aqwsed12345

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 753 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by aqwsed12345

• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Yes, the Father is unbegotten—but this doesn’t make the Son ontologically inferior. The Father’s property as unbegotten is not a mark of ontological superiority, but a relational distinction. In Trinitarian theology, each divine Person possesses the one divine essence fully, but is distinguished by their relational origin:

  • The Father is unbegotten.
  • The Son is begotten from the Father.
  • The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

  As St. Thomas Aquinas puts it:

  “The Son receives His being from the Father by eternal generation, but the being He receives is numerically identical with the Father's. Therefore, He is equal in essence, even though His origin is from another.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)

  So: to say that the Father is the cause or that the Son receives His being from the Father does not imply that the Son is created or inferior—only that He is eternally generated from the Father.

  Eusebius’s early writings show confusion, but he later affirms Nicene orthodoxy, he is not the standard of orthodoxy in Trinitarian theology. In fact, his early writings (like the one quoted) show signs of semi-Arian sympathies. He admired Origen and often leaned toward subordinationist language, especially prior to the Council of Nicaea. But after the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), Eusebius publicly signed the Nicene Creed, which affirms:

  “The Son is begotten, not made, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.”

  He even explained his agreement in his letter to his church at Caesarea, stating that this language affirmed what he always believed: that the Son is eternally from the Father, and not created. So, the quote you’ve cited reflects Eusebius’s earlier, imprecise pre-Nicene thinking. It was corrected by the Nicene definition, which Eusebius explicitly accepted. In short: even if Eusebius once spoke in a way that sounds subordinationist, he eventually submitted to the Church’s judgment and affirmed the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son. Your interpret Eusebius's phrase:

  “The Son... received from the Father both His Being and the character of His Being”

  …as though it meant the Son didn’t always exist. But this is not a creation ex nihilo, which is what Jehovah’s Witnesses teach. Instead, it's a reference to the eternal generation of the Son. St. Augustine explains it this way:

  “The Son is from the Father—not made, but begotten. And just as the Father is eternal, so also is the Son eternally begotten.” (De Trinitate, I.15)

  Likewise, St. Gregory Nazianzen writes:

  “The begetting of God must be honored by silence… it is eternal, incomprehensible, and not in time.” (Oration 29.3)

  So, the Son “receiving” His being from the Father means eternal generation, not temporal creation. The Son is not an independent source, but He has the same divine essence, fully received. This is standard Catholic—and Nicene—doctrine. It does not support the JW view that the Son is a creature.

  Eusebius and other early Fathers used terms like “second,” “from,” or “subordinate” in functional or relational senses, but they never meant ontological inequality. As St. Basil the Great clarifies:

  “The terms ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ apply only to the Son’s mission in time, not to His essence.” (Against Eunomius, II.24)

  This distinction is key:

  • Economic subordination = The Son obeys the Father in the Incarnation.
  • Ontological equality = The Son is fully God, equal in essence.

  So when Eusebius calls the Father “first in order,” he is not implying that the Son is a creature, but expressing the monarchia (principle) of the Father as the source of the Son.

  While your position seems at first glance to rest on “plain readings” of Scripture, it actually reflects a reductionist and anachronistic hermeneutic—one that flattens the complex, interwoven theological claims of the New Testament into something deceptively simple and ultimately inconsistent with the total witness of Scripture. Let me respond in detail.

  “If you handed the Bible to someone fresh…”

  This is a popular rhetorical move but not a valid theological methodology. Yes, if we handed the Bible to someone without the guidance of tradition, linguistic understanding, or doctrinal formation, they would likely also struggle to affirm:

  • The canon of Scripture (How do they know which books are inspired?)
  • The hypostatic union (that Jesus is both fully God and fully man)
  • The Incarnation and virgin birth
  • That Jesus is the Messiah in fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures

  Scripture is not a standalone codebook. It was written within the Church, preserved by the Church, and requires interpretation within the context of the Church. The Bereans were praised (Acts 17:11) not for private interpretation, but for examining the Scriptures in light of the apostolic preaching.

  “Christians believed this until the 4th century”

  This is historically false. The belief that Jesus was divine, pre-existent, and one with the Father was proclaimed from the beginning, and it is well attested before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Some clear examples:

  • Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD): “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh.” (Letter to the Ephesians 7)
  • Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD): “The Word, being the first-begotten of God, is even God.” (Dialogue with Trypho 61)
  • Tertullian (c. 200 AD): “The Son is derived from the substance of the Father, and is therefore God and true God.” (Against Praxeas 9)

  These are pre-Nicene fathers who explicitly affirm the divinity of Christ and a form of Trinitarian belief. What the Council of Nicaea did was define and defend what had already been believed in substance, in response to the novelty of Arianism, which claimed Jesus was a creature.

  “The Bible explicitly says God is one” – Galatians 3:20

  Yes! Absolutely, and this asserts precisely monotheism, not unitarianism. Monotheism is the bedrock of Christian theology:

  “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deut. 6:4)

  But monotheism does not exclude Trinitarianism. The Trinity is not three gods. It is one God in three persons (hypostaseis), not three beings. The Christian claim is not that “Jesus is another God,” but that the one being of God exists eternally in three persons. This preserves monotheism while making sense of the full witness of Scripture, which attributes divine glory, honor, and worship to the Son and the Spirit.

  “Jesus is the firstborn of all creation” – Colossians 1:15

  This is a classic misreading. The Greek word prototokos does not mean “first created” (which would be protoktistos). Rather, prototokos means:

  • Preeminent heir (cf. Ps 89:27: “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth”)
  • Supreme over creation, not a part of it

  Paul explains this in the very next verse:

  “For by him all things were created…” (Col 1:16)

  If all things were created by Him, then He cannot be a creature. Unless you want to say He created Himself, which is absurd. This passage affirms that the Son is the agent of creation, which means He pre-existed creation and is not part of it.

  “Jesus is subject to God” – 1 Cor 11:3

  Yes, and classical Trinitarian theology agrees.

  • The Son is eternally from the Father (ex Patre), but not inferior to the Father.
  • This is an eternal relation of origin, not a difference in essence or divinity.

  The analogy used by Paul—man is the head of woman—does not imply ontological inferiority, but relational order. Similarly, the Son's submission to the Father is not because He is a creature, but because He is the Son. Even in the Incarnation, Jesus takes a human nature, and thus says: “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) — because the Son humbled Himself in assuming flesh (Phil 2:6–7). But this is a difference of role, not essence.

  “There are no verses that say God is three coequal persons”

  You're right — the word Trinity and that exact phrasing are not in the Bible. But neither is the word “Bible”, “incarnation”, or “omniscience.” What matters is whether the concept is there. And it absolutely is:

  • Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands baptism “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”
  • John 1:1: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
  • Acts 5:3–4: Lying to the Holy Spirit is lying to God.
  • Phil 2:6–11: Jesus shares in God’s name (kyrios) and is worshiped by all creation.
  • Hebrews 1:3: The Son is “the exact imprint of God’s nature” and is “worshipped” by angels (Heb 1:6).

  There is a triadic structure to revelation. The Trinity is the only framework that coherently accounts for all this data.

  To deny the Trinity is to:

  • Make God’s love dependent on creation (if God is not eternally love in Himself, whom did He love before creation?)
  • Make Christ a creature, though Scripture says all things were created through Him
  • Ignore that the Church has universally affirmed Trinitarian belief from its earliest centuries
  • Contradict the worship of Jesus by the apostles (Matt 28:17, John 20:28, Rev 5)

  The Trinity is not a “philosophical construct.” It is the only explanation that accounts for all of Scripture without contradiction: God is one in being, three in persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, but all are fully and equally God.

  “This is the faith of the apostles, the faith of the Church, the faith that gives us eternal life.”

  To deny the Trinity is to misunderstand Christ. To misunderstand Christ is to miss salvation itself.
• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @Halcon

  You're absolutely right to note that there is a "subordination" in some sense between the Son and the Father. The real question, as you’ve pinpointed, is: in what way is the Son subordinate—and does it matter for salvation? Classical theology makes an essential distinction:

  • Subordination of origin: The Son proceeds eternally from the Father (John 1:14; "begotten not made"). This procession implies a real relation of origin (the Son is ex Patre), but not a subordination in essence. The Father communicates the whole divine essence to the Son, such that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.
  • Subordination of essence or will: This would mean that the Son has a lesser or derivative will, power, or nature compared to the Father. That is heresy, historically condemned in Arianism, Subordinationism, and Unitarianism.

  Thomas Aquinas clarifies this in the Summa Theologiae:

  “The Son is said to be less than the Father in His human nature, but not in His divine nature. For in the divine nature, there is no inequality, because the essence is one and the same.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)

  You ask why salvation would be lost if we see the Son as subordinate by will. If the Son is not fully God—equal in power, will, and essence with the Father—then He cannot be the Savior. The Psalmist declares: “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him” (Ps. 49:7). If Christ is a creature, even the highest, He is still finite. A finite being cannot offer infinite atonement for the sins of the world. Only God can. St. Gregory of Nazianzus expressed it succinctly:

  “That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.” (Ep. 101)

  Only true God taking on true humanity brings about the reconciliation of man to God.

  If we misunderstand Christ's divine nature, we risk idolatry on one hand (if we worship a creature), or denial of His rightful worship (if we refuse to honor Him equally with the Father). Yet Scripture explicitly shows the Son receiving worship (cf. Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:13), and He accepts it (cf. John 20:28) without rebuke—something no faithful creature would ever do. If Christ is not consubstantial with the Father, then worship of the Son is either blasphemy or a violation of monotheism. The Scriptures teach unity, not separation of will:

  • “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
  • “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15)
  • “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19)—not because the Son is less, but because He is one in will and nature with the Father.

  The will of the Son is numerically the same divine will as the Father, not a separate will that voluntarily aligns with the Father's. If that were the case, it would imply the Son had a nature separate from the Father’s—thus falling into tritheism or Arianism.

  The relational roles in the economic Trinity (how God acts in salvation history) reflect the immanent Trinity (God in Himself). The Son is sent, the Father sends. This does not mean inequality—being sent does not entail inferiority (cf. Gal 4:4). Rather, the Son’s mission reflects His eternal generation: He is from the Father, not inferior to Him. Aquinas again:

  “Mission implies origin, not inequality.” (ST I, q.43, a.3)

  To reduce the Son’s subordination to merely a matter of "will" or "functional hierarchy" (as some semi-Arian or modern subordinationist theologies do) undermines:

  • The reality of the Incarnation,
  • The power of Christ's redemptive act, and
  • The unity of God Himself.

  The Church's insistence on the Son’s co-equality, co-eternity, and consubstantiality with the Father is not speculative philosophy, but a direct guardrail against heresy that protects the truth of our salvation. As St. Athanasius proclaimed:

  “If the Son is not truly God, then we are not truly saved.”

  And that is why denying the full divinity of the Son—even under the guise of "order" or "will"—is not a harmless speculation, but a fatal error.

  ---

  @slimboyfat

  The JW position hinges on the idea that the Son began to exist. But Tertullian consistently denies this. In Against Hermogenes 5, he explicitly states that God was never alone because He always had His own Reason within Himself, and that this Reason was internal until it was expressed as the Word:

  “Even then [before creation] God was not alone, for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself—His own Reason… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Hermog. 5)

  That is, the Word/Son was not a separate creation, but the eternal, interior Logos of God who is later expressed outwardly in the economy of salvation. Tertullian uses temporal language (e.g., "God became Father") not to describe a literal beginning of the Son’s existence, but to emphasize that the names “Father” and “Son” become relevant when God’s eternal Word is expressed—just as “Lord” becomes a relevant title once creation exists. This is perfectly in line with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that the eternal generation of the Son is not temporal, even if economic revelation (in time) reveals it gradually.

  You say: “It’s only if you impose a strict idea that Word = Son that there is a problem.” But Tertullian himself equates the Word (Logos) with the Son:

  “The Word was always in the Father, just as your own reason is in yourself... That Word, therefore, is in the Father, always in the Father... He then sent the Word to be His Son.” (Adv. Prax. 5)

  So no—this is not an “imposition” by later theologians. It’s Tertullian’s own theological framework. The Son is the Word made manifest, eternally present in the divine substance. Therefore, if God always had the Word, and if the Word is the Son, then the Son is eternally in God, even if the relation of paternity becomes conceptually clear only later in the economy.

  You say: “Tertullian said the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. That means the Father is greater.” But again, this misunderstands how Tertullian (and the entire tradition) uses the term “derivatio”. Tertullian is not saying that the Son is a separate essence or a lesser deity, as Arius would claim. Instead, Tertullian explains that the Son is derived from the Father’s own substance—that is, the Son is consubstantial, not separate. He literally says:

  “The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole... not by division... but by distinction.” (Adv. Prax. 9)

  He’s not dividing God’s essence into parts, but articulating real distinction of Persons within the one divine substance. The Son receives the same divine essence by eternal generation. The Father is the principle without principle, and the Son is from the Father, but not after Him in time or less in nature. Portio is used imperfectly to describe a mode of distinction, not ontological inferiority. Later theology clarified this as homoousios (of the same essence) and rejected all misunderstandings of “subordinationism” precisely to affirm what Tertullian intended: distinction without division.

  Tertullian quotes John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I”) to show the distinction of Persons. But as St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the Church Fathers all taught, this refers to the Son’s mission and humility—not to His divine essence. Tertullian’s functional subordination is economic: the Son is sent, the Father sends. This fits exactly with orthodox Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes:

  • Immanent Trinity: The Father eternally begets the Son—equal in being.
  • Economic Trinity: The Son is sent into the world and submits in the plan of salvation.

  Even in Adv. Prax. 2, Tertullian is adamant that this distinction does not divide the Godhead:

  “All are of one: by unity of substance. While the mystery of the economy is still guarded, which distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

  You say: “Tertullian believed Jesus is divine in some sense, just like JWs do.” No, he didn’t. Tertullian repeatedly says that the Son is God Himself:

  “The Word was with God and was God... The Son is also God.” (Adv. Prax. 13)

  He explicitly denies that Jesus is:

  • A created being (like the angels),
  • A mere creature (De Carne Christi 14),
  • Or lesser in nature.

  He affirms that:

  • The Son is “true God from true God” (Adv. Prax. 13)
  • The Son is eternal, as the inner Reason of God (Adv. Hermog. 5)
  • The Trinity is one substance, three Persons (Adv. Prax. 2, 5, 9, 13)

  This is exactly what the Nicene Creed affirms:

  “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”

  That’s not Jehovah’s Witness theology.

  You are trying to force Tertullian into a Jehovah’s Witness mold—suggesting he believed the Son was a lesser god who came into being. But his theology—though expressed in pre-Nicene terms—clearly teaches:

  • The eternal existence of the Son as God’s Word and Wisdom.
  • The Son is from the Father’s own divine substance.
  • There is one divine essence, fully possessed by three distinct Persons.
  • The Son is divine in nature, not merely in title.
  • He is not a created being like the angels (see De Carne Christi 14).

  Tertullian anticipated Nicene orthodoxy, not Arianism or JW Christology. If anything, his terminology paved the way for the clearer articulations of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. The Catholic tradition receives him as an early defender of the Trinity, and rightly so.
• 
  178

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  JW CLAIM 1: "Because scholars cannot agree as to whether the 70 years began in either 606 or 609 BCE, their chronology is worthless... WT scholars, based on the biblical evidence, know for certain."

  This argument is logically flawed. Scholarly disagreement over whether the Babylonian domination began precisely in 609 or 605 BCE does not indicate ignorance or uncertainty about the destruction date of Jerusalem itself. All credible historical and archaeological evidence conclusively establishes 586/587 BCE as the destruction date of Jerusalem, with extensive documentation through Babylonian Chronicles, astronomical tablets (VAT 4956), archaeological excavation layers, and corroborative Persian, Egyptian, and Greek records.

  The JW assertion that disagreement on whether the Babylonian domination started in 609 or 605 BCE invalidates scholarly chronology entirely is untenable. Such minor disagreement (within a 3–4 year range) in no way supports a 607 BCE destruction date, a claim completely lacking historical, archaeological, and astronomical support. The Watchtower’s date (607 BCE) is not "biblical certainty"; it is a doctrinal invention contradicted by every credible historical record.

  JW CLAIM 2: "Jer. 25:11 clearly applies to Judah alone…Jer. 29:10 indicates the Jews return from exile only after the 70 years."

  Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly includes "these nations" in the 70-year prophecy, which indicates regional Babylonian supremacy, not just Judah’s exile. The JW argument artificially isolates Judah, ignoring explicit biblical references to the wider region.

  Jeremiah 29:10 indeed foretells a return after 70 years are completed, precisely upon Babylon’s defeat (539 BCE), not two years later (537 BCE). Cyrus’s decree, historically confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, occurred shortly after Babylon's fall in 538 BCE, fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. The JW insistence on a 537 BCE fulfillment ignores historical data, arbitrarily imposing an unnecessary two-year gap between Babylon’s fall and the end of the 70 years.

  JW CLAIM 3: "Babylon fell in 539 BCE, but total destruction foretold in Jer. 25:12 did not occur then; further judgment was pending."

  This argument confuses Babylon’s immediate fall and political judgment (539 BCE) with later physical desolation of the city, which took centuries. Jeremiah 25:12 states explicitly that punishment begins after the 70 years end, referring clearly to Babylon's political fall. Babylon ceased being sovereign precisely in 539 BCE, fulfilling the immediate judgment. Physical destruction occurred progressively much later under Persian and Greek rule, not linked explicitly to the 70-year prophecy’s termination date.

  The JW argument mistakenly conflates Babylon’s immediate political fall with its later physical desolation, misinterpreting biblical prophecy.

  JW CLAIM 4: "Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy support the JW 607 BCE chronology."

  • Josephus: Explicitly places Jerusalem’s destruction in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, historically confirmed as 586/587 BCE, not 607 BCE. Josephus never supports a 607 BCE date explicitly. JW claims to Josephus’s support involve selective misrepresentation of texts.
  • Archaeology: Every archaeological site in Judah unequivocally dates Jerusalem’s destruction layers to 586/587 BCE. No reputable archaeologist supports 607 BCE, directly refuting JW claims.
  • Astronomy: VAT 4956 unambiguously dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/567 BCE, thereby confirming Jerusalem’s fall in 586/587 BCE. JW attempts to reinterpret VAT 4956 for 588 BCE are mathematically impossible, discredited by professional astronomers. JW claims of astronomical support for 607 BCE are false and misleading.

  JW CLAIM 5: "Nebuchadnezzar’s seven-year madness is historically crucial and creates a chronological gap."

  Babylonian administrative and historical texts demonstrate uninterrupted governmental continuity during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. No ancient source indicates Nebuchadnezzar lost the throne, nor do historical records support a chronological gap. Daniel 4 describes temporary mental incapacity, not removal from kingship. JW claims of a seven-year chronological gap are historically baseless inventions intended solely to justify their faulty chronology.

  JW CLAIM 6: "Carl Olof Jonsson ignores exile as part of the 70 years."

  This claim is blatantly incorrect. Carl Olof Jonsson, in "The Gentile Times Reconsidered," thoroughly addresses Judah’s exile, servitude, and land desolation within his analysis of the 70 years. He explicitly demonstrates the prophecy concerns Babylonian dominance, incorporating Judah’s exile. JW arguments misrepresent COJ’s comprehensive scholarly research.

  JW CLAIM 7: "Counting back 70 years from the return in 537 BCE yields 607 BCE precisely."

  Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 BCE, immediately freeing captives in 538 BCE (Cyrus Cylinder). Counting back exactly 70 years correctly places the start of Babylonian dominance around 609 BCE, not 607 BCE. The JW claim arbitrarily inserts two extra years without historical support, relying entirely on doctrinal preference rather than documented events. This is a deliberate miscalculation to align with JW prophetic speculations about 1914.

  JW CLAIM 8: "Jeremiah’s three deportations confirm land desolation since 607 BCE."

  Jeremiah 52 explicitly lists multiple deportations: Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year (597 BCE), 18th year (586 BCE), and 23rd year (582 BCE). Multiple deportations after 607 BCE destroy JW arguments, showing the land was not completely desolated in 607 BCE. Rather, these deportations confirm a prolonged Babylonian campaign consistent only with the scholarly 586/587 BCE destruction date. The JW argument inadvertently refutes itself by citing this evidence.

  JW CLAIM 9: "Ancient documents don’t have modern dates; translators insert 609 BCE artificially."

  The date 609 BCE is explicitly derived from historically attested events (Assyrian defeat at Harran, Egyptian actions, and Nabopolassar’s campaigns) confirmed in multiple Babylonian chronicles (ABC3, ABC4, ABC5). These dates are well-attested, not arbitrary insertions. JW’s claim of “interpolation” is entirely unfounded historically and represents a misunderstanding of ancient Near Eastern chronological research.

  JW CLAIM 10: "The Gentile Times (2520 years from 607 BCE to 1914 CE) are historically and astronomically accurate."

  The JW’s entire Gentile Times calculation depends wholly upon the false 607 BCE destruction date. Since 607 BCE is conclusively disproven historically, archaeologically, and astronomically, the JW 1914 doctrine also collapses. Astronomical and historical records categorically contradict 607 BCE, demonstrating the JW prophetic calculation as incorrect and baseless.

  CONCLUSION:

  • The JW chronology of 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction is not "firmly established"; it is entirely contradicted by overwhelming external historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence.
  • The 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah explicitly aligns historically with Babylonian dominance (609–539 BCE), not an arbitrary 607–537 BCE JW reinterpretation.
  • Josephus explicitly supports 586/587 BCE, not JW’s invented 607 BCE date.
  • Ezra and Daniel nowhere support the JW date; rather, they fit perfectly into a 586/587 BCE destruction scenario.
  • The date 539 BCE for Babylon’s fall is indeed universally recognized, but counting backward 70 years correctly yields 609 BCE, not 607 BCE.

  The JW arguments advocating for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem are based upon significant historical errors, textual misinterpretations, selective misuse of sources, and deliberate ignorance of well-established historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence. Scholarly consensus unanimously supports a 586/587 BCE destruction date. The JW claim of “certainty” for their 607 BCE date is demonstrably false and historically unsustainable.
• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  Well—not very clear at all, if you ignore the context, genre, intent, and overall theology of the author.

  This is what you're doing: lifting one rhetorical phrase from Against Hermogenes (3), where Tertullian is refuting a heretic, and then ripping it from both its argumentative context and Tertullian's wider Trinitarian theology—as if a 2nd-century apologist who explicitly taught the Son's eternal origin from the Father, and called Him “God of God” (Adv. Prax. 13), suddenly became an Arian in one line. That is not honest exegesis. That is quote-mining. Let me show you why this doesn’t hold up.

  In Against Hermogenes 3, Tertullian writes that there was a time “when… the Son [did not exist]”—but this is not a metaphysical statement about the Son’s ontological origin. It’s part of a rhetorical argument against the idea that God was always “Lord” because He ruled over matter from eternity. Tertullian refutes this by pointing out that titles like “Lord,” “Father,” and “Judge” are relational designations, not essential names:

  “God is the designation of the substance itself… but ‘Lord’ is not a designation of substance, but of power.” (Adv. Herm. 3)

  So when he says “there was a time when… the Son [did not exist],” he means: from our human vantage point, the name “Father” only applies after the begetting of the Son is revealed—not that the divine Word/Logos had a beginning in time. Just four chapters later, in Against Hermogenes 5, Tertullian explicitly denies that the Son came into existence from nothing:

  “Yet even not then was [God] alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason [Logos]… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Herm. 5)

  And in Against Praxeas 5–7:

  “The Word was always in the Father… even before all things, God was not alone… He had with Him that Reason which was His own.” (Adv. Prax. 5–7)

  So your interpretation—if taken at face value—contradicts Tertullian himself. He cannot mean in Hermogenes 3 that the Son was not, ontologically, because he clearly teaches elsewhere that:

  • The Word is eternal in God’s substance.
  • The Word is not created, but begotten from within God’s own Reason.
  • The Word is God, not an angel or creature (Adv. Prax. 14).

  You're treating temporal-sounding rhetoric as if it were doctrinal metaphysics. That’s a false equivalence.

  Yes—if a Jehovah’s Witness said “there was a time when the Son was not,” and meant it ontologically, as if the Son were a created being, that would be heresy. But Tertullian did not mean it ontologically. That’s the point. He’s not a Jehovah’s Witness. He’s a 2nd-century Christian writer who affirms over and over again:

  • The Word is “God from God.”
  • The Son is of the same divine substantia as the Father (Adv. Prax. 9, 13).
  • The Son is “always in the Father” (Adv. Prax. 5).
  • The Son is not an angel but the Lord Himself (De Carne Christi 14).

  You are projecting later Arian categories onto someone who would have anathematized Arius for denying that the Son is eternal, divine, and uncreated. You’re trying to weaponize a quote from a Trinitarian against Trinitarianism, without regard for his own consistent teachings.

  St. Thomas Aquinas settled this clearly:

  “In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside time.” (ST I, q.27, a.2)

  And:

  “If God were not eternally Father, then His essence would have changed at some point—something impossible for the immutable God.” (ST I, q.9)

  So yes—God is eternally Father because the Son is eternally begotten, not in time, but in the divine nature. Tertullian points to the Son's economic revelation and names—not His ontological origin.

  Let’s be honest. You wouldn’t accept a Jehovah’s Witness quote from Athanasius or Augustine where they speculate pastorally about Christ’s mission, and then ignore everything else they wrote about His divinity and eternal Sonship.

  So don’t do it to Tertullian.

  If you want to reject the Trinity, then do so. But don’t pretend you’re doing it with the backing of Tertullian—he taught the divinity, preexistence, eternal generation, and consubstantiality of the Son, long before Nicaea canonized the vocabulary.

  He was not Arian. He was not a Modalist. He was, as even Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelly admit, a pre-Nicene Trinitarian working out the mystery with the vocabulary available to him.
• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  First of all, I note that even the Arian creeds acknowledged about the Son:

  • "He who has begotten the only-begotten Son before aeonian times (χρόνων αἰωνίων), through whom also he made the aeons and everything..." (Profession of Faith of Arius)
  • "And if anybody teaches contrary to the sound, right faith of the Scriptures, alleging that either time or occasion or age exists or did exist before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema." (Dedication Creed)
  • "who before all ages and before all beginning and before all conceivable time and before all comprehensible substance (οὐσίας) was begotten impassibly from God through whom the ages were set up and all things came into existence" (Homoiousian Creed of Nike)

  Here is a more balanced treatise on Tertullian:

  Tertullian on the Trinity

  A recurring claim among antitrinitarians and certain critics of Nicene orthodoxy is that some early Christian writers, such as Tertullian, supposedly denied the eternal generation of the Son—asserting instead that God “became” Father only once the Son came into existence. The quote most often cited in this regard is from Against Hermogenes, chapter 3, where Tertullian writes:

  “There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

  On a superficial reading, it might appear that Tertullian is affirming that the Son had a beginning in time. But this is not a sound or complete interpretation of either the passage or Tertullian's larger theology. Let’s unpack why this argument collapses under scrutiny. Tertullian is engaging with Hermogenes’ dualistic teaching that matter existed eternally alongside God, and that God has always been “Lord” over it. Tertullian’s response is that terms like “Lord,” “Father,” and “Judge” are relational titles, and do not refer to God's essence (substantia) but to His relation to creation and sin:

  “God is the designation of the substance itself… but ‘Lord’ is not a designation of substance, but of power.” (Adv. Hermog. 3)

  In other words, God has always been God by nature, but titles like “Father” or “Judge” arise only with the existence of a Son or of sin—from our perspective in time and history. These are not ontological changes in God, but logical or economic designations. As Aquinas later explains:

  “In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside of time.” (ST I, q.27, a.2)

  Tertullian’s rhetorical device—“there was a time when… the Son was not”—should not be read as a denial of the eternal Logos but as an explanation of why titles like 'Father' or 'Lord' appear progressively in Scripture (e.g., Genesis 2:15 introduces “Lord God”). In Adversus Praxean, his key anti-modalist work, Tertullian clearly teaches the Son’s eternal preexistence, as the divine Logos within the Father:

  “Even before all things, God was not alone, for He had within Himself Reason [Logos], and Reason was in Him as His own substance.” (Adv. Prax. 5)

  This “Word,” he writes, proceeds from the Father—not as a creation, but as an emanation from the divine substance:

  “Whatever therefore was the substance of the Word… I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.” (Adv. Prax. 7)

  This aligns perfectly with the later Nicene formulation: the Son is begotten, not made, consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with the Father.

  Antitrinitarians often quote Tertullian’s phrase:

  “The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole.” (Adv. Prax. 9.2)

  But this language reflects eternal generation, not subordination or creaturehood. Tertullian uses the term portio in a Stoic context—not to imply division of essence, but participation without separation. As he clarifies:

  “The Father and the Son are of one substance, but the persons are distinct.” (Adv. Prax. 13)

  This is fully Trinitarian in substance, if not yet in post-Nicene vocabulary. The Son derives from the Father as Light from Light—“not made,” but eternally begotten. According to Thomas Aquinas, God’s paternity is not accidental or acquired in time. Rather, the Father is eternally Father because the Son is eternally begotten:

  “The divine persons are distinguished by relations alone, and paternity is a real relation founded on the eternal generation of the Son.” (ST I, q.28, a.1)

  If God were not eternally Father, then something would be added to His nature when He becomes Father—contradicting divine immutability (cf. ST I, q.9), which Scripture itself affirms:

  • “I the Lord do not change.” (Malachi 3:6)
  • “With God there is no variation or shadow due to change.” (James 1:17)

  Thus, the Father must always be Father, because the Son is eternally from Him. Despite his occasional use of imprecise language (understandable before the Nicene debates), Tertullian explicitly affirms the Son’s full divinity and personal distinction from the Father and the Spirit:

  • He is the Word eternally in God (Adv. Prax. 5).
  • He is God and yet distinct from the Father (Adv. Prax. 13).
  • He is Creator of all things, not a creature (Adv. Prax. 7).
  • He is not an angel, but divine in nature (De Carne Christi 14).

  His famous formula—“una substantia, tres personae”—prefigures the Nicene and later Trinitarian orthodoxy. Far from Arianism, Tertullian is a Trinitarian pioneer, combating both modalism and subordinationism. So your argument that “Tertullian said there was a time when the Son was not” collapses once:

  • Context is properly understood.
  • His full writings are considered.
  • The philosophical and theological vocabulary of his time is taken into account.

  He affirmed that the Son, as Word and Wisdom, existed eternally in God, proceeding from the Father but not as a created being. He anticipated Nicene theology by affirming the unity of substance and the real distinction of persons. Therefore, Tertullian cannot be invoked as a witness against the Trinity, unless one quotes him selectively and ignores his overall theological vision. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms:

  “The Church’s faith confesses that the Word who became flesh is the Son of the eternal Father. He was not made, but begotten, not in time but from eternity.” (CCC 262)

  So did Tertullian.
• 
  178

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @scholar

  First of all, there is no such thing in Scripture as a 360-day "Prophetic Year" used for long-term chronology. The Watchtower doctrine depends entirely on the assertion that a “prophetic year” consists of 360 days, and that this system is used to convert days into years using a “day-for-a-year” principle (Ezek 4:5–6; Num 14:34). However, the Bible never uses the concept of a 360-day “prophetic year” to calculate long periods such as 2520 years. This is a fabricated hermeneutical device, not a biblical teaching.

  Revelation 11:2–3 and 12:6,14 speak in symbolic, short-term apocalyptic imagery, not in literal calendar systems for interpreting Old Testament prophecies:

  • Revelation 11:2-3 speaks of 1260 days, equated with 42 months (3½ years).
  • Revelation 12:6,14 refers to the same 1260 days as "a time, times, and half a time" (i.e., 3½ "times" or years).

  Yes, in apocalyptic symbolic visions, 360 days is treated as a year, likely reflecting an idealized lunar calendar. But this usage is limited to Revelation and not applied in Daniel 4, which the 2520 doctrine depends on. Revelation uses symbolic short-term periods (1260 days = 3.5 years) not long historical timelines. Extrapolating this to 2520 years is illegitimate.

  The entire 2520-year doctrine rests on the assumption that the "seven times" in Daniel 4, referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s period of madness, somehow symbolize 2520 years. However, Daniel 4 is clearly a historical narrative, not an apocalyptic prophecy. The "seven times" is interpreted within the chapter itself as a period of Nebuchadnezzar’s temporary insanity, not as a symbolic period representing global Gentile domination. There is no indication in the text that these "seven times" should be converted into years or that they extend beyond the king’s personal experience.Therefore, applying a "prophetic year" concept to Daniel 4 is anachronistic and unjustified. It violates proper exegesis and context.

  JWs cite Ezekiel 4:6 ("a day for a year") and Numbers 14:34 to support a method of converting days into years for prophecy. But these verses apply to specific prophetic acts involving symbolic judgment (Ezekiel lying on his side, Israel’s wilderness wanderings, and are not a general rule for interpreting all time periods in prophecy. Nowhere in Scripture is there a universal, prophetic "day-for-a-year" hermeneutic applied to Daniel 4 or used to derive 2520 years from any text.

  The entire "Gentile Times" doctrine hinges on a fabricated number:

  7 times × 360 days = 2520 days → then converted (without scriptural warrant) to 2520 years.

  But:

  • The Bible never defines "times" as years in Daniel 4.
  • The number 2520 never appears in Scripture.
  • The conversion of 2520 days into 2520 years is arbitrary, cherry-picked, and unsupported by biblical language or logic.

  This is eisegesis, reading a desired interpretation into the text, rather than drawing it from the text (exegesis).

  Van Goudoever is discussing ancient calendrical systems, not advocating a doctrinal or prophetic use of the 360-day year. His mention of 360-day years refers to how ancient peoples reckoned lunar calendars, not as a tool for calculating divine timelines like 2520 years. The citation is irrelevant to the doctrinal argument. It’s misused to give scholarly weight to an unscholarly interpretive leap.
• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  @slimboyfat

  This idea—which you mention as possibly originating with Tertullian—is not only speculative but ultimately rejected by the very trajectory of Christian theology. While Tertullian may have spoken imperfectly about the divine persons (before the technical vocabulary of homoousios, persona, natura was fully clarified), he did not intend to deny the eternal generation of the Son. In fact, in Adversus Praxean, he says:

  "The Son is always in the Father...and the Father is not without the Son."

  Even if he hesitantly used temporal-sounding terms (as many did before Nicaea), the Nicene Creed clarified what the Church had always believed implicitly: that the Father is eternally Father by the eternal generation of the Son (see ST I, q.27–28). For God to be eternally love (1 Jn 4:8), there must eternally be the beloved. A Father without a Son is either not really Father, or not eternal.

  “In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside time.” – ST I, q.27, a.2

  Thus, to say “there was a time when God was not Father” is to introduce change in the divine nature, which violates God’s immutability (ST I, q.9, a.1), a dogma affirmed by Scripture itself (Mal 3:6; James 1:17).

  You argue that because in human experience the father precedes the son, the divine Son must be temporally posterior to the Father. But this is a category error. Scripture uses analogical language—not univocal. When God is called "Father," it does not imply biological or temporal priority, but a relational distinction within the divine nature. Thomas Aquinas is very clear:

  “The name ‘Father’ is a personal name in God and signifies relation only, not substance or time.” – ST I, q.33, a.1

  If we were to take the analogy univocally, we would have to ascribe biological sex and procreation to God—clearly absurd. Rather, the title “Father” reveals eternal origin without temporal beginning. The Son is eternally begotten, not created. No time exists between Father and Son, as there is no succession in God. Any attempt to apply temporal categories to divine relations leads to error.

  You cite Proverbs 8:22 as evidence that the Son (as Wisdom) was created. First, the Hebrew term qanah (“The Lord possessed me…”) does not necessarily mean “created.” It can mean “possess,” “acquire,” or “beget,” depending on context. The Greek Septuagint translation uses ἔκτισέν με (“He created me”), but the Church Fathers—like Athanasius and Augustine—insisted this refers to the human nature of Christ or a poetic personification of Wisdom, not His divine nature. Athanasius answers this objection directly in Contra Arianos:

  “The Lord created me not as Word or Wisdom, but as a man.” (CA, II.44)

  This verse does not refer to the pre-incarnate Christ in any ontological sense. While early Christian interpreters did draw parallels between Wisdom in Proverbs 8 and the Logos, the Hebrew word in question here is qanah, which most often means “to possess,” not “to create.” For example, qanah is used in Genesis 14:19 (“possessor of heaven and earth”), not “creator.” Moreover, the Septuagint’s use of ektise (from ktizō)—“created”—was an unfortunate translation that fueled misunderstanding but does not reflect the full semantic range of qanah. Church Fathers like Athanasius and Augustine explicitly rejected the idea that this passage teaches the creation of the Logos, insisting that Proverbs 8 refers typologically or poetically to Wisdom, not literally to the divine Logos in His essence.

  Moreover, John 1:3 clearly states:

  “Through Him all things were made… and without Him nothing was made that has been made.”

  Thus, the Son (Logos) cannot be among created things. He is the instrumental principle of all creation, including time itself.

  The language of Colossians 1:15 is misunderstood. “Firstborn” (prototokos) is not the same as “first-created” (protoktistos). The Greek term carries the connotation of preeminence, not origin in time. Paul is using a Jewish idiom (cf. Psalm 89:27) where “firstborn” means status of honor:

  “I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.” (Ps 89:27)

  Paul immediately explains in Col 1:16:

  “For in Him all things were created…”

  How can the Son be a creature if all things were created through Him? He is called ‘firstborn’ not because He is a creature, but because He is the preeminent one over creatures. The genitive construction is not partitive (“firstborn of creation” as one among others), but relational or even superlative (“firstborn over all creation”). As D.B. Wallace and others show, this is a genitive of subordination, not inclusion.

  The Greek word arche in Revelation 3:14 does not mean “first in time” here but principle, source, or origin—just as in John 1:1 (“In the beginning…”). Christ is the arche of creation because He is the uncreated Logos through whom all things were made, not the first product of creation. Jesus is called the beginning (arche) in the sense that He is the originating principle, not part of the creation. The word archē in Johannine usage often denotes source or ruler (cf. John 1:1; Rev. 21:6). In Revelation, Christ also calls Himself “the Alpha and the Omega” and “the Beginning and the End” (Rev 22:13), expressions of eternity and authority, not created status. Church Fathers like Athanasius, Augustine, and Gregory of Nyssa uniformly read this as referring to Christ as the originator, not as a creature. In fact, if Jesus were merely the first thing created, the phrase “of God’s creation” would be redundant. But calling Him the “archē” emphasizes that through Him creation began.

  John 1:1a asserts the eternity of the Word, not His creation. The Greek does not say “from the beginning came to be the Word,” but rather “ēn ho Logos”—the Word was—implying timeless existence. It uses the imperfect tense of to be (ēn), denoting continual, ongoing existence. Meanwhile, in John 1:3, panta di’autou egeneto (“all things were made through him”) confirms that the Logos is not part of the “all things” that came into being. If the Word existed before creation and was the instrument through which all things were created, then He Himself is uncreated. This is reinforced by the deliberate contrast in Greek between ēn (He “was”) and egeneto (things “came into being”).

  1 Corinthians 11:3 does not imply inequality of nature, but order of relation. Christ is eternally from the Father (ex Patre), not in rank or value, but in origin. Just as in the Trinity, the Son proceeds from the Father without inequality. Subordination according to origin does not imply inequality of essence. The same passage says “man is the head of woman.” Does that imply women are ontologically inferior? No. It refers to a relational ordering, not a difference in dignity or essence.

  John 6:57 refers to the eternal generation of the Son: the Son receives His being from the Father—not temporally, but eternally. In scholastic terms, He proceeds by eternal intellectual generation, not by will or creation (ST I, q.27, a.2). Thus, the Son’s life from the Father affirms divine unity, not subordinationism. The Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. One being, three persons. This verse actually affirms the divine nature of the Son. The Father grants the Son to have “life in Himself”—a uniquely divine attribute, since only God has self-existent life (aseity). The phrase refers to the eternal generation of the Son, not a created origin. The Son does not derive life in time, but eternally receives it from the Father as His eternal source in the Trinity. This is about relation, not chronology. St. Athanasius famously explained that this granting of life is not an act of creation, but a theological affirmation of the Son’s eternal generation and divine consubstantiality.

  The idea that these verses are “odd language” if Christ is not created presumes a modern, literalist lens and fails to appreciate the linguistic, cultural, and theological contexts in which the biblical authors wrote. The Fathers of the Church, many of whom were native Greek speakers, uniformly interpreted these passages in light of Christ’s eternal generation, not His creation. The eternal Son is begotten, not made (γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα), as the Nicene Creed affirms. The “odd language” only seems problematic when one presupposes a unitarian metaphysic foreign to the New Testament witness.

  Why then do “ordinary Christians” (?) think Jesus was "created"? Because orthodox doctrine is deep, mysterious, and demands both faith and theological formation. The early heresies—especially Arianism—were attractive because they were simpler and more humanly intuitive. But as Chesterton quipped, “The Church is a living teacher, not a dead leaf blown about by the winds of opinion.”

  You rightly affirm that God does not need creation. But if God is love by nature (1 John 4:8), and love by definition implies a beloved, then either God was not love before creation, or God is eternally love within Himself = Trinity. This is not strained philosophy, but the only coherent account that avoids:

  • Temporality in God (change from not-loving to loving),
  • Contingency in God’s perfection (love dependent on creation),
  • Denial of God’s essential relation and communication.

  As Augustine said:

  “There is the Lover, the Beloved, and the Love.” (De Trinitate)

  Only a Trinity makes sense of the eternal love of God within Himself, apart from creation. Creation is not the cause of God’s love, but the overflow of it.

  To sum up, the Nicene faith is not an “innovation” but the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), clarified under pressure from heresy. To affirm:

  • God is immutable (Mal 3:6),
  • God is love (1 Jn 4:8),
  • Christ is God (John 1:1, 20:28),
  • The Spirit is personal and divine (Acts 5:3–4),

  is to affirm what only Trinitarian theology can coherently hold together. To deny the Trinity is to make God either changeable, needy, or loveless. None of these are acceptable for the God of Abraham, of Scripture, or of reason.

  “It is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of Christ without faith in the Trinity.”
  – ST II-II, q.2, a.8

  The Trinity is not a burden on Christian theology—it is its crown.
• 
  178

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Here is a detailed and thorough refutation of the arguments presented by "scholar" for the 607 BCE chronology, demonstrating why the arguments fail historically, biblically, and logically:

  Detailed Refutation of the JW Arguments for 607 BCE

  1. Alleged Lack of Scholarly Consensus and the 609 BCE Starting Point

  "Did you know scholars also date the 70 years from 605 BCE, not 609 BCE? There is no consensus."

  It is misleading to argue a lack of consensus to justify 607 BCE. Scholars differ between 609 BCE (final Assyrian defeat at Harran) and 605 BCE (Babylonian victory at Carchemish) as the start of Babylon's 70-year period of supremacy precisely because both dates have historical significance. However, no credible scholars propose 607 BCE for Jerusalem's destruction. All reputable secular historians agree on 586/587 BCE. The uncertainty over 609 vs. 605 BCE does not support 607 BCE, as the JW argument incorrectly assumes.

  The scholarly dispute concerns when Babylon's dominance began, not when Jerusalem was destroyed, which is securely dated to 586/587 BCE by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence.

  2. Interpretation of Jeremiah 25:11 and Babylon’s Supremacy

  "Jer. 25:11 does not emphasize Babylon's supremacy, only Judah’s servitude and desolation for exactly 70 years."

  The text of Jeremiah 25:11 explicitly states:

  "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

  The context clearly indicates a period of regional Babylonian dominance, not exclusively a 70-year desolation or exile of Judah. Notice the explicit mention of "these nations" (plural), which includes Judah but is not limited to it. Thus, Jeremiah's 70 years encompass Babylon’s political and military dominance, aligning historically from approximately 609 BCE (or 605 BCE) to Babylon’s fall in 539 BCE.

  Jeremiah 29:10 supports this: the 70 years conclude when Babylon's rule ends, allowing Judah’s return—not after the return itself (537 BCE), but upon Babylon’s fall (539 BCE). Ezra and Daniel also understood the 70 years in terms of Babylon's dominance ending with its fall, not two years afterward.

  3. Misinterpretation of Jeremiah 25:12 and the Timing of Babylon’s Judgment

  "Jeremiah 25:12 clearly states judgment against Babylon commenced only after the 70 years ended, thus it cannot be 539 BCE but must be 537 BCE."

  This interpretation misreads the sequence of events. Jeremiah 25:12 says explicitly:

  "Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon."

  Historically, Babylon was punished exactly at its fall in 539 BCE by Cyrus the Great, as confirmed by numerous historical records. There is no delay or "two-year gap" in Scripture or history. Babylon lost sovereignty precisely at its conquest in 539 BCE, directly fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. The JW assertion that Babylon’s punishment must begin in 537 BCE is entirely artificial, unsupported historically and biblically.

  4. Alleged Historical, Archaeological, and Astronomical Support for 607 BCE

  "Historically and theologically, 607 BCE is the only possible date. Josephus, archaeology, and astronomy confirm this."

  Refutation:

  • Josephus: Josephus explicitly confirms Jerusalem’s destruction occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year, corresponding historically to 586/587 BCE. Josephus never supports 607 BCE. JW misuse of Josephus selectively distorts his clear statements (e.g., Antiquities X.7.1).
  • Archaeology: Extensive archaeological excavations in Jerusalem universally confirm the destruction layers dating precisely to 586/587 BCE. No archaeological evidence supports 607 BCE.
  • Astronomy: Astronomical diary VAT 4956 precisely confirms Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year as 568/567 BCE, proving the destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 586/587 BCE (his 18th year). The JW attempts to redate VAT 4956 to 588 BCE are incorrect and discredited by independent astronomers.

  
  

  5. Nebuchadnezzar’s Seven-Year Madness and Chronological Gap

  "Nebuchadnezzar’s seven-year madness creates a chronological gap."

  Nebuchadnezzar's seven-year illness in Daniel 4 is nowhere described as creating a gap in Babylonian history. Babylonian administrative texts from this period show continuous governance, clearly disproving any interruption in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The JW insertion of a seven-year gap is a completely unsubstantiated and artificial attempt to justify their chronological misalignment.

  6. Misrepresentation of Carl Olof Jonsson’s (COJ) Work

  "COJ barely mentions the 70-year exile, ignoring its reality."

  Carl Olof Jonsson extensively discusses the 70-year period, analyzing all relevant biblical texts (Jeremiah 25, 29, Daniel 9, Ezra 1, 2 Chronicles 36). He convincingly demonstrates that the 70 years were Babylon’s dominance, not Judah’s specific exile. The JW assertions grossly misrepresent Jonsson’s thorough and careful scholarship.

  7. Claims of 607–537 BCE Exile and Return

  "607–537 BCE perfectly fits the exile and return dates."

  The biblical and historical record explicitly refutes this claim. Cyrus issued his decree to release the Jews in 538 BCE, historically attested by the Cyrus Cylinder. Most scholars agree the actual return occurred by 537 BCE. Counting back exactly 70 years aligns with Babylon’s dominance (609/605–539 BCE), not 607 BCE. The JW timeline artificially compresses historical events and misdates key events, such as Nebuchadnezzar's reign, contrary to overwhelming external evidence.

  8. Jeremiah 52:28-30 – Further Deportations After 607 BCE

  "Jeremiah 52:30 mentions a deportation in Nebuchadnezzar’s 23rd year (602 BCE), showing the land wasn't desolate since 607 BCE."

  This inadvertently disproves the JWs' own claim. Jeremiah 52 clearly refers to deportations after the initial 597 BCE exile. If Jerusalem had been destroyed and made completely desolate in 607 BCE, no further deportations could have occurred years later. This passage instead confirms the multiple-stage exile and contradicts a singular 607 BCE destruction.

  9. Alleged "Interpolation" of the 609 BCE Date in Babylonian Chronicles

  "The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21901 doesn't contain 609 BCE; this is a scholarly interpolation."

  This claim shows misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The Babylonian Chronicles (especially ABC3 and ABC4) clearly document Nabopolassar’s decisive victory over Assyria at Harran (609 BCE), firmly establishing this date historically. No interpolation is involved; rather, clear Babylonian historical records support this date explicitly.

  10. Calculating the "Gentile Times" and the "2520 Years"

  "The Gentile Times calculation using 360-day prophetic years (7x360=2520) proves the 607–1914 chronology."

  The JW "Gentile Times" prophecy depends entirely on 607 BCE, which has been comprehensively disproven historically, astronomically, archaeologically, and biblically. Even accepting symbolic "prophetic years," the foundational 607 BCE date is factually invalid. Without 607 BCE, the entire 1914 prophetic calculation collapses.

  Conclusion

  The JW argument for a 607 BCE date for Jerusalem’s destruction fails at every level of scrutiny:

  • It misreads Jeremiah’s prophecy.
  • It contradicts explicit historical and astronomical evidence.
  • It distorts scholarly research and misrepresents reputable historians.
  • It artificially inserts chronological gaps without evidence.
  • It selectively quotes and misrepresents historical sources like Josephus and Babylonian Chronicles.

  The scholarly consensus—backed by a convergence of biblical, historical, archaeological, and astronomical evidence—is clear: Jerusalem fell in 586/587 BCE, and Babylonian supremacy (the 70 years) lasted from approximately 609 BCE to 539 BCE.
• 
  118

  The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

  as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

  that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  Actually, the Trinity perfectly grounds the act of creation in love. Your objection misconstrues the doctrine of the Trinity, particularly its relation to love, will, and freedom. Rat her than undermining God's loving choice to create, the Trinity provides the metaphysical basis that makes the act of creation an expression of love in the first place. To claim that because God exists eternally as a Trinity, creation is not a free act of love, is to misunderstand the relationship between divine necessity and divine freedom.

  God is absolutely simple and free (Summa Theologiae I, q.19, a.3). Nothing outside God necessitates His action. While the divine persons are eternally and necessarily who they are in relation to each other (Father, Son, Spirit), God’s act of creation is not necessary, but contingent and free. The Trinity does not impel God to create the world. God creates not out of compulsion but out of the fullness of His being. As Aquinas writes: “The love of God is the cause of the goodness of things” (ST I, q.20, a.2). God's triune being—eternal communion of love—is precisely why creation can be an act of love. In other words: God’s inner Trinitarian life is the eternal actuality of love, and creation is an overflow of that love—not a necessity imposed by it.

  Rowan Williams says: “The world exists because God desires that there be an other.” This is profoundly true. But this truth is only possible in a God who already knows what “otherness in unity” means. And this is precisely what the Trinity offers. The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Spirit—yet they are one in essence. God is not monadic solitude, but unity-in-communion. If God were absolutely solitary (as in strict unitarianism), then love would not be essential to His nature, but something realized only after creating another. That would make love contingent. In contrast, the Trinity teaches that God is eternally love (1 John 4:8) because He is eternally relational in Himself. Augustine, echoing Scripture, says: “There is the Lover (Father), the Beloved (Son), and Love Itself (Spirit).” Thus, the Trinity does not hinder God's ability to create as an act of love—it is the very reason He is capable of loving at all.

  The claim assumes that if God's love is eternal within the Trinity, then the act of sharing existence with creatures is not truly "loving." But this is a false dichotomy. Creation is a gratuitous participation in God’s goodness (ST I, q.44, a.4). God does not need to create in order to be loving. Rather, creation is a free expression of the eternal Love that already exists within God. The Son and the Spirit are not "creatures" brought into being out of loneliness. They are eternally generated, consubstantial persons of the Godhead. Creatures, unlike the Son, are created ex nihilo. That difference makes all the difference. God’s love in creating is not about fulfilling a lack, but about sharing the fullness of being, gratuitously.

  Let us test your claim against its own logic. If God were unipersonal (as in strict unitarian theologies), then before creation, God could not love another in a real, personal sense. Thus, love would not be an eternal attribute of God, but something contingent—dependent on creation. This contradicts 1 John 4:8: “God is love.” A God who requires creation in order to be loving is a dependent being—not the God of classical theism. Only a Trinitarian God can be said to be essentially and eternally love, which is the very foundation upon which creation as an act of love makes sense.

  Your response raises profound theological considerations about God’s self-sufficiency, creation, and love. However, your conclusion—that divine love and the Trinity are incompatible or unnecessary—overlooks a critical theological truth: God’s love is eternal and must therefore be interpersonal from all eternity, not something contingent upon creation. Let me respond in detail to the key points you raised.

  Yes, “God is sufficient in himself”, Trinitarians wholeheartedly agree — and that’s precisely why the Trinity is necessary. If God is truly self-sufficient (aseity), and yet God is love (1 John 4:8), then love must be intrinsic to God’s being. But genuine love always implies a beloved and a loving relationship. If God is love and yet eternally alone (as in unitarian theology), then love becomes contingent, dependent on the creation of others. That would mean God changed — from a non-loving being into a loving being — which contradicts divine immutability (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). Only a Triune God can be truly self-sufficient and eternally loving. In the Trinity:

  • The Father loves the Son (John 17:24),
  • The Son reciprocates this love (John 14:31),
  • The Spirit is often described by the Church Fathers as the bond of love (cf. Augustine, De Trinitate).

  Therefore, God's love does not begin with creation; it is eternal and internal to His very being. Love isn't just something God does — it's who He is.

  You wrote: “God doesn’t require another, but chooses to create others as an expression of love.” Again, true. But if God were not tri-personal, then prior to creation, He would have no object of love. That means love would not be eternal — it would only come into expression after the creation of the first “other.” So, either God did not love until He created something else (denying 1 John 4:8), or love is not essential to God’s nature (denying God’s immutability and fullness), or God has always been a community of love — the Trinity. The third is the only consistent answer.

  “Before” does not apply to God — He is outside of time, this is correct. But this further strengthens the Trinitarian view. If God is timeless, then everything essential to God exists eternally and simultaneously. That includes God's love. So unless God exists eternally in relationship, love is not eternally real — or else we are forced to say God was incomplete without creation. This is not just philosophical speculation. In John 17:5, Jesus says:

  “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world existed.”

  Here Jesus speaks of eternal communion with the Father. Not as a creature, but as the pre-existent Son.

  Rowan Williams is indeed a thoughtful scholar, and his book Arius: Heresy and Tradition is widely respected. But it's important to note that Williams’ fairness toward Arius is not an endorsement of Arianism. In fact, Williams ultimately argues that Arianism failed because it could not explain the soteriological implications of the Incarnation. If Christ is not truly God, he cannot unite humanity with God (cf. Athanasius, De Incarnatione). Arius’ subordinationist Christ may be a noble creature, but he is not capable of saving. That’s why the Nicene Creed rejected Arianism and affirmed that Christ is “God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.” The early Church understood that a merely created Christ could not save us or mediate divine life. Only one who shares in the same essence with the Father can reconcile us to God.

  If God is a solitary monad, then love and relationship are not essential to His being. If God is a Triune communion, then love, relationship, and mutual self-giving are eternal realities. We are made in God's image. We are personal, relational, loving beings. That is not a bug, but a feature — a reflection of our Creator. In the end, the Trinity is not a “complication.” It is the only explanation that preserves:

  • God’s self-sufficiency,
  • God’s unchanging nature,
  • God’s eternal love,
  • God’s ability to truly save.

  To deny the Trinity is not to make God simpler — it's to make Him less.

  You’re right: “God is not an additional thing in the universe that requires explanation. He is the explanation.” And the clearest expression of who He is comes in the person of Jesus Christ — the eternal Word made flesh, who reveals the Father and sends the Spirit (John 14:26; John 15:26). That is the Triune God: not a philosophical abstraction, but the living God who loves eternally and acts in history to save. “This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3) — not in opposition, but in perfect communion.

  The claim that “God’s first act of love was to create his firstborn son” is a return to the old Arian heresy. But Scripture and tradition deny that the Son was created:

  • John 1:1 — “In the beginning was the Word… and the Word was God.”
  • Colossians 1:15 — The “Firstborn of all creation” means “preeminent,” not first-created (cf. Psalm 89:27; Romans 8:29).
  • The Nicene Creed: “Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.”
  • Thomas Aquinas: “The generation of the Word is eternal… The Son is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father” (ST I, q.42, a.2).

  Thus, the Son is not created, but eternally begotten, and creation is not the beginning of God’s love—it is its overflow.

  Rather than refuting the Trinity, the desire to understand creation as an act of love actually depends on a Trinitarian framework:

  • Only if God is eternally a communion of persons can love be an eternal attribute of His nature.
  • Only if creation is unnecessary can it be truly free and loving.
  • Only in the Trinity do we find unity without solitude, and diversity without division—the very conditions for love and freedom.

  As C.S. Lewis once noted: “All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that ‘God is love.’ But they seem not to notice that the words ‘God is love’ have no real meaning unless God contains at least two Persons.”

  To affirm that creation is an act of love is to implicitly affirm the Trinity, even if unknowingly.
• 
  178

  Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

  by BoogerMan in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

  it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

  " (galatians 2:1-10).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  aqwsed12345

  The Jerusalem Book