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.
aqwsed12345
JoinedPosts by aqwsed12345
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis 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.
-
-
-
81
Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament
by pizzahut2023 inok 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".
- 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;
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis 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 inthis 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 inthis 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 inok 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
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.
a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
-
-
aqwsed12345
Jesus is the firstborn of Mary: it is customary in the Scriptures to call not the one who is followed by siblings, but the one who is born first, the firstborn. Thus, Paul also calls Christ the firstborn Son of the Father (Heb 1:14; cf. Ex 34:19 Num 18:15). Among the Jews, the firstborn is primarily a legal concept; therefore, it also applies to the only child. Firstborn can mean the same as the only child, as Christ is called in John (1:14), because according to the scriptural language usage, the only children are also called firstborns. See Joshua 17:1. According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a distinguished position in the family; he receives a larger portion of the inheritance than the other children.
Romans 8:29: it's not genetivie what is used, but look after the "ek" in the Greek text, and of course here Paul is talking about Jesus status according to his Incarnation, when He became human as well, talking about the content and nature of adopted sonship of the saved ones, so it is about Jesus coming into the world so that we too may become children of God. The adoption of a son is the adoption of a foreign person for sonship and inheritance. By grace, God not only adopts a stranger (that is, not born from his reality), but a disloyal, hostile, sinful person; and not just in a moral and legal sense, as it happens among people, where adoption does not give the adoptee any inner value; but in a majestic and mysterious way, it compensates for natural birth, as it grafts the seed of divinity into him, making him not only morally, but physically partake in the divine nature, thus imitating the superiority of natural sonship, the community of nature (so to speak, the blood), so that we are now not only in name, but in reality, the sons of God. As a result, our adopted sonship is a copy, a faithful imprint of the eternal filiation of God. At the same time, we have become brothers of Christ in a very special sense; and it is understandable why it is customary to attribute son-ship adoption to the Father. Jesus Christ, who on the one hand as a man of the same nature as us and the firstborn among the brothers is one of us, on the other hand he is completely pure and holy.
Colossians 1:18 doesn't mean he's the first person to ever die. It means that by His resurrection, He overcame death and made is possible for a new generation of humans called to glorious resurrection (Rom. 8:29). And He took over the power and the primacy over everything.
Colossians 1:15: the apostle intends to express the preeminence of the Firstborn above of the whole creatured world: Christ existed before the entire created world and stands above it. He is the only-begotten before all creatures, and He Himself is not a creature; for He is the cause of existence for all creatures, and therefore cannot be a creature, as it becomes clear from the continuation of the text: He is the Firstborn of the whole creation BECAUSE in Him all things were created. He is heir of all things, and inherits the throne of his ancestor David. By the way if apply this to the Messianic Kingship of Christ, it's meant according to his Incarnate human natura, according to which, He is a creature, even for the Orthodoxy. This interpretation, as we can see, is also compatible with the interpretation of the Watchtower, apparently they only fight because they lose the very few "proof texts".
Athanasius wrote:
Not then because he was from the Father was he called “Firstborn,” but because in him the creation came to be; and as before the creation he was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before he was called the Firstborn of the whole creation, the Word himself was with God and the Word was God. … If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of him also that he was Firstborn of other creatures; but in fact, the saints’ saying that he is “Firstborn of the whole creation” demonstrates that the Son of God is other than the whole creation and not a creature. (Discourses Against the Arians II.63)
Ambrose similarly writes:
The apostle says that Christ is the image of the Father—for he calls him the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Firstborn, mark you, not first created, in order that he may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of his nature, and the first in virtue of his eternity. (Of the Christian Faith I.VII.48)
John Chyrsostom also wrote a long dissertation on this theme in his 3rd Homily on Colossians.
And you misinterpret Origen many times, so it seems I am talking to the wall.
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.
a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
-
-
aqwsed12345
Blotty
""it wouldn't hurt to prove first whether it is possible for the whole Church to fall into "great apostasy" and that "true Christianity" is supposed to be restored" - bible prophesy's this..."
No it's not, in fact, the exact opposite was promised, and the verses mentioned by the supporters of the "great apostasy" theory do not justify the disappearance of the true faith for almost two thousand years. I'll copy the substantial arugmentation for you:
Objections with ‘evidential’ verses
Various Protestants invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his Epistle I to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, some will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’ But this passage of Timothy I, 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that ‘…….. some will apostatize from the Faith….’, not the entire Church! The Holy Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which some – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (Timothy I, 1:19); “which some, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (Timothy I, 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “some men will appear, who will teach the truth falsified” (Evangelic translation “Logos”).
The Holy Bible says: “They came forth from among you, but they weren’t one of your kind; for if they were one of your kind, they would have stayed with you. But they came forth so that it might be revealed, that not all of them are one of your kind.” (John I, 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated!The Church cannot apostatize!
According to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church cannot apostatize: “… the portals of the underworld shall not overpower” (the Church)” (Matthew, 16:18). The Holy Bible also clearly states that the truth shall remain in the Church forever: “...for the truth, which resides in you, and shall be with you for all time” (John II, 2); just as Jesus Christ Himself likewise promises that He shall continuously be with the Church, from the 1st century to the end of time, unfailingly: “I am with you, for all days, until the end of time” (Matthew, 28:80). The Holy Spirit also eternally resides in the Church, continuously, from the 1st century: “And I shall ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete, to remain with you to the end of time” (John 14:16).
Therefore, the Church cannot ever apostatize, because Christ – the head of the Church – remains forever joined to His Body, just as the Holy Spirit remains continuously within it, to guide it throughout the truth (John 14:26), hence the truth must also perpetually reside within the Church! If the Church had indeed apostatized, as various teachers of deception claim, it would mean that Christ had given false promises, which He didn’t keep! But, isn’t that a blasphemous conjecture?
However, some protestants maintain that those promises do apply, but not to the visible Church, only the invisible one! But the Holy Bible doesn’t say that the Church founded by Christ was an invisible one! Quite the opposite, it very clearly talks about a visible Church: “ ….and if someone disobeys them, tell this to the Church; but, if he disobeys the Church also, then you should treat him as a gentile and a tax-collector” (Matthew 18:17). If the Church is invisible, then how does someone speak to the Church, and how does an…. invisible Church reprimand the one who has sinned?
“For I am the least of the apostles, who is unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (Corinthians I, 15:9). If the Church were invisible, then how did Paul manage to persecute it?
“For if one does not know how to govern his own home, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (Timothy I, 3:5). How does a bishop take care of an ….. invisible Church?”
These are just a few of the verses that prove that the Church founded by Christ is definitely visible, and not invisible. Consequently, in this visible Church, the promises that it cannot apostatize hold true, and the truth, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will remain inside it eternally!* * * Let's continue:
"Israel fell into a string of idolotry.."
... but not into complete "great apostasy", and of course God did not punish them by handing over the status of the chosen people to another people (back then), but sent them into Babylonian captivity, of course not for two thousand years. God sent prophets to guide and rebuke Israel, not a self-appointed "pastor" from a foreign nation to reinvent the whole true faith from scratch.
"ancient writers statements sound like the trinity because its what the council used as a baseline for the arguments."
To your greatest regret, the early Christian sources even before the Nicene Creed do not teach anything else, and except for the term "homoousious", the Nicene Creed uses only New Testament terminology, and its content is completely consistent with the New Testament: "the Son is begotten from the Father before all aions, not made".
""God could not have had a [masterworker]" -
You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24. There is clearly no place for a secondary creator demigod. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.
"shall I list the trinitarian bibles that" etc.
No Bible translation is inspired, no translation could be used to justify doctrine.
" shall I point out no one even in the council said that proverbs wasnt symbolic of Christ"
Which council said that Proverb 8 is literally about the Son? It's meant as a type (see typology), could be applied to him. First of all, Proverbs is a wisdom book, that's how it shall be interpreted. The Hebrew Bible, from which the Book of Proverbs comes, does not include the concept of God the Father begetting God the Son, as this is a concept from Christian theology, which was developed later.
Arius' view was summarized in their phrase "there was a time when the Son was not." As you've noted, they interpreted Proverbs 8:22, and specifically the verb ἔκτισέ με in the Greek translation (Septuagint), to support this view. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father and is co-eternal with the Father.
It should be highlighted the complexity of Greek and Hebrew words that are often translated into English as "created." In the original languages of the Bible, these words often carried a range of meanings, and their interpretation can greatly influence one's understanding of the nature of Jesus.
Even Jewish translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." In the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew verb 'qanah' (קָנָה) is often translated as 'get', 'acquire', or 'gain' in many English translations, in the Book of Proverbs in all instances, 'qanah' denotes the act of obtaining or acquiring wisdom or knowledge.
Jerome argues that the correct translation of "קנני" (qanani) in Proverbs 8:22 is "possessed" rather than "created." He bases his argument on the distinction between the Hebrew words for "create" (ברא, bara) and "possess" (קנה, qanah). The verb 'bara' (בָּרָא), which means 'create' in Hebrew, is indeed used throughout the Bible to denote the divine act of creating. This verb is exclusively used for divine creation in the Hebrew Bible. It conveys a sense of the initiation of something new, bringing something into existence that was not there before.
But even the translation of the LXX is not suitable to justify Arianism. For instance, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." ἔκτισέ in the context of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't mean that Wisdom (interpreted as the Son or Christ) was created, in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather that the Son was appointed or established as the beginning of God's ways. Furthermore, discussing the nature of biblical language, especially focusing on the meaning of the term ἔκτισέ (ektise) which is often translated as 'created', it can be argued that in the context of passages such as Proverbs 8:22, this term does not denote creation out of nothing, but rather a form of making or establishing. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με (He created me) as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus (son not begotten, but made), i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο (He acquired me), and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε (He created) of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum (God created me as king or head of his works); Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum (He did not create me according to substance, but established me as the beginning and foundation of the whole universe)). Thus, the Son is not a created being, but rather eternally begotten, sharing the same divine essence with the Father.
This is further supported by differentiating between the concepts of "made" and "begotten." In Christian belief, "made" implies creation from nothing or from pre-existing materials, while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning, between the Father and the Son. So, Christ is considered "begotten, not made", which means he shares the same divine nature with the Father and wasn't created at a certain point in time.
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.
a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
-
-
aqwsed12345
Blotty
Calm down, mate, take it easy, my goal was not to upset you or to attack you personally, it just annoys me when someone doesn't take the trouble to delve into my thoughts, but instantly "shoots back".
3. "En archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) - it's not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimi), which is used to show continuous action in the past, meining that the Logos was pre-existing, ongoing "in the beginning". For the aorist of the copula (eimi, "to be") the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used, so it would have been "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος". The different form of the Greek words depends on how they function in the sentence. For example, ἐγένετο (Genesis 1:3, 5, LXX; John 1:3), γέγονεν (John 1:3), and Γενηθήτω (Genesis 1:3, LXX) come from the verb γίνομαι (become, to come into existence, happen, be made). When John uses these verbs in the same context, ēn implies “existence” and egeneto [ginomai] implies “coming into being.” For example, in John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was [became], I am.’” Whereas Abraham became (genésthai [ginomai]), Jesus pre-existed (egō eimi).
What is also important here is that "en archē" is exactly the same wording as what we see in the LXX in Genesis 1:1 ("Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς..."), for the Hebrew word “beginning” (בְּרֵאשִׁית, bĕrēʾšît) as an absolute noun “in the beginning”. Prepositional phrases can imply definiteness with the inclusion of the article. John was alluding to the Septuagint usage in Genesis 1:1 which also does not use the article, mimicking Hebrew syntax. So in John 1:1a "in the beginning" by definition means the absolute beginning, when the Logos already "was". Check THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS.
4. God the Father is not needed to be called "firstborn", because because He - unlike the Son - is unbegotten, thus not born. In the Talmud, the title "Bekorah" is used for God, which means "first-born". Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)
5. You have to indicate specifically what you objected to, otherwise this is called "vagueness" or "lack of specificity". Unfortunately, I still didn't find out which of my statements you specifically labeled "Greek philosophy", nor on what grounds you labeled this. The next question is whether labeling it "Greek philosophy" in itself is enough to push its content aside.
7. "list everything created and where it is called a "creature". Here you are:
- Mark 16:15 "the gospel to every creature" (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει)
- Romans "and served the creature rather than" (ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν)
- 2 Corinthians 5:17 "[he is] a new creature; the old things" (Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις τὰ ἀρχαῖα)
- 1 Timothy 4:4 "Because every creature of God [is] good...") (ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν)
- Galatians 6:15 "but a new creature" (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)
- Hebrews 4:13 "there is a created thing hidden before" (οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον)
- James 1:18 "of firstfruits of his creatures." (τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων)
- Revelation 5:13 "And every creature which is" (καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν)
- Revelation 8:9 "third of the creatures which" (τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν)
There are a few more, but I haven't looked them up in all their inflected forms. The other words meaning "to create" in the New Testament are egeneto (see John 1:3) and poieó (for example Romans 1:20 "...what has been made...", κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται). Neither of these are used for the Son in the NT.
You write: "shall we look at the other usages in the lxx where the one called firstborn was not only part of his respective group (sons of, creation etc), but also the first one in a position."
The genitive does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?
"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.
"did anyone called firstborn only have pre-emminence and was never born..."
Why should anyone else than the Son called the way the Son is called? Isn't the Son unique? It's not us, who are practically denying the the Son is actually begotten, and not made of the Father.
"in Hebrews 11:17 theres a reason monogenes is used of Issac - he is not eternally begotten as trinitarians would have it "
Lol, here Isaac is not only-begotten Son of God, but of Abraham. Of course only the only-begotten of the God the Father is eternal.
- Mark 16:15 "the gospel to every creature" (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει)
-
66
"outside of time" argument
by Blotty inthis is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.
a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.
-
-
aqwsed12345
I did not "accuse" anyone of having a psychological problem, at most I pointed out that the fact that if it is difficult for him to review a longer text and interpret it MAY also indicate ADHD, for which is a typical symptom. If this is the case, it is not a moral judgment or a stigma, since he is not responsible for it, but it is a serious disadvantage in an intellectual discussion if his attention quickly fades.
Of course, it can not only be ADHD, it can also be the zeitgeist of today, everyone wants quick and instant answers, no one takes the burden to delve into something, the education system is also primitive and dumbed down. A hundred years ago, every school taught Latin, often Greek as well, and now there are only books filled with pictures and in a primitive language. If someone was brought up on this and is used to this zeitgeist, of course it is unusual for them that a question is often more complicated, and requeres more sophisticated answers than parroting like 'Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad'.
The links and studies I referenced above refute Tertullian's abusive and out-of-context citation (typical Watchtowerite dung beetle stategy) that seeks to prop him up in support of a theology he did not actually support.