Posts by aqwsed12345

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

"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

However, if the burden of proof is on you, since it was you've claimed something, then the lack of evidence means that you have failed the case. Unfortunately, speculation and conspiracy theories hardly substantiate the claim.

The most important evidence here is that "Jehovism" was completely alien to the theological climate of the original New Testament church, just like it was to the mainstream of Judaism in the time of Christ, from which the church simply inherited it, adopted it, as neither Christ nor the apostles ever objected or adressed this practice, which already was an accomplished fact.

The divine name YHWH simply has no role in the Christ-centered New Testament order of redemption, it already fulfilled its function for the period after the Babylonian captivity. The function of the divine name YHWH was to educate the Israelites freed from Egypt to strict monotheism, which was no longer a question.

Although the divine name YHWH is also sacred to Christians, to "use" it in the Old Testament manner, specifically in the First Temple era manner, is an anachronistic Judaizing heresy. To claim - as the Watchtower Society does - that this was the original mainstream of the primitive church is an absurd claim without any evidence. Still less can speculation regarding the name YHWH justify the Arian heresy which demotes the Son to an angel, a creature, a made being.

It is even more ironic that even though the WTS followers "use" the name "Jehovah" in every way, they just don't understand its original meaning and function in the time of the First Temple: to educate them to a strict and absolute monotheism, to always remind that God is "who is", who exists, so he is the absolute Being. Instead, JW's image of God isn't even regular theism. Because they take literally the antopomorphistic descriptions of God found in the Old Testament, their image of God is like that about how a 4-5 year old kind imagines God: literally sitting on a chair above the clouds, with a white beard, watching him, and getting mad at him if he eats the chocolate that mommy forbade him. The Christian image of God teaches the absolute timeless and transcendent nature of God, God himself is the unchanging pure being (actus purus).

For this the legend of the "Great Apostasy" is needed for the WTS to justify its very existence: that the Church became completely corrupted just after a few decades after the apostles, so it must be invented again basicly out of nothing by some self-proclaimed pastor (Russel) opening the Bible on his desk to find out what the "true", "original" Christianity was like. This is quite a bold claim, and even an arrogant attitude to approach the Divine Scriptures. However, if the Church could fall into apostasy two thousand years ago, then Christianity is worthless. Jesus clearly promised that the Church would be indefectible, thus remains intact until He returns. There is no mention of a millennial pause for the true worship in the New Testament: on the contrary.

Check these:

- The Church NEVER apostatized
- The significance of the name “Yahve”

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

slimboyfat

And it would be all the wiser if the WTS apologists would keep their mouths shut in this regard until such a manuscript is found. Once they find one, we can talk about it. The fact that a number of hitherto unknown manuscripts have been discovered in recent centuries weakens your position: according to them, among thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there is not ONE single one that indicates any kind of deliberate falsification of the Bible, especially in this regard.

There is no direct or indirect source or evidence for this, only speculation and conspiracy theory. Maybe these evil "apostate" copyist did such a perfect job? Maybe I've been watching too many crime dramas, but I guess there is no such thing as a perfect crime. Do you think so? Jesus seemed to say that the truth cannot be hidden. Or as Seneca's famous quote says: "The truth never perishes" (Veritas numquam perit)

But let's suppose that such a "Jehovist" New Testament manuscript were to be found, but what would that prove? That this was the original reading of the apostolic autograph, the Urtext, and "using" the name "Jehovah" was the original church mainline of the Christianity? Well, because JWs not only claim that there could have been such a reading, but also the latter. However, this would not be far from proving this!

It is even possible to imagine in principle that there was a minor heterodox Judaizing-Hebraizing sect among some Jewish Christians, that inserted it into the text because they thought it "should" be there. Read up on who the Ebionites were. If the WTS wants to associate itself with such a Galatian-Judaizing trend instead of Pauline Christianity, I would not discourage them, this would befit them. Or Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Gnostics, and Valentinian heretics used Ἰαῶ (Iao), but there is no sign that there was ever such a "Jehovist" trend in the original, primitive mainline church.

Interestingly, no one claims that in the apocryphal Gospels of the Ebionites, or the Gospel of the Hebrews, there was any kind of YHWH, and where such a thing could be imagined, it is precisely these.

66

"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

""Bowman (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, page 83) argues, “The Bible does not actually say that the prehuman Jesus was begotten by the Father at some point in time.” But it does not say the Logos was begotten outside of time either!""

Here Stafford shamelessly forgets that the burden of proof would be on them. Since their organization and their specific theology were NOWHERE for two thousand years, the Catholic Church has two thousand years of continuity, so the bare minimum is that you are the "plaintiff" in this dispute (who should prove your claim, beyond reasonable doubt), and we are the "defendant".

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to prove first whether it is possible for the whole Church to fall into "great apostasy" and that "true Christianity" is supposed to be restored by Russel after nearly two thousand years after the apostles, and everyone between the two points is either idiot or a Satanist, or was an "apostate"...

Otherwise, he is wrong, since since John 1 declares that the Son "was" (thus existed) already in the beginning and does not classify him among "made" things, and Hebrews 1:3 clearly states that even the "aeons" came into being through the Son (consequently the Son could not be "created" after the creation of the "aeons"). And the Scripture also specifically states that the Son's orign from the Father is qualitatively different from that of the created angels (to whom the WTS theology lists the Son). You just have to answer the rhetorical questions the Scripture ask you in Hebrews 1:

For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?
And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"? (quote from Psalms 102:25, where it's stated about YHWH God)

What does it mean here that "today" he begat him? Since God is timeless and unchangeable (see: Num 23:29; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 33:11; Is 46:10, Mal 3:6; Ps 102:20), which are among the properties of God, a predicamental resting, negative attribute, therefore in Hebrews 1:5 the word "today" should be understood as eternity, in which there is neither past nor future. The statement here means: "Which angel did God ever call his eternally begotten Son?"

The divine eternity is God's perfection in relation to time, and it says negatively: divine existence has no end, no beginning, and no succession; positively: God is the creator of time; in gradation: what positive content is in time, without end and limit, is in God. Time is the real possibility of the real connection of causes and effects; in the eternal God who created time, therefore, timeless existence is not emptiness, but the fullness of activity, eternity is the simultaneous full and perfect possession of life without end and God is eternal in this sense.

The Scripture often denotes a very long duration with eternity (עוֹלָם, αἰῶν = ἀεὶ ὂν, ἀίδιον), mainly endless (e.g. Gen 17:8, Lev 3:17; Ps 5:12). In this sense, the Creed says: "I believe ... in eternal life.") and for this reason, it often attributes it to creatures, especially spirits (Mt 25:46, Lk 1:33, etc.). Nevertheless, in the sense defined above, it calls God eternal, and him alone; not formally, but in terms of content.

The Scripture denies of God the moments of time: the beginning, the end, the succession, and confesses him to exist before all time: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Ps 90:2; cf. 2:7, 102:27.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Jn 8:58.) "I, the Lord, the first and the last; I am he." (Is 41:4; cf. Gen 1, Ps 93, 103:26–28, Deut 32:40, Dan 7:99 (attik yomim, antiquus dierum, the ancient of days) Rev 1:4–18.) God and time are not comparable quantities: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Pet 3:8; cf. Heb 1:10 Gen 1:14–19, Deut 33:26, Job 36:26, Ps 74:16, 90:4, 119:89–91, Is 43:13, 48:2, Jer 10:10, 1 Tim 1:17, Rev 4:8–11, 10:6.)

Since the Israelites did not have abstract concepts for a long time, God's eternity was expressed in the oldest times with the concept of someone existing from eternity (Genesis 21:33). In this sense, Isaiah calls the Lord an eternal rock (26:4), and he also calls him timeless and contrasts him with the pagan gods, which were created and disappear again with the cycle of the world: the Lord is eternal because he created the earth (40:28), because he is the first and will be there at the last existing (41:4; cf. 44:6; Psalm 90:2; 103:27-28), because there was no God before him and will not be (43:10). The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" expresses the absence of a beginning and an end (Psalm 90:2; 103:17). We read about God's eternal plans, eternal love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, and dominion in many places, especially in the Psalms. There is also talk of an eternal covenant (Genesis 9:16; 17:7,13; Isaiah 24:5; Psalm 106:8), and in the wisdom books, of eternal wisdom. They also mention the absence of a beginning in relation to His plans, love, dominion, and wisdom.

The New Testament praises the eternal God in the same sense (Romans 1:20; 16:26; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 4:8 etc.), and professes the Son's eternity (Hebrews 1:10 ff; 13:8; Revelation 1:17-18), eternal dominion (Luke 1:33; Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 11:15), eternal priesthood (Hebrews 7:24-25), and often mentions the eternal possession of eschatological goods. The New Testament revelation also speaks of eternal punishment. The sacred author contrasts all these with the changing and transient earthly things. In the Book of Revelation, God is the beginning and the end, alpha and omega; he is the one who is and who was and who is to come (1:8; 21:6; 22:13).

The church fathers already emphasize and regularly discuss divine eternity against the pagans, especially often and ingeniously Augustine (Tatian. Graec. 4; Athenag. Legat. 4 10; Iren. III 8, 3; Tertul. Marc. I 8; III 28; Nazianz. Or. 38, 7; 45, 3; August. Conf. XI; Ver. relig. 49; in Ps 101: 2, 10 etc.).

Reason also sees that eternity is the direct consequence of immutability. For time is the measure of change on the basis of succession; there is no change in God, therefore there can be no time. It is also the consequence of self-existence: for self-existence excludes in God the conjunction or succession of potentiality and actuality. However, time only exists with these: the present is potential in relation to the past, the future is potential in relation to the present. Therefore, God is above temporality.

By virtue of God's eternity, although he stands outside and above all time, as its author, he is present in every moment of time; there is no moment in the flow of time, neither past nor present nor future, with which God would not coexist; in every real or imagined time, we must say: God is now. Some theologians call this God's always-existence (sempiternity) and correctly compare it with omnipresence. Thus, God's eternity is equal to the individual moments of time and the entire time series, and coexists with it; not as a long straight line is with a shorter straight line parallel to it, but as the center of a circle is with every single point and arc of the circumference. However, this relationship should not be conceived as if a shorter or longer duration in the divine eternity would correspond to a part of the time series, or even the entire time series; there is no duration in God; eternity is not the infinite sum of durations, as Aureolus thought; time, as the projection of change, cannot be attributed to God in any form.

Therefore, succession is missing in God, that is, the kind of change that we usually measure with time. there is no past and future in Him, but he experiences everything in eternal present. "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," we read in the New Testament (2 Peter 3:8; cf. Psalm 90:3-4). God therefore cannot rush or delay anything. From our perspective, he only seems to be waiting or delaying. We also project our own concepts onto Him when we say that he remembers something, because there is neither memory nor expectation in Him. His vision encompasses, contemplating in eternal present what for us is past, present, and future.

If we seek an analogy for God's eternal present, let's try to imagine the following: someone watching a procession from a very high platform sees the people not only passing in front of him, but also those who have already passed and those who will arrive later. The higher someone watches the procession from, the more they can grasp from the present, past, and future. God watches the world and its events entirely "from above".

66

"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

slimboyfat

As usual, WTS apologists only use "one-liner" "proof text", i.e. they throw out quotes taken out of context, now not only from the Bible, but from church history, and they use patristics only for "cherry picking" instead of they would read through the writings of even one church father from beginning to end, they are just looking for that one little half-sentence that they can triumphantly flaunt.

DID TERTULLIAN DENY THE ETERNAL NATURE OF CHRIST?

https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus

200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW's attribute words to Tertullian that he never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from "Should you believe in the Trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian's, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote:

[Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3)

"For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)

Tertullian himself clearly believed in the Trinity ("one substance in three persons", etc.), and the Watchtower Society's quote ("There was a time when the Son did not exist") is out of context. In this section, Tertullian elaborates that while the persons are one in essence, they exist as separate persons in relation to each other: "[the Father] could not have been a Father before the Son, nor a judge before sin"; this was not an orthodox view, in fact, Tertullian contradicted himself, as in another writing he professed the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to be "eternal." [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, - Vol..3 (p. 478) Against Hermogenes 3]

The Watchtower society's another quote ("God was alone when no other beings existed.") comes from another work, and in an accurate translation, it reads: "Before all things, God was alone". The statement can again be misunderstood without context; on the one hand, Tertullian argues against the modalist (according to modalism, God is only one person, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are only three successive appearances of the one God, but they are not real persons) Praxeas, who did not consider the Logos (the Son) eternal, only a temporary, second appearance form of the one-person God. Arguing against him, Tertullian identified the Word (logos) with God's Intelligence (nous) to more easily prove the eternity of the Logos: the eternal God's Intelligence must also be eternal, so God was never alone. Of course, this speculative argument is highly debatable: if the Logos were only God's intelligence, it would not always have been an independent person, and if it had come into existence over time – within God – how could it be eternal and uncreated?

"Therefore, we do not dare to assert boldly that God was not alone even before the creation of the universe, for his intelligence [nous] and his speech [logos] which he made second within himself were in him."
[The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 (p. 600-601) Against Praxeas 5]

Despite the Society's suggestion and Tertullian's occasionally speculative argumentation, the Church Father indeed professed the divinity of Jesus, he is the origin of the "three persons – one essence" formula, so his faith contradicts that of the Society.

"God came to live among men so that man might learn to act like God. God dealt with man as an equal, so that man might then deal with God as an equal. God humbled himself very much so that man might become very great. If you are ashamed of this God, I do not know how you can sincerely believe in the crucified God!" (Iren. Epid. II 1, 27; Haeres. III 16–24. Tertul. Marc. II 27; cf. Apol. 21.)

66

"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?