Posts by aqwsed12345

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

Blotty

Calm down, mate, take it easy, my goal was not to upset you or to attack you personally, it just annoys me when someone doesn't take the trouble to delve into my thoughts, but instantly "shoots back".

3. "En archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) - it's not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimi), which is used to show continuous action in the past, meining that the Logos was pre-existing, ongoing "in the beginning". For the aorist of the copula (eimi, "to be") the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used, so it would have been "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος". The different form of the Greek words depends on how they function in the sentence. For example, ἐγένετο (Genesis 1:3, 5, LXX; John 1:3), γέγονεν (John 1:3), and Γενηθήτω (Genesis 1:3, LXX) come from the verb γίνομαι (become, to come into existence, happen, be made). When John uses these verbs in the same context, ēn implies “existence” and egeneto [ginomai] implies “coming into being.” For example, in John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was [became], I am.’” Whereas Abraham became (genésthai [ginomai]), Jesus pre-existed (egō eimi).

What is also important here is that "en archē" is exactly the same wording as what we see in the LXX in Genesis 1:1 ("Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς..."), for the Hebrew word “beginning” (בְּרֵאשִׁית, bĕrēʾšît) as an absolute noun “in the beginning”. Prepositional phrases can imply definiteness with the inclusion of the article. John was alluding to the Septuagint usage in Genesis 1:1 which also does not use the article, mimicking Hebrew syntax. So in John 1:1a "in the beginning" by definition means the absolute beginning, when the Logos already "was". Check THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS.

4. God the Father is not needed to be called "firstborn", because because He - unlike the Son - is unbegotten, thus not born. In the Talmud, the title "Bekorah" is used for God, which means "first-born". Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)

5. You have to indicate specifically what you objected to, otherwise this is called "vagueness" or "lack of specificity". Unfortunately, I still didn't find out which of my statements you specifically labeled "Greek philosophy", nor on what grounds you labeled this. The next question is whether labeling it "Greek philosophy" in itself is enough to push its content aside.

7. "list everything created and where it is called a "creature". Here you are:

Mark 16:15 "the gospel to every creature" (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει)
Romans "and served the creature rather than" (ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν)
2 Corinthians 5:17 "[he is] a new creature; the old things" (Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις τὰ ἀρχαῖα)
1 Timothy 4:4 "Because every creature of God [is] good...") (ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν)
Galatians 6:15 "but a new creature" (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)
Hebrews 4:13 "there is a created thing hidden before" (οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον)
James 1:18 "of firstfruits of his creatures." (τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων)
Revelation 5:13 "And every creature which is" (καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν)
Revelation 8:9 "third of the creatures which" (τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν)

There are a few more, but I haven't looked them up in all their inflected forms. The other words meaning "to create" in the New Testament are egeneto (see John 1:3) and poieó (for example Romans 1:20 "...what has been made...", κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται). Neither of these are used for the Son in the NT.

You write: "shall we look at the other usages in the lxx where the one called firstborn was not only part of his respective group (sons of, creation etc), but also the first one in a position."

The genitive does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?

"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.

"did anyone called firstborn only have pre-emminence and was never born..."

Why should anyone else than the Son called the way the Son is called? Isn't the Son unique? It's not us, who are practically denying the the Son is actually begotten, and not made of the Father.

"in Hebrews 11:17 theres a reason monogenes is used of Issac - he is not eternally begotten as trinitarians would have it "

Lol, here Isaac is not only-begotten Son of God, but of Abraham. Of course only the only-begotten of the God the Father is eternal.

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

I did not "accuse" anyone of having a psychological problem, at most I pointed out that the fact that if it is difficult for him to review a longer text and interpret it MAY also indicate ADHD, for which is a typical symptom. If this is the case, it is not a moral judgment or a stigma, since he is not responsible for it, but it is a serious disadvantage in an intellectual discussion if his attention quickly fades.

Of course, it can not only be ADHD, it can also be the zeitgeist of today, everyone wants quick and instant answers, no one takes the burden to delve into something, the education system is also primitive and dumbed down. A hundred years ago, every school taught Latin, often Greek as well, and now there are only books filled with pictures and in a primitive language. If someone was brought up on this and is used to this zeitgeist, of course it is unusual for them that a question is often more complicated, and requeres more sophisticated answers than parroting like 'Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad'.

The links and studies I referenced above refute Tertullian's abusive and out-of-context citation (typical Watchtowerite dung beetle stategy) that seeks to prop him up in support of a theology he did not actually support.

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

There were different orientations and sects, of course, for example within Judaism there were the Pharisees, the larger one, and the Sadducees, the smaller leading party. Although they were in dispute with each other, they basically accepted each other as the representatives of the mainstream Judaism, as opposed to, for example, the Samaritans, Essenes, Gnostics, etc. They were considered heterodox, heretics (minim). Of course, none of these used "Jehovah" in the manner of the Watchtower in the era of Christ, but don't let that bother you.

If you have read the apostolic epistles, you would know that the first heresies were not related to the nature of the Son, but about the continued obligation of the Mosaic law (Galatians-Judaizers), or about Gnosticism. There is no sign of any debate about the role, use, etc. of the Old Testament divine name YHWH being a topic in primitive Christianity. Sources outside of Christianity do not testify to such a thing either, after all, if the Christians had suddenly started "using" the YHWH in various ways, they would have provoked the anger of the Jews, and it would have turned into pogroms. The Romans would also have written about such clashes. But there is no sign of such uproar because of this alleged issue.

I don't understand why you are upset about this, since the Watchtower doesn't object the application of "theos" for the Son, they do not object to the established reading of either John 1:1 or John 1:8 ("monogenes theos"), but of course they reinterpret its meaning to as some kind of "demigod", disregarding the command "thou shalt have no other gods before me". And there is no difference in the fact that according to them Jesus led the Jews out of Egypt, so they can have no problem with any of the readings of Jude 5.

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

Blotty

"way too long not even gonna bother reading"

The fact that you might have ADHD and find it difficult to interpret long texts is not my fault.

"90% of what you say is inspired by Greek philosophy"

Specifically, which of my statements are you making this claim about, and on what basis do you claim that this specific statement of mine was actually "inspired" by Greek philosophy?

I note that the apostles do not seem to have shared the WTS's abhorrence of "Greek philosophy", since the terminology of the New Testament is full of terms that are frequently discussed in Greek philosophy, such as pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, and even also "aieon" discussed here. According to this: the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well.

If you had read through what I wrote, you would have found many biblical references.

I note that what the Watchtower labels with the term "philosophy" is usually nothing more than the use of common sense, logic, and conclusions. Of course, they want to discourage their rank-and-file members from this, so that they don't end up using the particular organ that is in their skull, because "OMG! That's philosophy!" Cf. Thought-terminating cliché

But if we're making accusations of association our debate partner of "Greekizing", I would like to note that instead of pure theism, the image of the God of the Watchtower is much more similar to ancient Greek polytheism. 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).

"multiple scholars have refuted the "was" argument"

If it really is "multiple scholars have refuted" this, then it will surely not be difficult for you to name one in particular. I'm curious to see who that famous "scholar" might be.

"the different words are easy to explain if you would just look at their usage in the NT"

It is quite sad that if this has to be "explained", especially when the Watchtower claims that their theology is "clearly", "plainly" taught by the Bible (then why do they need the FDS?). think it would be more appropriate if you thought about the rhetorical questions asked in the first chapter to the Hebrews.

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [...] Are they not all ministering spirits?"

So where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the orign of the Son from the Father? Huh? Where does he say that he is a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis)?

"Note the word for first-created was not in common use until the days of the LXX - first created and firstborn have parallel meanings"

This is a total self-goal: the "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir in biblical context. This is even supported by what your bosses wrote, open it up:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483

"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be “the first-born of all creation” as well as “the first-born from the dead.” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; 3:14)"

So even on the basis of their publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation.

So the standard interpretation of this verse just seems fine for the Watchtower as well, if it is not to be abused as a "one-liner" "proof text".

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".