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

Jesus is the firstborn of Mary: it is customary in the Scriptures to call not the one who is followed by siblings, but the one who is born first, the firstborn. Thus, Paul also calls Christ the firstborn Son of the Father (Heb 1:14; cf. Ex 34:19 Num 18:15). Among the Jews, the firstborn is primarily a legal concept; therefore, it also applies to the only child. Firstborn can mean the same as the only child, as Christ is called in John (1:14), because according to the scriptural language usage, the only children are also called firstborns. See Joshua 17:1. According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a distinguished position in the family; he receives a larger portion of the inheritance than the other children.

Romans 8:29: it's not genetivie what is used, but look after the "ek" in the Greek text, and of course here Paul is talking about Jesus status according to his Incarnation, when He became human as well, talking about the content and nature of adopted sonship of the saved ones, so it is about Jesus coming into the world so that we too may become children of God. The adoption of a son is the adoption of a foreign person for sonship and inheritance. By grace, God not only adopts a stranger (that is, not born from his reality), but a disloyal, hostile, sinful person; and not just in a moral and legal sense, as it happens among people, where adoption does not give the adoptee any inner value; but in a majestic and mysterious way, it compensates for natural birth, as it grafts the seed of divinity into him, making him not only morally, but physically partake in the divine nature, thus imitating the superiority of natural sonship, the community of nature (so to speak, the blood), so that we are now not only in name, but in reality, the sons of God. As a result, our adopted sonship is a copy, a faithful imprint of the eternal filiation of God. At the same time, we have become brothers of Christ in a very special sense; and it is understandable why it is customary to attribute son-ship adoption to the Father. Jesus Christ, who on the one hand as a man of the same nature as us and the firstborn among the brothers is one of us, on the other hand he is completely pure and holy.

Colossians 1:18 doesn't mean he's the first person to ever die. It means that by His resurrection, He overcame death and made is possible for a new generation of humans called to glorious resurrection (Rom. 8:29). And He took over the power and the primacy over everything.

Colossians 1:15: the apostle intends to express the preeminence of the Firstborn above of the whole creatured world: Christ existed before the entire created world and stands above it. He is the only-begotten before all creatures, and He Himself is not a creature; for He is the cause of existence for all creatures, and therefore cannot be a creature, as it becomes clear from the continuation of the text: He is the Firstborn of the whole creation BECAUSE in Him all things were created. He is heir of all things, and inherits the throne of his ancestor David. By the way if apply this to the Messianic Kingship of Christ, it's meant according to his Incarnate human natura, according to which, He is a creature, even for the Orthodoxy. This interpretation, as we can see, is also compatible with the interpretation of the Watchtower, apparently they only fight because they lose the very few "proof texts".

Athanasius wrote:

Not then because he was from the Father was he called “Firstborn,” but because in him the creation came to be; and as before the creation he was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before he was called the Firstborn of the whole creation, the Word himself was with God and the Word was God. … If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of him also that he was Firstborn of other creatures; but in fact, the saints’ saying that he is “Firstborn of the whole creation” demonstrates that the Son of God is other than the whole creation and not a creature. (Discourses Against the Arians II.63)

Ambrose similarly writes:

The apostle says that Christ is the image of the Father—for he calls him the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Firstborn, mark you, not first created, in order that he may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of his nature, and the first in virtue of his eternity. (Of the Christian Faith I.VII.48)

John Chyrsostom also wrote a long dissertation on this theme in his 3rd Homily on Colossians.

And you misinterpret Origen many times, so it seems I am talking to the wall.

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

""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" - bible prophesy's this..."

No it's not, in fact, the exact opposite was promised, and the verses mentioned by the supporters of the "great apostasy" theory do not justify the disappearance of the true faith for almost two thousand years. I'll copy the substantial arugmentation for you:

Objections with ‘evidential’ verses
Various Protestants invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his Epistle I to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, some will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’ But this passage of Timothy I, 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that ‘…….. some will apostatize from the Faith….’, not the entire Church! The Holy Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which some – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (Timothy I, 1:19); “which some, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (Timothy I, 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “some men will appear, who will teach the truth falsified” (Evangelic translation “Logos”).
The Holy Bible says: “They came forth from among you, but they weren’t one of your kind; for if they were one of your kind, they would have stayed with you. But they came forth so that it might be revealed, that not all of them are one of your kind.” (John I, 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated!
The Church cannot apostatize!
According to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church cannot apostatize: “… the portals of the underworld shall not overpower” (the Church)” (Matthew, 16:18). The Holy Bible also clearly states that the truth shall remain in the Church forever: “...for the truth, which resides in you, and shall be with you for all time” (John II, 2); just as Jesus Christ Himself likewise promises that He shall continuously be with the Church, from the 1st century to the end of time, unfailingly: “I am with you, for all days, until the end of time” (Matthew, 28:80). The Holy Spirit also eternally resides in the Church, continuously, from the 1st century: “And I shall ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete, to remain with you to the end of time” (John 14:16).
Therefore, the Church cannot ever apostatize, because Christ – the head of the Church – remains forever joined to His Body, just as the Holy Spirit remains continuously within it, to guide it throughout the truth (John 14:26), hence the truth must also perpetually reside within the Church! If the Church had indeed apostatized, as various teachers of deception claim, it would mean that Christ had given false promises, which He didn’t keep! But, isn’t that a blasphemous conjecture?
However, some protestants maintain that those promises do apply, but not to the visible Church, only the invisible one! But the Holy Bible doesn’t say that the Church founded by Christ was an invisible one! Quite the opposite, it very clearly talks about a visible Church: “ ….and if someone disobeys them, tell this to the Church; but, if he disobeys the Church also, then you should treat him as a gentile and a tax-collector” (Matthew 18:17). If the Church is invisible, then how does someone speak to the Church, and how does an…. invisible Church reprimand the one who has sinned?
“For I am the least of the apostles, who is unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (Corinthians I, 15:9). If the Church were invisible, then how did Paul manage to persecute it?
“For if one does not know how to govern his own home, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (Timothy I, 3:5). How does a bishop take care of an ….. invisible Church?”
These are just a few of the verses that prove that the Church founded by Christ is definitely visible, and not invisible. Consequently, in this visible Church, the promises that it cannot apostatize hold true, and the truth, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will remain inside it eternally!

* * *

Let's continue:

"Israel fell into a string of idolotry.."

... but not into complete "great apostasy", and of course God did not punish them by handing over the status of the chosen people to another people (back then), but sent them into Babylonian captivity, of course not for two thousand years. God sent prophets to guide and rebuke Israel, not a self-appointed "pastor" from a foreign nation to reinvent the whole true faith from scratch.

"ancient writers statements sound like the trinity because its what the council used as a baseline for the arguments."

To your greatest regret, the early Christian sources even before the Nicene Creed do not teach anything else, and except for the term "homoousious", the Nicene Creed uses only New Testament terminology, and its content is completely consistent with the New Testament: "the Son is begotten from the Father before all aions, not made".

""God could not have had a [masterworker]" -

You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24. There is clearly no place for a secondary creator demigod. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.

"shall I list the trinitarian bibles that" etc.

No Bible translation is inspired, no translation could be used to justify doctrine.

" shall I point out no one even in the council said that proverbs wasnt symbolic of Christ"

Which council said that Proverb 8 is literally about the Son? It's meant as a type (see typology), could be applied to him. First of all, Proverbs is a wisdom book, that's how it shall be interpreted. The Hebrew Bible, from which the Book of Proverbs comes, does not include the concept of God the Father begetting God the Son, as this is a concept from Christian theology, which was developed later.

Arius' view was summarized in their phrase "there was a time when the Son was not." As you've noted, they interpreted Proverbs 8:22, and specifically the verb ἔκτισέ με in the Greek translation (Septuagint), to support this view. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father and is co-eternal with the Father.

It should be highlighted the complexity of Greek and Hebrew words that are often translated into English as "created." In the original languages of the Bible, these words often carried a range of meanings, and their interpretation can greatly influence one's understanding of the nature of Jesus.

Even Jewish translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." In the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew verb 'qanah' (קָנָה) is often translated as 'get', 'acquire', or 'gain' in many English translations, in the Book of Proverbs in all instances, 'qanah' denotes the act of obtaining or acquiring wisdom or knowledge.

Jerome argues that the correct translation of "קנני" (qanani) in Proverbs 8:22 is "possessed" rather than "created." He bases his argument on the distinction between the Hebrew words for "create" (ברא, bara) and "possess" (קנה, qanah). The verb 'bara' (בָּרָא), which means 'create' in Hebrew, is indeed used throughout the Bible to denote the divine act of creating. This verb is exclusively used for divine creation in the Hebrew Bible. It conveys a sense of the initiation of something new, bringing something into existence that was not there before.

But even the translation of the LXX is not suitable to justify Arianism. For instance, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." ἔκτισέ in the context of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't mean that Wisdom (interpreted as the Son or Christ) was created, in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather that the Son was appointed or established as the beginning of God's ways. Furthermore, discussing the nature of biblical language, especially focusing on the meaning of the term ἔκτισέ (ektise) which is often translated as 'created', it can be argued that in the context of passages such as Proverbs 8:22, this term does not denote creation out of nothing, but rather a form of making or establishing. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με (He created me) as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus (son not begotten, but made), i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο (He acquired me), and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε (He created) of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum (God created me as king or head of his works); Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum (He did not create me according to substance, but established me as the beginning and foundation of the whole universe)). Thus, the Son is not a created being, but rather eternally begotten, sharing the same divine essence with the Father.

This is further supported by differentiating between the concepts of "made" and "begotten." In Christian belief, "made" implies creation from nothing or from pre-existing materials, while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning, between the Father and the Son. So, Christ is considered "begotten, not made", which means he shares the same divine nature with the Father and wasn't created at a certain point in time.

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.)