It's a pity that you don't want to touch on the issue of the legitimacy of the Church, after all that would be the key, not the biblical ping-pong, and linguistics, which can hardly be a measure of the truth, after all God, who wants everyone to be saved, gives the truth to everyone provided with recognizable marks.
"There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's." (Thomas Babington Macaulay)
"Firstborn, not having a temporal priority" - In fact, the title "Firstborn" has nothing to do with temporality, but with preeminence, supremacy.
"For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims" - I never said that you should accept anything on my authority. I am just a "dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants", as Bernard of Chartres said.
""you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I haven't read them all before" - From the fact that your arguments show that you don't know the counterargument. Like when in chess it seems that the opponent does not foresee my next move. However, here I myself hinted at what it would be.
""you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you haven't answered?" - Feel free to do it. Anyway, this is called a 'te quoque' argument.
""together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone" - What does this have to do with the alleged NT "Jehovah"? If I have a sink in my bathroom, does it follow that my living room has to have one as well? In any case, the fact that there was a text variant of the Septuagint that contained it was nothing new, after all Origen and Jerome (who even allegedly saw the Hebrew Matthew) reported on it, but no one about in the NT. Otherwise, the Tetragrammaton does not appear in the Ecclesiastes, the Book of Esther, and the Song of Songs. Couldn't it have been there as well, only the "apostate" copyists removed it, and should it be "restored" in the NWT? After all, with your logic, it's impossible that if it's in one book, it can't not be in the other. In any case, according to the majority opinion of researchers, this was a later, re-Hebraizing, heterodox reading of the LXX, and the fact that it was not included in the NT in the first place is simply justified by the different theological environment.
"and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim accurate bible translation)" - No one disputed that it was in the Hebrew Scriptures, and no one ever made any edition of the Hebrew text where it would have been transcribed to Adonai. And whether Yahweh should be written in the vernacular translations of the Old Testament or not, and that is not a forgery, it can be argued, Christianity has freedom in this matter. There are a number of Christian translations that include it and some that don't. Where it is translated as "Lord", the preface and the footnote always refer to it, and usually bring it in small capitals (LORD). It's not a matter of salvation, that's the point. On the contrary, writing it into the New Testament without manuscript evidence, based on speculation, is indeed a forgery, just like many well-known, theologically biased insertions and distortions.
"" the latter should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistent because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1." - Simple: in the light of the fuller statement, the Holy Scripture attributes a full ("active") contribution to creation to the Son, which is described elsewhere with different grammatical devices and a different way of phrasing. Just as there are differences in the description of certain events in the synoptic gospels, it can be described in the same way the same theological truths, sometimes in a more complete form, sometimes in a partial form. By the way, the grammatical passive is not the same as the theological description, the Father's role as creator can also be described in a grammatically passive sentence, e.g. "the world was created by the Father." This is grammatically passive, in any case it does not detract from his creative contribution.
"why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"" - The "only" difference is that it is not stated anywhere that Solomon built the Temple "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands," whereas it is written that YHWH God "alone," "by himself," "with his own hands" created the world, so not through the cooperation of an "agent" creature outside of Him.
""The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your counsels, they can claim what they like" - This shows that you did not even read what I wrote, let alone my links, with understanding and attention. I never said that the universal councils were "inspired", but only that they were "infallible". But even if you do not accept this, their content is still relevant, after all, without understanding what the teaching is that you are trying to refute, you will try to refute it in vain, since you're attacking a straw man. The point is that Catholic theology is a systematized summary of revealed religious truth that does not contradict any statement of Scripture.
"and just because it is not inspired doesn't mean it can't be cited for grammatical structures." - Indeed, but since hundreds of years passed between the end of the Old Testament revelation and even the translation of the LXX and the writing of the New Testament books, it can only have limited significance due to linguistic changes and the theological environment. And as we see in the New Testament, there is not a single precedent that the level of adoration described with the verbs 'proskuneo' AND 'latreuo', can be legitimately applied to a creature. After all, why does the apostle reject this in Acts 10:25-26?
""and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too." - The fact that the cherubim are above the angels and archangels is also clear from the Scriptures, but this has always been the teaching of Judaism and Christianity about the angelic hierarchy. Considering 2 Peter 2:11, this gives a good justification for Jude 9. Jesus, on the other hand, pronounced a clear judgment on Satan (Jn 16:11; cf. Jn 5:22, 27; 1 Jn 3:8; Col 2:15).
""Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both categories so he can be a mediator." - Jesus Christwas never sinful (what kind of impious blasphemy is this?), let alone in his life or death. The apostle asserts that "the man Jesus" is the mediator. I still don't know where you read that the Son was an archangel either after his incarnation or after his death. The existence of a person (both Christ's and man's) does not end with death, but there is continuity between the present and the future existence. Jehovah did not re-create Jesus as the glorified Archangel Michael, but he appeared to his disciples as he was: their crucified and resurrected Lord and Master. Thus, he certainly had a new, glorified body, a (beyond earthly imagination) "spiritual body" ("sōma pneumatikos", 1 Cor 15:44 ff.), but he was clearly identifiable. The dead and buried Lord was brought back to life by the action of God (cf. Acts 2:31-34; Eph 5:14), and although in a new, materially not identical, but not just seeming bodily existence (cf. Jn 20 and 21). He appears to the disciples in visible and tangible form (Jn 20:27; Lk 24; Acts 1:1-6; cf. Jn 1,1-3), even if he does not always allow such contact (Jn 20:17), because from now on they must recognize him as glorified – therefore, independent of his bodily form (2Cor 5:16). Although Jesus is in the light and spirit world of the new era (aión), he practices human fellowship with them by eating and drinking (Lk 24:29k; Jn 21:12-14).
If the Watchtower Society claims that Jesus did not really rise bodily, but showed himself with a seeming body "similar to other angels," it dangerously skirts spiritualism and Gnostic docetism (even if only in connection with Jesus' post-death state). Scripture emphatically emphasizes the physicality of the resurrection against any claim of seeming corporality and spiritual manifestation (see the above scriptures). It contradicts the nature of the biblical Jesus, who is "the truth" (Jn 14:6) in his person, to attribute a seeming manifestation in body to him. Specifically, for the purpose of simulating a resurrection for the disciples, which, according to the teachings of the Watchtower Society, is allegedly not possible in this form.
The believers never - even after the resurrection - partake in the mode of existence in which Christ is, because Christ is God and we are human. Human resurrection - according to biblical revelation there are no exceptions - follows from the resurrection of Christ, "the firstfruits of the dead" (cf. 1Cor 15,20-24). However, this never provides the same divine mode of existence that Christ has had eternally. The Bible also knows several types of resurrection, but not like Jehovah's Witnesses. It speaks much more clearly of resurrection for eternal life or eternal damnation (Mt 25:31-36; Rev 20:11-15), and additionally (or identifying it with the first) speaks of "resurrection" (exanastasis) or "first resurrection" in the case of those who died in faith, which occurs concurrently with the "rapture" of living believers and preceding the general resurrection of the last day (Phil 3:11; 1Thes 4:16). It mentions nothing about the alleged trial opportunity for those who come to life during the millennium. Rather, it applies: "...it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment..." (Heb 9,27). Finally, the scripture does not know about the class divisions imagined by the Watchtower Society.
"if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because he is God" - If he was "only" God, then really no, fortunately, according to Catholic teaching, he took on human nature with the Incarnation and will not put it down ever. So Jesus Christ is still God AND man, united in the hypostatic unity, so we have a mediator.
"" according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.." - Since the Scriptures nowhere state that he ceased to be a man and is only an archangel now, therefore there is no contradiction here, at most, between this statement of the apostle and the Christology of the Watchtower.
""giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi" - I've already answered this, I'm just quoting myself:
The word "honor" (gr. time) is a broader concept than worship, so all worship is also respect, but not all respect is worship. In other words, if we read that the Son must be honored just as the Father is, that includes all kinds of honor for the Father, including worship. On the other hand, all kinds of honor for the Father are adoring respect, since no respect can be imagined that is not addressed to him as God. After all, the Father is none other than God: he is not a man and not a state body to be respected in a civil sense. Therefore, since all this honor also belongs to Jesus, his worthiness of worship is immediately given, and thus also his divinity of the same essence as that of the Father.
""if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really?" - Yes, according to John, Isaiah saw the glory of Jesus, and Isaiah writes that he saw the glory of Yahweh, so Jesus is (also) Yahweh.
""it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out" - In my eyes, "philosophy" is not a pejorative term; it involves "auxiliary concepts" that are not found in the biblical (basic) vocabulary but are used by every theological trend. Each of these has its own legitimacy. It can't even be said that theology was the one that introduced these "words, expressions, concepts, and even thought algorithms". It is more the case that in the era when the foundations of theology were laid, these were completely well-known among the intellectuals dealing with these matters. In this sense, the Middle Ages were not "dark" at all, but in terms of certain intellectual truths, it was much more open than today.
I think the problem lies in the fact that many individuals who identify themselves as Christians are so characterized by extreme anti-intellectualism and a cult of stupidity, as well as the resulting fideism, that they simply approach every such concept with inherent disgust. The cult of stupidity, of course, is not only prevalent in religions today, as stupidity has generally gained civil rights in the world. A few decades ago, if someone was a simple laborer, they did not brag about their vocabulary extending to only a few thousand words, and they would probably be ashamed to go on television to show their primitiveness. Today, due to so-called "reality shows", it has almost become fashionable to be stupid. Today, to be "cultured" is "uncool", identified with alienation and bookwormness.
If in the past someone didn't know the basic categories of logic, they wouldn't dare to go up to a professor and educate them, saying "What are you being smart about? Just think simply, and it's all good!" Today, this is completely appropriate, and it's evident on this forum as well. If I use an expression that the person doesn't understand, it doesn't trigger them to look it up and become more knowledgeable, but rather like a male gorilla during mating season, they start beating their chest saying, "I don't understand this, I'm stupid and proud of it!" and they start jabbing at me for "being smart" here.
To return to the point: these technical terms do not speak of a fictional, created reality, they are not completely artificial categories introduced just to eliminate contradictions, but they describe reality. So the question indeed is, what is the truth? But here, I think it leads back to the theory of knowledge, to which I would say that Christianity is not complete without Thomistic epistemology :) Because if truth cannot be recognized, then we are in agnosticism, and we might as well throw everything out the window. If not, then the question immediately arises: where can we acquire knowledge. New Christian sectarians rely solely on the formal logical nitpicking of the Bible, which is a one-sided shift in favor of faith over reason. Our answer is that God made man an intelligent being so that he could use his intellect, so we profess that true knowledge can be acquired logically as well: e.g., by inference. This is the so-called speculative method (note: if someone who does not know what I'm talking about and just wants to argue is reading this, let me signal that the so-called "speculative method" is not the same as what is slightly pejoratively called speculation in today's colloquial language). This kind of thing fits your character exactly, because you have the ability to understand these things, that's why I recommended works of such as Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange.
Of course, this cannot be used in a religious debate with a fideist-biblicist "new Christian", because their approach would be to spit in their palm, pick up a verse from here and one from there in the Bible, and then slap it down, saying here you go. What can I do in this case? Well, if you watch my debates with such people, you can see that I am quite trying to adapt to my debate partner's method. Staying with the example you also cited, I didn't just point to the categories used by Thomas Aquinas, because then I would have had to start another 3-page explanation about how dare I do this, because "the Bible is written for simple people", etc. Instead, I also showed biblical examples to demonstrate to my debate partner that the regulations of the wording I referred to do indeed exist in the Scripture as well.
An ancient author didn't need these concepts to correctly interpret the Scriptures, because the spirituality of the given era was different. It's something like if the English language, with its natural environment of the language, disappeared, and two thousand years later, various linguists would argue about the meanings of such English words as sunrise. We use this word completely naturally, we know what it means literally, and how it relates to the cosmological reality indicated by it. But two thousand years later, this would no longer be natural, but scholars would probably describe these meanings with various technical terms.
A more everyday example: a small child learns their native language without realizing that the language they are acquiring can be organized into structures, can be described. They don't know phonemes, morphemes, parts of speech, etc., but simply use it naturally.
The same is true with the Bible.
This interpretation of the scripture does not create contradictions, at most explaining it to someone who previously imagined that they approached the Bible with such a "blunt axe" attitude. In fact, it eliminates all contradictions. Let's see a concrete example: The Scripture teaches that there is one God: yet it states both explicitly and implicitly that there are three subjects who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the created world, we might think that this is not possible. This is where we have concepts that resolve this contradiction. Sticking to this specific example: the distinction of such concepts as the person (the being) and the essence (the entity, substance). These concepts describe existing reality, just in the created world we don't often need them because for us person and essence coincide. However, if we want to organize God's revelation found in Scripture into structures, these concepts are of great service. In the first centuries, there was not much need for this, they were satisfied with the faith that there is one God, but God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most comprehensible form possible for human reason, did not concern them. This was enough at the given stage, but as certain heresies arose, it was no longer possible to avoid the matter by saying "we don't understand it, let's not deal with it", but the Church had to formulate its faith, now cast in definitive form. But the "basic vocabulary" is not enough for this, we need analytic-descriptive concepts. The Jehovah's Witness response is satisfied with the fact that it begins to grumble that the Οὐσία and the ὑπόστᾰσις expressions have a linguistic history with the works of ancient Hellenic philosophers. I replied to this, "we cannot accept as a basis for debate the stupid, concrete-headed and paganophobic attitude that if a Greek philosopher used a certain expression (e.g., ousia, hypostasis, physis, etc.), then every Christian tenet that ever used these concepts for its description should be considered false based solely on this fact."
Another example: in the New Testament, the statements about Jesus seem to be formally contradictory, as on the one hand there are those about the person that we must confess that He is a real God, with all the consequences; on the other hand, there are statements that He is not God, but just a human. This is formally impossible, as there is nothing like this in the created world. However, this is what we find in Scripture, and then either we throw the Bible out the window, or try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response to this is to absolutize the attributes suggesting one nature and then start to cut away at the other with a chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, I think you realize it too. Again, we are at the point where this needs to be put into harmony, and this contradiction is resolved by Jesus' dual nature. Then there was a problem, there is no problem? Do you understand? :)
If you make the criterion of a religious truth the simple people's "common sense" compliance, indeed, not much would remain of Christianity, as it is full of miracles: they simply do not meet the "common sense". Now I don't mean the quick answer that "God can do it", but the question of how exactly. But it shows that if you have to explain miracles, even the wildest rationalist-biblicist can dismiss it by saying that it is supernatural, and it does not matter if it does not match formal logic, whereas with the Trinity, they are no longer able to do the same. What an inconsistency! By the way, Russell's method was also this: no longer starting from what traditional theologians do, which is to summarize what is in the Bible, and based on this, establish certain regularities, etc., but more like this: let's sit down and think about whether it's reasonable to be this way. If not, then this must be used as a starting point for interpreting Scripture. This is rationalism, which essentially a priori excludes the existence of a mystery.
"Rationalist: intellectual; rationalism – intellectualism; rationalist theology– a scriptural interpretation and theological direction, following the spirit of the Enlightenment, which places human reason above the Holy Scripture; what it does not find reasonable, it is not willing to accept as God's word, but considers it to be human weakness, error, or subsequent, deliberate, detectable, and correctable changes of the writers or the copiers. The Rationalism is the cognitive theoretical conception proclaiming the absolute authority, unlimited cognitive ability of human reason; a theological direction accepting dogmas that can also be understood with rational arguments.
The rationalists and their peculiar doctrines
E.g. Unitarian Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphian Bible Mission
- Their handling of the Bible is liberal: reason overrules the revelation, so what does not seem logical at first, must be denied (e.g., the Trinity). - Cf. Acts 17:29
- If there is still something "illogical" in the Bible for them, it is either the human error of the writers (unitarians), or it was caused by an ancient Bible forgery (e.g., according to Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus and God "became confusable"). Cf. Mt 24:35, 1Pt 1:23-25
- The two ways of rationalism: individualism (the unitarians only agree in doubting the Trinity) or uniformism (the Witnesses cannot interpret the Bible independently of the publications of the Watchtower Society). - Cf. 1Jn 2:27; 2Tim 3:14-17
- Jesus' death was only caused by human wickedness, it was not God's will (unitarians), or his death was just an archangel's redeeming death (Witnesses). - Cf. Mt 16:21, Heb 10:3-7; Heb 1:5-8, Phil 2:6-11, Jn 1:1,14
- The process of redemption: "Following the religion of Jesus," the individual realization of the "Jesus life ideal" (unitarians), or active and faithful service within "God's visible organization" is a prerequisite (Witnesses). - Cf. Eph 2:1-10, Tit 3:4-5; 1Pt 1:5-9
""he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born." - yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a response to this [false] claim" - It seems that repeating is not enough, because it still does not occur to you that the Scriptures do not say anywhere that the Father "created" the Son, nor that he is a "creature." I wonder why not? If you have found where the Bible states these, I look forward to it :-)
""are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research." - If you agree with Watchtower theology 80% of the time (according to your statement), then I assumed that you know their literature well. Well, they can't help emphasizing that their teachings are "completely clear" in the Bible, as we can see, none of the specific JW doctrines are stated in the Scriptures, that's why they emphasize that you can't understand the Bible without the "spiritual food" (=interpretation) of the "faithful and discreet" class (=GB of the WTS). So these doctrines only have the (alleged) basis in the Bible, isn't it a double standard and hypocrisy to mock the Trinity for the same reason?
""Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?" - Where it begins with the words "in the beginning", which refers back to Genesis 1:1 (also according to the NWT marginal note), when God created "the heavens" (=spiritual world) and "the earth" (=material world), so he created these two simultaneously. And when these were created, then the Son already "was", so He is not part of the creation.
"John was inspired to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details?" - He didn't need to know all the "details", just what he wrote: the Son already WAS "in the beginning", so when God created the world, so he is not part of the created world.
"" then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept." - No, this is only based on your interpretation, the Trinitarian interpretation of these two statements establishes that there is no contradiction between the two. God created "alone", and at the same time the Son was also created. And since the Son is one God with the Father, this already solves the puzzle: since the Son is also YHWH God, God was able to create "alone" so that the Son could also create. The explicit statement that God alone and exclusively created conflicts with your interpretation, if in fact he used an "agent" outside of God, a creature, which, in addition to contradicting the Scriptures, also contradicts logic.
"" You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians any day." - It wouldn't hurt you to delve into the early Christian literature, maybe you would realize that there was never an early Watchtowerite Christianity.
When it comes to the meaning of the word "arkhe", it must be taken into account that it does not mean "temporal beginning", but principle, primordial source, from which the creation pours out.