus of Nazareth rightfully bears that majestic name, which Philo calls "the name above all names", because the God the Father made him "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), because he is "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36; cf. Nedarim 22b), the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16; cf. Deut. 10:17 and Ps. 136:3, Lord). He is "God over all, blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5)... "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:11).

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

aqwsed12345

It is worth considering one of the new readings of Nestle-Aland's latest 28th edition, in which there is a truly essential difference that has christological significance. The change in Jude 5 is very interesting:

NA27:

Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι , εἰδότας [ὑμᾶς] πάντα , ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

NIV:

"Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe."

NA28:

Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν

NRSVue:

"Now I desire to remind you, though you are fully informed, once and for all, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."

I think you also see the significance here. From the NA27 reading of πάντα ὅτι [ὁ] κύριος ἅπαξ, it became ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς in NA28. In a verse that talks about the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, and then about the punishment in the desert, the appearance of Jesus as the subject is very peculiar. The name of Jesus is mentioned in the text, which means that the author here openly says what is implicitly stated in the Gospel of John, that the God of the Old Testament (YHWH) is Jesus Christ himself! It was Jesus who brought Israel out of Egypt and He became flesh. I think that this variant is very important regarding the deity of Christ. According to the apostolic tradition, it was clearly the unincarnated Word who revealed himself to Moses and who freed the Jews from Egypt. Although it is not unique that a christological interpretation is given to an Old Testament scene in the New Testament, as Paul does in 1 Cor 10:4 or in Gal 3:16, but here we undoubtedly face a unique exegesis if we accept the reading of Ἰησοῦς instead of κύριος.

There are basically two types of MSS text versions here.

The text versions that contain the expression ὁ κύριος (the Lord) are in the majority. These are typically Byzantine copies, in which the copyists were more careful and, in accordance with their own Byzantine transcription habits, strove to copy the texts as faithfully as possible, correcting all presumably reading and previous errors.

The other from the Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) version is called the Vatican-, or Western text type version is the majority, and here we find a Coptic origin, and perhaps not surprisingly: this is also in the Vulgate. Also, what is even more important, we find this version in the writings of the church fathers: Origen, Cyril, Jerome, and Bede.

Very good manuscripts testify in favor of the "Jesus" reading, so in addition to it being the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior), its ecclesiastical history cannot be neglected. For a more detailed examination of the question, see Philipp Barthalomä, "Did Jesus Save the People out of Egypt? A Reexamination of a Textual Problem in Jude 5." in Novum Testamentum 50 (2008), pp. 143-158. Despite this, with the exception of ESV, no significant translation has dared to validate this reading in its main text.

Well, a committee had to decide between the two versions, and here the majority wins. In other words, the original will always be the one voted for by the majority. In this case, we know that it was a very close vote. When they make such a decision, they also examine how much the term κύριος in the entire New Testament refers to Christ and how much to the Father. Then they examine the theology of Judas himself and the context. In the end, UBS preferred the second version, at the cost of very serious arguments.

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

Didache