Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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 doctrine states that God is completely unchangeable.
Already at the Council of Nicaea, anyone who says that the Son of God is changeable (against the Arians) is excommunicated. Similarly, at the Fourth Lateran and the First Vatican Council ("God is an unchangeable spiritual entity"). Opponents include not only the Arians but also pantheists, Gnostics, and even Orthodox Protestants, partly for supposed religious-moral interests: God changes His previous condemnatory attitude towards the penitent; and partly in the manner of the Arians: The Incarnate Word, in order to be a real human, renounces the excellences of his divinity, empties himself. The modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses also deny this, they have a deeply anthropomorphic image of God. They initially interpret the name YHWH as "I Will Become What I Choose to Become" or "He Causes to Become". The Watchtower's interpretation of the YHWH name comes from a Hebrew verb that means “to become" (ha·wah). However, it actually comes from the verb "yahway," which means "to be," "to exist." The Hebrew Bible explains it by the formula 'Ehye ašer ehye' ("I Am that I Am"). The word אֶהְיֶה‎ (’Ehyeh) is the first person singular imperfective form of הָיָה (hayah), 'to be'. So, God does not "become" anything, since he does not change. The Watchtower's image of God is anthropomorphic: He has a body, he literally dwells in the sky, he is not innately omniscient but has the "capability" to foresee "the future" if he so desires.
In fact God is the actuality of every actuality (or pure Act, actus purus) and the perfection of all perfections. God's immutability also follows from God's simplicity: He is the completion of existence (actus purus), therefore there is no potential existence in him that would still be waiting for unfolding or realization, likewise, he cannot lose anything. His existence and everything he possesses are with eternal necessity, and it could not be otherwise. He cannot gain anything new, neither in knowledge nor in value. His outward acts do not change Him either. The act of creation in Him is such a free act that has always been in Him, is one with his essence, and has its temporal effect outwardly. When he communicates himself in grace, it is not he who changes, but man enters into a new relationship with him and perceives his supernatural effects. The mystery of the Incarnation must be understood in the same way. It was not the deity or personality of the Son that changed, but the humanity of Christ entered into a unique relationship with him.
a) The Scripture generally states that God is always identical with Himself, unlike the creatures: "In the beginning, O Lord, thou foundedst the earth: end the heavens are the works of thy hands. They shall perish but thou remainest: and all of them shall grow old like a garment: And as a vesture thou shalt change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art always the selfsame, and thy years shall not fail." (Psalm 102:25-27) "Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration." (τροπὴς ἀποσκίασμα, James 1:17) Cyril of Alexandria comments on this: "But what else would it be than change and gross variability, if God were to migrate from potency to actuality?" (Cyr. Al. Dial. ad. ar. 2.) The Scripture even identifies the metaphysical basis of unchangeability: "I am the Lord, and I do not change". (Malachi 3:6; cf. Augustine, Sermo 7:7)
b) However, Scripture, more often in its usual method of discussion, concretely and in detail describes God's immutability in His individual actions and positions: "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed." (Numbers 23:19) "Though she remains the same, she renews everything." (Wisdom 7:27; cf. Sirach 42:16.) The Lord's plan remains forever, His heart's intent from generation to generation". (Psalm 33:11; cf. 1 Samuel 15:29, Proverbs 19:21) God alone is uncorruptible and immortal. (Romans 1:23, 1 Timothy 1:17, 6:16, Psalm 35:10)
Therefore, the strong anthropomorphisms and anthropopathisms of Scripture, especially the Old Testament (God shows anger, regret, etc., Genesis 6:6, Psalm 106:40, Hosea 1:6, etc.), must be measured and adjusted to the basic truth of faith of God's unchangeability. These, i.e., are spoken not because of the similarity of the observable effect to the emotion. Therefore, "God regretted making man" means: what God did because of the degradation of people shows effects like when people regret their actions. The church fathers specifically defend the unchangeability of God against the Arians, who distinguished the changeable Son from the unchangeable Father; against the Gnostics, who argue that God creates the world of spirits through emanations emitted from His own essence; and against the Stoics, who attribute emotions, passions, especially anger, to God; finally against the Patripassians. (See especially Tertullian, Prax. 17; Augustine, Civ. Dei XI 10 k.; XII 17, 2; Conf. XII 7; in Jn 23, 9.)
Reason thus concludes:
a) God is utterly simple. But what changes is essentially complex, at least metaphysically; because if change occurs, something remains and something else becomes (quidquid mutatur, quantum ad aliquid manet, quantum ad aliquid transit).
b) God is infinitely perfect. But what changes either gains or loses perfection; therefore, it is not the most perfect.
c) God is self-existing. However, what changes is changed by something else; therefore, the changer in his change is not self-existing but from something else. The first proof of God of Thomas Aquinas, infers the first unchangeable cause from the changing being (primum movens immobile). Denying or obscuring God's unchangeability falsifies the Catholic conception of God and sooner or later leads to monism; if God is changeable, then He is not wholly transcendent, but shares with that world which shares in its most noticeable property, changeability. A question arises here: If God is unchangeable, how does He change the things? According to Aristotle, God as a final cause moves the world: by attracting the spiritual heaven (the primum mobile) directly as a goal, which then communicates its movement to the other heavens and ultimately to the earthly beings; however, it itself remains motionless and inactive. According to Plato and the Platonic school of thought, in spite of His immutability, God as an absolute fullness of being is also absolute and constant activity. This is also the understanding of revelation: "Wisdom is quicker than any motion… she is one, yet can do all things; remaining in herself, she renews all things". (Wisdom 7:24–27) Here is the main weakness of Aristotle's conception of God.
Difficulties.
1. God is free in the creation, governance, salvation of the world, and in the establishment of the supernatural order of existence. But if He is free, He could establish another world and world order, and could govern the existing one differently. Therefore, He is changeable (at least in thought: He could change His intentions); or else, He is not free.
Solution: The essence of freedom is to take a stand based purely on the real value of things, excluding all foreign perspectives and influences not related to the matter. The more the decision is based on the actual value of things and the more full of mental energy it is, the freer it is; changeability is not essential; after all, the highest degree of experiential freedom, moral freedom, is manifested in the steadfast moral behavior of a mature character. Now, God makes His eternal decisions based on the fullest knowledge and assessment of all possibilities and perspectives, and with His absolute power, He carries them out exactly as He conceived them. Therefore, there can be no new perspective or event that He has not considered since eternity, and which could therefore prompt Him to revise His decisions; nor can any external difficulty or obstacle arise, which would induce Him to try to realize His plans in a different way. God's intentions are free; but precisely because they were born out of the fullest freedom, they are unchangeable. The decisions of creatures can be changed, partly because new perspectives may arise, which were not previously considered, partly because obstacles to realization may necessitate the modification of original plans.
2. God's outward works change. Not only does the world, maintained and governed by God, continually change in big and small ways, but God intervenes in the world's course through miracles, and what's more significant: He created the world in time, the second divine person became flesh in time. Therefore, if God continually creates new works in time, He does something He has not done before; that is, He changes.
Solution. Three aspects can be distinguished in God's outward activity:
A) The decision regarding outward activity. As an immanent fact of God, it is eternal and unchangeable.
B) The change; this takes place in God's works, it does not affect God Himself. With the creation of the world, with the incarnation of the second divine person, God Himself does not change; nothing new happens to Him; because this aspect: "in time" the world should be created etc. was also included in His eternal unchangeable decision; only the creature enters into a new relationship with Him, just as the Sun does not go through a change because it makes winter or summer on Earth.
C) The creation of the changing work, that is, the divine activity that carries out the eternal and unchangeable divine order relating to change. This activity, viewed from the side of God, is identical with God's essence and does not represent a change in God, but only in the result of divine activity. When a doctor not only prescribes medication for a patient but also specifies the time to take it, this provision is the cause of a change that occurs at a specific time; but when it occurs, it does not cause a change in the prescriber; and if the doctor's will were absolutely effective, the patient's time-bound medication intake would occur without the help of any foreign factor, simply as a result of that medical order. That is, the result appearing in time does not necessarily mean a change in the cause. The divine provisions containing changes, however, contain the change only as an intention, as a thought; even in humans, thoughts relating to change do not represent the same type of change for the thinker: if I decide to run, I am not physically running yet. In any case, it is not easy to imagine how the unchanging God creates changes; because our perception is stuck in the world of changes. But there is no logical stumble in the concept. Indeed, if we consider how difficult it is to conceptually process the concept of change, it is logically easier to conceive of God's immutability than the changeability of the creature. That's why the Eleatics and Plato considered being itself to be unchangeable, just like the thinkers of Vedanta.
3. In governing the world, God often adapts to the changing behavior of creatures: He hears the cry of the needy, gets angry at the sinner, is appeased against the penitent. So, He changes.
Solution. It's true, and indeed a matter of faith, that God behaves this way. However, these significant practical truths cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts the equally fundamental, dogmatic assertion of God's unchangeability. Nor is it necessary, because God does not make and execute decrees on the course of the world in the manner of human beings. He does not first set certain goals and then search and select suitable means; He does not first devise the abstract universal law, and then tailor and apply it to specific cases. Instead, He relates and assigns all events to each other with one overview and decision, providing them with the appropriate levels of value, bringing every path and end, every goal and means, every individual being and individual case, and every general law into perfect harmony. No new element can then arise that was not already considered, which would subsequently require the course of the world to be supplemented or corrected. In this immutable eternal divine decree, every human need and every human prayer were taken into account, and the course of the world is aligned with it; every individual sin was known, and every aspect of the moral order has been adjusted accordingly: the merits and punishments, praises and reprimands, salvations and condemnations. Therefore, prayer, sin or repentance, justification or damnation does not change God, but the creature's relationship to God, in the words of St. Augustine: God "changes if you change"; "the same light is painful to the weak eye, pleasant to the strong." (August. Serm. 22, 6; cf. Trinit. V 16, 17; XIII 11, 15; in Jn 110, 6; Origen De orat. 3–15; Ambr. Noe et arca 4, 9; 45. § 3.)
4. If God is completely immutable, and looks down on the course of the world like some harsh formula or law, then the immediacy and intimacy of religious life freezes before His Medusa-like face. The harsh law and logical formula are deaf to pleas, unyielding to entreaty, indifferent to pain and misery, unresponsive to loyalty, trust, and sacrifice.
Solution. God is not a senseless harsh law, as Hegel's pantheism teaches, nor is He a Shylock who rigidly represents the letter of the law with merciless one-sidedness. Although He is entirely true and holy, meaning He is utterly devoid of caprice, irrationality, whim, or bias (there is no "irrational" or "non-putarem" in God, see Lk 20:15), He still stands as a Creator opposite each of His creatures, each of their existential moments. He created everything with the utmost care, wisdom, and gentleness; He is incomparably closer to each of His creatures than any two creatures are to each other, and therefore He has the most profound love and interest for all their manifestations, including their religious aspects. As an absolute personal being, He takes everything into account in its proper place and for its own value. The fact that He overlooks the entire order of existence does not diminish the strength of His devoted interest and sacred stance against any aspect of existence. Just because He sees the repentance of the sinner as well and incorporates it into His world plan, sin is no less abhorrent to Him; just because He has established the whole course of the world with all its aspects, the righteousness of the righteous and their plea do not become of lesser value to Him. It may happen to people that, due to their constraints, they do harm or injury despite their best intentions by handling a certain aspect one-sidedly (e.g., parents' monkey-love, a clumsy friend's desire to help at all costs); God, because He thinks about everything and everyone, judges man best in individual cases.
Indeed, God's immutability provides new and irreplaceable impetus to religious life. God's immutability is most directly manifested to man in the reliability of His promises and the immutable sanctity of His holy will, the moral law; thus, it is the root and foundation of trust in Him. True, God is not as malleable as humans, He does not adapt to the tastes and moods of people at any given time, and He is not willing to measure with the measures of humans. This is often unpleasant for humans, who, in their stubbornness, whimsicality, and weakness of principles, would inevitably like God to be less holy, to act according to less universal perspectives, and to become biased (see the vine-growers and the prodigal son's brother). But precisely because God is in no way similar to humans, the person leading a serious religious life is most effectively called upon to adapt to God in everything. Our only refuge against the stubbornness of our own nature and the transience of life is the eternal Silent Ocean of divine immutability, where all the noise of passions, party fights, and hustles fade away, where the tossing soul finds its peace. "And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever." (1 Jn 2,17; cf. 4,16.)
* * *
It is also dogma that God is eternal in absolute sense. This is a tenet of faith according to the teachings of the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Fourth Lateran Council, and the First Vatican Council, against all those who denied God's immutability and thus cast doubt on His eternity.
Divine eternity is God's perfection in relation to time, and it negates the following: that the divine existence has an end, a beginning, or a sequence; it affirms: God is the creator of time; it increases: whatever positive content is in time, it is infinitely present in God. Time is the real possibility of real connection between causes and effects; in God, who is the creator of time and eternal, timeless existence is not emptiness, but the fullness of activity, as Boethius's classic definition says: eternity is the complete and perfect possession of endless life (interminabilis vitae tota simul et perfecta possessio). And in this sense, God is eternal.
The Scriptures often denote a very long duration with the term "eternity" (עוֹלָם, αἰῶν = ἀεὶ ὂν, ἀίδιον), mainly infinity (e.g., Gen 17:8, Lev 3:17, Ps 5,12. In this sense, the Creed says: "I believe… in eternal life."), and that's why it often attributes it to creatures, especially spirits. (Mt 25:46, Lk 1:3 etc.) However, it calls God eternal in the above-defined sense, and Him alone; not formally, but in terms of content.
The Scripture denies the elements of time about Him: the beginning, the end, the succession, and declares Him to exist before all time: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, 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 with the last; I am he." (Is 41,4; cf. Gen 1, Ps 93, 102,26–28 Deut 32,40 Dan 7,99 [ʿatīq yōmīn, antiquus dierum, the ancient of days], Rev 1,4–18.)
God and time are not commensurate 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 43:3, 48:12, Jer 10:10, 1 Tim 1:17, Rev 4:8–11, 10:6.)
The Church Fathers, already against the pagans, emphasize and regularly discuss divine eternity, especially frequently and wittily by St. 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 et al.).
Reason also sees that
a) eternity is the direct consequence of immutability. Time is indeed the measure of change based on succession (numerus motus secundum prius et posterius); there is no change in God, so there can be no time either.
b) It is also a consequence of self-existence: self-existence excludes in God the conjunction or succession of potentiality and actuality. However, time only exists with these: the present is potential compared to the past, the future compared to the present. Therefore, God is above temporality (Thom I 10; Gent. I 15 III 68.).
Questions.
The relationship of divine eternity to temporal entities. – God, by virtue of His eternity, is outside and above all time, but as its author, He is present at every moment of time; there is no moment in the flow of time, neither past nor present nor future, in which God does not exist simultaneously; in every actual or thought time, we must say: God is now. Some theologians (like Halens. Summa I 12, 1, 1.) call this God's always-existence (sempiternity) and rightly compare it with ubiquity (omnipresence). Thus, the eternity of God equals each moment of time and the entire timeline, and coexists with it; not like a long line is parallel to a shorter line, but like the center of a circle is with every single point and arc of the circumference (Anselm. Monol. 18; Thom Gent. I 66; Less. Perf. IV 4.). However, this relationship should not be understood as if a part of the timeline, or even the entire timeline, would correspond to a shorter or longer duration in divine eternity; there is no duration in God; eternity is not an infinite sum of durations, as Aureolus thought; time, as the projection of change, cannot be asserted about God in any form.
The coexistence of temporal things with divine eternity. – Temporal things, when they actually exist, are simultaneous with divine eternity. For God is present at every single moment and duration of time; therefore, every single temporal thing is also present before God at every moment of its existence and throughout its duration; and since the eternity of God does not allow time gaps, temporal things are present with the entire divine eternity throughout the duration of their existence; of course, not as commensurate quantities, not like a mayfly or a fly spends a period of time with a longer-lived human, but only as a creation, as a work that essentially and intimately depends on its creator, its thought and sustaining activity. Can it also be said that things are present not only during their actual existence but also before and after their existence with God's eternity, which has no past or future, but only an eternal present («nunc aeternitatis»), which extends over every created moment and duration of time with its power? Thomas Aquinas answers yes (Thom 1 dist. 19, 2, 2 ad 1.). Other theologians, however, see this as endangering both the temporality of creatures and the absolute simplicity of eternity, which excludes even the concept of time intervals.
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
"Are you seriously suggesting that these did not contain the tetragrammaton, or that "names of God" in these texts do not include THE name of God?"
No, it's just that you don't necessarily have to think of the Tetragrammaton, that it's about "the divine names", in the plural. I think those may have been magical papyri, or versions of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, on which it was added for the purpose of re-Hebraization. Since, according to the majority of scholars, only Kyrios was in the original version of the Septuagint, and the Tetragrammaton in some form (Paleo-Hebrew, square Hebrew, or "ΙΑΩ") was a later re-Hebraization attempt, which mainstream Judaism considered sacrilegious, that be included in the basic text of a "pagan" language, thus it's associated with some minor heterodox branch.
"As far as we know, NO readings of the text have survived from the time the church was primarily Jewish."
I don't know why you want to go back to the era of Judeo-Christianity and reproduce its theological climate. What we mean today by "Christianity" is in fact the Pauline Gentile Christianity, as the Judeo-Christian branch quickly melted into the main Church. The Judaizing trend was at least suspect from the second half of the apostolic age (see Epistle to the Galatians), and keeping the Law (Sabbath, circumcision) was tolerated (but unnecessary) until the destruction of the Second Temple, but after that it became unacceptable.
"the copyists are gentiles, they do not understand what the tetragrammaton is and so do the obvious thing and replace it with a word they know fits the context, usually Lord or God"
It is also not clear that if, according to the Watchtower's claim, the Tetragrammaton had theological significance even in the apostolic age and was a central part of the primitive Church's faith, then how can you now claim that the copyists "did not understand" what it was. If the Watchtower's claim were true, that YHWH was as central to the primitive Christian church's faith as it is to them today, then how could they not have known what it was, and no one would have objected to the reading text changed?
It was difficult for Christians to accept even theologically insignificant translation changes (for example, the changing of the Latin term used for 'qiqayon' (likely castor oil plant) in Jonah 4:6 from 'cucurbita' (“gourd”) to 'hedera' (“ivy”), and a bishop had caused a great disturbance just by reading aloud it, and had nearly lost his flock), which is why it took centuries until Jerome's Vulgate finally replaced the Vetus Latina in Western Christianity. Don't you not that the doctrine of God's being himself would have passed without a word, without it being noticed by any one, and causing considerable rebellion?
"And it did not require a conspiracy or a central church authority, it only required the change of the church from Jewish to Gentile."
However, the Watchtower does not claim this, but instead assumes a deliberate, conscious falsification of the Bible, according to which "wicked apostates hated the name of God and falsified the Bible." Compared to that, you are talking about a coincidence, or rather a natural process. But that doesn't stand either, since the converts from among the Jews lived among their fellow Jews, it is also impossible that they would have followed the Watchtower manner of "using" the YHWH name, since this in itself was a crime under the Jewish law, deserving of the death penalty, which would have caused serious riots to break out.
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
Wondering what could be the cause of the fact that handling, listening and interpreting longer texts could possibly be indicative of ADHD (or the uncluttered writing style - answering your comments takes almost as much time as figuring out what the factual statement is -, and non-standard grammar for dyslexia), it is not a personal attack, since these conditions are not moral categories, the people involved are not responsible for them.
"Jesus isnt said to be created or "come into being" so he never was shall I list the instances of things that arent stated in the bible?" - You can compile a list of them, but this is only a problem for such denominations that - in principle or in fact - stand on the principle of 'sola Scriptura' (Scripture alone), such as the Watchtower Society. This is a serious problem for them, if the Bible does not state one of their most important doctrines.
No matter what your sources claim (they are not scholars, nor linguists, but WTS apologists), you can check in any grammar book that the Greek copula (eimi, "to be") does not have an aorist form, so the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used for this. Consequently, "en archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) is not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative.
" The combination of "beginning" and "was" doesnt always equate to "eternity", actaully never does.." - Since this is the only place in all of Scripture where this phrase ("In the beginning was X...") occurs, especially in such a solemn context as in the Prologue of one of the Gospels, you can't go anywhere else to understand its meaning. If "in the beginning" refers to Genesis 1:1, then it is understood in the sense of 'bereshith' found there, which denotes "the beginning" in absolute sense, the creation of the world. John says that the Logos already "was", thus existed then. And he continues in verse 3 "apart from him nothing was made that has been made", so John does not classify the Logos among the things that "that has been made", in fact he explicitly separates and distinguishes them from them. Also: the Watchtower forgot to put the word "other" in the NWT here as well ;-)
It is not clear why other persons should be declared "only-begotten" and "firstborn" etc. in other contexts, if according to the Holy Scriptures this title belongs only to the Son, also according to the Watchtower. Anyway, "only-begotten" (monogenes, μονογενής) has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". [Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition)] Its Greek meaning is often applied to mean "one of a kind, one and only" (LSJ Dictionary Entry).
You say that "the language I use" is "Greek philosophy", well that's enough for me to reject, that's just the Watchtower's stupid rant against anything more sophisticated reasoning, anyway according to my belief "the philosophy" is usually not some satanic horrible thing in itself that has to be feared. According to Catholic Teaching, "faith seeks understanding, reason seeks faith" ("fides quaerens intellectum..."), and this fideist-fundamentalist-bibilistic approach is anything but a Christian requirement.
"There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth." (John Paul II - Fides et Ratio)
Chapter 1 of the Epistle to the Hebrews clearly distinguishes the Son from "all the angels" (v14: "Are not all angels ministering spirits ...?"), the translators of your denomination must have forgotten to insert their favorite word "other" here as well ;-)
I have given several examples where we can see that the Holy Scriptures do call creatures "creatures", so it knows the category it classifies as creatures. But where does he list the Son among them? He just contrasts the only-begotten of the Father with all the creatures, who were all "made by/through him".
""The genitive does not at all mean that he is included" - again show me an instance where this is not the case..." - Why should I do such a thing for it to be like this, if the Son is unique, why should the Scriptures declare similar things about anyone else. The phrase "something of something" does not at all mean "belonging to a category" in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context.
It is not difficult to understand what the "Firstborn of the whole creation" means. It is enough to see what the title "Firstborn" title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.
What kind of relationship this "Firstborn" has with "the whole creation" mentioned after it, well, that it is a part of it, does not follow at all from the linguistic meaning of this term, nor from a narrower or broader context. Once "Firstborn" is a lordly title, and "the whole creation" (which by definition is subject to this ruling Firstborn - also according to the WTS) mentioned mentioned after, then it is much more reasonable that this person enjoys the status of the "Firstborn" over "the whole creation" rather than being classified as a part of it. The whole context is a passage glorifying the Son, it is completely foreign if you rewrite the second half of Col 1:15 to say that he is "the first created being", then it would become completely meaningless. Is he "the first created being, BECAUSE all [other things was created in him"? What?
The funniest thing is that this is the standard interpretation of these words ("the firstborn of all creation"), that this means that the Son is "the Firstborn", therefore the Lord, the Ruler of the whole creation, otherwise it is completely compatible with the theology of the Watchtower too, but they still cannot admit it, they have to stick to it until they break the nails, because they NEED this "one-liner" "proof" text, if the Scriptures do not declare the Son to be a creature anywhere.
""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." - no but they are part of the "world" they are king of and the king is part of the country he is king over - however king and lord are superior titles so they are above what they are connected too." - Wrong. In ancient times and in the Middle Ages, for example, the king was not considered part of the nation over which he ruled. The king is not part of the nation, but a supranational agent. And with that logic, if God is the Lord of the created world, then he is also a creature, since according to you the classification as being "part of" always follows from the genitive.
"Christ is a highly exalted divine being - yes, but never said to be God in the NT" - There are no demigods, "gods" (only the so-called "false gods" of the pagans) in the New Testament, and in fact, the New Testament calls the Son "THEOS" in many places, the Watchtower does not dispute this either, they only play tricks with the initial letter, even though in the time of the apostles there was no distinction between lowercase and uppercase letters, the Son just is declared the same initials "THEOS" as the Father.
This is where the Watchtower brings in the completely baseless argument that if the Holy Scriptures say "THEOS" without the article ("HO", "the"), it actually means only a demigod, and only the form provided with the article ("HO THEOS") means full deity. In addition to being a completely artificial construction, Matthew 1:23 and John 20:28 use "HO THEOS" in relation to Jesus. In the case of the latter, the text specifically indicates that apostle Thomas said this to Jesus (αὐτῷ, "to him", cf. Kingdom Interlinear Translation), who, according to the testimony of the next verse, interpreted these words of Thomas as a confession of faith.
""The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created" - you will have to prove that with scriptural references..." - I've already done.
On the one hand, the burden of proof is on you, thus, being founded only in 1879, claiming that we were all wrong for two thousand years, well, the minimum is that you should prove your claim, along with all the other claims, including whether there is such a prophecy in the NT, that "true Christianity" will disappear for 1800 years, and then Russell will "restore" it. The New Testament verses used by Jehovah's Witnesses to allegedly predict the alleged "great apostasy" do not claim that those specific false teachers will completely take over the Church to the extent that they will completely erase the "original" teaching without anyone noticing, and that it will then need to be recreated from scratch in 1879. Rather, they simply say that "there will be some false teachers" whom the apostles caution against, but there is no mention of the complete deterioration of the Church. Moreover, if they were going to take over power anyway, why caution against them? The inspired apostles should have known that everything would be in vain since the first-century Church was destined to burst like a soap bubble within a few decades. Therefore, there was actually no purpose in establishing local congregations or the entire existence of the first-century Christian community, as the only goal was for the New Testament writings to be written so that Russell could calculate 1914 from the Scriptures 1800 years later.
However, the argument also refers to the positive promises that the true Church will not disappear ever, that the Holy Spirit will always be with it, that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it," and so on. Consequently, according to the Scriptures, only a Church that has continuously and visibly existed since the time of the apostles, with historical continuity, can be true. The later arrival of "gurus" and self-proclaimed "pastor" does not hold any weight according to the Scriptures.
It is very easy to prove the statement, the New Testament declares countless times that the Son is "begotten" (gennao), "born" (tikto) of the Father, but that he was "created" (ktizo), or "made" (poio), precisely nowhere. The Scriptures clearly state that the Son receives his existence from the Father in a qualitatively different way than the creatures. If you claim that this strict terminological difference means nothing, then the burden of proof is on you.
"being eternally begotten makes no sense (by definition in general)" - Why wouldn't it make sense? It is very reasonable: temporality and temporal succession is a character to the created world, only the processes within the created world are characterized by temporality, there is no change in God, there is no time, no temporality in God, so what God doesn't do in relation to the created, world is his eternal act. This is what the Epistle to the Hebrews also says, that the Father begot the Son "today", but in God the "today" is the eternity.
""You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24" - ok I will. Job 38:5-8 The angels were with YHWH" - ... but it doesn't say that they participated in the creation, on the contrary, Job 9:8 declares that God "alone" created.
"now to the actaul context of Isaiah (you isolate that scripture from its immediate context)" - The context does not flatten the meaning of what Isaiah 44:24 states, that is, that YHWH God created "alone", and this "alone" excludes not only false gods (who actually don't exist), but everything and everyone else. So there is no room left for a secondary co-creator demigod-archangel participating in creation, where the Watchtower tries to put the Son. Thus, if the Scriptures state that the Son also participated in creation, then it also follows from Isaiah 44:24 that then the Son is YHWH God, just like the Father. If YHWH God creates actually "through" and "in" someone else, who is not YHWH God, then he does not create "alone".
"So in some sense this is strictly between God and the man made idols, it does not exclude anyone from being with God at all as Job 38:7 proves outright." - This verse doesn't excludes that they may have been present with him, but it excludes that anyone other than YHWH God participated in the creation, and the New Testament expressly states this about the Son, moreover, on numerous occasions. Neh 9:6, Isa 45:12, 48:13, Psalm 95:5-6 also say the same thing. Consequently, all persons of whom creation is claimed in Scripture must be God. Hebrews 3:4 says the same thing.
The New Testament doesn't restricts the description of the Son's participation in the creation to the preposition "dia" (=by/through Him) in John 1:3, but also with "en" (=in Him) in Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:10 attributes the creation of the world to the Son in the most explicit way possible. (On the latter, even the Watchtower admits that this is an Old Testament quote originally referring to "Jehovah" applied here to the Son). If you combine these statements with all the Old Testament statements above that only YHWH God created "alone", nothing else comes out than that the Son is just as much YHWH God as the Father.
"Wisdom was assosiated with Christ" - Association and typology is not identification. For example, Jesus, as a messianic king, also draws a typology with David, yet we do not apply the statement about David one-to-one to Jesus.
"the nicene councel never denied this" - The council did not discuss the extent to which the concept of Chokhmah, which can be read in the Old Testament wisdom literature, can be identified with the Son, so it did not "not deny" it, but did not even deal with it.
"This isnt an invention by the Watchtower either as other ancient texts prove." - No one said that they invented it, but they use this place to support their doctrinal claim, even though according to the established exegesis, the Chokhmah of the Old Testament is not literally the Logos of the New Testament, but at most a type, a foreshadowing. The wisdom literature of the Old Testament, which also includes the book of Proverbs, cannot be used to support doctrinal teachings, taking into account its genre characteristics. Wisdom is personified. It is a quality within a Person, and the quality, itself, is personified. That Person is not yet revealed. "From everlasting was I poured" is an everlasting begetting. It is not a creation, it is a begetting, everlastingly. 'Time' has no meaning in this context.

Also, translations of Proverbs 8:22 in the Septuagint, word κτίζω can mean with a double accusative "to make somebody something", e.g., "to make/set somebody free" (cf. Aeschylus "Choephori" 1060), that is to say, cause somebody's getting free. In this last meaning the adequate literal translation of the Septuagint will be: "Lord caused/made me (brought me forth) to be the beginning of His ways towards His deeds", for there is not an "ἐν ἄρχῃ" in the text, but a double accusative ("[ἔκτισεν] με ἀρχήν"), like in the abovementioned quote from Aeschylus ("ἐλεύθερόν σε [κτίσει]"). Therefore, the translation "He created me in the beginning of his ways" is totally misleading, while "He caused/made me to be the beginning/principle" is grammatically more plausible with the double accusative construction. Thus, the Septuagint suggests that God was necessitated to bring forth, bring about, or cause something to be the principle ἀρχή for doing His deeds (ἔργα); therefore, by logic of this, this something is not included in those ἔργα but is outside of them as the God-derived principle for their coming into being.
Later in theology, through the Arian controversy, there happened a clear technical division between "creation" (κτίζω) and "begetting" (γεννάω). However, Septuagint translators did not yet have this terminologically tense agenda and thus put the verb in a looser sense of "making somebody something" or "bringing forth", not at all investing this term with a necessity of a contingency and createdness,i.e. non-eternity, of a being that God has brought about (ἔκτισεν).
"should be noted all the meanings to the word imply "something that was not possesed before" or in other words a new thing to the subject." - But there is no temporality, temporal succession in God, and because of God's perfection, immutability, and being an "actus purus" it is impossible that there was a time when he did not possess, lacked something.
""while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning" - it really doesnt... "born" and "begotten" are used as parralels and basically mean the same, only slight variations" - God should not be understood with concepts taken from the created world and with logic (see Isaiah 55:8-9, Acts 17:29), so from the fact that e.g. people are born in time, it does not follow that when God begets "today", thus in his eternal-timeless reality, it also happens in time. Generation in the created world comes with a (temporal) "beginning", but within God, since there is no temporality, change, succession, no. At the same time, the concepts of "birth" and "begetting" are apt, since if a man begets, then not an ontologically inferior being is born from him, but also a human being.
""sharing the same divine essence with the Father." - but humans also share the divine nature with them? are they then God?" - The saved are God's adopted sons of God, and Sonship in the same sense as that of the Son is not declared about them. Eph 3:14 means that the faterhood of Father to the Son is the pattern, model to our adopted filiation, this is to be understood as Matthew 5:48.The adopted child is also an heir, and the Holy Spirit is the guarantee of our inheritance (Romans 8:17). In the writings of John, there is also a linguistic distinction: Jesus is the Son (huios), and we are the children (teknon). Divine sonship is the true characteristic of the believer's state. The grace transformation is indicated by being "born of God." Not by natural means, but by the gracious action of the Holy Spirit. The new birth happens through water and the Spirit (John 3:5), but for now, it is hidden and will only become evident when Christ appears, and we will see what we have become (1 John 3:2).
If you are referring to 2 Peter 1:4, it is about the essence of Christianity, that through redemption and sanctification, we enter into a relationship and communion with God, since through this we are born again as His children, and in this rebirth, God imparts His grace and, in a sense, Himself to us. However, this does not mean becoming gods, of course. The Greek Church Fathers used the term "theosis" to express the effect of grace, but it always remained a more neutral expression than the "deification" used in paganism. In the formulation of Paul the Apostle, the salvation of mankind became a reality through God's initiative in Jesus Christ, and everyone can attain it through faith (Romans 3:21), which includes repentance and forgiveness of sins. Baptism is a holy act that aims at perfection (Romans 6:4-10; Titus 3:12), so it is quite different from the deification in myths. In the writings of John, fellowship with Jesus establishes fellowship with God. The original model is the unity of the Father and the Son (John 10:30). We are in communion with God only analogically (1 John 1:3), and we remain in Him (2:5), but it is still a real life-communion, and alongside it, there is the hope of eternal life that is achievable for everyone. The characteristic features of "theosis" are: God remains as the creator and lord with absolute personal authority. His presence has an eschatological effect, pointing towards salvation, not an immanent mystical event. It contains the tension between the present and the future and the moral requirement. In this sense, the other statements in the Johannine literature should also be interpreted: being born of God (1 John 2:29), being children of God and being born again, putting on Christ (Galatians 3:27), and the formation of the new man (Ephesians 4:24). However, if you want to reduce the divine nature of the Son to this, you are on the wrong track.
"what about angels? (Who are literally called gods)" - Yes, I know this WTS argument in connection with John 10:30-36, but Jesus does not say that he is "god" only in the same sense as the angels and judges were called "elohim" in the Psalms. First it should be noted that while in the Old Testament this usage of the word "gods" (elohim) does occur, in the New Testament it does not, there are only two categories of "THEOS": 1. the one true God, and 2. the false gods of the pagans (possibly Satan, as "the god of this world "). In John 10 Jesus gave a parable to his accusers which means: if even they can be called gods (in a certain sense), then how much more the only begotten Son then? So it's clearly in the text He is God in a superior sense than the judges were called "gods" in the Psalm. In what sense namely then? He does not explain here exactly, but he makes it clear that it is not just in the same sense, but in a higher, superior sense. "Argumentum a fortiori" arguments are regularly used in Jewish law under the name kal va-chomer, literally "mild and severe", the mild case being the one we know about, while trying to infer about the more severe case. The Jews understood this and that's why they wanted to stone him "again" (v39).
"Athanasius was well known to state things that contridict the bible - you can research that yourself, infact he was sometimes downright dishonest." - This are not very specific statement, and anyway, no one claimed that Athanasius was infallible, but the Council of Nicaea was. And the truth of the Nicene Creed does not depend on the person of Athanasius.
"should also look up teh history of that councel.." - I did what are you referring to specifically?
""God created the time for man when He separated the days from each other " - dont think so, not according to other bible commentators and scholars.." - I did, and according to Christian teaching, time and temporality did not always exist (only God is eternal, nothins else, the time either), time is also God's creation, and "in the beginning" there was no time.
""the Son is begotten from the Father before all aions, not made" - meaning "the world" "the system of things" as in not time itself" - This term "system of things" occurs exclusively in the terminology of the Watchtower, so why do you claim that you are not a member of the JW denomination? But here, of course, we are not talking about the punctual English translation of the Greek word αἰών, but how do you accept the statement of the Nicene Creed that Son "was begotten from the Father, before all αἰώνs"?
"Jesus being the archangel would put him in an elevated class over the other angels that appeared after him." - Yet where does the Scripture call Jesus an archangel? The term "other" that I highlighted in bold is not in Hebrews 1, there it is contrasted with "all angels" and the Son is distinguished, and by definition he is not included among the angels And the archangel is just as much an angel as the archbishop is a bishop.
Where does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere. Jesus Christ, "who is over all, the eternally blessed God" (Rom 9:5), "through whom everything was made" (Heb 2:10; cf. Jn 1:2-3), in whom "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9), who is "the true God and eternal life" (1Jn 5:20), the "only Lord" (Jude 1:4), "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; cf. Is 44:6), "the Lord of lords and the King of kings" (Rev 17:14) cannot be identified with an angel, with Michael, who is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, cf. Hebrews 1). The New Testament never calls Jesus an angel (cf. Hebrews 1:5), let alone Michael.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: Jude's letter establishes the truth that Satan has greater authority than Michael. The apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
The verse they refer to (1Thess 4:16) is so forced that I can only marvel at anyone who falls for it. It does not say that the voice of Michael is Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying the arrival of Jesus. The phrase "His archangelic voice" is not present in 1 Thess 4:16, instead it simply states: "with the voice of the archangel." It continues to say "with the trumpet of God." Therefore, if Jesus, according to this misinterpretation, is an archangel, then the same logic proves His deity.
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

You don't get my argument: the very fact that SO MANY readings of the text have survived, just not "Jehovah"s, proves that there was never a central church authority that could or intented to carry out such a corruption of the text of the NT as that Watchtower assumes. So many versions have survived, just not the "Jehovist" one?
That the more difficult reading is better (lectio difficilior potior) is a main principle of textual criticism. Of course, this principle can be disputed, but then why did the Watchtower use Westcott-Hort edition as the base text of the NWT, which was also compiled based on this principle of textual criticism?
There are indeed Bible translations that were made on the basis of principles that are in direct contradiction to the established ones, such as the New Heart English Bible, for example, in which it is remarkable that its Old Testmanet was made on the basis of a supposedly older text than the established Masoretic text, and even the one used by Jerome, based on the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Heretics are basically those who in principle belong to the same religion, but due to significant differences in certain issues, they have fundamentally different beliefs compared to the main branch of the given religion, and are therefore considered heterodox. The Jews did not consider Christianity, especially the Pauline Gentile Christians, as a heterodox branch of their own religion, but as a new religion different from theirs. That is why, according to Talmudic sources, the Jews did not call Christians "minim" but "notzri". The Christians which consisted mostly of uncircumcised gentiles (goyim) already by the second half of the first century, could not even be classified as heretical Jews, since one had to be born into Judaism. So when it comes to "minim", it does not apply to Christians, but to some heterodox Jews.
And importantly, the Talmudic text does not refer to "the divine name" but to "names of God" (plural), which does not necessarily refer to the Tetragrammaton. We know that some pagans already used certain forms of YHWH in mystical and sorcerous contexts before the time of Christ, but the fact that this was limited to this shows that in the main branch of Judaism, it was a fact that the avoidance of pronouncing the divine name YHWH was already a fact.
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

It's really not clear what the the issue is here, especially as the early Greek philosophers denied the reality of time, thinking of existences as eternal. In contrast, according to the Scriptures, God created the time for man when He separated the days from each other (cf. Gen 1). The world was created in time, the history of salvation takes place in time, time is the form of existence in our world, which began with creation.
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
I think you should look up, even in the footnotes of Nestle-Aland, how many passages in the New Testament are there, where there are several readings, and fluctuations can be observed in this. "Jesus", "Lord Jesus", "the Lord", "Christ Jesus", etc. I think it follows from this that there must have been "Jehovah" in all such places. Well, that's a pretty unscientific proposition.
The fact that Jerome and Origen (and of course many others) were writing about that YHWH was included in the Old Testament undermines the Watchtower's hypothesis that an early Christian church was driven by the superstitious erasure of the name YHWH from everywhere.
The fact that there were many versions of the manuscripts also proves that there was no direct will or central authority that wanted or was able to make a single established version of the NT text exclusive and destroy all others without a trace. So in Christianity there was no such figure as, like Uthman in the Islam, who ordered the compilation of the standard version of the Quran, and destroyed other versions.
This is indeed a conspiracy theory, what the WTS presents here: without any specific direct (manuscript) or indirect (report about such a manuscript) evidence they claim that all the early Bible copyists of the New Testament, and even the entire Church itself, were evil, "apostate", and Bible forgers.
Even the Watchtower praises Jerome and presents him as an honest Bible translator in thir articles, even though according to their logic he was also an evil, "apostate". Although there were many manuscripts that no longer exist in his time, and Jerome collated them during his translation of the Vulgate, he nowhere indicated that he had seen even a single New Testament document containing YHWH.
The Watchtower's argument is completely priceless speculation, they refer to such as "reasonable" that Jesus and the apostles and these alleged proto-Watchtowerite Christians of the first century "used" the "Jehovah", because Jesus rebuked the Pharisees. Well, yes, but Jesus always indicated specifically what he objected to in the teaching and practice of the Pharisees, and neither Jesus nor the apostles objected to the Jewish tradition of not pronouncing the Name, it was simply not an issue!
During the time of Christ, the name Yahweh was no longer used in everyday life; Adonai had displaced it from common usage. The people had not read or pronounced it for two centuries; the majority were not even aware that it had once been commonly used, and even fewer knew its actual pronunciation. Although they heard this sacred name every day during the priestly blessing at the temple, they could not clearly identify it because the extended melody with which the priests sang it somewhat drowned it out.
However, during the time of the oppressive reign of the Hellenizing Syrians, to avoid misuse and misinterpretation, the name Yahweh was no longer pronounced clearly, but was rather swallowed up in the customary melody so that the uninitiated could not understand it. Rabbi Tarfon, a priest and scholar who survived the destruction of the temple, testified to this (Tosefta Berakhot VII; Kiddushin 71a). The daily worship service concluded with the priestly blessing, which was part of the supplementary part of the service. (See Benediction and Ite missa est!). There was no blessing at the evening sacrifice.
Only the priests and the scribes knew it. However, only the priests pronounced it in the temple when they said the blessing. Outside the temple, in the synagogues, only Adonai was allowed to be used. According to Tamid VII/2 (v. Sota VIl, 6), "In the temple, they pronounced the Name as it is written, but in the country (outside the temple, in the synagogues) its alias," (i.e., Adonai).
It was an extremely solemn event when the high priest pronounced the sacred name of Yahweh at the three confessions on the Day of Atonement, which, however, he did later, because of frivolous people and to avoid abuses, not loudly, but quietly (Jerusalem Sanhedrin Chapter III 40b)
The fact that the priests were an exception was based on the clear command of God himself, according to which they had to pronounce His name in order to bless the sons of Israel (Numbers 6:23-27). The fact that it was only permitted for the priesthood to pronounce this name in the Jerusalem temple was justified by referring to Deuteronomy 12:21 and 14:24, because the temple is identified there as the place chosen by God to place His name and dwell there.
Apart from the priestly blessing, it was only permissible to pronounce the name of Yahweh in two cases: 1. In the case of the trial against the blasphemer during the testimony, where they wanted the eldest of the witnesses to reproduce the blasphemy exactly as the defendant had said it and to pronounce the name of God as the blasphemer had pronounced it. After the witness pronounced the name of Yahweh, the judges stood up and, in a sign of great outrage and pain, tore their clothes, which they never sewed back together. The second (and, if there was one, the third) witness only added: I can say the same. (Sanhedrin VII. 5; 55b - 56a). - 2. It was also pronounced during the education of the young men, when they communicated this sacred name to them with due caution in secret.
With the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, the last refuge for the sacred name of Yahweh also disappeared, and over time the circle of those who knew how to pronounce this name correctly became smaller and smaller. Therefore, in order not to let it completely disappear, but still to exclude profanation, they allowed, with certain restrictions, that the priests could secretly and carefully communicate the name of Yahweh not only to the priests but also to other worthy and reliable devout disciples, but only once, at most twice a year. (Kiddushin 71a).
Eventually, due to secrecy, the original vocalization of this sacred name was completely forgotten among Jewish scholars, so that today no one knows its exact original pronunciation; an attempt to establish this by those outside the Jewish community is essentially only conjecture, which only has more or less probability, because non-Jewish witnesses mostly give the pronunciation of the Hebrew name in Greek transcription, not quite clearly (and cannot give it); and because they differ in their data. These non-Jewish witnesses are partly pagans, partly Christians.
Despite all the secrecy of the Jews, the pagans somehow learned to approximate the pronunciation of this much-concealed name (perhaps through the Egyptian Hellenistic Jews). Here, of course, we are not thinking of such strange pronunciations, readings, such as those recorded by some old Christian writers. Thus, Jerome informs in one of his letters (which Origen also mentions) that the Greeks who do not understand Hebrew, reading the tetragrammaton, the letters of this similar to Greek, from left to right said PIPI. The explanation for this is that there was an area where Jews and pagans met each other: magic, witchcraft, which was practiced by the ancient peoples without national difference and thus was international. Jewish and pagan witchcraft influenced each other. Since names in general, and especially the names of God, had great significance in magic, knowledge of the secret name of the Jewish God was of practical benefit to the "sorcerers" - whether they were Jews or pagans - they therefore tried to find out the secret.
And that they succeeded is evidenced by the magical texts of the pagan sorcerer papyri, in which we also come across Greek transcriptions of the four-letter name of God among the Jewish god names appearing in the magic formulas. And it is surprising that the pagan transcriptions of this name largely coincide with the transcriptions found in Christian church fathers and writers. This circumstance makes it clear that the pagan and Christian transcriptions can be traced back to a common source, that is, these Jewish god names originate from Jews.
It's clear that the pronunciation "Jehovah", which emerged during the Christian Middle Ages and can still be heard today from uninitiated Christians, a pronunciation never used by the Jews, is incorrect. This is common knowledge among scholars. It's known that the punctuators of the Hebrew text, the so-called Masoretes, when they supplied the Hebrew text of the Scripture (around the 7th century AD) which had so far only marked the consonants, with the vowels of traditional pronunciation, kept in mind the Jewish prohibition of pronouncing the name of God. In accordance with the Jewish custom of reading Adonai (אֲדֹנָי) instead of YHWH, they added the vowels of the Hebrew word Adonai to the unpronounceable four consonants, slightly altering the first vowel (e.g., instead of אֲדֹנָי, they put אֲדֹנָי), thus forming a word which was read as Adonai. Wherever Adonai already appears immediately next to YHWH, to avoid the repetition of the same word, the vowels of Elohim were added to YHWH, thus forming יְהֹוִה, which was read as Elohim.
The Masoretes, in their religious scrupulousness, wanted to make the pronunciation of YHWH impossible in order to protect it from profanation. This was one of the 'fences' conceived by Rabbinic thought to prevent the violation of the prohibition contained in Exodus 20:7.
It is therefore clear that the linguistically distorted form "Jehovah" (which makes no sense) comes from reading the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of Adonai, a mistaken pronunciation that began to gain popularity around 1520, when Peter Galatinus (d. circa 1540), a Franciscan monk and orientalist, later the confessor of Pope Leo X, recommended its adoption in his work 'De arcanis catholicae veritatis' (II, 10) published in 1518 in Ortona. This pronunciation was also adopted by Martin Luther, although several people protested against it at the time.
Religious Jews still show their respect for the sacred name Yahweh by never pronouncing it (as they do not know its original pronunciation), instead saying either Adonai or HaShem in its place. Even though they regard its pronunciation as forbidden, they are allowed to pronounce each of its four consonants separately (Yod, He, Vav, He). Refer to Sebuot 34a; Sopherim 4; Abot De-Rabbi Nathan 34; Yer. Megillah 1, 9.
In writing, it has also become customary to merely indicate this sacred name in abbreviated form. This used to be done with either four, three, or two Yod characters (י), thus: יי, ייי, or simply with a He (ה), which is an abbreviation for HaShem.
The text is Shabbat 116a, which reads as follows:
"With regard to the blank folios [gilyohnim] and the Torah scrolls of heretics [minim], one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names of God contained therein. What, is this not referring to the blank folios of a Torah scroll? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to the blank folios of the scrolls of heretics [minim]. The Gemara is surprised at this: Now, with regard to the scrolls of heretics [minim] themselves, one does not rescue them; is it necessary to say that one does not rescue their blank folios? Rather, this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios.
With regard to the blank folios and the Torah scrolls of the heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names of God contained therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said in the form of an oath: I will bury my sons if I fail to do the following, that if these books come into my possession I will burn them and the names contained therein."
According to the Watchtower Society, the word minim (heretic) refers to Christians, but in reality, we can speculate among three possibilities. The minim either refers to heretical Jews (Bick's opinion), or to Christians (according to the Society), or to such Judaizing Christians who were also considered heretics by the early Christian Church (for example, the Ebionites).
The Jews actually did not call Christians "minim" (heretics), but "nosri" (Nazarenes). Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220, Against Marcion, 4:8) records that the Jews called Christians "Nazarenes" from Jesus being a man of Nazareth, though he also makes the connection with Nazarites in Lamentations 4:7. Jerome too records that, in the synagogues, the word "Nazarenes" was used to describe Christians. Eusebius, around 311 CE, records that the name "Nazarenes" had formerly been used of Christians.
So this Talmudic text is most likely about some writing of the Jewish heretics (e.g. Sadducees, Nazoraeans, Samaritans etc.) Or those labelled as "minim" by the Rabbis were Gnostics who originated in Jewish circles pre-dating Christianity, and that gilyonim were 'tablets' bearing a gnostic "Ophite diagram" as described by Celsus and Origen. This would explain the opposition from Rabbi Tarfon.
Karl Georg Kuhn (‘Judentum Urchristentum Kirche’, 1964) argues that:
- the Talmud passage (Shabbat 116a) is clearly later than the passages from the Tosefta, and too late to be used as a source for the Jamnian period;
- in the Tosefta passages citing Rabbi Tarfon, sifrei minim should be understood not as gospels but as Old Testament texts belonging to heterodox Jewish groups such as those at Qumran as well as to Jewish Christians; and gilyonim should be understood not as gospels but as Marginalia cut off from Biblical texts;
- Rabbi Tarfon is unlikely to have made a pun on books being called ‘gospels’ earlier than Christians were known to have called their books ‘gospels’;
- Rabbi Tarfon is unlikely to have punned gilyonim on merely the second half of the word ‘euangelion’, and there are other grammatical problems making it unlikely that a pun on ‘euangelion’ is in play.
Daniel Boyarin, in line with Kuhn, understands the books to which Rabbi Tarfon referred to be Torah scrolls. Marvin R. Wilson takes the term 'minim' in the Talmud as originally denoting all “dissidents, apostates and traitors” rather than Christians in particular.
I don't think it is reasonable that the Jews would have thought of the manuscripts of the New Testament here, after Gentile Christianity was completely separated from the Jewish religion, there was no passage between the two, the Jews distanced themselves from the Christians, and did not care in the least about what their in their writings and what not. In addition, the Jews were not in power, there were fewer of them than the Christians. The Jews had no jurisdiction over the Christians to order the burning of their writings that allegedly contained the name of YHWH. The word gilyonim in the plural, means several copies of a single work, not multiple different gospels.
Moreover, in Jewish understanding, not only YHWH is considered the name of God, but all of these: Adonai, El, Elohim, Shaddai, Tzevaot, Ha-Shem, Ehyeh. So, when a Jewish text speaks of the "divine name," it does not necessarily refer to the Tetragrammaton. And you can see: in text they speak in plural: "names of God".
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
Here is the opinion of Tertullian - who professed to be a Catholic - on whether it is at all acceptable for heretics to refer to the Holy Scriptures. He would obviously have a similar opinion about those who want to use his writings (misinterpreted, taken out of context) to support heresy, and attack the his Church:
Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, as many as walk according to the rule, which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers — as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?
(Prescription against Heretics - Chapter 37.)
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

According to Catholic dogma, there are two inherent, eternal, and substantial processes in God: one by which the second divine person originates from the first as the Son from the Father, which therefore bears the name generation, begetting, birth (generatio), and one by which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, which we call spiration (spiratio).
A procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις) generally refers to a process that starts from one reality and ends at another, with the content being the real existence of the endpoint originating from the starting point. Since God is simple, in God there can only be immanent processions: the starting and endpoint of the procession cannot exceed the boundaries of the divine reality, but remains entirely within the Godhead. And since the Godhead itself cannot be divided in its essence, the resulting reality can only encompass the entire, undivided divine reality; in other words, divine procession can only be substantial, that is, the resulting reality can only be God. Finally, since God is pure actuality (actus purus), processions in God cannot represent transitions from potentiality to actuality; that is, they are eternal. Therefore, the originator cannot exert a creative, constitutive, or causative activity in relation to the originated; hence, the originating persons cannot be called the cause of the originated but only their principle (principium); the principle is a more general concept than cause and does not necessarily express a causal relationship; for example, the point is the principle of the line, but not its cause.
In the Prologue to the Epistle to the Hebrews (1:5), the divinity of Christ is proclaimed, referring to these words of the second psalm: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." Christ says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26). Based on such biblical revelations, theology talks about the Trinitarian origins or derivations (processiones trinitariae), and about two forms of origins. Theologians refer to the origin of the Son as generation or birth (generatio), and that of the Holy Spirit as simple origin or derivation (processio simpliciter).
Since each person of the Trinity is God, and God has existed eternally, it is utterly impossible for any divine person to precede the others in time; and since the persons share a single nature, no hierarchical difference can arise among them. Therefore, the Trinitarian origins merely signify logical succession, that is, the logical rationale (ratio) and principle basis (principium) of one person are different from those of another. The Father is a Father by constantly transmitting his essence to the Son from eternity, and the Son is a Son by eternally accepting this essence, in which the essence of the Father is eternally reflected. This acceptance, this becoming of the person in reflection, is what we call sonship or birth. The divine essence is the same in all three persons, but the "mode of existence" of this essence is quite different in the Father, who eternally imbues it into the Son, and in the Son, who eternally accepts it, and in the Holy Spirit, to whom the Father and the Son also eternally transmit it, and who accepts it from them.
The earliest church fathers tried to illustrate the birth of the Son with analogies. Just as the rays of the sun constantly emanate from the sun as long as it exists, and just as water constantly trickles from an inexhaustible spring as long as the spring exists; the Son is similarly constantly born from the Father, indeed eternally, since the Father exists eternally. The "today" in the second Psalm refers to God's "eternal present," as there is no past and future, yesterday and tomorrow, for Him - as the dogma about God's eternity teaches. The Trinitarian origins are eternal origins. The church fathers' analogies are only partly accurate, and can be critiqued from multiple perspectives. For instance, the sun is the physical cause of the rays, the spring is of the brook, but physical causality must be excluded from God: God is not a cause of Himself (causa sui), but the spiritual rationale of His being (ratio sui), which means that the rationale of His existence is not to be found outside Him, but within Him. Nor are the aforementioned analogies good because the spring's water would be more if it didn't flow out as a brook, but the divine essence cannot lose anything in the Trinitarian origins, neither with the birth of the Son, nor with the origin of the Holy Spirit; since God is absolutely unchanging and indivisible. Due to the same unchangeability, neither the Son can gain anything extra by being born, nor the Holy Spirit by originating. The birth of the Son and the origin of the Holy Spirit - as stated above - may only create a different mode of existence for the same divine essence, but by no means a change. Because of this identity of essence, classical Trinitarianism calls the Trinitarian origins substantial origins (processiones substantiales). The latter also means that not only the originator but also the originated is God, as these origins are the various forms of existence of the common divine essence (substantia).
According to Augustine, since God is spirit, we should look for analogies in the realm of spiritual processes when we want to study God's inner life.
One of the most important manifestations of our spiritual life is the formation of concepts, the birth of our notions. Just as an unexpressed concept (verbum mentis) is conceived, born in our consciousness, the Son is born from the Father in the same way. The Son is essentially nothing more than the concept that the Father forms of himself, his self-knowledge, which on the one hand has always been there, and on the other hand possesses such power, intensity that it becomes a separate person.
Since God is the infinite perfection of all values (true, good, beautiful, holy), and these values provoke spiritual love from the soul, the Father also infinitely loves himself as a totality of value, and this infinite love must also be reflected in the Son. The love of the Father reflected in the Son and the reflection of this love in the Father, as if “bouncing back”, is essentially one and eternal love, and it is also so intense that it becomes a separate person, the person of the Holy Spirit.
Augustine's analogy has three advantages:
a) It aptly shows that we can rightly speak of a spiritual kind of birth and origin, such as we encounter with the persons of the Trinity.
b) What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge, and what is created as love, can also be "immanent": the originated does not "step out" of the originator in this case, just as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life of the Son, indeed his entire essence, is identical with that of the Father, he does not step out of him, he does not separate from him in any reality; similarly, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remains the same with the other two persons and stays within them.
c) The divine and human self-knowledge are similar in that the birth of both can be equally referred to as conception and birth. Since the conception and birth of our thoughts coincide in time, not as it happens in the birth and conception of animals and humans. That's why these two expressions are completely synonymous: "the Father has been begetting the Son from eternity", and "the Father has been giving birth to the Son from eternity".
Of course, there are essential differences between divine and human self-knowledge and self-love. These were already noticed by Augustine. Divine and human self-knowledge and self-love primarily differ from each other in that our conscious self-knowledge and self-love are not present from the first moment of our existence. Another difference is that human self-knowledge gradually unfolds, and even so, it does not become entirely perfect; the same goes for our self-love. Our internal image formed about ourselves never fully reflects what we are. However, the Father, without residue, perfectly "speaks into" his entire essence to the Son and loves him in the Holy Spirit. The third and most important difference is this: The intensity, the power of God's self-knowledge and the mutual love of the first two persons of the Trinity is such that this knowledge and love transcends the realm of thought (ens rationis) and enters the realm of reality (ens reale): it becomes a separate divine person that really exists, although its immanence also remains.
We assert that the Father is without origin and birth (principium sine principio).
Indeed, the Scripture attributes origin to the other two persons, but never to the Father, and by this, it implicitly teaches his lack of origin. Early patristics applied such descriptors to the Father: without beginning (anarchos, ἄναρχος, ἀναίτιος), uncreated (agenetos, ἀγένητος), unbegotten (agennetos, ἀγέννητος), there is no principle from which he would originate. This statement, however, is linguistically negative in meaning, yet it proclaims the positive that the Father possesses the common divine essence in such a way that He does not receive it from anyone, but only gives it to the Son and, together with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. The Father is "principium sine principio". He is the ultimate solution to the origin of the other two persons.
Paul considers the fatherhood of God so important that – as we have already seen – instead of Father, he sometimes says God. He is primarily the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:3), to whom Jesus turns not only as a human, but also as the second divine person, with feelings of devotion and mutual love; and as the God-man, he comes into the world as the Father's emissary (John 3:17), emptying himself (Phil 2:7) to reconcile the world with the Father and make humans God's children. His entire human life is childlike devotion before the heavenly Father, from whom he received his divine essence, and whom in this sense he can call greater than himself (John 14:28). His perfect self-sacrifice is both a model and a means for humans to become children of the heavenly Father in a non-identical, but analogous sense. Because God also wants to be primarily a Father to us: "For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren" (Romans 8:29; cf. Galatians 3:26). The characteristic warmth of the New Testament is that God spoke the final word to humanity as Father. He sent his Son and revealed through him that he accepts humanity into his merciful love.
The Son originates from the Father through generation, begetting, birth.
This follows from the fact that the second person is a son to the Father not only in a moral sense, but also in a metaphysical sense. According to the Scriptures,
a) the second divine person is the only-begotten Son of the Father in a natural sense, in the metaphysical sense of the word (φύσει not θέσει, that is, not by adoption). However, the natural son originates from the father by generation.
b) This is also formally taught in the New Testament, when it correctly interprets the places in the Old Testament that refer to the Son's birth. So: "To which of the angels did He ever say (the Father): 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'?" (Heb 1:5–Ps 2.) "The seas were not yet, and I was already conceived." (Prov 8:24) Furthermore: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared him." (Jn 1:18; cf. 1,1.)
c) The Father is the primal model and source of all fatherhood: "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity [i.e. fatherhood] in heaven and earth is named." (Eph 3:14.) Similarly, the second divine person is the primal model and form of all sonship: "For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." (Rom 8:29 cf. Gal 3:26) However, sonship is characterized by origination through generation. If this were missing in the Son, it would be a false or distorted primal model and pattern.
Sonship in the natural, metaphysical sense necessarily presupposes generation or being generated. Therefore, he is the "own" Son (Rom 8:3), the "only-begotten" Son (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9) of the Father. Following the letter to the Hebrews (1:5), we can also refer to two expressions of the Psalms: to give birth (110:3), to give life (2:7).
This is also the universal teaching of the Church Fathers even before the Council of Nicaea. According to Justin, the Logos is that God whom the Father has begotten (Justin. I 61 62). The teachings of the Apologists are somewhat obscured by their less successful attempts to associate the birth of the eternal Word with the creation of the world (Clem. Al. Adumbr. (Μ 9, 734), Origen. in Jer hom. 9, 4). The Alexandrians and Tertullian are more precise in this regard (Tertull. Prax 2 8 9; Marc. II 27.). Later, in opposition to the Arians, especially the Greek Church Fathers defended the eternity of the Son's generation (the Arians' main argument was that the begotten is later than the begetter, see: Nyssen. Eunom. (M 45, 441 ff.); Basil. Eunom. II 17; cf. Thom I 42, 2.); also the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be forced to beget, so the Son exists by the will of the Father, that is, he was created), which, however, is as different from blind compulsion as the free decision to create (See Athanas. Ctra Ar. or. 3, 60 ff. cf. 1, 21–28; Nazianz. Or 29, 1.); and finally, its substantial and spiritual nature (according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with God's absolute simplicity (Athanas. Decret. Nicean. 13; Nyssen. Eunom. IV. (M 45, 617 ff.); Cyrill. A. Thesaur. 6.).
We must understand the Son's generation or birth based on the pattern of earthly children's generation, but not in an identical, but in an analogous sense. For God is spirit, so only a spiritual birth can occur with him. However, the analogy is maintained, so we must speak of a real birth. Because here everything is realized that is included in the definition of earthly birth: the living comes from the living, the two have a living connection, and the origin implies essential identity.
When we say "verbum mentis" with Augustine, we emphasize the immanence of the Son. However, when we see birth in the Son's origin, we do not emphasize immanence, but the communication, the "handing over" of identical nature.
The sonship of the second person is also of great significance in the order of salvation. According to Paul, the Father created everything in him that is in heaven and on earth, and everything subsists in him (Col 1:16-17). Even before the creation of the world, the Father chose the called ones in him (Eph 1:4). For the Father constantly speaks his eternal thoughts into the Son, so the Son could be the Father's measure in the creation of the world. Therefore, he is the founder of God's kingdom, he is the norm of all moral perfection, therefore he will be the measure and executor of the last judgement. The final state is formed in such a way that the Father brings together all created values under his sovereignty (Eph 1:10). The Son is also the "causa formalis" of our individual supernatural life, insofar as the grace, the giving of which is the common work of the three divine persons, transfers the image of sonship to the justified human soul. We will become children of the Father in the same form as Christ is in childlike relation to the heavenly Father. Thus we become partakers of Christ's divine sonship and become co-heirs with him. And just as the Spirit connects Christ with the Father, the Holy Spirit will also be the soul of our childlike relationship.
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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

BoogerMan
In fact, God Himself is a mystery, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God. The fact that the trinity is a mystery does not mean that what is in Revelation cannot be understood by reason. The doctrine of the Trinity summarizes the biblical data: there is only one God, but at the same time there are three persons, who by nature are what only God can be, and who do things that only God can do. God is one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not meaningless, it is just beyond reason, unprecedented in the created world: God bless you. it does not resemble human ideas (cf. Acts 17:29). Otherwise, the term "Jehovah" or "theocratic organization" is not in the Bible either. 1 Cor 14:33 does not speak about the being of God, but about the need for church order (i.e. he is the God of peace).
"Mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) in the full sense of the word: every religious truth that the mind, with its sheer natural talents, cannot either determine or understand with its specific concepts. Thus, it contains two components: The mind on its own cannot determine its existence, and even if it has gained knowledge of its existence through revelation, it is subsequently unable to justify it with purely natural reasons; moreover, it cannot define its meaning with specific, but only with analogical concepts. In other words: A mystery of faith is such a religious truth for which the mind on its own cannot determine either that the predicate "must" be asserted about the subject, or that the predicate "can" be asserted about the subject; for example, the one God is three persons; Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. If either of these two components is missing, that is, if the existence of a religious truth can be recognized by reason, but its manner is not comprehensible (for example, God created the world), or its existence cannot be determined by reason, but once we learned it from revelation, its content is already accessible to reason (for example, Christ appointed a head for His Church; there are seven sacraments), then we are not dealing with a mystery of faith in the full sense of the word, a primary mystery, but only with a secondary mystery of faith.
Those who define the mystery of faith as the incomprehensible, indomitable religious truth do not define it accurately. Because there is something incomprehensible, indomitable in every human knowledge; and that is why the deeper-thinking people of every age talk a lot about the depths and mysteries of existence, and praise the docta ignorantia (Nicholas of Cusa). However, this is something entirely different from the nature of the Catholic mystery. The world of nature hides secrets because our mind does not create its realities but faces them as givens and can only perceive them fragmentarily; the mystery of faith, on the other hand, cannot be measured by reason because it is from the higher, superhuman world of realities.
The Bible uses the word "mystery" in two different senses. Generally, it tends to refer to an event or phenomenon in which God and man meet each other, and God gives Himself as a gift to man (Eph 1:9; 3:9-11; 5:32; Col 1:26). The other meaning of the mystery in the Bible is concealment and incomprehensibility (Rom 11:25; cf. 11:33-34; 1Cor 15:51; Rev 17:7). In this regard, theologians categorize the mystery of the Trinity among the so-called absolute mysteries (mysteria absoluta).
The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense is indicated by the Jesus himself when he says: "No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mt 11,27.) John the Evangelist: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son (the only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him." (Jn 1,18) Paul the apostle: "No one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:16.) Since the Church Fathers Irenaeus and Origen, it has been unequivocally taught that the Trinity surpasses the mind. When the Arians boldly wanted to lift the veil that covers the inner nature of the Deity, their main weapon against their heretical position was reference to the mystery of the Trinity (Iren. II 28, 6; Origen. Princip. IV 1; Athanas. Serap. I 20; Cyril. H. Cat. 4, 7; Basil. Ep. 38, 4; Nazianz. Or. 31, 8; Nyssen. Or. cat. 3; Cyril. Al. Trinit. 3; August. Trinit. IX 1.).
But what does this mean? It cannot be determined by the mere powers of the natural mind that the one divine reality is a trinity of persons.
It's not a posteriori: for the a posteriori proof of God starts from the created world and reaches the absolute being through the thread of causality. It is already a theologically established truth that God's trinity as such is not manifested in creation; for God's external activity is the common work of the three persons: Therefore, the mind does not have a foothold in creation to recognize the one God subsisting in three persons as the absolute being.
And it's not a priori either: we cannot deduce the Trinity from the nature of God known through reason; partly because we do not know the divine reality in a proportionate way, partly because experience does not provide any analogy for a triple relative subsistence of one substance.
But even if we have come into possession of this mystery through revelation, we can neither understand nor subsequently justify it. For even if the analogy of human spiritual life suggests that God's absolute life cannot lack the richness that feeds on the contrast of spiritual activities and life contents, and even if the mind faithfully following the traces of revelation can penetrate a good way into the cloud hiding the Divinity, its laborious thought processes invariably lose their way at three landmarks in the impenetrable fog sea of the mystery:
Initially, independently of the revelation, the mind cannot determine that there are only two categories of spiritual activities and capabilities, reason and will, and hence only two origins are possible in God.
Initially, without revelation, it cannot determine and prove to be necessary that divine life activities are productive; because it is very conceivable from the outset that the object and proportional expression of divine understanding and volition is the independent infinite absolute reality, without the difference of opposing subsistent aspects.
Independently of revelation, the mind can neither determine nor judge it possible that the one divine absolute reality can be the existential content of three subsistent aspects, which are only value-differently from it, but are really different from each other.
While the Trinity is a supra-rational truth, it is not irrational, but completely rational. For the Trinity is God's self-revelation. But God is absolute reason, therefore this revelation is the radiance and evidence of absolute reason. God cannot give anything other than what is his essence. True, the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense of the word, and therefore the human mind cannot fully demonstrate the logic that this mystery contains. But for this very reason, irrationality cannot be demonstrated from it either. The mind on its own can determine that God is immeasurably superior; this unattainability is always maintained for our mind, whether it reaches for it for understanding or for refutation.
But the mind, illuminated by revelation, can demonstrate in a negative direction that the mystery of the Trinity does not contradict clear arguments, and in a positive direction it can catch a ray of the abundance of light bursting forth from it.
The doctrine of the Trinity could only be shown to be irrational if it contradicted any logical principle, namely the principle of identity and contradiction. But this is not the case. We do not say that the same subject is one and three, but we affirm that the divine reality is one, and the persons are three; or we call the substance one and we state the subsistence as relatively three.
Indeed, the content of the mystery of the Trinity (the triple relative subsistence of one absolute reality) contradicts experience, even the metaphysical findings derived from the material of experience. But its irrationality cannot be inferred from this. For every deeper thinking person has sensed that experience does not exhaust the categories and possibilities of existence, and that is why even within this world, the mind inferring from the present to the past, from the here to the far, is cautiously warned not to hastily infer from non-existence to impossibility. This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relatively triple subsistence of the absolute Being is irrational; the less so, because reason also determines that God is above the sexes, therefore the Aristotelian categories cannot set a limit to his existential content and mode of existence.
The mind can first and foremost pour its content into systematically processed concepts and thus speak appropriately about it; it can determine which expressions and phrases correspond to the content of the mystery and which do not.
The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person. If we now consider that the concrete noun (and the male adjective in Indo-European languages) generally denotes the autonomous reality, the suppositum, hence the person in the doctrine of the Trinity, the abstract noun (and the neuter adjective) denotes the nature, it is generally not difficult to navigate and determine the correctness or incorrectness of a phrase or expression. Thus,
a) we can say that the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, are eternal, omnipotent, etc., but we cannot speak of three eternal or omnipotent entities.
b) It is correct: the Son is someone else (alius) than the Father, but not: the Son is something else (aliud). It's correct: the one God is in three distinct persons (in tribus personis distinctis), not correct: the one God is divided into three persons (in tribus personis distinctus), as this endangers the unity of the essence.
c) We can say: God begets, God breathes; the Son is God from God; because the concrete noun signifies the suppositum; but we can't say: divinity begets, divinity is Father. However, often the established language usage decides. The speech of the believer cannot roam freely like that of the philosopher; "our speech must be according to a definite rule, lest the liberty of speech should generate an impious belief about the thing itself". (August. Civ. Dei X 23.) If anywhere, here, in the mystery of mysteries, Paul's warning is appropriate: "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter". (1 Tim 6,20. How much the sealed language usage of the Church decides is a telling example: the Latin Deus triplex is incorrect, but the identical etymon, dreifaltig, threefold is orthodox.)
The believing mind may attempt, in the humble consciousness of its limitations, to illuminate some aspects of the mystery of the Trinity with analogies taken from natural or supernatural life. Of course, it must not forget that in these there will always be more difference than similarity; each one is only good for casting a faint, fading light on one aspect of the mystery. The Greek church fathers used more external analogies: the sun, its light, its ray; in a tree the root, trunk, flower; plant, flower, fragrance; source, stream, estuary; three torches that are ignited from each other (perhaps better: three torches whose flames merge). The newer catechesis and speculation also refer to other analogies: the three dimensions of space, the three moments of time (past, present, future); the three moments of processes: beginning, continuation, end; the three transcendent basic properties: one, true, good; the three basic categories of causality: real, formal and goal-cause (with the last two in relation to the three proofs of God the onto-, nomo-, teleological). The most fruitful analogy, however, is human spiritual life. The Greeks also stayed more on the surface here, as they associated the second divine person, the Word, with the spoken word, the Holy Spirit with the breath. The brilliant mind of Augustine reached the root of spiritual existence, and there he found the purest mirror image of the Trinitarian origins: "The Trinity gives a certain image of itself in the intellect and in the knowledge, which is the offspring of the intellect: the word it says about itself; thirdly, love; and these three are one substance. And the Begotten One is not less, for the intellect knows itself as much as its existence is; and love is not less, for it loves itself as much as it knows itself, and as much as it exists". (August. Trinit. IX 12, 18.)
If we consider any of the aspects that make up the mystery of the Trinity as given from the revelation, we can almost unravel the rest along its thread; a clear sign of how powerful logic prevails in all the relations of the Trinity. For example, if we take this truth as given: there are two fertile origins in God, we can deduce that these origins are immanent, eternal, and substantial, that their product can only be a person and there can only be three persons, two of whom generate the third as one principle.
Finally, the believing mind can reveal the philosophical, theological, and religious significance of the mystery of the Trinity.
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
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
You can poke fun, but maybe you could know the Bible enough to know that it is not a book of theology, it is not a book of dogmatics, it will not declare it like the Chalcedonian Creed. But he teaches in terms of content: that He was God, and that He also became man. These are two different natures, and by definition, different attributes are associated with them.
It's like having two baskets and a bunch of apples. Red apples go into one basket, green apples into the other. In the Holy Scriptures, statements ("apples") suggesting Jesus' deity go into one "basket" (referring to his divinity), those referring to his humanity go into the other. Christian theology is precisely about the fact that no "apple" has to be thrown out or distorted, as the NWT does, but only put in the right "basket".
So is it sufficient for you, to prove the existence of those two "baskets", or should I prove it in every single statements that which one does it belong to? Or is say: it's purely logical (for example, Jesus suffered, as God cannot suffer, as human he can, so it's meant according to his humanity), you will cry: "It's philosophy!"
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)
Between theotes and theiotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousious and homoiousous. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first.
Let's see the WTS' arguments you were refering to (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
"Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”".
But the Greek text has no trace of it being the will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai". This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do.
However, it is clear: you are trying desperately to plug in here this mistranslating divine "nature" so that you can then abruptly turn to the Peter letter, which you are desperately trying to flatten out the divine fullness dwelling in Jesus, stammering that according to Peter, believers also became partakers of the divine nature, and so the divine nature of Jesus is no more than this. These Watchtower struggles are transparent, and they can be nailed firmly to the ground here, where they may continue to wriggle to the great amusement of those who know the Bible.
"In him, and not in the creators or teachers of human philosophies, does this precious "fullness" dwell."
This is awkward, evasive sidetracking: a childish stirring of emotions with buzzwords against the doctrine of the Trinity, which also appeared in philosophical garb from the 4th century. But it took its essential content from the Bible, not from any philosophy.
"Is the Apostle Paul perhaps saying here that the "fullness" in Christ makes Christ himself God? According to Colossians 3:1, no, because here we read of Christ that he "sits at the right hand of God."
This is not a refutation, because here the word God refers to the Father (elsewhere it refers to Jesus). The believers in the Trinity never claimed that Jesus is identical with the Father, and thus sits at his own right hand.
"Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father"
But the fullness of deity does.
"Just as "humanity" or "human nature" does not mean that every human is equal or coeternal any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age."
Except that it does mean that in their humanity, all humans are equal, and so in parallel: in their deity, the Father and the Son are equal (Phil 2:6).
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), which in WTS terminology has a pejorative meaning (I would rather call it common sense, logical conclusion), doesn't refute it.
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