Lets see if AQ can read that last line... specifically "it remains unlikely"
AQ needs to learn twisting words of actual experts, who are more credible than himself (hence I rely on them in debates with him, they are not infallible - just more credible & reasonable to talk too, even JW are more easy to talk too) wont help him... We know what MULTIPLE credible sources have said.. David Bentley Hart, Harris, Barclay (Hebrews 1:8) etc in their proper context have conceded the JW position is/ may be feasible!
AQ just cant stand that, because it destroys his trinitarian fantasy and his urge to be like Athanasius.. writing screeds and screeds relying on the argument "[insert text] was not written, instead it says [insert text]"
However unfortunatly, no matter how many times he tries to shove it down my throat (and others) he wont succeed unless he can cite a single scripture in context that explicitly says "God is 3 persons"
From my reserach I have gleamed:
Begotten and created are synonyms - Logos is IDENTIFIED as Wisdom
proverbs 8's poetry style would force such a meaning.
NT doesnt have to say it (it does in its own way) trying to limit such things to the NT is limiting the scope of the argument & is not a wide example of word usage (No credible source ONLY uses the NT)
These 2 are synonyms as Strongs popints out: SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης
One just fell out of common usage
Homosious and homoisious Atha was prepared to accept the latter and uses the latter more commonly (despite AQ's claims)
Just 3 as an example, the rest of what AQ spouts is also trinitarian propaganda not backed by actaul facts.
Blotty
JoinedPosts by Blotty
-
47
Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's how this verse should read: .
take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .
-
-
Blotty
-
66
Time of the end - a TRINITY puzzler.
by BoogerMan in(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
-
-
Blotty
"" the "fallacy of exact words" - Atha's whole argument hinged on "The bible did [insert text here] but rather says [insert other text here.]"
-
66
Time of the end - a TRINITY puzzler.
by BoogerMan in(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
-
-
Blotty
atleast AQ seems to have learnt how to engage on a human level rather than A.I
I don't agree with any of it (because its walls of garbage) -
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat inrowan 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.
-
-
Blotty
" Modern Greek lexicons, such as BDAG and the Concise Greek-English Lexicon, universally define antilytron as “ransom”—with no implication of exact equivalency." - kind of does... The OT implies as such... that Law didn't end until Jesus died.
*** w00 10/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
The obligation to keep the Mosaic Law ended when the Messiah died.
see: Romans 10:4Rom. 3:21-26
(1 Corinthians 15:45)
The first man Adam became a living person. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”
(Hebrews 4:15)
“. . .but we have one who has been tested in all respects as we have, but without sin. . .”
hence in 1 Timothy 2:6 "The man" and "men" are 2 distinct groups as Jesus was the only man at that time (living) "without sin"
1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - equivalence implication no #1
I'm not going to do a "verse battle" with you AQ because that's what you want - if people don't interact with you, you stop... when people interreact you AI text generate and lie.
Who was the Ransom paid to AQ according to scripture?
A non JW website answers this question: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-pay-ransom.html
clearly it was paid to God... because God decided that it is how it must be. (God "lacking" something has nothing to do with it)"a soul for a soul"
*** ad p. 1373 Ransom ***
Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 47) says it means: “a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a correspondent ransom. ‘It properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by the life of another.’ So Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming life by life.”
Rolf Furoli on this subject: https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/07/02/the-devaluation-and-restriction-of-the-ransom-sacrifice-i-jesus-died-for-all-adams-descendants/(I agree with Rolf in almost everything he says... Rolf is a Christian and acts likes it, AQ does not.)
-
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat inrowan 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.
-
-
Blotty
oh what a surprise more false lies coming from AQ.... a simple google search shows you to be wrong AQ... get a life dude (and some Christian integrity) and ditch the AI text generator
-
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat inrowan 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.
-
-
Blotty
"our claim that Justin merely meant “a god” in Ex.7:1/Ps.83-sense by using allos theos (another god) is another misreading." - " merely meant “a god” in Ex.7:1/Ps.83" bro is so theologically motvated he thinks I mean something completely different
-
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat inrowan 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.
-
-
Blotty
peacefulpete:
"The problem is you assume it was supposed to be simple. The Jews had very sophisticated conceptions of deity."
Not really, a 5 year old could comprehend what the thought of deity was to them.. its not really that hard.. -
228
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat inrowan 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.
-
-
Blotty
"The pre-Nicene Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian—all writing well before Nicaea—frequently refer to Jesus as God, Lord, and Creator. " - Where? Where does Tetullian or Justin Martyr call Christ explicitly "creator"
How do you know they mean "God" and not "a god"? Justin Martyr says "allon theon" which can only mean "another god"
Who is NOT the maker of all things [Justin: "BESIDES the Maker of all things"]
I can list where they Both (actually all except one) explicitly call him "Wisdom" But not "creator""To claim that “you really don’t get simpler than that” is a rhetorical sleight of hand that appeals to a surface-level literalism rather than a theological synthesis of the whole of Scripture." - or its you being dishonest as always, Which we all know you are...
"surface-level literalism" - you mean like you selectively do, trying to say israel isn't a nation?
Christ is seperated from "the only true God" in this instance and ironically never called such anywhere in the NT..
If Jesus is comparing his Father to false Gods... where are they in the context of this prayer? and why not include the other 2 "members" of the "only true God"?
you should read Eusabus before and after Nicaea - you are so deluded its unreal.I have and Hart has a point... there was a change in rhetoric (probably to avoid being declared a "heretic" because you know that equalled death - something you omit to mention when no one (apparently) pushes back against a common belief.)
anyway - you are not worth answering, So I wont engage further unless you can respect others.
-
10
The Apostles Creed vs. Watchtower
by Sea Breeze inthe apostles creed could be recited in less than a minute in latin.
it was like an ancient youtube video clip: christianity in less than a minute.
it is very ancient, reaching back to the 200's.
-
-
Blotty
Where do JW's say either of these things Vanderhoven and Seabreeze?
I ask this because the simplest of research shows you both to be wrong.
-
18
Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al
by Terry into dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.
i tasked a.i.
with a pro vs con proposition.
-
-
Blotty
Sorry where did I say the US didn't blow up the pipeline? all I said was I wouldn't put it past Putin/ Russia to blow up said Pipeline.. as that is a motiivation that wasnt considered.
My bit in brackets referred to another element of Slims message which maybe I didn't highlight clearly
Liam:
You say I know nothing about Geopolitics - My aim was to present another viewpoint, I DO NOT CARE for politics, so no your right I know very little , but I have done my research.
btw I work with the general public - the crap they come out with is hilarious, yes they are stupid.. People will believe anything..Its amazing how selective you were when quoting my statements... omitting important elements such as "I take with a pinch of salt" - and yes a simple google search proves Trump to be lieing alot of the time.. he tells some truth but not alot (The US governments OWN website proves him to be lieing.)
or did you notice my end text? I really don't care for politics generally. My personal opinion is it has become nasty, my way and your way is wrong, attacky derogitory BS, stuff id rather not get involved in, your response is the perfect example as to why I dont get involved. (not solely tho, I have other personal reasons of why I don't,)
Slim: "that makes you conclude the United States would draw the line at blowing up a Russian pipeline?" - I don't think they would draw the line there.. I think they likely did do it - My statement was simply meant to bring forth another position that I could also believe if the evidence presented itself.
To my knowledge: We cannot confirm 100% who actually did it. (I may be wrong.)
my bracketed comment was directed at something else, but not clearly marked, but that's besides the point, I will address that at some other point.(This should be another topic of debate in email.)
"You don't have the slightest idea who pulls the strings on google" - educate me... then Ill fact check you & don't tell me its "the woke left"
"X" is so right wing its not even funny.
asking Grok about my "theory":
""Putin has proved he’s smart" is subjective—he’s outmanoeuvred foes before, but this isn’t proven here. "Wouldn’t put it past him" fits his reputation but lacks specifics. The pipeline motive makes sense as a chess move, yet it’s unverified. Without concrete data—like who planted the explosives—it’s a compelling hypothesis, not a fact."I AM NOT saying I'm correct, I'm simply adding another viewpoint in.